People have every right to be upset about censorship or any changes made in deference to contemporary sensibilities...but could we please not attribute those policies to Fantagraphics? I have zero inside knowledge, but it seems to me far more likely that it's corporate Disney enforcing these changes. Isn't that what the situation has been in the past regarding Disney comics in the USA? Far more likely that corporate Disney would suddenly come up with new restrictions or requirements, depending on who is tasked to look at what and on how the corporation-wide policies are evolving, than it is that the same people at Fantagraphics who have been involved all along would change their policy in the middle of an ongoing series.
That's a fair point; it is much more likely that the censorship emanates from Disney than from Fantagraphics, given the comparative histories of the two companies. However, I do blame Fantagraphics for the generally disappointing quality of the ancillary features in the series--many of the story commentaries in the back of the books are barely more substantive than Internet Movie Database or Goodreads comments. I am also dumbstruck that Craig Fischer was hired to comment on the Daisy Duck's Diary stories without knowing (or being told) that Barks didn't write them; that is editorial sloppiness to the 9th degree.
People have every right to be upset about censorship or any changes made in deference to contemporary sensibilities...but could we please not attribute those policies to Fantagraphics? I have zero inside knowledge, but it seems to me far more likely that it's corporate Disney enforcing these changes. Isn't that what the situation has been in the past regarding Disney comics in the USA? Far more likely that corporate Disney would suddenly come up with new restrictions or requirements, depending on who is tasked to look at what and on how the corporation-wide policies are evolving, than it is that the same people at Fantagraphics who have been involved all along would change their policy in the middle of an ongoing series.
That's a fair point; it is much more likely that the censorship emanates from Disney than from Fantagraphics, given the comparative histories of the two companies.
Likely? Come on now, people -- Disney being behind the censorings is the ONLY explanation. And if anyone really needs confirmation, Thad has said as much on the IAD forums.
However, I do blame Fantagraphics for the generally disappointing quality of the ancillary features in the series--many of the story commentaries in the back of the books are barely more substantive than Internet Movie Database or Goodreads comments. I am also dumbstruck that Craig Fischer was hired to comment on the Daisy Duck's Diary stories without knowing (or being told) that Barks didn't write them; that is editorial sloppiness to the 9th degree.
I agree 100% with everything you're saying here. The supplemental features in Fantagraphics' Barks Library are sometimes almost as embarrassing as the Disney-enforced censorings.
Thanks for the link to the IAD forum, Mesterius; I'm a lawyer, so I always hesitate to state anything definitively, but I agree that Thad's statement is definite confirmation of what was already the most likely hypothesis about the censorship--i.e., this is the Disney Company's meddling again. I had wondered what Thad had to say about the whole mess.
So the latest volume, "Island in the Sky" includes Barks' three draft pages of "The Pied Piper of Duckburg" and Don Rosa's finished version. I wonder why they went with Rosa's version, when they are going with the Jippes' versions of the JW stories. Also, it would have been interesting to include both the Rosa and the Jippes version of the story as they are completely different after page 3.
So the latest volume, "Island in the Sky" includes Barks' three draft pages of "The Pied Piper of Duckburg" and Don Rosa's finished version. I wonder why they went with Rosa's version, when they are going with the Jippes' versions of the JW stories. Also, it would have been interesting to include both the Rosa and the Jippes version of the story as they are completely different after page 3.
I think the Jippes version is much, much better, both drawingwise, and storywise than Rosa's; and it also is much closer to what Barks' finished story would have been. It's a shame that they aren't using Jippes' version.
So the latest volume, "Island in the Sky" includes Barks' three draft pages of "The Pied Piper of Duckburg" and Don Rosa's finished version. I wonder why they went with Rosa's version, when they are going with the Jippes' versions of the JW stories. Also, it would have been interesting to include both the Rosa and the Jippes version of the story as they are completely different after page 3.
I think the Jippes version is much, much better, both drawingwise, and storywise than Rosa's; and it also is much closer to what Barks' finished story would have been. It's a shame that they aren't using Jippes' version.
Jippes' version would probably have required more work (translation, lettering, coloring) while Rosa's is ready to go (and arguably more famous).
I think the Jippes version is much, much better, both drawingwise, and storywise than Rosa's; and it also is much closer to what Barks' finished story would have been. It's a shame that they aren't using Jippes' version.
Jippes' version would probably have required more work (translation, lettering, coloring) while Rosa's is ready to go (and arguably more famous).
I'm not buying that argument as to why the Jippes version wasn't used. They could definitely have afforded to letter the story -- and since it's an Egmont production, the script would already exist in English. Aside from that, all you'd need to do is change a few clothes colors, like Scrooge's coat.
I like the Rosa version of the story myself, but honestly I think both versions should be included.
Has anyone picked up Island in the Sky yet? I'm curious to know if there's more censorship in this one (I assume there is), and which stories have been victimized this time out.
Has anyone picked up Island in the Sky yet? I'm curious to know if there's more censorship in this one (I assume there is), and which stories have been victimized this time out.
There is no altered dialog warning at the begining.
I think the Jippes version is much, much better, both drawingwise, and storywise than Rosa's; and it also is much closer to what Barks' finished story would have been. It's a shame that they aren't using Jippes' version.
Jippes' version would probably have required more work (translation, lettering, coloring) while Rosa's is ready to go (and arguably more famous).
I would be fine with Daan's own English version. His English is better than that of many Americans I know. Yes, ALL Egmont stories require an English version.
I finally got Island in the Sky. It took a while because that book seems to be out of stock. I can't say I'm thrilled to see Rosa in there. I agree that Jippes' version would've been better but maybe they should have just excluded that story. Is it included in the Another Rainbow library?
I finally got Island in the Sky. It took a while because that book seems to be out of stock. I can't say I'm thrilled to see Rosa in there. I agree that Jippes' version would've been better but maybe they should have just excluded that story. Is it included in the Another Rainbow library?
The Another Rainbow library includes both the sketches and Rosa's version (which was brand new at the time, and may even have been commissioned for it?). Gladstone later used the Rosa version in the Color albums. The Jippes version was only published in 2006, and is yet to reach American shores.
The Another Rainbow library was very fastidious in including both the sketches and the comics drawn by other artists (if not full-size): they did the same for the batch of post-1967 stories drawn by Strobl and company. The only place they didn't insert other artists was within stories, like the missing half-page for Back to the Klondike (1981 Barks sketch), Land beneath the Ground! (remounted), or How Green Was My Lettuce (remounted?). How Green... ended up missing a single tier, which Rosa drew for the Gladstone publication later that year, and which was later used in the Gladstone album series. The Jippes tier, drawn for the Scandinavian Barks collection in 2007, has again not been published in the US.
I finally got Island in the Sky. It took a while because that book seems to be out of stock. I can't say I'm thrilled to see Rosa in there. I agree that Jippes' version would've been better but maybe they should have just excluded that story. Is it included in the Another Rainbow library?
The Another Rainbow library was very fastidious in including both the sketches and the comics drawn by other artists (if not full-size).
Maybe Fantagraphics should've done that: print the story in the back in a small b&w version with text surrounding it, that explains that Rosa finished it several decades later, and not include it among the other comics as if it was an official Barks comic. It was never published like that during Barks' times so why do they include it that way?
The Another Rainbow library was very fastidious in including both the sketches and the comics drawn by other artists (if not full-size).
Maybe Fantagraphics should've done that: print the story in the back in a small b&w version with text surrounding it, that explains that Rosa finished it several decades later, and not include it among the other comics as if it was an official Barks comic. It was never published like that during Barks' times so why do they include it that way?
Rosa's story seems to have been printed in regular format in The Carl Barks Library in Color, so I guess that can be seen as a precedent for doing it that way.
I do think the story should be included with full pages and color IF it is to be included (how readable is it really in a shrunk version?), but putting it in the back with other special features would make more sense. I assume Barks' three sketch pages are included in the back?