Odd and inconsistent color choices? The color choices very consistently reflect how these comics were originally printed.
Except when they don't -- there have been several cases in later volumes where Fanta decided to recolor stories despite that originally stated intention. Pretty sure some of that has been mentioned on the forums, though I may also have it from the Carl Barks - The Good Artist Facebook group. Not to mention "In Old California", which has an absolutely god-awful new coloring looking nothing like the original OR the later Gladstone coloring.
And yes, choosing the Western Publishing colors IS an odd and misguided choice, for any number of reasons (which I've been discussing here before).
I'm not totally up to date on this library, but I'm pretty sure Fantagraphics have made it clear that they were going to reproduce the original coloring, except when they wouldn't (such as in the 1960s comics). My opinion it doesn't the desired effect, not because the coloring is bad, but because the print quality is too high! Dell and Gladstone I knew how to make use of their limited palette in ways that look good on their low-grade print. As printing standards rose during the '90s, the coloring moved with them in step. Seeing the 'vintage colors' reproduced on today's clean white paper feels artificial to me. Oh, it's nice to see a clean version, but it doesn't really do anything for me. I bought the first few sets before my interest waned -- do I really need ANOTHER set of Barks comics? And when they diverge from the original coloring, well, what does that achieve?
You know what I would be interested in? Facsimiles. They produced a bunch of those when the European weeklies reached their 50th year. I'm not sure how popular they were, but the Dutch ones were warmly received. The Italians still republish them once in a while. Just scans of the original comics, cleaned them up as well as possible (given the quality at the time and how most copies have been worn by age), and release that. I think that would be very interesting for collectors and purists like us, and the publisher could just slap on a sticker saying Warning: Archive Material and they wouldn't have to change a thing.
Anybody remember those fascimile copies of WDC 1&2 and FC 4 and 19 that Boom put out near the end? This being the American comic market, I can only guess how well they must have sold, but I thought they were amazing and I'd loved to have seen more of them. Here's what the Dutch facsimiles looked like. Luxury black hardcover collections with glossy paper, collecting 26 x 24 pages for 30 euros, two volumes per year. At about 630 pages per volume, four volumes would be enough to cover the first 70 issues of Uncle Scrooge, or six volumes for the first 70 WDC&S which was a little bit bigger. Of course, it wouldn't scale that well with a realistic US audience in mind, seeing how collectors sets are worth their weight in gold nowadays, but it'd still be a fraction of what the originals are going for. I'd put my money where my mouth was if I had the half the chance. Half the fun in those fascimiles is seeing the puzzles and ads and other things that accompanied the original printings. They really capture the feel of the era and the context in which these stories were published, in a way an auteur collection/library can't reproduce. It's not just Barks, you know?
Anyway, that got away from me. I'm glad the Barks Library is still in demand, even if I've personally lost interest!
just a small update to my post of a year back [Oct21 2019]: At that time, we were discussing the first censoring of Fantagraphics' Carl Barks Library: i.e. the removal of the word "holocaust", in volume 21. The other day, I happened to notice the inconsistency of that censorship: If you look in the earliest Fanta. Barks volume yet published [Vol.5], you'll see the word "holocaust" appears, uncensored!! This is in another fire story: "Fireman Donald" [page 172]. Seems Barks couldnt discuss fires without invoking holocausts! On the matter of censorship in general: seems the times are a-changing, and ever faster. I fear that the next volume [v23] will be more heavily censored than was 21. Times are indeed changing - and not for the better.
Even if they sell in Europe, Disney Comics are tougher to sell in the US. European publishers can print “Stuff We Found in Barks’ Wastebasket” because everyone there knows this stuff, but the same book wouldn’t sell in the US because when folks here think of Disney, they think of Frozen or some pre-teen Disney Channel sitcom.
I know about that difference, of course. What I mean is, if sales are still decent after collecting all of Barks' earlier work, then I think his later Disney comics have a natural place in such a Library edition. And, after all, the sketch versions of these comics HAVE been collected in the U.S. as part of Another Rainbow's Carl Barks Library.
If Gemstone had done Egmont's Barks Library in English as they originally intended, I don't think it would have even been a question whether the script-only stories would be included. Of course they would. It's a question NOW because the signals Fantagraphics are sending with their Library edition have been so mixed (odd and inconsistent color choices, unclear when they intend to jump back to the earlier 40s work, uneven quality on the background texts, etc).
They'd better start printing the earliest Barks now. They're just about to the end of the Dell printings with what has been the most recent advertised. I don't want them to print the Gold Key stories now, and I die before they print the 1942-47 stories.
There’s honestly a bit more that would be problematic in the 1943-46 stories than in the 1960’s material. I think that, for the most part, Barks’ best has mostly been printed in the Fantagraphics books out already. In the early 40s work Barks was still getting his footing in comics, and by 1960, he was getting pretty burnt out on them.
In the early 40s work Barks was still getting his footing in comics,
But he was already great back then. Not yet good at long stories, sure, but the 10-pagers were already as consistently good as they would be from 1947 on. Moreover, it is Barks slapstick period, where you can see him exploiting all his experience as storyboard artist/writer for Donald toons from 1936 to 1942. Last but not least, his art was so expressive and dynamic back then, something that by 1948 he was already slowly loosing. So, that period needs to be represented in a Barks's collection, definitely more urgently than the late material from the 60's.
As for some old outdated portraits of characters, the period 1943-1946 is absolutely not more 'problematic' than the period 1947-1952, which was the very first published upfront in the series. So I do not see problems from that perspective.
In the early 40s work Barks was still getting his footing in comics,
But he was already great back then. Not yet good at long stories, sure, but the 10-pagers were already as consistently good as they would be from 1947 on. Moreover, it is Barks slapstick period, where you can see him exploiting all his experience as storyboard artist/writer for Donald toons from 1936 to 1942. Last but not least, his art was so expressive and dynamic back then, something that by 1948 he was already slowly loosing. So, that period needs to be represented in a Barks's collection, definitely more urgently than the late material from the 60's.
As for some old outdated portraits of characters, the period 1943-1946 is absolutely not more 'problematic' than the period 1947-1952, which was the very first published upfront in the series. So I do not see problems from that perspective.
I agree totally with THIS assessment, and add that it's not just 1942-1946 we are missing, but also missing almost all of 1947, with currently having only "Christmas on Bear Mountain" from that year. Also, some of us are old enough to be most nostalgic for that period. When I started having Barks' stories read to me in the late 1940s and very beginning of the '50s, it was his 1942-48 stories my parents and grandparents were reading to me. I "inherited" all the 1940s Disney Comics from my older cousins who lived in our house or next door. Personally, after 1948-1953, I am most nostalgic for 1942-1947. At the rate Fantagraphics is releasing the books, IF they wait until after finishing the later Dells, and issuing all the Gold Key stories before starting on the early '40s books, I may well not even be around to even see them, let alone possess them, and enjoy reading them for a few years. I want (and have since 1960) wanted to at least possess all the Barks Duck stories in one high quality, hard bound colour series, in a single unified format in either English or Dutch language. There's a reasonable chance I won't ever reach that goal. But, even if I do, I don't want my few years of enjoyment of those early 1940s stories curtailed by having the weak 1963-67 stories printed first. I have the German "Collected Barks works" (Egmont set), which includes my own article on Barks, as well as easy access for several months, to the Danish set, but reading those just isn't as enjoyable and nostalgic to me.
Now if I pointed it out, Disney’s editors would jump on it, so I’d prefer not to point it out.
I was mostly curious since I can't think of anything in those 40s stories that would be MORE problematic than stuff like "Darkest Africa" or "Voodoo Hoodoo" -- and Fantagraphics has already printed those uncensored.
In the early 40s work Barks was still getting his footing in comics,
But he was already great back then. Not yet good at long stories, sure, but the 10-pagers were already as consistently good as they would be from 1947 on. Moreover, it is Barks slapstick period, where you can see him exploiting all his experience as storyboard artist/writer for Donald toons from 1936 to 1942. Last but not least, his art was so expressive and dynamic back then, something that by 1948 he was already slowly loosing. So, that period needs to be represented in a Barks's collection, definitely more urgently than the late material from the 60's.
As for some old outdated portraits of characters, the period 1943-1946 is absolutely not more 'problematic' than the period 1947-1952, which was the very first published upfront in the series. So I do not see problems from that perspective.
I disagree completely that Barks was losing the expressiveness of his art as early as 1948. The ducks' facial expressions actually grew MORE precise and nuanced after he shortened their beaks around 1949-50, and their body language got more expressive too. His character art in the early 50s is the absolute apex in my book.
Barks' comics from the first few years suffer from both stiffer figure drawings and too many panels used to put across gags (reflecting Barks' training as a storyboard artist). He got better with every year, though, and by 1948 he had truly figured out the language of the comic book medium. It's no surprise that Fantagraphics decided to start with the late 40s -- that is where Barks' true golden age starts, even if the earlier 40s work is also very enjoyable (and generally much more interesting than his 60s output).
But he was already great back then. Not yet good at long stories, sure, but the 10-pagers were already as consistently good as they would be from 1947 on. Moreover, it is Barks slapstick period, where you can see him exploiting all his experience as storyboard artist/writer for Donald toons from 1936 to 1942. Last but not least, his art was so expressive and dynamic back then, something that by 1948 he was already slowly loosing. So, that period needs to be represented in a Barks's collection, definitely more urgently than the late material from the 60's.
As for some old outdated portraits of characters, the period 1943-1946 is absolutely not more 'problematic' than the period 1947-1952, which was the very first published upfront in the series. So I do not see problems from that perspective.
I disagree completely that Barks was losing the expressiveness of his art as early as 1948. The ducks' facial expressions actually grew MORE precise and nuanced after he shortened their beaks around 1949-50, and their body language got more expressive too. His character art in the early 50s is the absolute apex in my book.
Barks' comics from the first few years suffer from both stiffer figure drawings and too many panels used to put across gags (reflecting Barks' training as a storyboard artist). He got better with every year, though, and by 1948 he had truly figured out the language of the comic book medium. It's no surprise that Fantagraphics decided to start with the late 40s -- that is where Barks' true golden age starts, even if the earlier 40s work is also very enjoyable (and generally much more interesting than his 60s output).
I'm kind of in the middle. I agree that Barks' best artwork was in the period 1949-1953, but I'm also a big fan of his earliest period (1942-1944) as well as his final work (1964-69), even though it is decidedly un-Disneylike. That period (1945-48) where his Ducks are more elongated and too rubbery is among my least favorite, as well as the ten-pagers that weren't sophisticated as the later ones, but lacked the rough simplicity of his his earliest work. I'm also less enamoured of his work around 1958-1961, but I think we all agree on those Ducks.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Oct 18, 2020 0:59:12 GMT
I think that his apex artistically is 1947-1949, and remains definitely quite high up to 1955. I was referring to the peculiar exaggerated expressiveness and slapstick dynamics of the early stories when saying that 'by 1948 he was already slowly loosing'.