Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Dec 28, 2018 1:23:53 GMT
The main Donald poses and the cover are clearly not Barks, but a lot of the panels we only see in the background appear to be. I can't identify which stories they're from, though. There appears to be a late '40s Scrooge in one of them. From "Old Castle's Secret" maybe? Or "Voodoo Hoodoo"? Can anyone tell what stories they are?
But yes, ridiculously cute promo. My heart broke for the poor CGI duckling when the comic fell in the water as he/she was trying to fly away with it. Not to mention, had that genuinely been an actual copy of the real WDC&S#1 in reasonably good shape, it would have been a terrible financial loss of a very valuable asset.
The main Donald poses and the cover are clearly not Barks, but a lot of the panels we only see in the background appear to be. I can't identify which stories they're from, though. There appears to be a late '40s Scrooge in one of them. From "Old Castle's Secret" maybe? Or "Voodoo Hoodoo"? Can anyone tell what stories they are?
But yes, ridiculously cute promo. My heart broke for the poor CGI duckling when the comic fell in the water as he/she was trying to fly away with it. Not to mention, had that genuinely been an actual copy of the real WDC&S#1 in reasonably good shape, it would have been a terrible financial loss of a very valuable asset.
Even the background pages are not Barks. I believe that the angry Donald is redrawn by a current artist, but is a copy of a Barks pose. It looks like no Barks story I've ever seen. It looks like new artist re-drawings of random late 1940s Barks poses from a hodgepodge of random unrelated panels. there is one panel of Donald on the lower panel tier on the page on the left that is NOT a copy of any Barks pose, which makes it look like it s drawn by a different artist. Clearly, they thought it would fly by so quickly they just needed to give the impression that it was a 1940s Donald Duck story, and no one would be the wiser.
Clearly, they thought it would fly by so quickly they just needed to give the impression that it was a 1940s Donald Duck story, and no one would be the wiser.
Nah, Robb, of course they knew that wiser viewers would have noticed that. It's just that the most experienced like you are not the main target of the spot. But the background panels look Barks's to me. Why do you think they aren't? Are you sure they are not just Barks's original panels somehow partially modified on a computer so to look a bit more shiny or something?
In any case, very nice spot. The idea of a little CGI real duck copying the iconic poses of DD is clever.
The cover is clearly a reference to Walt Disney's Comics and Stories #1 but it only says Walt Disney's Stories Vol.1. No.1. The art on the cover is also different, probably to give a more "heroic" pose of Donald for the little duckling to look up to. The two panels which the duckling mimics are the typical Donald poses, no real story would dedicate big panels for those without context and speech balloons. The art on the other panels are all Barks and they are from the same year, 1950: In Ancient Persia Serum to Codfish Cove Donald's Grandma Duck The Pixilated Parrot Land of the Totem Poles Trail of the Unicorn
Edit: There are at least two panels from Christmas on Bear Mountain (1947) too.
But anyway, it is a very nice little advert indeed.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Dec 28, 2018 16:37:22 GMT
I understand why the Donald on the cover had to be replaced with a more corporate-looking version, and why they needed clear, big classic Donald poses in the more prominent panels devoid of text and other details (something you wouldn't see in a real comic book) for clarity, but why reword, rearrange and edit the Barks panels in the background? Non-comics fans wouldn't know the difference, and it just irritates comics-fans like us. Seems like a lot of wasted time and effort for no good reason. I'm always intrigued by the thought processes driving decisions like this.
BTW, WDC&S#1 actually did say "Vol.1, No.1" on the cover. But I didn't even notice the comic in this promo said "Stories" instead of "Comics" (I blame it on the monitor I first viewed the video on).
Clearly, they thought it would fly by so quickly they just needed to give the impression that it was a 1940s Donald Duck story, and no one would be the wiser.
Nah, Robb, of course they knew that wiser viewers would have noticed that. It's just that the most experienced like you are not the main target of the spot. But the background panels look Barks's to me. Why do you think they aren't? Are you sure they are not just Barks's original panels somehow partially modified on a computer so to look a bit more shiny or something?
In any case, very nice spot. The idea of a little CGI real duck copying the iconic poses of DD is clever.
Those panels clearly include figures from individual Barks panels from various 1940s and early 1950s stories, but the inking looks wrong (slightly off). The CGI work may have made it appear too light or too thick, or uneven in places, which makes it look unlike the actual story-printed originals. But, they are too close to Barks' originals to have been re-inked by different artists.
The artist probably went for the "mood" on the pages. Happy Donald panels around the big happy Donald, angry or annoyed Donald around the big angry Donald panel... Something like that.
Personally, I don't mind it, at least it was fun to search the original panels in the comics.
The artist probably went for the "mood" on the pages. Happy Donald panels around the big happy Donald, angry or annoyed Donald around the big angry Donald panel... Something like that.
Personally, I don't mind it, at least it was fun to search the original panels in the comics.
Oh, I don't mind it either, I just wonder why they went to all that trouble when they could have just used the original Barks pages.
The artist probably went for the "mood" on the pages. Happy Donald panels around the big happy Donald, angry or annoyed Donald around the big angry Donald panel... Something like that.
Personally, I don't mind it, at least it was fun to search the original panels in the comics.
Oh, I don't mind it either, I just wonder why they went to all that trouble when they could have just used the original Barks pages.
Well, they were obviously looking for a general "comic" aesthetic but didn't want to make the image too complex with all the details and text. Not looking for accuracy. Aiming for "look, this is a Donald Duck comic, it has Donald in it, and he does funny poses".
I remember early 90s paperback collections of French Disney magazine "Journal de Mickey". It had this in the back (art by Claude Marin): The comic on the back of the magazine Mickey is reading doesn't look like a "real" comic that would get made... even as a kid, I thought "uh, this comic looks awkwardly-made", but it wasn't made for "real" reading, just decoration to feel "look, this is a comic starring Mickey, with the usual cast such as Goofy and Pete! Read our comics!".
--- Gaucelm de Villaret gaucelm@gmail.com --- gaucelm.blogspot.fr twitter.com/GothHelm --- facebook.com/gaucelm
The comic on the back of the magazine Mickey is reading doesn't look like a "real" comic that would get made... even as a kid, I thought "uh, this comic looks awkwardly-made", but it wasn't made for "real" reading, just decoration to feel "look, this is a comic starring Mickey, with the usual cast such as Goofy and Pete! Read our comics!".
Yes, but I'd argue that's a different situation: here, they were creating a page of comic art from scratch, so they might as well go ahead and have it showcase their characters at the expense of dialog/pacing; but with the video they could have used pre-existing panels at least for the background pages. But your speculation as to their thinking is probably fundamentally correct.
