"The artwork I make - the stuff I like."
The blog of Joakim Gunnarsson
Pages
▼
Sunday, 31 July 2011
DD 46 Shop Dummy
The "never ending" series of blog posts about the cover to Donald Duck 46 ( See HERE, HERE and HERE.) has now reached the "shop dummy" of the cover. (Are you thrilled? No? Hmpf ...)
The shop dummy was the cover proof used in house to check for wrong colors etc, before the issue went to press. Enjoy!
Getting back to Barks' own description of the (presumably original) version: "Kids blow cake apart." Hmm.
I bet I know what "apart" means in this context. The thing's a layer cake. I bet they blew it and the layers were separating in midair. "Apart" doesn't quite describe your vision of the cake simply being reduced to a mess (as delicious as that looks, slurp).
David: You are on to something here. :) I didn't have access to that payment description when I mande my rough.
Still wondering what was so objectionable with it that they had to redraw and alter it, though. What if the three nephews were standing on different sides of the table, blowing the cake apart on each other? Covering themselves with whipped cream and making a mess out of the cake? That might be enough to make a editor worried about the complaints from parents. ("How dare you learn kids playing with food!!!" Parents can be very upset when it comes to whats shown in a comic book for kids, trust me...) And it might also had made one mess of an unfocused cover. The editor might simply have wanted a cover that was easier to "read". But at the same time losing part of the joke. As it is in the published version, it's not particulary funny...
Naaah, my suggestion would be too hard to compose well. Don't think Barks would do it that way. But the three layers separating would also be hard to draw and doesn't explain why it was changed. Maybe the kids were *going to* blow the cake apart with one big firecracker placed in the middle of the cake? But why would they do that? And "Anonymous" got a point. What did Barks draw on the heads of the nephews that had to be changed into partyhats? Or maybe it was something in the background that had been deleted and the space needed to be filled? A 4'th of july sign? A "Happy New Year" sign? That would explain the firecracker and why it had to be altered: No 4'th of July outside the USA meaning the covers could'nt be used in other countries. Parents would complain about the explosives. And a new years cover wouldn't work in March. ;)
Getting back to Barks' own description of the (presumably original) version: "Kids blow cake apart." Hmm.
ReplyDeleteI bet I know what "apart" means in this context. The thing's a layer cake. I bet they blew it and the layers were separating in midair. "Apart" doesn't quite describe your vision of the cake simply being reduced to a mess (as delicious as that looks, slurp).
Why the weird hats on the nephews? Are they supposed to say, "birthday party"? (I wonder if Barks' version had those hats...)
ReplyDeleteDavid: You are on to something here. :)
ReplyDeleteI didn't have access to that payment description when I mande my rough.
Still wondering what was so objectionable with it that they had to redraw and alter it, though.
What if the three nephews were standing on different sides of the table, blowing the cake apart on each other? Covering themselves with whipped cream and making a mess out of the cake?
That might be enough to make a editor worried about the complaints from parents. ("How dare you learn kids playing with food!!!" Parents can be very upset when it comes to whats shown in a comic book for kids, trust me...)
And it might also had made one mess of an unfocused cover. The editor might simply have wanted a cover that was easier to "read". But at the same time losing part of the joke. As it is in the published version, it's not particulary funny...
Naaah, my suggestion would be too hard to compose well. Don't think Barks would do it that way.
ReplyDeleteBut the three layers separating would also be hard to draw and doesn't explain why it was changed.
Maybe the kids were *going to* blow the cake apart with one big firecracker placed in the middle of the cake? But why would they do that?
And "Anonymous" got a point. What did Barks draw on the heads of the nephews that had to be changed into partyhats? Or maybe it was something in the background that had been deleted and the space needed to be filled?
A 4'th of july sign? A "Happy New Year" sign?
That would explain the firecracker and why it had to be altered:
No 4'th of July outside the USA meaning the covers could'nt be used in other countries.
Parents would complain about the explosives.
And a new years cover wouldn't work in March. ;)
Just thinking out loud. :)
Very nice, thanks for sharing.
ReplyDelete