Monday, June 26, 2017

On Sale June 21, 2017: UNCLE SCROOGE # 27 from IDW.




Don't you "flutter-by" your local comic book shop without picking up a copy of UNCLE SCROOGE # 27 (Legacy Numbering # 431) from IDW!

...And a very special thank you to "Darlene Decibel, Screaming Cheerleader", from the Mickey Mouse epic "Night of the Living Text" in WALT DISNEY'S COMICS AND STORIES # 733, for assisting with the introduction of this post!  Darlene has been a particularly good sport - and quite a trooper - as her own turn to scream... er, shine, in "Night of the Living Text", has not yet received a post at this Blog, despite being one of my favorite Mickey stories of all time!  Yes, really!  



We'll get around to it, Darlene... I promise!  But now, back to UNCLE SCROOGE # 27!  

Gosh all whilikers, there's a lot of EMPTY OCEAN SPACE in that "SPLASH PANEL"!  I guess that's WHY they call it a "SPLASH"!   

In it, you'll find Part One (of Two) of "The Bodacious Butterfly Trail" (Ah, now you get all that "flutter-by" intro jazz?), a 1962 Italian odyssey - with the emphasis on "odd" - written and drawn by the great Romano Scarpa, with translation and dialogue by the also great Thad Komorowski -- whose last name, while having more letters than my own, still managed to fit into the cover's credits banner... while mine failed to do so for the last few issues to which I contributed!  

I gotta get assigned to books with fewer original creators, or one's without long, hyphenated names! 


...Geez, I sound like Daffy Duck in "Show Biz Bugs"!  

...But, at least I'm a NICE "Little Devil"!  

Seriously now, we start off with a good Scarpa gag, and a bodacious Bertram reference from Thad...



...while learning that, each Mardi Gras, the citizens of Duckburg play bodacious jokes on one another.  I only bring this up because it MUST become important later in the plot.  At least I'm taking some really bodacious BETS on this... So, who's in on the action?  

Then, there's bodacious Brigitta MacBridge...

"Would-Be Wooer"... Nice one, Thad!  ...Or David! (See comments!)

...Who's got a new bodacious business.  

Meanwhile, we have Donald and his nephews, who are on the titular "Bodacious Butterfly Trail"!  


But WHY are they bodaciously doing it?  


WHO are they bodaciously doing it for?  


WHAT in the bodacious name of Mother Nature is this?  

Don't step on my lines, Kid!  
Love the expression on the butterfly! 

And WHAT is in the bodacious, cliff-hanger-ing treasure chest the boys just found... in their inimitably bodacious manner?  


...SORRY, but No Spoilers - bodacious, or otherwise - from me! 

Honestly, there's a LOT of disparate (and bodacious) elements scattered throughout this story, as Romano Scarpa was wont to do - especially during this period.  I'm hoping he will tie them together in Part Two.  Indeed, was this even originally a two-parter, or was it segmented by our bodacious publisher IDW?



Our friend "Huwey", who's always good for some bodacious comments, notes in the previous post's Comment Section that this was the FIRST Italian Disney comic story to be published in Germany.  

Finally, we can always count on Thad for a bodacious animation reference!  This time for POPEYE, discussed within THIS POST!  

"Stealin' Ain't Honest, This Duck is th' Don-est, sez Popeye the Sailor Man!  Toot-Toot!" 
That last joke might be "...All he can stands!" 

And, hey... Anyone thinking about UNCLE SCROOGE # 7's "Mummy Fearest" about now?  

This bit looks (and sounds) familiar!  Doesn't it?  Gracious, that's bodacious!

I guess if Romano Scarpa can't bodaciously borrow from himself, who can?  

We close with a bodacious three-page Egmont Magica De Spell story...

...in which she receives a GENIE, complete with lamp, three wishes, and the whole bodacious deal... by MAIL ORDER?  

I've checked Amazon.com for something similar, with no luck.  Perhaps she's using Tigris and Euphrates.com?  


By now, we've seen SO MANY bodacious "Genie takes things literal" stories and gags, that I'm probably not spoiling anything!  

This can only end badly, though "bigly bodacious", for poor Magica!  ...But, Scrooge (and we readers) will have ourselves a bodacious ball!  


Bodacious Disclaimer: Just remember, I do not speak for IDW, or anyone in its employ.  I speak strictly for myself as both a long-time fan and as a dialogue creator – and those bodacious opinions are strictly my own.

Then, let's all meet back here in the Comments Section and see who can come up with the most bodacious comments, this side of Snuffy Smith!  

(Everybody SING!)  "Oh, oh, oh, Great balls o' fire, I'm bodacious..."

28 comments:

Thad Komorowski said...

Thanks for the kind words, Joe. Credit where credit is due, though: "would-be wooer" is David's line. And yes, as originally published in 1962's Topolino, this story was in two separate parts. It's a silly story, but it all ties together kinda nicely, and we haven't even gotten to the Beagle Boys' role yet!

Joe Torcivia said...

Thad:

The kind words are deserved, even if “would-be wooer” belongs to David. Indeed, let’s throw some kind words HIS way for that! There’s more than enough to “spread around”… because at TIAH Blog, to paraphrase one of my most favorite lines from DuckTales , in “Where No Duck has Gone Before”, when it comes to kindness, we’re “full of it”!

…Or, I can continue piling on by adding… And no one can “spread it around” like we can! Hmmm… No, I *probably won’t* do that… Oh, no… wait… look up a line or two… D’oh!

Besides, we can always thank you for “Bertram”, “Stealin’ ain’t honest”, and “bodacious” …or just shortcut it by thanking you for another fine effort!

And we’re getting the Beagle Boys in Part Two? …Bodacious!

Thad Komorowski said...

Yup, and we have a really nice cover for the second part by John Loter, as seen here.

Joe Torcivia said...

Great cover, Thad!

Everyone check it out! Scrooge sorta looks like the Al Taliaferro version! …Bodacious!

Also love your new "Simpsons Identifier".

Debbie Anne said...

Looking at the Inducks page for this story, there is a lot of empty
space in the splash panel because
the Italian printing used bigger lettering. https://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL++327-AP&pg=1
I am hoping that my copy of this issue will be waiting for me this week at my comic shop, along with Duck Avenger #5.

Joe Torcivia said...

Deb:

Well, the lettering DOES make something of a difference, I suppose… But IDW’s “Uncle Scrooge” logo and the title lettering is pretty large as well – and it uses a nine-letter word like “Bodacious”, to boot!

Maybe Thad or David should have contrived some sort of “opening-narration caption-box” to fit on that empty right side – and shrunk the logo and title lettering accordingly. I’ve occasionally asked to have caption boxes added. It’s something that’s doable. Or, perhaps a remedy as simple as some color gradation over that huge field of flat-colored blue water. That would have improved it, AND retained the present composition. …As an artist, what do you think?

HERE is Deb’s link. Everyone, go see the other versions and decide for yourselves.

Not every splash, cover, or individual panel need be crammed full of “Don Rosa-esque detail”, but large open blank spaces just don’t sit well with me. The WORST example in the modern era (…and perhaps of ANY era) is THIS ONE!

What WERE they thinking?! My only reasonable guess was that there might have been a blurb, or other element, that ultimately didn’t make it to the published version. But, MAN, does that look sorry-bad!

I hope you get the issue this week, too! And, please come back with your thoughts on this bodacious issue once you do!

Comicbookrehab said...

I had picked up the one with the retail incentive variant cover, because the image of Scrooge in the bath reminded me of older comic book covers, always depicting cartoon characters in the bathtub. Not sure WHY, but it was a thing..

ramapith said...

Joe: in a true case of different-strokes-for-different-folks, teenage me considered that "Mastering the Matterhorn" cover to be one of the best of its period!

For me, the blank sky conveyed a sense of ominous emptiness: climbing to the top of the peak had brought Donald almost to the ends of the earth. Yet there was also a kind of beauty: the color brought an elegance to the uncluttered scene and focused attention on Donald's stunning gem-discovery.

Ah, well—it worked for me!

Joe Torcivia said...

David:

If “convey[ing] a sense of ominous emptiness” was the goal, then maybe a better artist, or a better composition, might have conveyed it more successfully than it was. Those mountains look more like something BULLWINKLE would be standing atop, rather than Donald Duck! I LOVE Bullwinkle, BTW! No put-down is intended, just noting the contrasting STYLES relative to each character.

Not only that, but how can you have an “elegant, uncluttered scene” with all that distracting nonsense floating about?! “Passport to Disneyland Adventures”, “Free Duckburg Map Piece 8 of 9” (What? They were gonna CHARGE EXTRA for that?), “Pinocchio banner”, “Special 64 Pages WOW!”, and that very same “Free Duckburg Map Piece 8 of 9” occupying the UPC Code Box… something IDW does right by its readers by putting on the BACK COVER!

All the majesty and gradient colors in the world wouldn’t have a chance amid all that junk!

…Ah, it’s STILL the empty space that bugs me!

Joe Torcivia said...

‘Rehab:

There’s a LOT to be said for those old Dell-style gag covers! They worked then, and they still work now! And, I’m glad to see that style applied to the IDW books!

Joe Torcivia said...

Oh, wait... I forgot to use the word "Bodacious" in my last two replies!

David... "Bodacious!"

'Rehab... "Bodacious!"

WHEW! Now, I feel better!

Comicbookrehab said...

I've seen images of Donald in his Paperinik/Duck Avenger costume doing magic tricks (to illustrate Donald's aplomb with trickery) with a top hat that remind of Bullwinkle trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat, though with less success...and now, here's something you'll really like.. ;)

Debbie Anne said...

A bit off topic, but still bodacious, is the fact that Amazon Prime members can stream episodes of Snuffy Smith and Barney Google (as shown in your post) for free (well, after paying to join Amazon Prime, that is) as well as other bodacious KFS TV cartoons like Beetle Bailey, Krazy Kat, Cool McCool and three different TV versions of Popeye (the 1960-61 series, Hanna-Barbera's 1978-80 shows and the non-bodacious Popeye and Son). Fans of 1960's TV cartoons might enjoy that, and it was an excuse to say "bodacious".

Huwey said...

I seriousely had to look up what "bodacius" means...
I am not sure why they changed the name in english from "The Columbus Butterfly" to "The Bodacious Butterfly Trail". Maybe it is because Native Americans could be offended? I saw that "War of the Wendigo" was partly censored.

Joe Torcivia said...

Awww, Huwey…

We’re not gonna dredge up that old “censorship thing” again. We’re having too much fun since this Blog’s return to tread that well-covered ground. For what it’s worth (…and it ain’t worth much), “War of the Wendigo” was tragically delayed and modified on the word of a source who saw “bogey-men” where none existed, or were even intended – but who, unfortunately, had the power to effect such profound change on the publisher and readers. That’s the way *I* heard it, anyway! I had no “IN” with the publisher at that time. Still, and I couldn’t disagree more in this particular instance, it falls under the vast umbrella of “Editorial or Copyright Holder’s Prerogative”, and is something we all must live with – because there IS no alternative! …And that’s ALL I am ever gonna say about that ever again! So, don’t even ask with good intentions, cause ya ain’t gettin’ nuthin more! So, there! :-)

“The Bodacious Butterfly Trail”, I can assure you, knowing personally the creative forces behind IDW’s version, was NOT a similar case.

If you ask me, and know that I was not part of the creative process for this story in any way, the word “Bodacious” was probably employed strictly for its alliterative value in the title. …And, in tribute to that, I’ve continued to squeeze the word into my review of and comments on this story – any and every place I can! …It’s just so bodacious of me to do so!

Joe Torcivia said...

Deb:

That news is… (how you say?) …Bodacious!

Seriously, that’s a great deal… but I’ll probably never pay for Amazon Prime. I won’t even place an order that doesn’t qualify for free shipping – because paying for shipping, while they save the overhead of having physical stores, sits wrong with me – kinda like big, blank empty spaces in comic art and on covers… and “Bird Bothered Hero”... and my name not being on covers of IDW comics I contribute to… and… and… And I think I’m becoming something of a crank! But, a bodaciously nice crank, don’t cha think?

I have two extensive sets of sixties Popeye… and, having seen them in their original run, and on DVD in recent years, I can say they are NOWHERE NEAR as inferior as some would have you believe! Indeed, many of them hew closer to E.C. Segar than any prior animated product – some even being adaptations of Segar. And, the voices of Jack Mercer, Mae Questel, and Jackson Beck are on hand to preserve that classic feel. I write about that in THIS BODACIOUS POST!

…Or, as Popeye might have put it: “Bodaich-isk!”

Though, I’d sure like to see Snuffy (“Bodacious”) Smith and Cool McCool again! Haven’t seen them since the sixties!

Joe Torcivia said...

‘Rehab:

And speaking of Magic Tricks with Top Hats, check out this bodacious SCOOBY-DOO TEAM-UP cover!

Thad Komorowski said...

Joe, Huwey is actually correct. "Butterflies of Columbus" became "Bodacious Butterfly Trail" (my title) precisely because this isn't 1962 (or even 1992) any more. And today Christopher Columbus incites (rightful) indignation over the mass Native American genocide he spearheaded and encouraged rather than nostalgia. Not exactly the sort of thing you want to have in ad copy—which is why David asked me to change it (and gave the OK to talk about it here). Fortunately, we didn't have to change any elements of the actual story. Besides, it was originally "Donald Duck and the Butterflies of Columbus". Now it's "Uncle Scrooge and the Bodacious Butterfly Trail". So if you can change the character, you can change the title.

Comicbookrehab said...

S'that yllatot suoicadob! Or Suoicadob yllatot s'that! :)

Joe Torcivia said...

...And thank you, Baher'!

Joe Torcivia said...

Thad:

Thank you for the correction!

I hadn’t considered there might have been a more serious reason for deleting “Columbus” and adding “Bodacious” beyond a more snappy title! Seriously understood!

Thad Komorowski said...

And just as a followup: the story had no English title previously, as it had never been printed in English. Therefore, it simply also follows the tradition of giving these comics whatever-the-hell titles we want for their American debuts. If we had gone with a literal translation every time, "The Miner's Granddaughter" would've been "The Arrival of Dickie Duck", and "The Bridge on the River Ai-Yai!" would've been "Bridge of Losaulito". I mean, where's the argument to keep them the same in those cases?

Joe Torcivia said...

Couldn’t agree with you more, Thad!

Perhaps my favorite aspect of “whatever the heck it is we do for these comics” is formulating titles!

How deadly dull are those examples you cite, vs. what you rechristened them for the American English versions.

Just like some of mine: “Now Museum, Now You Don’t!” for “The Super Goof Museum”, “Heads You Win, Tails You Bruise” for “The Coin Collector” and “The Money Mummy”for “Mummy Fearest”! …And, many more!

As far back as Mark Evanier’s pun-titles for his ‘70s Gold Key work, I’ve been a fan of making a title as snappy (and bodacious) as you can.

Drakeborough said...

@Thad Komorowski
"this isn't 1962 (or even 1992) any more. And today Christopher Columbus incites (rightful) indignation [...]"

So modern America is in a situation in which an historical character like Columbus cannot even be mentioned in a comic? I hope not, because if it's true it would be really, really sad.

Joe Torcivia said...

Honestly, Drakeborough, it was a surprise to me too.

I merely regarded it as us wacky translators just making a title more snappy, as we are wont to do.

...And, if nothing else, the word "Bodacious" *did* make the title more "snappy".

I'll leave the state of "modern America" out of this, because my own thoughts would violate my own Blog's standards.

Thad Komorowski said...

>>>So modern America is in a situation in which an historical character like Columbus cannot even be mentioned in a comic? I hope not, because if it's true it would be really, really sad.<<<

No, as you'll see from this story, there is no problem with mentioning Columbus. As I said, it's simply using him as a headline that isn't attractive anymore. A Columbus comic just isn't any more of a selling point than a George Wallace comic is these days.

Debbie Anne said...

I FINALLY got a copy of this issue today! This issue was harder to catch than exotic butterflies or reluctant multi-zulti-zillionaires! Quite a story. Like many of Romano Scarpa's stories, this one also has that Bill Walsh quality to the pacing and plot. How in the world would a major plot point in this story even work? Butterflies just don't live that long! Maybe we'll find out in part two (and hopefully my LCS will actually get it!) As offbeat as they can be, I always enjoy Scarpa's stories.

Joe Torcivia said...

Deb:

You write: “ How in the world would a major plot point in this story even work? Butterflies just don't live that long!”

...Um, maybe it’s a bodacious MUTANT butterfly?

I’m sure Thad knows, but why spoil it when the conclusion goes on sale a mere five days from today? I hope you don’t have to wait nearly as long for Part Two!