[Download Full Movie DuckTales: The Quest For Gold In Italian
Christel Malden
Haven't read the whole review yet, but you may not know that the 'it rains fish once a year on Honduras' is a genuine urban legend that is sorta kinda based on a few true occurences. So there. It's not just Scarpa raving mad.
download full movie DuckTales: The Quest for Gold in italian
Download Zip ✦✦✦ https://t.co/NWq2kgiS4T
Finally, I totally relate with your bafflement at Scrooge's whispered comment in the second-to-last panel. But it's purely a translation thing! If our French translation is anything to go by, Scrooge's comment in the original is not at all cryptic or adage-like. He just says he was glad that his quest for the dang sardine gave him an occasion to "perform a good deed and help the poor old fellow get some rest".
So this explains that! That cryptic ash business does seem to fit Fuchs's philosophy-inclined localizations. You've also got to admit, this business is also so silly that it's gotta count as an argument for my position on translations. A localization of a localization, and GeoX is trying to judge Romano Scarpa on that.
By the way, I recall that after a commenter brought them up, GeoX mused it would be interesting if one of Fuchs's tanslations was translated back into English for kicks. Here you go!
Though again, I did read this localization not a long while ago, and I mostly liked it. As a small, Duck genealogy-related nitpick (Duck genealogy is a hobby of mine), "Danblane McDuck" wasn't a McDuck at all in Italian; his family name was McPapa, whereas the Clan McDuck is the Clan De'Paperoni.
ARGH!!! I was just going to mention, that the Barnacle Bill song/character is much older then Popeye (one of my favorite Popeye cartoon shorts uses the song BTW)
One scene in this story that is super odd, I'm suprise GeoX didn't mention is the part when Scrooge chain up himself for making a bad deal.
I recall commentary on the story by Scarpa in the "Hall of fame" where he mention that the fish-rain thing was inspired by a news paper article about such event.
This story was such a disappointment to me. A ghost ship! I love ghost ships! I love comics stories with ghost ships! I have an entire playlist of songs about nautical ghosts and ghost ships! And ghost pirates! My playlist has ghost pirate songs, and "Ringtail Van Dukke" was the first Duck story written by someone other than Barks or Rosa that I put aside to save in my personal collection.
And then...and then...the story turned out to be about sardines. It takes FOREVER to get to the ghost ship, and then it's a non-spooky ghost ship, and a dumb ghost pirate, and a meandering, illogical, completely uninvolving plot, and I'm definitely not saving this one.
Loved your review, though, which made me laugh more than once, especially the paragraph about aging. I wish someone sometime would respond to your insistent demand and explain the Italians' admiration for Scarpa efforts such as this. That INDUCKS rating (not to mention the quotations in your link!) is a total mystery to me. Maybe if one of his Mickey stories had gotten in the top 50...but this one? Sometimes I just despair of the possibility of cross-cultural understanding.
Time to go read Rota's "Nightmare Ship". Now *there's* a ghost ship worthy of the name.
I only knew the "Barnacle Bill" song from that one Popeye cartoon. Shoulda knowed there was more to it!
It's extremely interesting that this was translated from the Fuchs. Still, that last bit doesn't really work either way, does it? The Fuchs line doesn't go with the rest of the story, but it's DEFINITELY appropriate for Scrooge's facial expressions in the last panels. On the other hand, the more restrained line that Achille Talon cites may be more in keeping with the rest of the story, but it's sure out-of-sync with the pictures as Scarpa drew them. BAH, I say!
About the faithfulness of French translations: kinda depends on the era. Outright localizations were never the norm, but in 70's and early 80's Mickey Parade, the translators did sometimes "dumb down", so to speak, for younger kids. But it was always for comparativelysmall details -- nothing that could be compared to the Fuchs or Blum traditions.
Speaking of which, I'm not arguing that Erika Fuchs, or any of the American localizators (huh, do you say localizators or localizers?) for that matter, are "disrespectful". But to take Fuchs's case, I find two alarming facts.
The first is that the German readers will basically be fans of Erika Fuchs, not of Barks himself. I can figure that there was a signficiant portion of the readership who enjoyed Fuchs's translations because of the allusions she snuck in, but wouldn't have been that thrilled by the original Barks stories. Or, it can be the other way around. Some people who'd have loved Barks's style missed it because they weren't interested in the new additions. (I know that one happened in the States: I recall seeing a letter in an early Uncle Scrogoe/Donald Duck Adventures complaining that the localization of some Egmont stories had added way too many puns for the story's own good.)
The second one is the existence of this: _online/trees/ducktrees/treegrote.jpg This is what a Duck Family Tree based on the Fuchs versions ends up looking like. The most crucial difference, perhaps, is that the McDuck and Duck families are in fact the same, but that's not the only detail. I think a lot of German readers were positively baffled when they read Don Rosa's work, whose careful references to the details of Barks was made invisible by the fact that the original details had been changed.
Those are my two main problems, which can be summed up as this: whatever comes out of the localizations, it's not the same story that the original author had written. It's something else that takes its place. It can be of great quality, it can be made with the best intentions, but the fact remains, it's not the same story.
I agree, but there are some cases in which the story is not new after the translation. In germany this case is Jano Rohleder. For the german "Don Rosa Collection" he translated the Rosa Stories all new. Before that we had the Rosa translations by Peter Daibenzieher, he made, just like you said it, whole new stories, which were mostly based on humor. Many very houmorless passages in Rosa's stories were heavily modified. In Rohleders translations, Rosa's stories just looked like the original.
Erika Fuchs was a very good translator, I think he made Barks's stories more comprehensible. For example: HDL spoked like teenagers (okay, it's no more current, that was in the fifties) and I think this is one thing why the germans are loving Fuchs's translations. A few months ago, I getted myself a copy of one of the new Barks books by fantagraphics, I liked ist too, but Fuchs's translations will always be my favourites!
So can I assume you think that--in spite of his own ideas on the matter--that David's story as translated into German is no longer David's story? 'Cause there doesn't seem to be any other way to interpret this:
the German readers will basically be fans of Erika Fuchs, not of Barks himself
and this:
It's something else that takes its place. It can be of great quality, it can be made with the best intentions, but the fact remains, it's not the same story.
Do you think, conceivably, that he might have the right to be a li'l offended that you would just high-handedly assume that you know best? I'm just saying: these are not cut-and-dry issues, no matter how much you pretend they are.
but the fact is that even they acknowledge that there was change, that the story is now the localizer's as much as the original author's. This notion even seems supported by IDW, who write the names of the localizers next to those of the writers and artists on the cover.
...but you just said this:
I do think the Fuchs translations contained much more than 15 percents of original material, making the comparison with Mr Gerstein's story moot.
...so David's story is still David's story, but Fuchs' translations are no longer Barks' because of some arbitrary sliding scale o' localization that tips over at some undefined point. I'm not trying to be overly argumentative, but you are not making a coherent argument here.
All of this evinces a general lack of understanding of the concept of translation. Yes, there are changes in a localization--the main one being, it's in a different language. There are something like twenty English translations of Don Quixote--and I daresay every last one of these even includes the translator's name! And yes, I daresay it's true that they do this because the work is now partially the translator's! If faithful translation is so obvious and straightforward, wherefore so many (and don't even get me started on Bible translations)? Because these things are not as simple as you want them to be, is why. Translation is never, ever a 1:1 process, and you're fooling yourself if you think it ever could or should be. There are always choices to be made for which there are legitimate arguments to be made in multiple ways--and that's as true of whatever translations you may lionize as "faithful" as it is of any others. Fidelity to the letter of the text is only one consideration.
I know. But, to make my original point clearer: I'm not saying it's not David's story anymore, I'm saying it's now also the translator's story.
And I know the translation can never be perfect, but you have to admit there's a difference between pondering between translating "Bungiorno" as "Hi", "Hello" or "Good day", and adding an entirely new plot point or character (Hello Retroduck! Hi Cousin Clem and Aunt Molly! I won't forget you!).
All this being said, this argument is getting repetitive. I rpopose that after you answer to this messgae we just close the debate.