Another quick one regarding the stories we don't have currently:
Regarding D/D 2000-024, is there anything more to learn regarding it? As I understand it, the story has never been published - this article confirms it hadn't been published up to May 2022, at least.
I don't know if there's any clear information out there beyond what's on INDUCKS and what I've seen mentioned in the above article
Is there a source available on the name 'Tiburon El Duck'? I can't actually see it in the scan of the script - I can see that his initials are T.E.D, which obviously tracks, but I can't see the full name written there. Worth noting the scan definitely designates him as an ancestor of Scrooge.
Regarding his 'canonicity', I'd personally consider him valid on the grounds that we have all of the McDucks from D 91308S. I do think that he shouldn't be included unless we can get some clearer info on the story itself, but I wouldn't rule him out solely on the basis of not being published. I can see the other end, though; we accepted Klazien because of the published story, so there's precedent for ignoring Tiburon.
If anyone knows a little more about the story or the information available on INDUCKS, the help would be appreciated - as it stands, I think that Tiburon should be left off, though if we get sufficient information on Faccioli's intentions for the character, I'd consider him a valid addition.
Side-note; I may have tracked down G 1648 and G 1635; will have to verify, but should be able to update soon, hopefully
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Another quick one regarding the stories we don't have currently:
Regarding D/D 2000-024, is there anything more to learn regarding it? As I understand it, the story has never been published - this article confirms it hadn't been published up to May 2022, at least.
I don't know if there's any clear information out there beyond what's on INDUCKS and what I've seen mentioned in the above article
Is there a source available on the name 'Tiburon El Duck'? I can't actually see it in the scan of the script - I can see that his initials are T.E.D, which obviously tracks, but I can't see the full name written there. Worth noting the scan definitely designates him as an ancestor of Scrooge.
Regarding his 'canonicity', I'd personally consider him valid on the grounds that we have all of the McDucks from D 91308S. I do think that he shouldn't be included unless we can get some clearer info on the story itself, but I wouldn't rule him out solely on the basis of not being published. I can see the other end, though; we accepted Klazien because of the published story, so there's precedent for ignoring Tiburon.
If anyone knows a little more about the story or the information available on INDUCKS, the help would be appreciated - as it stands, I think that Tiburon should be left off, though if we get sufficient information on Faccioli's intentions for the character, I'd consider him a valid addition.
I don't know anything else about it. I just want to remark that there is, I think, a difference between D/D 2000-024 and D 91308S, as for the latter the sketches have actually been published in various issues, which is I think what makes D 91308S canon for the purpose of the tree (personally I think that if these sketches by Rosa had never been published, and for example had only appeared on a personal website by Rosa, we shouldn't have included them, because then it would be a similar case as with the Klazien story, where we don't accept an unpublished sketch).
As for D/D 2000-024, it seems the sketches haven't been published anywhere (unless INDUCKS is not complete here). So, I think that D/D 2000-024 should not count as canon at the moment, unless these sketches get published, or maybe if some information about the story would be officially published (for example an article about the story).
Another quick one regarding the stories we don't have currently:
Regarding D/D 2000-024, is there anything more to learn regarding it? As I understand it, the story has never been published - this article confirms it hadn't been published up to May 2022, at least.
I don't know if there's any clear information out there beyond what's on INDUCKS and what I've seen mentioned in the above article
Is there a source available on the name 'Tiburon El Duck'? I can't actually see it in the scan of the script - I can see that his initials are T.E.D, which obviously tracks, but I can't see the full name written there. Worth noting the scan definitely designates him as an ancestor of Scrooge.
Regarding his 'canonicity', I'd personally consider him valid on the grounds that we have all of the McDucks from D 91308S. I do think that he shouldn't be included unless we can get some clearer info on the story itself, but I wouldn't rule him out solely on the basis of not being published. I can see the other end, though; we accepted Klazien because of the published story, so there's precedent for ignoring Tiburon.
If anyone knows a little more about the story or the information available on INDUCKS, the help would be appreciated - as it stands, I think that Tiburon should be left off, though if we get sufficient information on Faccioli's intentions for the character, I'd consider him a valid addition.
I don't know anything else about it. I just want to remark that there is, I think, a difference between D/D 2000-024 and D 91308S, as for the latter the sketches have actually been published in various issues, which is I think what makes D 91308S canon for the purpose of the tree (personally I think that if these sketches by Rosa had never been published, and for example had only appeared on a personal website by Rosa, we shouldn't have included them, because then it would be a similar case as with the Klazien story, where we don't accept an unpublished sketch).
As for D/D 2000-024, it seems the sketches haven't been published anywhere (unless INDUCKS is not complete here). So, I think that D/D 2000-024 should not count as canon at the moment, unless these sketches get published, or maybe if some information about the story would be officially published (for example an article about the story).
That's a fair distinction - I'll keep that in mind for future reference At this point, I think a 'Rejected' section for the index is warranted - as it stands, I'll add the Bogey relatives, Mamie and Exeter (unless anyone has reasons they shouldn't be added) and Tiburon.
This is a bit of an odd one, and not necessarily a serious proposal, but one worth discounting all the same - by these rules, shouldn't Daffy Duck technically be on the tree as Huey, Dewey and Louie's father?
Return to Duckburg Place has been published in official collections as can be seen on the INDUCKS page. While clearly not entirely in line with 'our' Duckburg, it's at least as in line with the core reality as the likes of Ducktales' 17. It's parodical in nature, but then, so is Spooks and Magic - and, in the same vein, it's treated 'seriously' within the story itself.
Bluntly put, I think Return to Duckburg Place is a pretty disgusting comic - however, by all the actual rules that are laid out thus far, it does technically fit. I can see the problematic side of things should it be 'officially' acknowledged (Since, obviously, Disney don't own Daffy Duck), and the difficulty that would be categorizing his relatives [And as someone that's trying, trust me, it's a nightmare] - but my main point is that, by all rules, he does fit.
Again, for clarity, not actually advocating for his inclusion - but mainly just questioning how he's interpreted based on the current rules. (Side-note regarding the legalese - did Disney have to get permission from WB to show Return to Duckburg Place in those collections, does anyone know? I've always been curious about that.)
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Post by That Duckfan on Sept 12, 2023 14:11:06 GMT
I like the inclusion of Daffy, just because it's funny. But Rosa actually reveals the nephews' father in one of his convention prints, and he'll write YOUR name on it for a gag! We've talked about "Jamie Hawkins" before on this thread, by the way.
Since we're in increasingly nebulous territory nowadays, let me introduce Gerrit Gans, Gus Goose's even lazier nephew. We see him when Donald dreams he's been in a coma for decades, which explains why he's not on the tree. But this doesn't exclude him from existing in 'reality'. Thought you might like to know about him, alquackskey. Donald finally wakes up when he learns Daisy and Gladstone got married and had kids -- and that's why I started about the Duck descendants a few pages back.
Since we're in increasingly nebulous territory nowadays, let me introduce Gerrit Gans, Gus Goose's even lazier nephew. We see him when Donald dreams he's been in a coma for decades, which explains why he's not on the tree. But this doesn't exclude him from existing in 'reality'. Thought you might like to know about him, alquackskey . Donald finally wakes up when he learns Daisy and Gladstone got married and had kids -- and that's why I started about the Duck descendants a few pages back.
In the Swedish translation, this character is known as Martin Gås. Now, as Duckfan stated, we only see this character in Donald's coma. If Donald were surprised to see him, that would indicate that this is the first time Donald meets Gerrit/Martin, which in turn would mean that he is a figment of Donald's imagination. However, Donald hardly reacts at all. Instead, he just has a blank stare on his face, which doesn't really tell us anything about whether Donald is familiar with this relative or not.
I like the inclusion of Daffy, just because it's funny. But Rosa actually reveals the nephews' father in one of his convention prints, and he'll write YOUR name on it for a gag! We've talked about "Jamie Hawkins" before on this thread, by the way.
Since we're in increasingly nebulous territory nowadays, let me introduce Gerrit Gans, Gus Goose's even lazier nephew. We see him when Donald dreams he's been in a coma for decades, which explains why he's not on the tree. But this doesn't exclude him from existing in 'reality'. Thought you might like to know about him, alquackskey . Donald finally wakes up when he learns Daisy and Gladstone got married and had kids -- and that's why I started about the Duck descendants a few pages back.
Oh absolutely, I'm familiar with the second version of Rosa's tree I know that's where we accept the current incarnation of 'Mr. Duck' to come from, however, there are technically a couple of holes in it, which is why I'm musing about Daffy.
XNC DRSV 4E has appeared in official publications - and more recently than Return to Duckburg Place - but it has some doubts of its own if we look at official material. For one, there's the fact that he's not a named character - like you say, Rosa slots in your own name in his place. Yes, he has a concrete design, but he's almost a non-character, in a way? Like, he's in the 'slot' of Huey, Dewey and Louie's father, but he's not necessarily the actual father - he could be any random guy with any random name. I don't know how well I'm articulating myself on that one, but the fact that he could have any random name and this is the only unobscured image of him comes across as a "This could be him" concept - which is made even more odd by the fact that the version of 'him' in D 11221 looks entirely different from what we can see of him.
Secondly - and this one is more of a personal bias than a legitimate point - Daffy appears in an actual comic. It's a comic that pretty much everyone considers 'non-canon'/unofficial in any real capacity, and the intent is definitely for XNC DRSV 4E to be the 'real' take on the boys' parentage, but it's still an actual comic story that depicts Daffy as the father. Even on moral grounds, there are plenty of other stories and characters that I'd be happy to disavow (I TL 2451-1 being an obvious example) but that's not really a solid basis at this point. This one's less of a solid point, but Return to Duckburg Place, even if it goes unacknowledged in any official capacity, is a comic depicting Daffy as the father, which, in my mind, holds more water than a family tree where the father's name can be replaced by any random name.
Plus, it's technically worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, XNC DRSV 4E goes against what Rosa was allowed to publish, doesn't it? I could be getting mixed up (It's been a while since I read the specific articles), but wasn't it the case that, outside of a random cameo or two, Rosa wasn't allowed to use Ludwig, and Disney didn't permit him to make that relationship 'canon'? Again, not 100% on that (I know there were cases where he was prevented from using Ludwig, but I might be ballooning it in my head to more than it actually was), but if I'm correct on that, then Mr. Duck is once more called into question, as is the validity of the tree itself. For the record, I'm not actually saying XNC DRSV 4E isn't valid - just that there are interesting points of comparison with Return to Duckburg Place. Both were officially published despite seemingly going against the wishes of the publisher.
Again, not necessarily saying Daffy should be added, but I definitely think the discussion is warranted - given how many other odd inclusions we have, I think it's worth talking about! (For the record, if we do go this route, would we be adding Daffy's relatives? I did up a tree for him on Family Echo, but I'm pretty sure it's not exhaustive - plus, there's a glaring issue that could cause problems, though I suppose it could be ignored)
As for Gerrit, I'll admit I can't properly comment as I've never read the full story - only heard about it from others That being said, while I do find the dream relatives interesting, I'd ultimately be against adding them to the tree, personally - while it is possible that they exist, I ultimately think there should be something concrete tying them into existence before they should be added. Note that what follows is said without the full context of the story - just the scan provided by LP (Thank you for that!): Donald sees Gerrit/Martin and is unsurprised - however, there could be plenty of reasons for that. For one, there's a lot going on - given how far ahead it is, he could just be saying to himself "Nephew? It's possible, I suppose". Or it could be the case that he's just processing everything that's happening, and Gus having a nephew isn't all that major of a thing to him compared to everything else going on. Or, since it's a dream, it could just be the case that his brain is accepting this part despite it not making sense, as often happens in dreams It's absolutely possible that Gerrit/Martin exists, but without actually seeing a mention of him in the real world, I'd personally think that he doesn't belong - not to say that he couldn't exist (As you point out, there is evidence that makes it possible) but without anything at all tying him to reality, I'd personally believe him to be imaginary I don't say that definitively, though - open to rethinking it or the like Thank you for pointing him out all the same, though - it's fascinating to look at what could be, even if it doesn't actually stick in-universe; future stories, even the fake ones, are fascinating to me
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I like the inclusion of Daffy, just because it's funny. But Rosa actually reveals the nephews' father in one of his convention prints, and he'll write YOUR name on it for a gag! We've talked about "Jamie Hawkins" before on this thread, by the way.
Since we're in increasingly nebulous territory nowadays, let me introduce Gerrit Gans, Gus Goose's even lazier nephew. We see him when Donald dreams he's been in a coma for decades, which explains why he's not on the tree. But this doesn't exclude him from existing in 'reality'. Thought you might like to know about him, alquackskey . Donald finally wakes up when he learns Daisy and Gladstone got married and had kids -- and that's why I started about the Duck descendants a few pages back.
Oh absolutely, I'm familiar with the second version of Rosa's tree I know that's where we accept the current incarnation of 'Mr. Duck' to come from, however, there are technically a couple of holes in it, which is why I'm musing about Daffy.
XNC DRSV 4E has appeared in official publications - and more recently than Return to Duckburg Place - but it has some doubts of its own if we look at official material. For one, there's the fact that he's not a named character - like you say, Rosa slots in your own name in his place. Yes, he has a concrete design, but he's almost a non-character, in a way? Like, he's in the 'slot' of Huey, Dewey and Louie's father, but he's not necessarily the actual father - he could be any random guy with any random name. I don't know how well I'm articulating myself on that one, but the fact that he could have any random name and this is the only unobscured image of him comes across as a "This could be him" concept - which is made even more odd by the fact that the version of 'him' in D 11221 looks entirely different from what we can see of him.
Secondly - and this one is more of a personal bias than a legitimate point - Daffy appears in an actual comic. It's a comic that pretty much everyone considers 'non-canon'/unofficial in any real capacity, and the intent is definitely for XNC DRSV 4E to be the 'real' take on the boys' parentage, but it's still an actual comic story that depicts Daffy as the father. Even on moral grounds, there are plenty of other stories and characters that I'd be happy to disavow (I TL 2451-1 being an obvious example) but that's not really a solid basis at this point. This one's less of a solid point, but Return to Duckburg Place, even if it goes unacknowledged in any official capacity, is a comic depicting Daffy as the father, which, in my mind, holds more water than a family tree where the father's name can be replaced by any random name.
Plus, it's technically worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, XNC DRSV 4E goes against what Rosa was allowed to publish, doesn't it? I could be getting mixed up (It's been a while since I read the specific articles), but wasn't it the case that, outside of a random cameo or two, Rosa wasn't allowed to use Ludwig, and Disney didn't permit him to make that relationship 'canon'? Again, not 100% on that (I know there were cases where he was prevented from using Ludwig, but I might be ballooning it in my head to more than it actually was), but if I'm correct on that, then Mr. Duck is once more called into question, as is the validity of the tree itself. For the record, I'm not actually saying XNC DRSV 4E isn't valid - just that there are interesting points of comparison with Return to Duckburg Place. Both were officially published despite seemingly going against the wishes of the publisher.
Again, not necessarily saying Daffy should be added, but I definitely think the discussion is warranted - given how many other odd inclusions we have, I think it's worth talking about! (For the record, if we do go this route, would we be adding Daffy's relatives? I did up a tree for him on Family Echo, but I'm pretty sure it's not exhaustive - plus, there's a glaring issue that could cause problems, though I suppose it could be ignored)
Yeah, you are right that according to the "rules" we have currently set, Daffy is a valid father of HDL for inclusion on the tree, though rules can be adapted of course if we really don't want him on the tree.
That being said though, I just checked the story, and I can of course have missed something, but I didn't see him called Daffy Duck anywhere in the story. Yeah, based on how he looks like, it's probably intended to be the Daffy Duck from Looney Tunes, but it isn't said anywhere in the story. So, based on the story itself, it can also be interpreted as that there is a black duck who is said to be HDL's father. In that case there isn't necessarily any need to add other relatives of Daffy to the tree.
Oh absolutely, I'm familiar with the second version of Rosa's tree I know that's where we accept the current incarnation of 'Mr. Duck' to come from, however, there are technically a couple of holes in it, which is why I'm musing about Daffy.
XNC DRSV 4E has appeared in official publications - and more recently than Return to Duckburg Place - but it has some doubts of its own if we look at official material. For one, there's the fact that he's not a named character - like you say, Rosa slots in your own name in his place. Yes, he has a concrete design, but he's almost a non-character, in a way? Like, he's in the 'slot' of Huey, Dewey and Louie's father, but he's not necessarily the actual father - he could be any random guy with any random name. I don't know how well I'm articulating myself on that one, but the fact that he could have any random name and this is the only unobscured image of him comes across as a "This could be him" concept - which is made even more odd by the fact that the version of 'him' in D 11221 looks entirely different from what we can see of him.
Secondly - and this one is more of a personal bias than a legitimate point - Daffy appears in an actual comic. It's a comic that pretty much everyone considers 'non-canon'/unofficial in any real capacity, and the intent is definitely for XNC DRSV 4E to be the 'real' take on the boys' parentage, but it's still an actual comic story that depicts Daffy as the father. Even on moral grounds, there are plenty of other stories and characters that I'd be happy to disavow (I TL 2451-1 being an obvious example) but that's not really a solid basis at this point. This one's less of a solid point, but Return to Duckburg Place, even if it goes unacknowledged in any official capacity, is a comic depicting Daffy as the father, which, in my mind, holds more water than a family tree where the father's name can be replaced by any random name.
Plus, it's technically worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, XNC DRSV 4E goes against what Rosa was allowed to publish, doesn't it? I could be getting mixed up (It's been a while since I read the specific articles), but wasn't it the case that, outside of a random cameo or two, Rosa wasn't allowed to use Ludwig, and Disney didn't permit him to make that relationship 'canon'? Again, not 100% on that (I know there were cases where he was prevented from using Ludwig, but I might be ballooning it in my head to more than it actually was), but if I'm correct on that, then Mr. Duck is once more called into question, as is the validity of the tree itself. For the record, I'm not actually saying XNC DRSV 4E isn't valid - just that there are interesting points of comparison with Return to Duckburg Place. Both were officially published despite seemingly going against the wishes of the publisher.
Again, not necessarily saying Daffy should be added, but I definitely think the discussion is warranted - given how many other odd inclusions we have, I think it's worth talking about! (For the record, if we do go this route, would we be adding Daffy's relatives? I did up a tree for him on Family Echo, but I'm pretty sure it's not exhaustive - plus, there's a glaring issue that could cause problems, though I suppose it could be ignored)
Yeah, you are right that according to the "rules" we have currently set, Daffy is a valid father of HDL for inclusion on the tree, though rules can be adapted of course if we really don't want him on the tree.
That being said though, I just checked the story, and I can of course have missed something, but I didn't see him called Daffy Duck anywhere in the story. Yeah, based on how he looks like, it's probably intended to be the Daffy Duck from Looney Tunes, but it isn't said anywhere in the story. So, based on the story itself, it can also be interpreted as that there is a black duck who is said to be HDL's father. In that case there isn't necessarily any need to add other relatives of Daffy to the tree.
This is... an interesting point, actually.
It's clearly meant to be Daffy (It's literally him, plus the 'Sufferin' Succotash!'), but I suppose it's technically possible that he just happens to basically be him but not.
Dunno how relevant it is, but I figure now's the time to bring up that Daffy has acknowledged Donald's existence in the Looney Tunes comics:
There's also the bizarre appearance of the Daffy Duck pencil holder in I PM 348-1 as mentioned previously:
None of this carries any explicit mention of names - though the first one (Looney Tunes #1 I believe? Didn't think to keep track, but it was one of the first of the lot.) is about as explicit as you could get, I'd imagine.
And, while Daffy himself isn't name-dropped, it's worth noting that Warner Bros. gets an explicit mention in Return to Duckburg Place:
There are, of course, two instances in which Daffy appears with the Duck family - one being Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and the other being Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue. As was discussed before, though, both of these instances feature the characters as literal fictional versions of themselves (Toons in the former, merchandise brought to life in the latter - there's technically room for doubt on Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue, but since they all appear on the poster at the end, we can safely assume these aren't the real deal.) While Daffy and the boys don't interact at all in Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue, it's interesting to think about how they could technically be sharing the screen with their father in the movie. Even more interesting is how close they are in that final poster... they even seem to be looking at each other...?
Okay, okay, that's conspiratorial nonsense, but worth mentioning
It might be worth trying to track down one of the relevant Rosa collections? I'd be very surprised if they just showed something like Return to Duckburg Place with absolutely no context - seeing as it features graphic violence and uses slurs, it would probably need at least a little explanation? If it had an explanatory article, it might give a little insight into the context?
So, to recap: Daffy is aware of Donald's existence, as he has mentioned him multiple times. There have been two appearances in which Daffy has interacted with the Duck family - neither of which work with the tree (As both instances effectively have them as being fictional characters in the universe they're inhabiting, which is incompatible with the tree) The boys have a pencil holder that, while not explicitly being Daffy Duck, is pretty blatantly Daffy Duck. Finally, Return to Duckburg Place. We have a black duck who looks exactly like Daffy (Including the ring around his neck), even though this goes against the general Duck family appearances. This duck, in his only appearance, says 'Sufferin' Succotash!' - a phrase that is heavily associated with The Looney Tunes. And, as mentioned with Daisy, Warner Bros. explicitly exists in this comic.
I'd say there's sufficient evidence to say it's actually supposed to be Daffy Duck, and not just someone who resembles him - I'll roll with however we go, but I'd personally say that it's definitely him. I'm open to hearing how everyone else thinks it should be handled, though - I can definitely see both sides on this one
EDIT: Forgot to mention, I discussed it with the seller, and they confirmed that the Mini-Comics were included in their listings - so I should be getting G 1648 and G 1635 soon
Last Edit: Sept 12, 2023 20:18:47 GMT by alquackskey
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
So, to recap: Daffy is aware of Donald's existence, as he has mentioned him multiple times. There have been two appearances in which Daffy has interacted with the Duck family - neither of which work with the tree (As both instances effectively have them as being fictional characters in the universe they're inhabiting, which is incompatible with the tree) The boys have a pencil holder that, while not explicitly being Daffy Duck, is pretty blatantly Daffy Duck. Finally, Return to Duckburg Place. We have a black duck who looks exactly like Daffy (Including the ring around his neck), even though this goes against the general Duck family appearances. This duck, in his only appearance, says 'Sufferin' Succotash!' - a phrase that is heavily associated with The Looney Tunes. And, as mentioned with Daisy, Warner Bros. explicitly exists in this comic.
I'd say there's sufficient evidence to say it's actually supposed to be Daffy Duck, and not just someone who resembles him - I'll roll with however we go, but I'd personally say that it's definitely him. I'm open to hearing how everyone else thinks it should be handled, though - I can definitely see both sides on this one
Yes, with all the supported evidence, we can at least say that Donald and Daffy seem to exist in the same universe. And of course I have no doubt that it was the intention in that story that HDL's father is Daffy Duck and not another random unnamed duck. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth bringing it up that his name isn't actually mentioned in the story, so that there is still a little room for interpretation, depending on how strictly you look at it.
That panel in I PM 348-1 is in this context very strange indeed, as we should then come to the conclusion that HDL have a pencil holder in the shape of the head of their own father...
And if Daffy really needs to be on the tree, then another question that needs to be discussed is if the tree should be based on solely Disney publications (and those made on behalf or approved by Disney) or if sources by other companies are allowed. Because that will determine if all relatives of Daffy appearing in non-Disney sources should be considered as well. I don't know anything about Daffy's relatives, but I'm wondering if that might lead to the inclusion of other unexpected characters well.
Additional note: It's actually quite an interesting thought that Daffy being HDL's father gives a nice explanation why we never see their father or any relatives of their father in any Disney comic: the Disney company doesn't own the rights to publish stories about their father and his relatives, as those rights are with Warner Bros.
So, to recap: Daffy is aware of Donald's existence, as he has mentioned him multiple times. There have been two appearances in which Daffy has interacted with the Duck family - neither of which work with the tree (As both instances effectively have them as being fictional characters in the universe they're inhabiting, which is incompatible with the tree) The boys have a pencil holder that, while not explicitly being Daffy Duck, is pretty blatantly Daffy Duck. Finally, Return to Duckburg Place. We have a black duck who looks exactly like Daffy (Including the ring around his neck), even though this goes against the general Duck family appearances. This duck, in his only appearance, says 'Sufferin' Succotash!' - a phrase that is heavily associated with The Looney Tunes. And, as mentioned with Daisy, Warner Bros. explicitly exists in this comic.
I'd say there's sufficient evidence to say it's actually supposed to be Daffy Duck, and not just someone who resembles him - I'll roll with however we go, but I'd personally say that it's definitely him. I'm open to hearing how everyone else thinks it should be handled, though - I can definitely see both sides on this one
Yes, with all the supported evidence, we can at least say that Donald and Daffy seem to exist in the same universe. And of course I have no doubt that it was the intention in that story that HDL's father is Daffy Duck and not another random unnamed duck. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth bringing it up that his name isn't actually mentioned in the story, so that there is still a little room for interpretation, depending on how strictly you look at it.
That panel in I PM 348-1 is in this context very strange indeed, as we should then come to the conclusion that HDL have a pencil holder in the shape of the head of their own father...
And if Daffy really needs to be on the tree, then another question that needs to be discussed is if the tree should be based on solely Disney publications (and those made on behalf or approved by Disney) or if sources by other companies are allowed. Because that will determine if all relatives of Daffy appearing in non-Disney sources should be considered as well. I don't know anything about Daffy's relatives, but I'm wondering if that might lead to the inclusion of other unexpected characters well.
No, you definitely raise a valid point - even if we do assume it to be Daffy Duck, what do we actually accept as valid appearances for this Daffy? We can obviously say Return to Duckburg Place, and we could maybe say Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue in some capacity at a stretch. Much like the previously discussed Kingdom Hearts or Wizards of Mickey, we can't include Who Framed Roger Rabbit? on the grounds that the universe is simply incompatible with the main one (Or, at least, I'd see it this way - if anyone disagrees, I'm open to hearing it ) I'd imagine that the only way to really confirm/deny him as Daffy 'officially' would be to see the Don Rosa Collection volumes in which Return to Duckburg Place was published - but even at that, there's no actual guarantee of a clear explanation in those, so that might not work
The pencil holder is bizarre no matter what way you approach it - I have my own theories, but nothing with enough basis to actually warrant discussion.
I do think that's the major question with Daffy - if we include him, are the non-Disney sources valid for inclusion? I've read a lot of relevant comics - most of the Daffy Duck comics and most of the Looney Tunes ones. He has many relatives introduced in them - I have a catalogue of all of the relatives I could find. I have sources for pretty much all of them, as well as a list of the ones I haven't read, I think. If we do go down that route, though, there were two notable things that I opted to ignore in my tree for Daffy: One was that, in one comic (Didn't save the source), Daffy and Elmer are recognized as 'brothers' by a tribe of 'Indians'. It's never acknowledged outside of that issue, and obviously what it would mean legally is questionable - since it's one of many caricatures of the indigenous people - so I just ignored it. Elmer has a fair few relatives that I hadn't recorded at that point, so I was particularly not bothered anyway. The other is this:
These two cells are representations of the literal beginning of life - which raises many, many questions. Would we include it and just go with the relevant characters? There's no way, no how we'd be going through and documenting every single living being across Disney comics and Looney Tunes
Beyond that, I have a decent enough tree constructed (It's missing a few of the earlier ancestors, and many characters are given odd names - I was planning on putting it together with a visual aid, but that was a lot ) - obviously I don't necessarily have every relative, but I have most of the ones that would be found in Daffy Duck/Looney Tunes comics, as well as several from the shorts, a few from other sources etc I also saved sources for everyone I found, as well as noting my reasoning for any links I made - as well as documenting anyone who might be an ancestor but wasn't clearly designated as such.
So we're at least pretty well-prepared if we go down that route, though it's up to everybody else if we want to go that way
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Apologies to double-post, but I felt this point deserved its own post.
I'm no expert, but I've been told that it's implied that Howard the Duck is a cousin of Donald in some Marvel comics. I don't remember anything like that in the stories that I read (there was the odd gag, but nothing explicit - I'll try reading through them again when I get the chance to confirm) but I've seen a few people bring it up.
I know that parodies of our Ducks appear (There's a Scrounge McDrake and a Ludwig Von Cluck, as well as a cameo of what's basically Donald in a cover art), but I don't think there's any explicit reference made.
Hopefully the person was just misreading - I'd rather not invite this "Earth 791021" vs "Earth 47920" and whatnot business on-board, this is complicated enough as is
But back to the actual line of thinking - I'd say it's reasonable enough to ignore parodies, right? If a non-Disney company says "Yeah, this character is related to Donald Duck", it holds no weight - the only reason Daffy is eligible is because of his appearances in Disney products. So what would we say if Howard had something like this? It would probably have been said prior to the Marvel acquisition, but it would now be Disney property. Obviously, moot point at the moment as there's no clear connection and all I'm going on is a flippant comment made with no context that I haven't been able to corroborate. However, worth having an answer if it does come up.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
These two cells are representations of the literal beginning of life - which raises many, many questions. Would we include it and just go with the relevant characters? There's no way, no how we'd be going through and documenting every single living being across Disney comics and Looney Tunes
Obviously we cannot add every single living being to the tree, but there are I think several ways this problem can be solved: 1) We can simply limit the time frame of the tree. The cell that is here the common ancestor should presumably have lived billions of years ago, and the tree doesn't go as far back yet. The oldest on the tree is currently that prehistoric Duck with those eggs, that maybe lived 100 million years ago. If we don't go further back, these cells don't have to be on the tree. 2) Instead, we can also limit the tree to exclude relatives that are "born" via asexual reproduction. We are actually already doing this, kind of, by excluding clones. 3) Instead, we can also add the additional requirement that a relative is only placed on the tree if it is related to one other character besides this common ancestor. So, this story would just add this common ancestor to the tree, but not anyone else. This will thus avoid adding every living being to the tree, but it will still make the tree very messy though, because anyone who is already on the tree needs to have this cell as his direct ancestor, which means that every side branch on the tree needs to get a line down towards this shared ancestor... 4) Obviously, limiting ourselves to solely Disney sources will also get rid of the problem that this specific story poses. However, there might very well be a Disney story as well in which something similar is suggested...
So we're at least pretty well-prepared if we go down that route, though it's up to everybody else if we want to go that way
That's great that you have already collected a lot of information on Daffy's relatives. At the moment I am more or less neutral on the topic if we should add Daffy's relatives. I don't have big objections against adding them, but I could well understand it if others would prefer to leave those non-Disney characters mentioned in non-Disney sources out of the tree.
These two cells are representations of the literal beginning of life - which raises many, many questions. Would we include it and just go with the relevant characters? There's no way, no how we'd be going through and documenting every single living being across Disney comics and Looney Tunes
Obviously we cannot add every single living being to the tree, but there are I think several ways this problem can be solved: 1) We can simply limit the time frame of the tree. The cell that is here the common ancestor should presumably have lived billions of years ago, and the tree doesn't go as far back yet. The oldest on the tree is currently that prehistoric Duck with those eggs, that maybe lived 100 million years ago. If we don't go further back, these cells don't have to be on the tree. 2) Instead, we can also limit the tree to exclude relatives that are "born" via asexual reproduction. We are actually already doing this, kind of, by excluding clones. 3) Instead, we can also add the additional requirement that a relative is only placed on the tree if it is related to one other character besides this common ancestor. So, this story would just add this common ancestor to the tree, but not anyone else. This will thus avoid adding every living being to the tree, but it will still make the tree very messy though, because anyone who is already on the tree needs to have this cell as his direct ancestor, which means that every side branch on the tree needs to get a line down towards this shared ancestor... 4) Obviously, limiting ourselves to solely Disney sources will also get rid of the problem that this specific story poses. However, there might very well be a Disney story as well in which something similar is suggested...
So we're at least pretty well-prepared if we go down that route, though it's up to everybody else if we want to go that way
That's great that you have already collected a lot of information on Daffy's relatives. At the moment I am more or less neutral on the topic if we should add Daffy's relatives. I don't have big objections against adding them, but I could well understand it if others would prefer to leave those non-Disney characters mentioned in non-Disney sources out of the tree.
All definitely valid solutions - it's a bit of an odd one, certainly. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there has been something similar in Disney comics:
'La Molecola della Pippidita' - not currently linked to Donald in any way, but it influenced the birth of the first forms of life. It's not quite the same category but the principle does still apply.
Realistically, I think that the best option would be something of a mix of your ideas - my logic would be along the lines of: Any relative mentioned is eligible for addition. For example, were it to be a Goofy tree, the Goofy Molecule and the earliest forms of life (The cell, the fish etc) would be necessary inclusions - however, this works because there is a timeline linking them together - a 'through the ages' approach, so to speak. With the Looney Tunes cell, this 'lineage' is absent; we get the first cell and the one that split from it, but nothing following that. You mentioned common ancestors, and I think this is a valid point - yes, technically, they represent the first ever forms of life, but they're only linked to Daffy through that. There's no 'Daffy Molecule' or the like - in contrast with the Goofy story, where the actual lineage was provided. Maybe that's a bit of a flimsy argument, but I think it stands.
Plus, there's the nightmarish question - if we went with the inclusion of the Beginning of Life, we'd be accepting those first cells as actual ancestors through logical inference. Wouldn't that same logical inference need to follow through to the Goof Molecule and the life that sprang from there? Adding Goofy and his family to the tree would be nightmarish enough - but the fact that it would have come from an ancestor of DAFFY DUCK? That's too much
I wouldn't necessarily exclude beings born through asexual reproduction on principle - as with the Goofy Molecule, I think it would warrant inclusion on a Goofy tree - but I think we could ignore it in this case. Technically a valid inclusion, but causes too many problems, unless we want to start cataloguing Goofs as well
As for Non-Disney... I can definitely understand both sides. I don't think it should be ruled out on principle - obviously any non-Disney potential inclusions should be viewed with scrutiny, but I don't think they should be inherently blocked. In this case, however, I can understand where the doubt is coming from - so, like yourself, I leave the floor open to opinions. I'd be happy to add them, but I can also see why people wouldn't - Daffy's tree is, uh... something.
I'll try to put together a visual representation of Daffy's tree shortly for people's perusal - from what I understand, people generally just use the likes of an art program, there's no specific tool? Family Echo was great for constructing the tree, but it doesn't work well visually.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I'll try to put together a visual representation of Daffy's tree shortly for people's perusal - from what I understand, people generally just use the likes of an art program, there's no specific tool? Family Echo was great for constructing the tree, but it doesn't work well visually.
For sure there is some dedicated software to make a family tree, but I'm not really familiar with that. Such software can often also be quite limiting (like various online tools), especially if you don't want to invest too much in it. Many for example don't allow you to see the whole tree at once, especially if the tree gets large or complicated. Art programs give more freedom in how you want the tree to look like, and it can actually also be easier to construct the tree if you are already familiar with these programs. I'm using Inkscape to make the tree.