Here's a great decade-old discussion with Don Rosa about this very subject, in which he also described the Modified Emslie Anthropomorphism Scale (MEAS) without knowing it:
Here's a great decade-old discussion with Don Rosa about this very subject, in which he also described the Modified Emslie Anthropomorphism Scale (MEAS) without knowing it:
Interesting! (Vic Lockman's elusive, rambly answer at the end is oddly fitting for what we know of his character, I must say.)
Sorry, which answer are you referring to? "Vic Lockman" is a tag for this post, but I don't see him referenced anywhere?
Second part of the Interview. Click on "Next Post" when you reach the end of the first page, there's a whole second part to the review, and at the end, as a bonus, Vic Lockman's answer to the question.
Sorry, which answer are you referring to? "Vic Lockman" is a tag for this post, but I don't see him referenced anywhere?
Second part of the Interview. Click on "Next Post" when you reach the end of the first page, there's a whole second part to the review, and at the end, as a bonus, Vic Lockman's answer to the question.
Ah, thanks. Don't know how I missed that. Interesting the way Rosa mulls over the "is Duck a species or just a name" bit (the distinction between MEAS 4B1 and 4B2), and yes, Lockman's response was kind of besides the point.
The page is in German. What it says is that the "anthropomorphic animals" are in fact animalomorphic humans, all people there, like Donald, Gladstone, Micky and Goofy, belong to one species, "homo sapiens polymorphus" aka the morphologically diverse wise man. This theory stems from the fact that a dogface character (Scotty) has a human sceleton in the story where the visit Scrooge's castle in Scotland. Their bodies are covered not in flesh and skin, but a material that the author calls "morphotel", which is some kind of substance that is very durable, strong and relatively freely formable and it seems to slow the aging process. Besides, the teeth are part of the morphotel too and can change with mood. Real ducks don't have teeth and Donald too, except when he's angry, then his beak shows them. People can change the form of their morphotel at will sometimes, like female ducks do to fit their feet into shoes. BUT their are real thinking animals too. They're different from the rest of the population, since they don't belong to the human race and because of this they're not accepted in society.
The characters in most of The Italian-produced stories I'ved read are generally much more energetic (like they're on large overdoses of Speed, and they also seem to be less full-rounded as characters. Barks' main characters, like Donald, Scrooge and Huey, Dewey and Louie, show the full range of human emotions and actions, including acting prudent and reckless, smart and stupid, being mean or nice, uncaring or empathetic, being the hero or the villain, or the "goat". In Italian stories, they seem to be not only a lot more exaggerated, but also more stereotyped.
Well, I mean, wouldn't you say the same thing about unambiguously human cartoon characters like the Flintstones, the Simpsons or the Popeye gang? Sure, their behavior (and appearances) are exaggerated for comedic effect, but they're human in the same way that the Ducks are. The behavior in the Italian comics that you describe isn't animal-like anyway, although clearly not as nuanced or sophisticated as in the work of Barks.
The characters in most of The Italian-produced stories I'ved read are generally much more energetic (like they're on large overdoses of Speed, and they also seem to be less full-rounded as characters. Barks' main characters, like Donald, Scrooge and Huey, Dewey and Louie, show the full range of human emotions and actions, including acting prudent and reckless, smart and stupid, being mean or nice, uncaring or empathetic, being the hero or the villain, or the "goat". In Italian stories, they seem to be not only a lot more exaggerated, but also more stereotyped.
Well, I mean, wouldn't you say the same thing about unambiguously human cartoon characters like the Flintstones, the Simpsons or the Popeye gang? Sure, their behavior (and appearances) are exaggerated for comedic effect, but they're human in the same way that the Ducks are. The behavior in the Italian comics that you describe isn't animal-like anyway, although clearly not as nuanced or sophisticated as in the work of Barks.
Well, SOME of The Disney characters display some actions are animal-like. The Big Bad Wolf tries to eat The Three Little Pigs, who are sentient beings, all of whom interact with Donald, Mickey, and all the other Disney Comics sentient characters in a way that suggests they are members of the same "society". Some stories have The Ducks being hatched from eggs. Bre'r Fox wants to eat Bre'r Rabbit. Are they cannibals? Should we assume ALL Disney Comics characters are born inside eggs? We've never seen a live, mammalian-style birth among the characters which look like mammals. We've seen a few marsupials, and we HAVE seen mothers have their offspring carried in their patches. Should we assume that the bird-like characters have pouches, too, but we've just not seen any because we simply have not seen a scene in which a young child was traveling with its mother?
Well, SOME of The Disney characters display some actions are animal-like. The Big Bad Wolf tries to eat The Three Little Pigs, who are sentient beings, all of whom interact with Donald, Mickey, and all the other Disney Comics sentient characters in a way that suggests they are members of the same "society". Some stories have The Ducks being hatched from eggs. Bre'r Fox wants to eat Bre'r Rabbit. Are they cannibals? Should we assume ALL Disney Comics characters are born inside eggs? We've never seen a live, mammalian-style birth among the characters which look like mammals. We've seen a few marsupials, and we HAVE seen mothers have their offspring carried in their patches. Should we assume that the bird-like characters have pouches, too, but we've just not seen any because we simply have not seen a scene in which a young child was traveling with its mother?
Yes, I agree completely about the Big Bad Wolf and Song of the South characters. That's why those characters cannot co-exist with Mickey and Donald in my headcanon. But the discussion here was mainly about the Italian Duck comics, and you mentioned earlier in this thread that you "don't feel that the Duck universe characters in the Italian stories act like humans", and I was just suggesting that the reasons you gave would apply to many human cartoon characters as well and were not particularly animal-like. I dislike the idea that the Ducks lay eggs or have feathers, but unless those are major plot points (for example, a story of how Donald hatched from an egg Grandma bought at a market to make an omelette) I would just ignore them. Do you think the Ducks hatch from eggs?
Well, SOME of The Disney characters display some actions are animal-like. The Big Bad Wolf tries to eat The Three Little Pigs, who are sentient beings, all of whom interact with Donald, Mickey, and all the other Disney Comics sentient characters in a way that suggests they are members of the same "society". Some stories have The Ducks being hatched from eggs. Bre'r Fox wants to eat Bre'r Rabbit. Are they cannibals? Should we assume ALL Disney Comics characters are born inside eggs? We've never seen a live, mammalian-style birth among the characters which look like mammals. We've seen a few marsupials, and we HAVE seen mothers have their offspring carried in their patches. Should we assume that the bird-like characters have pouches, too, but we've just not seen any because we simply have not seen a scene in which a young child was traveling with its mother?
Yes, I agree completely about the Big Bad Wolf and Song of the South characters. That's why those characters cannot co-exist with Mickey and Donald in my headcanon. But the discussion here was mainly about the Italian Duck comics, and you mentioned earlier in this thread that you "don't feel that the Duck universe characters in the Italian stories act like humans", and I was just suggesting that the reasons you gave would apply to many human cartoon characters as well and were not particularly animal-like. I dislike the idea that the Ducks lay eggs or have feathers, but unless those are major plot points (for example, a story of how Donald hatched from an egg Grandma bought at a market to make an omelette) I would just ignore them. Do you think the Ducks hatch from eggs?
Donald was seen breaking out of his egg in Marco Rota's Italian comic book telling his life story. So, YES, I think The Italians (at least many of them) think The Ducks hatch from eggs. As for myself, - NO, I don't think they hatch from eggs.
But my differentiating the Italian Duck stories from those of Barks is NOT because The Italian writers and artists keep their characters more animal-like, but just the fact that, on the whole, they are less well-rounded (like Humans are as opposed to animals), and act more emotional - which is closer to acting by instinct, rather than reason (also more like animals than Barks' characters).
So, I read Barks stories as if all the characters are Humans. I also read Jippes/Milton stories like that. I really don't read most of the early non-Barks Duck artist stories like that. They are just comics to me (more for viewing art) - not as literature. Gottfredson's stories, and several of the other good Mickey epic story writers, I read like literature, too, but sometimes do, and sometimes don't, feel that the characters are Human.
Well, SOME of The Disney characters display some actions are animal-like. The Big Bad Wolf tries to eat The Three Little Pigs, who are sentient beings, all of whom interact with Donald, Mickey, and all the other Disney Comics sentient characters in a way that suggests they are members of the same "society". Some stories have The Ducks being hatched from eggs. Bre'r Fox wants to eat Bre'r Rabbit. Are they cannibals? Should we assume ALL Disney Comics characters are born inside eggs? We've never seen a live, mammalian-style birth among the characters which look like mammals. We've seen a few marsupials, and we HAVE seen mothers have their offspring carried in their patches. Should we assume that the bird-like characters have pouches, too, but we've just not seen any because we simply have not seen a scene in which a young child was traveling with its mother?
Yes, I agree completely about the Big Bad Wolf and Song of the South characters. That's why those characters cannot co-exist with Mickey and Donald in my headcanon. But the discussion here was mainly about the Italian Duck comics, and you mentioned earlier in this thread that you "don't feel that the Duck universe characters in the Italian stories act like humans", and I was just suggesting that the reasons you gave would apply to many human cartoon characters as well and were not particularly animal-like. I dislike the idea that the Ducks lay eggs or have feathers, but unless those are major plot points (for example, a story of how Donald hatched from an egg Grandma bought at a market to make an omelette) I would just ignore them. Do you think the Ducks hatch from eggs?
The final of "The Spring Of Instant Youth", from Carl Fallberg, requires that ducks hatch from eggs; even worse, in "O Nascimento do Biquinho" ducks apparently hatch from eggs carried by storks (and this is very relevant for the story).
Last Edit: Jun 7, 2020 18:24:24 GMT by crazycatlord
In most ways, I think it makes the most sense for the ducks and dogs and mice of the Disney universe to simply be caricatures of humans. But then again, if Donald doesn't have any duck-like characteristics ... what's the point of him being a duck then?
I'll give praise to BoJack Horseman, which is a show that I think handles this problem pretty well. A lot of characters on that show are humanoid animals, and most of them retain some animalistic characteristics as part of their personality. However, I don't remember any animal-animals on that show (that is, no non-humanoid animals). I don't think pets exist, for example, so maybe it's not a perfect analogy.
I think my current head-canon has the Duck-universe working like the BoJack one, except non-anthropomorphic animals co-exist with humanoid ones. I don't know where I stand on the egg-question, though.
In most ways, I think it makes the most sense for the ducks and dogs and mice of the Disney universe to simply be caricatures of humans. But then again, if Donald doesn't have any duck-like characteristics ... what's the point of him being a duck then?
Except perhaps in the earliest of Disney cartoons, the "animal" nature of Mickey, Goofy, et al. was irrelevant. They acted and were treated like humans, in stark contrast to the Looney Tunes, for example, where Bugs being a rabbit and Daffy being a duck often drove the plot and gags. So, to be honest, there is absolutely no point in Mickey being a mouse or Donald being a duck. They might as well be humans. This carries over in an even starker way into the comics. In fact, I would say that the recent Mickey Mouse animated Christmas Special, Duck the Halls, was remarkable in that it actually hinged around the Ducks' animal tendencies ... moving to warmer climes during winter because they are ducks. This was unusual ... perhaps a first (?) in Disney animation starring the classic characters.
Except perhaps in the earliest of Disney cartoons, the "animal" nature of Mickey, Goofy, et al. was irrelevant. They acted and were treated like humans, in stark contrast to the Looney Tunes, for example, where Bugs being a rabbit and Daffy being a duck often drove the plot and gags. So, to be honest, there is absolutely no point in Mickey being a mouse or Donald being a duck. They might as well be humans. This carries over in an even starker way into the comics. In fact, I would say that the recent Mickey Mouse animated Christmas Special, Duck the Halls, was remarkable in that it actually hinged around the Ducks' animal tendencies ... moving to warmer climes during winter because they are ducks.
I mostly agree with you. But I imagine Donald's quacking voice is the extent of his ducki-ness. The fact that Mickey and Minnie love cheese in Death Valley and Mickey diegetically having a tail in Vs. Kat Nipp is the extent of their mouse-like characteristics. That's fine to me. They are humanoid ducks and mice. I no longer see any need for them to be fully human but seen through an animal lens.
(Even I think that Duck the Halls sounds weird though.)
I mostly agree with you. But I imagine Donald's quacking voice is the extent of his ducki-ness. The fact that Mickey and Minnie love cheese in Death Valley and Mickey diegetically having a tail in Vs. Kat Nipp is the extent of their mouse-like characteristics. That's fine to me. They are humanoid ducks and mice. I no longer see any need for them to be fully human but seen through an animal lens.
(Even I think that Duck the Halls sounds weird though.)
As far as Donald's quacky voice goes, though, while Daisy and HD&L were given similar voices in the early days, for the most part it's always been treated as a personal speech impediment he has rather than as something all Ducks in this universe exhibit. In one classic cartoon, Daisy commiserates with Donald that no one can understand him, but it's clearly not a problem she has herself (and in both versions of DuckTales, it's clearly limited to Donald, both in and out-of-universe).
The two Mickey examples you cite are from very early strips; there's virtually no similar example that I can think of once the "ground realities" of the Mouseverse were firmly established.
