Elroy, Ellsworth, Pluto, Goofy, what's an animal and what's a person

[drakeborough]

Jun 24, 2017 21:27:20 GMT Monkey_Feyerabend said:

Jun 24, 2017 21:11:15 GMT drakeborough said:

I also have no problems in Minnie being scared by seeing a (real) mouse, as it happened in a Gottfredson story: things like that happen all the time when writers know what they are doing. When they don't know it, however, we have nonsense like Donald being offended in the example above, or a Donald lookalike having two real ducks as parents in a Guido Martina parody story, and similar examples.

I just named you a famous story by Barks doing that. Would you say that Barks did not know what he was doing?

I wouldn't say that Barks didn't know what he was doing, since there's nothing wrong at all with this scene:

Jun 24, 2017 21:27:20 GMT Monkey_Feyerabend said:

And I think that even Gottfredson is being ironical, or playing with the meta-level, when shows Minnie afraid of a mouse.

Of course Gottfredson is being ironical, but it's an irony that works because Minnie is actually a person, and so it's normal that she would be scared by a mouse. Meta-level, sure, but readers who don't regard Minnie as a person are the ones who often claim this scene doesn't make sense (for me, it perfectly makes sense).

Jun 24, 2017 21:36:33 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

The story in question is, "The Retriever".

There's a brilliant analysis of its horrific, multilayered implications in this blog post.

Actually, you posted the same link twice.

Jun 24, 2017 21:36:33 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

And I agree that we shouldn't really be seeing non-anthropomorphic animals talk among themselves.

I'm more neutral about that. Didn't Barks himself occasionally show non-anthropomorphic animals talk among themselves? At the moment, I can only think of "Hang Gliders Be Hanged!" (written by Tom Anderson based on a Barks plot), which shows eagles talking to themselves, with a note saying their dialogues are translated for us: if I remember correctly, that was one of the scenes that were not in Barks' synopsis. Does anyone remembers some actual Barks examples?

Anyway, I'm fine witht the concept as long as it is not abused.

Jun 24, 2017 21:36:33 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

But there are several gray areas. What about when we have panels where Pluto's thoughts are displayed (for example, "Mickey's really mad this time, thinks Pluto"?) Where does that fall?

Again, I think there's nothing wrong in giving Pluto some though bubbles as long as it doesn't happen too often.

Jun 24, 2017 21:36:33 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Also, Chip N' Dale talk to Donald in several Duck stories. I am, of course, not going to talk about the cartoons. 

For me, that's bad. If I were an editor, I wouldn't allow Chip N' Dale being shown talking to Donald.

[Matilda]

Jun 24, 2017 21:58:43 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

<abbr class="o-timestamp time" title="Jun 24, 2017 17:58:43 GMT -4" data-timestamp="1498341523000">Jun 24, 2017 17:58:43 GMT -4</abbr> Scrooge MacDuck  the idea that all these sapient chickens are being slaughtered and so on is just plain depressing.

My impression is that writers tend to give thoughts, chess-playing ability, etc., to animals which we the readers don't eat.

Yes, Chip and Dale do speak to Donald (and other "humans") in some stories. In my headcanon, though, while I do allow them to live in the woods near Duckburg (because they took up residence there in my childhood and I can't evict them), I do not allow them to speak to "humans," just to each other and other forest-dwelling creatures. They interact with Donald, particularly for some reason at Christmastime , but they do not speak to him. They speak and he hears only chittering.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 24, 2017 22:10:45 GMT Matilda said:

Jun 24, 2017 21:58:43 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

<abbr class="o-timestamp time" title="Jun 24, 2017 17:58:43 GMT -4" data-timestamp="1498341523000">Jun 24, 2017 17:58:43 GMT -4</abbr> Scrooge MacDuck  the idea that all these sapient chickens are being slaughtered and so on is just plain depressing.

My impression is that writers tend to give thoughts, chess-playing ability, etc., to animals which we the readers don't eat.

Ahem. Bambi, anyone? Also, I'm pretty sure Gyro invented a translator that allowed him to understand whale-language in one story. And in what was definitely a Barks-drawn story, he used the Universal Translator on one of Grandma's hens.

[drakeborough]

Jun 24, 2017 21:54:34 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 24, 2017 21:36:33 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Also, Chip N' Dale talk to Donald in several Duck stories. I am, of course, not going to talk about the cartoons. 

I always thought of Chip and Dale as anthropomorphic chipmunks, not animals — in the same sense as Gus and Jacq. 

For me, Chip and Dale are not anthropomorphic at all, since they look like real chipmunks, looks minuscule if compared to Donald and and even to HDL, do not wear clothes, live in a tree rather than in a house, always eat acorns, are chased by Donald who tries to shoot them etc.

Jun 24, 2017 21:58:43 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 24, 2017 21:41:12 GMT drakeborough said:

That's what I hoped. I have no problems in animals talking to each others, and I even think it happened in some Barks stories.

I do think there is a contradiction of sorts, though, in the sense that such a world plain doesn't make sense. As much as I love The Aristocats or 101 Dalmatians, those are worlds that absolutely could not exist. Even if they can only talk to each other, how could the fact that all these creatures are sapient have flown right over the humans' (or "pseudo-humans" in Disney comics)' heads? And you'd think that at some point, the animals would try to reach out to the humans somehow., or simply started setting up some kind of autonomous civilization with technology and such that the humans should, by all means, notice. (See Animal Farm for further information.) And in a world where they don't, the idea that all these sapient chickens are being slaughtered and so on is just plain depressing.

I think it is too much to imagine such scenes just for a few scenes in which we see the animals communicate to each other, or an animal's thought bubble.

[drakeborough]

I see that Chip and Dale also talk to Donald (who talks back at them) in Italian stories. For example, in "Topolino e la doppia vigilia di Natale" (1955-1956), we see one of them pleading Donald not to destroy their tree, since it's their home and they would die of cold without a home, to which Donald laughs and says he doesn't care (typical Guido Martina).

By the way, I guess this is one of the scenes that Scrooge MacDuck would find "just plain depressing", since he sees Chip and Dale as anthropomorphic animals rather than actual animals.

[Matilda]

Jun 24, 2017 22:18:00 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 24, 2017 22:10:45 GMT Matilda said:

My impression is that writers tend to give thoughts, chess-playing ability, etc., to animals which we the readers don't eat.

Ahem. Bambi, anyone? Also, I'm pretty sure Gyro invented a translator that allowed him to understand whale-language in one story. And in what was definitely a Barks-drawn story, he used the Universal Translator on one of Grandma's hens.

I was thinking of Disney Duck and Mouse comics, not movies or literature in general (Charlotte's Web is one where the fact that we eat this here-sentient creature is front and center). We the readers do not eat whales, generally speaking. The hen, though, that would be a counterexample. When I said "my impression" it was just that--the ones I could think of in Duck and Mouse comics were pets or wild animals which we don't eat.  Not non-anthropomorphic pigs, cows, or chickens.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jun 24, 2017 22:10:45 GMT Matilda said:

Actually, you posted the same link twice.

Sorry, fixed that.
This is the blog I wanted to link to.
And yes, I think this discussion of degrees of anthropomorphism needs to be limited to Duck and Mouse comic universes. The Disney movie universe is far too varied and eclectic to be codifed. There's no way Scrooge and the Aristocats can exist in the same universe, in my headcanon. I mean, such an admixture is okay for frivolities like House of Mouse, but not for a universe where Rosa and Gottfredson stories take place.
Someone mentioned Jaq and Gus-Gus; they're an even better example of anthropomorphism gone wrong than Chip 'N Dale, in that they suffer from the same problem and appear more frequently. Actually, that's really the reason why I hate them.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 24, 2017 22:18:05 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 24, 2017 21:54:34 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

I always thought of Chip and Dale as anthropomorphic chipmunks, not animals — in the same sense as Gus and Jacq. 

For me, Chip and Dale are not anthropomorphic at all, since they look like real chipmunks, looks minuscule if compared to Donald and and even to HDL, do not wear clothes, live in a tree rather than in a house, always eat acorns, are chased by Donald who tries to shoot them etc.

"Do not wear clothes"? What about Rescue Rangers? If not to the comics, then at least the Chaos God storyline established that show was canon to the DuckTales/Darkwing Duck mythos.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 24, 2017 22:29:48 GMT Matilda said:

Jun 24, 2017 22:18:00 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Ahem. Bambi, anyone? Also, I'm pretty sure Gyro invented a translator that allowed him to understand whale-language in one story. And in what was definitely a Barks-drawn story, he used the Universal Translator on one of Grandma's hens.

I was thinking of Disney Duck and Mouse comics, not movies or literature in general (Charlotte's Web is one where the fact that we eat this here-sentient creature is front and center). We the readers do not eat whales, generally speaking. The hen, though, that would be a counterexample. When I said "my impression" it was just that--the ones I could think of in Duck and Mouse comics were pets or wild animals which we don't eat.  Not non-anthropomorphic pigs, cows, or chickens.

We do not eat whales, but it's common knowledge that whales were once rather savagely hunted.

[drakeborough]

Jun 24, 2017 23:08:28 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Jun 24, 2017 22:10:45 GMT Matilda said:

Actually, you posted the same link twice.

Sorry, fixed that.
This is the blog I wanted to link to.

Indeed, the link is correct now so I could read that page.

The funny thing is that, right after reading your message, I checked an Italian Facebook page about Disney comics and I found out that the top comment of a post from two days ago was the image (in English) of Fethry saying "Hi, Don! I'm goin' duck hinting!". The post was about this image:



For me, there's nothing strange or weird about it, but it is really funny that the same Fethry image (which I had never seen until yesterday) was posted in two websites about Disney, independently from each other, just one day apart.

Jun 24, 2017 23:08:28 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

And yes, I think this discussion of degrees of anthropomorphism needs to be limited to Duck and Mouse comic universes. The Disney movie universe is far too varied and eclectic to be codifed. There's no way Scrooge and the Aristocats can exist in the same universe, in my headcanon. I mean, such an admixture is okay for frivolities like House of Mouse, but not for a universe where Rosa and Gottfredson stories take place.

I totally agree with this. Characters from Disney movies are out of place in the Duck and Mouse universes, since they are often adapted from novels/fairy tales/etc. that have a tone that doesn't fit these comics at all, not to mention that Disney movies often take place in different countries and/or in different times, which in some cases even means centuries ago.

Jun 24, 2017 23:08:28 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Someone mentioned Jaq and Gus-Gus; they're an even better example of anthropomorphism gone wrong than Chip 'N Dale, in that they suffer from the same problem and appear more frequently. Actually, that's really the reason why I hate them.

Indeed, they are really out of place when they are shown at Grandma's farm, and the fact that these stories are almost always bad doesn't help things.

Jun 25, 2017 8:22:07 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 24, 2017 22:18:05 GMT drakeborough said:

For me, Chip and Dale are not anthropomorphic at all, since they look like real chipmunks, looks minuscule if compared to Donald and and even to HDL, do not wear clothes, live in a tree rather than in a house, always eat acorns, are chased by Donald who tries to shoot them etc.

"Do not wear clothes"? What about Rescue Rangers?

I can't answer because I don't know that, but I think most mainstream portrayals of them, like all the cartoons I can think of and many comics I have in mind (including the picture I posted yesterday) show them without clothes.

By the way, don't you think that your views about mixing of universes and anthropomorphic animals sometimes prevent you from fully enjoying a story? For example, the scene in "Voodoo Hoodoo" where Donald is going to be shrunk to the size of a mouse is really dramatic, but in your review of the story you wrote this, without being ironic:

There's some good tension here, but the stake seems kind of ridiculous in comparison. I mean, you're gonna be shrunk to the size of a mouse. I can see why it would be unpleasant, but there's nothing to be too tragic (for Donald) or sadistic (for Foola) about. It's nothing too deadly or harmful, especially considering that in the Disney Comics world, anthropomorphic mice exist, which means there already are facilities arranged for 10-centimeters-tall people.

After I raised a few objections, you said "Alright, I get that. But even without these concerns, I still find the tension to be debatable".

Of course, anyone is free to have his/her own ideas about the Disney world (just like about everything else), but I feel a bit sorry for the fact that certain ideas prevent some readers to fully enjoy some stories.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 25, 2017 10:20:24 GMT drakeborough said:

After I raised a few objections, you said "Alright, I get that. But even without these concerns, I still find the tension to be debatable".

Of course, anyone is free to have his/her own ideas about the Disney world (just like about everything else), but I feel a bit sorry for the fact that certain ideas prevent some readers to fully enjoy some stories.

You are entitled to your opinion, but as I said then, whether or not Jacq and Gus' species exists in this universe, I find that Donald's reaction to being about to be shrunken is a bit of an overreaction. After all, once it's all done, he'll be able to walk away scott-free. Even possibly get Gyro Gearloose or something to reverse it. Not exactly Maleficent-level evil. Foola Zoola's attitude about it is even weirder; he behaves like what he's about to do is the very bottom of depravity, when no, it's clearly not.

[drakeborough]

Jun 25, 2017 10:41:18 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 25, 2017 10:20:24 GMT drakeborough said:

After I raised a few objections, you said "Alright, I get that. But even without these concerns, I still find the tension to be debatable".

Of course, anyone is free to have his/her own ideas about the Disney world (just like about everything else), but I feel a bit sorry for the fact that certain ideas prevent some readers to fully enjoy some stories.

You are entitled to your opinion, but as I said then, whether or not Jacq and Gus' species exists in this universe, I find that Donald's reaction to being about to be shrunken is a bit of an overreaction. After all, once it's all done, he'll be able to walk away scott-free.

Do you mean that, if something similar happened in real life and you were the one who is about to be shrunk to the size of a mouse in a few minutes, you would act as if it was no big deal at all, just because you know that after that you will be able to walk away scott-free?

Jun 25, 2017 10:41:18 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Even possibly get Gyro Gearloose or something to reverse it.

But the story is from 1949, while Gyro was created in 1952.

Jun 25, 2017 10:41:18 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Not exactly Maleficent-level evil. Foola Zoola's attitude about it is even weirder; he behaves like what he's about to do is the very bottom of depravity, when no, it's clearly not.

Sometimes being tortured for your whole life is worse than (or almost as bad as) dying, and being shrunk is certainly a big form of torture.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jun 25, 2017 8:22:07 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 24, 2017 22:18:05 GMT drakeborough said:

For me, Chip and Dale are not anthropomorphic at all, since they look like real chipmunks, looks minuscule if compared to Donald and and even to HDL, do not wear clothes, live in a tree rather than in a house, always eat acorns, are chased by Donald who tries to shoot them etc.

"Do not wear clothes"? What about Rescue Rangers? If not to the comics, then at least the Chaos God storyline established that show was canon to the DuckTales/Darkwing Duck mythos.

I think, like the classic cartoons, the Disney Afternoon properties that star characters from the Duck and Mouse universes (DuckTales '87, Chip 'N Dale Rescue Rangers, Goof Troop and Quack Pack) all have to be considered a separate universe. Otherwise, how can you reconcile Scrooge going "back to the Klondike" when Donald is in the navy, Pete and Goofy having sons, or Donald living in a "Duckburg" inhabited by humans? It works both ways; for example, Donald Duck could never appear in an episode of CDRR. Max Goof is possibly the only element from the Disney Afternoon that has carried over somewhat to the comics universe, although not to any great extent, I believe.

As for Donald and the boys having turkey for Thanksgiving, only someone who does not understand how the Duck universe works could cite that as an example of cannibalism. Unlike the whole Big Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs situation, which clearly is a case of attempted murder and cannibalism (another reason why these characters cannot exist in the Duck or Mouse universes in my headcanon).

[drakeborough]

Jun 25, 2017 11:49:35 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Jun 25, 2017 8:22:07 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

"Do not wear clothes"? What about Rescue Rangers? If not to the comics, then at least the Chaos God storyline established that show was canon to the DuckTales/Darkwing Duck mythos.

I think, like the classic cartoons, the Disney Afternoon properties that star characters from the Duck and Mouse universes (DuckTales '87, Chip 'N Dale Rescue Rangers, Goof Troop and Quack Pack) all have to be considered a separate universe. Otherwise, how can you reconcile Scrooge going "back to the Klondike" when Donald is in the navy, Pete and Goofy having sons, or Donald living in a "Duckburg" inhabited by humans?

I agree with almost everything you said here, however I think there are other things that make Quack Pack non-canon to the comics rather then the presence of humans. After all, you and I both see all of Duckburg inhabitants (including Donald and his relatives) as actually being humans that just happen to be often drawn with animal features as part of a charicature, so I don't think there's anything wrong if the "lens" that gives them their animal features is sometimes turned off, as long as this only happens to the extras and not to Donald or any character with an established design: after all, there are many precedents of humans as extras in both animation and comics taking place in the Duck and Mouse Universe.

That said, I would use dognoses rather than humans if I were an artist of Disney comics.

Jun 25, 2017 11:49:35 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

It works both ways; for example, Donald Duck could never appear in an episode of CDRR. Max Goof is possibly the only element from the Disney Afternoon that has carried over somewhat to the comics universe, although not to any great extent, I believe.

I wouldn't say that Max was carried to the standard Mouse comic universe. He appears in 40 comics (though anothe Inducks page oddly lists only 39 stories), and 37 of them are set in the Goof Troop universe. As for the other 3 stories: the first stars Goofy and is apparently set in the normal universe, and Max' appearance is so odd that Inducks put an exclamation mark after his name in the list of characters, the second is an adaptation of Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas, and the third (in which Max only has a cameo) is set in the Darkwing Duck universe, which is a Disney Afternoon show, not to mention that it is connected to DuckTales rather than to the classic comics.

As far as the standard Mouse universe goes, Goofy has no son (minus the single example that I listed above) and he is definitely a bachelor and not a vidower. Because of that, I find it annoying when someone tries to indicate various female characters from the Mouse comic universe as the possible mother of Max. It's only the animation that (unfortunately) kept Max even after the Goof Troop show and movies ended, though it seems that they removed it from most recent productions, which is a good thing.

Jun 25, 2017 11:49:35 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

As for Donald and the boys having turkey for Thanksgiving, only someone who does not understand how the Duck universe works could cite that as an example of cannibalism.

I am 100% with you on this point, though at the same time I like the jokes that Italian comedian, actor and writer Claudio Bisio made on these subjects (maybe one day I will open a thread about them)

Jun 25, 2017 11:49:35 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Unlike the whole Big Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs situation, which clearly is a case of attempted murder and cannibalism (another reason why these characters cannot exist in the Duck or Mouse universes in my headcanon).

This is a bit different, since the Big Bad Wolf (does he have a first name in English?) and the Three Little Pigs are humanized enough to speak, wear clothes, live in a house etc., but are stll animals enough to the point that the wolf can try eating the pigs without looking a cannibal. They are hybrid characters, and like I said I think hybrid characters have no place in the Duck and Mouse universe, meaning that if I were an editor we wouldn't see anymore things like Big Bad Wolf interacting with Grandma Duck or Super Goof.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 25, 2017 13:08:26 GMT drakeborough said:

As far as the standard Mouse universe goes, Goofy has no son (minus the single example that I listed above) and he is definitely a bachelor and not a vidower. Because of that, I find it annoying when someone tries to indicate various female characters from the Mouse comic universe as the possible mother of Max. It's only the animation that (unfortunately) kept Max even after the Goof Troop show and movies ended, though it seems that they removed it from most recent productions, which is a good thing.

You are mistaken on one account, though: Goofy having a son was not made up for Goof Troop. In the 50's and 60's, it was a recurring element of his theatrical cartoons that he was married and had a young son, who was only ever called "Junior" (most people think Max is that 'Junior' all grown up, suggestig Goof Troop takes place a few years after those theatrical cartoons).


On an other note enitrely, in my view of continuity, it's easy to reconcile Max with Goofy's apparent son-lessness: House of Mouse, generally agreed to take place a few years after An Extremely Goofy Movie (the chronologically last work set in the Goof Troop series), shows Max having a job as a doorman. Indeed, from Goof Troop to A Goofy Movie to An Extremely Goofy Movie to House of Mouse, Max is seen steadily aging from a twelve-year-old to an adult, a unique case in Classic Disney paraphernalia, I believe. At any rate, it's easy to assume that Gottfredson stories took place when Goofy was still single, and that recent stories that have him single again take place when Max is already an independant young man.