George Geef and Junior, Goofy and Max, Donald's son

[Scroogerello]

@ drakeborough : Well, yes, Donald was said to be an actor in the "Disneyland" series, but the same series also presented the shorts themselves as moments from the character's own life ("This is Your Life, Donald Duck, "Inside Donald Duck", and many more). Fans now use the whole "actor" thing to explain inconsistenties, but that wasn't what those shorts were intended to be.
Also, "Donald's Fire Survival Plan" is not a short from the classic Donald Duck series--it's one of the later Disney educational films that were released years after the series of shorts had ended.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 28, 2017 20:43:28 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, "Donald's Fire Survival Plan" is not a short from the classic Donald Duck series--it's one of the later Disney educational films that were released years after the series of shorts had ended.

Disney was never big on what cartoon was part of what (see Donald and Pluto somehow being a Mickey Mouse cartoon officially). Most fans however count Donald Duck in Mathmagicland, Donald Duck and the Wheel, Donald's Fire Survival Plan, The Litterbug and the How to have an accident duology as all being part of the Donald Duck series, even though technically the last "standard" episode was Chips Ahoy.

[drakeborough]

Jun 28, 2017 20:20:53 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(1) Oh! Well, obviously, "Junior" is not a real first name at all — it's a nickname. Goofy could just as well call his son "sonny boy".

But "Junior" is used when father and son have the same name, so it stands for "George Junior". I don't see how "Junior" could stand for "Max".

Jun 28, 2017 20:20:53 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(2) The comic is an adaptation (in the same loose sense as Scrooge McDuck and Money and This is your life, Donald Duck) of the TV special of the same name, and we already established that this special showed Goofy with Junior from the George Geef cartoons, so it's easy to imagine Lockman writing Junior into his script because of that, and a confused Strobl who didn't watch the special assuming a "Goofy Junior" is probably some kind of miniature Goofy like Gilbert.

Oh, I didn't notice that it was an adaptation of the special mentioned by Scroogerello (maybe because in that message the special's title was given as "The Adventure Special"). At any rate, I see that the comic book version is a frame story to other comics by Lockman/Strobl, none of which features Goofy Junior: one of them features Goofy and Clarabelle, and all the others feature Goofy alone.

Jun 28, 2017 20:20:53 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(3) Indeed I would.

From your wording it seems you never saw it: if that's the case, the Italian version of it is on Youtube under the title "I capolavori di Pippo".

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 28, 2017 21:30:09 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 28, 2017 20:20:53 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(1) Oh! Well, obviously, "Junior" is not a real first name at all — it's a nickname. Goofy could just as well call his son "sonny boy".

But "Junior" is used when father and son have the same name, so it stands for "George Junior". I don't see how "Junior" could stand for "Max".

Sure, the proper use of "junior" is for when father and son have the same name, but vernacularly speaking, "junior" is often used as cute shorthand for someone's son. It's improper, but it's a kind of improper that rightfully belongs in Goofy's mouth.

[Scroogerello]

Jun 28, 2017 21:22:21 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 28, 2017 20:43:28 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, "Donald's Fire Survival Plan" is not a short from the classic Donald Duck series--it's one of the later Disney educational films that were released years after the series of shorts had ended.

Disney was never big on what cartoon was part of what (see Donald and Pluto somehow being a Mickey Mouse cartoon officially). Most fans however count Donald Duck in Mathmagicland, Donald Duck and the Wheel, Donald's Fire Survival Plan, The Litterbug and the How to have an accident duology as all being part of the Donald Duck series, even though technically the last "standard" episode was Chips Ahoy.

Ah, I understand. Personally, though, I'd say the longer episodes that did not feature the classical opening intro were not part of the series, but things do seem a bit ambiguous.

Also, regarding the Donald Duck short where HDL drive a car: it's called "Lucky Number". When it aired in the "Disneyland" episode "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake says the story takes place ten years after the "present" (i.e. when HDL are kids).

[Orora]

Jun 28, 2017 15:59:51 GMT Scroogerello said:

Jun 28, 2017 15:38:03 GMT drakeborough said:

Goof Troop is simply one big mistake, since they clearly presented it as a show about the real Goofy, and yet they threw away everything we know about the Mouse continuity for no reason, including giving him a son. The real Goofy is a bachelor, and never had a son in either the comics or the cartoons .

He did actually, in at least two comics that I know of (one classic comic, and a more recent example in an installment of "A Goofy Look At...", based on the classic "How to..." Goofy cartoons)

coa.inducks.org/character.php?c1=date&c=Goofy%20Junior&view=4
coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=H+23013&search=%20%20Max

Also, the 1957 "Disneyland" episode "The Adventure Story", shows the "regular" Goofy with the son from the George Geef cartoons.

From the preview pictures, this "Goofy Junior" in The Goofy Adventure Story only seems to be another nephew. In the French version one, he calls Goofy "uncle".

[drakeborough]

Jun 28, 2017 20:43:28 GMT Scroogerello said:

@ drakeborough : Well, yes, Donald was said to be an actor in the "Disneyland" series, but the same series also presented the shorts themselves as moments from the character's own life ("This is Your Life, Donald Duck, "Inside Donald Duck", and many more). Fans now use the whole "actor" thing to explain inconsistenties, but that wasn't what those shorts were intended to be.

Your message seems to suggest that the idea of characters as actors was first used in the "Disneyland" series, but this is not true. Disney used this idea since its early days, especially in press statements and interiews, like in the example below:

Even the 1942 cartoon "The New Spirit", in which Donald lists his job as actor, predates the "Disneyland" series.

It's not just modern fans that use the "actors" thing to explain inconsistencies, Disney itself did it back then to explain why some cartoons placed the characters in a different location and/or at a different time period, not to mention that they occasionally had different names. Using the same "actors" idea for cartoons set in the standard location and time period is more problematic, but when you think that in many cartoons they showed a world in which everyone is a lookalike and soundalike of a single character (Goofy), and that some of these lookalikes even played the part of historical character like Columbus, then the idea that "characters as actors" can apply also to cartoons with the standard setting is easier to accept. It becomes even easier when we notice that in some cartoons characters who already know each other act as if they are meeting for the first time.

Of course, the "characters as actors" idea is a mess, and that's why I strongly dislike it. Disney itself had trouble deciding what was "real" and what was just a film played by its characters: for example, "This is Your Life, Donald Duck" had to show episodes from Donald's life, so most of the cartoons were shown to be "real", and yet it also had to show Donald being an actor, and so one of the cartoons was shown to be a film played by him. In these kind of specials, even films that were not meant to be "real" are trated as if they were, for the sake of consistency, creating several contradictions.

And that's why I don't really trust the frame story of the special in which "regular" Goofy interacts with Junior.

Jun 28, 2017 21:31:51 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 28, 2017 21:30:09 GMT drakeborough said:

But "Junior" is used when father and son have the same name, so it stands for "George Junior". I don't see how "Junior" could stand for "Max".

Sure, the proper use of "junior" is for when father and son have the same name, but vernacularly speaking, "junior" is often used as cute shorthand for someone's son. It's improper, but it's a kind of improper that rightfully belongs in Goofy's mouth.

Well, if one really wants Junior to be Max than this loophole about the vernacular use of "junior" comes in handy.

Jun 28, 2017 21:32:24 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, regarding the Donald Duck short where HDL drive a car: it's called "Lucky Number". When it aired in the "Disneyland" episode "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake says the story takes place ten years after the "present" (i.e. when HDL are kids).

Thanks for the info, I'll watch "Lucky Number" when I have time for it. Do they drive while being drawn as kids? If they do, it would be as weird as that one time in which Donald was depicted as a kid while still keeping his adult design. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that the "Disneyland" episode rationalized the cartoon as being ten years into the future, since as I have said many times these specials always try to make everything fit.

Jun 28, 2017 21:35:21 GMT Orora said:

Jun 28, 2017 15:59:51 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, the 1957 "Disneyland" episode "The Adventure Story", shows the "regular" Goofy with the son from the George Geef cartoons.

From the preview pictures, this "Goofy Junior" in The Goofy Adventure Story only seems to be another nephew. In the French version one, he calls Goofy "uncle".

I guess the French translator was confused (or thought the audience would be confused) by the idea of Goofy being portrayed as a father. Does Junior call his father "uncle" only in the frame sequences, or does it also happen in the showcased cartoons with George Geef?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 29, 2017 20:11:29 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 28, 2017 20:43:28 GMT Scroogerello said:

@ drakeborough : Well, yes, Donald was said to be an actor in the "Disneyland" series, but the same series also presented the shorts themselves as moments from the character's own life ("This is Your Life, Donald Duck, "Inside Donald Duck", and many more). Fans now use the whole "actor" thing to explain inconsistenties, but that wasn't what those shorts were intended to be.

Your message seems to suggest that the idea of characters as actors was first used in the "Disneyland" series, but this is not true. Disney used this idea since its early days, especially in press statements and interiews, like in the example below:

Even the 1942 cartoon "The New Spirit", in which Donald lists his job as actor, predates the "Disneyland" series.

It's not just modern fans that use the "actors" thing to explain inconsistencies, Disney itself did it back then to explain why some cartoons placed the characters in a different location and/or at a different time period, not to mention that they occasionally had different names. Using the same "actors" idea for cartoons set in the standard location and time period is more problematic, but when you think that in many cartoons they showed a world in which everyone is a lookalike and soundalike of a single character (Goofy), and that some of these lookalikes even played the part of historical character like Columbus, then the idea that "characters as actors" can apply also to cartoons with the standard setting is easier to accept. It becomes even easier when we notice that in some cartoons characters who already know each other act as if they are meeting for the first time.

Of course, the "characters as actors" idea is a mess, and that's why I strongly dislike it. Disney itself had trouble deciding what was "real" and what was just a film played by its characters: for example, "This is Your Life, Donald Duck" had to show episodes from Donald's life, so most of the cartoons were shown to be "real", and yet it also had to show Donald being an actor, and so one of the cartoons was shown to be a film played by him. In these kind of specials, even films that were not meant to be "real" are trated as if they were, for the sake of consistency, creating several contradictions.

And that's why I don't really trust the frame story of the special in which "regular" Goofy interacts with Junior.

Jun 28, 2017 21:31:51 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Sure, the proper use of "junior" is for when father and son have the same name, but vernacularly speaking, "junior" is often used as cute shorthand for someone's son. It's improper, but it's a kind of improper that rightfully belongs in Goofy's mouth.

Well, if one really wants Junior to be Max than this loophole about the vernacular use of "junior" comes in handy.

Jun 28, 2017 21:32:24 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, regarding the Donald Duck short where HDL drive a car: it's called "Lucky Number". When it aired in the "Disneyland" episode "Kids is Kids", Ludwig Von Drake says the story takes place ten years after the "present" (i.e. when HDL are kids).

Thanks for the info, I'll watch "Lucky Number" when I have time for it. Do they drive while being drawn as kids? If they do, it would be as weird as that one time in which Donald was depicted as a kid while still keeping his adult design. (1) Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that the "Disneyland" episode rationalized the cartoon as being ten years into the future, since as I have said many times these specials always try to make everything fit.

Jun 28, 2017 21:35:21 GMT Orora said:

From the preview pictures, this "Goofy Junior" in The Goofy Adventure Story only seems to be another nephew. In the French version one, he calls Goofy "uncle".

I guess the French translator was confused (or thought the audience would be confused) by the idea of Goofy being portrayed as a father. Does Junior call his father "uncle" only in the frame sequences, or does it also happen in the showcased cartoons with George Geef? (2)

(1) Their design are not "adult" in the way of Don Rosa's version of adult HDL (it's still very close to their usual appearance), but they're a bit taller, and they generally seem plausible enough as 17-years-old or so.

(2) I'm almost certain Orora meant that the French version of the comic used "uncle", not the cartoon's dub.

[Scroogerello]

Here's a picture of the nephews in "Lucky Number":

[drakeborough]

Jun 29, 2017 20:27:02 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(1) Their design are not "adult" in the way of Don Rosa's version of adult HDL (it's still very close to their usual appearance), but they're a bit taller, and they generally seem plausible enough as 17-years-old or so.

I get it. Well, at any rate I'll see it as soon as I watch the cartoon.

Jun 29, 2017 20:27:02 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(2) I'm almost certain Orora meant that the French version of the comic used "uncle", not the cartoon's dub.

Oh, I hadn't understood that. The Inducks scan is very small, but it seems Goofy Juniorp does say "oncle Dingo" ("uncle Goofy"), though maybe there's not the full word "oncle", which I think can be abbreviated into "onc".

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 29, 2017 20:55:43 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 29, 2017 20:27:02 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(1) Their design are not "adult" in the way of Don Rosa's version of adult HDL (it's still very close to their usual appearance), but they're a bit taller, and they generally seem plausible enough as 17-years-old or so.

I get it. Well, at any rate I'll see it as soon as I watch the cartoon.

Jun 29, 2017 20:27:02 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(2) I'm almost certain Orora meant that the French version of the comic used "uncle", not the cartoon's dub.

Oh, I hadn't understood that. The Inducks scan is very small, but it seems Goofy Juniorp does say "oncle Dingo" ("uncle Goofy"), though maybe there's not the full word "oncle", which I think can be abbreviated into "onc".

Indeed it can. HLD typically call Donald "Onc'Donald".

[drakeborough]

I haven't yet translated the reviews that I wanted to post here, but for the time being I'll post these two bits of info to keep the thread alive:

1) Goofy's character profile on Topolino's website says that a long series of "clones, cousins and alter ego" were created for him, and as examples we are given Arizona Goof, Sport Goofy and George Geef.

2) Goofy's character profile in the third number of Topolino Story says in a table at the beginning that he is a bachelor, and near the end of it (in another table that is regarded by Inducks as a separate article) says he has many alter egos, and lists George Geef, mentioning that he is married and with a son, and Super Goof. Obviously, the expression "alter ego" is used in both its meanings, as Super Goof and Goofy are the same person (but in-universe people don't know that, and that's why SG is an alter ego, just like Superman is an alter ego of Clark Kent), while in the case of George Geef the expression "alter ego" is used in its other meaning, since there's no secret identity involved, and the expression only makes sense if the person who wrote this thought of him as a different person. The article itself uses a few expressions that may suggest the "playing a part" in the movies, but it's pretty ambiguous about the matter and never says it explicitly.

By the way, I have a question for the users who think that George Geef is Goofy: how do you explain that in many Goofy cartoons you can see plenty of Goofy lookalikes/soundalikes appearing at the same time, and sometimes even playing the role of historical figures?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 30, 2017 10:10:03 GMT drakeborough said:

By the way, I have a question for the users who think that George Geef is Goofy: how do you explain that in many Goofy cartoons you can see plenty of Goofy lookalikes/soundalikes appearing at the same time, and sometimes even playing the role of historical figures?

The lookalikes are distant relatives of Goofy. I believe it's a running gag in Italians stories that Goofy's family simply gigantic, and I know for a fact that there even was a hilarious Italian series that showed the Goofy family through the ages. And the "historical figures" Goofys are no different from the usual "historical lookalike" stories — and it's simialrly ambiguous whether they're ancestors, random lookalikes, reincarnations, alternate dimensions, or the characters playing the role in a play or movie (it really depends on the story; some of the Grandi Parodie support the 'historical ancestors' interpretations while others, like the recent Molière parody, clearly have it be a play). 

[drakeborough]

Jun 30, 2017 10:24:21 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jun 30, 2017 10:10:03 GMT drakeborough said:

By the way, I have a question for the users who think that George Geef is Goofy: how do you explain that in many Goofy cartoons you can see plenty of Goofy lookalikes/soundalikes appearing at the same time, and sometimes even playing the role of historical figures?

The lookalikes are distant relatives of Goofy. I believe it's a running gag in Italians stories that Goofy's family simply gigantic, and I know for a fact that there even was a hilarious Italian series that showed the Goofy family through the ages.

The series you mentioned must be I bis-bis di Pippo (2006), which is listed by Inducks as being a single 12-part story. The title could be translated as "Goofy's great-greats", since "bis" is a prefix that is used for direct ancestors:

nonno = grandfather

bisnonno = great-grandfather

bis-bisnonno = great-great-grandfather

etc.

The expression "bis-bis" is often used in Italian comics to indicate Goofy's ancestors, though I never heard that expression outside of Goofy comics and so I think it is a noelogism. But the "big family" gag seems to be more about ancestors than present-day relatives.

At any rate, most of the producers of 50's and 60's cartoons wasn't even aware of what was going on in American Duck and Mouse comics, let alone Italian comics that at the time hadn't even been published in the Usa; I'm not even sure that the "big family" idea already existed already in Italian comics of the time. But if "The lookalikes are distant relatives of Goofy", does this mean that you see all the basketball players (as well as the audience and the referee) of "Double Dribble" (1946) as being relatives of Goofy, despite the fact that the short doesn't imply that? And if the lookalikes can be all distant relatives, then why can't the same thing be true for George?

And how about all the Donald lookalikes in "The Litterbug" (1961)?

Jun 30, 2017 10:24:21 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

And the "historical figures" Goofys are no different from the usual "historical lookalike" stories — and it's simialrly ambiguous whether they're ancestors, random lookalikes, reincarnations, alternate dimensions, or the characters playing the role in a play or movie (it really depends on the story; some of the Grandi Parodie support the 'historical ancestors' interpretations while others, like the recent Molière parody, clearly have it be a play). 

For example, what do you think of the scene at the beginning of the 1951 cartoon "No Smoking" in which we see a flashback of Columbus setting foot on America, with Columbus being a Goofy lookalike and even having Goofy's voice?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 30, 2017 12:23:11 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 30, 2017 10:24:21 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

The lookalikes are distant relatives of Goofy. I believe it's a running gag in Italians stories that Goofy's family simply gigantic, and I know for a fact that there even was a hilarious Italian series that showed the Goofy family through the ages.

The series you mentioned must be I bis-bis di Pippo (2006), which is listed by Inducks as being a single 12-part story. (1) The title could be translated as "Goofy's great-greats", since "bis" is a prefix that is used for direct ancestors:

nonno = grandfather

bisnonno = great-grandfather

bis-bisnonno = great-great-grandfather

etc.

The expression "bis-bis" is often used in Italian comics to indicate Goofy's ancestors, though I never heard that expression outside of Goofy comics and so I think it is a noelogism. But the "big family" gag seems to be more about ancestors than present-day relatives.

At any rate, most of the producers of 50's and 60's cartoons wasn't even aware of what was going on in American Duck and Mouse comics, let alone Italian comics that at the time hadn't even been published in the Usa; I'm not even sure that the "big family" idea already existed already in Italian comics of the time. (2A) But if "The lookalikes are distant relatives of Goofy", does this mean that you see all the basketball players (as well as the audience and the referee) of "Double Dribble" (1946) as being relatives of Goofy, despite the fact that the short doesn't imply that? And if the lookalikes can be all distant relatives, then why can't the same thing be true for George? (2B)

And how about all the Donald lookalikes in "The Litterbug" (1961)? (3)

Jun 30, 2017 10:24:21 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

And the "historical figures" Goofys are no different from the usual "historical lookalike" stories — and it's simialrly ambiguous whether they're ancestors, random lookalikes, reincarnations, alternate dimensions, or the characters playing the role in a play or movie (it really depends on the story; some of the Grandi Parodie support the 'historical ancestors' interpretations while others, like the recent Molière parody, clearly have it be a play). 

For example, what do you think of the scene at the beginning of the 1951 cartoon "No Smoking" in which we see a flashback of Columbus setting foot on America, with Columbus being a Goofy lookalike and even having Goofy's voice? (4)

(1) Indeed it is. No idea why it registers as a single story — it's no more a single narrative than the Life and Times; if anything, it's less so.

(2A) I'm not saying they are. This is all fan-theorizing, not an extrapolation of the original authors' intent. 

(2B) I wouldn't mind thinking of Geef as a relative if not for Goof Troop and the Success Story special, but both were clearly meant to show Goofy and "George Geef" as being one and the same. In my ever-growing crusade for total continuity, this means it makes more sense for them to be one and the same.

(3) The "multiple Donalds" are easy, very easy. They don't even have to be relatives. Because Donald has become the "standard" featureless anthropomorphic duck; in an ultimate extrapolation of his "everyman" role, he is, sailor suit aside, the very template for the average Anatus Animatus. Take a look at Scrooge, Daisy, Donna Duck, the Italian Magica, or frankly half the characters on this list of ducks on Picsou Wiki; they all look like Donald with some accessories or hair added. It's not surprising at all that so many other random passers-by would look like him. In fact, there's already a bajillion pages in the "Lookalike of Donald Duck" category on Picsou Wiki.

(4) As I said, I take it like the unexplained tradition of "historical counterparts" in the Grandi Parodie-style stories: possibly a past incarnation or an ancestor, depending. In this case, I'm leaning towards ancestor because another story shows Colombus as a Goofy look-alike and ancestor.