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

[drakeborough]

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

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

That's just fan-theorizing indeed, since we can be safely sure that, as far as the producers were concerned, those cartoons took the "characters as actors" idea to the extreme by having every role played by Goofy.

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(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.

Well, at least I am glad that you would have seen George and Goofy as different people if not for Success Story (and for Goof Troop, though for the latter I don't see how it implies that they are one and the same), even thoguh in the end the result is the same.

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(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.

I guess there's no point for me to argue against that: it seems clear that this short (and maybe other shorts as weel) uses the idea of "Donald as an actor playing multiple roles", but if one wants to dismiss this idea and just think that it's "not surprising at all that so many other random passers-by would look like him" for the reasons that you said, well, I won't try to convince anyone of the contrary.

By the way, what do mean with "the Italian Magica"? Some difference in her design?

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(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.

I didn't know about that story, but now that I think about it there's also a series of 8 Italian one-pagers published in 1998, titled "I bis bis" ("Great-greats"). The last one shows Goofy as Columbus:

Anyway, it's clear that the 1951 cartoon was about Goofy playing multiple roles in the past (including Columbus) and also in the present, regardless of any rationalization that we may make a posteriori.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jun 30, 2017 17:09:30 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

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

That's just fan-theorizing indeed, since we can be safely sure that, as far as the producers were concerned, those cartoons took the "characters as actors" idea to the extreme by having every role played by Goofy.

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(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.

Well, at least I am glad that you would have seen George and Goofy as different people if not for Success Story (and for Goof Troop, though for the latter I don't see how it implies that they are one and the same (1)), even thoguh in the end the result is the same.

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(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.

I guess there's no point for me to argue against that: it seems clear that this short (and maybe other shorts as weel) uses the idea of "Donald as an actor playing multiple roles", but if one wants to dismiss this idea and just think that it's "not surprising at all that so many other random passers-by would look like him" for the reasons that you said, well, I won't try to convince anyone of the contrary.

By the way, what do mean with "the Italian Magica"? Some difference in her design? (2)

Jun 30, 2017 16:04:12 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(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.

I didn't know about that story, but now that I think about it there's also a series of 8 Italian one-pagers published in 1998, titled "I bis bis" ("Great-greats"). The last one shows Goofy as Columbus:

Anyway, it's clear that the 1951 cartoon was about Goofy playing multiple roles in the past (including Columbus) and also in the present, regardless of any rationalization that we may make a posteriori.

(1): Well, the VHS you spoke of clearly shows that the producers of Goof Troop meant it to be a follow-up to the George Geef cartoons, and Leonard Maltin thinks so too; and since Goof Troop features the "main" Goofy, then that means Goof Troop supports Goofy and Geef being one and the same.

(2) I meant the Cavazzano-style Magica with beak-adjacent eyes and no wrinkles, who is basically just Daisy in a wig and black dress:
 

(as opposed to the Barksian and DuckTales Magicas who are more distinct, like this:)

[drakeborough]

Jun 30, 2017 18:25:35 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(1): Well, the VHS you spoke of clearly shows that the producers of Goof Troop meant it to be a follow-up to the George Geef cartoons, and Leonard Maltin thinks so too; and since Goof Troop features the "main" Goofy, then that means Goof Troop supports Goofy and Geef being one and the same.

I can't say about Leonard Malting since have never had the chance to hear his opinion on the matter. As for the VHS, that was produced years after Goof Troop: I just checked its English title, which is "Goofy's Greatest Hits", and its year of release, which was 1998, six years after Goof Troop ended. I don't know if the producers of those frame sequences for the VHS were the same people who produced Goof Troop or not, but I'd say that, with the elements that we have now, the identification is something proposed a posteriori for the frame sequences, and not necessarily something that the procucers of Goof Troop had in mind.

I'm not surprised by the frame sequences doing that identification, since it happens all the time that a frame sequence ties together some cartoons in which a character is playing a role, and in these cases the "actors" thing is ignored and the frame acts like the character was his/her usual self.

Jun 30, 2017 18:25:35 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(2) I meant the Cavazzano-style Magica with beak-adjacent eyes and no wrinkles, who is basically just Daisy in a wig and black dress:
 

(as opposed to the Barksian and DuckTales Magicas who are more distinct, like this:)

Ah, ok. For some reason, the Italian stories that I have in mind have Magica's eye detached from her beak.

[Orora]

Jun 30, 2017 19:02:50 GMT drakeborough said:

Jun 30, 2017 18:25:35 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(1): Well, the VHS you spoke of clearly shows that the producers of Goof Troop meant it to be a follow-up to the George Geef cartoons, and Leonard Maltin thinks so too; and since Goof Troop features the "main" Goofy, then that means Goof Troop supports Goofy and Geef being one and the same.

I can't say about Leonard Malting since have never had the chance to hear his opinion on the matter. As for the VHS, that was produced years after Goof Troop: I just checked its English title, which is "Goofy's Greatest Hits", and its year of release, which was 1998, six years after Goof Troop ended. I don't know if the producers of those frame sequences for the VHS were the same people who produced Goof Troop or not, but I'd say that, with the elements that we have now, the identification is something proposed a posteriori for the frame sequences, and not necessarily something that the procucers of Goof Troop had in mind.

I'm not surprised by the frame sequences doing that identification, since it happens all the time that a frame sequence ties together some cartoons in which a character is playing a role, and in these cases the "actors" thing is ignored and the frame acts like the character was his/her usual self.

Jun 30, 2017 18:25:35 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

(2) I meant the Cavazzano-style Magica with beak-adjacent eyes and no wrinkles, who is basically just Daisy in a wig and black dress:
 

(as opposed to the Barksian and DuckTales Magicas who are more distinct, like this:)

Ah, ok. For some reason, the Italian stories that I have in mind have Magica's eye detached from her beak.

Some have Magica's eyes detached, some not. If the story has her in a sympathetic/protagonist role, she tends to have beak-adjacent eyes.

[sirtao]

About Goofy's relatives:



Most are his Bis-bis(which at this point are probably one TV reference short of ending in the Devoto-Oli) but he has a quite amount of (usually only referred to) cousins, uncles and relatives of various degrees.



For example, Le avventure della gemma Pippolina and The Menace from the Future! show a number of his cousins.

(totally unrelated, but I'm suddenly unsure WHEN I actually started reading Topolino. Goddamn, I feel old.)

[drakeborough]

Jul 1, 2017 1:24:29 GMT sirtao said:

About Goofy's relatives:



Most are his Bis-bis(which at this point are probably one TV reference short of ending in the Devoto-Oli) but he has a quite amount of (usually only referred to) cousins, uncles and relatives of various degrees.



For example, Le avventure della gemma Pippolina and The Menace from the Future! show a number of his cousins.

Indeed, Goofy's "big family" thing, mostly used for ancestors, is also sometimes used for present-day relatives, though to a lesser extent. Of course, we may argue that Donald's family, if one includes all the one-shot relatives introduced from the 1930's to the 2010's, is not smaller than Goofy's.

[drakeborough]

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.

I just looked up a couple of Goofy cartoons of the time, and I see that both "Teachers Are People" (1952) and "Father's Day Off" (1953) call the kid "George".

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jul 8, 2017 20:45:36 GMT drakeborough said:

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.

I just looked up a couple of Goofy cartoons of the time, and I see that both "Teachers Are People" (1952) and "Father's Day Off" (1953) call the kid "George".

Dammit. (Although Teachers Are People isn't actually a George Geef cartoon; it's one of the cartoons where I'd either admit your "costumed film" idea or assume the Goof-teacher is a relative of the 'main' Goofy.) Well, I guess I'll chalk it up to the same way I hear 'Geef' instead of 'Goof'.

[drakeborough]

Jul 8, 2017 21:05:03 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jul 8, 2017 20:45:36 GMT drakeborough said:

I just looked up a couple of Goofy cartoons of the time, and I see that both "Teachers Are People" (1952) and "Father's Day Off" (1953) call the kid "George".

Dammit. (Although Teachers Are People isn't actually a George Geef cartoon; it's one of the cartoons where I'd either admit your "costumed film" idea or assume the Goof-teacher is a relative of the 'main' Goofy.) Well, I guess I'll chalk it up to the same way I hear 'Geef' instead of 'Goof'.

Indeed, "Teachers Are People" never mentions the name George Geef, and the fact that the main character is a teacher supports the idea that he is an alternate version of George Geef (which in turn is, as I see it, and alternate version of Goofy). That's what I thought while whatching it, and also by reading a review shortly after that, but I chose not to mention it in my previous message to avoid being dispersive.

[smartiperson]

Just picked up this thread trying to find out more about Goofy and Glory Bee. There’s a lot of interesting opinions which try to make sense of the contradictions in Goofy’s relationship status, and even his name. Here’s my take:

‘Goofy’ is the character we all know and love. We can make sense of everything by considering old and new stories as separate periods in his life, which don’t have to tie into the regular calendar, So we have:

1) ‘bachelor’ Goofy, who generally goes on adventures with his friends Mickey and Donald, and dates or at least is pursued by Glory Bee. At no point does he seem interested in marrying, so we can discount Glory as a wife or mother.

2) ‘later life’ Goofy, who has a son Max. We don’t know who his mother is, but since it isn’t mentioned clearly that detail ‘isn’t important’. Perhaps since comic strips about custody battles might not be interesting, that detail is left out. Max’s mother could be dead, but perhaps she’s just moved away, or her interactions just aren’t covered ‘deliberately’ because the stories are about Goofy

3) ‘actor’ Goofy’ who plays a variety of roles including ‘Mr Walker’ in Motor Mania etc and ‘George Geef’, the latter having an unknown wife (she carefully never shows her face, so again she’s ‘not important’) and a son called junior. This is a separate story tale which has nothing to do with ‘Goofy’ the character, indeed we can watch these without even thinking of Goofy especially since in the cartoon all characters are played by him, so logically none of them are actually Goofy

4) Dippy Dawg, who in my opinion is an early character incarnation, and can be considered ‘separate’ and therefore unrelated to later Goofy, or else the name change can just be ‘ignored’ In the same why that Mickey Mouse was originally slated to be called ‘Mortimer’ except Walt’s wife didn’t like the name so it got changed. If an early cartoon had actually called him Mortimer, we wouldn’t try to link the two names.

5) Any other ‘discrepancies’ or changes in Gofy’s life and relationships can be put down to the concept of “reboots” i.e the difference between Spider-Man in the comics, the first trilogy of films and the later ‘reboot’ with the Amazing Spiderman, and then the more recent franchise. Each new ‘incarnation’ of character uses the basic concept but builds its own, updated profile. So Max is Goofy’s son as reflects a more ‘modern’ world to that of the child of the 50s referred to as ‘junior’ . So we can enjoy each ‘reboot’ with needing to equate the stories and match everything up.

[sim]

If I recall correctly, Junior from George Geef's cartoon makes an appearance in a Mickey Mouseworks cartoon set at a baseball game.

edit: here it is (5.52 min).

[smartiperson]

One more point on ‘characters as actors’: I recall a comic strip called “Sherlock Mouse and Dr. Goofy”. Clearly the characters (Mickey and Goofy) were playing the roles of he famous (fictional) detective and his companion. So we can simultaneously enjoy the story as if it was a ‘regular’ Sherlock Holmes tale, as the fact that the roles are played by cartoon characters makes no difference to the story, whilst also enjoying a comic book story containing our favourite cartoon characters.

So when it comes to George Geef, it’s easy to both recognise it as a Goofy cartoon, and that Goofy is playing the role of a married man named George Geef with a wife and son (called Junior). It therefore has no bearing on anything else Goofy is or does as a ‘Character’ in his own right.

[sim]

Anyway, the theory of Goofy playing a role in the George Geef cartoons doesn't exclude the fact that Junior is played by a young Max, rather it would explain the different name. Regarding their different physical appearance: I guess that's just because he grew up, in "Goof Troop" Goofy has a pink body.

Also, Pete's son from "Bellboy Donald" could just be a young PJ. I am surprised to read that Gerstein doesn't recognize him since he is a little pest, because that's what a lot of kids are. People change and kids grow up. Pete himself is not the same as the cruel '30 strips character anymore.

Why "Goof Troop" is set in Spoonerville and not in Mouseton? Well, clearly the authors wanted a spin-off with Goofy as the main character and not him as Mickey's sidekick. In order to focus on him they gave him a family and a new setting. And I don't know if a town called Mouseton ever existed in the cartoons anyway.

[smartiperson]

I hadn’t considered the possibilities of other characters playing the other roles in the George Geef cartoon, but I agree that “junior” could indeed be played by Max, and on that basis, the wife/mother could be played by Glory Bee. But somehow I feel I doubt that. I’m more comfortable with the idea that the wife/mother and son are all ‘extras’ that aren’t otherwise related to Goofy, particularly because they aren’t named/credited. I see “junior” as a deliberately ‘generic’ label to avoid naming the character, and the wife/mother has been carefully shielded from view.

Hence, I feel that the George Geef cartoons are completely separate from Goofy as a Character, and therefore stories involving him and Glory Bee don’t relate to him in the ‘married man setting’. When it comes to Goofy and Max in “Goof Troop”, then I see this a modern “reboot” of Goofy as a Character, and hence the writers have free reign to change the setting to Spoonerviile (indeed, that makes sense to make separation from older stories set in Mouseton), as well as a new setting with Goofy th single parent family with Max as his son and unknown mother. This doesn’t need to be related to older dffiernet stories, they ‘Co-exist” in the Goofy ‘multiverse of stroke.

[smartiperson]

It’s also instructive to consider the stories that are “missing” from Goofy’s history. There is no (to my knowledge) “Goofy gets married” or “Goofy proposes” and certainly not “Goofy’s baby” stories, and I would suggest “deliberately so”. The creators of Goofy and writers of his stories have left those out. Hence we’re not meant to know who is wife is (if indeed there is/was someone) or who the mother of Max is; it’s just not included. It could have been: I could imagine a comic strip involving various humorous antics of Goofy mucking up and befalling bad luck but somehow eventually getting to the church on time. Or not. The point is, such a story was never written. Instead, we have Goofy persued by Glory Bee in an older story, with Goofy seemingly not interested so we deduce they never ‘tied the knot’. And Goofy as a single parent family in the later “Goof Troup”, which could imply, due to the lack of the mother character, fatherhood without marriage. But to me it doesn’t point to Glory Bee or anyone else from earlier tales fulfilling the later ‘mother/wife’ role. We just aren’t told, and so can’t make those assumptions. More likely in the later “rebooted” tales that the “missing” characters are just that, “missing”, and so don’t feature in the Disney character portfolio. This isn’t unusual for Disney, as Huey, Duey and Louie are Nephews not sons, same with Morty and Ferdie, etc. There’s a deliberate separation of close relationships, such the Characters remain individuals rather than part of a couple / family unit.