Should the Phantom Blot should be shown unmasked or not?

[sirtao]

Inspired by other discussions, I though to open this topic.

My opinion:
Blotty should use his mask when he(or the author) is trying to scare\impress people, when he's trying to hide himself in the darkness or when he wants\needs to hide his face for whatever reason.


No real reason for him to use it outside those situations, IMHO

[Scrooge MacDuck]

You're kind of right… but in my headcanon, the Phantom Blot is always trying to impress people. So when he's in private he may not wear the mask, but in general he won't let himself be seen without it to feed into his frightening persona.

[Hector]

I think it'd be cool if Floyd Gottfredson had never revealed the Phantom Blot's face.

[drakeborough]

It's good that we have a separate thread to disuss this issue so that we won't go OT in other threads.

The main reason the Blot wore a mask in the first place is that nobody knew who he was under it, and that point was defeated after Mickey captured and unmasked him at the end of his first story. I disagree that it would have been cool if he hadn't been captured and unmasked, since that was the deserved payoff for all the tension that had been built up, and the necessary solution to the main mystery about him.

Does it mean that he should appear unmasked all the time now that we know who he is? I don't think so, since he has many reasons to still wear his hood during most of his crimes: scary people by appearing with his trademark costume, better blend with the dark of the night, and eventually the possibility of claiming that it wasn't him under the suit if he is arrested in a second moment. That's why I like the way Italian stories have been portraying him since 1955: he wears the suit when it's needed, and he doesn't wear it when it's not needed, even going back and forth between being masked and unmasked in the same story. An analysis of his Italian portrayal can be found in this thread of the Papersera forum.

Western stories with the Blot (published between 1964 and 1984), on the other hand, always showed him with his hood, even when he was at home alone, or in prison, or walking on the street in broad daylight, This was ridiculous in itself, but it got worse when he wore other clothes over his cloak and/or over his hood (even a full-face mask!*), as if authors forgot he is supposed to be a guy wearing a mask and thought he was some kind of humanoid alien with a black skin (I think some stories even raised the possibility, though I don't know if they are W-coded comics or not). This doesn't appeal to me at all, not to mention that Western's Blot stories are often bad and he is not really scary or mysteryous, so it's not just a matter of imprinting (I knew him through Italian stories first): I associate the idea that he is always masked with bad stories, and the idea that he can remove his mask with better stories. I'll add that, although Western stories don't show his face, they still often show him in prison, implying that everyone knows his face and just let him wear the hood because he wants to; I don't like that, but it's still not as bad as some stories (from which country?) implying that he was never captured and unmasked.

I also dislike the stories (not W-coded, I think) in which his family members also wear a hod 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, which further reinforce the idea, that I really dislike, that wearing a hood is just a random quirk that has no rational justification at all.

The always-masked Blot also created some confusion with French translators, who sometimes called the unmasked Blot "Jo Crisse" because they didn't realize he was the same character. Scrooge MacDuck mentioned in another thread a story in which everyone discovered that the Blot and Jo Crisse are the same person: can anyone identify this story? Also, I seem to remember the same thing (differentiating the masked and unmasked Blot in translations) happened at Egmont: is it true?

By the way, are there other countries beside Italy that show the Blot unmasked? And is the idea of keeping him masked in W-coded story a choice of the authors, or an editiorial imposition that American authors had to follow? Do you think he really looks like Walt Disney? And how about the rumor that Disney was annoyed by that resemblance and didn't want the character to be used again? Do we have any interview in which Gottfredson commented the use later authors made of his character?

*It's interesting how Italian authors and American authors not only revived the character independently from each other, but apparently also came up independently from each other with the idea of the Blot being a master of disguise that can impersonate anyone with realistic full-face masks.

[Monkey_Feyerabend]

Jul 12, 2017 8:48:23 GMT drakeborough said:

*It's interesting how Italian authors and American authors not only revived the character independently from each other, but apparently also came up independently from each other with the idea of the Blot being a master of disguise that can impersonate anyone with realistic full-face masks.

Well, it's just a (very cheap) narrative technique to develop spy/mystery stories, or parodies of such a genre. The "disguise trick" is a topos of modern western comics, movie and tv stories. Overexploited in cartoons, in particular. 

Of course, one can get a good story even using that technique, or better despise such an abused technique. (Well-known exemple.)

[drakeborough]

Jul 12, 2017 10:04:53 GMT Monkey_Feyerabend said:

Jul 12, 2017 8:48:23 GMT drakeborough said:

*It's interesting how Italian authors and American authors not only revived the character independently from each other, but apparently also came up independently from each other with the idea of the Blot being a master of disguise that can impersonate anyone with realistic full-face masks.

Well, it's just a (very cheap) narrative technique to develop spy/mystery stories, or parodies of such a genre. The "disguise trick" is a topos of modern western comics, movie and tv stories. Overexploited in cartoons, in particular. 

Of course, one can get a good story even using that technique, or better despise such an abused technique. (Well-known exemple.)

I know about the mask gimmick, I've seen it used many times in comics, cartoons and movies. TV Tropes even has a long list of characters that can pull it off in their page titled Latex Perfection.

I remember many characters that used masks in Italian Disney stories. Most of these characters were one-shots, but Pete was also occasionally shown as capable of doing that in old stories, and I guess it was obvious that such an ablity had to be given to the Blot too. I haven't met many characters who can do that in W-coded stories, so the disguise abilities of the American Blot are more surprising. I won't comment the fact that in American stories the masks are worn over his hood (sigh) instead that over his face.

Something similar can be done in real life, but not on the same level of perfection. For example, the eye holes are often a giveaway:

I won't bother now to look for a better video, but the one above has another obvious weakness: the masks are too short, and you can see the bottom of it (other real-life masks don't have this problem).

By the way, I see that "should" is repeated twice in the title.

[whatevs]

I prefer him masked, as it his outfit that makes him the Phantom Blot. But there are definitely times I like seeing him go unmasked (I adore Portis playing with the discarded mask in one panel of "Topolino e la rapina del millennio") or wish a particular story let him be unmasked. "The Old Switcheroo", for instance, would've benefitted from Mickey realizing he can, like, take off the outfit and drastically decrease the chances of being recognized. Of course the focus is on PB in Mickey's body with Mickey in PB's body being as much the audience as the actual reader, but I think there's room for Mickey not to be... unsmart.

And yeah, masks over his hood are weird and ill-advised. That kind of thing I've only seen work half-decently with the antagonist in "The Baffling Banana Bandits", if I remember correctly.

On the side-topic, silly PB has my vote if I have to make it a pick between silly and serious. My "meh" with serious stories is how much they tend to work up the PB well beyond any semblance of limits and above any other villain. That's boring and ridiculous to me. I like comics such as "The Phantom Blot Meets the Mysterious Mr. X" (come to think of it, this comic did question why he remained masked in the presence of a friend), "The Return of Phantom Bob", "Goofy Adventures Online: Crimes of Passion", some of the one-page gag stuff, and any comic in which he wears a striped costume while in jail more than I do, say, "Darkenblot". When you get down to it, the PB is just one of several masked figures Gottfredson and Walsh wrote, fitting with the Bat Bandit, the Black Crow, and the Iron Mask, and being succeeded by Rich Hogg, the Boss, and the Red Bat. Imo, he's about on par with three of those (BC, IM, Boss), so nothing deserving exception. This is a master spy who comes up with a wide array of death traps because he's too soft-hearted to watch anyone die and who, if not designed after, strongly resembles Walt Disney. He's inherently silly; even O'Hara made fun of him. Also, he kinda did wear his cloak when home alone in his origin story, the only time when he was unmasked being the involuntary final pages. I think it's okay to work with that.

Not unmasking the PB would've been a bad choice. The antagonist of "Villain of the Victory Garden" is kept in shadows at all times. The story itself is pretty good for about 5/6th, but it's the final pages that offer no satisfaction on any front that ruin the read.

[drakeborough]

Jul 12, 2017 14:38:01 GMT whatevs said:

On the side-topic, silly PB has my vote if I have to make it a pick between silly and serious.

I strongly disagree with this: in my opinion, the Phantom Blot should never make the reader laugh. I regard Murry's Blot as being basically the start of the decay of the character (the lowest point are probably the stories with Madam Mim).

Jul 12, 2017 14:38:01 GMT whatevs said:

My "meh" with serious stories is how much they tend to work up the PB well beyond any semblance of limits and above any other villain. That's boring and ridiculous to me.

For me, this is who the Blot is: a serious villain who is just above any other bad guy, and can only find his match in Mickey. I don't see how this is boring.

Jul 12, 2017 14:38:01 GMT whatevs said:

I like comics such as "The Phantom Blot Meets the Mysterious Mr. X" (come to think of it, this comic did question why he remained masked in the presence of a friend), "The Return of Phantom Bob", "Goofy Adventures Online: Crimes of Passion", some of the one-page gag stuff, and any comic in which he wears a striped costume while in jail more than I do, say, "Darkenblot".

I don't think "Darkenblot" (which for me is certainly better than "Mr. X") is representative of what an average "serious Blot" story is.

Jul 12, 2017 14:38:01 GMT whatevs said:

When you get down to it, the PB is just one of several masked figures Gottfredson and Walsh wrote, fitting with the Bat Bandit, the Black Crow, and the Iron Mask, and being succeeded by Rich Hogg, the Boss, and the Red Bat. Imo, he's about on par with three of those (BC, IM, Boss), so nothing deserving exception.

Walsh didn't wrote the Phantom Blot story: it was Merrill De Maris who co-wrote it with Gottfredson. The characters you mentioned were good, but in my opinion the Blot was superior to them (just like his story is the superior one).

Jul 12, 2017 14:38:01 GMT whatevs said:

This is a master spy who comes up with a wide array of death traps because he's too soft-hearted to watch anyone die and who, if not designed after, strongly resembles Walt Disney. He's inherently silly; even O'Hara made fun of him. Also, he kinda did wear his cloak when home alone in his origin story, the only time when he was unmasked being the involuntary final pages. I think it's okay to work with that.

From what I remember, it was Casey who made fun of him.

[whatevs]

I just don't see the appeal of having a "the villain" in any long-running franchise. So many have been ruined for me because of the insertion (or unwillingess to let go) of "the villain". For me, it makes what should be big feel small, as if nothing and no one else matters. It takes away dimension, possibility, angle, and therefore bores me and makes me not take the story or its characters seriously. (This is also why I don't like much of Don Rosa's Life and Times work and commentary. It's so artificially all about Scrooge that it slaughters my suspension of disbelief.)

I can only speak of stories I know, and I don't know how close or not that is to a "serious Blot" story. I am interested in hearing titles (and whys if that is feasible to be done in short), but there's a chance I am not familiar with them.

Yeah, I know. I was referring to the Iron Mask when I wrote down Walsh's name. And speaking of Walsh, his Drusilla is my idea of the best Mickey has been up against during the original years. Ruthless, mysterious, uncatchable, and convincing. Not the best story - it has some distinct Walsh flaws. I'd give that star to "The Monarch of Medioka", specifically because it humbles Mickey in a way that makes the story far grander than "Mickey vs." stories could ever hope to be. If I have to pick a best Gottfredson villain, the PB is a candidate, but at this time I can't say who I'd pick. (Squinch is my fav, but that's not the same as who I think is the best.)

I'm referring to "Enough! Take him away before my heart breaks!" while looking up at the ceiling in the final panels. Casey's "making fun of" is not presented as if the audience is to agree and so doesn't count.

[drakeborough]

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

I just don't see the appeal of having a "the villain" in any long-running franchise. So many have been ruined for me because of the insertion (or unwillingess to let go) of "the villain".

How about other recurrring antagonists, like Pete in the Mouse universe and the Beagle Boys, Flintheart Glomgold, Magica De Spell and Rockerduck in the Duck universe? Does the continuous presence of these characters cause these comics to lose the appeal they have to you? Have the comics been ruined by the insertion of these characters?

And if not, why is it a problem to have another recurring enemy to Mickey in addition to Pete? And what's wrong with the idea of making said enemy smarter and most dangerous than Pete?

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

For me, it makes what should be big feel small, as if nothing and no one else matters. It takes away dimension, possibility, angle, and therefore bores me and makes me not take the story or its characters seriously.

This is one of the most puzzling things I've ever read on this forum. The presence of a villain makes the story feel small? Nothing else matter? The concept of a villain is so boring that you can't take the story or its characters seriously? Stories must remove villains in order to have any dimension, possibility and angle?

Please tell me that I misunderstood what you were saying.

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

(This is also why I don't like much of Don Rosa's Life and Times work and commentary. It's so artificially all about Scrooge that it slaughters my suspension of disbelief.)

This also puzzled me. I can understand a person not liking Life and Times (even though I regard it as one of the best comics ever created), but the fact that you dislike it because having a story center around Scrooge feels "artificial" is so... strange. I can't find a better word. Again, I hope I misunderstood what you said.

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

I can only speak of stories I know, and I don't know how close or not that is to a "serious Blot" story. I am interested in hearing titles (and whys if that is feasible to be done in short), but there's a chance I am not familiar with them.

A "best of" list would of course be subjective. Anyway, here is Inducks' list of the Phantom Blot stories from top-rated to lowest-rated (stories that haven't been voted are excluded). The list starts with his debut story and then has a long block of Italian stories. Most top-rated stories about him are serious stories.

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

I'm referring to "Enough! Take him away before my heart breaks!" while looking up at the ceiling in the final panels.

Well, that comment made sense since the Blot had already been captured and they had just finished hearing his confession. But O'Hara's attitude in the whole story was very different.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jul 13, 2017 8:15:47 GMT drakeborough said:

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

I just don't see the appeal of having a "the villain" in any long-running franchise. So many have been ruined for me because of the insertion (or unwillingess to let go) of "the villain".

How about other recurrring antagonists, like Pete in the Mouse universe and the Beagle Boys, Flintheart Glomgold, Magica De Spell and Rockerduck in the Duck universe? Does the continuous presence of these characters cause these comics to lose the appeal they have to you? Have the comics been ruined by the insertion of these characters?

And if not, why is it a problem to have another recurring enemy to Mickey in addition to Pete? And what's wrong with the idea of making said enemy smarter and most dangerous than Pete?

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

For me, it makes what should be big feel small, as if nothing and no one else matters. It takes away dimension, possibility, angle, and therefore bores me and makes me not take the story or its characters seriously.

This is one of the most puzzling things I've ever read on this forum. The presence of a villain makes the story feel small? Nothing else matter? The concept of a villain is so boring that you can't take the story or its characters seriously? Stories must remove villains in order to have any dimension, possibility and angle?

Please tell me that I misunderstood what you were saying.

Jul 12, 2017 17:36:52 GMT whatevs said:

(This is also why I don't like much of Don Rosa's Life and Times work and commentary. It's so artificially all about Scrooge that it slaughters my suspension of disbelief.)

This also puzzled me. I can understand a person not liking Life and Times (even though I regard it as one of the best comics ever created), but the fact that you dislike it because having a story center around Scrooge feels "artificial" is so... strange. I can't find a better word. Again, I hope I misunderstood what you said.

Though I don't fully agree, I think I understand what whatevs mean. The idea is that having these "special", "grand" stories where the world is at stake, where the Phantom Blot is the one big threat to take seriously, take away from the gravitas of other, non-PB stories. After you read a certain amount of stories where the Blot is seen as above everyone else, as this almost superpowered criminal genius, you just won't be quite as worried when Mickey is "just" fighting Pete or a gang of robbers. The Batman franchise suffers a bad case of this with the Joker, too. One villain shines too bright and makes the others seem like passing nuisances before the real adventures begin.

And Life & Times can be seen as doing the same thing, in a way. If the L&T are this great epic that dives into Scrooge's character, his motivation and his morals, laying a strict groundwork… this cuts down on "modern-day stories"' ability to flesh out his characterization more naturally. And you kinda see that in Rosa's stories, to be fair. It's become an essential part of Scrooge to be pining for his adventurous youth, arguably taking away from the focus on his present-day adventures. 

Again, I don't agree with all of this (the second paragraph especially), but that's what I believe whatevs is trying to say, and it's a perfectlys ound argument.

[Minotaur]

When I was little I didn't read many comics with Phantom Blot, I certainly didn't read his debut story. The way he was portrayed actually convinced me he was not a human being, and the black outfit was part of him -- that was really weird. That may explain why I never like him.

[drakeborough]

Jul 13, 2017 8:55:00 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Though I don't fully agree, I think I understand what whatevs mean. The idea is that having these "special", "grand" stories where the world is at stake, where the Phantom Blot is the one big threat to take seriously, take away from the gravitas of other, non-PB stories. After you read a certain amount of stories where the Blot is seen as above everyone else, as this almost superpowered criminal genius, you just won't be quite as worried when Mickey is "just" fighting Pete or a gang of robbers. The Batman franchise suffers a bad case of this with the Joker, too. One villain shines too bright and makes the others seem like passing nuisances before the real adventures begin.

Now I get the point (I didn't understand that was whatevs meant), but I disagree: a hero is as good as his best villains, and having someone who can really match wits with him makes a franchise more interesting. First of all, not every Blot story has to have the world at stake: in fact, I think that his megalomania and desire of unlimited power is something that started with the W-coded "silly" Blot. Second, I believe that a story with Mickey vs Pete (or any other villain) can still be interesting and exciting as long as it is well written, well drawn, well staged etc. Having a villain who is more dangerous that Pete doesn't necessarily make the other stories look less important.

Jul 13, 2017 8:55:00 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

And Life & Times can be seen as doing the same thing, in a way. If the L&T are this great epic that dives into Scrooge's character, his motivation and his morals, laying a strict groundwork… this cuts down on "modern-day stories"' ability to flesh out his characterization more naturally. And you kinda see that in Rosa's stories, to be fair. It's become an essential part of Scrooge to be pining for his adventurous youth, arguably taking away from the focus on his present-day adventures. 

Again, I needed your comment to understand what was she saying. And I disagree once again: L&T is an origin story, so it can do things that ordnary stories cannot do, and vice versa. Is modern-day Scrooge less interesting because of the gravitas of his origin story? For me not only that's not the case, but I also argue that the opposite thing is true.

Jul 13, 2017 9:37:17 GMT Minotaur said:

When I was little I didn't read many comics with Phantom Blot, I certainly didn't read his debut story. The way he was portrayed actually convinced me he was not a human being, and the black outfit was part of him -- that was really weird. That may explain why I never like him.

That was precisely my point: making the Blot look like a monster (or an alien) with black skin, instead of a guy wearing a costume and a hood/mask, does not add mystery to the character, but rather makes him less interesting.

By the way, does anyone know any non-Italian story (beside "Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot" and its remakes) in which we see the Blot without his mask?

[whatevs]

Scrooge MacDuck is spot-on about my thoughts on the PB (thanks!), including using the Joker as an example. I have only minimal interest in "Batman", but I specifically avoid anything with the Joker because of how he's upped against all other villains (and some heroes as well), "Joker's Millions" being the one obvious delightful exception. Another example that comes to mind is Ganon in "The Legend of Zelda" and how there was this start to expand beyond him but instead "Hijacked by Ganon" is now a TVTropes page. And in the 80s Transformers franchise Optimus and Megatron could die and be replaced by a long line of other leaders with their own strengths, weaknesses, and circumstances. In modern-day TF fiction, either those others don't exist, or there's a distinct effort to make Optimus and Megatron look better by a longshot to justify them being reinstated time and time again at the cost of others and the potential they represent.

I like villains, recurring villains, and up to primary villains. What I don't like is a "villain who is just above any other bad guy, and can only find [their] match in [protagonist]". It ruins the villain for me. And the worldbuilding. And the hero. I have no interest in a hero who doesn't need help and who does not have (functional) peers.

Goldie and Glomgold are the ones I feel easiest to illustrate L&T's issue with. Don Rosa started so well with Goldie but, imo, got lost in how much he wanted to portray her as Scrooge's one true love and ended up writing her for Scrooge rather than for herself. I dislike her redesign because it is as if until her deathbed she has to remain the fantasy girl of Scrooge's youth. For comparison, DuckTales did her redesign in a way that feels like it's done for Goldie herself. I also dislike how Don Rosa never invested in getting her across the time skip, thereby making her an incredibly passive doll wasting her life waiting for Scrooge to get his act together. It's not romantic to me at all. Glomgold suffers from being (prematurely) pigeonholed as the Number #2 to Scrooge's Number #1. He's, like, around solely to be the perpetual pedestal on which Scrooge stands. I don't know if that thing about him dying at 99 was truly said by Don Rosa, but stuff like that comes from a mindset alien to me. Outside L&T, Hortense got hit in "A Letter from Home" with the same treatment. Her attitude towards Scrooge is set up to make her look pitiful for the purpose of the reveal that she was wrong all along about her father and her brother, who was sympathetically secretly in pain the entire time. Her pain, and the life she lost to that, is made subservient to Scrooge's ordeal.

I know none of the above was necessary to tell the story of Scrooge McDuck. You can give a protagonist (a full, multi-stage) life without denying it the rest of the cast.

To tie that back to the PB, 'cause, y'know, still a PB thread, I prefer the crook who has a BFF to free him from jail over the crook whose escape is inevitably his own and who might as well not be arrested. I prefer the crook who forms alliances and can be betrayed and one-upped during them over the crook who doesn't and/or who can't. I prefer the crook who can be downed by additional heroes over the crook who only has to keep his eyes on one. I prefer the crook who takes small stuff inbetween big stuff over the crook who's bet #1 when big stuff happens and off the list when small stuff happens. And I prefer the crook who has fun with his theme and (probably) owns a place called the Rorschach Club over a crook whose name has been divorced from his theme. Because the former can periodically surprise me. The latter cannot.

(And, uh, not trying to be rude, I kinda fail to see the point in stating disagreement. I didn't go into this thinking anyone needed to agree or disagree with anyone. What's the profit there over stating what you (dis)like and why you (dis)like it for yourself? Matching opinions and contrasting opinions speak for themselves, imo.)

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Re: Scrooge and Goldie, I agree that Rosa went overboard in romanticizing their relationship, and exaggerated its significance to Scrooge in his present day life. Having Goldie be a constant presence in his thoughts, with so many memories and desires tied to her, the "one thing he really wants" in "A Little Something Special", the main reason to return to Earth in "Quest for Kalevela", are far beyond what I think Barks envisioned when he rightly used her one time and one time only in "Back to the Klondike". IMHO, Goldie is a part of Scrooge's past, not his present and definitely not his future.