Do you like the concept of 100% human formed characters?

[Hector]

In many stories, especially italian ones, there are secondary characters
that are totally humans, they don't even have a dog nose. I think that
kills some of the mage/charm of a world with anthropomorphic animals.
How do you view it?

[RobbK1]

I don't like use of Humans in "Funny Animal Comics". I didn't like Barks using them nor any other creator doing that.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

For me, Homo Sapiens are just one other species in the Duckburg melting pot. Too many memorable characters like Dr Creepy-Eyes (from Ancient Persia), Witch Hazel, Yen Sid or Madam Mim are humans for one to disregard them.

[iggy]

I like them in modern italian stories because they are quite caricaturized so they dont seem like realistic humans for me however in older stuff like barks they seem out of place

[Patofu]

I have no problems with them, honestly.

[Matilda]

I prefer to have everybody be anthropomorphized animals, at least to the extent of a dognose. The witches never seemed human to me--not the way the human characters in "Dangerous Disguise" do.

[drakeborough]

Since I think anthropomorphic characters from the Duck and Mouse universe are actually humans, I have nothing against the idea of drawing some of them as 100% humans. Humans have being part of the Duck and Mouse universe since their eary shorts and early comics, though they were outnumbered by dognoses and other animals because editors didn't like having humans.

That said, not every human is OK for me: the characters from "Dangerous Disguise" are fine to me, since they are similar to dognoses, but humans drawn too realistically like in the picture below....



... look weird on a visual level despite being ok on a conceptual level. Or, I should say they make the main characters look weird. Anwyay, if I were an author I would draw dognoses rather than humans since I'm more used to seeing them.

And before someone asks for a list of humans appearing in Duck and Mouse comics, here is a 5-page thread about this subject on the Papersera forum.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jul 23, 2017 0:18:38 GMT Matilda said:

I prefer to have everybody be anthropomorphized animals, at least to the extent of a dognose. The witches never seemed human to me--not the way the human characters in "Dangerous Disguise" do.

Agree completely. A dognose and four-fingered hands are required, regardless of how realistically the character is otherwise drawn.  As for the witches (Hazel and Mim), I would prefer there not be even grotesquely-drawn humans in the Duck stories, but since neither is "real" to me, I don't mind much (sorry, I know you are fond of Mim).

In their early strips, Gottfredson and Taliaferro both had a tendency to draw attractive young women as five-fingered humans, surrounded by a townful of men (and older, presumably less attractive women) who were four-fingered dognoses-bordering-on-dogs. I guess women in these comics slowly turned into dognoses as they aged? Gottfredson later overcame that habit when he drew Drusilla in "House of Mystery", who is clearly a dognose despite being depicted as attractive (though still five-fingered).  I wonder if he was mandated to do so, or had he by then come around to the idea that all characters should be dognoses?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jul 23, 2017 16:16:17 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Jul 23, 2017 0:18:38 GMT Matilda said:

I prefer to have everybody be anthropomorphized animals, at least to the extent of a dognose. The witches never seemed human to me--not the way the human characters in "Dangerous Disguise" do.

Agree completely. A dognose and four-fingered hands are required, regardless of how realistically the character is otherwise drawn.  As for the witches (Hazel and Mim), I would prefer there not be even grotesquely-drawn humans in the Duck stories, but since neither is "real" to me, I don't mind much (sorry, I know you are fond of Mim).

Uh… Hazel is not real? She did appear in Barks though.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jul 23, 2017 17:05:58 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jul 23, 2017 16:16:17 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Agree completely. A dognose and four-fingered hands are required, regardless of how realistically the character is otherwise drawn.  As for the witches (Hazel and Mim), I would prefer there not be even grotesquely-drawn humans in the Duck stories, but since neither is "real" to me, I don't mind much (sorry, I know you are fond of Mim).

Uh… Hazel is not real? She did appear in Barks though.

Yes, but "Trick or Treat" was an adaptation of a cartoon, and I feel like Barks was mandated to use her.
Wasn't there a similar story behind the witch in "The Golden Christmas Tree", that Barks was requested to use the witch from Snow White (who was actually referred to as if she were a real person rather than a fairy-tale character in this story)?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jul 23, 2017 17:19:14 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Jul 23, 2017 17:05:58 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Uh… Hazel is not real? She did appear in Barks though.

Yes, but "Trick or Treat" was an adaptation of a cartoon, and I feel like Barks was mandated to use her.
Wasn't there a similar story behind the witch in "The Golden Christmas Tree", that Barks was requested to use the witch from Snow White (who was actually referred to as if she were a real person rather than a fairy-tale character in this story)?

It is indeed suspected that Barks was ordered to use the Wicked Witch. That being said, while she does mention she's "been alive for a 1000 years", nothing beyond her appearance actually identifies her as Queen Grimhilde from Snow White — she's only ever called "the witch", and Snow White and the Dwarfs are never mentioned. Barkists (if they are willing to look past her design) can simply assume she's an unrelated witch who happens to kind of look like the movie character, and that she's no different from post-Circefication Magica. 

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jul 23, 2017 17:25:18 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

It is indeed suspected that Barks was ordered to use the Wicked Witch. That being said, while she does mention she's "been alive for a 1000 years", nothing beyond her appearance actually identifies her as Queen Grimhilde from Snow White — she's only ever called "the witch", and Snow White and the Dwarfs are never mentioned. Barkists (if they are willing to look past her design) can simply assume she's an unrelated witch who happens to kind of look like the movie character, and that she's no different from post-Circefication Magica. 

I don't have the story readily available, but I seem to recall Snow White was mentioned ... wasn't Donald reading a newspaper report about sightings of a witch, resembling "Snow White's witch" (which I took to mean actually Snow White's witch)?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jul 23, 2017 17:46:10 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Jul 23, 2017 17:25:18 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

It is indeed suspected that Barks was ordered to use the Wicked Witch. That being said, while she does mention she's "been alive for a 1000 years", nothing beyond her appearance actually identifies her as Queen Grimhilde from Snow White — she's only ever called "the witch", and Snow White and the Dwarfs are never mentioned. Barkists (if they are willing to look past her design) can simply assume she's an unrelated witch who happens to kind of look like the movie character, and that she's no different from post-Circefication Magica. 

I don't have the story readily available, but I seem to recall Snow White was mentioned ... wasn't Donald reading a newspaper report about sightings of a witch, resembling "Snow White's witch" (which I took to mean actually Snow White's witch)?

Resembling her, yes, but I took it as the same kind of deal as when Donald commented Louhi looked like "the classic fairy tale witch" in The Quest for Kalevala: the supernatural being happens to resemble a fictional character, and, when faced with them, the normal people point it out. Also (though one could chalk that up to Barks not being familiar with Grimhilde) her magical abilities in no way resemble (or mesh very logically with) the ones she demonstrated in the movie: Barks's Witch is capable of shapeshifting into such wacky things as a log at will, whereas the movie witch had to go through a whole compex, painful potion-making process to so much as make herself look older. (As an aside note, Disney comics have at least one other case of a witch who looks suspiciously like Grimhilde but is clearly not her. It's probably just a common look for witches in that universe.)

[Matilda]

Jul 23, 2017 18:06:31 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jul 23, 2017 17:46:10 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

I don't have the story readily available, but I seem to recall Snow White was mentioned ... wasn't Donald reading a newspaper report about sightings of a witch, resembling "Snow White's witch" (which I took to mean actually Snow White's witch)?

Resembling her, yes, but I took it as the same kind of deal as when Donald commented Louhi looked like "the classic fairy tale witch" in The Quest for Kalevala: the supernatural being happens to resemble a fictional character, and, when faced with them, the normal people point it out. Also (though one could chalk that up to Barks not being familiar with Grimhilde) her magical abilities in no way resemble (or mesh very logically with) the ones she demonstrated in the movie: Barks's Witch is capable of shapeshifting into such wacky things as a log at will, whereas the movie witch had to go through a whole compex, painful potion-making process to so much as make herself look older. (As an aside note, Disney comics have at least one other case of a witch who looks suspiciously like Grimhilde but is clearly not her. It's probably just a common look for witches in that universe.)

Here's the quotation from the newspaper Donald is reading: "Witch Believed Seen by Local Residents / Many people claim to have seen strange hag somewhat like witch who poisoned Snow White! Hag disappears in puff of smoke when annoyed by curious stares! /  Scores of Christmas trees torn to bits! Children's toys smashed! Believed work of witch!" Through the rest of the story she's just referred to as "the witch" or "the evil witch."

[Matilda]

Jul 23, 2017 17:25:18 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jul 23, 2017 17:19:14 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Yes, but "Trick or Treat" was an adaptation of a cartoon, and I feel like Barks was mandated to use her.
Wasn't there a similar story behind the witch in "The Golden Christmas Tree", that Barks was requested to use the witch from Snow White (who was actually referred to as if she were a real person rather than a fairy-tale character in this story)?

It is indeed suspected that Barks was ordered to use the Wicked Witch. That being said, while she does mention she's "been alive for a 1000 years", nothing beyond her appearance actually identifies her as Queen Grimhilde from Snow White — she's only ever called "the witch", and Snow White and the Dwarfs are never mentioned. Barkists (if they are willing to look past her design) can simply assume she's an unrelated witch who happens to kind of look like the movie character, and that she's no different from post-Circefication Magica. 

Minor correction: she's been alive for three thousand years!

I like the phrase "post-Circefiction Magica." Useful. I'm going to adopt that.