As far as the rational explanation bit goes, since you're the second person to feel that way, perhaps that should be designated "Level 1.5". But with regard to something only being canon if it's crossed over with the Duck/Mouse universe ... do you mean you would exclude a story that had Jaq and Gus (the Cinderella Mice) on an adventure with Jiminy Cricket, for example? (I'm thinking of a Jack Bradbury story where that actually happened). Are Chip N' Dale part of the "Duck/Mouse" universe? They've interacted with a lot of obscure Disney characters.
Well, no, I wouldn't exclude a Jaq/Gus/Jiminy story, because Jaq, Gus, and Jiminy Cricket have all crossed over with Duck/Mouse characters. Same with Chip 'n' Dale.
Edit: Yes, what Scrooge MacDuck said in the post before this (it hadn't yet been posted when I started to write this)
Last Edit: Oct 30, 2018 20:46:12 GMT by drleevezan
As far as the rational explanation bit goes, since you're the second person to feel that way, perhaps that should be designated "Level 1.5". But with regard to something only being canon if it's crossed over with the Duck/Mouse universe ... do you mean you would exclude a story that had Jaq and Gus (the Cinderella Mice) on an adventure with Jiminy Cricket, for example? (I'm thinking of a Jack Bradbury story where that actually happened). Are Chip N' Dale part of the "Duck/Mouse" universe? They've interacted with a lot of obscure Disney characters.
Well, no, I wouldn't exclude a Jaq/Gus/Jiminy story, because Jaq, Gus, and Jiminy Cricket have all crossed over with Duck/Mouse characters. Same with Chip 'n' Dale.
Edit: Yes, what Scrooge MacDuck said in the post before this (it hadn't yet been posted when I started to write this)
Ah, I see. That makes sense if you start from a comics-based perspective, of course, which the lumper-splitter scale does.
I guess I would be at level 3. I would include 'Quack Pack' and 'Goof Troop' as sequels to the "present time" of the comics, although I'd have to ignore some details for continuity's sake. But I exclude stuff like 'House of Mouse' from my head-canon - partly because it makes Mickey & co out to be actors/celebrities and partly because of the appearance of random other characters from Disney movies I don't include in my head-canon.
I have much difficulty in accepting this story - The Aristokittens meet Chip'n'Dale (they live explicitly in France, circa 1900 - how can they interact with characters who apparently live in present time, or at least in the 1950-1960s?)
Probably I will accepting more easily Scamp/Lady/Tramp in a crossover with the usual characters (because I think their stories are not so explicitly located and timed).
Last Edit: Oct 31, 2018 2:58:14 GMT by crazycatlord
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Oct 31, 2018 10:39:44 GMT
The Aristocats… MEAS matters aside, really the only way to accept it is to assume that it actually doesn't take place in 1900, but rather in the 1940's or 1950's, except everyone we meet is really old-fashioned.
The Aristocats… MEAS matters aside, really the only way to accept it is to assume that it actually doesn't take place in 1900, but rather in the 1940's or 1950's, except everyone we meet is really old-fashioned.
I'd argue that MEAS incompatibility is not an issue with this story ... the Aristocats are MEAS-2 (talk to each other and other animals but not humans) and so are Chip N' Dale (they are sometimes also MEAS-3, as they can talk to "humans" or MEAS-4s, but for the purposes of an encounter with the Aristocats they can be considered MEAS-2s). The bigger problem is the incompatibility of the time periods in which the characters live ... which is not explainable and hence must be ignored, making this lumper-splitter Level 1, not even a 1.5.
Interestingly, just today I read an old Gladstone issue of WDC&S that featured two stories with bizzare crossovers; in one, Thumper meets the Seven Dwarfs, which is clearly a Level 1 story since animals can't talk to humans in Snow White (and presumably also in Bambi) leading to MEAS incompatibility, and another starring Dumbo, Timothy Mouse, Jiminy Cricket and a Duck/Mouse universe-type dognose farmer named Bowser. The latter story is interesting; no time-period related incompatability, but if the dognose farmer acts as all dognoses do (i.e., as an MEAS-4b2, essentially a stand-in for a human), then the MEAS-2 Timothy and Jiminy Cricket should not be able to communicate with him, but they do. Making this a lumper-splitter Level 1. Unless Timothy and Jiminy *can* actually communicate with humans (making them MEAS-3s), in which case, since there is no MEAS violation, this story would be a lumper-splitter Level 2. In the movie, Jiminy speaks to Pinocchio and the Blue Fairy (magical beings, not "humans" per se), but does he ever speak to Geppetto or other humans? To make things more confusing, Pinocchio features Figaro, an MEAS-1 cat, and Gideon, an MEAS-4 cat, so it has differing levels of anthropomorphism, like the Duck/Mouse universes (but far more complex as there are MEAS-2s and possibly 3s). As for Timothy, in Dumbo, he's able to "suggest" something to the ringmaster by whispering in his ear as he sleeps, but does that count as talking to humans? Is he MEAS-2 or 3? Of course, you could just argue that since these stories does not feature and Duck/Mouse characters, they can be ignored altogether as inconsequential ... which is where I, the extreme splitter, will probably end up.
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Oct 31, 2018 16:54:01 GMT
Baar Baar Jinx : If you want, you could explain Thumber and the 7 Dwarfs through the Dwarfs' magical nature — they're Dwarfs, not humans. Personally, I'd just explain it with my basic "the Black Forest is enchanted" framework.
As for the second one… I think this is a case where the MEAS scale complicates matters needlessly. I have never, ever seen a story where Jiminy is not able to talk to humans (or the story's human-stand-ins, as the case may be), and the notion that anyone could look at him and consider him an animal is preposterous. As a child watching the film, I certainly never supposed he was in any way different from Gideon and Honest-John — he's just one of the anthropomorphic animals who populate Pinocchio's world, who are known to be animals but not treated differently for it by the human characters.
Timothy Q. Mouse is a stranger case, in that he can speak both to the story's "animals" and to its "humans" — yes later works aside, I don't think the Ringmaster could have understood what the Elepehants were saying, and Tim gets throught to them alright. But it's nost just his night-whispering to the Ringmaster (which is already pretty conclusive): at the end of the film when Dumbo becomes a star, Timothy appears in the newspaper as his agent.
Baar Baar Jinx : If you want, you could explain Thumber and the 7 Dwarfs through the Dwarfs' magical nature — they're Dwarfs, not humans.
I always thought the Snow White dwarfs were just humans, not magical beings ... is there any evidence to the contrary?
And as for Timothy Mouse, yes, I remember now how the newspaper article at the end stating that he had been signed on as Dumbo's agent struck me, even as a child, as discordant with the way the whole movie seemed to imply that humans were unaware that animals could communicate with them and with each other.
I always thought the Snow White dwarfs were just humans, not magical beings ... is there any evidence to the contrary?
You're… certainly one of the first people to think so. I mean, when you're reading a Grimm fairy tale, and travel into the forest yields a meeting with a group of seven dwarves… why on Earth would you assume you're dealing with nonmagical little-people, rather than the mythical creatures? I'm not saying the Dwarfs could conjure up magic or anything like that, but they're, to my mind, on the same level as, say, Tolkien's Dwarves. Wikipedia agrees, and its page on the Dwarfs links to "Dwarf (mythology)".
As for evidence… they don't look anything like the "real" humans in the movie do, though. Prince Florian, Humbert the Huntsman, Grimhilde and Snow all have pretty realistic looks. They could be accepted as regular genetic dwarfs if this were, say, Beauty and the Beast, or Cinderella, but not here.
Most strikingly, their hands have four fingers. Later on in Disney history, this would once again be used as a sign of the fantasy characters opposite the mundane ones (see the Genie in Aladdin, Creeper in The Black Cauldron).
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Oct 31, 2018 21:28:42 GMT
Well, yes, I guess I did sort of think of them as mythological, but not magical. In other words, they wouldn't be able to conjure up the magic required to talk to Thumper in the story discussed above, for example. I would have said they're like the Peeweegah or Menehunes; somewhat exotic but still human, if that makes sense. As to their exaggerated features, I don't think that rules out their being human in a Disney film; there are several examples of widely varying human character designs in the same universe, and comedic characters are always drawn with unrealistic proportions.
And Jiminy Cricket, yeah ... if it weren't for his size, he'd be an MEAS-4a; in the Pinocchio world, I guess he'd have been on par with Foulfellow and Gideon, but his size makes him a "bug", not a human, so he has to be an MEAS-3. Does he talk to any humans or MEAS-4s (Foulfellow, Gideon) in the movie? Pinocchio himself and the Blue Fairy wouldn't count since they're "magical".
Does he talk to any humans or MEAS-4s (Foulfellow, Gideon) in the movie? Pinocchio himself and the Blue Fairy wouldn't count since they're "magical".
I'd dispute your classification of Pinocchio as "magical" in any other way than his wooden nature, though to be fair, it is imaginable that the Fairy might have unspokenly given him the ability to understand Jiminy to allow Jiminy to be an efficient conscience.
But no, to answer your question, he doesn't. (Of course, there are only two human characters of note in the movie whom Jiminy would have a chance of interacting with — Gepetto and Lampwick.) He does, however, interact with the humans in Fun & Fancy Free, and with Scrooge in Christmas Carol (if that counts). And, of course, in all his subsequent appearances in non-theatrical media (be it TV or comics), he talked to humans or pseudohumans freely.
As for his size, on the one hand, he's not anywhere near human-size, but on the other hand… he's way beyond cricket-size, isn't he? Rather like how Donald isn't anywhere near human, yet much larger than a real Duck. Hmmm.
Probably I will accepting more easily Scamp/Lady/Tramp in a crossover with the usual characters (because I think their stories are not so explicitly located and timed).
According to Wikipedia the film plot starts in 1909. You can see quite easily that it's supposed to take place in the 1910s because of the car models and other background details. These things are also seen in the Scamp comics (well, at least in some of them), even in the "modern" ones still produced in the Netherlands today.
So, as Mickey had his birthday in 1928 and Donald in 1934 - as we all know - it would be inconsistent to have a crossover with these characters.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Nov 2, 2018 13:04:44 GMT
This raises the question as to whether, after a certain number of appearances in print, a character in the comics becomes sufficiently distinguishable from the original animated version that appeared in a movie/classic short/TV show as to no longer be bound by the initial time period/MEAS level. Just as Comics-Donald started off as essentially the same character as Cartoon-Donald, but then gained complexity and nuance under Barks' wing (and to a certain extent Taliaferro's as well) to be considered by some as a separate entity, and Comics-Mickey followed a similar arc under Gottfredson, are Comics-Scamp and Comics-Jiminy different from their original cartoon counterparts? (The MEAS compatibility seems a bigger issue than time period incompatibility, however). I don't think any of this applies to the Aristocats since they are hardly frequent comics stars. In any case, as an extreme splitter who cares only about the Duck and Mouse universes (and keeps them separate), characters like Scamp and Jiminy Cricket matter little to me, unless I am forced to deal with them when they appear in a story starring traditional characters.
As to the question of the Ducks' physical size, it actually creates an interesting conundrum for someone like me who subscribes to the "filter" theory (i.e., that these characters are all human and only look like ducks, pigs, dogs, etc. because of a "filter" or "lens" through which we view them). There can't be as huge a size discrepancy between two adult men as there is between Scrooge and Gyro, for example, or Donald and Jones. I suppose I can ignore those differences as part of the filter except when it is actually an important plot point (species-specific jokes about the Ducks' feathers or web feet, or references to their laying eggs fall in the same category). The same goes for Mickey being referred to as a "little guy". I mean, I guess he can be a relatively short human being, but that only goes so far. I doubt there are many others who are committed to the filter theory as I am, though, so it probably isn't an issue for most.
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Nov 2, 2018 18:40:21 GMT
Yeah, you're definitely in the minority. But I've considered the filter-theory as an alternate reading once in a while, and there was no doubt in my mind that the Duck family (and Mickey) were just short — significantly shorter than the Beagles or Gyro. 1m50 to Pete or the Beagles' 1m80? Something like that.