NEW MICKEY MOUSE SHORTS!

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Yeah, the bucktooth's kinda weird but mostly harmless.

I think the idea with Goofy's breaking-apart is that he's a Toon, operating on Tex Avery logic, rather than a robot *or* a flesh-and-blood person. Failing that, there is Mickey and Goofy's "that's just so… goofy" comment at the end, which suggests the alternate interpretation that Goofy's own insanity is somehow contaminating the world around him, which begins to run on *his* kind of logic.

[TheMidgetMoose]

Jul 10, 2019 21:54:17 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Yeah, the bucktooth's kinda weird but mostly harmless.

I think the idea with Goofy's breaking-apart is that he's a Toon, operating on Tex Avery logic, rather than a robot *or* a flesh-and-blood person. Failing that, there is Mickey and Goofy's "that's just so… goofy" comment at the end, which suggests the alternate interpretation that Goofy's own insanity is somehow contaminating the world around him, which begins to run on *his* kind of logic.

Perhaps. Even still, I feel like if the Toon-thing were the case, it should have been made more clearly in the short that Goofy is in fact just a toon. That kind of emphasis would have made his dismemberment less horrifying. As for the theory about the whole thing happening just because it's Goofy, I don't feel like Mickey and Donald's should have been what it was. Your crazy, weird, and wacky best friend has just been dismembered in front of your eyes, and you decide to just put him back together. I'm not doubting that there are people somewhere out there in the world that think like that, but I don't think that would be the natural or normal response.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

I guess the point is that, if this happened in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, or Roger Rabbit or something directly descended from Tex Avery, we wouldn't bat an eyelid. But the Disney characters have rarely been portrayed this way, even in animation (and definitely not in the comics). So it just feels out-of-place. (Even in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, during the dueling pianos scene, I thought Donald stretching his body so that he could play Daffy's piano with his tail was atypical for a Disney character.)

[Mesterius]

Jul 12, 2019 3:06:15 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

I guess the point is that, if this happened in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, or Roger Rabbit or something directly descended from Tex Avery, we wouldn't bat an eyelid. But the Disney characters have rarely been portrayed this way, even in animation (and definitely not in the comics). So it just feels out-of-place. (Even in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, during the dueling pianos scene, I thought Donald stretching his body so that he could play Daffy's piano with his tail was atypical for a Disney character.)

We WOULD have batted an eyelid or two though if the whole cartoon was suddenly about Jerry trying to put Tom's body parts back together. Usually when a character breaks into pieces, the scene fades to black or cuts to a different shot, so we always know it's not permanent. Here, they take that convention and turn it on its head.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

You're right. I guess we should make a distinction between cartoon "out-takes" (that's probably not the correct term), where a character undergoes a very brief physical transformation to show that they're reacting to something powerfully or experiencing an intense emotion and the artist/animator wants to emphasize that to the reader/viewer (e.g., eyes bulging and jaw dropping to the floor to portray surprise, heart visibly thumping out of chest to convey fear, pupils being replaced by hearts or dollar signs to suggest lust or greed, etc.); that's a common trope used in the classic Disney cartoons and even in the Duck comics. The key being that you know it's not "really happening" and you can ignore it completely without the plotline being affected. In this Mickey Mouse cartoon, as well as the one where Mickey's ears run off his head, the idea that these characters are "toons" not subject to the laws of physics or biology forms the basis of the "story", as it were. So yes, it just seems alien to a cartoon starring Disney characters.

[Mesterius]

Jul 12, 2019 17:42:45 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

You're right. I guess we should make a distinction between cartoon "out-takes" (that's probably not the correct term), where a character undergoes a very brief physical transformation to show that they're reacting to something powerfully or experiencing an intense emotion and the artist/animator wants to emphasize that to the reader/viewer (e.g., eyes bulging and jaw dropping to the floor to portray surprise, heart visibly thumping out of chest to convey fear, pupils being replaced by hearts or dollar signs to suggest lust or greed, etc.); that's a common trope used in the classic Disney cartoons and even in the Duck comics. The key being that you know it's not "really happening" and you can ignore it completely without the plotline being affected. In this Mickey Mouse cartoon, as well as the one where Mickey's ears run off his head, the idea that these characters are "toons" not subject to the laws of physics or biology forms the basis of the "story", as it were. So yes, it just seems alien to a cartoon starring Disney characters.

Well... I get what you're saying, and I agree with a lot of it. But my point was that a plot where a cartoon character's ears become alive and run off his head would feel pretty alien even with Tom and Jerry or Bugs Bunny. I can't even think of a Tex Avery cartoon which plays with the body parts of a character in this way.

I think such an idea actually has more of a basis in the earlier era of American cartoons: the 20s/early 30s Disney and Fleischer productions. In THOSE cartoons, inanimate objects like hot dogs could come alive and plead with Mickey/Oswald not to eat them. Or an even earlier example; Felix the Cat could take his tail off and use it as a prop to overcome problems he was facing. 

[Pan Maciej]

While the last episode had few wild, almost Ren and Stimpy'ish expressions... 

I'm sorry. This *IS* the CUTEST MINNIE EVER!!!



<Interups the next comment> 

CUTEST... MINNIE... EVER!!!

[justpassingthrough]

May 18, 2019 22:22:03 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

May 18, 2019 20:35:06 GMT Pan Maciej said:

I wish this was part of comic book canon...

I'm probably overthinking this, but ... although I'm sure both Pluto and Goofy being "dogs" was the inspiration for this episode, it could work just as well if both Mickey and Goofy were considered humans. I mean, Goofy never quite says, "Pluto and I are both dogs, so why can't I act like he does?", nor does Mickey make an allusion to it. Goofy just thinks dogs have an easy life and wants in on it. So this cartoon is technically non-violative of the MEAS, and therefore, could still work within the comics universe (although it's a far more ridiculous a premise than, say, a Gottfredson or Scarpa story). 

There's an earlier one that more clearly references Goofy sand Pluto both being dogs.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKXj5nCM4I

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Oct 20, 2019 0:00:37 GMT justpassingthrough said:

There's an earlier one that more clearly references Goofy sand Pluto both being dogs.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKXj5nCM4I

Well, since Mickey was mistaken for a dog as well, maybe it's not because Goofy is a dog, but because he was a man that acted like a dog, that he could enter the contest? (Yes, I know I'm clutching at straws here.)

I actually watched that episode before. I remember wondering if it was inspired by the Ren and Stimpy short "Dog Show".

[juicymcduck]

Mickey holding his naked best friend on a leash in public.
You just reminded me why I don't like this series of shorts; they're trying to make it surreal, but it only comes off as gross and disturbing to me.

[justpassingthrough]

Oct 20, 2019 1:20:33 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Oct 20, 2019 0:00:37 GMT justpassingthrough said:

There's an earlier one that more clearly references Goofy sand Pluto both being dogs.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKXj5nCM4I

Well, since Mickey was mistaken for a dog as well, maybe it's not because Goofy is a dog, but because he was a man that acted like a dog, that he could enter the contest? (Yes, I know I'm clutching at straws here.)

I actually watched that episode before. I remember wondering if it was inspired by the Ren and Stimpy short "Dog Show".

Could be, but early on in the short, Goofy and Pluto are shown doing similarly dog-like activities. Then again, I’m of the opinion that the continuity of these shorts and their bearing on Disney continuity at large should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Did we all just miss this?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

I didn't.

[Pan Maciej]

Merry Christmas you all ^_^

[Pan Maciej]

NEW! AT DISNEYWORLD...