Disney-comics digest #191.

Torsten Wesley Adair torsten at cwis.unomaha.edu
Wed Dec 22 20:07:54 CET 1993


On Wed, 22 Dec 1993, James Williams wrote:
> >The guy who played Ebenezer Scrooge in MICKEY'S XMAS CAROL was
> >no more the real $crooge McDuck as was the guy on DUCKTALES. It was 
> >the Disney Corporation's usual misuse of that Dell/Barks character. 
> Two comments:
> First, why is this called Mickey's ..., he had a minor role.  It
> should have been Disney's ...

It was called "Mickey's..." because this was the first Mickey Mouse
cartoon since the 1960s.  I think "The Prince and the Pauper" was
"Disney's..."

> Second, I don't think Disney is mis-using their characters.  Disney's
> characters don't have any personalities.  Their personalities vary
> based on Disney's need.  Disney has always seen them more as actors
> playing roles than anything else.  In their mind, Bark's US is just
> one role played by US.

While Mickey has changed over the years (adventurer to
sickening-nice-guy), the generic personalities have been maintained in the
cartoons.  Donald has a short temper, Goofy is the naive clutz, Daisy is
the typical girlfriend who gets jealous and angry, but never dumps Donald.
 If Disney revives their animated shorts, I think they will use these types.
 
> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more because of that awful
> >voice they gave Don 
> I've always been amazed that a studio which did such pioneering work
> in animation, never understood the role sound plays in animation.  They
> really limited Donald and Chip-and-Dale because of their voices.

Oh, but no-one sounds more angry than when Donald starts to curse!  And
Chip and Dale, well, yes, they have squeeky voices, but I expect that of
them.  Warner's Mack and Tosh have wonderful British accents, which works
because they are so formal.  

One question.  In the cartoon where Donald takes speech pills and sounds
civilized, does his "new" voice sound like something Donald would say?

> >I won't even watch old DD cartoons any more partly because of the 
> >violence. 

But that's what cartoons are all about!  Physical comedy!  My favorite
cartoon is where Donald goes to the Andes, and has a battle of wills with
a llama!  And Goofy!  What a stuntman!

> I've always wondered where the attitute that "Disney=Wholesome" came
> from.  Their early work was extremely violent and often tasteless.
> Their characters were mischevious.  This unwholesomeness was prevelent
> in both their newspaper strips and animation.

Careful marketing of image.  And some lousy live-action movies, like the
Barefoot Executive, or the Boatniks.
 
> >Of course we could say: who cares, it's just a different character. 
> >But the danger is, that people can't distinguish them, and think the
> >comic books $crooge is the same as the TV $crooge.  Even comic editors
> >started to think that way, with disasterous effects on the comics... 
> Agreed.  It was obvious that Len Wein and Marv Wolfman went to Disney
> for the money, not because they loved the characters.  The result were
> a bunch of rotten comics.

I stopped buying Gladstone when they raised their prices to $0.95.  I did
follow the news reports.  

Speaking of Marv Wolfman, what's the general opinion of Disney Adventures
Magazine?

> Unfortunatley, the opposite isn't always true.  Egmont is run by people
> who love the characters.  Egmont only hires creators with the same 
> attitude.  But, they still produce tons of garbage.  

Sturgeon's Law:  97% of everything is garbage.
You've got to kiss a lot of toads to find a prince.

Torsten Adair	torsten at cwis.unomaha.edu	Omaha, NE, USA




More information about the DCML mailing list