On the subject of Goofy - Page 2

innerSpaceman · 02-14-2007, 09:46 AM

No ... it's that, from the pictures at least, I see only the slightest similarites. Sure, the ears. Uh-huh. But not the face.

And it's just that this has become one of my pet peeves. Like I said, it was a running disagreement with zapppop ... and, while I'm usually cocksure about my knowledge (whether I make it up or not) ... I've rarely had something as authoritative as my conversation with Art Babbit. Now I'm sorry I never asked him where the dog-faced man got his face.

ETA: Oh, you and CP came to the same instant and instinctive conclusion about something? You two who've been a couple for decades? Pfft! It's more notable when you don't think alike at this point.

mousepod · 02-14-2007, 10:02 AM

Just to add fuel to the fire... did Babbitt create Goofy? He certainly perfected the character and defined the personality - but Goofy appeared in several cartoons before Babbitt got a hold of him, didn't he?

Alex · 02-14-2007, 10:34 AM

And there are real mice in the same "universe" that contains Mickey Mouse.

Some characters were human analogs and some weren't. Even if they were the same basic species.

But since the original appearance by Goofy was just as a throwaway character in a crowd scene (it was the laugh that caught Disney's tradition) things probably weren't well examined and then future designs were just based on the previous ones.

Here's Goofy in his first appearance:

Notice the human pig, goat, cow, and dog, with the more natural looking cat and dog. Ultimately I'd say that the "dogness" of Goofy is immune to logical consideration.

innerSpaceman · 02-14-2007, 07:59 PM

And no, Art Babbit is not the originator of Goofy in his original form. Many artists came to "create" Goofy over a span of some years, but Babbit is credited with having had far and away the most input, and thus he is deemed the primary "creator" of Goofy, even though it's acknowledged to have been a group effort.

I still don't think Goofy's face look's anything like any actual dog. It's just generally dog-like, in a cartoonish way that matches no actual canine facial anatomy.

Nephythys · 02-15-2007, 09:33 AM

The argument that "it doesn't make sense" just won't hold up.

The human-like animals in the Disney world eat other animals (turkey at Thanksgiving etc)

Donald is ALWAYS "nude" on the bottom- but when you take off his shirt he covers his lower body.

It doesn't have to make "sense".

mousepod · 02-15-2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Donald is ALWAYS "nude" on the bottom- but when you take off his shirt he covers his lower body.

I was just thinking that when I was rewatching "Donald Gets Drafted" last weekend.

Not Afraid · 02-15-2007, 11:01 AM

The Pants Optional aspect to most cartoons always amuses me. Practical Pig wears pants while the other two do not. Pants are practical, I guess.

Cadaverous Pallor · 02-15-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

No ... it's that, from the pictures at least, I see only the slightest similarites. Sure, the ears. Uh-huh. But not the face.

Funny, that's what clinched it for me. Look again. The muzzle on both of them is tan, and the area around the eyes is black (minus eyebrows, which Goofy does not have). Add that to the overly long, thin and floppy, completely black ears, and I'm convinced.

I won't tell people the coonhound was the inspiration, but I'll believe it myself, regardless of grumpy detractors.

Oh, and yeah, nothing makes sense in cartoons.

innerSpaceman · 02-15-2007, 08:06 PM

It would indeed be practical for a certain genre of "pig."

But that's a subject for another thread .... on a different message board.

02-14-2007, 09:46 AM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	No ... it's that, from the pictures at least, I see only the slightest similarites. Sure, the ears. Uh-huh. But not the face. And it's just that this has become one of my pet peeves. Like I said, it was a running disagreement with zapppop ... and, while I'm usually cocksure about my knowledge (whether I make it up or not) ... I've rarely had something as authoritative as my conversation with Art Babbit. Now I'm sorry I never asked him where the dog-faced man got his face. ETA: Oh, you and CP came to the same instant and instinctive conclusion about something? You two who've been a couple for decades? Pfft! It's more notable when you don't think alike at this point.
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2007, 10:02 AM	#2
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	Just to add fuel to the fire... did Babbitt create Goofy? He certainly perfected the character and defined the personality - but Goofy appeared in several cartoons before Babbitt got a hold of him, didn't he? __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2007, 10:34 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And there are real mice in the same "universe" that contains Mickey Mouse. Some characters were human analogs and some weren't. Even if they were the same basic species. But since the original appearance by Goofy was just as a throwaway character in a crowd scene (it was the laugh that caught Disney's tradition) things probably weren't well examined and then future designs were just based on the previous ones. Here's Goofy in his first appearance: Notice the human pig, goat, cow, and dog, with the more natural looking cat and dog. Ultimately I'd say that the "dogness" of Goofy is immune to logical consideration.
	Submit to Quotes

02-14-2007, 07:59 PM	#4
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	And no, Art Babbit is not the originator of Goofy in his original form. Many artists came to "create" Goofy over a span of some years, but Babbit is credited with having had far and away the most input, and thus he is deemed the primary "creator" of Goofy, even though it's acknowledged to have been a group effort. I still don't think Goofy's face look's anything like any actual dog. It's just generally dog-like, in a cartoonish way that matches no actual canine facial anatomy.
	Submit to Quotes

02-15-2007, 09:33 AM	#5
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	The argument that "it doesn't make sense" just won't hold up. The human-like animals in the Disney world eat other animals (turkey at Thanksgiving etc) Donald is ALWAYS "nude" on the bottom- but when you take off his shirt he covers his lower body. It doesn't have to make "sense".
	Submit to Quotes

02-15-2007, 11:01 AM	#7
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	The Pants Optional aspect to most cartoons always amuses me. Practical Pig wears pants while the other two do not. Pants are practical, I guess.
	Submit to Quotes

02-15-2007, 08:06 PM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	It would indeed be practical for a certain genre of "pig." But that's a subject for another thread .... on a different message board.
	Submit to Quotes