Bobby Driscoll story in current ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

[bigshot]

Please lock the thread. I've said all that I'm going to say.

[Thad Komorowski]

All this fuss over a cartoon character I can't stand!

Jim

Speaking as someone who works regularly with the character, I'm inclined to agree.... But, it's easy to see what the fuss is about. It's a character at the center of a lot of important film, animation, and legal history, so naturally, people will care that that history is told accurately. Likewise, Walt Disney was arguably one of the most important figures in 20th century pop culture, and it's understandable people would want his contributions to be accounted truthfully. And since it went mysteriously missing without explanation, I'll reiterate that everything Jerry Blake says is correct.

[rodney4130]

As far as I'm concerned, it's not that the fuss is over simply a cartoon character. It's that this thread is the embodiment of the modern American sickness of "#fake news". So many sources have been named to back up the narratives of Thad and jerry blake, but they are dismissed because many are published works that the Disney company has approved of...although, I think they're dismissed not for that reason, but because they simply don't display the narrative that some choose to believe and want others to believe.

If we can't have these film related conversations here, where else is one to turn? Or have we always (as a whole) been afraid to challenge what we believe to be true? If there was credence to what bigshot had to say, sources beyond "This is what I heard...." would be around.

[rodney4130]

Please lock the thread. I've said all that I'm going to say.

Are the rest of us allowed to talk about it?

[Danny Burk]

Please lock the thread. I've said all that I'm going to say.

Are the rest of us allowed to talk about it?

Of course, as long as it doesn't lead to personal attacks. That's why I haven't locked it.

[Thad Komorowski]

One correction to Rodney’s post: Mike Barrier’s books are almost certainly not approved by the Disney Company. And of course, they too are 100% accurate.

[rodney4130]

Very good point, Thad. I was primarily referring to this statement:

"The things you read in Disney history books are edited and vetted by the Disney legal department and there are subtle layers of disinformation in them."

[Thad Komorowski]

Hmm. That’s not true for any of the Disney books by John Canemaker, JB Kaufman, Didier Ghez, or David Gerstein. Knowing all them, I can confirm if that kept happening, they wouldn’t keep writing the books. A ludicrous claim. “Disinformation” indeed.

[Daniel Eagan]

Hmm. That’s not true for any of the Disney books by John Canemaker, JB Kaufman, Didier Ghez, or David Gerstein. Knowing all them, I can confirm if that kept happening, they wouldn’t keep writing the books. A ludicrous claim. “Disinformation” indeed.

I've interviewed the writers and directors of Big Hero Six, Zootopia, Ralph Wrecks the Internet and many live-action Disney films. There are always Disney personnel present, and they record the sessions for their own peace of mind. I've been asked to correct factual mistakes (e.g., character names, equipment used, things like that). It's something I am grateful to do. But I've never been asked to change something because studio lawyers didn't like it. And I never felt like I was being fed "disinformation."

[Smari1989]

Mickey could be a very good character if given the right treatment, IMO; such as in Gottfredson's comic strip. Not a very funny or "deep" chap, but brimming with charm and spirit, sort of like a more childlike Douglas Fairbanks. That is, before he was completely watered down into a bland middle-class everyman kind of guy. To their credit, Disney has tried to reestablish Mickey's earlier, more adventurous side in recent years, with that "Epic Mickey" game and so on.

Another Gottfredson anecdote: Floyd greatly disliked the increasing blandness of Mickey's character in the 50s, and suggested that they should reinvent him (in the comic strip, at least), make him into a "little Chaplin mouse" struggling in the harsh world (source: Comics Journal interview from the 80s). Sadly (IMO), the idea was rejected.

[Jim Roots]

Mickey could be a very good character if given the right treatment, IMO; such as in Gottfredson's comic strip. Not a very funny or "deep" chap, but brimming with charm and spirit, sort of like a more childlike Douglas Fairbanks. That is, before he was completely watered down into a bland middle-class everyman kind of guy. To their credit, Disney has tried to reestablish Mickey's earlier, more adventurous side in recent years, with that "Epic Mickey" game and so on.

Another Gottfredson anecdote: Floyd greatly disliked the increasing blandness of Mickey's character in the 50s, and suggested that they should reinvent him (in the comic strip, at least), make him into a "little Chaplin mouse" struggling in the harsh world (source: Comics Journal interview from the 80s). Sadly (IMO), the idea was rejected.

In the 1960s, it was either Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. For me, there was never an easier choice to make in my life.

Jim

[s.w.a.c.]

In the 1960s, it was either Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. For me, there was never an easier choice to make in my life.

Jim

Daffy Duck?

"Pronoun trouble!"

[boblipton]

In the 1960s, it was either Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. For me, there was never an easier choice to make in my life.

Jim

Daffy Duck?

"Pronoun trouble!"

We all want to be Bugs Bunny. We all are Daffy Duck.

Bob

[s.w.a.c.]

In the 1960s, it was either Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. For me, there was never an easier choice to make in my life.

Daffy Duck?

"Pronoun trouble!"

We all want to be Bugs Bunny. We all are Daffy Duck.

"Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin."

[Jim Roots]

In the 1960s, it was either Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny. For me, there was never an easier choice to make in my life.

Jim

Daffy Duck?

"Pronoun trouble!"

Daffy was an integral part of Bugs Bunny cartoons. In fact, when they revived The Bugs Bunny Show in the ... what was it, the 80s? ... it was retitled "The Bugs and Daffy Show", if I'm not mistaken. I definitely remember they inserted Daffy beside Bugs in the opening dance routine, "Overture, Curtains, Lights!" and the two of them would then do a brief vaudeville repartee bit before the first cartoon started.

Bugsy Jim
(I'm only Daffy Jim when Binky is around.)

[Mike Gebert]

I grew up a Warner bros. cartoon fan because of their availability, first and foremost; my exposure to classic Disney shorts was very slight, because of the studio's short-sighted policies. I didn't really get sustained exposure to Disney short animation until my kids were born, and we started watching Vault Disney, and then bought those now-very-pricy Disney Treasures sets. It was not just having the shorts easily accessible that finally let me see what was wonderful about them—it was having little kids to watch them with, understand the innocence and delight with which they enjoyed Funny Little Bunnies or Water Babies or Mickey's Orphans. The fluidity and mastery of the animation, the rich Technicolor and the sweetness of Mickey and Walt's fables made a convert out of me. Is Disney or Warners better? To me it's like Chaplin or Keaton—my adult sensibility is more attuned to smart-alecky Warners as it is to Keaton's, but it's a matter of comparing masters.

Here's Water Babies. I've seen this 50 times if I've seen it once.

[boblipton]

There's a good deal in what you write, Mike. I think that's why I enjoy Robert Rodriguez' "Spy Kids" movies, and the Lego movies -- the latest has been attacked for product placement. It's the ability to get inside the heads of young kids and show them the sort of movie they'd make if they had the facilities that I enjoy about them. I can watch them as a five-year-old, not the sort of c**p that adults think kids will like because they're morons.

I think you should ask your sons, though, which they prefer when it comes to the short cartoons. I know that, like you, I grew up with Bugs Bunny, and even though there was also Woody Woodpecker, Famous Studios and Terrytoons, they always seemed inferior to me. From the beginning, it was Looney Tunes and the Fleischers.

I think it was because humor is the shield and weapon of the weak. Mine was an immigrant family, starting out poor, with the events of the Holocaust hanging over our heads and the anti-Semitism that was still around among the WASPs. Even though I can see the artistry in the Disney stuff, when it comes to a 7-minute cartoon, give me Bugs any day... or even Daffy.

Still, given those objections, it's clear these movies were not made for me and my own set of aesthetics. You say your boys grew up with both. What's their take?

Bob

[Smari1989]

Even as a kid, I mean like 7-8 years old, I always loved the Daffy Duck of the 30s-40s, but thought that later artists kinda got his personality wrong (okay, I'm SURE I didn't actually analyze it like I do now, but I did at least prefer the old Daffy). I suspect (and this is pure guesswork on my part) that the later artists (such as Chuck Jones) changed Daffy's character partly to make him into a funnier sidekick to Bugs. The old Daffy was a lot like Bugs, actually; mischiveous & unpredictable, but rather likable at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, though; some of Chuck Jones' Daffy/Bugs cartoons are insanely funny to me to this day, and my nephews have seemed to like them better than the really old ones.

[Mike Gebert]

I think you should ask your sons, though, which they prefer when it comes to the short cartoons. I know that, like you, I grew up with Bugs Bunny, and even though there was also Woody Woodpecker, Famous Studios and Terrytoons, they always seemed inferior to me. From the beginning, it was Looney Tunes and the Fleischers.

The younger one, at least, would say The Simpsons. I guess in time they moved from Disney to Warner Bros., but there was a time when we were in unison on early Disney.