|
|
Post by psychoangel51402 on Feb 3, 2009 0:28:25 GMT -5
Is everything said or done in cartoons to be accepted as fact about what cartoons can or cannot do, how they live, etc., or are we to presume that all cartoons are the work of actors and nothing in them can be accepted as fact, and only things seen in WFRR can be accepted as fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Feb 3, 2009 3:54:21 GMT -5
Generally I see theatrical shorts to be acting, yet representative of their actual lives for the most part. Comic books, on the other hand, focus less on getting a laugh and more on character development, and therefore actual events in their lives in my book.
I've had difficulty deciding exactly how many cartoons and comics are exclusive to our world alone, and left without an equivalent in the WFRR world... usually I judge each work individually and use certain criteria (which I can't think of right now) to decide whether or not they're true stories or just acting.
For instance, it's rather obvious that Mickey's Christmas Carol, The Prince and the Pauper, and Runaway Brain are acted out. A Goofy Movie, on the other hand, is real to the characters in my opinion.
Toons, I believe, whether on- or offstage, can't help but do funny things and have funny things happen to them, if that's what their purpose is.
I've thought a lot about what happens when a toon is left alone and uninhibited by his created purpose...
|
|
|
|
Post by psychoangel51402 on Feb 3, 2009 14:02:58 GMT -5
so, you think comic books are generally true, and it depends on the cartoon whether it's real or not? well, that can make it even MORE confusing, can't it? *sits down and holds head in hands* owww.....my head... this in particular confused me a LOT and inspired me to ask the question in the first place - outducks.org/webusers/webusers/2008/08/it_csm_076t_001.jpgthe puma attack certainly looks like a life-and-death situation to me. does this mean Toons can and will kill and eat each other?! |
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Feb 3, 2009 14:48:48 GMT -5
A lot of what is more "real" depends on how serious the situation is in my mind. We have indeed seen genuinely murderous toons (Doom the obvious example), and because of that, I can't decide whether or not The Lion King is "real" or acted out, especially when Scar has made an appearance on House of Mouse. For example, I've owned a Donald Duck comic for several years (since I was a kid) with a story called "Pigeon Panic" (or alternatively "Feathered Friend") where Donald actually breaks his leg. So that led me to the conclusion that among toons, there are two kinds of injuries: humorous ones- the ones we see in the shorts- and dramatic ones- the ones we see most often in exciting adventure comics or slightly serious feature films. In comics, I've noticed that the risk of life and limb is much higher. Because we've seen that extreme violence- usually an explosion- can pop out a toon's soul, I don't see why a wild puma toon couldn't maul Panchito to death... Of course, the only reason we have this problem is because writers of funny animal comics have an almost entirely different approach to writing than animators... I've always found them very strange and different in comparison to the theatrical shorts, especially since there are so many characters that are exclusive to them. Like, who the heck is Gladstone Gander? I mean, I know who he is and all, but if it weren't for the deliberately Carl Barks-esque DuckTales, he would've never appeared in animation, and the same goes for many other characters. I think that golden era theatrical shorts are almost entirely acting, just to be clear. EDIT: If you're interested in lesser known cartoons, characters, shorts and comics by just about everyone including Disney, check this place out: classiccartoons.blogspot.comLots of comic book scans- some really interesting stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by psychoangel51402 on Feb 3, 2009 19:59:20 GMT -5
Hmmm...so Toons can be injured or killed, depending on the type of story they're in...
well, darn, I was hoping I could pick out some set-in-stone rules, but I guess that ain't what cartoons are about, eh?
Oh, sweet, thanks! I will definitely check that out!
Okay, I can't resist doing this. *takes deep breath* Poor Panchito!!! *shakes pepper at puma* Demon cat! Demon cat!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Feb 4, 2009 0:09:47 GMT -5
Aw, c'mon! They're a pair of lonely hearts, for crying out loud. Personally I think there are generally two different kinds of stories- humor ones and adventure ones- so that's kind of a set-in-stone rule. Here's another one, with a larger focus on ones they can't play on television anymore: thadkomorowski.com/It's a little more adult, in case you don't wanna see racial stereotypes and things like that. |
|
|
|
Post by wifeofsmartass on Feb 4, 2009 1:43:45 GMT -5
I think it all depends. Some animated sequences are supposed to be strictly a humorous joke, like a Mickey Mouse cartoon. But some animated sequences like Animal Farm (1954) and Watership Down are serious and meant to be taken as a real situation. I actually think that most animated characters aren't actually intended to be seen as actors putting on a show. I think that when most characters are made by somebody, they're supposed to be veiwed as a real thing. Animation is another way of storytelling, and the listeners of the story are supposed to pretend what they are being told is reality. Unless it's specifically indicated that a paticular story is supposed to be characters deliberately acting, then i think an animated sequence is intended to be a real-life portrayal of the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Feb 4, 2009 4:51:15 GMT -5
In OUR world, yes, but we're talking about the WFRR world. There are, after all, many many Wonderful World of Disney segments that treat their stars as equals with live action stars (albeit made very tiny for some reason).
Take for instance the Bugs Bunny short What's Up Doc?. It implies that everything before then was some sort of career in vaudeville, and it shows how Bugs has become a huge star.
There are others like it, including ones for Mickey, Donald, and Popeye. Once I look them up, I'll give titles.
...So in my opinion, somewhere along the line of these characters' fame, they became treated like actors, but NOT before then.
I don't think animators are ever consciously thinking about what's "real" to the audience- I think when they're not acknowledging the character's stardom, they're doing it strictly for laughs, real or not.
But you are right that it all depends.
|
|
|
|
Post by wifeofsmartass on Feb 4, 2009 6:14:17 GMT -5
Yeah, i see what ya mean. :3
|
|
|
|
Post by jebikun on Feb 4, 2009 14:34:16 GMT -5
Funny...I thought about this kind of stuff on the way home last night hmmm
always gets tangled up in head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Feb 4, 2009 15:32:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by psychoangel51402 on Feb 4, 2009 16:57:47 GMT -5
hurrah for recycled animation!!! ^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Aug 14, 2009 4:16:18 GMT -5
I know this is an old topic, but I've come to elaborate on my ideas about it recently. I'm thinking that it'd be a bit extreme to consider every single comic book to be "real" events, because then what would a toon's career in comics be like in the WFRR world?
Anyway, I'm thinking more pivotal stories or milestones in comics would be the most likely to have actually happened in that world. Say for instance the life story of Scrooge McDuck, or when a character is introduced for the first time.
Now, Don Rosa sees the lives of the characters surrounding Scrooge McDuck very differently, with it ending in a specific date of death and everything. Obviously, we can disregard this, but I do like to think that the past events depicted in his comics actually occurred.
I do think that comics and cartoons that depict characters in a suburban setting, or at least in their homes, at least give us an idea of how they live their daily lives. Like Donald interacting with Neighbor Jones.
A certain House of Mouse episode mentions and even screens Donald Duck's screen test. So Disney likes to think that Donald auditioned for Disney, and wasn't specifically created by Disney.
This is similar to What's Up, Doc?, where we see that Bugs had a career in vaudeville before becoming a star.
So there are two possibilities here: a toon, whether they're born or created, can audition and get hired by a studio or whatever, or a toon can be specifically created by the studio themselves. I guess we can pick and choose which is which for whatever character...
|
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 14, 2009 9:54:03 GMT -5
Smart thinking their, Fatal.
So it appears that some toons auditioned and other were created. For Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, I think it's in a sense the same way wit Winnie Weasel and Jessica Rabbit.
But then, what about the episodes they were premiered in. Are they acting or depicting real-toon-life sense? I mean, how does Daffy Duck and Donald Duck know each other? In WFRR, it's indicated they play the piano bit together for some time. There was also Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny, I mean, they were SKYDIVING together.
That, or maybe they're relatives due to the same last names, the speech impediments, and so on.
That makes me think, are some cartoon characteres created by the same creator, making them relatives, they were made seperately but still are related, or is it that they were just convienience?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatal hilarity on Sept 17, 2009 19:06:38 GMT -5
Don't forget that Babs and Buster Bunny had "no relation", despite their last names and extremely similar appearance.
I say, why not Disney and WB toons be pals? It's not like their contracts say that they can't be together in public- I would imagine that they would just be normally unable to participate in the same commercial project. After all, celebrities in real life often become friends.
Also, a lot of toons had a very different evolution from each other, so I find it unlikely that some of them were created by the same person. Donald and Daffy didn't really evolve the same way.
Now I had meant that characters who made their first appearance in comics, not filmed shorts or episodes, would've "really happened". Say for instance the debut of the Beagle Boys or something like that.
I consider Bonkers and House of Mouse to be actual events in the WFRR world, because of their similar concepts to WFRR.
I do consider the Bugs Bunny short A Hare Grows in Manhattan, which depicts Bugs in his teenage years, to be somewhat inaccurate in the WFRR world. Presumably, the events depicted therein occurred before Bugs' debut in the Porky short Porky's Hare Hunt, but Bugs has his classic design that we're all familiar with, rather than the all-white design he started with. I assume that Manhattan is actually a dramatization of Bugs' early life, as is What's Up, Doc?.
So I like to picture the earliest incarnation of Bugs doing pretty much the same thing as these two shorts.
I don't consider Baby Looney Tunes to show their past, because the technology and culture is modern. Besides, why isn't Granny any younger?
I had an interesting thought... since Smarta** has a Brooklyn accent, and Bugs' accent is a mixture of Brooklyn and Bronx accents, and that short is supposed to take place in the Lower East Side... do you suppose it would've been possible that Smarta** and Bugs could've known each other somehow?
|
|
