Walt Disney and Goofy

[Semaj]

I have always enjoyed the Goofy character - more so in the 1990s than in Walt's day. A Goofy Movie is one of my favorite Disney films and never gets any recognition. The way they portrayed Goofy in that movie was brilliant, making him likeable, relatable, a bit eccentric and an extremely human character. (who doesn't like a piping hot cup of Hi Dad Soup?)

That may have very well been the reason why Goof Troop was created. Goofy had already come quite a way from his simpleton origins when he acquired a wife and son in the 1950's (known during that period as "George Geef"), and his son didn't get enough time to grow as a character before they petered out on shorts.

[Big Disney Fan]

I have always enjoyed the Goofy character - more so in the 1990s than in Walt's day. A Goofy Movie is one of my favorite Disney films and never gets any recognition. The way they portrayed Goofy in that movie was brilliant, making him likeable, relatable, a bit eccentric and an extremely human character. (who doesn't like a piping hot cup of Hi Dad Soup?) None of the other Fab Five characters have been portrayed that well. Ever.

I do like "A Goofy Movie".

But as for none of the other Fab Six being portrayed that well, what about Donald in "The Three Caballeros"? He did quite well in that one.

[RIPJoeRanft]

I have always enjoyed the Goofy character - more so in the 1990s than in Walt's day. A Goofy Movie is one of my favorite Disney films and never gets any recognition. The way they portrayed Goofy in that movie was brilliant, making him likeable, relatable, a bit eccentric and an extremely human character. (who doesn't like a piping hot cup of Hi Dad Soup?) None of the other Fab Five characters have been portrayed that well. Ever.

I do like "A Goofy Movie".

But as for none of the other Fab Six being portrayed that well, what about Donald in "The Three Caballeros"? He did quite well in that one.

That's true, Donald was portrayed well during the 1940s. Very funny. Like at the end of Saludos Amigos when Jose gets him drunk or in The Three Caballeros when a horny blindfolded Donald is chasing a bunch of Mexican women in bathing suits around the beach.

I just like the way they made Goofy and Max relatable and relevent characters during the 1990s. (and have seemingly stopped since, but it was good while it lasted). A Goofy Movie does a nice job making the character seem like less of a simpleton, and more concerned with his son's upbringing, without having him lose all of the clumsy charm. Goofy goes from singing a song like "On the Open Road" to feeling betrayed and belittled when his son changes the road map, and viewers don't bat an eye. That's not easy to accomplish.

[Goliath]

I felt Donald was just treated as an actor in those feature films. Not really a real character at all.

[RIPJoeRanft]

I felt Donald was just treated as an actor in those feature films. Not really a real character at all.

There's a case to make for that, but I still find him more endearing in those films than when he is overly grouchy and petty. Which got old after seeing it time and time again in the shorts, even if it was amusing at times. I'm probably in the minority with that sentiment.

[Big Disney Fan]

I felt Donald was just treated as an actor in those feature films. Not really a real character at all.

Of course, you could say the same about Mickey in, say, "Fun and Fancy Free". But I digress.

[Semaj]

I felt Donald was just treated as an actor in those feature films. Not really a real character at all.

There's a case to make for that, but I still find him more endearing in those films than when he is overly grouchy and petty. Which got old after seeing it time and time again in the shorts, even if it was amusing at times. I'm probably in the minority with that sentiment.

His shorts fell into a rut when the only ones they were making were his team-ups with Chip n' Dale and Buzz-Buzz, where the same thing happened to him in every cartoon. Whether he started a fight or not, he always took an unfair punishment just for crossing paths with annoying vermin.

[Goliath]

His shorts fell into a rut when the only ones they were making were his team-ups with Chip n' Dale and Buzz-Buzz, where the same thing happened to him in every cartoon. Whether he started a fight or not, he always took an unfair punishment just for crossing paths with annoying vermin.

Yeah, when Jack Hannah took over as director, the shorts really suffered for it.

[Big Disney Fan]

His shorts fell into a rut when the only ones they were making were his team-ups with Chip n' Dale and Buzz-Buzz, where the same thing happened to him in every cartoon. Whether he started a fight or not, he always took an unfair punishment just for crossing paths with annoying vermin.

He also was teamed up with Huey, Dewey and Louie, too.

But we're getting off topic here. This thread is on Goofy, really, not Donald Duck.

[Big Disney Fan]

I learned from my sister, who often visits the Disney Family Museum, that Diane Disney Miller viewed Gabler's book on her father as "slanderous", meaning that it tends to always view Walt in a negative light. So maybe, just maybe, Walt didn't exactly hate Goofy, he just didn't like him as much as other characters.

Or maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't trust blood relatives when it comes to an animation historian writing a book on somebody.

So are you saying that we should take the word of an animation historian who probably never even saw the man over that of a blood relative of that man who probably knew that man WAY better than the historian ever did?

[Goliath]

So are you saying that we should take the word of an animation historian who probably never even saw the man over that of a blood relative of that man who probably knew that man WAY better than the historian ever did?

Im saying we should take into account that (blood) relatives often paint overly rosary pictures of a person, because they knew said person well and loved him/her very much. That's why I always take those 'Making of'-s on the Disney DVDs with a truckload of salt. If you believe them, everybody got along great with each other; there were never any fights or disagreements; everybody who worked on the film was "brilliant" or "a genius".... blahblahblah...

An animation/film historian can be much more objective, since he/she draws on all kinds of different sources.

[Victurtle]

I was really scared of Goofy at one point. I couldn't figure out what he was and deducted he must've been the mutant remains of a human (after the animals took control of the world, of course).

[DisneyAnimation88]

I don't know if it's necessarily true that the "making of..." features gloss over the true stories of the older films, the problem is that the older people who worked on them have mostly all died. For example in the case of the Sleeping Beauty, a modern animator asked to give their perspective on the film would say Eyvind Earle was a genius and was brilliant, not that the older animators like Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston disliked answering to Earle and felt abandoned by Walt. Most people who have followed the history of Disney animation would know of the tension and fights that took place in different eras of the studio, there's not really any need to bring that up in documentaries that usually don't contain enough details anyway.

I would agree with the comment about Disney biographies. I personally prefer Bob Thomas' biography, simply because he met Walt and wrote it impartially. There are too many myths concerning Walt Disney to ever be certain that what you are reading contains any degree of truth but from reading Gabler's book, I always get the impression he set out to depict Disney in a particular, unfavourable way, regardless of anything any member of the Disney family has said about the book.

[Goliath]

I don't know if it's necessarily true that the "making of..." features gloss over the true stories of the older films, the problem is that the older people who worked on them have mostly all died. For example in the case of the Sleeping Beauty, a modern animator asked to give their perspective on the film would say Eyvind Earle was a genius and was brilliant, not that the older animators like Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston disliked answering to Earle and felt abandoned by Walt. Most people who have followed the history of Disney animation would know of the tension and fights that took place in different eras of the studio, there's not really any need to bring that up in documentaries that usually don't contain enough details anyway.

I disagree a bit. It's true that die-hard Disney fans probably know a lot of the history behind the films already, but those 'Making Of'-s on the DVD's are not made exclusively for the fanboys, but for the general audience as well. And often they are about preserving the carefully crafted image of "good Uncle Walt"; no criticism is ever allowed. And it's that way with the newer films as well. Now, that's all very understandable. Of course, this is a corporation which wants to make as much money as possible off their films and they want to keep a good public image, so of course they're not going to say anything negative about their products or the people who worked on them. But I wish more people on UD would *finally* understand that a very large part of this is marketing! It's selling an image; and the Disney heirs also profit from painting Walt as some kind of saint.

(Edited to correct grammatical mistake.)

[DisneyAnimation88]

I understand and agree with that point totally. The only person I believe that has ever criticised Walt and remained in the good graces of the Disney company and family is Ward Kimball, though you may know of more people that I don't. The Disney company is built on the idea that its founder was flawless and that, of course, is simply not true. Do I think he's the selfish, egotistical, paranoid tyrant that some biographies depict him as? No, simply because I think all tyrants eventually meet their match and Walt Disney was not an inherently bad person. As you pointed out, the company would not point out these flaws, nor would the family, simply because that would the taint the image of Walt that has been seventy-plus years in the making. A film like Dumbo is never going to adequately give the facts of the 1940's strike that took place during production, a strike you and I both know Walt holds some responsibility for. It doesn't necessarily bother me that the company doesn't point this out simply because I don't expect them to; I've read enough and seen enough things about Walt to tell me that the company will always play their part in keeping certain, incriminating facts about their past from the audience that watch their films as it spoils the illusion of Walt that the films create.

I suppose my only problem is when people create an image of a person that they never knew in order to make money. I'm not saying Gabler's book is 100% innacurate nonsense as the Disney family would say, no doubt a lot of it could very well be true if it came from the sources that Gabler claims it did. I would simply rather pay my money to be entertained by films I enjoy and, in the process, endure a brief overview of history that might gloss over the more controversial aspects of the company and its founder than put it into the pockets of people whose only motives are their own financial gain and to demonise their subject (though I don't believe Gabler could entirely or exclusively be accused of this).

[Goliath]

@ DisneyAnimation88: I couldn't agree more with what you just wrote.

[Disney Duster]

But I wish more people on UD would *finally* understand that a very large part of this is marketing!

Or maybe most of us are rather aware of what you're talking about, but want to buy into it, and believe as much good about Disney as we can because we cherish it so much and don't want those feelings ruined.

Disney itself wants to make itself seem perfect. Well, it's fans do, too. They create a feeling, and we want to keep that feeling.

[avonleastories95]

In my opinion, Goofy was not used as much as he should have been. I mean really, compare the Mickey shorts and Goofy shorts together and there is a major difference.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Or maybe most of us are rather aware of what you're talking about, but want to buy into it, and believe as much good about Disney as we can because we cherish it so much and don't want those feelings ruined.

But to give Goliath credit, he is right in that Disney isn't perfect, whether we choose to accept that or not. As I've said before, I don't believe much of the horrible things that have been said and written about Disney, the man and the company, but I can accept their imperfections because it doesn't ruin the enjoyment I obtain from the different films, characters and theme parks.

[ajmrowland]

But I wish more people on UD would *finally* understand that a very large part of this is marketing!

Or maybe most of us are rather aware of what you're talking about, but want to buy into it, and believe as much good about Disney as we can because we cherish it so much and don't want those feelings ruined.

Disney itself wants to make itself seem perfect. Well, it's fans do, too. They create a feeling, and we want to keep that feeling.

this is how i feel.

But I still disagree about the making-ofs as more recent documentaries have begun to open up about Walt's dark side and his reactions to the problems at the studio. It may not be what Goliath wants to hear, but it's a step closer to revealing.