Jiminy Cricket has a nephew????!!!!!!??!?!?!?

[disneyfella]

I was watching "On Vacation with Mickey Mouse and Friends" which is a pretty old Disneyland episode from its second season (the 1955-1956 season). In it, a telephone receptionist tell Jiminy that Goofy has gone fishing with his nephew Wilbur. Then it segues into the classic Goofy cartoon "Goofy and Wilbur".

I'm not sure if this is 'canon' Disney, because "Goofy and Wilbur" actually came out before "On Vacation with Mickey Mouse and Friends". This is a statement from a Disney production while Walt was still alive, though, so is it 'canon'? I mean, Sleeping Beauty castle was built in 1955.....5 years before Sleeping Beauty even came out! Perhaps Wilbur was made just a few years before Pinocchio.....and Disney had a family of crickets on his hands.

I know this sounds silly, but just a thought I'm throwing out there in case anyone has any idea about this.

[Disney Duster]

This is interesting.

Well, I remember reading that Walt said the witch is Snow White didn't really die because she came back in the comics (the dwarfs would deal with her in comic strips). I can't remember that quote exactly or where I found it, but if Walt really said that, it sounds to me like the kind of thing you talk about along with believing anything can happen, like telling your child that adult human-sized Mickey Mouse in Disneyland is the real one. It's about suspending even more belief.

I think whatever sounds like it's canon is. Whatever's believable. I find it believable that Jiminy has a nephew named Wilbur...but not one that has transcended fairy tale time to hang out with Goofy. Also, remember how Figaro was seen in other shorts as belonging to Mickey or Minnie? Nope, I think that's just for the shorts, Gepetto's Figaro's true owner. Or maybe there's two seperate canons, one for the shorts, one for the films. And don't the shorts tend to be inconsistant anyway, like Mickey and Minnie know each other sometimes and other times Mckey discovers her for the first time? Maybe what happens in the shorts...stays in the shorts.

This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if Walt wouldn't mind some of the Disney DTV sequels...the ones that are done well and most like the original films, anyway. But since we just talked about what happens in the shorts, and various other ventures, stays in them, maybe we can view the sequels like the shorts. They're a cool way of entertaining us but the original films are what really happens. Walt may be okay with this since they are similar to what he allowed.

[steve]

Also, remember how Figaro was seen in other shorts as belonging to Mickey or Minnie?

That always bothered me... But it seems that the canon is never to strict about things such as characters moving about movies - Belle in Hunchback of Notre Dame, Stitch in Treasure Planet - and Jiminy Cricket, especially - his appearance in Fun and Fancy Free certainly demonstrated that. If he has so much freedom to exist in different time frames, then I don't see why he shouldn't or couldn't have a nephew.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

My solution: The characters in the shorts aren't first and foremost characters - they are actors!