|
|
Post by kirbychu on Feb 17, 2007 12:53:31 GMT -5
I don't think he has any specific age. Anywhere from 18-30, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Feb 17, 2007 13:42:46 GMT -5
To be technical, Mickey is over 70, and most of the time, cartoon characters are actually billed as being whatever age they are since their creation, but don't age physically if they are well-known. (I found this out from an episode of Tiny Toon Adventures)
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Rupee on Feb 17, 2007 16:35:40 GMT -5
Wow, you guys love your Disney miscellania... I'm not jealous..... *cough*..... Oh! On another note entirely, I happen to know a few things about Sonic storylines, because I used to collect the comics and watch some of the shows, if anyone wanted to talk about that......  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2007 17:27:33 GMT -5
So far as Mickey Mouse and any closely-related characters are concerned (Goofy, Donald Duck, Minnie, Pete, etc...), the primary continuity is the comics, whereas the movies and older cartoons take a close second and often interweave with the comics (the Prince and the Pauper is considered canonical to a degree) while recent television shows are the least important. It's all divisional politics--it's the reason why, say Darkwing Duck and Gargoyles will probably never appear in Kingdom Hearts, because there's an entirely seperate branch dedicated to the newer cartoons. It's also why you'd never see villains introduced in, say, the Aladdin or Hercules television series' in a larger project involving either franchise; despite the fact that they're considered canon, those certain characters are managed by an entirely different set of people. To prove this fact, the only TV Disney character to make it into the comic book continuity is Launchpad McQuack. Nowadays things are a bit closer-knit between movies and television, Lilo and Stitch and The Emporer's New Groove being two prime examples, but that still doesn't change the fact that the comics have more bearing as the primary canon and that Goofy's American name is officially Goofus Dippy Dawg, whether you like it or not XD One other thing to keep in mind is that the comics have been running since at least the 1940's, making Goof Troop a baby by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Feb 17, 2007 18:32:57 GMT -5
Oh! On another note entirely, I happen to know a few things about Sonic storylines, because I used to collect the comics and watch some of the shows, if anyone wanted to talk about that...... What about Mario/Donkey Kong canon. I mean, it's safe to say the original Donkey Kong is Cranky Kong, but then the Mario vs. Donkey Kong upset that theory (it started with Mario Kart 64). I'd say Cranky Kong goes on "night runs" to a time vortox, to appear to himself. Unless of course, everything I thought was wrong. So, Mario becomes insanely famous from Super Mario Bros., and the dolls wind off the scene. At this point in time, Cranky Kong still lives as DK. Pauline loves Mario at this point, and that Peach/Toadstool was really appreciative. Now, Peach and Mario are developing feelings, he only...um...so why does he save her? I know! It's a personal attack against Bowser, who stole his bro in Yoshi's Island. Anyways, after Mario v Donkey Kong 2, Donkey Kong runs off to his island, becomes old and so forth. Then the younger Donkey Kong (from DKC, formerly Donkey Kong Jr.) returns to his Karting, because he was facing Mario in Super Mario Kart as Donkey Kong Jr. But Super Mario Kart was after 1991, in which Mario developed true feelings for Peach and dropped off Pauline entirely. So, DK must have gone off, but DK Jr stayed. But what happened to Pauline? a) She died somehow. b) Mario dumped her. c) She dumped Mario. d) Pauline is actually Princess Toadstool's alterego. That last answer would certainly put an interesting spin on things, because on the arcade cabinets, Pauline was once blond. That's when Pauline/Peach gets serious and wears a dark wig. Pauline is the Real World version of Peach, helpless bimbo rather than prized princess. Or, in fact, that Pauline is Real World, because Peach is the only one in the Mushroom Kingdom that doesn't have something growing out of her hair, so that can only mean baby Peach from the real world somehow went to the Mushroom Kingdom, was adopted by the lonely Mushroom King as a daughter, then Peach later discovered that. Of course, but there's still Yoshi's Island 2 and the deal with Bowser, and why he has different children. In that case, um... something adapted from here.....I think. Phew.... |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Feb 17, 2007 18:34:26 GMT -5
If the comics were the primary continuity, surely stuff from the comics would make it into the TV shows, rather than being entirely contradicted by them. And the statement seems entirely rediculous given that Disney is a TV and movies company, not a comics company. Very few characters (if any) outside of DuckTales have come from the comics to the cartoons, and that was only because of Scrooge McDuck's popularity. Nowadays things are a bit closer-knit between movies and television, Lilo and Stitch and The Emporer's New Groove being two prime examples, but that still doesn't change the fact that the comics have more bearing as the primary canon and that Goofy's American name is officially Goofus Dippy Dawg, whether you like it or not XD Show me a place it's appeared outside of the comics, and I'll believe you. Just, given the fact that Disney are all about TV shows and movies and NEVER MAKE ANY MENTION EVER of the comics doesn't exactly make me believe the comics are their holy grail of continuity. It just makes me think that, like the Sonic comics, it's a seperate continuity written by entirely unrelated people that the people who write the cartoons (which are Mickey, Donald and Goofy's roots, btw) couldn't care less about. One other thing to keep in mind is that the comics have been running since at least the 1940's, making Goof Troop a baby by comparison. Doesn't that kind of contradict what you were saying about retconning earlier? EDIT: For the record, when I'm talking about Goofy here, I'm not just talking about Goof Troop. Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas, Goof Troop, A Goofy Movie, House of Mouse, An Extremely Goofy Movie and Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas (in that order) all show the life of Goofy and Max as Max grows up, and they're all tied into each other. If that's not established canonical continuity, I honestly don't know what is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2007 19:29:48 GMT -5
Whether you believe me or not is your call from this point on because I honestly don't care this much about it. I was pointing out a fun fact, now I'm done. I realized it was silly to bother when I found out that we've been going back and forth about it for almost a page.
So no, I ain't gonna proove it to you. I'll letcha find out for yourself. To be honest I don't even like Goofy enough to sweat it. XD I'll rest well enough knowing that my Insider Information trumps your Fanboy Fanatacisms.
As for the age difference thing I mentioned--that was more to the effect of it being senior to Goof Troop, thus acting as the primary canon. Retconning had no bearing on that statement. If it does you any good to ignore it, like you've been doing to almost everything I've been saying, please, go ahead and ignore it! Again, I have other things I want to focus on other than this.
You know, like how the Wii reminds me of XBox 360. They'll both eventually have crappy Disney games on them, like Mickey Counts Mirrors with Butts. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Feb 17, 2007 20:33:54 GMT -5
Hey, it's not that I've been ignoring everything you've been saying. It's just that, generally, when people start telling you you're wrong because "my friend who works for Disney said this", it's generally a good idea to try and get a little proof, especially when it contradicts so many things. And somehow it seems silly that a comic, not written or even published by Disney, would be considered a superior source of Disney canon than shows written and produced by Disney's in-house studios.
If it was about fanboyism, I'm sure the discussion would be the other way around. I didn't even know Disney comics were still going, as I'm fairly certain they haven't been sold around here in the last ten years. Even if they did, I can't imagine them selling well alongside Random-Anime-Of The-Minute Magazine.
Like I said, if I see it at some point, that's fine. I don't care. But it'd be a really stupid movie by Disney to suddenly change a character's name to reflect an early proto-name they disliked originally after having it established so firmly for so many years. Rather like Sonic the Hedgehog suddenly becoming Mr. Sonic Needlemouse.
EDIT: Okay, apparently I was wrong. Disney do publish a comic. But it started in 1990, and featured stories mostly based on DuckTales, Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers, TaleSpin, Darkwing Duck, Goof Troop, Bonkers, and a bunch of movies, so I assume it's not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Feb 17, 2007 22:26:14 GMT -5
What about what I said? I wrote a killer essay on Mario/DK/Peach continuity....and nobody cared.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on Feb 17, 2007 23:47:48 GMT -5
Nobody has cared about anything in this thread since it began.
As a sidenote Goofy Dippy Dawg or whatever it is is a better name than Goofy Goof - I hate last names that are almost / exactly the same as the first names purely for an unfunny joke (Mario Mario being the prime example)
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Rupee on Feb 18, 2007 4:31:33 GMT -5
What about what I said? I wrote a killer essay on Mario/DK/Peach continuity.... and nobody cared.You and me both brother. Oh, and about your post; the Sonic comics may not be canon, but their storylines are usually better than the TV shows and sometimes even the games themselves. Don't get me started on the Xbox 360 Sonic game. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Feb 18, 2007 4:51:41 GMT -5
What about what I said? I wrote a killer essay on Mario/DK/Peach continuity.... and nobody cared.I read it, Whiskers. I just didn't have anything to add. It seemed like you'd covered everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Feb 18, 2007 15:50:17 GMT -5
What about what I said? I wrote a killer essay on Mario/DK/Peach continuity.... and nobody cared.I've already done the same. And it's not as simple as all that, unfortunately. Nintendo's DK and Rare's DK are mutually incompatible with each other. Thankfully this is fairly easy to handle now. Rare doesn't have any creative rights over Donkey Kong any more, so whatever Nintendo says goes. This means Cranky is NOT the original Donkey Kong, there is only ONE Donkey Kong, and he's the same one Mario's been fighting with since the early days. Unless someone comes up with a better theory, that's the one I'm sticking with for now. If you like, Nintendo created the character, Rare added some flourishes, and then Nintendo pulled those flourishes off and stomped all over them because they weren't what they wanted. Mario and Donkey Kong went their separate ways long before SMB though. And there's no point trying to work out why Pauline vanished as soon as SMB turned up - it's a plothole that is unlikely to ever be filled. |
|
|
|
Post by Manspeed on Feb 18, 2007 16:33:26 GMT -5
My theory is that Cranky still is the classic DK, and the reason he became so old while Mario was still young is because he fell into obscurity after Mario became popular. (Seriously, he didn't get back into the business until DK 1994 came out, and that was a retelling of the arcade game).
Then DK Jr. grew up to become Super DK and the rest is history. (If you don't believe me on that one, try asking Rare's Scribes. They officially confirmed that Super DK was intended to be a grown-up DK Jr., but they were sure if Nintendo would be OK with it, so it didn't get revealed in-game until DK64.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrmolecule on Feb 18, 2007 16:51:56 GMT -5
Also, in that theory of mine, since DK (Cranky) ran off to DK Island, he and the Kong clan age much faster than Mario.
|
|
