of mice and ducks

Chris Lawton clawton at tfs.COM
Wed May 12 00:44:13 CEST 1993


>Chris Lawton writes:
>> Anyway, my question is: what is about the Ducks that make them so much more 
>> popular than all the others?
>> 
>> I think that it's 'cause they are a "gang" of similar characters.  Whereas
>> with Mickey, for example, is alone.  (Well not really alone, but no "gang")
>> 
>> Or is just the action of the Ducks?  (i.e. Donald is really hyperactive in all
>> his shorts where Mickey isn't so much)
>> 
>I think part of the difference between Mickey and Donald (and the other
>ducks) is in their visual appeal.  David Gerstein makes the important
>point that
>> Also, the potency of Mickey as a merchandising image derives
>> from the simplicity of the "classic" (best-selling) Mickey, that of
>> the 1930s (or the 1940s one, as long as he only has short pants,
>> gloves and shoes on).  Later artists, particularly Murry and Moores,
>> obliterated that by dressing Mickey to the nines in a smothering
>> layout topped by a boring porkpie hat.
>>
>When you cover the mouse in "human" clothing from head to foot, there
>isn't very much left to distinguish him from anybody else in comics.
>None of the duck artists ever made that mistake.  Since Mickey's ears
>render his face rather rigid in comparison with the rubbery mugs most
>other comics characters posess, it is especially important to use
>Mickey's body language fully, and his average-man-in-the-street clothing
>makes this difficult to do.  Beyond the visual aspects, however, the
>principal problem I have with really getting interested in Mickey is
>that no one in his stories has any major character flaws that lead
>them into comic situations.  Well, O.K., Goofy is stupid, and Chief
>O'Hara is amazingly incompetent, but it's still not the same as with
>the inhabitants of Duckburg, where everyone has some trait that can
>be counted on to lead to interesting plot developments.  The ducks are
>always getting into trouble because Donald is hot-tempered, Scrooge
>is stingy, Gladstone shuns working for a living, Gus Goose shuns working
>at all, Granny lives 50 years in the past, Gyro never sees any down-to-
>earth practical approach to anything, the nephews are always up to
>something, etc.  Mickey doesn't have any real personal problems like
>these, so whatever happens to him is just random (usually boring)
>circumstance.  He needs to have his stories evolve from his own person-
>ality, and this won't happen so long as his writers are restrained to
>keep him totally likeable.  A mouse should be mischievous, scurrying
>around from one self-created predicament to another - any number of
>very funny situations could be built around a busy-body Mickey who has
>little time or patience for the laws and social rules imposed on human
>society.  However, Disney's corporate emblem is constrained to represent
>all that is highest, noblest, and least interesting in life, so we will
>probably never see Mickey realize his potential as a comics character.
>Meanwhile, Donald can commit all manners of atrocity short of serial
>axe murders and the readers will love him precisely on account of his
>failure to fit in with the sedate world of perfect people.

>Wilmer Rivers
>rivers at seismo.css.gov

You're mentioning "all that is highest, noblest, and least interesting in life"
is well understood.  But wasn't that how Superman was supposed act, too?  
Superman has had PHENOMINAL succsess and longevity.  (Even now he's "back from 
the grave") Of course, he has neat powers to make life interesting. (SuperMic?
:) :) )  I think that those traits can make for intersting situations if 
the character in question is started in the right place.  Put Mickey on the
wrong side of the tracks and watch what happens to him and how he deals with
the situation.  Again another example: Star Trek's Federation.  Lots of good
guys with the best of intentions encountering lots of bad guys.

Chris		Mickey's #1 Fan! :) :)







More information about the DCML mailing list