Oh man, this is one of my favorite Donald Duck cartoons. It's one I use a lot to explain the characteristic differences between Donald Duck and Daffy Duck.
Oh man, this is one of my favorite Donald Duck cartoons. It's one I use a lot to explain the characteristic differences between Donald Duck and Daffy Duck.
Now that would be interesting to read. Let me take a guess at the first difference.
Now that would be interesting to read. Let me take a guess at the first difference.
1. Everything about them.
Not everything. They're both ducks with first names that start with "D" and with "Duck" as a surname, they're both secondary main characters in comparison to their respective "big name" guys, and their shtick involves being agitated and speaking in a somewhat difficult to understand manner.
The characters are very similar in a very superficial way, and this has caused errors even by people who have been given stewardship over the characters. For example, in this scene from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, one of the few major errors of this film shines through when the creators go for cheap surface gags while missing the inherent differences between the two characters that would make their dynamic work so well in a properly written shared scene. The characters here are entirely conflated, which is the OPPOSITE of what should be done in this scenario.
A well done Donald Duck and a well done Daffy Duck cartoon could not differ more from one another. Using the classic cartoons(like "Crazy Over Daisy" that you linked to earlier) as evidence, Donald is generally a character that starts off content. He would simply be happy to go about his day, but some external force steps in and bothers him, agitates him, and he overreacts in a major way. The character needs to be prompted to be upset, and if he wasn't then he'd be a generally positive and happy guy.
Daffy, on the other hand, is entirely discontented. He has an inflated sense of self. He's jealous, ambitious, and willing to cheat his way to the top because he's certain he deserves it. The character is the INSTIGATOR in his cartoons, as opposed to being the INSTIGATED.
Essentially, Donald Duck would be the problem in a proper Donald/Daffy shared cartoon. Donald would have something that Daffy wanted, or Donald would have the limelight and Daffy couldn't take that, and he'd try to steal it. These characters would work so well if properly contrasted, because when you get down to it, the differences in their actual characterizations is as easy to distinguish and as black and white as their character designs.
Interesting. You know what that tells me? That I'm a lot like Donald Duck and using this image so much is much more fitting than I had previously thought.
Just remember, though Donald is often the one being agitated, he's also agitated by things that he probably should just brush off and his reactions can and often are entirely unreasonable in proportion to the offense. =P
Oh I know. The part that cemented the resemblance for me was when you said "overreacts in a major way". I think I'd rather be more like Bugs Bunny. I have lofty goals.
Speaking of Daffy, I wonder who the "actress" is for Tyr'Ahnee, or any other character aside from Dodgers, Eager Young Space Cadet and Martian Commander X-2. We all know that Duck Dodger's role is being fulfilled by Daffy Duck, and that Porky Pig has been cast as the Eager Young Space Cadet. X-2 is being done by Marvin the Martian. Other than that, the other characters don't have their roles being fulfilled by existing Loony Tunes characters, save for the guest characters (The Fudd being Elmer Fudd, K'chutha Sa'am being Yosemite Sam). It would be interesting to know this. So far the only character whose name in the series is the same as outside it is K-9.
I've already vowed never to step foot into a casino. I already know I'll have a gambling problem because of games like Poker Night and those stupid Neopets slot machines.
Let me be the first to ask the obvious question: Why?
Hour-long funding delay on cash card refills bought there made me use an exploit in Steam to prolong a sale. I wish I knew about the exploit when the Story Bundle was going on. Still annoyed I missed that.
Casting decisions are one thing. I don't think that with Anna Faris and Bill Hader, you can already forget these movies. It's the script that makes the movie, and it's not yet the Indy 4 desaster.
I think moviegoers in general are a bunch of whineypantses. Movies are there to be fun, not be intellectually stimulating or something. It's stupid to think an actor's appearance alone will make or break a movie. Repo: The Genetic Opera has Paris Hilton, yet it's a pretty awexome movie, perhaps even due to her appearance. It's probably the smartest move she ever made.
In my case, Ackroyd just happened to pick out the one actress I hate so much I can't even finish a film with her in it. Of course, my only experiences with Anna Faris are the Scary Movie series, but I swear the only thing that makes it impossible for me to finish one of those movies is her. Normally I can even finish a movie I don't like to the end, and want to, but with her face in there I can't. I hate her. I really hate her a lot. I hate her nuances; I hate her voice; I hate her face; I hate her facial expressions; I hate her laugh. I hate everything about her.
Every time I see her I want to reach through my television and wrap my hands around her throat and swing her around like a bloody chicken. Just, why Ackroyd? WHY? It's like I woke up into my worst nightmare, all about Ghostbusters III. I need a drink.
I think moviegoers in general are a bunch of whineypantses. Movies are there to be fun, not be intellectually stimulating or something.
Movies are only "meant" to be a replayed recording of captured or animated movement. Anything beyond that, even "being fun", is entirely optional.
Film itself has evolved into an art form, and people can expect or want whatever the hell they want from films. I do prefer greatly for my films to be "intellectually stimulating or something", because otherwise I feel fairly directly insulted by the lowest-common-denominator treatment of the audience.
My favorite films generally are intellectually stimulating in some way. They may have powerful ideas that challenge preconceived notions, advance the actual art of filmmaking in some meaningful way, or have a strong, believable and deeply emotional message that is expressed in a real, organic way. When a film is "intellectually stimulating or something", it is able to be something truly special, and not just a shiny object dangled in front of your eyes for an hour and a half. Film has the power to enrich, not just occupy, our lives.
Forgive me and many others for wanting something of substance now than then between massive feasts of empty, mentally unhealthy desserts.
Not embarassing. This rule goes out to comedies. Usual offenders are those awful movies based on old cartoons; Underdog, Alvin and The Chipmunks, etc. If your live-action Smurfs movie has a hip-hop version of the theme song, I'm gonna avoid it.
Im wana see All Star Superman animated movie when its out next year but Iv never read the comic so I wana avoid spoilers for it at all cost so Im not reading any comments on the trailers.
Im wana see All Star Superman animated movie when its out next year but Iv never read the comic so I wana avoid spoilers for it at all cost so Im not reading any comments on the trailers.
@GiantTope
If you really want to have some fun, then let me say that for many people out there do exist more convincing alternaties than watching some movies.
@Rahter Dashing Forgive me and many others for wanting something of substance now than then between massive feasts of empty, mentally unhealthy desserts.
That's exactly how i feel about adventure games here lately.
Wasn't there recently some discussion about how the videogamesindusrie influences the filmindustrie in a unhealthy way regarding lowering the quality of the films?! The exceptions prove the rules. Iterate this for some time and it wil be interesting to see what'll be left then.
Movies are only "meant" to be a replayed recording of captured or animated movement. Anything beyond that, even "being fun", is entirely optional.
Film itself has evolved into an art form, and people can expect or want whatever the hell they want from films. I do prefer greatly for my films to be "intellectually stimulating or something", because otherwise I feel fairly directly insulted by the lowest-common-denominator treatment of the audience.
My favorite films generally are intellectually stimulating in some way. They may have powerful ideas that challenge preconceived notions, advance the actual art of filmmaking in some meaningful way, or have a strong, believable and deeply emotional message that is expressed in a real, organic way. When a film is "intellectually stimulating or something", it is able to be something truly special, and not just a shiny object dangled in front of your eyes for an hour and a half. Film has the power to enrich, not just occupy, our lives.
Forgive me and many others for wanting something of substance now than then between massive feasts of empty, mentally unhealthy desserts.
A film should be entertaining first and foremost. 2012 was as thick as two short planks of wood, but it most certainly entertained me for what it was. Films that are deeper than 'splosions just are more rewatchable because there's actually something more to them
I love me a well-made dumbass movie every now and then
I think moviegoers in general are a bunch of whineypantses. Movies are there to be fun, not be intellectually stimulating or something.
I don't think it boils down to people wanting "intellectual" movies. Movies are there to entertain, that much is clear. The elements that constitute a movie that is enjoyed by a large audience might be considered arbitrary, but it's definitly not only one element (like a single actor).
Move series are a different matter. The "enjoyable" elements aren't arbitrary any more. People go into part 2, 3 or even 4 of a movie series because they essentially want a movie that toys with elements of the predecessor, continues its story, has the same character(s) experience different things. That's not craving for an "intellectual" story. If the fans feel the spirit of the series violated (a pretty undefinable thing), they won't like the movie.
My favorite films generally are intellectually stimulating in some way. They may have powerful ideas that challenge preconceived notions, advance the actual art of filmmaking in some meaningful way, or have a strong, believable and deeply emotional message that is expressed in a real, organic way. [...]
Forgive me and many others for wanting something of substance now than then between massive feasts of empty, mentally unhealthy desserts.
"Substance" is an interesting term that I'd readily use, while "intellectually stimulating" I wouldn't. Emotion and intellect are quite different things; and "art" might even be a third category for people to enjoy. But I propose the idea that a movie without emotion, intellect AND art won't do.
@GiantTope
If you really want to have some fun, then let me say that for many people out there do exist more convincing alternaties than watching some movies.
wait what? I literally don't know what you're talking about.
I'm trying to find information on how to build my own musical box. I've been wanting to build one for a long time, so it could be fun to try it one day. Unfortunately, there are no build schematics of any kind, perhaps because it's a bit expensive to make one.
I might just try to find a (relatively) cheap one as a base.
Comments
Let me be the first to ask the obvious question: Why?
Have fun sleeping tonight...
Now that would be interesting to read. Let me take a guess at the first difference.
1. Everything about them.
The characters are very similar in a very superficial way, and this has caused errors even by people who have been given stewardship over the characters. For example, in this scene from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, one of the few major errors of this film shines through when the creators go for cheap surface gags while missing the inherent differences between the two characters that would make their dynamic work so well in a properly written shared scene. The characters here are entirely conflated, which is the OPPOSITE of what should be done in this scenario.
A well done Donald Duck and a well done Daffy Duck cartoon could not differ more from one another. Using the classic cartoons(like "Crazy Over Daisy" that you linked to earlier) as evidence, Donald is generally a character that starts off content. He would simply be happy to go about his day, but some external force steps in and bothers him, agitates him, and he overreacts in a major way. The character needs to be prompted to be upset, and if he wasn't then he'd be a generally positive and happy guy.
Daffy, on the other hand, is entirely discontented. He has an inflated sense of self. He's jealous, ambitious, and willing to cheat his way to the top because he's certain he deserves it. The character is the INSTIGATOR in his cartoons, as opposed to being the INSTIGATED.
Essentially, Donald Duck would be the problem in a proper Donald/Daffy shared cartoon. Donald would have something that Daffy wanted, or Donald would have the limelight and Daffy couldn't take that, and he'd try to steal it. These characters would work so well if properly contrasted, because when you get down to it, the differences in their actual characterizations is as easy to distinguish and as black and white as their character designs.
And it's all part of the plan.
If it's your mom warning you, maybe she's thinking of the strip variety.
Thankfully, that's not the kind Telltale made. I mean, would you want to see Max naked?
Oh, wait....
My gut reaction.
Casting decisions are one thing. I don't think that with Anna Faris and Bill Hader, you can already forget these movies. It's the script that makes the movie, and it's not yet the Indy 4 desaster.
Every time I see her I want to reach through my television and wrap my hands around her throat and swing her around like a bloody chicken. Just, why Ackroyd? WHY? It's like I woke up into my worst nightmare, all about Ghostbusters III. I need a drink.
Film itself has evolved into an art form, and people can expect or want whatever the hell they want from films. I do prefer greatly for my films to be "intellectually stimulating or something", because otherwise I feel fairly directly insulted by the lowest-common-denominator treatment of the audience.
My favorite films generally are intellectually stimulating in some way. They may have powerful ideas that challenge preconceived notions, advance the actual art of filmmaking in some meaningful way, or have a strong, believable and deeply emotional message that is expressed in a real, organic way. When a film is "intellectually stimulating or something", it is able to be something truly special, and not just a shiny object dangled in front of your eyes for an hour and a half. Film has the power to enrich, not just occupy, our lives.
Forgive me and many others for wanting something of substance now than then between massive feasts of empty, mentally unhealthy desserts.
In the end, turns out
If you really want to have some fun, then let me say that for many people out there do exist more convincing alternaties than watching some movies.
@Rahter Dashing
Forgive me and many others for wanting something of substance now than then between massive feasts of empty, mentally unhealthy desserts.
That's exactly how i feel about adventure games here lately.
Wasn't there recently some discussion about how the videogamesindusrie influences the filmindustrie in a unhealthy way regarding lowering the quality of the films?! The exceptions prove the rules. Iterate this for some time and it wil be interesting to see what'll be left then.
A film should be entertaining first and foremost. 2012 was as thick as two short planks of wood, but it most certainly entertained me for what it was. Films that are deeper than 'splosions just are more rewatchable because there's actually something more to them
I love me a well-made dumbass movie every now and then
I don't think it boils down to people wanting "intellectual" movies. Movies are there to entertain, that much is clear. The elements that constitute a movie that is enjoyed by a large audience might be considered arbitrary, but it's definitly not only one element (like a single actor).
Move series are a different matter. The "enjoyable" elements aren't arbitrary any more. People go into part 2, 3 or even 4 of a movie series because they essentially want a movie that toys with elements of the predecessor, continues its story, has the same character(s) experience different things. That's not craving for an "intellectual" story. If the fans feel the spirit of the series violated (a pretty undefinable thing), they won't like the movie.
"Substance" is an interesting term that I'd readily use, while "intellectually stimulating" I wouldn't. Emotion and intellect are quite different things; and "art" might even be a third category for people to enjoy. But I propose the idea that a movie without emotion, intellect AND art won't do.
I might just try to find a (relatively) cheap one as a base.
And that's why Con Air is one of my favourite movies. So dumb, but so much fun.
Was it good, bad?
Was that answer good enough?