Talk:Goopy Geer

message: Please offer evidence for your insistence that Harman and Ising were copying Goofy.
Please offer some citations from a credible evidence and not mere opinions.
Your opinion that Goopy Geer looks like Mickey Mouse is not evidence.. it is merely an opinion.
I. for one, do not think they have any resemblance. They are both cartoon characters drawn in 
style of their times. The fact that the first Goofy cartoon (Mickey's Revue, first released on May 25, 1932) was released a month after the release of the first Goopy Geer cartoon (April 16, 1932) is proof enough that if their was any copying going on, it could only logically follow that Disney was copying Goopy Gear. Terrytoons 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're disputing. The article says that Goopy and Goofy look similar but that they are probably not copies of each other. No one has claimed that Goopy Gear looks like Mickey Mouse or that Harmon and Ising were copying anybody. -- BrianSmithson 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article claims that Goopy Geer may have been a copy of Goofy even though Goofy appeared a month after Goopy Geer's first cartoon. I have looked at numerous sources from the time period and no one even asserts that Harman and Ising were attempting to copy Disney. As a matter of fact, when Harman and Ising were producing this cartoon in 1930 and 1931, Walt Disney was a one of the lowest points of his career and the quality of his cartoons during these two years can not be compared with the polished and expensive cartoon being produced by Harman and Ising. The proof that Harman and Ising were drawing characters in their own style can be seen easily by looking at their work prior to the creation of Mickey Mouse. Luckily, much of this earlier work survives, If you take a look at some of the Oswald the Rabbit cartoons they produced for Universal in the late 1920's you will notice that their drawing style is exactly the same, and this was before Mickey Mouse had been created. Please try to get a hold of one of these cartoons, you will be pleasantly surprised at how much they look like their early work at Warner Bros. "SICK CYLINDERS" (1929) is a great example as sequences from this cartoon were later re-used in "Sinkin'in the Bathtub" (1930) and "Bosko's Holiday" 1931. If you don't have access to these cartoons, please look at a poster Harman and Ising drew which has been posted at the following website: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/homelessposter.jpg   It is evident that the style shown hear is exactly the same as what Harman and Ising would continue to produce in the early 1930's. As a matter of fact, they had a very distinctive style. If you watch the two Cubby the Bear cartoons they produced for Van Bueren you will notice the drastic change that is characteristic of their style. Terrytoons 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is another good frame: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/jingles.jpg Notice the lion which would later reappear in the early Merrie Melodies. Also look at: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/cylinders.jpg  It's a shame these aren't more widely available as they conclusively prove that Harman and Ising had a distinctive style. None of Disney's Mickey output has this same style. The early years for Mickey were dominated by Ub Iwerks' style and when he left, animation reached a low point for Disney (in 1930) until he was able to find good talent. When Harman and Ising left Universal, subsequent Oswald cartoon were poorly drawn and never reached the refinement achieved by Harman and Ising.Terrytoons 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're still seeing things that aren't there (at least in this particular article). The article says, "His overall appearance is very similar to that of Walt Disney's Goofy, but because both characters appeared for the first time in 1932, there is little chance that either was intended to be a copy of the other." It makes no claim whatsoever of copying on the part of Harmon and Ising or on the part of Disney. It merely sayst that Goofy and Goopy look similar. The other information you present is quite interesting. Are you drawing from a book or article on the subject? If so, please add the information to the appropriate articles and WP:CITE your sources. If it's just your personal analysis, it falls into the realm of WP:OR. Regards, — BrianSmithson 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I modified the sentence to reflect the chronological sequence while retaining the sense of the statement. The statement as it stood before seemed to imply that Harman and Ising would naturally copy Disney, thereby implying they had no originality of their own. Terrytoons 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it implied that somoene might think they copied Disney but in fact they probably didn't. I've restored a bit about no one copying anyone, because the new wording instead seemed to imply that Disney was copying Harman and Ising. — BrianSmithson 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofy Allegation not NPOV 

message: I'm not exactly sure what was meant by the line "when Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies merged and became generic"; perhaps that the two series, which had been different, became indistinguishable? In any case, "generic" seems like an opinion and perhaps should be changed. 96.252.89.97 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "generic": NPOV?