Talk:Daffy Duck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject American Animation, which aims to cover topics on Wikipedia related to animation in the United States. If you would like to join, you can edit the article attached to this talk page, visit our project page, or leave feedback.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daffy Duck article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Daffy Duck did not say anything about the great pumpkin, that was probably vandalism.

Actually, Daffy says the Great Pumpkin line in the Duck Dodgers episode "Pet Peeved".

An event on this page is a April 17 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

I am wondering if anyone has seen any discussion of the philosophical schools represented by Daffy and Donald Duck. Each a foremost spokesman and each begging for study. You can let me know at mark187@inreach.net. Thank you

Well, I've seen the scene in the Roger Rabbit movie... ^^

Contents 1 Voice origin 2 Nasa Badge? 3 Daffy Dumas Duck ??? 4 Richard Thompson quote 5 Crazy darnfool duck 6 Daffy based on a wild duck 7 Daffy Duck comics 8 Removed bit 9 Plucky Duck 10 NPOV 11 Anyone for tennis? a catchprase

[edit] Voice origin

The page on Leon Schlesinger mentions that the producer's voice was Mel Blanc's model for Daffy, but I half-remember a funny story about it. It may have been mentioned in Chuck Amuck. Anyone who can verify this story should definitely (in my opinion) add it to this article.

The character of Daffy had just been created, and there was some difficulty finding the right voice. The crew was getting a little slap-happy after rejecting many different attempts, and Mel Blanc spontaneously did a mocking imitation of Schlesinger. The animators laughed themselves silly and decided that they had to use the voice. As they neared completion on the cartoon, however, they realized with a shock that at some point, Leon would see the finished product and would doubtless recognize the duck's voice as close to his own. It was too late to change the voice at this point, however.

As the cartoon was first screened for the Warners' staff, they sweated in apprehension of what Leon's reaction would be. The projector fell silent, the lights came up, and there was a tense ten seconds of complete silence. Schlesinger turned to Blanc and said "Jeethuth Chritht, where'd you get that fantathtic voith?"

[edit] Nasa Badge?

What's the deal with the neato NASA badge? [[Paul, in Saudi 02:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

[edit] Daffy Dumas Duck ???

This "Daffy Dumas Duck" business keeps turning up. I did some checking and found that name was used exactly once, in "The Scarlet Pumpernickel" (1950). It's the name Daffy puts on a script he is trying to sell to the studio. The script is a takeoff on the novel "The Scarlet Pimpernel" by Baroness Emmuska Orczy. Alexandre Dumas (pronounced doo-MAH) was the author of "The Three Musketeers", "The Man in the Iron Mask", "The Count of Monte Cristo" and other tales contemporary with the Scarlet Pimpernel's time frame. This is obviously just a joke (possibly a sly double-meaning joke, given the track record of the "Termite Terrace" guys, who brought us geographical names like "Bear Butte") and I'm guessing that some "ignoranimous", as Bugsy would say [or maybe some "Dumas"] took it literally. As a result, there are several Google references to "Daffy Dumas Duck" that imply that was his real name somehow. Unless someone can cite an official WB source that affirms this, it would be best to leave it out of the Daffy Duck writeup. Wahkeenah 19:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made "Daffy Dumas Duck" a redirect; if it's a common enough internet phenomenon, it'll probably come up again. The same thing happened with Donald Duck, since in one cartoon, he writes his full name as "Donald Fauntlroy Duck" or something like that. But, again, if it's not the character's common name, there's not really any need to add the information to the article except perhaps as a minor detail. BrianSmithson 06:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Thompson quote

I moved the following here from the main article:

"In a 1975 issue of Film Comment, critic Richard Thompson analyzed the fundamental appeal of the Jones-era Daffy:

"Bugs always knows what's going on and is in control of events; Daffy is bright enough to understand how to be in control, but he never quite makes it.… Bugs stands back from a situation, analyzes it, and makes his move; Daffy becomes emotionally involved, loses his distance, and blows it. He's stuck with a one-track mind which fixes on only one facet of the problem and loses sight of the larger pattern. Bugs is a strong, more traditional American hero—Daffy is much more complicated. He's a coward, he claims, but a live coward—he feels a preemptive necessity to set someone else (Bugs) up for the destruction he knows is stalking him."

My reasoning is that: a) This is a long quote, longer than most paragraphs in the current article. As such, it borders on copyviio. b) It is unclear why Richard Thompson should be quoted when no one else is. There are any number of critics who could be quoted, many of them much better known.

However, if we can paraphrase this, it probably belongs somewhere. The Thompson article should also be added to the References section. --BrianSmithson 12:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy darnfool duck

I reverted the changes to the "origin" section. Unless I'm completely mistaken, both Porky and Daffy use the term "crazy darnfool duck" in Daffy's first short, and the phrase is not "darnfol" — BrianSmithson 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you rewatch the short, Porky never refers to Daffy as "that crazy darnfool duck"). Porky asks his dog Rin Tin-Tin to retrieve Daffy. When Daffy ends up retrieving the dog, Porky pulls out few sheets of paper and says, "Hey! Th-t-that wasn't in the sc-sc-script!" Daffy then laughs and responds "Don't let it worry ya, skipper because I'm just a crazy, darnfool duck!" and woo-hoo's off into the distance. Also, some sources spell the line as "darnfol", but I think we ought to stick with "darnfool". -- Pietro Shakarian 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that short on any of the Golden Collection DVDs? I'm still trying to catch up on all the stuff I missed while I was overseas. I'll take your word for the Porky/Daffy mixup, and I agree on "darnfool" as the preferred spelling. Too bad we don't have a script for the short! — BrianSmithson 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While not yet available on the GC discs, you may want to check out the long out-of-print VHS cassette, Daffy Duck: The Nuttiness Continues... It can be found on Ebay or new and used at Amazon.com. -- Pietro Shakarian 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daffy based on a wild duck

I removed this:

Daffy probably is the best-known cartoon duck based on a wild rather than a domesticated duck. Whereas most cartoon ducks are given white or yellow feathers, Daffy has black feathers with a white ring around his neck, the ring resembling that seen on a mallard.

It seems like original research to me. If it is to be added to the article, I'd like to see a source provided, and language like "probably" removed completely. If this can be sourced, there should be no need for uncertainties like that. — BrianSmithson 13:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept that, and appreciate that you moved the text here rather than unceremoniously deleting it, in spite of my carelessness. Richard K. Carson 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. :) If I had to hazard a guess as to why Daffy is black and Donald is white, it's because Daffy was created during the black-and-white era when a great deal (if not most) cartoon characters were black blobs of ink. Donald, on the other hand, was created as part of one of Disney's lushly colored Silly Symphonies series. But, again, I don't have a source for this, just my hunch. — BrianSmithson 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In the earliest cartoons, Daffy is portrayed as a wild duck, cavorting about in a lake. Since wild ducks are not white, that called for a different coloration. It might also be that Warner wanted to contrast Daffy with Donald, so they made him black as a satirical gesture. I didn't mean to speculate, only to mention that Daffy is a wild duck, which is explicit in the early cartoons. Richard K. Carson 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm sure one of the animators mentioned Daffy's early design in an interview at some point. If you find anything, let us all know. — BrianSmithson 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daffy Duck comics

The main article could be improved if a word or two could be said of the Daffy Ducks comic book series, and how it evolved in terms of competition with the Donald Duck comic book series from Disney. As the main article says, it is pretty hard to define the quintessential character of Daffy Duck beyond a portrayal of a creature given to ventilate its innermost emotions at a moment's notice. The evolution of the character in the comic book series faced a lot of the problems that the Donald Duck series also faced; transforming a character given to buffoonish conflict with social mores into a character with a deeper motive, though oft misplaced, on the one hand given to flights of fancy (as was the case with Daffy) and the other to bouts of witless rage (as was the case with Donald).

Some of the mass appeal in these two series (whether in book form or in animation) lies in the concept of one character's comeuppance, either through cleverness (detecting someone's weakness) or through fate, and another character's demise, almost always deserved and long anticipated.

To improve the main article, how many Daffy Ducks comics have been published? Which publishers over the years have the rights to Daffy Duck's character?

[edit] Removed bit

I removed:

Daffy is notorious for being part of one of the biggest game show blunders ever: On an episode of Press Your Luck, host Peter Tomarken told his contestants that Daffy's catchphrase was "Suffering Succotash!", even though the players had correctly identified Sylvester as the character who actually says it. While the credits started rolling, Mel Blanc called Tomarken, disguising his voice as Sylvester's, and accused Daffy of stealing from him all the time. All three players were invited back to participate in later episodes.

This is hardly relevant to an encyclopedic look at Daffy Duck. If anywhere, it belongs on the article for Press Your Luck, but even there it's trivial. — BrianSmithson 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plucky Duck

Um, Daffy Duck is not supposed to be the father of Plucky Duck. And listing 'known relatives' anyway is silly. Daffy is a cartoon character, and there is no internal canon of WB cartoons that says that a relative of his in one short is a relative in another. — BrianSmithson 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Taz is also a cartoon character yet his family in Taz-mania is listed in his page under known relatives. DaffyDuck619

In that particular series, yes, but we should be talking about these characters from the point of view of the real world, not some internal WB universe. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for guidelines on what I mean. At any rate, there are specific Tiny Toons episodes that feature a baby Plucky Duck and his father. His father is not Daffy. — BrianSmithson 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

However those cartoons never implied anything in "real life", there was this episode where Plucky tried to get the role of Batman in Batman Returns. Hampton was there to help him and they were walking pass a poster of Daffy Duck. Hampton looked at it and suggested to Plucky that they ask his "dad" to use his name to get the role for him but Plucky didn't.

Which only underscores my point that these characters have no real "family" -- their costars, "family members", "friends", and "enemies" all change to suit the needs of the story. -- BrianSmithson 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon recently re-added Plucky's name as a "known relative". In case there is any remaining doubt, even if we are discussing these characters from the perspective of the Tiny Toons fiction (rather than discussing them as fictional characters as per Wikipedia guideline), this is Plucky's father. -- BrianSmithson 13:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

however it implies it in the TV show that's his father, not in "real life" (you know the place where the characters in Tiny Toon Adventures, Freakazoid, Animaniacs, Pinky and The Brain are offered and sign contracts), which is implied in (from what I counted) SEVERAL episodes, and from what I remember in an interview, Steven Spielberg (Plucky's creator) insisted they put those bits in as he likes to think of Daffy as Plucky's "real life" father.

Daffy Duck is NOT a real person. Plucky Duck is NOT a real person. They are fictional characters. They have NO fathers or mothers or sisters or brothers. But even in the fictional universe of Tiny Toons, I have already proved that Plucky's father is some green, unnamed duck. See the image I linked to for proof. If you want to dispute this further, I suggest we pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, because I am not going to waver on this. -- BrianSmithson 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I find this as funny as I do? I empathize with BrianSmithson so hard it makes me sweaty. You actually had to prove "in-universe" that Daffy is not his father rather than your out-of-universe "there is no internal logic" argument. So beautiful and true. --Chris Griswold 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the anon even buys the in-universe argument. I've seen other attempts on Wikipedia to create some sort of overarching WB cartoon "canon", and I will resist it at every turn. :) -- BrianSmithson 14:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stay strong, brother. --Chris Griswold 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring this "real life" fact we keep trying to tell you about. We know (or at least I know) Daffy Duck is NOT a real person, Plucky Duck is NOT a real person, they have NO fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers. So because Plucky Duck is NOT a real person, Plucky (just like every single other cartoon character that says he/she/it does) can't be signed to a contract. However when he implies he can, he implies it that he has signed this contract in the "real life" we keep trying to tell you about. And it is in this "real worlld" where Daffy Duck is Plucky Duck's "REAL LIFE" Father, while the one in the baby Plucky cartoon is just an "actor" (hired in the "real world" where this cartoon character "signed a contract") "playing" his father. DaffyDuck619

I have no idea what you're talking about. Daffy and Plucky do not exist in real life; they are only real in the fictional reality of their cartoons. They have signed no contract, and per US trademark and copyright laws, they are the intellectual property of Warner Bros. -- BrianSmithson 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(The media company, not Yakko and Wakko). --Chris Griswold 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the nonsense about Plucky Duck being Daffy's son twice more. DaffyDuck619, if you continue to insert this into the article, I must insist that you provide some fairly convincing evidence that Daffy is Plucky's father. And I will add this page to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Just step back and think to yourself: Why does it matter who Plucky Duck's father is? Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and you will see that it is not Wikipedia's business to try to document the so-called "lives" of fictional characters. But this is especially true with WB cartoons, which have no internal continuity. — BrianSmithson 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a big deal, but then you had to make it one, I agree it's lame but cartoon characters do imply they exist in "real life", voice actors do imply the cartoon characters they voice exist in real life, cartoon producers like Walt Disney, Walt Lantz and Steven Speilberg imply the characters in a cartoon show they produce exist in real life. And this "real life" is what I'm trying to explain to you. DaffyDuck619

And the fact that there is no continuity in this "real life" is what I'm trying to explain to you. How else do you explain the fact that Daffy Duck changed so drastically in appearance from his early cartoons to his later ones? Or that his personality changed completely? Is Who Framed Roger Rabbit to be the litmus test for what a character's personality is like in "real life"? So Daffy is by default the nutty guy in WFRR? And I would counter that creators of cartoon characters do not imply that they exist in real life, at least not most of the time. Lantz had a made-up story about how he came up with Woody Woodpecker; ditty Disney and Mickey Mouse. Chuck Jones has talked at length about how the characters he created were intended to portray various aspects of his own personality. The creators recognize that these are fictional characters that are intended to sell a story and a few gags to the audience. There is no continuity, so Plucky's father in one short may or may not be his father in another short. Daffy has a wife and kids in one short, but he doesn't in the next. It's ludicrous to try to put this sort of "in-universe" information into articles about WB characters. I will continue to revert your assertion about Plucky Duck on these grounds. -- BrianSmithson 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Such "in-universe" information is amply found in many other articles about fictional characters television programs, including those found in anime. Although it is ludicrous on a certain level, it is nonetheless encyclopedic and suitable for Wikipedia. Both of your points should be reflected, however: yes, Daffy has a wife and kids one moment and then is a bachelor again in another story, proving that the show, like many other shows such as The X-Files, is not always "in canon" with itself. wikipediatrix 14:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, as do many other editors, that this "in-universe" information is of any importance on Wikipedia. But more importantly, DaffyDuck619 has yet to provide any evidence aside from his own personal memory that any episode of Tiny Toons ever said that Daffy was supposed to be Plucky's father. — BrianSmithson 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the infobox reference to Plucky Duck; the source provided was a Usenet FAQ, which doesn't seem particularly reliable. Secondly, even if it could be admitted as a source, it states:

With one exception, none of the Tiny Toons are sons and daughters of the original classic characters, nor are they the Looney Toons as little kids. The one exception to this is Gogo, who, according to TTA writer Paul Dini, is the son of the original dodo bird from "Porky In Wackyland".

— TKD::Talk 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

A far more important matter to me than Plucky Duck's lineage is the rampant use of unsourced WP:OR/WP:WEASEL/WP:POV opinions and observations throughout this article, such as:

• "difficult to define"
• "When audiences left the theaters, they could not stop talking about..."
• "not a handsome creature"
• "it is in the cartoons of Chuck Jones that this new, self-centered Daffy becomes fully realized"
• "widely heralded as a classic of filmmaking"
• "Some fans consider this the most controversial interpretation of the duck"
• "which some critics saw as a return to the grand, crazy days of old"

While I personally agree with most of these bits of commentary, they are only commentary and are strictly matters of personal opinion. I'm removing them. wikipediatrix 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored much of this language with citations or rephrased it to be neutral. Two of those statements are from Schneider, but unfortunately, my copy of his book's boxed up at the moment, so I can't say exactly what page number. He has a three- or four-page writeup on Daffy, so it's probably somewhere in the 110-115 range. I've re-added those bits with the {{fact}} tag. The page references I did have were regarding Duck Amuck, since I took notes on it before I boxed up the books in preparation for a move. — BrianSmithson 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have specific references handy, why do you keep reverting the edit?? Putting "citation needed" next to OR/POV/WEASEL text is not good enough. wikipediatrix 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that you could assume good faith that I'm not making this up, but perhaps not. If you really can't wait until I move and open up my boxes again, I have no problem with commenting out the line or removing it. I'll eventually get access to my books again, and will reinstate the language. And if the {{fact}} template is not good enough for a situation like this, I'm not quite sure why it has yet to be deleted. Finally, regarding Daffy's early appearance, I removed the POV language ("not a handsome creature"). The fact that he had short legs and a stubby beak is not POV. — BrianSmithson 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I didn't delete it again because you've reverted it multiple times now and I'm trying not to have an edit war. And this has nothing to do with assume good faith. It isn't about you. It's about the article. wikipediatrix 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Box opened and in need of repacking, but cites have been added. — BrianSmithson 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Much, much, much better! Now that wasn't so hard, was it? :) wikipediatrix 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone for tennis? a catchprase

Anyone for tennis? is a common chatchprase used by Daffy Duck Mrsanitazier 22:57 6, September 2006

Says who? -- BrianSmithson 08:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google survey indicates he said it at least three times: The Ducksters (1950); Rabbit Fire (1951); and Drip Along Daffy (1951). I'm not prepared to argue that it qualifies as a "common" catchphrase. For one thing, it's a common cliche that was once ascribed to Humphrey Bogart (a frequent actor for Warner Brothers), and you know how imitative these Warner cartoon writers were. Wahkeenah 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I also found Google references that suggest it was used by Tweety Bird and (implied) Wile E. Coyote. So I'm inclined to think that the writers simply grabbed this standard cliche and applied it wherever it seemed useful. Wahkeenah 09:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone for tennis? as a catchphrase typifies the kind of drawing-room comedies in which someone stepped in through the French windows, lightly swinging a racket; surprisingly (given his later tough-guy image) it was once much associated with Humphrey Bogart, although it may have originated with George Bernard Shaw. (Misalliance, 1914, has the question, 'Anybody on for a game of tennis?'." [1]

• Your comment about a "tough guy" using that phrase is funny, for a reason you may not know. W.C. Fields cited that perception in some line in some film, commenting on two brothers: "One's a tennis player; the other's a manly sort of fellow!" Wahkeenah 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Alfred Hitchcock thought so too: one of the thinly-veiled gay men in "Strangers on a Train" is a tennis player. wikipediatrix 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• The "Tennis, anyone?"/"Anyone for Tennis?" phrase is a stage-theater cliche that predates Daffy's own existence. Daffy and many other cartoon characters (not just WB ones) have said it, it's no big deal and most certainly not something that is specifically associated with Daffy Duck. wikipediatrix 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you've hit on the point of the issue, or question. Younger viewers may associate it with Daffy because he's the only one they've heard to say it. But the Warner cartoons are rife with endless catchphrases that were taken from popular culture at the time: movies, and especially radio (which was that generation's TV) were constant sources. The "tennis anyone" gag is just one of hundreds. Wahkeenah 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)