lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Goofy is not a dog, Pluto is a dog, which is walked/owned by humanoid-characters. Goofy is a "Goof."
Goofy is not a dog, Pluto is a dog, which is walked/owned by humanoid-characters. Goofy is a "Goof."
Not to mention the Safari,Great point, I've recently been to both the San Diego Zoo and Bronx Zoo and still consider DAK to be among the best in regards to show quality and perceived animal well-being. Most domestic zoos still hide their animals behind mesh and/or glass, but the thoughtful design of the open-air exhibits allows for uninterrupted observation and perfect photo opportunities. The animals at DAK are also consistently lively and energetic.
Goofy is not a dog, Pluto is a dog, which is walked/owned by humanoid-characters. Goofy is a "Goof."
Acting like a dog, does not make Goofy a dog. PS, what's the deal with this "Ren and Stimpy" style Mickey cartoon? Not classy at all.
No, it's a ... wait for it ... Goofy argument.No, Goofy is definitely an anthropomorphic dog. His original last name was literally 'Dawg.' Goof is his family name.
Though this feels like a silly argument.
*ba dum tss*No, it's a ... wait for it ... Goofy argument.
Acting like a dog, does not make Goofy a dog. PS, what's the deal with this "Ren and Stimpy" style Mickey cartoon? Not classy at all.
Camp Minnie Mickey was designed from the start to be bulldozed though. It was literally trees and characters. That’s it.Yes, but they previously had an entire land dedicated to them that was razed in favor of Pandora. How quickly we forget Camp Minnie-Mickey apparently.
PS, what's the deal with this "Ren and Stimpy" style Mickey cartoon? Not classy at all.
The aesthetic (especially Goofy's character design) was very off-putting to me until I sat down to watch a few. Now I'm subscribed to the official Youtube channel . It really helped modernize Mickey and friends for a contemporary audience and he now feels relevant again in the current cartoon landscape.Seems people either love the new style or hate it. I personally love it. I'd say it's a generational thing, but (at least based on your profile), you're essentially the same age as I am, so I'm not sure. If you want to complain about the art style, sure, I get that... but I feel like the writing and pacing of these new shorts are so spot on (Ducktails too) that if you can get past the art style, they're REALLY enjoyable (at least I find they are).
I HATE the way Goofy looks. But other than that I like the new shorts. The visuals on the new Ducktales seems like a perfect middleground between the classic looks and the modern shortsSeems people either love the new style or hate it. I personally love it. I'd say it's a generational thing, but (at least based on your profile), you're essentially the same age as I am, so I'm not sure. If you want to complain about the art style, sure, I get that... but I feel like the writing and pacing of these new shorts are so spot on (Ducktails too) that if you can get past the art style, they're REALLY enjoyable (at least I find they are).
I wouldn't expect Australia to show up in Disney's Jungle Kingdom.
Not sure how, or maybe why, Goofy looking like he just came off of a 3-day bender is "appealing to contemporary audiences".
They were taking inspiration from the original design..Not sure how, or maybe why, Goofy looking like he just came off of a 3-day bender is "appealing to contemporary audiences".
YeahI think I'm technically just older than the targeted audience of the new cartoons, and while I can enjoy the plots, the style is still offputting to me, especially Goofy. Why did they change the color of his eyes to make it look like he's been on a drug fueled craze? Otherwise, the changing facial expressions that scrunch of the lips and pull the eye-lids up just looks off to me, and some reason kind of gross.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.