Talk:Daffy Duck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.

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.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

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

[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)

[edit] About the lisp

Posted by JS on December 27, 2006: In the article, it states that the lisp that Mel Blanc supplied in Daffy's voice was presumably based on that of Leon Schlesinger, the propietor of the WB cartoon studio from 1933 to 1944. I'm not sure if this is correct, but I think that Bob Clampett said that he originated the idea of having Daffy have the lisp, so that it would sound like what he was saying was passing through the bill of duck (sort of like Donald Duck, I guess). I've heard the 'Schlesinger association with Daffy' story before, but probably only from Chuck Jones, who from almost all accounts disliked Schlesinger (and Clampett, for that matter). Anyway, I think that we writers should first research the topic in question before adding something to the article. Do you agree (and am I correct about the Bob Clampett thing)? --UPDATE-- This is JS speaking again. As I read the talk page over, I realized something. User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah , on this exact same talk page, talks about the DAFFY DUMAS DUCK debate, mentioning this, in effect: I saw the Scarlet Pumpernickel article, saying that this was DUMAS was Daffy's middle name. DAFFY DUMAS DUCK was only used once, probably as a joke. But I guess some ignoramus took it literally." Well, I may have something to do with this. In the spring of 2006, I edited and added the trivia section to [[The Scarlet Pumpernickel]] article, stating that: This cartoon is probably the only time that Daffy's middle name is revealed. Daffy's full name is Daffy Dumas Duck. I'm sorry, I wasn't sure if Dumas was Daffy ACTUAL middle name, which explains why I used probably in the article. Now that I know that DUMAS is likely NOT Daffy's true middle name (it probably IS a sly allusion to Alexandre Dumas), I would like someone to answer this question: What IS Daffy's actual middle name! I've heard all kinds of stuff--Dumas, Aloysious, Edgar, and even DONALD [sic!]! Can somebody please answer my question and clear this debate about Daffy's middle name up! [UPDATE posted by JS later that day on 12/27/06] -- POSTED BY 164.58.96.126

  • I apologize for calling you, or any IP address, an ignoramous. I should have said it the Bugs Bunny way, "ignoranymous". :) I think it's clear that Daffy doesn't have a middle name. It's just an occasional plot device to give someone a funny "middle name". Keep in mind that names like "Daffy" and "Bugs" both mean "crazy", and are also alliterative, as with the non-WB character called "Krazy Kat". According to this website [2] the sloppy lisp used for Daffy (also for Sylvester, at normal speed - Daffy's voice recording was sped up) it was "thought to be" based on Schlesinger. That site seems to be pretty thorough, and if even he is unsure, it makes you wonder. I should see what Blanc had to say about it, if anything, in his autobiography. One thing to be aware of is that Clampett was sometimes accused of taking a little more credit for things than he (rightly) deserved for developing the great WB characters, so if he claimed he invented the lisp, you might have to take that with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, it's interesting to realize that, if the generally stated story is true, Schlesinger would have had trouble saying his own name, theoretically... just as with the Sylvester and Elmer Fudd characters. It's also possible that Schlesinger had only a slight lisp that was wildly exaggerated for the cartoons... just as Friz Freleng's stature and demeanor were wildly exaggerated into Yosemite Sam. Wahkeenah 23:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No reason to apologize, Wahkeenah. I immediately realized that you were merely trying to make an attempt at humor. Any way, I believe I may actually have an answer for my own questions, particularly the one about who may have had the bright idea to input the lisp in Daffy's voice. Michael Barrier (a well-known authority on animated film who published a scholarly magazine devoted to "the animated film and comic art" called Funnyworld during the 70s and early 80s, and is now currently in production of a Walt Disney biography) wrote this in his scholarly book Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation In Its Golden Age:
"Starting with Clampett's Porky and Daffy (1938), [Daffy] spoke in an increasingly sibilant, 'slurpy' voice (Clampett remembered asking Mel Blanc to come up with a voice that sounded more ducklike by introducing a 'raspberry' effect), and by the early forties, he was the kind of fellow with whom one would hesitate to hold a face-to-face conversation."
Who would really want to hold a conversation with Daffy? I don't think anybody would be able stand all that screaming and hollering and "whoo-hooing"! ...It took Michael Barrier twenty-five years to write Hollywood Cartoons, so I'll take his woid that Clampett recalled that! You are correct, Wahkeenah, that Clampett did indeed take a little bit too much credit for some WB characters in interviews. (In a 1969 interview conducted by Mike Barrier, Clampett spoke of model sheets that Bob Givens [who fortunately is still with us] drew after A Wild Hare, debatably the first real Bugs Bunny cartoon, in 1940, he was oblivious to the fact that Bob McKimson, while animating for A Wild Hare, used model sheets that Givens had drawn during work on that cartoon. [McKimson would later, as you know, create the definitve model sheet for the silly hare in 1943.] That Clampett also played some part in the creation of Bugs, Porky and Daffy in particular, seems quite probable, although I think he exaggerated on his contributions to the early making of Bugs Bunny, especially. Clampett was likely trying to get some deserved recognition when he made such overstatements. But then again, Chuck Jones and Mel Blanc have also been criticised for taking too much credit for the evolution of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. It's sad that we no longer have these three great talents with us, so that we could settle these disputes up. (By the way, the "Leon Schlesinger story" in the above "Voice Origin" section of this discussion page is from Chuck Amuck, at least the 1989 documentary, anyway.)
Also I have information about the DAFFY DUMAS DUCK row. You are correct, Wahkeenah, in stating that Daffy likely doesn't have a middle name, as is evidenced by the list of purported middle names I listed above. I now have gathered info about the sources of those middle names---The source for Edgar being a possible middle name came from the television series Duck Dodgers, in an episode that parodied the wonderful Daffy Duck cartoon Drip-along Daffy (1950). Here's that bit where I heard the name.
Porky: [referring to a nearby lawless western town] I don't know, Captain Dodgers. The town looks sorta risky!
Daffy: Yeah, but DANGER is my middle name! [zips out of frame and into town]
Porky: [yelling] But I though your middle name was EDGAR!
Daffy: [offscreen] I WAS SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY!
Porky: Oh, metaphorically...
As for Daffy's middle name being Aloysious, I recall that I heard that in an episode of Baby Looney Tunes, in which Granny was angrily reprimanding Baby Daffy, calling him: "Daffy Aloysious Duck!"
DUMAS was, as you already know, from The Scarlet Pumpernickel, probably as a joke, as you noted, at swashbuckling-novelist Alexandre Dumas.
Lastly, the source of DONALD as being Daffy's middle name was from some self-explained animation "expert" who obviously didn't know what he was talking about.
Anyway it's obvious from these sources that the references to Daffy's middle name are mainly attempts at the time to get a laugh, and that Daffy's middle name is virtually obscure. You were correct, Wahkeenah. :) 164.58.96.126 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)JS
Vindication! Awesome. I just took a look at Mel Blanc's autobiography, That's Not All Folks! Very interesting. On page 95, he points out the following for The Daffy Doc (1938), which followed early appearances opposite Egghead and Porky (in which, if you may recall, there is hardly any lisp): "The animated fowl's features were altered noticeably from Porky's Duck Hunt: To further emphasize his battiness, he was drawn with mad, gleaming eyes and a long bill. The latter characteristic figured prominently in creating Daffy's voice. It seemed to me that such an extended mandible would hinder his speech, particularly on words containing an s sound. Thus 'despicable' became 'desthpicable'." He goes on to talk about how Daffy's voice recordings were sped up by 18 percent, actually by "undercranking" the recording and then playing it at normal speed. On page 101-102 he talks about how Sylvester's voice was based on Daffy's, only at normal speed, and aside from the even-more-slobbery lisp, it was fairly much like his own normal voice. I think it's time to take care of the Schlesinger miss, er, myth. Wahkeenah 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It's such a common story that it's probably a good idea to keep it in the article attributed to a specific source, though. — BrianSmithson 08:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
JS replies: Why should we keep it in, BrianSmithson? Wahkeenah and I have both cited sources that flatly show that Daffy's voice was not supposed to resemble any impediment of Schlesinger's, but instead to suggest that Daffy's long bill was hindering his speech. Wikipedia is supposed to give facts, not fiction or legend--to confirm truth, not distort it. This Schlesinger fable should be done away with. So what if it's common? What is the conventional wisdom isn't always neccesarily accurate.
Still despite our use of other sources to verify our arguments, I honestly must expose the shortcomings of them. For one thing, Wahkeenah's citation was of an actual primary source, whereas my book was based overwhelmingly on primary research. Secondly, Mel Blanc's autobiography was published fifty years after our point in question, thus making it not as trustworthy or fresh as the interviews that people like Mike Barrier, Milt Gray, Greg Ford, and John Canemaker recorded in the 70s. However, as both I and Wahkeenah have previously noted, not only Blanc but also Jones and Clampett have been criticised for taking too much credit for what they said they were involved in; thusly their claims must always be taken with a pinch of uncertainty. (You can read the Clampett and Jones interviews at http://michaelbarrier.com, under FUNNYWORLD REVISITED.)
Even w/ the thought that Blanc may have exaggerated in some fashion, his own son Noel has confirmed that the voice of Sylvester the Cat (which, as Wahkeenah has cited, was essentially the same as Daffy's, just without being sped up to a higher pitch) is fundamentally the closest to Blanc's actual tone. (Blanc actually confirmed this beforehand in a 1970s interview, an audio clip of which can be heard if you listen to Barrier's audio commentary for the Looney Tunes: Golden Collection Volume One. The Commentary was for The Scarlet Pumpernickel on Disc Two of the volume.) If Blanc used his own actual voice as the basis for Daffy, why not try to do the best to copy Schlesinger's real voice instead of just his lisp? Thusly, the intended gag is lacking in credibility.
But then again, sometimes you must choose who you want to believe, especially now that none of the three men I've referred to are still here. Alas! Such contradictory accounts are the unavoidable byproduct of animation history research. Those who take the "dying" art of animation serious can't help but run into such things. Hmm...this intended squelcher may not have gotten us anywhere closer to the truth, after all! --- [Posted by 164.58.96.126, otherwise known by the moniker "JS", on 01/10/07, at 4:30 pm]
Well, there are three reasons not to bury the Schlesinger lisp story. First, as you correctly state, the sources are not definitive. The weight of the evidence points to the duck-bill story, but there is still some doubt. Best to mention both. Second, if the story is disproven, that's fine, but it is still often told and written, so it's worth mentioning it if only to disprove it. Sticking to the facts can also mean showing what things were previously thought to be facts but are no longer considered such. Finally, if we don't mention the story, if only to debunk it, people will perpetually pester us on this page asking why it isn't there. Best to describe both theories, say where they come from, and reveal which authorities cite or believe which explanation.
It doesn't have to be in-depth, either: "According to XYZ, Daffy's lisp was patterned after Leon Schlesinger's own speech. However, in his book ABC, DEF says that [instert duck bill story]. Animation historians G, H, and I support the latter explanation." [All this with proper citations, of course!] -- BrianSmithson 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
'JS' responds: Thank you for answering my posting, BrianSmithson . [Why Wahkeenah hasn't answered up until now, I wouldn't know...] I thank you for your argument and appreciate it. Continue helping Wikipedia with your vast knowledge of animation. [As for myself, I'd like to help such articles pertaining to animation and join the animation organization of Wikimedia, but I'm too busy all the time.] Keep up the good work, old colleague, and stay strong. [Posted by 164.58.96.126, otherwise known by the monikier "JS", on 11 January, 2007 at 4:00 pm]
You should sign up for an actual user account. Even if you seldom edit, you're a good asset to the encyclopedia. — BrianSmithson 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In other articles where there is a "legend" of some kind vs. a reasonable explanation by a source in a position to know (although we can't prove whether he made it up or not), I think it's best to report both. "Conventional wisdom says this and Mel Blanc said that." Or something along those lines. Thus the bases are covered. Wahkeenah 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you two; we should keep both stories in. As to BrianSmithson's suggestion about actually signing in, I've been thinking about it and will let you two know if it ever comes to be. Ha, ha, ha...hmm, wasn't as funny as I thought. --Posted by JS on 1/25/07
  • I want to make a public apology for one quick and dirty comment in one of my earlier postings of 01/10/07. In that posting, I mentioned that animation was a "'dying' artform." Sorry. You editors were too polite to say so, but that remark was a hasty and messy one; to make it worse I presented the comment without any vindication or justification. Animation may be in a tough spot right now, but it is almost certainly not "dying". Perhaps only "traditional full animation" is! Animation is, in itself, in even more trouble then before with the deaths of such animation giants like Walt Disney (1966), Bob Clampett (1984), ChucK Jones (2002), Bill Hanna (2001) and most recently Joe Barbara (December 2006). Animation of the kind that they helped nouris has almost entirely, in my own opinion, almost entirely disappeared from their studios. The, for lack of a better word, "timing" of their passing has made such a flow of traditional, hand-drawn animation more hard to imagine. A diminishing awareness of the true value of hand-drawn animation may thus be all the more likely. That may be a sad thought, especially for me. But I always keep these words from (I think) Milton Gray (an animator for The Simpsons) in mind: "In the Hollywood scheme of things. It had always been an odd sort of filmmaking, an intensive effort to give to drawings not just movement but life. But it succeeded for a while, and so the films are alive, too. THE BEST OF THEM SHALL ENDURE FOR AS LONG AS ANYTHING THAT HAS EVER COME OUT OF HOLLYWOOD." -- [(JS), 164.58.96.126, on 13 February 11:48 am.]

[edit] Happy Birthday, Daffy!

Happy New Year, everybody! Something far more important to me than Daffy Duck's lisp is what I've liked to call Daffy Duck's Cartoon Comeback. Now that Daffy has been around for precisely 70 years, I think it's about time someone analyzed his journey through motion pictures, from 1937 to 2007. That's what I will try to do briefly in the space provided.
I'm not going to analyze how Daffy was created, how he rose to stardom, how his star was stolen from Bugs Bunny, how Jones, Clampett, and McKimson used him in their films--no! That's all examined in good detail in the article for which this discussion page has been supplied. What I'm going to emphasize on, instead, is how Daffy Duck has started getting the attention he says he truly deserves.
It's no secret that, by the early forties, Daffy's initial thunder was stolen somewhat by Bugs Bunny, who debuted in 1940. He stayed on the screen, however, through such good films as Book Revue, Baby Bottleneck, The Great Piggy Bank Robbery, and The Scarlet Pumpernickel. By 1951, he was paired against Bugs Bunny in a series of cartoons (Rabbit Fire, Rabbit Seasoning, and Duck! Rabbit! Duck!), in which we saw a truly new form of Daffy. In that "trilogy", he was not the wild, wacky, and daffy duck we had come to know in the forties; he was now one who was greedy and "bent on self-preservation", one who wanted to now get the attention he deserved-- thus, his constant debates and scuffles with Bugs Bunny.
Despite the constant arguments, Daffy appeared infrequently on The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour in the 70s. Daffy would not truly start getting star attention until at least the 80s, when he was the protagonist in two compilation films, Daffy Duck's Fantastic Island, and Daffy Duck's Quackbusters. Increasingly in the 90s, too, Daffy continued getting major roles in such short cartoons as Box Office Bunny, Blooper Bunny, Invasion of the Bunny Snatchers, and Carrotblanca, even if as a supporting character. In 1996, he appeared, alongside Bugs, in Space Jam, after which the renaissance that had started in the early 90s diminished somewhat. Finally, after the start of the 21st century, Daffy began once again to be the center of attention.
This was first evidenced in Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003), in which Bugs, bemused by the fact that his screen adversary (and yet, friend) has been fired, pretty much allows Daffy to run the movie. Finally at the end, Bugs utters: "From now on, you and I are going to be equal partners...No more second banana for you!" As if Bugs was keeping his promise, Daffy appeared in his own series, Duck Dodgers, around the same time LTBA was released, which would continue until late 2005. (Bugs Bunny did not appear at all in the series, showing how WB was attempting to give Daffy a chance in the limelight.)
Finally, in late 2006, Daffy gained a major role in Bah Humduck! A Looney Tunes Christmas!, in which he starred as Mr. Duck. Bugs Bunny appeared in the film, but only infrequently, usually to indicates that WB is considering giving Daffy a CARTOON COMEBACK.
All of this is not to say that Daffy will eventually overshadow Bugs as Bugs did Daffy in the fories, but I think it's great that WB is finally giving Daffy the attention he deserves.

---164.58.96.126 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)JS

[UPDATE: Quick buzz of trivia-- Daffy Duck actually did state "Sufferin' succotash" at least a few times. The only time I can recall offhand when the duck said it was during a short brawl in Baby Bottleneck (1946).---Posted by JS.]

He won't get top-billing, but it is nice to see Daffy getting more promotion (and this is from a guy you could consider more of a Bugs fan).

WAVY 10 16:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daffy, Bugsy, etc.

Some variants of "bug" meaning "crazy":

  • Certain famous people, such as Bugs Moran and Bugsy Siegel
  • The expression "that bugs me" and variations
  • This old play on words - "Q: How do you drive a baby buggy?" "A: Tickle its toes!"
  • "Pyromaniac", an arsonist, or its English-colloquial equivalent "firebug"

The last one above hints at its "cousin" definition, of being a "fanatic" about something (i.e. "crazy" about something). Some examples of that usage:

Sports fans were also sometimes called "bugs". Thus the double meaning of the cartoon titled Baseball Bugs.

Wahkeenah 11:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Can someone change the picture back to the old one from Duck Amuck? In the new image, Daffy is stretched out and in an extreme pose that is not very representative of his general appearance. The other image was more iconic, as well. I can't find in the image's history page when it was overwritten. Anyone know? — Brian (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? Wahkeenah 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duck Amuck.gif

Ah, yes. (I've added a : to the image tag above, since fair-use images are generally verboten on talk pages). I think it's a more iconic and representative image of Daffy than the extreme-posed one that's being used now. — Brian (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Made it so. Wahkeenah 02:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Lantern

I added a mention of Daffy becoming a Green Lantern in the "Daffy Today" subsection. It was later removed because it was "irrelevant". How is this irrelevant in the history of Daffy Duck? It's a moment in his history like his role as Duck Dodgers or Robin Hood Daffy. It's also mentioned here and here. 2tum 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's trivia. You could just as well add, "Daffy says the word forsooth seven times in Robin Hood Daffy", and it would be just as irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Brian (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably the place for such info, if any, would be in a detailed writeup about that specific cartoon? Wahkeenah 09:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/f/Talk%7EDaffy_Duck_fe8f.html"