Animation Source Forums

Technically, it's the scientific classification for the Grey Wolf species. (Genus: Canis - Species: Lupus) But you are very close, all scientific classification uses Latin names, but it isn't "wolf dog", just the name for "wolf".

cat, given your obvious preference for bullies, it's no surprise you think it's funny, and expect others to think it's funny, when steele talks and behaves like a jerk. But I've yet to see any kid, especially those who've been on the recieving end of such torment themselves, laugh at Steele's lines. Try growing up as the prime target, and seeing both your brothers suffer the same, and see if you're still alughing then.
You make a dangerous situation for yourself, debate-wise, when you speak as if everyone thought the same way you do, particularly everyone of an age group which you evidently know and care little or nothing about. It's more or less conversational suicide, so please step away from that cliff.

How about you stop acting like you know me? xD Just because you or anyone else was made fun of during middle school or whatever /and/ don't find a bullying cartoon character funny, doesn't mean anyone else who was treated the same as you (or anyone else) have no right to such an opinion. I can automatically tell you assume I'm the type of person who "bullied" in middle school and lemme tell ya, you're not God, so don't judge until you /know/ the whole story You can also stop making this a personal subject now, and understand the hilarity in said movie sequences, like what I was aiming for. We're talking about Steele here not your personal issues.

Interesting. You maintain that I have no right to say that bullying is not funny, yet you assert that you have the right to say that it is. There's a term for that: it's called a double-standard.
If the only authority you're going by is personal opinions, and I've yet to see you appeal to anything higher, then how can you say that your opinion of funny is valid and mine isn't? If it's as subjective as you imply, then really nobody's view of funny is better than anybody else's, which means that you're just trying to assert your view as true on no other basis than that it is your opinion. I on the other hand am appealing to a higher authority: the fact that nobody has the right to hurt somebody else, especially on the basis of ancestry (that's like picking on a kid who is racially mixed) for purposes of mere amusement. So unless you can call on some higher authority of your own, the best you can hope is to get me in a stalemate.

Stop getting high and mighty on me, kid -.- I wasn't saying bullying is funny. I was talking about the movie. And the scene funny because it was INTENDED to be funny. Otherwise /no one/ would've laughed at it (oh wait, or would that just make "bad people" laugh? I never thought Star was a bad person. Oh dear, how I have been led astray). And by the way, its a cartoon.

And I'm obviously not the only person who finds Steele funny. Which IS what the topic's about, mind you. Not your problems.

First off, Steele might have intended it to be funny, but that's not the point. The point would be whether or not the filmmakers intended it to be funny. Besides, it's entirely possible to make people laugh with something that wasn't intended to be funny. Bloopers, for example, can start off as a scene meant to be downright serious and end leaving people rolling on the floor.
As for it making characters like Star laugh, Star was at that point in the film wishy-washy at best. He was laughing because either A) everyone else (specifically Steele) found it funny, and Star was at that point a follower to the core, or B) his own standards of humor were twisted in the same way as Steele's at that point, so that he considered it humorous to pick on someone for their ancestry. The fact that Star ended up being a positive character in the end was irrelevant at that particular point. Right there, right then, he was behaving badly either badly or passively.
And yes, I am aware that it's a cartoon. But it's been long known that cartoons have a capacity to, by varying degrees, effect the behavior of kids watching. And anybody who knows what they're talking about will acknowledge that cartoons - movies of any kind, really - can effect viewers' emotions, especially younger viewers. Bambi, for example. And before you get high and mighty on me saying that's a kids' movie, I should point out that some other movies have had the same effect on adults. That's why I take it so seriously. Emotional pain is inevitable, and sometimes it's even essential. But needless suffering, especially that which is deliberately inflicted, should never be treated as funny.
Besides, of the views here, I see very few saying that Steele is humorous. The question is why people like Steele, and most of the reasons I can respect, like the ones your friend Greykitty just put forward.

I would not try to dispute that in the least. As a villain, Steele definitely excels.

I won't argue that either; I have no basis taking either stance on how fun he is to draw, since I can't draw dogs to begin with, and fun of that sort is subjective regardless. But when you say that it's funny for him to pick on Balto for his own amusement, then I take issue with it. And I do have a right to bring that up here, because that's what this topic is all about: opinions.
I like Steele as a villain. I do not like him, and in fact strongly dislike him, as a comedian. That's my stand; my "opinion," if you will. And by the standards you seem to assert, I have as much right to it as you.

That's what I was getting at, thank you. If the film makers did not intend it to be funny, they would've put something not funny in there. Like something cruel. Like "I've got a message for your mother. Oh wait, she's dead" And you of all people know how *cough* "cruel" Steele can be, so why wouldn't the film makers put something like that in his lines? Cuz he was supposed to be funny.

And bloopers ARE supposed to be funny. That's why they're called "bloopers" and not "deleted scenes" -.-

many people considers tha being "bad" is moremore difficult than bein "good", and because of that is much more funny to be "bad" instead of being "good" al the time.
(haven´t you ever watched ADGTH 2?)

Okay, I'm going to have my say with the whole Steele is/isn't funny debate.



I agree here. I mean, bad guy or not, they were JOKES and were intended to be by the filmmakers. Which means that they were meant to be funny. Obviously no-one thinks his trying to kill Balto was funny. But everyone thought it was funny when Steele's butt got burned by the boiler, and so while he was intended to be a serious villain, he was also intended to provide some comedic value as well.

What I CAN'T stand is comic relief characters like Star and Muk & Luk. They are seriously un-funny. The point that they were created solely to be funny is what makes them not. Though, at least they served some purpose in the film, and younger children do find it funny.

But if you say that Star is funny, being hit in the head and whatnot by Kaltag, isn't that the same as Steele bullying Balto?

You are mistaken. Steele meant it to be funny. It does not follow that the fimmakers meant them to be funny. Let me illustrate, albeit with a minor spoiler from my own fanfic. In my story "Pup Problems," Pete and his gang made a cruel sport of kicking around a can which had Loki, a wolf cub, inside. They thought it was a laugh riot, along with a lot of other nasty things they did which ranged from vicious or cruel to potentially fatal. But you'd better believe I did not find it funny. Nor did I intend to project it as funny to my readers. As the author of that story, I have every bit of authority over it that the filmmakers did over Balto. Ergo, if I can have my characters think something is funny when it flat-out isn't, so could the creators of Balto.
The list goes on. In All Dogs Go to Heaven Carface gets plenty of laughs about planning to do Charlie in. That ain't funny, and I'm dead convinced the filmmakers never meant it to be.
And of course it was intended to be funny when Steele got burned. He was getting his comeuppance, it's no different than when Timon and Pumbaa's efforts to ruin Simba and Nala's romance (see The Lion King 1 1/2) repeatedly backfired. They brought it on themselves. Another example, when Pete repeatedly suffered at the hands of his own would-be traps for Toby and Luna in "Date With Disaster." He was being malicious, abeit mildly so, and he got what was coming to him. That was funny. Other things he did, like the aforementioned game of kick-the-can, were not. When you suggest that something funny happening to a character makes that character's actions funny, that's poor logic.

Well, that was enough of /that/ side of the story to convince me otherwise xD Not really. Think what you want, but you don't think like anyone in the movie business.

Oh, my mistake. I never knew I was talking to someone with an absolute knowledge of the movie industry. The fact is, I know a good deal more about it than you think. My knowledge is not based on a few selections here and there. I do more than watch movies, I analyze them. I look at the statements they make, and when possible I pursue background information on the filmmakers, the story behind the story (if, as in the case of Balto, it's based on real events), and so on.
Regardless, I'm not going to bother with this. You've proven one thing and one thing only: reason is pointless with you. If I got the scriptwriter, director, and all the voice actors of Balto to come on here and say that it was never meant to be funny, you would still maintain that it was.

Whatever you say, kid, you know best



Why, golly! You're right! Only its not the /mental/ bullying this time! Its the /physical/! And yet BOTH characters could still be mentally affected! This is terrible! This is not funny at all! D8