Thursday, August 05, 2010

Next Shocker!


No...it can't be true. How dare they.

22 comments:

Thumpasaur said...

OODELALLY!

Iron maiden said...

what!!!! that must be lie

Timothy R said...

Oh, this shall be interesting, haha.

Iron maiden said...

if anything i would suspect steven spielberg being gay than any of my all time favorite cartoonists

Patrick Griffin said...

so he was gay with mickey mouse huh?

Roberto Severino said...

I have a strong feeling that gay, in that context, actually means happy.

Elana Pritchard said...

Fierce.

Luis María Benítez said...

What a...!!!

RooniMan said...

HORRORS!!!

MistahB said...

when was this made? '50s maybe... if so then it's probably the other meaning of "gay"

Geneva said...

hahahaha!!

Needs more baby asses!

SoleilSmile said...

So what, if it is?

Scrawnypumpkinseed said...

I love hearing people use gay in the old sense of the word. Such as Flintstones constantly having a gay old time!

Toole said...

What is that painting of?

mr paal said...

yey! my favourite type of secret!

lastangelman said...

1.)Fantasia fish ... love that!

2.)Gay secret? After forty seven years, I'm still trying to get my mind round a mouse, a duck and an anthropomorphic dog shacking up together under one roof!

Ian Merch! said...

He looks more like he's accusing all the lookers-on that THEY have a gay secret, not him.

Jesse said...

Gay? Sure everyones a little gay. Gay for chocolate, gay for plastic pin wheels, gay for art supplies. The list is endless...

Shawn Dickinson said...

Guess that explains all the butt gags.

Rothello said...

Sometimes you really need a good laugh.


This tabloid cover provided me with that laugh.

John A said...

Walt had a lot of complex issues: He was a manic-depressive workaholic that had a pretty lousy relationship with his father, but I doubt that any of that made him gay. These articles are pure bullshit, like that "Dark Prince of Hollywood" book that was out a decade ago. It's just people trying to make some money off of a famous dead person's name.

It's true, today we look at the "fanny gags" today as something really bizarre,(Walt didn't have the only studio that seemed to have a fanny obsession) but back then audiences had a competely different attitude toward the sight of a child's naked rear end.(this, I speculate, goes all the way back to the begining of time, when children would be less likely to survive the infant years, and therefore fat round little babies were something to rejoice over. Hummel figurines and Kewpie dolls are based on this ideal of the fat healthy baby with rosy cheeks and dimpled knees.) Children, parents, grandparents, everybody found naked butts humorous. Today, our awareness of a few dangerous people have changed our attitudes and consequently anybody, no matter how innocent their intentions, can be accused of creating "deviant art"if they aren't careful.

JuZ said...

I dont think he was but if we are all proved wrong and it comes to light that he was then I cant see anything wrong with that. That Driscoll thing was a bit wierd though :S(if true)