Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Buckaroo Bugs - RED HOT RYDER

Hmmm... the damn lawyers at Warner Bros. are taking down all the clips. I guess they don't want free publicity for their cartoons.

Here's some more great stuff from Buckaroo Bugs.

Note that before you see Red Hot Ryder you hear Yosemite Sam's voice and the whole gag is his stock routine you see later in a million cartoons, only it's done best here-the first time it was ever animated.



I think the character and routine comes from a Red Skelton radio character-anyone know the name of the character?

Look at the way everything is animated and timed. This is pure love of movement and funny movement.Why do we not have any full animation in these 200 million dollar features that come out 5 times a year now?

The whole damn thing is excitement. What a great way to start a cartoon!

Here, now look at a way toned down, mechanically timed limited animation version of the same routine and you can see how important good animation and direction is to the effectiveness of a gag.




Coming Soon- Chuck Jones

By the way, I'm going to start posting great animation from Chuck Jones cartoons soon. He's my second favorite director. A very strange career he had too. His best animation didn't coincide with his funniest cartoons. In the early 40s he used very imaginative full animation and gave his animators much leeway, but his timing and characterization and gags were not very sharp yet. By the time he let his writers give him funny story material and he learned to draw funny expressions and tightened his timing-in the mid to late 40s, he started sitting on his animators more.

Maybe I can find a couple cartoons where both things are happening at the same time as they did in Clampett's cartoons. To Duck Or Not To Duck comes to mind.

101 comments:

David Germain said...

Note that before you see Red Hot Ryder you hear Yosemite Sam's voice

Well, it was more of a generic southern voice really trying to sound like the noble heroic voice of The Lone Ranger so as to hilariously offset the doofus Ryder turns out to be. Yosemite Sam really didn't become Yosemite Sam until Friz Freleng's Hare Trigger (c. 1945). Not just the design and voice but Sam's personality was there too.

I already gave my assessment of Buckaroo Bugs in the last post. I don't want to write it again right away.

JohnK said...

>>Well, it was more of a generic southern voice really trying to sound like the noble heroic voice of The Lone Ranger so as to hilariously offset the doofus Ryder turns out to be.<<

Uhh...it's Yosemite Sam's voice and routine EXACTLY. The narrator is a takeoff on The Lone Ranger, but not Red Hot Ryder.

Boy, evidence doesn't seem to faze some people at all.

Davis Chino said...

John,

Thanks so much for sharing all this. The site is brilliant, a real resource. And, at the very least you are showing everyone the only way to truly appreciate any art form--you pay attention!!

J.D.P said...

i just love the big cloud of smoke that it starts off with. animated smoke and dust has always been interesting to me. did they use normal paints to get that color fade from the edges to the center?

Jesse Oliver said...

Hey John

Whene you start posting up some Chuck Jones work start off with the cartoon "Fin'In Catty". That is one of my favorite early Chuck Jones cartoons.

Jesse Oliver

David Germain said...

Uhh...it's Yosemite Sam's voice and routine EXACTLY.

Superficially, yes. Yosemite Sam would do that "Whoa horse!!" routine in many cartoons to follow (most notably on a camel in Sahara Hare (by Friz Freleng c. 1955)).
But, the big difference is, Yosemite Sam is evil. He'll rob banks and shoot at people with no concern for human lives. He even seems to enjoy it when they suffer. That's the personality that was introduced to us in Hare Trigger and was nowhere to be seen in Buckaroo Bugs.

Yes, some people can't be phazed by evidence at all. ;)

Nico said...

This is more aimed at the last post, but I might as well say it here:

Why the hell do people come on here just to disagree with everything John says? The worst part is most of them are teenagers who can't draw yet. John's had like 30 years in the biz, not to mention STUDYING these cartoons for even longer than that. So why do some people act like he doesn't know what he's talking about?

I'm sorry, but geez. I come here to get awesome cartoon info, not read flame wars.

Nico said...

John is talking about the ROUTINE... a big, tough sounding voice, drama heightening, music building... and it's a short little shrimpy man.

It's a routine, a joke. And this being before a Yosemite Sam was created... THIS scene is the first time it's animated.

Vermaquale said...

These Buckaroo Bugs post are some of the funniest things I've ever seen. I thought I had this one one one of the Golden Collections but I guees not. I am pretty sure I have it some were though.

P.C. Unfunny said...

"Well, it was more of a generic southern voice really trying to sound like the noble heroic voice of The Lone Ranger so as to hilariously offset the doofus Ryder turns out to be"

John is right Dave, they are the same exact voices. Not come off as rude but all you need in ears to hear YS and RHR soudn alike.

Anonymous said...

Red Hot Ryder seems to be a combo of two Red Skelton radio characters: the rootin'-tootin' cowboy Sheriff Deadeye had a fast, gruff voice and had a lot of trouble getting his horse to stop: on the radio, all you heard were the madly galloping hoofbeats and Deadeye yelling WHOA....WHOA!! On television in 1950's-60's, you heard this offstage, then Deadeye would make an explosive appearance. The slow dimwit character was Red's country bumpkin Clem Kaddidlehopper ("Well, heeeere I am!"). All the Warner directors and Avery over at MGM borrowed liberally from Red Skelton.

To add my negligible .02 to the Buckaroo Bugs characterization question, I've loved this toon since I was a kid 40 years ago and have seen it over a hundred times,
including at an animation festival with a theater audience. I never really thought of Bugs as a villain or bully or too abusive in this one, because initially he's just amused by Red Hot ("a fugitive from the funny papers!"). Then the cowboy waves two six guns around, including directly at the audience, and says he wants the Masked Marauder, cause he's a gonna murder him, see, he's a gonna murder him! Well, even Chuck Jones himself would agree that if some guy invades Bugs's territory with loaded guns and says he's gonna murder 'im, Bugs has the right to wage war. Even then, Bugs is still quite delighted, treating Red more like a new playmate. Though, of course, Bugs can play rather rough.

Bugs finishes off the cartoon by giving Red a big smooch. I always thought, when Bugs kissed his opponents, that while it's done to defy, ridicule, & humiliate them, there's also some affection & appreciation in there, too. "Gosh, doc, you fall for every trick, every gimmick...You're So Dumb you're perfect! So Much Fun! Thanks!" At least that's my take.

I do have problems with Clampett's Bugs in Hare Ribbin' and Falling Hare, but that's a different topic.

mmtper

Brian Goss said...

You HOSERS. That was Bob and Doug's dad, not a takeoff on the Lone Ranger or Yosemite Sam. ;)

(Just trying to interject a little lightheartedness into the kill 'em all world of cartoon debating. Carry on with the bloodsport.)

Corey said...

"Welp, here I yam!"

Another retard character says that in Avery's "Hick Chick!"

COINCIDENCE?

JohnK said...

Bugs is indeed playful in the Clampett and Avery cartoons. In the later Jones cartoons, he is vengeful and mean.

They both work and reflect very well the personalities of their directors.

P.C. Unfunny said...

"Bugs is indeed playful in the Clampett and Avery cartoons. In the later Jones cartoons, he is vengeful and mean."

Do you consider Bugs mean in "Bukaroo Bugs" or "Wabbit Twouble" ? If not,why ? Jones' Bugs did not attack his prey without reason, unlike the two cartoons I just mentioned.Or is it that you find Jones' Bugs mean and vengeful because he didn't look as happy when defeating his foes ?

Sam said...

John, what's your favorite Bugs Bunny cartoon by Bob Clampett and by Tex Avery?

Morly said...

If you've not seen "Tokyo Woes", head over here right away and soak in more of Clampett's brilliance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg9MZ2D-bgQ

JohnK said...

>>Do you consider Bugs mean in "Bukaroo Bugs" or "Wabbit Twouble" ? If not,why ?<<

No, not at all. He's just a wiseacre. He doesn't hate the people he's screwing with.

>>Jones' Bugs did not attack his prey without reason, unlike the two cartoons I just mentioned.

Well, he sometimes did, but in the ones where he said "Of course you know this means war" he is out for revenge. He is angry at his opponents. He wants to teach them a lesson and hurt them badly. He finishes many of them for good. Is that more noble than just being a prankster?

And even if it was, is noble funny?

Why does an entertainment character need justification to be funny? That would eliminate a lot of beloved characters from history.

Moe Howard, Archie Bunker, Ralph Kramden, Homer Simpson to name a very few.

JohnK said...

>>John, what's your favorite Bugs Bunny cartoon by Bob Clampett and by Tex Avery? <<

"Tortoise Wins By a Hare" and "Heckling Hare".

Kali Fontecchio said...

There's seriously no Oil Tycoons or anyone willing to invest in you to make stuff like this?

David Germain said...

You spelled "fazed" wrong while missing the point.

Yep. I spelled it wrong because I initially thought you spelled it wrong. But I checked an online dictionary and found you had the correct spelling in the first place.

John is right Dave, they are the same exact voices. Not come off as rude but all you need in ears to hear YS and RHR soudn alike.

They may have same sounding voices but they are definitely NOT the same. Like I was intimating earlier, a voice isn't complete without the personality of the character behind it. With Yosemite Sam, there was always an evil cackle backing up the bellowing southern accent. No such cackle is heard in Buckaroo Bugs. It's very subtle, but it's important in making the distinction between a familiar character and one that sounds like him.
Another example of this is how Daffy Duck and Sylvester Jr. essentially have the same voice, a lisp electronically sped up. And yet, we can easily distinguish between both those characters because Mel put entirely different personalities into their voices. Noone has confused those two for each other yet.

P.C. Unfunny said...

"Why does an entertainment character need justification to be funny? That would eliminate a lot of beloved characters from history."

I agree a character dose not need justification to be funny but what isn't funny is when they are out of character.The way Bugs acted in "Bukaroo Bugs" is out of character because Bugs is not a villian,not someone who would mercilessly tortures someone who hardly deserves punishment. Don't get me wrong, I think "Buckaroo Bugs" has great animation and gags but it just had the wrong lead character.

"Well, he sometimes did, but in the ones where he said "Of course you know this means war" he is out for revenge. He is angry at his opponents. He wants to teach them a lesson and hurt them badly."

Well,wouldn't you hate a person who trys to kill you or harasses for no reason ? I certaintly whould be.

P.C. Unfunny said...

"They may have same sounding voices but they are definitely NOT the same"

They both were acted the same and had the same force. I have watched the "Buckaroo Bugs" several times before and have always noticed this.




"Another example of this is how Daffy Duck and Sylvester Jr. essentially have the same voice, a lisp electronically sped up. And yet, we can easily distinguish between both those characters because Mel put entirely different personalities into their voices."

This is entirely different,you can clearly hear the difference in personalities.

Anonymous said...

Howdy John!

Just wondering ... what do you mean by no full animation these days? ive always thought full animation meant, you know, the opposite of limited animation, complete subtle motion... allowing for micro anticipations, nice offset, secondary motion, settling, things on ones... that sort of thing.
while im sure most of the people reading this is on the 2d side of things, i thought that a lot of cartoony stuff was pulled off nicely in a few recent features... scrat in ice age...

did you mean more broad animation? id love to hear some theories you might have on animation itself... moving things and its relationship to cartooning, etc...

I don't really care said...

This is more important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1yx3ZlypO4

Love the way Clampett worked deep perspective. He loves to have characters busting out in every direction. This is just so fucking funny. It's funny to think a cartoon character could be so self-aware as to perform in such sophisticatedly funny ways. They usually aren't and don't.

Nate Birch said...

"Well, he sometimes did, but in the ones where he said "Of course you know this means war" he is out for revenge. He is angry at his opponents. He wants to teach them a lesson and hurt them badly. He finishes many of them for good. Is that more noble than just being a prankster?"

Heh, well...the heroes of most action movies would tell you it is.

Jones' Bugs is the guy all the poor shlubs watching wish they could be...the guy who gives all the assholes out there their commeuppance. There's something very cathartic about that sort of thing.

Although I do agree, Jones' does get *mean* about things sometimes. That doesn't mean Jones-Bugs isn't appealing though...just in a darker sort of way.

Oh, and on the subject of the cartoon at hand...Red Hot Ryder's definitely a fun one. I don't really find Bugs obnoxious in this one much at all...if you're going to level that criticism there are other Clampett Bugs cartoons that are worse. Really nothing bad to say about this one except that Clampett made better cartoons...which is hardly an insult considering who we're talking about.

Duck Dodgers said...

John,
do you hagve a favorite Freleng Bugs Bunny cartoon?

Stephen Worth said...

Well,wouldn't you hate a person who trys to kill you or harasses for no reason ? I certaintly whould be.

Screwing around with someone just because you're a wiseacre is funnier than motivated hatred.

John's point was that the directors' own personalities were reflected in the way they handled the characters. Clampett was a practical joker who was just out to be screwy. He didn't have a mean bone in his body, just self confidence and a wild sense of humor. He played jokes on his co-workers that could be interpreted as being mean, but he himself didn't intend them that way.

Jones was quite different. He was aloof and cold. Several of his main crew members commented that he was all business- he never socialized with them outside of the studio. He held grudges, stewed over perceived slights and could be very angry and vengeful. He was once quoted as saying, "You can't be creative without having something you truly hate." He was a great artist and director, but his personality was the polar opposite of Clampett's.

See ya
Steve

Stephen Worth said...

A little friendly advice for David G... Lay back and read and try to understand before you post. You're debating for debating's sake. A good debater doesn't just automatically take the opposite position and stick with it tenaciously. He first tries to understand the position of his opponant better than his opponant does.

It also helps to respond to the points made by the person you are debating with, rather than just keep repeating your own points over and over. Listening and responding to what the other guy is saying is the key.

When you do that, you can clearly see the areas that aren't worth contradicting, and the ones where there is a possibility of scoring a point in opposition. But this takes a little time and careful consideration.

Slow down a bit.

See ya
Steve

The Butcher said...

I keep hearing Bugs is out of character in Buckaroo Bugs because he plays a villain and Bugs is not a villian (though as I said before, I think he has some villainous traits). The premise of the story is just different. Look past it. The character is still the same. You guys are confusing a change in formula for a change in character.

In Stimpy's invention, Stimpy plays an evil genius. That's his role, but does it neccessarily reflect his character in the cartoon? No, he's still the exact opposite of an evil genius.

As for me thinking that Bugs, in all his cartoons, has villainous tendancies, I expect to be completely alone on this. People like to think of Bugs as a hero. I tend to find him a mildly depraved, sarcastic smart ass. At least he is in all my favorite cartoons. And as I've said before, the coolest people have this same personality. They're actions are not filled with malice, they just mess with people cause it's funny!

pglatz said...

Maybe you're thinking ofr Senator Claghorn, from Fred Allen? He was the predecessor of Foghorn Leghorn, a similar blowhard:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Foghorn%20Leghorn

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the people that are putting so much energy and time in to coming onto this blog and arguing would devote all of that into learning how to draw, they may actually accomplish something.
just a thought

Spizzerinktum said...

In Stimpy's invention, Stimpy plays an evil genius.

Huh? How do you figure that? He's doing what he thinks is best for Ren! When he's in the lab, welding and electrocuting himself and stuff, like Dr. Frankenstein, there's no evil intent--it's just good old mad-scientist drama. (I love that sequence; I could look at those frames for hours.)

n.b. I am definitely not arguing.

Say, anybody a fan of Hare Splitter? :-D

JohnK said...

>>
They may have same sounding voices but they are definitely NOT the same. Like I was intimating earlier, a voice isn't complete without the personality of the character behind it.<<


No one said it was the same personality.

I merely pointed out an interesting fact that the routine and voice first appeared in a non-Yosemite Sam cartoon.

It's obviously not the same character.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

"Of course you know, this means war" ruined Jones' cartoons. It not only reduced the plots to formula and made Bugs one-dimensional but it took away the atmosphere of playful mischief that I like to see at the start of a cartoon.

-Eddie

Duck Dodgers said...

JOHN,

WILL YOU MAKE IN THE FUTURE A POST ABOUT TERRYTOONS?
THEY ARE THE MOST UNDERRATED CARTOONS IN HISTORY!

Same fate happens to the Lantz cartoons of the Forties.....there are many gems made in this period.
Expecially the work of Culhane and Lundy.
Too bad they are not studied with the same attention that is edvoted to WB,Disney and MGM cartoons.

JohnK said...

>>WILL YOU MAKE IN THE FUTURE A POST ABOUT TERRYTOONS?
THEY ARE THE MOST UNDERRATED CARTOONS IN HISTORY!<<

Yeah I sure will. I love Terrytoons. We've been watching the very early ones for the last couple of weeks and there are all kinds of individual animation styles that are really fun and cartoony.

Terrytoons are kinda fun by default. That's what my post will be. About the value of animation studios that have no creative supervision where lots of lucky accidents happen just by having good artists wandereing through the studio and doing what they do.

This happened at Terrytoons, Walter Lantz and early Hanna Barbera and produced lots of great styles that were never followed up later but should have been by a studio that did have form and creative vision.

David Germain said...

No one said it was the same personality.

I merely pointed out an interesting fact that the routine and voice first appeared in a non-Yosemite Sam cartoon.

It's obviously not the same character.


Thank you.

Duck Dodgers said...

>>Terrytoons are kinda fun by default. That's what my post will be. About the value of animation studios that have no creative supervision where lots of lucky accidents happen just by having good artists wandereing through the studio and doing what they do.<<


That's whyI love your blog.
And why I admire you, John.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder if the people that are putting so much energy and time in to coming onto this blog and arguing would devote all of that into learning how to draw, they may actually accomplish something.
just a thought"

Naaah!

Seriously--just as John is posting thoughts and opinions and laying them out there, so too people respond in varying degrees of proficiency. How do you know whether or not they're drawing, and what difference does it make to the discussion? It hardly takes a huge amount of time to read through these brief comments and post one or more.
You're just wasting your time making a snarky remark to no purpose.

The Butcher said...

"Huh? How do you figure that? He's doing what he thinks is best for Ren! When he's in the lab, welding and electrocuting himself and stuff, like Dr. Frankenstein, there's no evil intent--it's just good old mad-scientist drama. (I love that sequence; I could look at those frames for hours.)"

I said he's playing the role an evil genius because he's using science to take control of Ren's mind and force him to do things against his will. His good intentions are what makes it so funny because the actions he takes are truely evil. It's almost like a rape. Mind control. Doesn't get anymore evil than that.

Perhaps I should have used the term mad scientist instead. Still, Stimpy's role is usually the nurturer, the mother figure, the under appreciated house wife, or just the dopey pal. No matter what his role is, he's still the same Stimpy. I feel the same way about Bugs in this cartoon. He has every element of what makes his character great, the premise is just different.

And by the way, Red Hot Ryder did arrive on the scene to get Bugs Bunny. Even though he's a robber, he didn't attack until provoked. This is probably my favorite Bugs Bunny of all time. I see nothing different about his personality. The only difference is in the set-up. Who wants the same formula every time anyway?

gir said...

>>Bugs is indeed playful in the Clampett and Avery cartoons. In the later Jones cartoons, he is vengeful and mean.<<

I disagree, I think it was the other way round. Chuck Jones always had to show Bugs in a heroic and great manner, which ultimately made him boring.

Clampett and Avery had him be mean by picking on people for no reason, but it made him a lot more intersting and somehow even more likeable. Jones' Bugs is very smug though.

Spizzerinktum said...

I said he's playing the role an evil genius because he's using science to take control of Ren's mind and force him to do things against his will. His good intentions are what makes it so funny because the actions he takes are truely evil. It's almost like a rape. Mind control. Doesn't get anymore evil than that.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. I saw it as Stimpy loving Ren so much that he is compelled to invent a solution to what he thinks is a problem, in that gloriously controlling Mom-ish way that we all love. Like when your mom "protects" you by not letting you out of the house untill you're 30. Come to think of it, that's pretty fucking evil.

P.C. Unfunny said...

"Screwing around with someone just because you're a wiseacre is funnier than motivated hatred."


I usually find Bugs being attacked first funnier but I guess it's personal taste.

Toren Q Atkinson said...

I'm hosting a drawing class/potluck for my friends and I forgot what the term is for when your background lines interfere with the composition. Like when the horizon line is on the same plane as a character's eyes, or intersecting with other lines that are bad form...that sort of thing. I learned the term right here on John's fabulous blog. Anyone? Thanks.

JohnK said...

>>I forgot what the term is for when your background lines interfere with the composition.<<

Tangent

gir said...

Hey john, I noticed that one of your links is motlos. That's kinda become a dump with people selling drugs and stuff now and most of the old motlos members here now:

http://www.spumboard.lyris-lite.net/

Perhaps you could put a link up to there instead?

Anonymous said...

Say John/anyone,


Wouldn't full 2d animation be cheaper/easier on a photoshop-like program with a flash-like animation interface?

Flash's paintbrush tool is pretty limited.

Adobe Flashoshop?

At the least, beginners could practice on it and get good for the "real" paper animating.

Can anyone pull the strings to get this done?

Toren Q Atkinson said...

Ah yes, Tangent. Thanks John! I check the blog every day and learn something new. I was really amazed on the difference between the animator switch in the Red Hot Ryder sequence, though I wouldn't have noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out!

scot said...

I think the best example of Bob Clampett's genius is the legacy of the characters he created that appear only a small number cartoons. Some great examples:

Red Hot Ryder
Injun Joe: Super Chief
The Flea that sings "Food around the corner"
"Killer" (Beaky Buzzard)
The Turtle

I'm sure that some fans might argue that one of the peripherial artists or animators were responsible for the character designs or the concepts were based off of existing actors, but Clampett was man behind some of the funniest characters Warner made.

Pedro Vargas said...

Hi John! I just bought The Lost Episodes DVD.

Maybe I shouldn't ask this question, but is there one Clampett cartoon that you didn't enjoy? I mean it's hard for me to find a cartoon he did that I didn't enjoy. And also, will you do a post on Jim Tyer and his animation?

Pedro

Anonymous said...

Hi John,
I am a theater manager at the Franklin Institute Science Museum here in Philadelphia, PA. I was hoping you might be available to be the host of one of the nights of our Animation Festival. Perhaps 7/28 or 8/4?

aaand, maybe afterward, your band could play in the planetarium for fun? see: http://www.espers.org/planetarium/planetarium.htm

I'm sorry to use this blog, but I couldn't find many other ways to get in touch with you. Email kwheatley@fi.edu for more details.
Thanks!
Karen

Art F. said...

Buckaroo bugs was always one of my favorites! I always liked the goofy Red Hot Ryder character. And why is all the fun missing from cartoons nowadays? These cartoons are 50+ years old and I never get tires of watching them. These cartoons are what inspired me when I was a whelp, to want to draw cartoons. The majority of cartoons on TV now seem to have no re-viewing quality whatsoever. How sad. I wish they would bring back cartoon shorts in the theatres. That would be awesome!

pinkboi said...

I know this isn't considered a quintissential Chuck Jones cartoon, but it's one of my favorites ... do you have a copy of "Now Hear This" I can't bloddy find it anywhere!!

Jorge Garrido said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jorge Garrido said...

>Uhh...it's Yosemite Sam's voice and routine EXACTLY. The narrator is a takeoff on The Lone Ranger, but not Red Hot Ryder.

So Friz used this routine in his Yosemite cartoons, THIS VERSION IS BRILLIANT TOO, and much better animated, but Friz was better tat timing it. Anyone wanna post some clips on Youtubr to back this up for John?

He meant that Red's FIRST voice, when he first says "Whoah" sounds like The Lone Ranger, and NOT Red's regular doopy voice.

Same routine, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER.

>Why the hell do people come on here just to disagree with everything John says?

It we should either agree completley with everything he says or not post? I agree with tons of things John says, but we're allowed to state our opinion. Sheesh! Me, Duck Dodgers, Thad and DAvid Germain always back up our arguments with facts and evidence. We're not just shooting down anything John says!

>John is right Dave, they are the same exact voices. Not come off as rude but all you need in ears to hear YS and RHR soudn alike.

Yeah, but the difference is Red's Yosemite type voice contrasts with the reality that he's a goofball and a dumbass. FOR A GAG. When Yosemite talks like that, it's his real voice. That's his character and personality, that he yells all the time. Yes, it's the same routine, but a different character.

>Bugs finishes off the cartoon by giving Red a big smooch. I always thought, when Bugs kissed his opponents, that while it's done to defy, ridicule, & humiliate them, there's also some affection & appreciation in there, too. "Gosh, doc, you fall for every trick, every gimmick...You're So Dumb you're perfect! So Much Fun! Thanks!" At least that's my take.

I've never heard it put so succinctly!

> Bugs is indeed playful in the Clampett and Avery cartoons. In the later Jones cartoons, he is vengeful and mean.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH RE YOU JOKING??!?! AHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You're a fun-ny guy, John. Jones lawyas made sure Bugs had sympathy for excacting what you call "Revenge" Yeah, he was less, fun, because he was Jones' "comic hero." He had wrongs to right.

Fri'z Bugs contends with more aggresive characters and has to think on his feet more.

>Is that more noble than just being a prankster?

It dones't matter, they're both valid ways. VARIETY.

>And even if it was, is noble funny?

It is when Bugs is noble!

>He is angry at his opponents.

Yeah, real angry, what with his half lidded eyes and overall calm, passive demeanor. I'm assuming you're referring to the bullfihgt picture, but come one, the bull deserved it. I can also assume you're referring to the opera singer one, and eh deserved it and it was funny.

>Why does an entertainment character need justification to be funny? That would eliminate a lot of beloved characters from history.

Moe Howard, Archie Bunker, Ralph Kramden, Homer Simpson to name a very few.

I agree, but Jones did not, but his cartoons are still funny! Besides, teh GOOD Homer (pre 1998) was never a jerkass like his post-98 self. Homer always had good intentions. Ralph was alwyas trying to do something good for his wife, as was Fred Flitnstone. They were likable blowhards. Archie truly believed he was right, and alot of people who missed the irony of that show (including me) happen to agree with most of his views.

>Another example of this is how Daffy Duck and Sylvester Jr. essentially have the same voice, a lisp electronically sped up. And yet, we can easily distinguish between both those characters because Mel put entirely different personalities into their voices. Noone has confused those two for each other yet.

Holy shit, you're right! I never noticed that!

>Yep. I spelled it wrong because I initially thought you spelled it wrong. But I checked an online dictionary and found you had the correct spelling in the first place.

David just got owned!

>The way Bugs acted in "Bukaroo Bugs" is out of character because Bugs is not a villian,not someone who would mercilessly tortures someone who hardly deserves punishment

Bugs can't be out of character in his onw cartoons. This is teh library that mkea up what he is. If Bugs acted like that in a MODERN day cartoon it might be out of cahracter since it's not a part of his canon but it wasn';t terribly late in his career yet so he was getting the kinks worked out. Are you with Thad K's view that Clampett's Bugs cartoons would work better with Daffy? VARIETY, people. We already have a million different Daffy prankster cartoons, but not as many Bugs prankster cartoons.

Spizzerinktum said...

Wouldn't full 2d animation be cheaper/easier on a photoshop-like program with a flash-like animation interface?

Anything you can create in Illustrator, you can import into Flash, and Illustrator's brush tools are pretty damned great. Plus they're vector-based.

Is that what you were asking? If so, let's just say I pulled a few strings... ;-)

The Butcher said...

Hey John,

Did Clampett invent Tweety Bird when he was still a hatchling?

I really started to hate that character when he suddenly transformed into a full grown canary with feathers and everything, but still had the bulbous head. He looked more like Macally Colkin (sp?) than a bird.

Ted said...

Technical note: my priomary browser won't display the media in this particular post (no image at all, discounting a browser generated error graphic). It still displays the other cartoons on the page, so it probably has something to do with the particular coding in the post or the movie file itself.

Dave_the_Turnip said...

John, i'm not sure which thread would be the best to ask this question so i'm just going to ask it.

Now correct me if i'm wrong but all the animated shorts created from the 20s to about the 60s were broadcast in movie theatres before films right?

To me it seems that idea could definitely be ressurected today. Just for the fact that some people enjoy certain films partially for the previews shown beforehand.

Could something like this be plausible? And i guess the real question is could this help kickstart full animation in the US again, or do you think the studios would want the shorts created the way they are now and it might end up making the problem worse?

heh, i guess that ended up being more than just one question. :)

Anonymous said...

Jorge is a dork.

David Germain said...

Now correct me if i'm wrong but all the animated shorts created from the 20s to about the 60s were broadcast in movie theatres before films right?

To me it seems that idea could definitely be ressurected today. Just for the fact that some people enjoy certain films partially for the previews shown beforehand.


Well, the thing is that the previews before the movies now are pretty much commercials. Therefore, theatre owners get paid by advertisers to show them. If they wanted to show any animated shorts in their theatres (and that's a big "if") they would have to pay money. Most businesses would rather have money coming in than going out.

Oh well, we don't need those money grubbing assholes. There are great independent film festivals all over the world.

supreme cat said...

Careful on who you call retarded John! One of these days you're going to piss of the wrong retard!

David Germain said...

Friz is slow, mechanical and even. No flair or art to his timing, unlike Clampett, Jones and Avery.

At times, yeah. But, Friz does have some beautiful timing in High Diving Hare (c. 1949), Canned Feud (c. 1951), and Putty Tat Twouble (c. 1951).

Jorge Garrido said...

>That is completely retarded or should I say "retarted" as you usually do?

Congrats, you can type better than me. But when your last name is Kricfalusi, you probably gotta learn to spell tough words at a young age. Did they have all 26 letters back then, John?

>Compare how much is going on in the Clampett scene for the same amount of time in the Friz version. There is waaaay more happening in Clampett's version in the same total time.

Yeah, that's why I said Clampett's was way better animated.

I FOUND A YOUTUBE CLIP TO BACK MY ARGUMENT UP regarding timing! AHAHAHA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjb7908w0Eo&search=yosemite%20sam
vs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zgaahzTdLg&search=buckaroo%20bugs

ANALYSIS COMING SOON. If John finds it good, I want him to post it. Then he can rebutt it. This is gonna be fun.

>Everyone at Warner's was better than Friz at timing.
Friz is slow, mechanical and even. No flair or art to his timing, unlike Clampett, Jones and Avery.

I intend to disprove this, John! Watch the clips and then await my pearls of wisdom with baited breath! You might disgaree but I'll have provided examples and specific analysis.

> Jorge is a dork.
Do you have examples to back up your statements?

>>>No one said it was the same personality.
I merely pointed out an interesting fact that the routine and voice first appeared in a non-Yosemite Sam cartoon.
It's obviously not the same character.

Ok, I didn't get this far with my last post in this thread, so now I feel like an ass. I did the following:

>You're debating for debating's sake. A good debater doesn't just automatically take the opposite position and stick with it tenaciously. He first tries to understand the position of his opponant better than his opponant does.

Guilty.

Man I'm spent. My mind is racing. I'm taking a break, I'ma catch you cats later.

Jorge Garrido said...

Hey, John. what about Super Rabbit for the Jones cartoon? Alot of great smear animation, and the scene of Bugs falling and landing and bouncing up and down like ruuber kills me everytime! It also has that unique Jones early Bugs design, with the oval eyes that go below his cheek!

Jorge Garrido said...

>At times, yeah. But, Friz does have some beautiful timing in High Diving Hare (c. 1949), Canned Feud (c. 1951), and Putty Tat Twouble (c. 1951)

Compare the scene in Putty Tat Twouble to A Tale Of Two Kitties: Clampett's Tweety does all the damage at once, Friz's is alot slower and alot more careful. He also shows Sylvester LANDING on the tramplone after each hit, sort of like a musical beat. Catch and release. I'll expand on this later on, but what I'm getting at is Clampett did it all at once, but Friz seperated everything and knew exactly when to pause, when to breathe, he knew exactly what part to hold on and then start up again. Like a guy who tells a joke in abr. You don't do it all at once, you have to have a sense of rhythm. More to come later!

And none of that I read in a book, either.

Some break, huh? But, man, I REALLY gotta go! I have tons of homework! :(:(:(

ncross said...

In my opinion, those two clips posted as timing examples do indeed show the differences both directors had in their use of timing: Clampett used a lot of contrast between fast and slow actions, giving his scene lots of richness and variety. Freleng timed everything more or less evenly, having characters basically snap around (like modern cartoons).
I don't really see how these clips prove the case at all---quite the opposite.

supreme cat said...

Well, John, here's a nice example for ya! The exact same bit reused by Friz in "Sahara Hare"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjpEGPvJhLQ

I think both versions are really funny, Clampett for the wonderful bouncy-ness and animation, but Freleng's for the timing of the gag, with Sam smashing the camel's head in right as he says "WHOA!".

BTW, John, your example is not showing up.

CORKY said...

Dang sheyit, John..the video link is broken with a big X!
*cries like a retart* hehe

-CORKY

Jesse Oliver said...

I do agree with one thing. Tex Avery & Bob Clampett made the BEST Bugs Bunny cartoons. I mean "Heckling Hare", Tortoise Beats Hare", "Tortoise Wins By A Hare", "All This & Rabbit Stew", Buckaroo Bugs", "Hare Ribbin", Falling Hare" ALL TRUE CLASSICS!!!!
The only Chuck Jones Bugs Bunny cartoons I like are "Elmer's Canned Camera" and "Elmer's Pet Rabbit".

Brian Goss said...

WILL YOU MAKE IN THE FUTURE A POST ABOUT TERRYTOONS?
THEY ARE THE MOST UNDERRATED CARTOONS IN HISTORY!



Deputy Dawg was one of my favorites growing up. A few weeks ago you could find quite a few DD toons on YouTube...now someone has taken them all off. I guess for copyright infringements. Regardless of the reason(s), it sucks because nobody is showing Terrytoons on TV anymore.

Roberto González said...

The problem with the word "timing" is I never understood it too well. It seems like a word critics invented and it doesn't really mean that much to me.

Long before I heard Friz was good with timing in word of critics, I already liked Clampett and Jones' cartoons more. Did I think Freleng's ones were bad? Not really. In fact it is today, when I'm adult that I kind of loose interest easier if they don't give me a great wonderful show when I find some Freleng cartoons boring. By the way I think early Friz stuff like Yankee Doodle Daffy or the first Yosemite Sam cartoons are extremely funny and perfectly "timed" if I have to use the word.

Later Friz cartoons...I don't know if they have better timing. If by timing you understand what Jorge Garrido said, probably. Friz is not really THAT slow. It's not like Family Guy or an especially corny joke that eventually doesn't work in The Simpsons. There are not real "mistakes" in his pacing, he's slow because he want it like that. Yeah, it's conservative, it's kind of boring for me, but it perhaps works for conservative, classic people. For me conservative and classic is not usually very funny, but I guess that's not totally true in all samples, I guess some good movie directors are conservative and classic and still good, even some comedy directors. I eventually get bored at a Charles Chaplin film, I think it's kinda slow, I'd rather have Buster Keaton or other comedians, but a lot of people like Chaplin.

So Clampett is better in the sense he's doing funnier, fast paced stuff...he also can slow down and do a subtle joke when it need. I believe John K. is totally right in that. But he didn't do that classic routine joke that Friz did, like the different ways Sylvester try to catch Tweety and stuff like that, more "classic" and conservative approach to comedy, but it requires some subtlety and care to do it right.

In general I don't know who is better at timing (maybe someone could clarify the word for me) but , although I can understand some of the qualities the critics see in Friz, Clampett is surely funnier for me.

However I totally disagree with the critics when it comes to the MUSIC, I don't see Friz' cartoons being better than anyone else's in therms of joining images with the soundtrack. In fact all Warner cartoons are very well done in that department (also Friz') but Jones' or Clampett's were more inthense and sometimes they work REALLY well with the music in difficult ways.

Also I don't think the word retarded is really necessary when answering directly to a poster, John (I didn't read all his posts but I think he didn't offend you first) but that's just my opinion.

Roberto González said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JohnK said...

Supreme,

thank you for putting up that clip from Sahara Hare.

If you look at that closely you might notice that the timing is very even, no contrasts. It's predictable like a metronome.

The Clampett timing is much funnier-the animation within the tempo is not exactly the same distance on each bounce like in the Friz cartoon and Red travels much farther in his running around than Friz does in the same amount of time.

Clampett's animation and timing make the scene a million times more organic and alive.

His timing is more natural, livelier and therefore superior.

It helps that he got a much better performance out of Mel Blanc too.

Roberto González said...

I deleted my previous message because I posted it two times.

Also maybe Clampett's cartoons have this post-modern quality to them and Freleng's are more classic, maybe a little dated stuff.

By the way I am very interested in the Chuck Jones analysis. I don't know if I'm going to agree with John (the Jones' cartoons he has mentioned as good ones are mainly average Jones' stuff for me) , but I'm interested anyway.

I agree on Super-Rabbitt (I don't remember who mentioned it), it's a superb cartoon. Elmer's Pet Rabbit is too.

Jones' later Bugs can be a little cruel and vengeful, yes. The opera singer cartoon, especially, shows that side of Bugs. However, Clampett's one could do really horrible stuff to his adversary, even if he seems like playing. Of course, since it's a cartoon and nobody really gets hurt it doesn't really matter THAT much in any case.

P.c. Unfunny said...

"The only Chuck Jones Bugs Bunny cartoons I like are "Elmer's Canned Camera" and "Elmer's Pet Rabbit"."


What about "Rabbit of Seville" or "Bully for Bugs" ?

Roberto González said...

Humm...I went to youtube and the Buckaroo Bugs clip has been removed. I really wanted to compare that with Sahara Bugs' one, even if I kind of visualize Clampett's scene in my mind.

Well, camel's hunch turning into a lump is a funny gag (I didn't remember this one), I'll give Friz' version that.

Anonymous said...

re: the voice.
There's a bit of "Lenny" in Ryder's voice that is not evident in Sam's. Similar, yes. Exactly the same, no.
Chris

supreme cat said...

It doesn't help that it was made 11 years later either, but I digress.

But be careful John! They're taking down everything from youtube lately.

JohnK said...

>>Well, camel's hunch turning into a lump is a funny gag (I didn't remember this one), I'll give Friz' version that.<<

yeah, if you're gonna steal a minute's worth of someone else's joke, it's a good idea to add at least a second's worth of your own.

JohnK said...

>> supreme cat said...

It doesn't help that it was made 11 years later either, but I digress.

But be careful John! They're taking down everything from youtube lately. <<

Yeah, I noticed. I guess they don't want free publicity.

I'm gonna do a post about the idiot lawyers over there and how they are losing money by doing this.

I'm gonna summon all the greatest hecklers from this blog to go heckle WB for taking down the free commercials for their products.

Anybody have any idea of a good Warner's site to complain to?

Where the Warner's execs will be embarrassed for killing the Golden Goose? Or Bunny?

Supreme. This is your big chance to organize the hecklers to do some good for humanity.

supreme cat said...

John, it has to do with the NBC-Universal merger with YouTube. They want to 'make money' with the site.

Funny because that company has no idea what the hell they're doing with Woody Woodpecker, and YouTube gave that character more publicity than he has been in 20 years.

Not to mention pretty much every studio more publicity.

All of Thad K's videos were taken down I know! But you can still find porn on YouTube, but no Bugs Bunny. Sad.

JohnK said...

>>All of Thad K's videos were taken down I know! But you can still find porn on YouTube, but no Bugs Bunny. Sad. <<

I guess Youtube will die now.

Anyone have any ideas for alternatives?

Anonymous said...

>> Jorge is a dork.

>Do you have examples to back up your statements?


Yes. All of your posts.

Anonymous said...

It is unfortunate the Youtube had to go that way.

On an unrelated note (and perhaps this is the wrong thread), John, I was really curious as to how you felt about the adverse reaction many, many people have had to the overt homo-eroticism and profanity of the APC Ren and Stimpy. I myself didn't know what to think, having felt my childhood heroes perverted in such an in-your-face manner. On the other hand, I can't help but feel like you deserve props for challenging your audience and making the cartoons how YOU wanted, viewers and network sydication be damned.

JohnK said...

>>you felt about the adverse reaction many, many people have had to the overt homo-eroticism <<

There isn't any. We make gay jokes sometimes yeah but in a very mannish way, like the 3 Stooges or Tenacious D.

gir said...

>>Supreme. This is your big chance to organize the hecklers to do some good for humanity.<<

I'll heckle.

David Germain said...

Can we Jeckyl too? ;)

The Butcher said...

Yeah John!

You never hear people complaining about the blatantly gay jokes in Tenacious D's short films, and they're like a live-action Ren and Stimpy anyway!

Do you have a favorite D song by the way?

Toren Q Atkinson said...

"Why do we not have any full animation in these 200 million dollar features that come out 5 times a year now?"

My assumption is they're overpaying "big name" actors when they could be hiring professional voice actors instead.

Jorge Garrido said...

>>Freleng timed everything more or less evenly, having characters basically snap around (like modern cartoons).
I don't really see how these clips prove the case at all---quite the opposite.

Exactly, his version was very carefully timed, very evenly. Clampett didn't do variations on the timing, he just did it. It's organic because it wasn't planned as much. He just did it really fast. That's not good directing, that no directing. But I wasn't there so how would I know. I'd ask John, but I think he was in fihgitng the Krauts at the time.

>Also I don't think the word retarded is really necessary when answering directly to a poster, John (I didn't read all his posts but I think he didn't offend you first) but that's just my opinion.

Actually I did use the word "retarted," but that's not a real word so I deserved it.

>thank you for putting up that clip from Sahara Hare.

Hey, I did that foist!

>>
If you look at that closely you might notice that the timing is very even, no contrasts. It's predictable like a metronome.

Exactly!

>The problem with the word "timing" is I never understood it too well. It seems like a word critics invented and it doesn't really mean that much to me.

Same here. The reasons John said Friz' version's timing was inferior are the reasons I liked Friz's verions's timing better (I prefer the Clampett version overall in EVERY area except timing.) Our ideas of good are opposite, (at least in regards to timing) so I can't convince him on the specifics of which is better when he basically agree on the attributes of both versions, but disgaree one what those attributes mean. (Me: Metronome timing=Good John Metronome Timing=Boring)

Clampett's PACING was faster but his timing doens't have the same amount of time between the horse's steps, if I remember correctly. It'd be better if we compared it to the first time Friz used this gag, since his 40's cartoons were better than his 50's

Fris' version was lot more rhythmic, and that's why I was gonna say it was better. From what I rememeber, Bob didn't really time the scene, he just did it really fast and unevenly. Me and John are saying the exact same things except our adjectives have the opposite connotations. My full analysis of Clampett's version will have to wait until the clip is put back up.

>>The Clampett timing is much funnier-the animation within the tempo is not exactly the same distance on each bounce like in the Friz cartoon and Red travels much farther in his running around than Friz does in the same amount of time.

So it's faster and more natural.

>>Clampett's animation and timing make the scene a million times more organic and alive.
His timing is more natural, livelier and therefore superior.

ALOT more natural. I think we have a different definition of "Good," so other adjectives will have to do.

Friz:
Rhthmic, careful, planned out, slower, even, like a drum beat.

Clampett: Faster, natural, organic, less rhytmic, uneven (that is, the timing is less predictable, the movements don't have the same amount of time between them)

Friz's version has the camel bouncing and up and down, he barely moves at all. I think Gerry Chinquy animated this scene, since it's very choppy and there's a clear beat. Sam's camel keeps the time like a drum beat and Yosemite's yells happen exactly when they should to maximise comic effect. The bit ends exactly when it should, again, when it would be funniest. Clampett's goes on far too long. My opinion anyway.

At the start of Supreme's clip you can hear the music. The camel's bounce, Sam's jumping and the hooves all match up to the music PERFECTLY. It's definately very unnatural. It's very quick, for only 1 second!

Clampett's version goes alot longer than Friz's and it's alot faster. Sam doesn't plead with the camel like Red does with his horse. The timing is used to show diference in character. I don't remember 100%, but doesn't Clampett cut away from Red when he hits him on the head? And they say Clampett was too mean... You actually see Samd o teh deed. It's got nothing to di wiht timing, but this shows Sam as a villain.

Sam repeats the "whoa" routine later in my clip and its alot faster. Again, variations.

So in conclusion, Friz' version is more contrived, planned out and unnatural, but it's planned in a way to maximise comic effect.

So there you have it. Another rambling overlong comment from Jorge the attention whore. I provided clips and speicifc examples, feel free to mock, anonymice.

Jorge Garrido said...

>>why don't you make a cartoon that's perfect and everyone here will be glad to tell you how to fix it?

Age before beauty.

Jorge Garrido said...

;) I'm done with the jokes about you being old, now, John. :P Fell fee to make fun of my pants now. :P:P:P

>> Jorge is a dork.

>Do you have examples to back up your statements?

Yes. All of your posts. <<

OOHHHHHH!!!! Ok, ok, that was pretty good! I'll give you that one! haha!

>The only Chuck Jones Bugs Bunny cartoons I like are "Elmer's Canned Camera" and "Elmer's Pet Rabbit".

Have you seen Super Rabbit? BTW, Tex Avery made The Heckling Hare, All That And Rabbits Stew, and Tortoise Beats Hare.

>Anyone have any ideas for alternatives?

Thad once used Dailymotion for some clips.

> Well, John, here's a nice example for ya! The exact same bit reused by Friz in "Sahara Hare"!

The one I linked to was the same clip but Friz did a variation of it 30 seoncds later. Friz loved variations!

>My assumption is they're overpaying "big name" actors when they could be hiring professional voice actors instead.

That's only part of the problem.

1 voice actor=15 awesome voices=cheap
15 celebrities=15 horrible voices=expensive

> Can we Jeckyl too? ;)
Good one Dave!

>There isn't any. We make gay jokes sometimes yeah but in a very mannish way, like the 3 Stooges or Tenacious D.

The Three Stooges never simulated anal sex.

>yeah, if you're gonna steal a minute's worth of someone else's joke, it's a good idea to add at least a second's worth of your own.

Yeah, because you know Bob NEVER stole anyone else's joke.

"I'M GONNA PIN IT ON YA, SEE! I'M GONNA PIN IT ON YA!"

That became Yosemite's schtick. Even though Bob invented it (unless it was Warren Foster or even Friz since Bbo had a "no-no" seesion) Friz used it so much it became identiifed with Sam's character. The humour comes from the variation of him being on a camel instead of a horse. It comes from the fact that he's the same character and it's the same situation, except in tons of different setting.

David Germain said...

Compare the scene in Putty Tat Twouble to A Tale Of Two Kitties:

I been meaning to respond to this. I'm sure we've all abondoned this post by now but..... oh well.

Jorge, you're mixing two cartoons up. The scene redone from Clampett's Tweety cartoon was Bad Ol' Putty Tat (c. 1949). Putty Tat Twouble (c. 1951) takes place during the winter. Tweety has to deal with Sylvester and some orange cat with an eye-patch in competition with each other for him. The timing in that one is amazing.

JohnK said...

>>Tweety has to deal with Sylvester and some orange cat with an eye-patch in competition with each other for him. The timing in that one is amazing.<<

amazingly slow and mechanical.

Jorge Garrido said...

"John's timing isn't too slow, everyone else's timing is too fast. That's because TV writers overwrite their stories and everything has to be rushed to fit it all in. It's also because TV animation is badly animated and and quick cuts are needed to cover up the flaws. John's cartoons have fewer flaws and therefore slower timing. Don't get sucked into the idea that MTV made quick cuts mandatory. MTV was revolutionary when it first appeared thirty years ago, but time passes and it's not the trend setter that it used to be. It's time we stopped trying to fit every story into a cutting style that was created to fit fast seventies rock and hip-hop." Guess who?

Ohjeepers said...

I believe that Steve’s quote applies to long form story telling (Specifically “Ren Seeks Help”). Shorts are a completely different way to communicate an idea.

Since the two are structured differently, they need to be treated differently. There is no inconsistency here.

James.

JohnK said...

Hmmm...modern cartoons aren't timed "too fast". That suggests that something is happening.

They are timed too evenly, with no pacing. They use the same formula of antic, overshoot-settle for every move or they have no timing at all as in South Park. You have to have animation to have timing.

To just butt dialogue back to back with no pauses as in Family Guy is not timing. It's lack of timing.

I'm going to do a post about timing soon, with examples to explain what it is once and for all, because it seems most people aren't even able to define it.

There are more jokes in a minute of a good WB or Spumco cartoon than in a whole season of most of these new shows-and many different kinds of jokes.

Wall to wall dialogue does not equal good dialogue or lots of jokes or good timing. It's merely non-stop mouths flapping.

The George Liquor clip that's posted here has tons of dialogue, but also pauses and pacing and different rhythms and on top of that visual acting.

And of course varied tempos and ups and downs and emotions in Mike's great voice acting.

Compare that to a minute of South Park or any other talky show.

Akbar Shahzad said...

All right, I just clicked through the clip frame by frame. It makes me anxious. It makes me pace nervously up and down the room. HOW were they this good? I'm surprised Eddie doesn't focus more on the beautiful way Bugs actually lifts Ryder by the hat--there's incredible dynamism in those few frames, so much detail in the way Bugs' feet shift under the weight. Toes curl and splay from frame to frame. Without inbetweens. Richard Williams says that fast actions should be done on ones. Pfft. These are lightning actions, and the reason they have so much energy (besides the individual drawings themselves) is that they zoom from pose to pose without so much as an inbetween. I mean, the majority of the drawings in this clip seem to be extremes! And the distortion! And the throwing away the guns! Ahh, beautiful stuff. Great post.

Steven Hartley said...

"Bugs is indeed playful in the Clampett and Avery cartoons. In the later Jones cartoons, he is vengeful and mean."

WHAT?! Clampett makes his Bugs a jerk and a bully as he likes to bully the antagonists that don't deserve it. In the original version of Hare Ribbin'; he INTENDED TO KILL the dog by shooting it in the mouth and just bullies Red Hot Ryder for fun. He makes his Bugs cruel.

Friz and Jones made the best Bugs Bunny ever; they got Bugs into situations where the villains were trying to get smart over him or after him; and he'd beat them by wit. He's just trying to get out of situations; even if it means doing it the hard way. The Clampett version is just mean and cruel and enjoys it.