Cartoon Discussion of the Week 6/10/08

[Matthew Hunter]

Once a week I will post a thread with a link to a cartoon that is on Youtube (or in some cases Dailymotion or some other universally available video-host site) . I will also post my thoughts on it, and it is then up to you, the forum members, to post YOUR thoughts.

RULES:
1. The discussion will be limited only to the particular cartoon in question. If it's a Popeye cartoon from 1938, for example, then there is no reason to link it to a Bob Clampett Looney Tune or Hanna/Barbera Tom and Jerry cartoon from some other era or studio entirely. No "Degrees of Kevin Bacon" here.

2. The discussion must pertain to the cartoon itself. You can say anything about it, love or hate it, but it must pertain to that cartoon. Look at how it's drawn and animated, the backgrounds, the music, the characters...but disregard anything else you know or think you know. Look at the cartoon for its individual merits.

3. You must say something positive about the cartoon, even if you hate it. You can say all the negative stuff you want, but you must say one good thing about it.

4. You must post more than 3 words. "I love it" or "this sucks" doesn't cut it. You must say WHY you love it or WHY you think it sucks. Remember how your art teacher in high school or college taught you to criticize a piece of art? That's what I am looking for.

5. There will be only one of these a week. This is not the same as "Hit or Miss", which has its own set of rules and is welcome to continue. Only I will post them for now, but if you send me a PM through the forum with a suggestion for future cartoons, I will consider them. I will also allow other moderators to choose a cartoon in the event of my absence. (And by the way, if anyone else wants to post discussions about individual cartoons, they're welcome to, it just won't be the cartoon of the week or subject to these particular rules!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This week, it's Chuck Jones' "Lumber Jack Rabbit". (1954)

Lumber Jack Rabbit (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QdtmnRwNLgE)

This was the only cartoon the Warner studio ever produced in 3-D, and without seeing it theatrically with the special 3-D glasses, we may be missing something. But I doubt it. It's still a handsome cartoon. Bugs singing "Jimmy Cracked Corn" is a highlight, and the giant version of Frisky Puppy is a fun idea.

[Brandon Panther]

I've wondered if the original theatrical print had a doubled image for 3D glasses.

I remember years ago on the (long now defunct) Yesterdayland website, someone there made a big stink about the opening titles, that they scared the crap outta him (the WB logo looms out further than it usually does), and they should chop off the titles and replace them with regular ones. :rolleyes:

[jonmayo15]

http://www.davemackey.com/animation/wb/titlecards/1291anim.gif

[guesswho]

http://www.davemackey.com/animation/wb/titlecards/1291anim.gif



http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/redir?src=image&requestId=8f80cfbd7e31bb15&userQuery=V+of+doom&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.platypuscomix.net% 2Fpsychiatry%2FViacom76.jpg&moduleId=image_details.jsp.M&clickedItemDescription=Image Details

Imagine if that was in 3D!

[Jon Cooke]

Um, is anyone going to discuss the actual cartoon?

I agree with Matthew on this one, it certainly isn't a bad cartoon. I'd love to have a chance to see it in its original 3D format someday to really appreciate some of the effects.

[nickramer]

It's an okay cartoon. I do like the opening. It could've been better if this cartoon starred Claude Cat instead of Bugs. I can thinks of alots of gags with a big Friskey Pup and a small Claude Cat.

[Marty26]

One of the weaker Bugs Bunny cartoons IMO. I suggested we make it our CDOTW because I think the cartoon and particularly its "3D-ness" were worth discussing (before these CDOTW's came about, I was even thinking of doing a Hit/Miss poll for it). Anyway, here goes my analysis.

Frisky Puppy (okay, "Smidgen" - was that supposed to be funny? :befuddled ) isn't a good foil for Bugs. He and Bugs just don't have any real chemistry between them. What's sad is that Paul Bunyan actually had the potential to be a much better foil for our favorite rabbit, but for some odd reason, was only a minor character in the cartoon. The ending screams, "Tacked on at the last minute to finish the damn cartoon!" And, worst of all, the whole 3D effect was basically a gimmick. Granted, the cartoon's artwork is beautiful. But the 3D aspect was very poorly used IMO. At best, it made Paul Bunyan's giant-sized world a little more believable. But there really should've been some action/comedy scenes that specially utilized the cartoon's 3D nature. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the cartoon that couldn't have been done just as well with standard 2D artwork. I immediately found myself forgetting the cartoon was supposed to be "3D" when watching it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the cartoon's all bad, as Bugs himself is in top form (I especially like his calm sarcasm, typical of early/mid-50's Chuck Jones). And its artwork is fantastic. But the cartoon itself is a textbook example of wasted potential IMO.

[larriva9/11]

Yeah, the 3Dness coupled with the Bunyanesque scale leaves an echoing hollow sound--though all things considered, it still didn't come across too badly in conventional 2D TV. (And personally, I never placed the Bunyan dog and the "frisky puppy" as one and the same--that's what context and scale can do. So, I don't think a tiny Claude Cat would have been any less hollow or gimmicky.)

I guess Bugs being the star of the LT/MM stable made him the logical flagship for 3D; however, sticking with Chuck Jones, the technique might have suited the "horror" theme of a Porky/Sylvester vehicle better...

[Cdawg]

I have always enjoyed Lumber Jack Rabbit, and I would love to see it get the full 3D treatment some day. I did get to watch it at a special exhibit at our local art museum in about 1990. The show was a 50th birthday salute to Bugs Bunny, and in addition to story board sketches and cels - they had little viewing rooms set up in varoius corners of the exhibit rooms. To me this cartoon harks back to Jones' small characters lost in a big world collection of cartoons, like Joe Glow the Firefly, the Sniffles cartoons etc... and I think the artwork is outstanding - especially Bugs working in the carrot mine and thinking the dog's tag is a billboard. I don't know how well this short presented in 3D, but let's not forget that Hollywood had bought into the 3D fad and had to be shown that it wasn't a good idea by slumping ticket sales.

[AnthroCoon]

I have always been a fan of what I call "giant/tiny", huge or wee people, animals, or
things, and when I saw this as a lad in the late 60s/early 70s, the plot attracted me
(and the macro/micro genre is used frequently in cartoons--kids especially are fascinated by it). Bugs doesn't quite catch on to exactly why those "trees" look odd
but when he discovers the massive carrots, he quickly takes advantage of it. Seeing
the dog poke his head above the landscape; Bugs pulling down the "shade" of one
of the dog's eyes, and so on--funny, and it was all part of the "giant/tiny" deal.
The "normal sized person in a giant world" (like part 2 of Gulliver's Travels, or
Land of the Giants) was much like the idea of a shrunken person (Incredible
Shrinking Man--and later, the likes of Honey I Shrunk the Kids)--ordinary
people, animals, objects greatly magnified and the potential (comedic? adventure?)
it has to be interesting.

To me at least. Heck, in the world of "giant/tiny" I am known as Shrinkingman,
for my love of that movie. Anyway, as a child I enjoyed LJR and I still do though
yes, the ending does seem tacked on: We have half a minute to end this cartoon,
how do we get Bugs out of this?

The use of animals of different sizes is always fun to me, be it a giant worm
popping out of a hole, or the regular sized moose responding to a moose call--
then fleeing with dog-like yelps when he realizes what he's gotten into...and
the dog's sudden turnaround re: Bugs once Bugs scratches him (suddently,
the insect sized bunny is no longer an intruder but a friend). All in all pretty good
but take into account my enjoyment of "giant/tiny".

The same plot can be seen in other cartoons like the Pink Panther in CAT AND
THE PINKSTALK (where Pink, for a moment, winds up in a mousehole in
the giant's castle and we see he's smaller than a mouse)

[larriva9/11]

I guess Bugs being the star of the LT/MM stable made him the logical flagship for 3D; however, sticking with Chuck Jones, the technique might have suited the "horror" theme of a Porky/Sylvester vehicle better...

...which perhaps begs the question: if not (just?) Bugs, which characters/series do you feel might have merited a 3-D treatment?

[Brandon Panther]

...which perhaps begs the question: if not (just?) Bugs, which characters/series do you feel might have merited a 3-D treatment?
Marvin Martian.

Oh, wait....

[larriva9/11]

Marvin Martian.

Oh, wait....

Too 90s;) .

For that matter, even "Duck Dodgers" would have seemed overblown in 3D.

One Chuck Bugs cartoon I think would have worked very well in 3D--maybe even better than LJR--is Water, Water Every Hare...

[Daffysleftfoot]

Lumber-Jack Rabbit is handsomely designed thanks to Maurice Noble. Unfortunately, I find the story rather dull. It sees to meander aimlessly near the end too.

It's not the worst Bugs Bunny cartoon, but it's nowhere near the best.

[Mr. Semaj]

No reports of a shield attack yet? :p

The cartoon itself is mediocre, especially with the muddled ending. It's a shame they didn't use the background art to its intended advantage, but the fact they didn't shows how Warner Brothers was never committed to the 3-D craze.

[speedy fast]

I think that Tweety would have worked well in a 3D short. Imagine Tweety flying in the theater.

Or maybe 3D would have worked well for a certain Road Runner and a certai Coyotie...