Woody's Better Nemesis

[Cartman]

Of the two, I went with Buzz Buzzard. Although I like Wally Walrus better, I think Buzz might be a better foe for Woody. Wally isn't a villain, but is merely a victim of Woody, whether it be Woody trying to steal his food or keep him awake during the daytime. Buzz, on the other hand, is a villain and hence is a better foe for Woody.

[Matt the Y]

You make a good point, Cartman. While Wally isn't really as much of a nemesis for Woody as he is a foil, Buzz IS an ultimate villain.

However, I still went with Wally. Why? Because the track record of great Woody/Wally cartoons is utterly amazing. Stuff like "The Beach Nut", "The Dippy Diplomat", "Smoked Hams", "Well Oiled", "Wacky Bye Baby", "Sleep Happy". All first-rate entertainment. There are many good Woody/Buzz cartoons as well ("Wet Blanket Policy", "Drooler's Delight", "Puny Express", "Hypnotic Hick", "Bunco Busters") but, for me, the Woody vs. Wally shorts have more pleasant results (Plus, it's always been somewhat uncomfortable for me to see Woody suffer abuse from Buzz, particularly in the three Dick Lundy shorts with Buzz, even if Woody does eventually triumph against Buzz in the end. In the three Lundy shorts, the score seems a little uneven... Buzz seems to getting in more hits than Woody!).

[Thad]

I went with Wally Walrus too. He's sort of the equivalent of Elmer Fudd to Bugs Bunny, being more versatile, and ultimately more enjoyable.

Not sure what Buzz Buzzard (who I also enjoy greatly) is though, he's too much of a conman than a highway man to be Woody's Yosemite Sam equivalent (making sense, since he was derived from a similar character in Lundy's earlier Donald Duck picture, THE FLYING JALOPY). That honor goes to Mike Maltese creation Dapper Denver Dooley... I don't quite know the point of using him so often in the late 50s is. I guess to make those shorts as ugly as possible.

[Mr. Semaj]

I went with Wally Walrus (who, on an unrelated note, is essentially a human wearing flipper feet and tusk teeth). Some of the funnier Woody Woodpecker adventures, particularly The Beach Nut, came from this strained relationship between these two guys.


I think the only time they WEREN'T trying to one-up each other was The Mad Hatter.

As for Beaky, he looked more like a real villain in the 40's shorts. From the 1950's onward, he looked too generic.

[BloodyChamp]

There are many good Woody/Buzz cartoons as well ("Wet Blanket Policy", "Drooler's Delight", "Puny Express", "Hypnotic Hick", "Bunco Busters") but, for me, the Woody vs. Wally shorts have more pleasant results (Plus, it's always been somewhat uncomfortable for me to see Woody suffer abuse from Buzz, particularly in the three Dick Lundy shorts with Buzz, even if Woody does eventually triumph against Buzz in the end. In the three Lundy shorts, the score seems a little uneven... Buzz seems to getting in more hits than Woody!).

I agree with this. The Woody/Buzz cartoons are nice to know just because of the good animation and because ultimate screwball Woody cartoons are few but Wally putting his foot in Woody's ***** every time-funny it is not!

I've said this before and I stand by it. Dick Lundy's cartoons are often weak just because of the endings. For some reason, he thought it was so funny for likeable stars (Barney Bear, Andy Panda, Woody etc) to get the shaft in the end.

[Jon Cooke]

It's too bad Gabby Gator wasn't on the list. I might have been tempted to vote for him. He was just as funny as a nemesis for Woody as Wally and Buzz were. :woody:

It's a tough choice between Wally and Buzz, though but I went with the Walrus.

[Ray Pointer]

I liked the comedy between Wally Walrus and Woody. Wally represents the pompous authority figure who imposes upon Woody. So Woody's reactions are justified revenge. Wally is amusing to me also because he is more visually funny, and reminds me of men I've seen in real life. For me, Buzz Buzzard is a bit annoying, especially the voice. :woody:

[Larry T]

Wally represents the pompous authority figure who imposes upon Woody. So Woody's reactions are justified revenge. ...For me, Buzz Buzzard is a bit annoying, especially the voice.

Great point, Ray. This is especially true in cartoons like "The Reckless Driver" and "The Woody Woodpecker Polka". I also like the fact that Wally was somewhat unpredictable, unlike Buzz, who you knew from the beginning would get the short end of Woody's wrath. At least there's a few instances where Wally gets even ("Well Oiled", "Smoked Hams").

I'd have thought that Gabby Gator was also a good nemesis for Woody. But so is the Wolf in "Who's Cookin' Who" and "Fair Weather Fiends"- the retaliation in both characters is pretty much evenly distributed, which makes the cartoon more fun to watch.

[Bartman]

Wally Walrus, all the way!! His character was pretty well established in his debut film THE BEACH NUT and lasted throughout his appearances in the 1940s toons. I'm glad Lantz didn't utilize him much when the studio reopened in the 1950s - without a decent director like Culhane or Lundy to guide him, his appearances were far and few, thus not diminishing the impact he made on the 1940s films.

[Der Captain]

I notice a trend in a lot of cartoons of this period. Each star seemed to have a sympathetic adversary and a deserving one. Friz Freleng thought Fudd was too pitiful a figure to be persecuted by Bugs, while his own creation, Yosemite Sam, always asked for it.

It was a similar situation for Woody, with the usually harmless Wally and the sinister Buzz. Also for Heckle and Jeckle, who would torment both good natured Dimwit and that nameless bulldog (who could be a jerk in some cartoons and understandably cranky in others.)

But back to Woody, it seemed necessary for him to have both personality types to spar with, so I won't pick a preference. It's a draw.

[Lee Glover]

Wally Walrus was a better comedy foil for Woody, and also wasn't so limited as a character compared to Buzz Buzzard.

[Matt the Y]

Also, it should be pointed out that Wally Walrus was so versatile, he occasionally appeared in cartoons without Woody. He appeared solo as a musical conductor in both "Overture to William Tell" and "Kiddie Koncert" and appeared in an Andy Panda cartoon, "Dog Tax Dodgers" (one of my favorite Andy shorts). Shortly after his disappearance from 1953's "Operation Sawdust" onward, he briefly resurfaced (under director Jack Hannah) as a foil for Chilly Willy in 1961's "Clash and Carry" and "Tricky Trout".

[gdX]

I picked Wally, but mostly because the 40s cartoons were considerably better.

The Elmer Fudd comparison is astute, and Wally was a pretty good Lantz character, with or without Woody.

But early-mid 50s Buzz actually developed some personality, and was capable of showing a bit of range as a cowboy, bellboy, lumberjack or high school student... sometimes a crook, sometimes a zany rival.

:chilly:

[BloodyChamp]

I hated Dog Tax Dodgers. Whoever heard of not allowing good ole Andy Panda to have a dog :(

[MF TOON]

Like Ray, I also find Buzz's voice a bit unnerving.

I much prefer the Wally/Woody theatrical pair-up's to any other from Lantz Studio. They're the perfect contrast in character and personality to bring about entertaining and humorous effect and have resulted in my opinion, in some of the better made films of the studio. If I had to offer a top 20 list of my favorite Walter Lantz films, there's no doubt that at least 60% would be derived from these cartoons.

On the other hand, the Buzz/Woody pairings for me, represent what I disliked about the later output of the studio in that they often felt unfocused as if the concept was enough to drive the shorts. Leaving essential elements such as script, direction, timing and so on, out of the picture. A typical example would be a short like Dick Lundy's 'Wild And Woody' or 'Hot Noon or 12 O'Clock For Sure'. This was at a time when budget constraints really started to become more apparent and seemingly every other Woody cartoon coming out of the studio under his credit seemed to be set in a poorly conceptualized bland designed western setting resulting in an overall unappealing aesthetic and the end result was more often than not a miss. It also helps that I'm not much partial to the later 50's Lantz shorts anyways, particularly those directed by Paul Smith and Don Patterson who became quite familiar with the character as the 'series' developped.

Also, the idea of a scheister character while funny in concept, doesn't really work well at all in context of a WOODY WOODPECKER cartoon. Woody was the ultimate manipulative, imposing and selfish con man character. So it doesn't really seem to be a well-thought out concept to pair the two against each other. It was just a back and forth between both personalities with little room for subtelty or artistic distinction between the films. The shorts always felt somewhat processed and unnatural to me. The few exceptions were cartoons like 'Belle Boys', 'Wet Blanket Policy' and even 'Drooler's Delight'.


Overall though, there's no question... Wally was the much better conservative and agreeable nemesis to Woody's unwieldy, insatiable and persistent self-indulgence!


Buzz was too much of a stereotyped cliche. Unoriginal down to the annoying voice acting. That concept would work better in the context of a well planned and thought out one-off short than an entire series.

:woody: