Bugs Bunny's paternity

[SEATTLECHEF]

Obviously all the Directors and Animators who ever worked to create Bugs Bunny cartoons contributed to the evolution of the character. However, there are many conflicting accounts regarding the birth of the personality. Several people have attempted to take sole credit for suggesting the confident, cocky, calm, cool, and collected personality that proved to be so popular.
I contend that Hardaway not only lent his nickname to the character, he suggested the personality. He did so with this drawing,

http://bugshardaway.blogspot.com/ (I don't know how to post the image here)

Please consider all the information before rushing to judgement. This theory does run slightly counter to the common perception, yet it makes much more sense.

Chris

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Hi Chris,

I have a problem with your theory. The drawing that you posted was done after, as you have suggested, "Tortoise Beats Hare". That would be the 2nd Tex Avery cartoon with the young Bugs Bunny. By that time, Robert Givens had already redesigned the Charlie Thorson rabbit for "A Wild Hare". I'm sure Hardaway was familiar with the changes that were done to his "Hare-um Scare-um" rabbit by that time. So if the drawing was done for Chuck McKimson as a going away gift prior to his army service, then we can't really credit that drawing as the birth of Bugs Bunny. It's still a nice discovery though, regardless.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Hi Chris,

I have a problem with your theory. The drawing that you posted was done after, as you have suggested, "Tortoise Beats Hare". That would be the 2nd Tex Avery cartoon with the young Bugs Bunny. By that time, Robert Givens had already redesigned the Charlie Thorson rabbit for "A Wild Hare". I'm sure Hardaway was familiar with the changes that were done to his "Hare-um Scare-um" rabbit by that time. So if the drawing was done for Chuck McKimson as a going away gift prior to his army service, then we can't really credit that drawing as the birth of Bugs Bunny. It's still a nice discovery though, regardless.

The first time the name "Bugs Bunny" was used was in "A Wild Hare" released July 27 1940. The "Tortoise Beats Hare" was released 9 months later on March 15 1941, wherein Cecil repeatedly calls the rabbit "Speedy", the name on the brim of the cap in the drawing. So obviously not all cartoons followed the same production/release schedule. The 2nd avery cartoon was produced at the same time or earlier than the first. If the rabbit was called Bugs on 7/27/40 but was being called Speedy in a new release on 3/15/41 then obviously the production dates and release dates did not follow in sequence. Also, Chuck Mckimson's film credits are void between '41 and '47. He was gone to Monmouth NJ by 41, I don't know the exact date Chuck's move to NJ but I bet it fits. Furthermore, Hardaway had left Warners around March of '39 and was off to Walter Lantz shortly thereafter, he would have had no reason to be drawing such a figure, after his departure, that fit so perfectly within the history of the evolution of the character.
Consider the personalities of the Directors involved and of the character. The "new" personality is much closer to Hardaway's own than to the others involved at the time.
Thanks for your comments,
Chris

[Marty26]

I always thought "Speedy" was just a mocking name Cecil gave Bugs during the race in TBH.

[SEATTLECHEF]

There is no other name used in that and Cecil calls the rabbit "Speedy" several times.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Hi Chris,

I have a problem with your theory. The drawing that you posted was done after, as you have suggested, "Tortoise Beats Hare". That would be the 2nd Tex Avery cartoon with the young Bugs Bunny. By that time, Robert Givens had already redesigned the Charlie Thorson rabbit for "A Wild Hare". I'm sure Hardaway was familiar with the changes that were done to his "Hare-um Scare-um" rabbit by that time. So if the drawing was done for Chuck McKimson as a going away gift prior to his army service, then we can't really credit that drawing as the birth of Bugs Bunny. It's still a nice discovery though, regardless.

I don't think it was a going away gift. I think it is the character model that was chosen for the direction of the character, as described by Mel Blanc in interviews and described by Blanc to Bob Hardaway at the funeral of Ben Hardaway. The drawing is pretty large to have sent, it is drawn on a thick artist board, it is not bent or creased, it's in great shape. One animation historian has told me, "the ink line is definitely pro, it had to have been done by someone at Warner Bros, for work".

[OurGangAlfalfa]

There is no other name used in that and Cecil calls the rabbit "Speedy" several times.
No. It definitely was a mocking name.

[SEATTLECHEF]

No. It definitely was a mocking name.

It may have been a "mocking name" as you call it, but it was also the only name uttered. Did you hear or see any other name for the character in that cartoon or on the title card?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Bugs Bunny is not named in A Wild Hare, contrary to what you have written. There is no title card designating it as a Bugs Bunny cartoon, and Elmer never calls him by name in the story.

"Speedy" is most likely a mocking nickname given to Bugs by the turtles in Tortoise Beats Hare. (As Marty26 has already suggested.) Unless you have proof that the Avery crew had already named the character Speedy, but then, for some reason, later changed it to Bugs Bunny. Otherwise it's all conjecture.

Furthermore, Hardaway had left Warners around March of '39 and was off to Walter Lantz shortly thereafter, he would have had no reason to be drawing such a figure, after his departure, that fit so perfectly within the history of the evolution of the character.
Of course Hardaway would have a reason, if he remained friends with Charles McKimson after his departure from Schlesinger's. One of his friends was departing for war, so why wouldn't he give him a parting gift? I try not to draw definitive conclusions from tidbits of history. Who knows why Hardaway would give McKimson a drawing of Bugs?

Assuming you're right and Hardaway had to have made that drawing for McKimson prior to leaving the studio in '39, that leaves the question of why would Hardaway have drawn "Speedy" in a militay uniform since McKimson didn't leave for the army until '41?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I don't think it was a going away gift. I think it is the character model that was chosen for the direction of the character, as described by Mel Blanc in interviews and described by Blanc to Bob Hardaway at the funeral of Ben Hardaway. The drawing is pretty large to have sent, it is drawn on a thick artist board, it is not bent or creased, it's in great shape. One animation historian has told me, "the ink line is definitely pro, it had to have been done by someone at Warner Bros, for work".
If it was a character model it would have more than one drawing. Usually, character model sheets have the character in several poses, with several views such as front, 3/4 front, profile, rear, etc. Model sheets are usually drawn on bond paper. There is no reason for them to be professionally inked on bristol board. They don't have to look slick, as though they were meant for reproduction, they just need to be functional for the animators.

If it's a model, then why is Bugs wearing a military uniform? Which Bugs Bunny cartoon from that time period featured him in uniform? I can't think of one where he did in his cartoons from '41.

This drawing is obviously a gift, for someone named Chuck. Your impression that this was meant as a gift for Charles McKimson who was about to leave for military service seems the mostly likely truth. That it was a model for a cartoon in production seems farfetched.

[Duck Dodgers]

Oh my, please don't start silly theories.
"Speedy" was a mocking name period.
The first time the rabbit is identified on screen as Bugs Bunny happens in "Elmer's Pet Rabbit".

[SEATTLECHEF]

Your right JJ (you're the animation expert, not me), Bugs wasn't named until "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" released Jan 4 1941 which is 3 months before the release of "Tortoise beats Hare", so my point remains the same. Thanks for helping me to correct. We do have proof that Avery's crew had no other name for the character. The rabbit in "A Wild Hare" is still unnamed as is the case with "Tortoise Beats Hare". Still, the only name the rabbit was referred to was "Speedy" and not just once.

As far as the military uniform, I'm glad you asked.
Hardway himself had been a WW1 gunnery seargent under Harry Truman in the particularly rambunctious "Dizzy D". He was gassed by the Germans (according to his son Bob) and suffered health cosequences later in life as well as an early death at age 57. He had spent several years of his youth wearing a uniform.
He had also spent time as an editorial cartoonist after the first World War, and as such was obviously somewhat keen to world events.
By late 1935 the Germans had stripped their own Jews of basic rights, by august of 1938 the German military had mobilized, by October 1938 the Germans had occupied Czechoslovakia, by November 1938 the "Kristallnacht" attack on the Jews had occured. The point of this is that the writing was definitely on the wall as far as the looming prospect of war.
Additionally, the Hardaway/Dalton offering "Bars and Stripes Forever" was released 4/8/39 so that production of this was probably occuring concurrently.So there are at least a few reasons that the uniform would make sense and be perfectly appropriate to the time period I'm suggesting.
As far as when McKimson left, I've yet to find the exact date. The draft began by September 1940. I think I remember Martha Sigall telling me that Chuck McKimson decided to join before being drafted.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Oh my, please don't start silly theories.
"Speedy" was a mocking name period.
The first time the rabbit is identified on screen as Bugs Bunny happens in "Elmer's Pet Rabbit".
Wow, that really adds a lot to the discussion. That's been stated. Why don't you watch the cartoon and then let me know what the character's name was at the time.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Just the way the Turtle said "speedy" suggested that it was mocking. Really, I don't think that Tex Avery would have came up with such a corny name.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Just the way the Turtle said "speedy" suggested that it was mocking. Really, I don't think that Tex Avery would have came up with such a corny name.
If Avery wouldn't have come up with such a corny name then this second Avery rabbit offering would have to have been produced prior to, or at the same time as "A Wild Hare". Avery took over the character after Hardaway's departure. Tex is quoted as saying, "It's a wonder I wasn't sued, I practically stole it", regarding the rabbit character. Wether he was talking about Max Hare or Bugs' Bunny, the point remains. Remember that Hardaway, like some of the others involved, had worked with and for Disney.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Your right JJ (you're the animation expert, not me), Bugs wasn't named until "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" released Jan 4 1941 which is 3 months before the release of "Tortoise beats Hare", so my point remains the same. Thanks for helping me to correct. We do have proof that Avery's crew had no other name for the character. The rabbit in "A Wild Hare" is still unnamed as is the case with "Tortoise Beats Hare". Still, the only name the rabbit was referred to was "Speedy" and not just once.

As far as the military uniform, I'm glad you asked.
Hardway himself had been a WW1 gunnery seargent under Harry Truman in the particularly rambunctious "Dizzy D". He was gassed by the Germans (according to his son Bob) and suffered health cosequences later in life as well as an early death at age 57. He had spent several years of his youth wearing a uniform.
He had also spent time as an editorial cartoonist after the first World War, and as such was obviously somewhat keen to world events.
By late 1935 the Germans had stripped their own Jews of basic rights, by august of 1938 the German military had mobilized, by October 1938 the Germans had occupied Czechoslovakia, by November 1938 the "Kristallnacht" attack on the Jews had occured. The point of this is that the writing was definitely on the wall as far as the looming prospect of war.
Additionally, the Hardaway/Dalton offering "Bars and Stripes Forever" was released 4/8/39 so that production of this was probably occuring concurrently.So there are at least a few reasons that the uniform would make sense and be perfectly appropriate to the time period I'm suggesting.
As far as when McKimson left, I've yet to find the exact date. The draft began by September 1940. I think I remember Martha Sigall telling me that Chuck McKimson decided to join before being drafted.
(Is this a joke? Are you really a prankster in disguise?)

You're confusing me with this post. You now say the rabbit in Avery's first 2 cartoons is unnamed, but it was your theory before that the rabbit was called Bugs Bunny in A Wild Hare, then it was changed to Speedy for Tortoise Beats Hare, after being influenced by Hardaway's drawing. Or were you suggesting that Hardaway's "model" was created before A Wild Hare?

Here's the problem with bringing up Elmer's Pet Rabbit to back up your theory: If Hardaway's drawing is the definitive model of Schlesinger's rabbit star, then the hare in Elmer's Pet Rabbit should be labled "Speedy". That's the name Hardaway chose for his drawing, after all.

As for the reason you suggested for Bugs's uniform, it's irrelevant that Hardaway was in WWI. If that was such a defining moment for him then why do none of his sketches for his own cartoons have characters in military garb? Why doesn't his own rabbit in Hare-um Scare-um wear a uniform? 'Cause the drawing Hardaway made was for his pal Chuck going into military service, so he had a reason to put the character in uniform. And it was based on Avery's version of the rabbit from A Wild Hare. End of story.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

If Avery wouldn't have come up with such a corny name then this second Avery rabbit offering would have to have been produced prior to, or at the same time as "A Wild Hare". .[/QUOTE]
Avery didn't "take over" the character. Bugs Bunny is definitely a seperate character fromthe rabbit character from Harem Scarem.
Avery took over the character after Hardaway's departure. Tex is quoted as saying, "It's a wonder I wasn't sued, I practically stole it", regarding the rabbit character. Wether he was talking about Max Hare or Bugs' Bunny, the point remains. Remember that Hardaway, like some of the others involved, had worked with and for Disney
Hardaway never worked for Disney as far as I know, even if he did, he wasn't in 1935 at the time Tortoise Meets Hare (which he definitely was referring to in that quote.) was made. He was working atthe Ub Iwerks studio

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Avery took over the character after Hardaway's departure. Tex is quoted as saying, "It's a wonder I wasn't sued, I practically stole it", regarding the rabbit character. Wether he was talking about Max Hare or Bugs' Bunny, the point remains.
You're twisting Avery's words around. He was referring to the Disney character of Max Hare, not Hardaway's Hare-um Scare-um rabbit. (Tashlin also said the same thing about Bugs Bunny being based on the Disney cartoon.) If anything, Hardaway stole from Avery. According to Clampett, Hardaway based his rabbit in Porky's Hare Hunt on Avery's Daffy Duck.

Edit: Yes, Avery took a crack at the new rabbit character then going around at the Schlesinger studio, just like Jones did. Avery, on the other hand, is the one who turned Hardaway's annoyingly manic rabbit into the authentic Bugs Bunny.

[SEATTLECHEF]

I don't see any reason to be rude, I haven't been rude to you.

The joke is thinking that you know everything there is to know. You're response to my post came so quick that it's obvious you aren't willing to consider the possibility.
I misstated "A Wild Hare" when I should have cited Elmer's Pet Rabbit, however, the point remains the same "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" was released before "Tortoise Beats Hare". The character has a name 1/4/41 then has no other name than "Speedy" 3/15/41. The name on the brim of the cap is the name the character was being called at the time it was drawn. The history of the name that stuck begins with Bugs' Bunny (posessive apostrophe).
I think Hardaway's experience and personality are entirely relevant as are those of all the influential directors and artists.

[SEATTLECHEF]

You're twisting Avery's words around. He was referring to the Disney character of Max Hare, not Hardaway's Hare-um Scare-um rabbit. (Tashlin also said the same thing about Bugs Bunny being based on the Disney cartoon.) If anything, Hardaway stole from Avery. According to Clampett, Hardaway based his rabbit in Porky's Hare Hunt on Avery's Daffy Duck.

Edit: Yes, Avery took a crack at the new rabbit character then going around at the Schlesinger studio, just like Jones did. Avery, on the other hand, is the one who turned Hardaway's annoyingly manic rabbit into the authentic Bugs Bunny.
Your the expert, what's the difference between co-directed and directed?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I don't mean to be rude. I've read your blog post before, so I was familiar with your theory. Hence my quick response.

Hardaway's personality may have shaped the writing of his cartoons (Culhane thought Hardaway's humor was crude and corny) but his experiences didn't shape his cartoons. He did very little on the subject of warfare or the military. Other cartoonists who didn't have any war experience made more cartoons that dealt with that subject, like Clampett and Freleng for example. That's why I think Hardaway's experiences are irrelevent to the cartoons he made.

The chronology of the release dates of the cartoons doesn't tell us too much about them, since certain cartoons were in production earlier or later than their release date would suggest. Tortoise Beats Hare may have been completed before Elmer's Pet Rabbit, for all we know. The production schedule would have to be known before we can make such assessments as to their significance to history.

You might be blowing your discovery out of proportion to its actual significance. Maybe it's nothing more than a thoughtful parting gift to a friend, as opposed to the defining moment in Bugs Bunny's life.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Your the expert, what's the difference between co-directed and directed?
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

[SEATTLECHEF]

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Sorry for the ambiguity. Hare um Scare um was co-directed by Dalton/Hardaway. The earlier rabbit was not just Hardaway's baby, it actually reflects much more of Dalton's personality. (see the Monohan interview describing his interview with Dalton and Hardaway). I'm not saying that his war experience colored all of his cartoons, (and they weren't just his - codirected)the question posed concerned the uniform on the rabbit in this particular drawing. I then suggested several reasons uniform why the uniform makes sense. I think he offered this drawing during Freleng's absence when the studio was looking for a direction for the character, as described by Mel Blanc.

If your new attitude is that the release dates don't matter much then why are you busting my chops over Elmer's pet rabbit? (Even though it serves to further my point, and Hardaway was long gone by that time)
This was not a parting gift. This very well could be, as you stated, the defining moment in the life of Bugs' Bunny.
How could the drawing have been based on Avery's rabbit in "A Wild Hare" that was released almost a year and a half after Hardaway left Warner Bros and McKimson was off to NJ?
This is Bugs' Bunny, end of story.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

You're wrong. Give up.

[SEATTLECHEF]

You're wrong. Give up.
Thanks for your well thought out comment. In light of the information you've offered my view changes not at all. Why don't you make an effort to add something to the discourse? Your comment is lazy, but if it makes you feel better about yourself then good for you.
It is OK to think for youself. Regurgitating what you've heard others say is easy.
Why am I wrong? Maybe that takes more cognitive ability than you're capable of articulating. Perhaps you should stick with your monosyllabic negative utterances. You add nothing to the discussion, give it up.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

BEcause you're argument is so silly. No one well versed in animation history, or common sense would buy such a ridiculous theory. That picture was certanly made around '41, not 38, which was after the first Bugs cartoon, A Wild Hare.

[SEATTLECHEF]

BEcause you're argument is so silly. No one well versed in animation history, or common sense would buy such a ridiculous theory. That picture was certanly made around '41, not 38, which was after the first Bugs cartoon, A Wild Hare.
So you're saying that it was drawn after Hardaway started at Walter Lantz and after McKimson went to Monmouth NJ and after the character was named Bugs Bunny and after Avery lengthened the legs? Come on, your so far off base that it barely merits a response. Please stop embarrasing yourself and quit while your behind. Also, It wouldn't hurt to be able to form a complete sentence.
Is there anyone out there who wishes to have a reasonable conversation about this?

[OurGangAlfalfa]

So you're saying that it was drawn after Hardaway started at Walter Lantz and after McKimson went to Monmouth NJ and after the character was named Bugs Bunny and after Avery lengthened the legs? Come on, your so far off base that it barely merits a response. Please stop embarrasing yourself and quit while your behind. Also, It wouldn't hurt to be able to form a complete sentence.
Is there anyone out there who wishes to have a reasonable conversation about this?
Why doesn't the rabbit in that picture look like the rabbit from Dalton and Hardaway's films, genius?

[OurGangAlfalfa]

By the way, rewriting history based upon a single drawing will not win you many friends, buddy.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Also, why is it impossible for that drawing to have been drawn while Hardaway was at Lantz. It's very possible he was inspired by (or copied) from a Bugs Bunny film. And using logic, wouldn't McKimson have been drafted during the fourties,being that was when WWII was going on.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Sorry for the ambiguity. Hare um Scare um was co-directed by Dalton/Hardaway. The earlier rabbit was not just Hardaway's baby, it actually reflects much more of Dalton's personality.
Hardaway was a writer and gagman; Dalton was an animator. So it seems that the creative decisions about story would be left to Hardaway, while the more technical aspect of directing animation would have been left to Dalton -- similar to the set up Hanna and Barbera used. Therefore there is no reason why Hardaway's experiences shouldn't have shaped the cartoons he co-directed. The fact is his war record had no relevance on the type of cartoons he made. (Hardaway was probably the dominant creative member of the directing team. Remember that Thorson's rabbit model was labeled "Bugs' Bunny" after Hardaway, and not "Cal's Bunny".)

I'm not saying that his war experience colored all of his cartoons...the question posed concerned the uniform on the rabbit in this particular drawing. I then suggested several reasons uniform why the uniform makes sense. I think he offered this drawing during Freleng's absence when the studio was looking for a direction for the character, as described by Mel Blanc.
During Freleng's absence Hardaway/Dalton directed Hare-um Scare-um, and the rabbit in that cartoon looks nothing like the rabbit in the drawing you possess. That rabbit was drawn after A Wild Hare and was based on Robert Givens's version of the rabbit.

Plus, Mel Blanc was not around the studio when such decisions were made. He only came in to record voices. I've read Blanc's autobiography and when he said he suggested naming Schlesinger's new star after his "creator" Bugs Hardaway, he was basing that off of the cartoon Hare-um Scare-um, not on a single drawing Hardaway may have done. Also, Blanc was known to have exaggerated a lot of the details on the history of LTs (he wasn't the only one), so I'd take his statements with a grain of salt. Others who worked at the studio also have conflicting stories about the naming of Bugs Bunny, too. For example, according to Clampett, Schlesinger held a meeting about creating a name for the rabbit. It was his secretary, states Clampett, who suggested naming the bunny Bugs, because she thought it was cute (probably she saw it written on the Thorson model sheet).

If your new attitude is that the release dates don't matter much then why are you busting my chops over Elmer's pet rabbit? (Even though it serves to further my point, and Hardaway was long gone by that time)
Like I said before, if your going to make a big deal out of the chronology of the cartoons, it should be based on when they were in production, not when the cartoons were released theatrically. The release schedule could lead to erroneous assumptions, since some cartoons were held over from release even though they were finished ahead of time of other cartoons. Sometimes cartoons were delayed from their release schedule because of censorship problems from the Hays office, for example

Also, if Hardaway drew this important, influential model before 1939 shouldn't the rabbit in Elmer's Pet Rabbit also be named "Speedy", like it is written on Hardaway's drawing?

[Matthew Hunter]

Just because some personal drawing by Hardaway for a friend looks like Bugs Bunny doesn't change history. Who's Bugs Bunny's dad? Chuck Jones has admitted time and again that he had more than one! Hardaway and Jones touched on the rabbit idea and Tex Avery defined it.

Bugs evolved over time in the hands of many artists. Avery, Hardaway and Jones ALL deserve the title of "dad".:bugs2:

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Come on, your so far off base that it barely merits a response. Please stop embarrasing yourself and quit while your behind. Also, It wouldn't hurt to be able to form a complete sentence.
Is there anyone out there who wishes to have a reasonable conversation about this?
I know my being right hurt your feelings, so you felt compelled to insult me. Please show me an instance of my not forming a complete sentence, professor. I dare you.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Why doesn't the rabbit in that picture look like the rabbit from Dalton and Hardaway's films, genius?
It doesn't look like the Dalton/Hardaway bunny because the early rabbit was a collaborative effort. Dalton was the senior of the two and the early personality resembles most closely the sense of humor of Dalton. When Freleng left and Hardaway was promoted to director he offered this drawing. When Freleng returned Hardaway was bumped to story man and he left. This has been covered and stated ad nauseum in previous posts.
At some point in time, according to Chuck Jones, the character was born when he, "stood upright, not afraid, not going anywhere, a tough little stinker". This drawing is that moment in time. The rabbit character obviously evolved, but my contention is that it was the personality suggested by this drawing that endured.
Your sophmoric posts only serve to illustrate the fact that you're less than informed. It doesn't take a genius to read and reflect or to think before you speak.
I'm not trying to make friends or enemies, I'm interested in discussing the facts of animation history as they relate to this particular issue.
I think your last post illustrates the depth of your understanding and your inability to digest the information. Please go do some reading and try to gain some insight.
The truth has a funny way of bubbling up to the surface over time. I'm not rewriting history. Currently we only have a mystery with conflicting accounts and several who attempt to take credit for the impetus of the personality. What I'm offering fits, it just makes sense.
Based on your previous posts, "Trust me, I'm not even going to TRY to argue my case. I've learned my lesson" I'd tend to believe that you have a propensity to argue without merit. Maybe it takes a genius to avoid that pitfall.
Have a great day!
Chris

[SEATTLECHEF]

I know my being right hurt your feelings, so you felt compelled to insult me. Please show me an instance of my not forming a complete sentence, professor. I dare you.

BEcause you're argument is so silly
And using logic, wouldn't McKimson have been drafted during the fourties,being that was when WWII was going on.

BEcause you're argument is so silly.

Here are three examples, but I'd really rather stay on topic.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Just because some personal drawing by Hardaway for a friend looks like Bugs Bunny doesn't change history. Who's Bugs Bunny's dad? Chuck Jones has admitted time and again that he had more than one! Hardaway and Jones touched on the rabbit idea and Tex Avery defined it.

Bugs evolved over time in the hands of many artists. Avery, Hardaway and Jones ALL deserve the title of "dad".:bugs2:
This is not some personal drawing. I'm saying that Hardaway is the biological father of the personality, he was raised by the rest.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

It doesn't look like the Dalton/Hardaway bunny because the early rabbit was a collaborative effort. Dalton was the senior of the two and the early personality resembles most closely the sense of humor of Dalton. When Freleng left and Hardaway was promoted to director he offered this drawing. When Freleng returned Hardaway was bumped to story man and he left. This has been covered and stated ad nauseum in previous posts.
At some point in time, according to Chuck Jones, the character was born when he, "stood upright, not afraid, not going anywhere, a tough little stinker". This drawing is that moment in time. The rabbit character obviously evolved, but my contention is that it was the personality suggested by this drawing that endured.
Your sophmoric posts only serve to illustrate the fact that you're less than informed. It doesn't take a genius to read and reflect or to think before you speak.
I'm not trying to make friends or enemies, I'm interested in discussing the facts of animation history as they relate to this particular issue.
I think your last post illustrates the depth of your understanding and your inability to digest the information. Please go do some reading and try to gain some insight.
The truth has a funny way of bubbling up to the surface over time. I'm not rewriting history. Currently we only have a mystery with conflicting accounts and several who attempt to take credit for the impetus of the personality. What I'm offering fits, it just makes sense.
Based on your previous posts, "Trust me, I'm not even going to TRY to argue my case. I've learned my lesson" I'd tend to believe that you have a propensity to argue without merit. Maybe it takes a genius to avoid that pitfall.
Have a great day!
Chris
This is laughable!!!! Are you serious. You really think that a personal drawing was a "turnng point" in Bugs Bunny's creation!!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DRAWING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PRODUCTION OF ACTUAL CARTOONS!

[OurGangAlfalfa]

BEcause you're argument is so silly
And using logic, wouldn't McKimson have been drafted during the fourties,being that was when WWII was going on.

BEcause you're argument is so silly.

Here are three examples, but I'd really rather stay on topic.
Those are complete sentences. They have a subject and a predicate. I might have made a typo as far as capitalization goes, but those are definitely complete sentences, dummy.

By the way, you duplicated a sentence.

[Sogturtle]

Obviously all the Directors and Animators who ever worked to create Bugs Bunny cartoons contributed to the evolution of the character. However, there are many conflicting accounts regarding the birth of the personality. Several people have attempted to take sole credit for suggesting the confident, cocky, calm, cool, and collected personality that proved to be so popular.
....
I contend that Hardaway not only lent his nickname to the character, he suggested the personality. He did so with this drawing, Chris

The first time the name "Bugs Bunny" was used was in "A Wild Hare" released July 27 1940. The "Tortoise Beats Hare" was released 9 months later on March 15 1941, wherein Cecil repeatedly calls the rabbit "Speedy", the name on the brim of the cap in the drawing. So obviously not all cartoons followed the same production/release schedule. The 2nd avery cartoon was produced at the same time or earlier than the first. If the rabbit was called Bugs on 7/27/40 but was being called Speedy in a new release on 3/15/41 then obviously the production dates and release dates did not follow in sequence. Also, Chuck Mckimson's film credits are void between '41 and '47. He was gone to Monmouth NJ by 41, I don't know the exact date Chuck's move to NJ but I bet it fits. Furthermore, Hardaway had left Warners around March of '39 and was off to Walter Lantz shortly thereafter, he would have had no reason to be drawing such a figure, after his departure, that fit so perfectly within the history of the evolution of the character.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_vGn2cXqGA1M/RliK7UWXn2I/AAAAAAAAAAM/H2LjfGGRLsg/s320/Bugs%

Seattlechef/Chris~

This really should not be a terribly controversial thread...

The drawing is a lovely piece...:) No two ways about it. That's what I thought last year when shown it by someone from the board. And I will partially agree with you that it may indeed be by Ben Hardaway and in fact it may even be likely that it is by him (and that is due to the funny "dizzy" 'D').

Now for a few facts to consider...

1). Tex Avery early-on HATED the name of "Bugs Bunny", he said aloud that HIS rabbit was not a "bunny" but an ORNERY rabbit. Tex even favored the punning name "Jack Rabbit" (to indicate his jackrabbit origins;)). In deference to Tex's wishes for HIS newest creation, the model sheet of "A Wild Hare" is CLEARLY lettered by Bob Givens with THIS name, "Tex's rabbit"... THAT totally distinguishes it from the insane creation of Hardaway and Dalton and the dopey-voiced annoying one of Chuck Jones in "Elmer's Candid Camera". The name "Bugs Bunny" being selected is due to the influence of Leon Schlesinger's secretary liking the alliterative and euphonious sound of it (she thought it was cute:p).

2). There was a Christmas "show" in Los Angeles in 1940, Leon Schlesinger provided the only cartoon characters that appeared in it (the proceeds to the "British War Relief of Southern California"). Notably the program for it features ALL of the Schlesinger characters with the most important one appearing last in the program. That last and most important character is clearly labelled as "Bugs Bunny", and the program bears a date of Nov. 9, 1940. Sooooo clearly by then the name of "Bugs Bunny" had been settled on once and for all (despite Tex Avery's wishes), and so that precludes him being named "Speedy" in Avery's second rabbit cartoon. As others have pointed out already, "speedy" was just a derisive term used by Cecil Turtle.

3). Charles "Chuck" McKimson was NOT in the army particularly early. In point of fact his enlistment shows EARLY June 1941... With that in mind the "Speedy" name that appears in your drawing on the rabbit's hat MAY likewise be a slightly "mocking" term that "Chuck" did not get into the army in any particularly speedy manner. They were then as now ALWAYS accepting enlistments and in truth he was most PROBABLY drafted (I'm not sure though).

4). I appreciate your posting Ben Hardaway's government application for work...:) There's a catch in it though, Ben either MISREMEMBERED when he left Schlesinger's (he has down 1939) OR he lied about the date. The real truth is that Hardaway was BUMPED back to storyman when Friz Freleng returned in 1939, Buuuut Ben didn't quit Leon's till in the early winter of 1940 (Jan.). Ben's CREDITED appearances as storyman at Schlesinger's go through mid-year 1940 and almost certainly extended for a little while after that uncredited. What this means is that he undoubtedly was present when Chuck Jones took HIS "bunny" and redesigned it and that Ben saw the mess that turned out. The personality that Chuck tried using was as big a catastrophe as that of Ben and Cal's bunny in "Hare-um Scare-um". Both are obnoxious in the extreme, and neither are cool, calm and collected and SHARP like the rabbit created by Tex.

5) The drawing is most definitely NOT a model sheet of any kind... It IS either a present or a variation on a "presentation drawing" like Charlie Thorson made while at Schlesinger' to go with his model-sheets. The catch is that IF it is somehow another Thorson presentation drawing then it dates to before WWII started, and that makes little or no sense. Plus that does away with the proposed Hardaway authorship of the piece.

Soooo we're back to the inscription to "Chuck" pointing to "Chuck" McKimson's mid-1941 induction into the army and that Hardaway made it as a present for him but endowed it with traits he himself liked.

[SEATTLECHEF]

This is laughable!!!! Are you serious. You really think that a personal drawing was a "turnng point" in Bugs Bunny's creation!!! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DRAWING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PRODUCTION OF ACTUAL CARTOONS!
Good job, another absolutely valueless comment. Do you have anything of substance to add?

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Good job, another absolutely valueless comment. Do you have anything of substance to add?
VALUELESS? IT DISPROVES YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT!!!!!! Since it was not an official drawing, just a drawing made by Ben Hardaway to Chuck McKimson circa 1941, your argument ceases to exist.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Seattlechef/Chris~

This really should not be a terribly controversial thread...

The drawing is a lovely piece...:) No two ways about it. That's what I thought last year when shown it by someone from the board. And I will partially agree with you that it may indeed be by Ben Hardaway and in fact it may even be likely that it is by him (and that is due to the funny "dizzy" 'D').

Now for a few facts to consider...

1). Tex Avery early-on HATED the name of "Bugs Bunny", he said aloud that HIS rabbit was not a "bunny" but an ORNERY rabbit. Tex even favored the punning name "Jack Rabbit" (to indicate his jackrabbit origins;)). In deference to Tex's wishes for HIS newest creation, the model sheet of "A Wild Hare" is CLEARLY lettered by Bob Givens with THIS name, "Tex's rabbit"... THAT totally distinguishes it from the insane creation of Hardaway and Dalton and the dopey-voiced annoying one of Chuck Jones in "Elmer's Candid Camera". The name "Bugs Bunny" being selected is due to the influence of Leon Schlesinger's secretary liking the alliterative and euphonious sound of it (she thought it was cute:p).

2). There was a Christmas "show" in Los Angeles in 1940, Leon Schlesinger provided the only cartoon characters that appeared in it (the proceeds to the "British War Relief of Southern California"). Notably the program for it features ALL of the Schlesinger characters with the most important one appearing last in the program. That last and most important character is clearly labelled as "Bugs Bunny", and the program bears a date of Nov. 9, 1940. Sooooo clearly by then the name of "Bugs Bunny" had been settled on once and for all (despite Tex Avery's wishes), and so that precludes him being named "Speedy" in Avery's second rabbit cartoon. As others have pointed out already, "speedy" was just a derisive term used by Cecil Turtle.

3). Charles "Chuck" McKimson was NOT in the army particularly early. In point of fact his enlistment shows EARLY June 1941... With that in mind the "Speedy" name that appears in your drawing on the rabbit's hat MAY likewise be a slightly "mocking" term that "Chuck" did not get into the army in any particularly speedy manner. They were then as now ALWAYS accepting enlistments and in truth he was most PROBABLY drafted (I'm not sure though).

4). I appreciate your posting Ben Hardaway's government application for work...:) There's a catch in it though, Ben either MISREMEMBERED when he left Schlesinger's (he has down 1939) OR he lied about the date. The real truth is that Hardaway was BUMPED back to storyman when Friz Freleng returned in 1939, Buuuut Ben didn't quit Leon's till in the early winter of 1940 (Jan.). Ben's CREDITED appearances as storyman at Schlesinger's go through mid-year 1940 and almost certainly extended for a little while after that uncredited. What this means is that he undoubtedly was present when Chuck Jones took HIS "bunny" and redesigned it and that Ben saw the mess that turned out. The personality that Chuck tried using was as big a catastrophe as that of Ben and Cal's bunny in "Hare-um Scare-um". Both are obnoxious in the extreme, and neither are cool, calm and collected and SHARP like the rabbit created by Tex.

5) The drawing is most definitely NOT a model sheet of any kind... It IS either a present or a variation on a "presentation drawing" like Charlie Thorson made while at Schlesinger' to go with his model-sheets. The catch is that IF it is somehow another Thorson presentation drawing then it dates to before WWII started, and that makes little or no sense. Plus that does away with the proposed Hardaway authorship of the piece.

Soooo we're back to the inscription to "Chuck" pointing to "Chuck" McKimson's mid-1941 induction into the army and that Hardaway made it as a present for him but endowed it with traits he himself liked.
Hello Tim,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is refreshing to hear from someone who has something to offer in terms of substance. I don't agree entirely with you and will post a response as soon as time allows. I do, however appreciate your tone and attitude. I really don't wish to argue but rather discuss.
Until tomorrow,
Chris

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Hello Tim,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is refreshing to hear from someone who has something to offer in terms of substance. I don't agree entirely with you and will post a response as soon as time allows. I do, however appreciate your tone and attitude. I really don't wish to argue but rather discuss.
Until tomorrow,
Chris
I hope tomorrow never comes.

By the way, there's no point in discussing...
YOU'RE WRONG!!!

TEX AVERY CREATED BUGS BUNNY IN 1940!!!! THE CHARACTER WAS FIRST SEEN IN THE CARTOON "A WILD HARE"!!! HARDAWAY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATION OF THE PERSONALITY OF THE CHARACTER!!

[SEATTLECHEF]

VALUELESS? IT DISPROVES YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT!!!!!! Since it was not an official drawing, just a drawing made by Ben Hardaway to Chuck McKimson circa 1941, your argument ceases to exist.
Lack of substance make your comments valueless, not lack of capitalization.
Your Buddy,
Chris

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Lack of substance make your comments valueless, not lack of capitalization.
Your Buddy,
Chris
Lack of coherence make your comments valueless.
Your enemy,
OurGangAlfalfa

[SEATTLECHEF]

Hey Guys,

I'm new to this whole forum thing. If there is some etiqutte that I'm neglecting, please let me know. I received an instant message today that made me wonder what is and is not acceptable.

OurGangAlfalfa (http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/member.php?u=1793) http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_", true);
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 130


http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif IDIOT
Leave this message board. Everybody hates you. You are wrong.




Is this the way that you all normally interact?
Chris

[OurGangAlfalfa]

Hey Guys,

I'm new to this whole forum thing. If there is some etiqutte that I'm neglecting, please let me know. I received an instant message today that made me wonder what is and is not acceptable.

OurGangAlfalfa (http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/member.php?u=1793) http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_", true);
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 130


http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif IDIOT
Leave this message board. Everybody hates you. You are wrong.







Is this the way that you all normally interact?
Chris
I absolutely did say that, because it is true. You are a despicable liar.

[SEATTLECHEF]

I absolutely did say that, because it is true. You are a despicable liar.
You still fail to offer anything of substance, I feel sorry for you.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

You still fail to offer anything of substance, I feel sorry for you.
You are actually starting to believe your own lies. I feel sorry for you.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

I see that your viewing my profile. What's the matter Chris, are looking for posts that I made to embarass me.

[OurGangAlfalfa]

arrivederci Gac.

[Leviathan]

How did this thread get so heated? It started off pretty benign (and Soggy wasn't even a driving force in it, no offense)

[OurGangAlfalfa]

How did this thread get so heated? It started off pretty benign (and Soggy wasn't even a driving force in it, no offense)
Because I find seattlechef's implausible conjecture's masquerading as facts intellectually insulting (not to mention his personal insults of me, which prompted my private message.)

[Matthew Hunter]

WHOOOOOAAAHHH horsie! Seattlechef, please read the Forum Rules and the sticky thread "In light of recent events". Ourgangalfalfa, chill out. This is indeed an interesting drawing, and it's fun to argue and speculate...but let's calm down. If Bugs Bunny went on the Jerry Springer Show requesting a paternity test, something like this might result. But this isn't the Springer show. As Bugs might say "Keep ya shoit on, doc!"

[Sogturtle]

How did this thread get so heated? It started off pretty benign (and Soggy wasn't even a driving force in it, no offense)

Nooooo I haven't been driving forces in a long time... That sounds kind of like Star Wars though.:p

[OurGangAlfalfa]

WHOOOOOAAAHHH horsie! Seattlechef, please read the Forum Rules and the sticky thread "In light of recent events". Ourgangalfalfa, chill out. This is indeed an interesting drawing, and it's fun to argue and speculate...but let's calm down. If Bugs Bunny went on the Jerry Springer Show requesting a paternity test, something like this might result. But this isn't the Springer show. As Bugs might say "Keep ya shoit on, doc!"
Okay, sorry. Remember though, I did not start the personal insults.

[Matthew Hunter]

I don't care who started it, was a driving force, or driving Miss Daisy. There is nothing about this topic that requires personal insults or unpleasantness of any kind.

Bugs Bunny's Paternity, take 2... :bugs2:

[Dan Porceddu]

Too bad "SEATTLECHEF" is just a cartoon art collector trying to pump up the value of a drawing he got. With endless fabrications, needless to say.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Okay, sorry. Remember though, I did not start the personal insults.
Hello OurGangAlfalfa,

I apologize for being anything less than polite or unpleasant.
I don't want to be the kind of person that feels good by embarassing someone else.
I was viewing your profile because I want to get an idea of your point of view. I didn't expect when I posted this that I would get responses that ,to me, were angry or rude. (My perception, I'm not accusing you).
I found this drawing about 10 years ago. I had been collecting original editorial and political cartoons. This drawing appeared to me to be of an unusually high quality, it stood out. As I had done with many of the other drawings I have, I tried to understand who created it, when, and why. I never proclaimed myself to be an animation historian. As I pursued the subject, I became increasingly intrigued. Unbeknownst to me at the time, a debate over the creation of the character existed. Why shouldn't I follow it to its logical conclusion? I don't purport to be an expert on animation. Yet, I have done my share of reading and discovering with regard to the inception of the personality of the character and of the artist in question.
I've posted this because I think it's compelling. I'm not commenting on every thread that presents itself because I like to hear myself talk. I'm here because I'm interested in this issue. I think history owes it to Hardaway. I thought that a discussion between informed people would be productive and enlightening. This is a forum, isn't it?
In response to the last poster. I do collect cartoon art, mostly editorial, all American, all original. I like it. I've been collecting art that appeals to me for more than ten years, and I'll continue to grab artworks that I find intriguing. I've never sold even a single piece. I'm not a self described "animation historian" that peddles lithographs and reproductions on EBAY.
I've contacted many, because of my interest in this subject. Some of those people had no interest, some agreed with my notion, some didn't. Some people had not the time, nor the expertise. My desire is to understand the moment in time.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Seattlechef,

You admit you're not an animation historian, so why not contact one who is, like Jerry Beck (http://www.cartoonresearch.com/) or Michael Barrier, (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/) and get their opinion of this drawing you own? Maybe they could set you straight on whether or not your theory is even possible.

[Duck Dodgers]

Wow, that really adds a lot to the discussion. That's been stated. Why don't you watch the cartoon and then let me know what the character's name was at the time.


I don't need to watch the cartoon to tell you that Avery's intentions (Tex Avery was the director of "Tortoise beats hare") was to call the rabbit "Jack rabbit".
He was against the idea of the name "Bugs";) and expecially against "Bunny".

[SEATTLECHEF]

Seattlechef,

You admit you're not an animation historian, so why not contact one who is, like Jerry Beck (http://www.cartoonresearch.com/) or Michael Barrier, (http://www.michaelbarrier.com/) and get their opinion of this drawing you own? Maybe they could set you straight on whether or not your theory is even possible.
If Mr. Beck ever had the time or inclination to devote his attention to the subject I would be most interested. I venture to guess that If he did ever offer an opinion it would'nt be immediately dismissive, and it wouldn't be offered without considering all the material.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

If Mr. Beck ever had the time or inclination to devote his attention to the subject I would be most interested. I venture to guess that If he did ever offer an opinion it would'nt be immediately dismissive, and it wouldn't be offered without considering all the material.
Why wouldn't Jerry have the time for this startling new discovery -- the Rosetta Stone! -- nay, the missing link! -- in Bugs's evolution?

Go ahead and ask him. (Or Mike Barrier, or Leonard Maltin.) I'd like to hear what he'd have to say. "Considering all the material"? You mean that SINGLE drawing you have (that was meant as a gift), that supposedly changed animation history overnight? Yeah, I'm sure Jerry will revise all the books he's written on Warners history to include your new theory.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Why wouldn't Jerry have the time for this startling new discovery -- the Rosetta Stone! -- nay, the missing link! -- in Bugs's evolution?

Go ahead and ask him. (Or Mike Barrier, or Leonard Maltin.) I'd like to hear what he'd have to say. "Considering all the material"? You mean that SINGLE drawing you have (that was meant as a gift), that supposedly changed animation history overnight? Yeah, I'm sure Jerry will revise all the books he's written on Warners history to include your new theory.

I don't know if Mr Beck or Mr Maltin would have time to consider this topic. They probably don't sit in front of the computer all day waiting to shoot down any idea that doesn't completely jibe with theirs.If they did, regardless of their opinion, I'm confident that they would conduct themselves with some semblence of class.
Whilst wallowing within your own virulent pompacity, you've come to the conclusion that this was a gift, you state that as fact. What did you base that on? Try thinking for yourself and formulating a well informed opinion rather than regugitating what you've heard, you'll get farther.
I'm not saying that this changed animation overnight, that's your own rediculous statement. I'm saying that this drawing was the impetus for the personality and attitude that the character developed and that proved to be so popular. This drawing fits perfectly into the chronology and the history. Maybe some day you'll get it and maybe you never will. Because you're so fundamentally entrenched in your beliefs, I doubt that you would ever make an effort to consider another point of view. Let's see, the hypothosis is that Bugs Hardaway drew the picture known as Bugs' Bunny. That doesn't sound too far fetched to me.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

You've convinced me with your unassailable logic. "Bugs Hardaway drew the picture known as Bugs' Bunny." And I always thought it was Charlie Thorson who drew the rabbit known as "Bugs' Bunny", which is the name he afixed to his model sheet. That rabbit doesn't look like the Bugs Bunny I know. At least it doesn't look like the hare in Avery's cartoon, which was designed by Robert Givens.

"...you've come to the conclusion that this was a gift, you state that as fact. What did you base that on?" From what Martha Sigall was quoted as saying on your blog regarding the drawing. It was her assumption the drawing was made for Charles McKimson when he went into the Army.

Well, I've had enough of this. So long, Speedy.

[Sogturtle]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_vGn2cXqGA1M/RliK7UWXn2I/AAAAAAAAAAM/H2LjfGGRLsg/s320/Bugs%



It's really, really a shame that this thread has been so acrimonious...:(
The one further point that I'll add (beyond mine back on page 4;) ) is this... A simple pair of questions really, namely...

Seattlechef, you undoubtedly know where you got this drawing from, do you happen to know its ownership before then??

And secondly... Have you spoken to Chuck McKimson's son about this piece and sent him copy of it?? :confused: Surely IF it had been given to his dad by Ben Hardaway then the elder McKimson would've kept it for many, many years and Chuck's son SHOULD remember seeing it in his father's possession...

(The below is repeated from page 4 since it got wholly lost in all the nastiness:rolleyes: and controversy, but now with an addendum...).

The drawing is a lovely piece...:) No two ways about it. That's what I thought last year when shown it by someone from the board. And I will partially agree with you that it may indeed be by Ben Hardaway and in fact it may even be likely that it is by him (and that is due to the funny "dizzy" 'D').

Now for a few facts to consider...

1). Tex Avery early-on HATED the name of "Bugs Bunny", he said aloud that HIS rabbit was not a "bunny" but an ORNERY rabbit. Tex even favored the punning name "Jack Rabbit" (to indicate his jackrabbit origins;)). In deference to Tex's wishes for HIS newest creation, the model sheet of "A Wild Hare" is CLEARLY lettered by Bob Givens with THIS name, "Tex's rabbit"... THAT totally distinguishes it from the insane creation of Hardaway and Dalton and the dopey-voiced annoying one of Chuck Jones in "Elmer's Candid Camera". The name "Bugs Bunny" being selected is due to the influence of Leon Schlesinger's secretary liking the alliterative and euphonious sound of it (she thought it was cute:p).

2). There was a Christmas "show" in Los Angeles in 1940, Leon Schlesinger provided the only cartoon characters that appeared in it (the proceeds to the "British War Relief of Southern California"). Notably the program for it features ALL of the Schlesinger characters with the most important one appearing last in the program. That last and most important character is clearly labelled as "Bugs Bunny", and the program bears a date of Nov. 9, 1940. Sooooo clearly by then the name of "Bugs Bunny" had been settled on once and for all (despite Tex Avery's wishes), and so that precludes him being named "Speedy" in Avery's second rabbit cartoon. As others have pointed out already, "speedy" was just a derisive term used by Cecil Turtle.

3). Charles "Chuck" McKimson was NOT in the army particularly early. In point of fact his enlistment shows EARLY June 1941... With that in mind the "Speedy" name that appears in your drawing on the rabbit's hat MAY likewise be a slightly "mocking" term that "Chuck" did not get into the army in any particularly speedy manner. They were then as now ALWAYS accepting enlistments and in truth he was most PROBABLY drafted (I'm not sure though).

4). I appreciate your posting Ben Hardaway's government application for work...:) There's a catch in it though, Ben either MISREMEMBERED when he left Schlesinger's (he has down 1939) OR he lied about the date. The real truth is that Hardaway was BUMPED back to storyman when Friz Freleng returned in 1939, Buuuut Ben didn't quit Leon's till in the early winter of 1940 (Jan.). Ben's CREDITED appearances as storyman at Schlesinger's go through mid-year 1940 and almost certainly extended for a little while after that uncredited. What this means is that he undoubtedly was present when Chuck Jones took HIS "bunny" and redesigned it and that Ben saw the mess that turned out. The personality that Chuck tried using was as big a catastrophe as that of Ben and Cal's bunny in "Hare-um Scare-um". Both are obnoxious in the extreme, and neither are cool, calm and collected and SHARP like the rabbit created by Tex.

5) The drawing is most definitely NOT a model sheet of any kind... It IS either a present or a variation on a "presentation drawing" like Charlie Thorson made while at Schlesinger' to go with his model-sheets. The catch is that IF it is somehow another Thorson presentation drawing then it dates to before WWII started, and that makes little or no sense. Plus that does away with the proposed Hardaway authorship of the piece.

Soooo we're back to the inscription to "Chuck" pointing to "Chuck" McKimson's mid-1941 induction into the army and that Hardaway made it as a present for him but endowed it with traits he himself liked.

The only other possibility I can think of IF it is by Hardaway would be that it was addressed to Chuck Jones when he was about to take his ill-fated stab at a rabbit cartoon (again). And I THINK we can discount that due to the rabbit being dressed in army uniform which points to a time of creation after conscription got underway for the eventuality of our entrance into WWII...

[SEATTLECHEF]

You've convinced me with your unassailable logic. "Bugs Hardaway drew the picture known as Bugs' Bunny." And I always thought it was Charlie Thorson who drew the rabbit known as "Bugs' Bunny", which is the name he afixed to his model sheet. That rabbit doesn't look like the Bugs Bunny I know. At least it doesn't look like the hare in Avery's cartoon, which was designed by Robert Givens.

"...you've come to the conclusion that this was a gift, you state that as fact. What did you base that on?" From what Martha Sigall was quoted as saying on your blog regarding the drawing. It was her assumption the drawing was made for Charles McKimson when he went into the Army.

Well, I've had enough of this. So long, Speedy.

Good.
I'm saying that the character model was created by Hardaway, similar to the character model for the Hobo Gadget Band, then the model sheet is made to show the animators how the character should move for consistency's sake. (see the interview on Jerry Beck's website describing the process) Thorson drew the latter, as you stated.
Visually, Avery certainly did affect the character. He lengthed the legs and the whole character. Hardaway was gone by the time that Avery was directing the character so no suprise that this drawing shows less to the later rabbit. This drawing is at the point where the character gets three toes, not two, its fur is gray and white, rather than all white. Most importantly, this rabbit displays a different attitude than what was presented previously. Haradawy's rabbit is perfectly in between the old look and the Avery look. Many characteristics put it firmly within a brief period of time.
This thing is too big to be some sort of card that would be mailed, it is too professional to be anything other than for work, it fits too perfectly the time period I'm suggesting to be anything other than Bugs' Bunny.

[SEATTLECHEF]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_vGn2cXqGA1M/RliK7UWXn2I/AAAAAAAAAAM/H2LjfGGRLsg/s320/Bugs%



It's really, really a shame that this thead has been so acrimonious...:(
The one further point that I'll add (beyond mine back on page 4;) ) is this... A simple pair of questions really, namely...

Seattlechef, you undoubtedly know where you got this drawing from, do you happen to know its ownership before then??


And secondly... Have you spoken to Chuck McKimson's son about this piece and sent him copy of it?? :confused: Surely IF it had been given to his dad by Ben Hardaway then the elder McKimson would've kept it for many, many years and Chuck's son SHOULD remember seeing it in his father's possession...
Sogturtle,
I don't think this was a gift. I think the reference is to Chuck McKimson but I don't think it was sent as a gift. The Hi'Ya phrase also used in the cartoon where the rabbit is called speedy. There is no indication that it was a gift.
I did not know that Chuck McKimson had a son. I don't know if his son has any recollection of 1939. I would certainly be interested to listen to anybody that has particular knowledge of the moment in time.
I agree that the the acrimoniousness is poor (speaking of my own choice of words, noone else's) I have to admit that I've found the discourse within this thread so intolerant of different ideas that it frustrates me. Thank you for offering questions that further the conversation

[Sogturtle]

Seattlechef~

Something just dawned on me... When Ben Hardaway went to Lantz in 1940 he at first was paired with writer Lowell Elliott, who even received CO-story credit on 1940's "Knock Knock" which Hardaway had written totally SOLO on speculation... This raises the great likelihood that Elliott's lone contribution to that cartoon was drawing up the storyboard from Hardaway's script.
Elliott's name would go on turning up beside Hardaway's on Lantz cartoons of 1941 and '42. HOWEVER there are several (5) cartoons made shortly after Ben's arrival that feature ONLY HIS name as storyman. Logically this would mean that Elliott was somehow occupied (or just gone for a few months). AND more importantly, it would mean that Hardaway had to DRAW his own storyboard AND LETTER them as well...

With THAT in mind how about comparing the block-printing of such a storyboard drawing to the block-print signature on your rabbit drawing and SEE if they match or not?!?!? This SHOULD work especially if such a storyboard drawing has capital "B" and capital "H" for the comparison to the initials on the drawing... (Getting a real handwriting specialist would be a great idea).

Thus I offer this storyboard drawing from "Scrub Me Mama With A Boogie Beat" (rel. May 28, 1941, Hardaway sole writing credit) for the comparison.
http://howardlowery.usanethosting.com/hlpix/basshorn.jpg

[SEATTLECHEF]

Seattlechef~

Something just dawned on me... When Ben Hardaway went to Lantz in 1940 he at first was paired with writer Lowell Elliott, who even received CO-story credit on 1940's "Knock Knock" which Hardaway had written totally SOLO on speculation... This raises the great likelihood that Elliott's lone contribution to that cartoon was drawing up the storyboard from Hardaway's script.
Elliott's name would go on turning up beside Hardaway's on Lantz cartoons of 1941 and '42. HOWEVER there are several (5) cartoons made shortly after Ben's arrival that feature ONLY HIS name as storyman. Logically this would mean that Elliott was somehow occupied (or just gone for a few months). AND more importantly, it would mean that Hardaway had to DRAW his own storyboard AND LETTER them as well...

With THAT in mind how about comparing the block-printing of such a storyboard drawing to the block-print signature on your rabbit drawing and SEE if they match or not?!?!? This SHOULD work especially if such a storyboard drawing has capital "B" and capital "H" for the comparison to the initials on the drawing... (Getting a real handwriting specialist would be a great idea).

Thus I offer this storyboard drawing from "Scrub Me Mama With A Boogie Beat" (rel. May 28, 1941, Hardaway sole writing credit) for the comparison.
http://howardlowery.usanethosting.com/hlpix/basshorn.jpg
Great idea, if you're sure that the story board is by Hardaway, (it isn't initialed or signed), and it sounds like you are sure and it makes sense to me. The civil service application posted on the blog is also full of Hardaway's block letter handwriting. The lettering on the drawing is, I think, India Ink applied with a brush, while the lettering on the story board and the application are something else. Nevertheless, the handwriting looks the same to me. Before I had ever seen the civil service application, E.O. Costello, of the Warner Bros Cartoon Companion, told me about it after I had sent him a picture of the drawing. He said that he thought they looked the same also.

Tim, thanks for posting the story board, I've had a hard time finding comparative work by Hardaway, other than what's in Schnieder's book.

[SEATTLECHEF]

I posted a couple of the Mel Blanc interviews at http://bugshardaway.blogspot.com/ , there are more.

[Jack G.]

I posted a couple of the Mel Blanc interviews at http://bugshardaway.blogspot.com/ , there are more.Love reading interviews from anybody that worked for Warner.
Thanks.

[SEATTLECHEF]

You've convinced me with your unassailable logic. "Bugs Hardaway drew the picture known as Bugs' Bunny." And I always thought it was Charlie Thorson who drew the rabbit known as "Bugs' Bunny", which is the name he afixed to his model sheet. That rabbit doesn't look like the Bugs Bunny I know. At least it doesn't look like the hare in Avery's cartoon, which was designed by Robert Givens.

"...you've come to the conclusion that this was a gift, you state that as fact. What did you base that on?" From what Martha Sigall was quoted as saying on your blog regarding the drawing. It was her assumption the drawing was made for Charles McKimson when he went into the Army.

Well, I've had enough of this. So long, Speedy.

Thorson did offer his vision for the character at the time the studio was looking for a direction for the character. He did so so 1938, (I've suggested that Hardaway drew his vision in the last quarter of '38 to the first quarter of '39), as the studio sought to refine the personality of the burgeoning rabbit character. This is described in "Cartoon Charlie", a review of which can be found at http://www.awn.com/mag/issue3.12/3.12pages/pattencharlie.php3

To paraphrase, "Thorson's restless career took him to virtually every animation studio between the mid-1930s and the early 1940s. His biggest claim to fame came at Warner Bros. in 1938, when he was asked to design a rabbit for a cartoon to be directed by Cal Dalton and Ben "Bugs" Hardaway's team. Thorson labeled his model sheet "Bug's Bunny." Ironically, Thorson's design was considered to look too cute and innocent for the bunny's sarcastic personality, so Bugs was redesigned; but Thorson's name stuck.

[SEATTLECHEF]

[QUOTE=J. J. Hunsecker]Hardaway was a writer and gagman; Dalton was an animator. So it seems that the creative decisions about story would be left to Hardaway, while the more technical aspect of directing animation would have been left to Dalton -- similar to the set up Hanna and Barbera used. Therefore there is no reason why Hardaway's experiences shouldn't have shaped the cartoons he co-directed. The fact is his war record had no relevance on the type of cartoons he made. (Hardaway was probably the dominant creative member of the directing team. Remember that Thorson's rabbit model was labeled "Bugs' Bunny" after Hardaway, and not "Cal's Bunny".)


During Freleng's absence Hardaway/Dalton directed Hare-um Scare-um, and the rabbit in that cartoon looks nothing like the rabbit in the drawing you possess. That rabbit was drawn after A Wild Hare and was based on Robert Givens's version of the rabbit.

Plus, Mel Blanc was not around the studio when such decisions were made. He only came in to record voices. I've read Blanc's autobiography and when he said he suggested naming Schlesinger's new star after his "creator" Bugs Hardaway, he was basing that off of the cartoon Hare-um Scare-um, not on a single drawing Hardaway may have done. Also, Blanc was known to have exaggerated a lot of the details on the history of LTs (he wasn't the only one), so I'd take his statements with a grain of salt. Others who worked at the studio also have conflicting stories about the naming of Bugs Bunny, too. For example, according to Clampett, Schlesinger held a meeting about creating a name for the rabbit. It was his secretary, states Clampett, who suggested naming the bunny Bugs, because she thought it was cute (probably she saw it written on the Thorson model sheet).


Like I said before, if your going to make a big deal out of the chronology of the cartoons, it should be based on when they were in production, not when the cartoons were released theatrically. The release schedule could lead to erroneous assumptions, since some cartoons were held over from release even though they were finished ahead of time of other cartoons. Sometimes cartoons were delayed from their release schedule because of censorship problems from the Hays office, for example

Also, if Hardaway drew this important, influential model before 1939 shouldn't the rabbit in Elmer's Pet Rabbit also be named "Speedy", like it is written on Hardaway's drawing?[/QUOTE



You're partially correct; Hardaway was a gagman and a writer. He was also an artist, cartoonist, animator, co-director, director, head of the story dept and voice actor, I'm sure I'm leaving something out. His skills were not so limited as you suggest. Dalton was the senior of the two, so I don't agree with your assumption. I don't think Hanna Barbera is relevant. I think that the life experiences that shape the personalities of the persons in question are entirely relevant.

The drawing by Hardaway fits very neatly within the timeframe I'm suggesting, after "Elmer's candid camera" (directed by Chuck Jones) before A Wild Ware. (the Hi'Ya Chuck could just as easily refer to Jones as McKimson)It is common knowledge that the Rabbit was first named in "Elmer's Pet Rabbit", it is also common knowledge that the rabbit was named only on a title card and that it was released after "A Wild Hare". I agree with you that the production dates together with the release dates will provide the clearest picture of the history.
As described in the interview on Jerry Beck's site, Mel Blanc was certainly around very early in the process. The voices were recorded before the scenes were animated. The drawing depicting the personality was the basis for creating the voice. I'm also familiar with Blanc's autobiography. He does say that he suggested naming the character after its "creator" Hardaway. He does not say anything about basing it on A wild Hare, there is no basis for your supposition. If you do the reading you'll find that Blanc says the opposite of what you've suggested. I've posted two different interviews of Blanc and his obituary on my blog http://bugshardaway.blogspot.com/ wherein Blanc clearly says that Hardaway drew the picture, Hardaway used the kind of language that was adopted, and that this was done in 1938. As far as Blanc exaggerating; it seems that it was very common within the animation culture of this period for directors and animators and everyone involved, to exaggerate their own accomplishments and contributions. The difference, however, is that Blanc is giving credit to someone else for their contributions. I don't think there are many examples of this behavior within the culture at the time in question. I'm not quibbling about who made the name stick. The point I'm making is that Hardaway's drawing was the impetus for the character's personality.

[SEATTLECHEF]

http://bp2.blogger.com/_vGn2cXqGA1M/RliK7UWXn2I/AAAAAAAAAAM/H2LjfGGRLsg/s320/Bugs%

Seattlechef/Chris~

This really should not be a terribly controversial thread...

The drawing is a lovely piece...:) No two ways about it. That's what I thought last year when shown it by someone from the board. And I will partially agree with you that it may indeed be by Ben Hardaway and in fact it may even be likely that it is by him (and that is due to the funny "dizzy" 'D').

Now for a few facts to consider...

1). Tex Avery early-on HATED the name of "Bugs Bunny", he said aloud that HIS rabbit was not a "bunny" but an ORNERY rabbit. Tex even favored the punning name "Jack Rabbit" (to indicate his jackrabbit origins;)). In deference to Tex's wishes for HIS newest creation, the model sheet of "A Wild Hare" is CLEARLY lettered by Bob Givens with THIS name, "Tex's rabbit"... THAT totally distinguishes it from the insane creation of Hardaway and Dalton and the dopey-voiced annoying one of Chuck Jones in "Elmer's Candid Camera". The name "Bugs Bunny" being selected is due to the influence of Leon Schlesinger's secretary liking the alliterative and euphonious sound of it (she thought it was cute:p).

2). There was a Christmas "show" in Los Angeles in 1940, Leon Schlesinger provided the only cartoon characters that appeared in it (the proceeds to the "British War Relief of Southern California"). Notably the program for it features ALL of the Schlesinger characters with the most important one appearing last in the program. That last and most important character is clearly labelled as "Bugs Bunny", and the program bears a date of Nov. 9, 1940. Sooooo clearly by then the name of "Bugs Bunny" had been settled on once and for all (despite Tex Avery's wishes), and so that precludes him being named "Speedy" in Avery's second rabbit cartoon. As others have pointed out already, "speedy" was just a derisive term used by Cecil Turtle.

3). Charles "Chuck" McKimson was NOT in the army particularly early. In point of fact his enlistment shows EARLY June 1941... With that in mind the "Speedy" name that appears in your drawing on the rabbit's hat MAY likewise be a slightly "mocking" term that "Chuck" did not get into the army in any particularly speedy manner. They were then as now ALWAYS accepting enlistments and in truth he was most PROBABLY drafted (I'm not sure though).

4). I appreciate your posting Ben Hardaway's government application for work...:) There's a catch in it though, Ben either MISREMEMBERED when he left Schlesinger's (he has down 1939) OR he lied about the date. The real truth is that Hardaway was BUMPED back to storyman when Friz Freleng returned in 1939, Buuuut Ben didn't quit Leon's till in the early winter of 1940 (Jan.). Ben's CREDITED appearances as storyman at Schlesinger's go through mid-year 1940 and almost certainly extended for a little while after that uncredited. What this means is that he undoubtedly was present when Chuck Jones took HIS "bunny" and redesigned it and that Ben saw the mess that turned out. The personality that Chuck tried using was as big a catastrophe as that of Ben and Cal's bunny in "Hare-um Scare-um". Both are obnoxious in the extreme, and neither are cool, calm and collected and SHARP like the rabbit created by Tex.

5) The drawing is most definitely NOT a model sheet of any kind... It IS either a present or a variation on a "presentation drawing" like Charlie Thorson made while at Schlesinger' to go with his model-sheets. The catch is that IF it is somehow another Thorson presentation drawing then it dates to before WWII started, and that makes little or no sense. Plus that does away with the proposed Hardaway authorship of the piece.

Soooo we're back to the inscription to "Chuck" pointing to "Chuck" McKimson's mid-1941 induction into the army and that Hardaway made it as a present for him but endowed it with traits he himself liked.

A few facts for your consideration,

1) I agree that when Avery took over the character it had not been formally named. I agree that the Avery incarnation of the character is distinctly different than the previous co-directed offering, and from the dopey version offered by Chuck Jones. (The Hi'Ya Chuck could be directed toward Chuck Jones) There are several versions of the story of the naming of the character. The fact remains that this is the only character named after its creator.

2) Thanks for the information regarding the British war relief show. This shows that the writing was on the wall regarding the prospect of war long before the commencement of enscription. This was long after the moment in time I'm suggesting. Remember that the production dates and release dates don't neccesarily follow in sequence. The fact remains that in the Tortoise Beats Hare the only name the rabbit is called is "Speedy" (several times)the name on the cap of the drawing. You (and those that regurgitate your words) like to call "Speedy" a derisive term, yet the fact is that at the time that was produced the rabbit had no other name.

3) The date of enlistment is not neccesarily the same date that the descision to join was being made. Don't you find it more coincidental than chance would allow that the name on the cap is the same as the character was called during the brief period that it had no other name, and, as I suggest, that the drawing was made? The reference to Chuck could easily apply to Chuck Jones and/or Charles Thorson. Chuck released "Old Glory" 7/1/39 and Hardaway/Dalton released "Bars and Stripes Forever" 4/8/39, again the uniform makes sense. By the way, Martha Sigall told me that McKimson joined before being drafted.

4) I haven't found anything to contradict Hardaway's dates, even so, the cool, calm and collected character that you refer to is clearly offered in this drawing, and it reflects more closely the character of Hardaway than of anyone else involved.

5) This can be nothing other than a chracter model or presentation drawing. This was not a gift. This is not drawn after Hardaway leaves for Lantz. This is the drawing described by Blanc that suggested the personality that Blanc based the voice around. This is not by Thorson, Thorson's design was rejected as too cute and the character was remodeled. It is what it is.

[Sogturtle]

A few facts for your consideration,

1) I agree that when Avery took over the character it had not been formally named. I agree that the Avery incarnation of the character is distinctly different than the previous co-directed offering, and from the dopey version offered by Chuck Jones. (The Hi'Ya Chuck could be directed toward Chuck Jones) There are several versions of the story of the naming of the character. The fact remains that this is the only character named after its creator.

2) Thanks for the information regarding the British war relief show. This shows that the writing was on the wall regarding the prospect of war long before the commencement of enscription. This was long after the moment in time I'm suggesting. Remember that the production dates and release dates don't neccesarily follow in sequence. The fact remains that in the Tortoise Beats Hare the only name the rabbit is called is "Speedy" (several times)the name on the cap of the drawing. You (and those that regurgitate your words) like to call "Speedy" a derisive term, yet the fact is that at the time that was produced the rabbit had no other name.

3) The date of enlistment is not neccesarily the same date that the descision to join was being made. Don't you find it more coincidental than chance would allow that the name on the cap is the same as the character was called during the brief period that it had no other name, and, as I suggest, that the drawing was made? The reference to Chuck could easily apply to Chuck Jones and/or Charles Thorson. Chuck released "Old Glory" 7/1/39 and Hardaway/Dalton released "Bars and Stripes Forever" 4/8/39, again the uniform makes sense. By the way, Martha Sigall told me that McKimson joined before being drafted.

4) I haven't found anything to contradict Hardaway's dates, even so, the cool, calm and collected character that you refer to is clearly offered in this drawing, and it reflects more closely the character of Hardaway than of anyone else involved.

5) This can be nothing other than a chracter model or presentation drawing. This was not a gift. This is not drawn after Hardaway leaves for Lantz. This is the drawing described by Blanc that suggested the personality that Blanc based the voice around. This is not by Thorson, Thorson's design was rejected as too cute and the character was remodeled. It is what it is.

Chris/Seattlechef~

Once again I have to say that this is a very nice drawing, no two ways about it. And I tend to agree with you that it was very possibly drawn by Ben Hardaway (the only other prominent person at the studio about then with "B.H." initials was Bob Holdeman, and I think the backwards "D" eliminates him completely). And absolutely Bugs Bunny is the only character to ever be named for someone who'd been at the studio, that is EXCEPT for "Ralph Wolf":coyote: ... Chuck Jones used to joke that if things had worked out differently then the rabbit could've ended up being called "Chuck Bunny":D :eek: Something that is not nearly as euphonious.;)

I think I already mentioned (somewhere) up above that the "Hi'Ya Chuck" could be aimed at Chuck Jones (or as Martha Sigall suggested at Chuck McKimson). The thing is though that both of these are just educated guesses, unless of course Chuck McKimson's son comes forward as remembering his father having that drawing. And yes I realize that you are now rejecting the whole idea of the drawing having been a gift from Hardaway to Chuck McKimson.

Insofar as Chuck McKimson's "enlistment" in the army goes...
At this point I have to interject that there was no "draft" until Congress passed a bill authorizing it. That bill (The Selective Training And Service Act of 1940) was passed on Sept. 14, 1940... McKimson's enlistment papers DEFINITELY show the early June 1941 enlistment date. There is just NO arguing with that... Sooooo he couldn't have been drafted before Sept. '40, but DID "enlist" in June 1941.

As far as the name "Speedy" on your rabbit's cap... I've already given you my own theory to explain that (and how it theoretically would relate to Chuck McKimson). I know you've chosen to reject that, and that's fine. :) Similarly, I know that nobody is going to dissuade you from your belief that the term "Speedy" as used by Cecil Turtle in Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" is not the rabbit's name there. And that's fine too.:) However it really is just a contra-distinction between the slow-and-steady Cecil and the speedy Bugs Bunny.

Buuuuut the HARD, COLD fact remains that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to the rabbit having been PERMANENTLY and OFFICIALLY christened by the Schlesinger studio as "Bugs Bunny" in late Summer/Fall of 1940... This was immediately after Avery's "A Wild Hare" was a huge hit in the theaters... Among the evidence is:

A). The British War Relief program dated Nov. 1940 calling him Bugs Bunny

B). Chuck Jones' "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" copyrighted in late 1940 calls him Bugs Bunny!

C). Film Daily Yearbook 1941 ad p. 244 reads "Leon Schlesinger presents The New Cartoon Sensation 'Bugs Bunny'". Pictures with it ARE of the Avery rabbit. Though the book is dated 1941 it was published early in '41, detailing the films of '40 with appropriate ads.

Thus there is NOT a doubt in the world that the rabbit was already OFFICIALLY named Bugs Bunny MONTHS BEFORE Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" was released. But for the record, "Tortoise..." was copyrighted in March 1941.

On the subject of Hardaway's dates... Ben's joining Schlesinger's in the Fall of 1933 predicated that his contract(s) would run out in the Fall. Most likely as an important person there he had a seven year contract which would've expired in the Fall of 1940. His contract like those of everyone else's at Schlesinger would've included a non-compete clause and worse yet a clause about ANYTHING being created by him being the property of Schlesinger...:eek: Thus when he quit Leon's in Jan. 1940 he likely would've still been frightened that he wasn't totally clear of that provision until the Fall of 1940. Sooooo in order to totally protect his one definite creation (Woody Woodpecker) logically he would "fudge" on the date he left Schlesinger's. As pointed out up above Ben had CREDITED cartoons coming out at Warners clear into July 1940 ("Porky's Baseball Broadcast) and undoubtedly some uncredited after that. This MEANS that VERY CLEARLY he left the studio in early 1940 (just as Chuck Jones remembered).

Mel Blanc was an absolutely BRILLIANT voice actor no two ways about it...:cool: But in all truth he was pretty much out of the creative loop when it came to knowledge of the artistic and story workings of the Schlesinger/Warner studio. In point of fact his book contained a number of fallacies and engendered some upset when published. As such it is pretty darned dangerous to base a belief on Mel's explanations...

I know this won't make you happy, but I can honestly guarantee you 100% that your drawing is NOT a Schlesinger model sheet (I have some of them and they are ALL black and white, multipose drawings done on plain drawing paper and reproduced for the animators). Similarly the "H'ya Chuck" greeting knocks it out as being a presentation drawing. Think about it, Hardaway stripped of his director's chevrons would've had nobody to make a presentation drawing for, he was back to being a storyman... And the army uniform (and cigarette) almost certainly DOES point to it dating to AFTER the Sept. 14, 1940 draft law was passed. There'd be NO reason to draw a character in MODERN army uniform unless the draft was imminent or they were making an army-themed cartoon... Whether or not it was given to Chuck McKimson is an academic point even though a very good explanation. (Though checking with McKimson's son MIGHT prove interesting).

But just the same it is a really nice drawing!:)

[Fibber Fox]

I know you've chosen to reject that, and that's fine.

Welcome to the internet, Sog, where people shoot the arrow then draw the target.

Elsewhere, I've dealt with people who concoct their own reality and then bend things to fit it, while rejecting or ignoring anything that doesn't. Then they get petulant like a little child and fling insults at you if you laugh at their Great Brainstorm. It's alternately amusing and pathetic.

FF

[Javeman]

As a side note, what's the first cartoon in which Bugs is refered by name? (In the actual cartoon, not the title card)

[Duck Dodgers]

As a side note, what's the first cartoon in which Bugs is refered by name? (In the actual cartoon, not the title card)

I could be wrong, but I guess it's "Fresh Hare".

[SEATTLECHEF]

Welcome to the internet, Sog, where people shoot the arrow then draw the target.

Elsewhere, I've dealt with people who concoct their own reality and then bend things to fit it, while rejecting or ignoring anything that doesn't. Then they get petulant like a little child and fling insults at you if you laugh at their Great Brainstorm. It's alternately amusing and pathetic.

FF
Welcome to the forum, where people are encouraged to discuss and debate animation history.
Welcome to this thread, where the topic for discussion is clearly labled.
I've dealt with people, within this forum and within this very thread, whose posts are purely contemptuous and fail to offer any substance to the discourse. Please don't follow that path.
The precepts established by the moderators are clearly described, "We certainly don't want anyone to feel that they can't voice their opinions on this forum. We simply ask that everyone remain civil and show respect for other posters, even when other posters' opinions are ones you don't particularly agree with. We are all for civilized debates as long as they don't turn into flame wars, name calling or shouting matches. As Popeye once said, "What we need is brotherly love."
As a senior member I would think you must have some familiarity with the rules. If you have any familiarity, or information, or insight, regarding the subject being discussed then offer that. Your thinly veiled personal insult only serves to highlight the fact that you've offered nothing to the conversation. It's not amusing, only pathetic.

[SEATTLECHEF]

Chris/Seattlechef~

Once again I have to say that this is a very nice drawing, no two ways about it. And I tend to agree with you that it was very possibly drawn by Ben Hardaway (the only other prominent person at the studio about then with "B.H." initials was Bob Holdeman, and I think the backwards "D" eliminates him completely). And absolutely Bugs Bunny is the only character to ever be named for someone who'd been at the studio, that is EXCEPT for "Ralph Wolf":coyote: ... Chuck Jones used to joke that if things had worked out differently then the rabbit could've ended up being called "Chuck Bunny":D :eek: Something that is not nearly as euphonious.;)

I think I already mentioned (somewhere) up above that the "Hi'Ya Chuck" could be aimed at Chuck Jones (or as Martha Sigall suggested at Chuck McKimson). The thing is though that both of these are just educated guesses, unless of course Chuck McKimson's son comes forward as remembering his father having that drawing. And yes I realize that you are now rejecting the whole idea of the drawing having been a gift from Hardaway to Chuck McKimson.

Insofar as Chuck McKimson's "enlistment" in the army goes...
At this point I have to interject that there was no "draft" until Congress passed a bill authorizing it. That bill (The Selective Training And Service Act of 1940) was passed on Sept. 14, 1940... McKimson's enlistment papers DEFINITELY show the early June 1941 enlistment date. There is just NO arguing with that... Sooooo he couldn't have been drafted before Sept. '40, but DID "enlist" in June 1941.

As far as the name "Speedy" on your rabbit's cap... I've already given you my own theory to explain that (and how it theoretically would relate to Chuck McKimson). I know you've chosen to reject that, and that's fine. :) Similarly, I know that nobody is going to dissuade you from your belief that the term "Speedy" as used by Cecil Turtle in Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" is not the rabbit's name there. And that's fine too.:) However it really is just a contra-distinction between the slow-and-steady Cecil and the speedy Bugs Bunny.

Buuuuut the HARD, COLD fact remains that there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to the rabbit having been PERMANENTLY and OFFICIALLY christened by the Schlesinger studio as "Bugs Bunny" in late Summer/Fall of 1940... This was immediately after Avery's "A Wild Hare" was a huge hit in the theaters... Among the evidence is:

A). The British War Relief program dated Nov. 1940 calling him Bugs Bunny

B). Chuck Jones' "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" copyrighted in late 1940 calls him Bugs Bunny!

C). Film Daily Yearbook 1941 ad p. 244 reads "Leon Schlesinger presents The New Cartoon Sensation 'Bugs Bunny'". Pictures with it ARE of the Avery rabbit. Though the book is dated 1941 it was published early in '41, detailing the films of '40 with appropriate ads.

Thus there is NOT a doubt in the world that the rabbit was already OFFICIALLY named Bugs Bunny MONTHS BEFORE Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" was released. But for the record, "Tortoise..." was copyrighted in March 1941.

On the subject of Hardaway's dates... Ben's joining Schlesinger's in the Fall of 1933 predicated that his contract(s) would run out in the Fall. Most likely as an important person there he had a seven year contract which would've expired in the Fall of 1940. His contract like those of everyone else's at Schlesinger would've included a non-compete clause and worse yet a clause about ANYTHING being created by him being the property of Schlesinger...:eek: Thus when he quit Leon's in Jan. 1940 he likely would've still been frightened that he wasn't totally clear of that provision until the Fall of 1940. Sooooo in order to totally protect his one definite creation (Woody Woodpecker) logically he would "fudge" on the date he left Schlesinger's. As pointed out up above Ben had CREDITED cartoons coming out at Warners clear into July 1940 ("Porky's Baseball Broadcast) and undoubtedly some uncredited after that. This MEANS that VERY CLEARLY he left the studio in early 1940 (just as Chuck Jones remembered).

Mel Blanc was an absolutely BRILLIANT voice actor no two ways about it...:cool: But in all truth he was pretty much out of the creative loop when it came to knowledge of the artistic and story workings of the Schlesinger/Warner studio. In point of fact his book contained a number of fallacies and engendered some upset when published. As such it is pretty darned dangerous to base a belief on Mel's explanations...

I know this won't make you happy, but I can honestly guarantee you 100% that your drawing is NOT a Schlesinger model sheet (I have some of them and they are ALL black and white, multipose drawings done on plain drawing paper and reproduced for the animators). Similarly the "H'ya Chuck" greeting knocks it out as being a presentation drawing. Think about it, Hardaway stripped of his director's chevrons would've had nobody to make a presentation drawing for, he was back to being a storyman... And the army uniform (and cigarette) almost certainly DOES point to it dating to AFTER the Sept. 14, 1940 draft law was passed. There'd be NO reason to draw a character in MODERN army uniform unless the draft was imminent or they were making an army-themed cartoon... Whether or not it was given to Chuck McKimson is an academic point even though a very good explanation. (Though checking with McKimson's son MIGHT prove interesting).

But just the same it is a really nice drawing!:)

I understand when then rabbit got its name, agreed. As you've cautioned, don't get hung up on release dates. The name on the cap is the name that the character was called at the time it was drawn. Not all the cartoons were produced and released on the same schedule. More than one cartoon that had already been produced was then released after the rabbit gained popularity.
The cigarette definitely makes sense, have you seen the character model for the Hobo Gadget Band (Hardaway/Dalton)released in 39? They are all smoking. Several characteristics indicate the point in the evolution of the character that this was drawn, the color, number of toes, the belly, the length of the legs, the name on the cap, the construction of the tail, the length of the teeth, the ears...do I need to continue? As you described, this drawing is professionally inked on Bristol board, that's no Hallmark card.
You stated,
The drawing is a lovely piece...:) No two ways about it. That's what I thought last year when shown it by someone from the board. And I will partially agree with you that it may indeed be by Ben Hardaway and in fact it may even be likely that it is by him (and that is due to the funny "dizzy" 'D').

The backward D is purely referencing Hardaway's military career. The military uniform is about a quarter of an inch away, drawn by the same hand, at the same time, on the same drawing, in the same ink. Sooooo, there are no two ways about it, if the backward D fits then the uniform fits as well.

[SEATTLECHEF]

I read the essay by Cal Meacham again yesterday. One part struck me as relevant to the name on the cap and the Hi'Ya Chuck.

"Bugs zooms away, but Cecil calmly goes over to a telephone and calls his cousin Chester, asking him to "get the boys together and to give the rabbit the works”. Chester and the other turtles, who resemble Cecil perfectly, set themselves up along the route, showing up everywhere Bugs goes, despite the barricades and obstacles Bugs throws up to thwart the turtle. He puts on a final burst of speed, to find Cecil waiting at the finish line. “Hey, Speedy, what kept ya?” asks the victorious turtle. Bugs is flabbergasted (“What th-… How did ya…”), but finally pays up the $10 bet. (“And I hope ya choke!”) he says, with ill grace, making a face. As he walks off he muses “I wonder if I’ve been tricked?” He turns around to see ten identical turtles say “It’s a possibility!” (A catchphrase stolen from a popular radio show), and kiss him. "

Not only was the rabbit called Speedy at the time the drawing was made, but the rabbit did make use of the the same phrase as appears on the drawing('Ya).
Again, the name on the cap and the words of the character on the drawing make perfect sense with regard to the timing I'm suggesting.

[CueBallCat79]

It's so funny how you refuse to give up. It really is.

[SEATTLECHEF]

It's so funny how you refuse to give up. It really is.
It's funnier that a senior member has not the ability to offer any sort of argument or information regarding the topic. I thought that an animation history forum would be the place to discuss the history, it seems that it's more of a place for personal insults, and regurgitation of others comments. Your comment is tantamount to hecklling. Can't you do better than that?
I'm waiting for any coherent, informed, comment. What's to give up? Hardaway drew the picture, Hardaway's drawing suggested the personality, that's pretty simple.

[Matthew Hunter]

I think this thread has gone on long enough. Everybody's made their point, and unless somebody can build a time machine and go back and ask Ben Hardaway about this drawing, there's not going to be a definitive answer. I'm going to close this thread, because all anybody's doing now is chasing their tails and arguing impolitely. You're welcome to continue discussing this via PM. :bugs2: