Why were characters that were initially screwball, eventually redesigned?

[matiasdf]

I noticed that there are some examples of characters that once were screwball but they were later redesigned.

Daffy used to be completely, ABSOLUTELY AND PLAINLY NUTS. But it was so funny that i wonder why did they change it. And, in my opinion, the ´´early daffy´´ looked even cute. (I call ´´early daffy´´ the one from Porky´s Duck Hunt until ´´Daffy Duck In Hollywood´´)

Bugs´ Bunny (prototype) evolved into the great character we love and know as Bugs Bunny but i wonder how it would be if the directors kept the prototype as it was (Especially the one in Porky´s Hare Hunt or the one in Hare-Um Scare-Um).

Woody Woodpecker was very, very, but very crazy. In his first cartoons his appearance reflected it, but in Ace in the Hole he was slightly changed. And in Barber of Seville, he was still somewhat screwball, but he was redesigned and not so screwball as before. I don´t know why, but i think in all the characters i mentioned except maybe Bugs, the prototype was better.

[tristar]

Well, if the artist wants to refine his/her creation, I don't really see a problem with.

Personally, I don't think you could sum up Daffy's evolution as a character in just a few points. I'll take a mid-40s Clampett / Tashlin Daffy over the duck that appeared in Porky's Duck Hunt any day. Jones tried experimenting with Daffy's personality in the late-40s, and I've heard that Daffy referred to as "Jones' Trasitional Daffy" by someone on this forum a while back. In the early-50s, Jones turned Daffy into a crazy jerk, which was always fun to watch. What I do NOT like about about Daffy was what he had become by the late-50s, an arsehole psychopath. This Daffy was unfortunately the one that stuck around for another half-century.

I think a character needs time to evolve, I don't think just because the earlier versions of a character are off the beaten track that makes them better.

As for Woody, I like the late-40s Lundy design best, and I truly dislike the cute 50's design. Yeesh!

[matiasdf]

Originally Posted by tristar

Well, if the artist wants to refine his/her creation, I don't really see a problem with.

Personally, I don't think you could sum up Daffy's evolution as a character in just a few points. I'll take a mid-40s Clampett / Tashlin Daffy over the duck that appeared in Porky's Duck Hunt any day. Jones tried experimenting with Daffy's personality in the late-40s, and I've heard that Daffy referred to as "Jones' Trasitional Daffy" by someone on this forum a while back. In the early-50s, Jones turned Daffy into a crazy jerk, which was always fun to watch. What I do NOT like about about Daffy was what he had become by the late-50s, an arsehole psychopath. This Daffy was unfortunately the one that stuck around for another half-century.

I think a character needs time to evolve, I don't think just because the earlier versions of a character are off the beaten track that makes them better.

As for Woody, I like the late-40s Lundy design best, and I truly dislike the cute 50's design. Yeesh!

It´s not that i dislike the mid-40s Clampett/Tashlin´s Daffy, i like it much more than the ´´Jones´ Half-Screwball-Half Greedy Daffy´´ and of course i like it even more than ´´Arsehole Duck´´ which maybe i actually don´t like. It´s just that i prefer the early 1937-1938 Daffy over all others.

[AndrewGilmore]

Originally Posted by tristar

I've heard that Daffy referred to as "Jones' Trasitional Daffy" by someone on this forum a while back.

Ahem.

[J Lee]

Originally Posted by matiasdf

I noticed that there are some examples of characters that once were screwball but they were later redesigned.

Daffy used to be completely, ABSOLUTELY AND PLAINLY NUTS. But it was so funny that i wonder why did they change it. And, in my opinion, the ´´early daffy´´ looked even cute. (I call ´´early daffy´´ the one from Porky´s Duck Hunt until ´´Daffy Duck In Hollywood´´)

Bugs´ Bunny (prototype) evolved into the great character we love and know as Bugs Bunny but i wonder how it would be if the directors kept the prototype as it was (Especially the one in Porky´s Hare Hunt or the one in Hare-Um Scare-Um).

Woody Woodpecker was very, very, but very crazy. In his first cartoons his appearance reflected it, but in Ace in the Hole he was slightly changed. And in Barber of Seville, he was still somewhat screwball, but he was redesigned and not so screwball as before. I don´t know why, but i think in all the characters i mentioned except maybe Bugs, the prototype was better.

In the case of Daffy, Friz Freleng redesigned his body and personality for "You Ought to Be In Pictures" because Friz never was one much for craziness for it's own sake. He wanted a character who had a reason for doing something, and Daffy as he acted and looked under Clampett did not fill the bill (so to speak). And if you look at Daffy's physical evolution, he actually devolved a little from Jones' model for the early 1939 "Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur" to the cartoons Bob used him in later that year and in early 1940 (which may be both because Bob wanted an insane and insane-looking Daffy and the fact that his LT crew just didn't draw as well as the teams working on the color cartoons).

Woody's changes were pretty much due to the same thing with Shamus Culhane -- if you read his autobiography, you can see how much of a problem he had as animation director with the layouts and designs of the Fleischer Studio characters, because they went against the type of character designs that were being developed out of the Disney Studio. Woody fell into the same category, so Culhane pushed to cuten him up (though the redesigne Woody certainly was still capable of looking and acting like a lunatic when the situation called for it).

[matiasdf]

Originally Posted by J Lee

In the case of Daffy, Friz Freleng redesigned his body and personality for "You Ought to Be In Pictures" because Friz never was one much for craziness for it's own sake. He wanted a character who had a reason for doing something, and Daffy as he acted and looked under Clampett did not fill the bill (so to speak). And if you look at Daffy's physical evolution, he actually devolved a little from Jones' model for the early 1939 "Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur" to the cartoons Bob used him in later that year and in early 1940 (which may be both because Bob wanted an insane and insane-looking Daffy and the fact that his LT crew just didn't draw as well as the teams working on the color cartoons).

Woody's changes were pretty much due to the same thing with Shamus Culhane -- if you read his autobiography, you can see how much of a problem he had as animation director with the layouts and designs of the Fleischer Studio characters, because they went against the type of character designs that were being developed out of the Disney Studio. Woody fell into the same category, so Culhane pushed to cuten him up (though the redesigne Woody certainly was still capable of looking and acting like a lunatic when the situation called for it).

I just watched Scalp Trouble and you´re partially right. Daffy ´´reverted´´ from Daffy Duck And The Dinosaur to Scalp Trouble, but he was not as screwball as until 1938. I think Daffy phisically started to change around Wise Quacks, when Clampett made the area around his eyes gray (I´m guessing, that cartoon was black-and white) Then Daffy was made taller, and more bipedal, in You Ought To Be In Pictures. That design was kept through Daffy´s Southern Exposure. But between those cartoons Conrad The Sailor was made. And Daffy was slimmer and completely bipedal.

[Paul Penna]

Pure screwballness is pretty much one-note humor; it can get old real fast, plus it leaves no room for real characterization and the clever, memorable humor that arises from it. I have to think that there were plenty of people back then for whom, like me now, the bouncing-all-over-the-screen woo-wooing Daffy and the similar rabbit of "Porky's Hare Hunt" was maybe arresting and novel the first time, but how could you possibly sit still for that in cartoon after cartoon? The guys making these things undoubtedly saw that they were extremely short dead ends, and thank goodness they did. Certain aspects of character design necessarily followed the de-screwballing, like uncrossing Daffy's eyes. As far as Woody Woodpecker is concerned, my guess is that it eventually dawned on people that his original design was grotesque to the point of being actually repellant.

[matiasdf]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna

Pure screwballness is pretty much one-note humor; it can get old real fast, plus it leaves no room for real characterization and the clever, memorable humor that arises from it. I have to think that there were plenty of people back then for whom, like me now, the bouncing-all-over-the-screen woo-wooing Daffy and the similar rabbit of "Porky's Hare Hunt" was maybe arresting and novel the first time, but how could you possibly sit still for that in cartoon after cartoon? The guys making these things undoubtedly saw that they were extremely short dead ends, and thank goodness they did. Certain aspects of character design necessarily followed the de-screwballing, like uncrossing Daffy's eyes. As far as Woody Woodpecker is concerned, my guess is that it eventually dawned on people that his original design was grotesque to the point of being actually repellant.

I don´t think the original Woody was grotesque nor repellant. It just reflected the fact he was Crazy with capital C.

[Fibber Fox]

Originally Posted by matiasdf

I noticed that there are some examples of characters that once were screwball but they were later redesigned.

Probably for the same reason loud, screwball television variety shows burned out quickly. They wear out the audience and there are only so many things you can do with them.

I like the early Daffy but my favourite version came in the 40s when he could stop and spout smart-ass and con-job dialogue.

His character got ruined. He was turned bitter and into a patsy. Bitter is one step away from angry, which is what people got in the Speedy cartoons.

The early Woody is great but he looks like a 30s character. I can see why he was re-designed.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[FishBulb]

The early Woody cartoons are quite possibly the best and funniest, but he was a major eyesore. I'm glad they changed it.