When doing this week’s reading I came across a bunch of places where the creators of cartoons re-used similar ideas and even the same exact gags to expand the amount of cartoons they could squeeze out of an idea. Initially I was skeptical, but re-using some gags and stories was a way for these creators to get the most out of their ideas and expand on really good ones when they worked well. Even if sometimes they were kind of stealing… So, here are three pairs I’ll be comparing:
Pair one:
Woody Woodpecker in “The Barber of Seville”
Bugs Bunny in “Rabbit of Seville”
I have to admit, when I first compared these two, I only saw two minute cuts of the actual barber parts that line up quite closely. After re-watching both whole shorts, I realize that the Woody Woodpecker version is not as good, but also has a whole lot of filler in the first half. The entire sequence with the Indian deserved to be cut, for example. But overall, they have a funny idea, and some really good gags in the second half. The Warner short, with Elmer and Bugs however, is clearly the better piece. Its as if they decided to steal the idea but then improved it so much that it feels like the more proper version. Still, there are some blatantly stolen gags here, like sharpening the razor on the tie, or pumping the chairs up to the ceiling, but overall the Warner version works much better.
Pair Two:
Elmer Fudd in “Elmer’s Candid Camera”
Elmer Fudd in “A Wild Hare”
These two, as noted in this week’s chapter, have the same general plot (except one is about hunting and the other about photography), but they also share many of the same gags. At one point in both, we have the similar gag of bugs coming from behind and asking Elmer what he’s doing, as well as the fake death scene at the end of both cartoons. Many of the smaller gags and one-liners are similar, too. What surprises me about this pair is that they were made only a year apart and so blatantly follow the same formula. On the other hand, the characters are much further along both in design and personality, so it makes sense to re-make the story with the “proper” characters.
Pair Three:
“Duck Amuck”
“Rabbit Rampage”
These two, also mentioned in this week’s reading, follow the same general idea but have unique gags. With this pair, the Bugs cartoon is more of a “sequel” of sorts rather than a remake. It doesn’t feel like an outright rip-off like the first pair, or a remake like the second one. The gags are fun and interesting, and aside from a few general premises, they’re pretty different.
Overall, these three remakes really add to the cartoon cannon. When reading about these cartoons in the chapter, I was thinking to myself “how could they get away with this!?!” but when thinking about historical perspective, these shorts were only shown in theaters, for a few weeks at a time. A year or two later, people likely wouldn’t remember one gag, or perhaps even a story. And even if people had some deja-vu, it would probly reinforce the characters personalities in their minds. That’s not like today when everything is played 100 times a year on cable cartoon channels, or on youtube. Overall, I think the viewing audience was enriched seeing some of these great story ideas more than once. Especially the last pair that breaks the 4th wall…
My comments for this week are here and here.
March 29, 2010 at 5:15 am |
This reminds me of my very first post, in which I highlighted the fact that Disney had re-used the same animation scenes over and over again. I, too, thought “how could they get away with this?” and definitely lost some interest in them. However, it can also be noted that perhaps they were just recycling the scenes for cost saving measures. While not every scene is identical in these clips, the same storyline can be just as effective, especially when you don’t need to waste time trying to think of ideas.
April 12, 2010 at 3:21 am |
[...] commented on James Davis‘ blog, and Megan Pettry’s blog. Comments [...]