Early Animation Nightmare Fuel

***WARNING: Some of the images I use may contain content that was a product of it's time. Just know that I do not condone the types of attitudes displayed in early cartoons as a way of living today, but I am looking at these images in the context of appreciating animation history, and in effect, history itself. I do not intend to demean anybody through the images I use for my blog.***

I want to reminisce on old cartoons.

No, I don't consider '90's cartoons old. Not 50's. I'm talking about pre- to early Mickey Mouse era work. What I want to talk about is old, OLD animation history that, while as an animator myself I appreciate for its historical impact, I will be the first to say... it's creepy. Like... really creepy.

From The Enchanted Drawing, 1895. Frankly, I don't understand

how people could sit in a dark room and watch this stuff without squirming

a little bit.

As an adult, it's much easier to say "Well, those are just cartoons, especially early cartoons... some of the drawings are going to be crude!" And I would agree, but I know as a child, there was a lot of imagery that just made me feel uncomfortable. To the point where I would go to sleep with the blanket over my head just thinking about it. I'm just thankful that I didn't see any of these twisted pieces of animation history as a kid.

While there's a lot of content that I could rifle through here, I am going to choose the creepiest of the creepy images from cartoons I have had the uh... pleasure... of seeing in all of the time I spend on YouTube.

Which is a lot of time.

Without any further ado, though... I want to introduce you to Tom and Jerry. 

You: "... I thought we were going to talk about Tom and Jerry."

In brief, a company called Van Beuren Studios came up with these brilliant, timeless characters in 1931, and their adventures charmed animators for a healthy 2 years, when they finally hung up their hats in July of 1933. According to this ever-reputable source. Interestingly enough, Joseph Barbera, of actual Tom and Jerry fame, started his significantly more successful career working at Van Beuren. Barbera no doubt donated blood and sweat to the decidedly non-cat and mouse duo until he left to work for MGM to pursue a series that was probably going to be slightly more successful than this Tom and Jerry. 

But I'm not here tonight to wax history. No, I'm here to talk about how creepy these cartoons are. For example, 1932's Pencil Mania, where the basic premise is that the little man uses what I can only assume is dark magic to conjure terrifying images out of thin air, is full of frightful things to make you wish you weren't going to sleep tonight. In one particular sequence, he conjures up a barbershop trio consisting of a tomato, a banana, and an expired potato. They begin to sing about... something... when all of a sudden they perform this inexplicable act of horror.

This might be a thing that's living in your closet right now. I would

go check if I were you.

In fairness, that's actually pretty tame compared to other pants-crappingly scary things they've had to face. We now come to an episode from 1931 called Wot A Night, where Tom and Jerry are taxi drivers who chase a couple of bearded men down for not paying their fare. And than they end up in an old dungeon. Mind you, I think that this is the obligatory "spooky" cartoon that most famous cartoon stars of the day had at least one run-in with, so scary ghosts and skeletons are par for the course. I assure you, though, that Tom and Jerry takes it to the next unfortunate level. Let me show you the first monster they run into upon entering this maze of imminent death. 

I don't care how brave you think you are... you'd just freeze in terror

if this thing came out of the dark and charged after you.

And speaking of coming out of the dark, after Tom and Jerry escape from a room full of skeletons obviously having a contest to see who can do the most uncomfortable dance to watch, they find themselves face-to-face with a gigantic shadow, when this happens.

"You will join us in our unholy choir."

They turn out to be skeletons (of course), but what makes these skeletons particularly terrifying is that, if you listen to what they're singing - outside of the entirely racially insensitive perspective - they are begging to be taken from the terror that is their Purgatory. Look at how their eyes are, for the most part, constantly facing up as they sing. Listen to the lyrics. Their inflection implies that they are ready to escape their present existence. If you'd like to think that I'm looking into this a tad too deeply, you might be correct... but consider, for one, that these cartoons were not made for a child audience. These are made to precede feature films, and as such, contain very adult messages. Does Purgatory seem a bit too outlandish now?

For another thing, consider this next and (thankfully) final sequence of the short. Tom and Jerry finally manage to find the exit to this portal to hell, where they confront the two men who they offered a taxi ride to. The two men spend 20 seconds pointing at the duo and than walk off screen, which is apparently the cartoon's code for "Lift up that shirt!" the little one does exactly that, when they come to the final revelation of this 7 minute nightmare...

Where they find out that they can never truly escape.

The point I want to make with this final sequence is that I think that, if my theory about the singing skeletons holds merit, that just by being in this castle, Tom and Jerry have died and they themselves have entered Purgatory. The cartoon ends on the note that they are running away, flailing their arms in a desperate attempt to escape, but the iris out indicates to me as a viewer that we never really find out if that is they manage to get out.

Also, judging by the happy cartoony flute music that accompanies,

trying to escape their eternal fate is also hilarious.

Once again, am I looking too far into this? I'll let you be the judge. 

Well... I spent a lot more time talking about Tom and Jerry than I was ever planning to. Oops. Well, this is an excuse to add yet another series to my blog. What are your thoughts overall, though? Is there an old cartoon that was your personal nightmare fuel? Let me know in the comments! 

And if you haven't yet, please Like the Matt's Musings Facebook page to keep tabs on when I update my blog, and we can definitely spend more time discussing more nightmare fuel together!

And now, the latest Animation Good, Bad, and Ugly

It's been awhile since I've complained about something, so I figured it's high time I filled my quota.

Me right now.

The Good

Disney UK has released the international trailer for Inside Out, and I must say it's been some time since a movie trailer has made me laugh. 

This post, however, with go without honesty if I didn't express my disappointment. I'm ashamed to say that I can no longer track the source... I think I read it on Cartoon Brew... but what I read online when the movie was originally announced suggested that this film would be a 2D / 3D hybrid. From all of the teasers that have been released, and this recent trailer, I am sad to see that there's nothing that supports this initial announcement.

This trailer almost entirely redeems itself, though... and I don't know if it's just a question of novelty, but as I've discussed in a previous post, my favorite stand up comedian, Lewis Black, stars as the role of Anger. And boy, he does not disappoint. I would be so bold as to say that he stole the show in this trailer. This is a movie I definitely plan to go see in theaters.

The Bad

Oh, Bento Box... why did you think this was a good idea?

Thanks to the magic of limited puppet animation, I can safely confirm

that Madea is actually more creepy than in live action form.

I have uh... issues with this movie. I've never been a gigantic fan of the Madea movies in the first place, mind you, but Bento Box did not facilitate her (his?) transition into animation well. And a lot of the problem for me is that I have no idea what they're going for visually. The characters look sort of like they're designed for a fully-animated Disney flick, mixed with a more stylized, exaggerated Bruce Smith (Dr. Facilier) flavor. The problem with that is that it doesn't work with Bento Box's limited animation approach... these characters are in desperate need of being more flexible, and for that reason it becomes painful to watch. Also, this is another one of those situations where there really isn't anything here that couldn't have been accomplished in live action, so animating this movie just seems like a waste of resources... and it's hard to tell if any of the crew was invested in doing this.

In short, Madea's Tough Love, in totality, just seems like a bad idea.

The Ugly

In the past year, the big dogs in the feature industry have been found out conducting the entirely unfair business practice of wage-fixing, where they chose to keep the wages of their animators and other staff as low as the company thinks they can get away with in order to maximize profits on their output. 

Well, Sony Pictures Imageworks decided to take it to the next level while reaching out to future animators at the CTN Expo. Look at the wonderful advice they're offering.

And by "wonderful," I mean the worst possible advice 

you can possibly offer to anyone ever. Image via Cartoon Brew.

Basically, what Sony is telling people is that seeking employment that would value their skill set is not only discouraged, but - get this - "unprofessional". And according to another article at Cartoon Brew, an animator on Who Framed Roger Rabbit was nearly given the axe for comparing his wage against that of his colleagues. This leads me to believe that this is also a terrible, terrible practice that the same studios in heat for wage fixing are conducting. 

The bright side to this is that the studios are actually being exposed for this crime, but with Pixar CEO Ed Catmull being entirely unapologetic, borderline proud of being unethical, it could be some time before we see any positive resolution.

If you have Facebook, please Like the Matt's Musings page to keep tabs on when new posts are made, and you have the chance on there also to instantly join in the conversation!

Mickey's Christmas Carol - The Definitive Film Version

Well, here it is, guys... Christmas is just a couple weeks away. My personal favorite holiday, because let's be honest with ourselves: what could possibly be better than gifts and all the food you'd expect from Thanksgiving part 2.

You're not leaving this table until you put on ALL 50 pounds of that winter

weight, Billy.

Also, there is no other holiday that boasts such a fantastic array of themed movies like Christmas. Think about it: what is one of your most fond Christmas memories as a kid? If your answer is not huddling in front of the TV with your family to watch How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the proper one, not the Jim Carrey version) or Santa Claus is Coming to Town, than you're either A) lying, or B) from a family that demonized technology. Or perhaps that classic film, Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer is more your flavor.

I'm just kidding. Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer should be 

absolutely nobody's flavor. Unless you enjoy bitter.

It's hard to argue, however, that the most retold Christmas story of all time is Charles Dicken's classic novel A Christmas Carol. Since the beginnings of motion picture, A Christmas Carol was told again and again to all different generations of movie-goers. Most are considered classics, though a few slipped through the cracks and became forgettable.

And creepy. Let this be a lesson: Jim Carrey and Christmas is 

a combination for disaster 100% of the time.

Though which one is the definitive retelling? There is a veritable slew of versions to pick from... and I'm ashamed to say that I have not sat down and watched all of them (yet). People will argue that the Muppets Christmas Carol is the best retelling. I'm sure there's even a school of thought supporting the newest version of the film as the candidate. 

For me, however, there's only one version that sticks out in my mind every time.

Mickey's Christmas Carol. 

Go ahead - scoff. 

Let me break this down for you. First, all of the characters work immaculately well within their respective roles. Donald Duck is a fantastic Fred, though this retelling doesn't give a whole lot of time to develop him... but I'm pretty sure nobody's watched any of the movies to follow the adventures of Fred. The secondary characters are also great, and work well within their roles... my particular favorites are Rat and Mole playing the charity workers.

But let's focus on the characters that matter to the longevity of the story. Obviously, Scrooge McDuck was going to play... well... Scrooge. Prior to this film, Scrooge has been featured in a multitude of Carl Barks' Donald Duck comics, and has been featured in one other film to my knowledge.

Our friends in the US government could use a sit-down to study this film.

Scrooge already possesses most of the character traits that the role requires... probably because he's already Scrooge's duck counterpart. He was predestined for this role.

Bob Cratchet is played here by the world's most beloved mouse. And why wouldn't he? Of course Mickey would be so loyal as to work an unreasonable number of hours at a fraction of the pay for his miserly overlord - and he would do it with a smile on his face. He sees the bright side of all things, even in the face of cruel and unusual poverty and a dying, crippled Tiny Tim, because that's just the kind of character that Mickey Mouse Bob Cratchet is. That puts the kind of low-life character Scrooge is in perspective, and that's what makes Mickey's role work so well in this retelling.

Now, let's talk about the spirits. Goofy, admittedly, is a bit of a strange Jacob Marley. And for years, I've always thought his voice and the character choice in general was off-putting, but just tonight as I was re-watching, I came to a revelation:

It's Goofy, but it's not really Goofy.

If you're familiar with the Disney shorts from the late 40's and into the 70's, you're probably familiar with this iteration of Goofy. This is actually Mr. George Geef, the everyman family guy who doesn't really get himself into too much cartoony trouble, but would prefer to live the straight, normal life of waking up on a Sunday morning, laying in his hammock and reading the paper until 2 PM. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I have come to believe that Jacob Marley was played by Goofy, but not the Goofy we automatically picture inside our heads. I believe that the writers entirely intended Marley to be George Geef, the misguided but hard working foreteller of Scrooge's fate. 

Finally, we come to the actual spirits themselves. Jiminy might have been able to play any of the three spirits, as he served as Pinocchio's adviser down temptation and choosing between right and wrong. He serves best, though, just as Disney cast him. It's already too late for Scrooge to change his past, and the spirit of conscience-ness is here to remind him that he messed up when he foreclosed the honeymoon cabin. The ghost of Christmas present isn't my most favorite, played by Willie the Giant from Fun and Fancy Free. He was animated really well, though, and he serves as the bridge to a pretty important moment in the movie, which is when Scrooge is introduced to Tiny Tim and realized that maybe he should consider giving Cratchet the opportunity to not have to live like a hobo, as Scrooge watches him literally splitting peas for his entire family.

But it's the ghost of Christmas future that makes this movie memorable. Just in case any of you out there forgot that Pegleg Pete was capable of being just as menacing at literally any of the Disney movie villains, I suggest going back and watching him perform in Mickey's Christmas Carol. The choice to shroud him in darkness and silence is a fantastic catalyst for the vision of the solemn moment where we discover that Tiny Tim loses his battle with... whatever disease he was afflicted with, and lowly Cratchet has to leave behind the only material memory that he possesses. And than the spirit sadistically reminds Scrooge that he stopped being important to anybody by throwing him into the fiery nightmare pit that is Scrooge's grave.

That's after we spend an intimate minute and a half listening to Peter

Lorre weasel talk about how unloved Scrooge was.

The cast of characters fit in perfectly well with what most people consider to be the accepted story of A Christmas Carol, which is where I feel that adaptations like the Muppet Christmas Carol fall short. Also, I feel that another distinction between Mickey and Kermit's versions is that for all of the silliness that could possibly ensue with a Mickey Mouse retelling of the story, there's something about this version that's dignifying. It takes itself at least somewhat seriously... particularly, when Scrooge is faced with the life he's helped Cratchet fall into, and than when we meet the ghost of Christmas future. I personally did not feel that the Muppets version captured any of the more serious moments as powerfully, and I think that's a lot of what make it fall flat to me.

If you disagree and want to loudly tell me exactly how wrong I am about

everything I've said here, please feel free to comment :) I will accept all comments!

In summary, though, just everything works about Mickey's Christmas Carol, and it has yet to be topped by any other version of the story... at least in my eyes. I, personally, have made it a part of my Christmas tradition every year, and if you haven't seen it yet, I highly encourage you to pick up a copy, or find other ways to view it if you're poor. 

I still have yet to watch the Chuck Jones / Richard Williams version of the story, though... I should do that this year. Until that point, though, Mickey's Christmas Carol still reigns supreme.

With screen grabs I've seen around the net like this one, I can barely

contain my excitement. Or my laughter. Let's be honest - look how ridiculous

this is.

And God bless us, every one.

Happy holidays! :>

Have you Liked the Matt's Musings Facebook page yet? No? Well, you better get on that, friend. I don't update often, but when I do, you can be the first to know by Liking Matt's Musings! Also, be sure to share this with everyone you know... after all, I'm all about spreading Christmas cheer!

I'm back!

Hey guys, remember me? :D

Beware, I live. Run, run, run coward.

Well the fall quarter is over, and I have not touched this thing like I told you guys I would because school :I but with a whole winter break ahead of me, I have a lot on my to-do list and this here blog is one of the many things I have decided I need to get back on. So there.

You'll be glad to know that I have once again made it through my classes with fairly good grades overall, and that I will be moving on to next quarter with no issue :P I'll actually be starting my senior film next quarter, so that's pretty daunting. Otherwise, nothing too exciting going on. I'm going to spend most of my days when I'm not too busy otherwise staying home... playing video games and... I don't know...

Maybe. I'll pencil this one in somewhere, I have a tight agenda.

So, I think I'll have more time to pay attention to what's going on in the animation world and complain about what I don't like here, so look forward to that. Also, I managed to get my mitts on a copy of Frozen, albeit unintentionally, but nonetheless... so I'm going to do that comparison to The Lion King that I've been talking about. Look forward to that! :D Last but not least, I am gladly awaiting the release date for Kingdom Hearts 2.5, where I will finally for the first time ever get to play Birth By Sleep, so that's pretty exciting stuff, and I'll let you know what I think about it.

Thanks, all one of you who have probably read this! :D I'll try to post more often haha. Remember, tell your friends, and I hope you'll decide to hop onto the Matt's Musings Facebook page and show the Like button some love! 

Dim the lights, baby.

Last but not least, don't forget to tell your friends!!!

This (past 2) Week's Animation Good, Bad, and Ugly

Hello again all you happy people!

This is pretty much how I feel at all times

these days.

So the past two weeks have come and passed, and for the most part, I haven't had too much material to do a good, bad and ugly segment... because, surprisingly, most of the news in the animation sites I peruse is actually pretty exciting. The blue moon must be out on this sunny Thursday.

But all good things are meant to crash and burn, and the news that I've picked up over the past couple of days proves that the industry is no exception to this. With that being said, let's get right down to the nitty gritty!

The Good

So Pixar, amirite?

That's it, guys, that's the end of this part, on to the Bad now.

Pixar, who for the most part has churned out back-to-back hits (and spilled spaghetti on its dress shirt when they released Cars 2... oops) has just released the teaser trailer for a film that I am gleefully anticipating. Next summer, the Pete Doctor-directed film Inside Out is due to be released, and well... just watch the teaser.

News via Cartoon Brew

If you managed to push past the unnecessarily long montage of its previous films (which, funny enough, did not feature Cars 2), than good job. I want to discuss the things that I saw after the montage, and more importantly, the things that I've gathered thus far regarding the film. For one, it's supposed to be a fusion of 2D and 3D which... my god. Since Day and Night debuted, I expect big, great things. For another, Lewis Black as the voice of Anger. Ohhhh, Pixar, you must be probing my brain for the things that I want out of a great movie. Suffice to say, I'm excited about this movie. You did it again, Pixar. Also, don't just gloss over where it says "Lewis Black" like I didn't link you to a very informative video - click that thing, and educate yourself.

The Bad

... Angry Birds? reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeAalleeee?

Rio 3...? Via Us Magazine

If you've been living under a rock since 2010, Angry Birds is... was... the super-popular phone game promoting the sale of bacon, because pigs are evil. I say "was" because, if you have been looking over at the phone  of the person sitting next to you on the city bus lately, odds are they haven't been playing Angry Birds much, anymore. Because it lost its popularity around the time that the majority of the people reached that level that was specifically designed to piss you off. I guess.

Unless you're Sony. oh... Sony, no... I was just singing your praises 2 weeks ago. Why'd you have to go and do this? Well anyways, Facebook made this shit trend because apparently people on the internet lost their minds over the cast of the movie. Which just goes to show: if you're a movie company, as long as you're pretty sure that thing that was popular 4 years ago will make lots of money and attention on the internet, than to hell with any original ideas. Good job, Sony.

The really, really, REALLY Ugly

By now, I'm sure you've heard of the animated masterpiece released in 2012. You know, the CG work of cinematic genius ten years in the making, starring the world's most popular and familiar names. You know what I'm talking about? Unfortunately for you, the answer is probably "yes."

And the most memorable cast of characters since Snow White and the

Seven Dwarfs.

That's right, Foodfight. And yes, there is a deeper story behind what happened to make this film the gem that it became today, but the fact is that someone in Hollywood still believed in this stinker. Which is a shame, because someone's name is attached to this, for ever. 

:(

The person I'm talking about particularly, and the point I'm trying to get to, is that there's a guy named Larry Kasanoff, he runs a studio named Threshold Entertainment and he really should have shut down this studio and retired, because he seems to have a difficult time differentiating garbage with polish. On that note... Tetris: The Movie!

This is the part where I'm supposed to say, "Just kidding, guys!" but this is a thing that's being made. And guess what, Sci Fi buffs, this one is for you! The cinematic wizard behind the Poop Rat is quoted as saying, "What everyone doesn't know yet is this epic sci-fi story that we're going to tell. That's what's really exciting."

My heart is just racing with anticipation, Larry.

Guys, that's it. That's all that's needed to be said.

Don't forget to follow the Matt's Musings Facebook page so you can keep up to date on the latest of my musings, along with the regular Animation Good, Bad, and Ugly weekly series. And guys, watch Lewis Black. You won't regret it.

A quick update from "The Dead"

Hey guys!

I'm not dead D: but things have been insane for me, guys. So... I've started my senior year at SCAD this past week, and uh... oh my god.

"Have mercy on me! I've only been back for a week!"

See, I'm in a particularly crazy situation with my scheduling that pretty much means that I'm doing studio classes for... the rest of the year. Three at a time. Which pretty much means that I'm going to kiss sleep good bye until I graduate. Also, I still have to work.

:(

But I'm not here to make excuses for my inactivity, damn it, I'm here to talk about something with you! So, with that, I want to quickly share with you guys what I consider the good, the bad, and the ugly in animation this week.

The Good:

Skip to 1:57 for the juicy stuff. Article via Cartoon Brew

I don't usually pay too much mind to CG, but Genndy Tartakovsky does it so gooooooooood (go see Hotel Transylvania). And if they stick to this feel for the actual feature, than I am 1000% on board. My favorite part about this test is that Genndy directed the "modernizing" in such a way that is so faithful to the Fleischer Popeye shorts, like... I was speechless. Note to everybody who wants to modernize another classic property: "modernizing" does not mean stuff an hour and a half with modern pop culture references and... dubstep, I guess? I don't know. Either way, take notes from this, all. I'm excited to see where this goes. Also, Popeye translates surprisingly well in CG. Creepily well...

The Bad

Noooooooooooooooooo! Why!? Article via Cartoon Brew

Aaaand we've taken a step back, CG. This is exactly why I don't pay attention to it - this kind of bull(   )t happens when I look. For those of you guys that don't know, Mexican animation house Anima Estudios released what I like to call "a step forward" in 2011: a 2D animated Top Cat movie called... Top Cat. The movie. ...

It wasn't the most beautiful animation ever made by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, I concede (from experience) that there's not a whole heck of a lot that can be done with Flash puppet-style animation, but just look at this.

Oye. Also, some of the character design choices made in this movie

just make me uncomfortable.

Despite that, though, any studio that's willing to re-venture into 2D is okay by my book. And than, they just... gave up? ... why? Anima Estudios, you've disappointed me. I'm going to give this one, and the studio, a pass.

The Ugly

Hands down, this:

Not real. Yet. Unfortunately.

I dabble into Disney World news every now and again, mostly in my inability to afford to be able to go down there myself so I feel the need to make up for that by gawking on the internet. In doing my dreaming, the internet (in typical fashion) turned my dreams into a nightmare when it started talk about Disney looking to shove Frozen in my face every turn I take in the parks (I despise Frozen, but more about that later). A summer event? Okay, that's cool. I can't go in the summer anyway.

Oh, what's that? You want to shut down a 30 year old ride that celebrates the mythos and heritage of a legendary culture in the name of permanently shoving Frozen in my face some more? ... okay. sure. I see. Well, at least it's just a crappy internet rumor.

What's that, Disney? It's not?

You know. But no big deal, you know. Just sayin'.

Aside from spitting on anything that had to do with Walt Disney's vision for Epcot, and the more personal issue that I have with Disney's need to shove Anna, Elsa and Olaf in my face constantly, I believe that this is just bad foresight strategically in the parks. Think about it - how long have even the biggest fads on the internet stayed popular? And I don't mean in the way that they're still being used today... I mean as in, how long has a fad been actually, legitimately popular? To say two years is a stretch, for the most part. 

A note to Disney - I don't know if you'll believe me or not... but Frozen is still an internet fad. And not much else. And, thank goodness, it's starting to go on the decline. So, before you decide that the appropriate reaction to an internet fad is to stomp all over Walt Disney's ideals for his very last dream - and by extension, his grave - to try to make a few more bucks off of Frozen, consider stepping back and thinking about it. Just, do that much.

This doesn't have to be a lesson you need to learn the hard way.

Don't be like these guys.

Today in Retail

Hello. :D

So uh... I work retail. You know, the classier alternative to the ever-dreaded standard college job. You know the one I'm talking about.

Pictured: the collective smile of "if this picture leaks on the internet

and my friends and family see this, I will find out where you live and 

kill you in your sleep." Also, Ronald McDonald.

I have the particular pleasure of working in an office supply store, and not a particularly cheap one, either. Given my store's proximity to one of the many low-income districts around town, the variety of, er... clientele... can get very interesting. Some times obnoxious, some times insightful, some times delightful, but 100% of the time, no one day is the same as the next.

We are at the tail end of our back to school season, which is a relief, because things finally calm the hell down a little bit after the notebook and backpack aisles stop looking like the Tasmanian Devil was going back and forth around them all day. Here in Savannah, though, we as an office supply store have to face one final storm before the back to school season comes to a close.

That's right, boys and girls

We have to face the swarm. Of SCAD bees.

Buzz buzz. We're here for your furniture.

Being a SCAD-ling myself, I fancy myself to be in a unique position where I can actually try to make a couple of new friends, perhaps people who I can talk to during our college duration about how the SCAD bus is pretty much the worst thing ever and share my work with, forming what could be lifelong friendships and professional contacts with like-minded artists. It never works, but I digress.

Yeeeeah. I'm that kid in most social settings.

But my inability to make friends is not what I'm discussing today. I want to discuss the one sure thing that comes with every SCAD student's package, the one unseen, thankless element that all students come to Savannah and quickly forget about: the SCAD Moms and Dads. They, to most students, are the providers of all their financial needs - everything from their tuition to the socks they're going to not put on 3 weeks into the quarter because they're already about to miss the bus for their 8 AM class. Well, as the new year starts and new students the world around flock down to Savannah to begin school, the parents more often than not are right behind them, and with good sense, decide that maybe four years of sitting on a miserable wooden stool might not be the most comfortable living situation.

So it's off to the store we go!

Now, here comes a most valuable lesson I think most people can, and probably should have already learned, especially when it comes to going to the store. Occasionally, we as the store I work at will cycle different sales throughout the store to try to get rid of stock, or to create the illusion that the customer is actually saving money so they can justify coming back and paying full price for the rest of our crap later on.

"5% off!? Willikers, what a bargain! I've bested

this corporate capitalist money trap yet!"

It just so happened that we have been running a particularly good special on our office chairs, as luck would have it... for most people. And herein lies the problem: most customers I've ever interacted with expect the product to always be there, when they want it. Being an office supply store, this is perfectly understandable for some items, such as pencils and notebooks. And most times we are accommodating with the demand for stock of those. Chairs are not so easily accessible, especially chairs with special discounts on them. 

It's one hour before we close, and the demand for chairs has been nonstop for that entire afternoon. Naturally, stock is running low, and to all of the customers' amazement, still nobody has come to repair the magical everlasting vending machine of items in the ever-hallowed "back" of the store. 

A pesky annoyance for us all.

Keeping cool in the face of a mob of angry customers who just drove all the way from California to see that their kid's every living need is taken care of is a difficult thing to do, but in the world of office supply retail, you learn to cope. Still, it leaves me to puzzle this one vexing question: has nobody told these SCAD moms and dads that - to coin a phrase - "The Early Bird Gets the Worm?" Now, I understand that this is one of those ironic phrases, but surely it has some meaning outside of the implications of the natural food chain. Perhaps, for example, that you can't expect a chair that was $30 since the time the store opened at 8 in the morning to still be available to you 30 minutes before the store closes? Also, I promise you as a store associate that I'm not taking a stab at you when I say "We are not allowed to sell the display." Please don't look at me like I just kicked your puppy Olympic soccer-style.

Somehow there's a shortage of photos depicting people

kicking puppies on the Internet. Or perhaps, like most people,

I don't want to actually see that - much less caption it here.

What's wrong with the world, anyway?

I promise, I just work at the store, and I'm going to the same school your kid is on Monday. I'm not trying to sleight you in any way.

((P.S. This is a post I began working on last night upon coming home from work, but I got tired and didn't finish until I woke up this morning. Forgive.))

Why Bonkers is Entirely Underrated

Artwork by me. :>

So I want to finally make good on one of the promises I made when I had started this here blog and discuss something that I, along with most of the rest of the world, cherish very much, both as a major part of our childhoods and a significant game-changer in the film/theme park industries and the way we look at different cultures. I, of course, am referring to the one and only -

Of course.

Ha. I'm just kidding. (did i scare you?)

I am talking about the Walt Disney company... or for the sake of keeping things simple, Disney.

When you wish upon a star, we raise ticket prices to our parks again. Good luck.

The Disney brand has been the source of many, many great things since its inception in the mid-1920's. And if you are a child of the 90's, like me, you'll remember that Disney has treated you especially well with its offerings to us. We, their audience, were the backbone on which Disney found success, particularly in film (the Disney Renaissance) and, the focus of today's conversation, television. Yes, friends, we were treated to none other than the Disney Afternoon.

Witness it's majesty.

Some of what most consider Disney's greatest works of television animation were spawned from this series. We had the privilege of growing up watching shows such as Ducktales, Goof Troop, Darkwing Duck, and The Adventures of the Gummi Bears. And than later they gave us Schnookums and Meat and the Mighty Ducks cartoon... but there's a reason why nobody remembers those shows.

It's because nobody wants to remember these shows.

But there's one show that was a particular gem in my childhood... this is probably one of my absolute favorite cartoons of the Disney Afternoon line-up, matching neck-and-neck with Darkwing Duck and the classic Disney cartoons. In case you didn't quite catch the title of this blog, I am referring to the unfortunately short-lived Bonkers.

No no no waaaaaait, don't click out of this, just hear me out, guys.

A lot of people are quick to immediately spit on this cartoon. Why? Well... perhaps a little background information will help shed a little light on the subject. The main reason people, even back in the day, gaffed at Bonkers was because "omg it's just a knockoff of Roger Rabbit." Ladies and gentlemen, that is actually very much on purpose. Touchstone Pictures, and by ownership, Disney, was riding the success that Roger had brought to them since its 1987 release well into the 90's. Disney was also at the forefront of syndicated animated programming with their wildly successful Ducktales and Gummi Bears (as I had mentioned before). Can you guess where this is going?

"Let's make a deal."

Now, Disney and Steven Spielberg (producer of the Roger Rabbit movie) were seeing eye-to-eye on home video releases, merchandising and theme park tie-ins with the film. So, it would only makes sense that the next step would be to add the titular character to the already wildly-successful Disney Afternoon line-up... right? Well, the mouse-house was all on board, but somewhere down the line, Spielberg got cold feet and pulled the licensing right out from under Disney's golden yellow shoes. 

This might be speculation on my part, but there was probably at least some pre-production going on for the Roger Rabbit TV series... at least, enough that Disney was not willing to just trash it. So, some clever (or not-so-clever, depending on who you ask) writing later, and we have... well, Bonkers.

Okay, we now understand that Bonkers is Roger Rabbit in a bobcat suit on purpose... so what else was wrong?

Well, I'll be the first to say that Bonkers in and of itself was not a series without fault. And the faults are painful to watch, more often than not. First, the human characters. Oye. Most people who are still loyal to Bonkers will tell you that there were two  "sagas" of Bonkers: the Lucky saga, and the Miranda saga, named respectively after both of the human cops that Bonkers was partnered with. As a child, Lucky was painful to watch. As an adult, Lucky is still painful to watch. Why? Because he's an exact duplicate of Eddie Valiant. Who needs to cut back on the donuts for a little while.

I really did try to avoid making the fat joke, but this is literally

the only distinguishing point Lucky has going for him.

  

But, while he's a duplicate, he's kind of... a lot worse? Like, you know when you go to make a copy of something and the copier is almost out of toner and you watch in horror as your copy comes out faded and illegible? Well, this is Lucky. Remember in Roger when Eddie spells out his motivation for hating toons (I apologize, there just isn't a good video with that scene online anymore)? Well, when the writers were building Lucky, they decided to take all of that motivation away. The best that we know from watching the show is that Lucky is a cop that hates toons because he hates toons. And by a wacky, entirely unpredictable (sarcasm underplayed) turn of events, he gets the only thing he's ever wanted in life - a promotion - but having to be partnered with a toon cop in return. That's all that Lucky is. Fascinating. Miranda, the Chief, and the "Sarge" that Bonkers works with are actually more tolerable as human characters, but not by way too much (Actually, "Sarge" is pretty hilarious to watch). 

What's worse: the toon side characters are not that much more entertaining. As an example, let's talk about Fallapart Rabbit, the main side character during the Lucky saga. Fallapart exists pretty much for the same reason that Barney Rubble exists in The Flintstones: to serve as a foil for Bonker's shenanigans. But worse, because Barney was a strong character by himself. This serves to prove my point about most of the toon characters in the Bonkers series: they exist strictly for Bonkers to bounce off of, and than to go away once they're done being useful. That's not good writing for a show. Any show, live action or animated. And it's certainly not good Disney writing, even by it's lowest television standards.

Long story short, I can understand why people are quick to look down upon Bonkers. So, in the end, Bonkers is a complete disaster that is not even worth defending. Oh well. Right?

What is the first thing I can say is working so well with this show? Well, Bonkers himself, for starters. For starters, anybody who is getting ready to shoot out, "Bonkers is just Roger Rabbit in a bobcat suit!" like I totally did early just to prove a point, needs to re-watch the show and really study the title character. He's wacky and cartoonish to the nth degree just like Roger, but as a character, he's completely different. They handle situations completely different, for starters. As much as we love Roger, it's hard to argue that when he gets in a fix, he essentially has to wait for Eddie to pull him out of it. That is the nature of Roger's character: he hilariously stumbles his way into a situation, panics and has to wait for the cavalry to arrive. Don't believe me? Watch all three of the shorts, right now. In fact, I'll give you links: Tummy Trouble, Trail Mix-Up, Roller Coaster Rabbit. What do all three of the shorts have in common? I'll tell you: none of them end with any meaningful resolution. They just stop filming for Trail Mix-Up and Roller Coaster Rabbit, and while they manage to "cure" Baby Herman in Tummy Trouble, Roger finds his way into another experience, panics, and "That's All, Folks!" As much as Roger tries, he never triumphs as the hero, but places himself as the hapless protagonist.

That's not the case with Bonkers. More often than not, Bonkers is the one that ends up saving the day in the show, especially during the Lucky saga... mostly because Lucky is pretty much the worst cop in existence, real or fiction. Honestly, a lot of the situations Lucky and Bonkers find themselves in is because Lucky doesn't take Bonkers seriously when she shit hits the fan, because of his inexplicable disdain for toons. So it's up to Bonkers to save the day. Perhaps one of the most telling examples is the episode titled "You Ought to be in Toons." (The link is only for the third part of the episode, but this has everything I need to illustrate my point) Aside from the actually really funny Michael Eisner jokes, this episode is telling of Lucky's unwillingness to listen to Bonkers, when Bonkers is telling him to pull his shit together because he's wrong. The basic premise is that Mickey Mouse is kidnapped on the day he's supposed to sign a big contract with another cartoon studio, Bonkers finds him in a dog kennel sitting in the basement of his mansion, and has to stop a gross, rat-looking dude from impersonating Mickey. This episode, for some reason, lives in an alternate dimension where everybody but Bonkers is incapable of distinguishing Mickey Mouse's persona from a painfully bad imposter. Anyway, it takes until the last 5 minutes of the episode for Bonkers to get the obvious point across that the Mickey Lucky thinks he found is a sham, and Bonkers finds the solution that ultimately saves the day.

In conclusion, Bonkers as a show had and continues to have a lot of potential, perhaps just because Bonkers as a character stands out as a strong, independent, and inspired character. All similarities to Roger Rabbit as a concept are 100% intentional - adversely, any ties between the two title characters are, for the most part, unfounded. I truly believe that Bonkers can be made better: he needs to be given a much better supporting cast, for starters, and if we much give him an Eddie Valient-esque human sidekick, he needs to be just as strong of a character as Bonkers is, not a cheap Dollar Tree knockoff character.

For as anyone who's ever bought a bargain bin tablet should know,

cheaper does not necessarily mean better.

Also, if a Bonkers remake were to ever happen, for one I'd kill to be a part of that, and for another, Disney has a fantastic array of amazing characters they can easily use as story points. Take advantage, guys.

That's it for this post, guys! If you haven't already, please Like the Matt's Musings Facebook page. I'll be setting up a Twitter and perhaps a Tumblr soon. Thanks to all of you awesome people who have already Liked my page! :D