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
