So, if you aren't an adult-child who spends all of their time perusing cartoons and cartoon-related news, this may blind side you a bit. Especially if you were lucky enough to be a kid in the 90s.
Now, of course, this is a rumor at the moment, but it seems that the success of Animaniacs on Netflix has caught the attention of Warner Bros. Animation, who's portfolio of rebooting their classic cartoons has been... Touch and go. Largely, their direct to video Tom and Jerry movies aren't all that abysmal, and the Looney Tunes Show from 2012 was surprisingly, refreshingly good. But than we have to deal with the fact that they're making Fred Flintstone and George Jetson team up with the WWE to save the respective days, which is dubious enough as it is. And than there's...
Not to be discussed in civilized
conversation.
Well, thankfully, the success of Animaniacs on the streaming platform has also caught the eyes of Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment, who I'm convinced carried 75% of the weight that was Warner Bros. cartoons in the 90s. This is important because it seems that the original executives for the show have gotten back together and seem to be talking about bringing the Warner Brothers (and sister Dot, naturally) back for brand new hijinks. And this is a wonderful thing on multiple levels.
Quit lying, you know you're ready
to relive this all over again.
Obviously being that this is a rumor (and even if it were officially confirmed), any real, solid information on what direction this will go is, well... Nonexistent. But you know im not shy about opening my mouth and offering opinions anyway. So to me, if you couldn't tell from my demeanor before, this is just the bee's knees. But getting back to WB's track record of reboots, I'm going to remain as cautiously optimistic as my inner 90's child will allow. Also, in an animation culture where shows like Steven Universe are what's in demand, one should also consider how well the antics of Slappy Squirrel will resonate with today's animation consumers.
My hero. <3
On the other hand, one of the virtues of Animaniacs is that they have a very deep understanding of pop culture, and aren't afraid to throw relevant punches when they're gonna be funny. And there's a lot of material for the writers to work with these days... 20 minutes of scrolling through the news should be everything they'll ever need.
On the whole, though, I think if this does come to fruition, I don't see why or how a new generation of Animaniacs could fail entirely. The evidence is in the fact that the show continues to resonate with audiences on Netflix, despite that some parts of it clearly show their age. We might be seeing some real TV magic in the making, folks.
I for one am ecstatic to see more of...
whatever the heck is going on here... After20 years.
But remember... This is all only a RUMOR.
So in the meantime, if you want your fix, hop onto your Netflix account and get binging. Or, I guess you could just look it up on YouTube, if being cheap and low quality more your speed (like me. Some days). For now, I'm gonna stop this here and hop onto Netflix and relive the glory days of 90s TV animation.
Expect me to talk about this more as more news unfolds!
PS: an open letter to WB animation and Amblin: if you need animators for this thing, I will Forrest Gump my way across the country to help you bring this thing to life. I should probably do something with my animation degree, and this project has my name on it.
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!
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
