Woody Woodpecker - Character evolution… gone for good?
It used to be that an animated character evolved over several years, and in many cases, several decades. That was the case with Woody Woodpecker.
When Woody first appeared in 1940, he looked quite odd. While his laugh, and basic color scheme were in place, pretty much everything about this character morphed over time. His look got cuter and more streamlined. The 1944 short, “Barber of Seville”, introduced the new look for Woody (designed by Emery Hawkins), which would remain the same for the rest of the 1940s.
Woody went through several design changes in the 1950s, courtesy of Paul Smith and Alex Lovy. The new look for the new Woody is said to have been done by Laverne Harding. Woody was now cuter, slimmer, and had a comb similar to Warner Bros. Road Runner.
This character evolution is something that is rarely seen in today’s animation climate. Spongebob Squarepants looks the same today as he did in his first episode in 1999. It seems like any character evolution has to happen in the preproduction phase, as the show is being pitched.
I don’t think this is a healthy thing, as you pretty much have to nail the character right out of the gate. It seems that everyone is looking for the next Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse, but no one wants to allow a character to go into production and grow like those classic characters have. If this were the casein the 1940’s, the world would not have the Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, or Tom & Jerry that we know today.
The danger is that any new show’s characters are held up to the same standards as characters who have had decades (and in some cases, half a century) to evolve into what they are. In today’s climate, you are expected to pitch a show that pretty much has your character already fleshed out. The results are often characters or shows that go for the cheap laugh, resort to vulgar behavior, or are close charactures of other animated characters.
The only shows I can think of in recent history whose characters have evolved over time are “South Park” and “The Simpsons”.
I think that this evolution issue is why we don’t see more iconic animated characters now, even though there is probably more animation being done today than at any other point in history.
Thoughts?
![Indy Mogul (alt) poster [comp]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/3027776092_f8c8836fc0.jpg)
![Threadbanger poster [comp]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3193/3027662798_915b90d3fb.jpg)
![Next New Networks INKY poster [comp]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/2878798303_57ff8570d3.jpg)
»
On April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Too true brutha!! That’s what happens when the people at the top aren’t artists. If the characters evolved and changed over the years then what would stuff up their multi million dollar merchandising plans.
On April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Hi, Floyd,
In my judgement, what you are saying is very true - and it goes beyond the theatrical characters in the ’40’s and ’50’s. The early television stuff was given a chance to evolve, too - albeit on a “shortened schedule.”
Among that Hanna-Barbera stuff, just look at Yogi Bear. If he were frozen by the first incarnation, he would have sounded different, looked different and behaved differently. I keep thinking the theme the 1961 “Yogi Bear Show” is just brilliant - the lyrics summing up everything about him in just a few words - but then I remember - Yogi was introduced in 1958. They had three
three years under their belt by that time. Jellystone Park wasn’t there originally, nor Ranger Smith and… I could go on and on. Yogi just kept getting better and better.
“The Flintstones” models evolved, too - and Rocky and Bullwinkle…
Interestingly, in hindsight, there seems to be a time when these periodic redesigns reached and apex and someone should have said “STOP!” but they often didn’t. The Flintstones got redesigned one time too many in the original run and got taller and (again in my judgement) much less appealing - especially Wilma and Betty suffered…
They redesigned Mickey a few too many times - and the Warner characters, too. More recently, it seems the people that have controlled these characters, have gone back to “classic” designs and “frozen” them. Maybe that’s just as well.
Enough rambling. I for one, enjoy watching the evolution of the characters of old and wish that more of it were possible today.
On April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
I totally agree with you about some characters evolving too far. For example, I don’t much care for the way Chuck Jones made Bugs, Daffy, and the rest look in the later cartoons. I think their designs right around 1945 were their best look.
On April 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Well I don’t know… not everything stays the same although most times you are right. One example of changing characters would be The Simpsons from their Tracey Ullman days to now. They even streamlined them more for the feature. The many incarnations of Batman, Superman etc on WB tells me they keep adjusting too. But you are right. Networks expect a home run perfect in every way right off the bat. Sadly a lot of things are missed and passed upon because of this short sighted judgment and lack of focus.
On April 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
And when they get AMAZING, classic characters right from the get go they give them a few years and then cancel them. [case in point– Animaniacs]
On April 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Hi Gang:
Ya know; Pat Ventura and myself worked together for a short while developing the Woody Woodpecker Sjow. We wanted to make Woody the way he was in 1940, with the fat legs. This was the goofiest of Woody’s and would have been great!!! If it was done the way we wanted to do it. Anyway; things happen and what will be will be.
Take care gang and we’ll talk soon!
Your Cartoon Pal….Jeff
On April 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Floyd, Great post. While the point you make wants me to absolutely agree. The rigidity in TV animaiton, really the equivalent of the kinds of characters you’re citing, is often stifling. But, I have some slightly different observations on the subject over the last 15 years or so. In the television era, few characters develop over the long period you mention with Woody, usually within five years or so. Another historical shift affecting designs is the shift to overseas production. While not the source of all evil as many would have it, indeed it’s shrunk the flexibility some creators would show if the animation was done by individuals the directors knew, trusted, and interacted with on an hourly basis. Also, don’t underestimate the tyranny of designers-as-creators, individuals who are, by their nature, sometimes controlling folks, who find it a great joy to not have their films subjected to the forces of inconsistency limited animation went through in its infancy. Flash as an amazing tool has only exacerbated this issue. All this being said, I would suggest it’s not as horrible as you might suggest. In my personal producing experience, shows like Dexter’s Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls, ChalkZone, The Fairly Oddparents, and My Life as a Teenage Robot (even it’s original title was different) all went through design morphs throughout their history. Much of it was at the beginning of the shows so the memory is faded. If I have the energy later this week I’ll post a few examples.
On April 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Can’t totally agree with you on this, my man. Have you ever watched The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy? The characters have evolved quite noticeably from the first few episodes, in both looks and personality. Granted, most cartoon characters these days do seem to have inflexible, overly processed designs, but Billy and Mandy is proof that there’s at least a little wiggle room remaining for artists who want to perfect their creations.
JR