Comments on: Woody Woodpecker - Character evolution… gone for good?

By: ArugulaZ

ArugulaZ — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Jeff DeGrandis

Jeff DeGrandis — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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

By: Fred Seibert

Fred Seibert — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Takineko V.

Takineko V. — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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]

By: Mukpuddy

Mukpuddy — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: G. Brian Reynolds

G. Brian Reynolds — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Floyd Bishop

Floyd Bishop — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Mike Milo

Mike Milo — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0000

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.