| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
 Posted - 08/03/2007 : 01:07:38
|
Is anyone here as surprised by the appearance of the title character in the upcoming movie Underdog? It seems to me that depicting Underdog as a real/realistic dog misses the point of the character entirely. I think that the character -- who in the original TV series walks upright -- is essentially human and not canine. Underdog is no more a dog than Donald Duck is a duck.
The issue of cartoon anthropormphization is a surprisingly complex one. Like our beloved family pets, cartoon animals all undergo a certain amount of humanizing. We give them human names, ascribe to them human emotions, and imagine them getting into human-like adventures. But some cartoon animals are more human than others. The comic strip dog Marmaduke, for instance, lives a dog's life. He is the pet of a suburban family, walks on all fours, and communicates only with barks, growls, and whimpers. On the other end of the spectrum is a character like Donald Duck, whose life bears no resemblance to that of an actual duck. Donald is really just a human character disguised as a duck. (Or, to put it another way, Donald is an abstraction of a human being, and making him a duck is just part of that abstraction.) Somewhere in the middle are characters like Garfield and Scooby-Doo, who lead the lives of animals (both are pets who depend upon humans for food and shelter) but whose personalities are undeniably human. Scooby can even sort of speak, which makes him more human than Garfield. But even here are subtle gradations. Note the slight difference between Scooby and the Jetsons dog Astro (another character voiced by Don Messick). It seems to me that Astro is a few degrees more dog-like, and Scooby is a few degrees more human.
But getting back to Underdog. In the TV series, he is eminently human, despite having some canine features. His name is really a convenient pun on the nature of his character. Shoeshine Boy/Underdog is an underdog mostly in the figurative sense: he is the little guy who overcomes adversity, which made nerdish Wally Cox ideal for the role. Casting swaggering, wisecracking Jason Lee as Underdog seems to be another profound miscalculation by the makers of this film.
I think the only way to put Underdog into the "real" world with human actors would be to do it Roger Rabbit style. Ah, Roger -- another almost completely humanized cartoon animal! Even more human than Bugs. Note that Bugs does not usually wear clothes, plus he lives in a hole in the ground *and* has to deal with hunters (Elmer) and other predators in the wild (Taz).
P.S. - For a brilliant insight into this issue of "cartoon animals as disguised humans," please please please read the wonderful short story "Walt & Will" by Max Apple. It's a fictionalized retelling of the creation of Mickey Mouse, and the central issue is whether Mickey is really a man or a mouse.
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 06:54:58
|
| I used to watch Underdog as a kid and loved it. The biggest problem I see is that the voice will be all wrong. Jason Lee is fine but he's got a voice that just doesn't equal that 'make me laugh' quality to it that Wally Cox had. Wally Cox could say "hello" and make me laugh. |
 |
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 07:01:17
|
| As a fan of the original "Underdog" series, I also was dissapointed by how this new Underdog was treated. They seem to want to have it both ways: that Underdog really is a dog that can fly and that Underdog really isn't a dog. Although I didn't like the Scooby-Doo movie, I thought the character design and animation for that CGI dog based on a popular 1970s cartoon series struck the right balance for staying true to the character while bringing it into a 3D world. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 07:06:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
P.S. - For a brilliant insight into this issue of "cartoon animals as disguised humans," please please please read the wonderful short story "Walt & Will" by Max Apple. It's a fictionalized retelling of the creation of Mickey Mouse, and the central issue is whether Mickey is really a man or a mouse.
I think that link is wrong, Joe. |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 14:45:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
P.S. - For a brilliant insight into this issue of "cartoon animals as disguised humans," please please please read the wonderful short story "Walt & Will" by Max Apple. It's a fictionalized retelling of the creation of Mickey Mouse, and the central issue is whether Mickey is really a man or a mouse.
I think that link is wrong, Joe.
That's the link I intended. It's not a link to the story because there isn't one that I know of. (Unless someone types it up, it's not available online.) It's a link to Amazon, where the (awesome) book containing the story is available for a mere 37 cents. The rest of the stories are as good as "Walt & Will," and I feel the book is well worth 37 cents (plus postage) of anyone's money.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 14:47:37
|
| I watched a lot of Underdog as a kid, and as my recollections go, Underdog was no Rocky & Bullwinkle. Matter of fact, I remember it being pretty stupid. I don't think there's any possible Underdog movie I would want to see. |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/03/2007 : 18:07:12
|
| Everything about this movie is all wrong...but don't worry, it will be gone by the end of next week. And the studio knows it's a disaster...they didn't screen it for critics. |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 01:20:28
|
As for the quality of the original Underdog series, I admit that writing-wise, it's not in the same league as Rocky & Bullwinkle. But I wouldn't say it's a "stupid" program by any means -- certainly not by the standards of children's animated programs (of this or any era). The humor largely comes from the utter absurdity of the hero and from the peerless voice acting of Wally Cox who just exudes funniness in whatever he does. What I still like about Underdog now is its gentle whimsy, a concept that might not necessarily translate to today's audiences.
(Incidentally, I don't have any grudge against Jason Lee. It's just that he's nothing like Underdog, and it's a case of baffling miscasting. I see he's been cast as David Seville in the upcoming Chipmunks movie -- more miscasting! If I were making that movie, I'd write the David Seville character as the dark, angry, potentially violent guy he was in the 1950s and 1960s, not the easygoing, sweater-wearing nice guy he became in the 1980s. Clearly the only modern actor who's right for David Seville is Edward Norton.)
The Underdog movie will certainly die a quick death, but what surprised and disappointed me is how little its makers understand about the basic principles of how cartoon animals work. If these guys had made Roger Rabbit, would they have cast an actual rabbit in the lead?
P.S. - Regarding that short story: sorry there's no direct link to it, but I really do recommend Apple's book. In case you never read it, the story of "Walt & Will" essentially splits Walt Disney into two different people, a pair of brothers named Walt & Will. The shy, nerdy "Walt" is the artist, and outgoing, assertive "Will" is the businessman. They're both brilliant in their own way, although they certainly have disagreements over the years. The story tells about how close Walt & Will were growing up and how their lifelong friendship almost comes to an end over the character of Mickey Mouse. This is the key issue in the story! Walt wants to make Mickey more mouse-like and has no interest in conventional storytelling; Will wants to humanize Mickey. Eventually, Will wins out, and Walt's creation, Mickey Mouse as "Steamboat Willy," is a smash hit. The downside is that Walt's heart is no longer in his work, though he is glad to be friends with Will again. The story ends with ambitious Will convincing a skeptical Walt to build Disneyland and Disney World. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 15:24:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
If these guys had made Roger Rabbit, would they have cast an actual rabbit in the lead?
A concept as creative as Roger Rabbit is something they never could have fathomed in the first place. |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 16:24:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
Clearly the only modern actor who's right for David Seville is Edward Norton.)
The Underdog movie will certainly die a quick death, but what surprised and disappointed me is how little its makers understand about the basic principles of how cartoon animals work. If these guys had made Roger Rabbit, would they have cast an actual rabbit in the lead?
YES, Ed Norton would be much better. I like Jason Lee, but Ed Norton brings much more complexity to his characters.
Anyhow, interesting topic...
It reminds me of how much better the original "Incredible Journey" was compared to "Homeward Bound." I'll admit that I enjoyed Homeward Bound, watching it while cuddled up on the couch next to DH, BUT I saw Incredible Journey in the theater in the 60's with my parents and it made an unforgettable impression on me. It did very little anthropomorphization of the animals, and used the lovable-desert-rat voice of Rex Allen for narration.
I think either people are becoming stupider, or movie makers THINK people are becoming more stupid.
"Milo and Otis" was done in a manner similar to "Incredible Journey" and my daughter, when she watched it at the age of 5, was so moved that she cried when it was over. She said, "It was so beautiful."
"The Bear" had no narration as I recall and no anthropomorphization, and was loved by critics and audiences alike. I recall that Roger Ebert suggested that Bart The Bear should receive that year's Oscar for Best Actor.
There have been several versions of the novel Black Beauty and none of them truly memorable, but I do think the 94 version is the best so far. The horses talk, but they're aren't degraded by having them move their lips, etc. The animals talk to each other in Sewell's novel and so it seems natural enough that they should talk in this film. I always find that the fate of poor Ginger brings me to tears.
Incidentally, as a horse trainer, I have some insight into Ginger's tragedy. Many folks tend to label a horse's behavior as "stubborn" when in fact the horse is confused and simply doesn't understand what she is being asked to do. Or, she may be an animal with lots of energy that needs to be directed, but she is labeled as "onery."
What I advise is NOT to label the horse's behavior, because that characterizes it in ways that may be untrue. Go to where the horse is in her present understanding, take what the horse gives you, and build on it.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 16:36:18
|
Of course, Ed Norton would be a better Dave Seville than Jason Lee. Why didn't anyone in Hollywood think of that?
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 17:29:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Of course, Ed Norton would be a better Dave Seville than Jason Lee. Why didn't anyone in Hollywood think of that?
If they did, he'd probably have turned it down. I'm guessing he's had far more interesting offers lately and is booked up for the next 5 years at least!!! He's currently filming or just finished as The Hulk. Green Norton 
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 08/04/2007 : 17:47:31
|
| I think Jason Lee would make a way better David Seville. Something tells me this is not a role that requires "complexity." |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 05:57:25
|
| I hope Hong Kong Phooey doesnt have the same fate as Underdog. I dont dont want Hong Kong Phooey to be a mild mannered dog. It's not what it was intended for. lets hope someone makes HKP better than UD. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 07:59:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I hope Hong Kong Phooey doesnt have the same fate as Underdog. I dont dont want Hong Kong Phooey to be a mild mannered dog. It's not what it was intended for. lets hope someone makes HKP better than UD.
Let's not. Not that I ever cared much for HKP, but really, can't Hollywood just leave these old classic cartoons alone? Enough is enough already!
|
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 08/05/2007 : 19:26:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
He's currently filming or just finished as The Hulk. Green Norton
Wow! I can picture Norton saying, "You wouldn't want to see me angry." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The de-anthropomorphization of "Underdog"
