Posts Tagged Comedy


The Wuzzles was somehow brilliantly before its time and yet hopelessly outdated. What went right, and what went wrong?

The Wuzzles

In the mid-80s, Disney was feeling itself in the TV animation game. It was aiming to bridge a gap between young and tween audiences, something that could essentially market stuffed animals and toys, yet also capture the eyeballs, interest and respect of a growing, after school/early Saturday market. It was aiming to be for both boys and girls, and even for adults watching with their kids. It wanted to do something very ambitious, but animation at this point had only geared itself around cutesy, toy-based shows – obvious attempts to market solely the stuffed animals and action figures that manifested from them. That mentality influenced the style of the animation, the easy and simplistic storylines, the useless-sounding soundtracks, and the flat voice over work. Everything was slow, deliberate, and adorable.

So Disney had an opportunity to change things. But it couldn’t come out and just do it, what with market forces and advertisers set in their old ways. So to test the waters, Disney produced two shows – Gummi Bears and The Wuzzles, which aired competitively on two different networks at the same time. On the surface, both shows are clear attempts to infect toy stores with new, cuddly creations for massive profits. Unlike previous cartoon ventures, Disney allowed the creators to open up the stories and characters a lot more. Gummi Bears went with the medieval/swords-and-sorcery theme, which was much stronger and popular (at the time) than the sitcom-esque goofiness that was The Wuzzles. (The larger irony, in fact, is that “sitcom-esque” was exactly what cartoons would become.) That, among other things, made The Wuzzles incredibly ahead of its time. And yet, because of its cutesy, simplistic trappings, it simultaneously remained a cheesy 80s construct. It had insanely grand ideas, ideas we even find today in Adult Swim shows, My Little Pony, and The Looney Tunes Show, but couldn’t let go of emphasizing its adorableness, to its ultimate detriment.

In a rare Childhood Revisited/Did We Miss Out crossover, I re-examine The Wuzzles, both as a piece of nostalgia and an exploration of what could have been.

The Wuzzles – (1985)

Director: Fred Wolf, Carole Beers
Starring: Brian Cummings, Jo Ann Worley, Bill Scott
Screenplay(s) by: Ken Koonce, David Weimers, Mark Evanier

Let’s get this out of the way first – The Wuzzles is not that great of a show. It’s inconsistent and poorly paced, a bit eccentric and tonally all over the place. This is usually on par for most early 80s cartoons; the only thing The Wuzzles had going for it was the beautiful animation. But as I delved into all thirteen episodes, which are easily searchable on Youtube, I wondered how many of the show’s problems were amateurish, and how many were actually intentional.

Pushing past The Wuzzles‘ premise, which is simply combining two animals into one (which in itself always happens to make aesthetically-pleasing hybrids, despite most animal combinations most likely being hideous), there’s actually a gem of a great show here. It’s hard to determine which episodes aired first, and which episodes were produced first, but in a way you can kinda tell, as certain episodes are better than others, in terms of story, characters, and pacing, as if the show was finally getting into a groove. (Also, there’s a small amount of continuity: Bumblelion’s admiration with paragon pirate Buck Swashler; a towel Butterbear gives Eleroo is visible in a followup episode.) In fact, a few episodes use the poor pacing to its advantage.

The show’s egregious issue is a basic TV fundamental of editing: its lack of crossfades when cutting from scene to scene. This makes it nigh impossible to note any changes in time and space. In the episode below, “Hooray for Hollywuz,” we jump from Hollywuz to the main town, and back again, via regular scene edits. It’s quite disruptive, especially since it involves air travel and sending postcards, both of which takes quite a bit of time:

Later, The Wuzzles realize that the only way this can work is to keep the time and space jumps consistent, and to make sure every scene counts. This is how Archer does it, and most Adult Swim shows manage their comedic timing so well. This is showcased best in “Class Dismissed,” arguably the best episode of the show’s brief run:

The Wuzzles is at its best when the story opens up the characters and the world around Wuz; when we get to see the various interactions among the townspeople and some of the more interesting events that occur in this mythical land. “Class Dismissed” has all of these strong points, along with three separate story lines that come together in the end. Butterbear is invited to a classy party, but is too embarrassed to bring her classless friends (Hoppopotamous, Rhinokey, Bumblelion, Eleroo, and Moosel), forcing them to learn how to be more sophisticated so they can attend. Meanwhile, Butterbear somehow gets into a My Fair Lady scenario, teaching Crock’s sidekick Brat how to act like a gentleman. MEANWHILE STILL, Crock ends up missing said sidekick, and begins to scheme on how to get him back. It’s a multi-layered plot that’s almost Arrested Development-like in its development, and even has a climax sequence that could be taken from Hurwitz’s titular show.

What’s interesting about The Wuzzles is that the characters, although cute, are kind of terrible people. This is okay – most sitcoms portray characters that are inherently terrible people you’d never really want to be around. Hoppopotamous is loud, brash, and annoying; Rhinokey is mean and corny; Butterbear is naggy and bitchy; Bumblelion is arrogant and borderline bro-douchey; Eleroo and Moosel are hypocritical cowards and kind of willingly dumb. Crock and his cronies are portrayed as the “villains,” but in actuality, they’re only lazy sleezeballs, and not that far off from the worse elements of the main six (Crock has a few endearing moments himself!). I actually love all of this. Watching old Disney Afternoon shows made me realize that most of them star terrible people, which is strangely a lot more relateable than people realize.

A prime example of this is the second best episode, “In The Money,” in which a broke Bumblelion stumbles upon stolen money. Upon finding these bags of gold coins with Eleroo, he immediately – and I mean, IMMEDIATELY – becomes a jerk, taking the bags all to himself with shifty eyes and throwing Eleroo a mere pittance of coins. His attitude escalates from there: buying suits, insulting the owner of the corner store and his friends (I personally loves how he carries the moneybags everywhere he goes) and involving himself in this absolutely hilarious sequence involving a new car. (Seriously, the linked scene is fantastic.)

It’s the little things that we’ve come to appreciate now in shows like The Looney Tunes Show and MLP that are present in The Wuzzles. A fully realized world opens up, almost as detailed as Equestria. There’s electricity and damns and corner stores and diners and hair salons – but also scary castles and pirate (Pi-RATS, parrot/rat hybrids) and mysterious islands. There are no main villains that want to destroy the world; just really annoying Wuz citizens and shitty things that happen that they have to deal with. There are cars and car dealerships – car dealerships, people! – and in fact, one of the best things about this show are the car chases; they look phenomenal, and tend to make even the most boringly ludicrous and ridiculous plots into something exciting. (It’s a skill that will reach its peak when animating the airplanes in TaleSpin.)

But as implied, the show has pretty terrible stories for the most part, and a ton of groaner jokes. But the stories are really animated versions of typical sitcom plots. The thuddingly banal “Shock Around the Clock” takes the cliche story of Crock faking an injury to garner Butterbear’s sympathy and service:

Beyond being a lame plot, the bigger issue is that most of the episode takes place in Butterbear’s house. There’s little going on outside of that setting, which kills the imaginative entertainment. The worst example is when the main six seem to be the only ones concerned when they damn protecting their town is about to break (“Moosel’s Monster”). It’s disappointing and frankly illogical that there’s no one else in Wuz worried about this crisis. Perhaps it was for budget reasons that they couldn’t create a crowd scene; in that case, they were better off forgoing the entire plotline.

The other issue that the show has is its awful, awful soundtrack. The music is mostly discordant synths and other electronic noises, with little to no reflection on the show itself. Which is a shame, because the theme song is so much more ambitious and technically sound; listening to the various music cues sound like some student’s attempt at making “Art” music. Even with the well-done car chases, the audio almost single-handedly kills the mood.

The last episode, unfortunately titled “What’s up, Stox,” introduces a potential new character, Ticoon (part tiger, part raccoon), an ambitious businessman working to be a zillionaire. He’s a pretty solid character: confident, clever, and confrontational; it would have been great to see him developed more in future episodes, especially going toe-to-toe with Bumblelion or Crock. But Gummi Bears won the era, and The Wuzzles was forced into cancellation, in the back of that mysterious Disney vault that they swear they have.

It’s a shame; The Wuzzles, with another season, could have worked out the kinks and been something more remarkable. (Most likely, however, it would have been given more fantastical elements, considering the time). I honestly think, like MLP, a reboot could really give this show a modern sheen that would work wonders. The flaws keep the The Wuzzles captive in 1985, but rich animation and some inspired moments make the show pretty unique. In their own way, the Wuzzles themselves personify the show’s own aesthetic – split between two species of animated thought.

Also if you’re reading this – checkout fellow blogger Trish’s take on the show:


, , ,

1 Comment

Email Interview With Robert Schooley

The Penguins of Madagascar is a quietly excellent cartoon: a madcap, zany show that redefined the Madagascar’s cuddly-yet-militaristic team in an over-the-top Brooklyn zoo. Its insular nature made it hard to keep up, but, like Community, rewarded followers with inside jokes, excellent character gags, and nods to past events. Recently, the show finished up their production run, and sooner then later the final episodes will be aired on Nick. [07/19/12 – Edit: Just learned that, today, the show was also nominated for a Primetime Emmy!] Executive producer and writer Robert Schooley took some time out of his schedule to talk about the show, the difference between CGI and traditional animation, and whether the Lunicorns were indeed a My Little Pony parody. Be sure to follow him on Twitter.

Peguins of Madagascar

TMB: The Penguins of Madagascar seemed to relish in being its own thing instead of hewing too closely to the Madagascar movies. How much of this was intentional from the start? Did Dreamworks or Nickelodeon have reservations in taking the characters in such a different and separate direction?

RS: It was a practical decision.  DW didn’t know what the Madagascar sequel stories would be at that point, so the decision was made to feature all of the characters but the four leads and exist in a separate continuity from the features.

TMB: As a followup, what were the challenges, if any, in defining the characters and the show outside of the films?

RS: Skipper was fully defined already, so it was a matter of finding new aspects to the other three to round out the team.   Because we were not really related to the movies, we felt pretty comfortable letting everyone develop naturally as we’d invent new comic quirks to have fun with.

TMB: Does the New York setting pose any issues? Since everyone who works on the show is in LA.

RS: Not really. Most of us are from the east coast anyway.  I’m sure if we were living there while writing the show more particular real world details might have shown up.

TMB: The director of the first Madagascar film, Tom McGrath, mentioned here that he wanted to avoid “zoo vs. wild” type contentions. Seems like you doubled down on that philosophy. Can you elaborate on it?

RS: It’s such a unique world with it’s own strange logic, I’m not sure the issue really came up much.

TMB: How did ideas for characters and plots come up? It’s impressive how rich and diverse the cast has become in just a few years.

RS: Hardest question to answer.  Most ideas just come out of looking to put a character through something.  A few stories came out of specifics to the zoo setting, like “Snooze at the Zoo” or webcam, but most were just coming up with funny ways to put characters in conflict with each other, nature or the world.

TMB: While I wouldn’t say the show had a “story arc,” it seems to have a very loose style that allows events, stories, and characters to be called back to, referenced, and revisited. Was there a fear about that being alienating to new audiences?

RS: Always a risk and probably something the network would rather we didn’t do, but all the shows we produce have a rough internal continuity.  We like to reward fans who watch every episode.  And in this DVR age it’s not hard to do.

TMB: I would like to talk about the animation for a moment. We’ve come a long way since Reboot. How challenging is it to make strong, cartoony movements (squash and stretch, smears and blurs, etc.) via CGI?

RS: We have really great animators in our studios working off very strong board poses.   It amuses me when people confuse rendering (i.e. detailed fur) to character animation. On a TV budget and schedule we can’t do the same lush rendering as a feature, but I think we do get every ounce of subtlety and personality out of these characters.  We are constantly amazed by the little extra touches the teams in India and New Zealand add to the acting.

TMB: Which do you prefer, traditional or computers?

RS: Apples and oranges.  I like both.  Kim Possible was a great looking show and I’d do that style again in a minute.  A big advantage to traditional is that you can create a much bigger world, since every set and guest character doesn’t have to be laboriously built.  And it can be a more stylish look, ideally.  But there’s also a great feel of spacial reality in CG that lends itself to the more sitcom sorts of stories that we do on this show, and yet, thanks to the process that’s been refined here at Nick, with genuine cartoon snap and timing that is genuinely fun to watch.

TMB: How did you get into the TV animation business? How’d you get tagged as executive producer of this show in particular?

RS: Started in the mailroom at DIC, a busy studio in the 80’s.  Started pitching stories to their shows, got hired on staff.  Eventually drafted to Disney, worked our way up to exec producer there.  We were recruited to run Penguins after they had already done a first version of a pilot that we came in to rework.

TMB: Favorite character? Favorite episode?

RS: Can’t really pick a favorite character.  Honestly they’re all fun to write.  I think Skipper is pretty special because Tom created him and can add little touches and ad libs in the performance that surprise and delight us.  But I think everybody has added unique touches to their characters. Danny’s King Julien is a constant exploration of how far you can push an ego.  I love when Jeff gets to play Kowalski as unexpectedly emotionally fragile.  Or when John decided Rico should sing like Michael McDonald.  And nothing made me laugh more than James when Private got angry at everybody.

Favorite episode may be “The Penguin Who Loved Me” because it’s the final Blowhole episode and it pays off a lot of running gags from the series.   It may end up being the last to air.

TMB: Now that production is finished on the show, what’s next for you and the Penguins? Rumor has it that there may be a movie in the works.

RS: There is a Penguins movie in production at DW, but at this time it’s unrelated to the series.  That could always change though, I guess.   We, and most of the staff and some of the cast are deep into the next series Monsters vs. Aliens.

TMB: Final question: Are the Lunacorns really the show’s jab at the My Little Pony fandom?

RS: One man’s jab is another’s homage.


, , , , ,


On Daniel Tosh, and the (Non)Discussion of Rape

What we should be raging at is his fucking smirk.

Generally speaking, I’m hit or miss on Daniel Tosh. If he had one of those Comedy Central Present specials, I imagine that, while I would laugh maybe 5% more than I usually do when I watch one of those specials, I most likely would have forgotten about him. I saw his various one-hour specials before, and, again, maybe laughed at one or two of his jokes, but for the most part promptly forgot him.

There was a small part of him I did like, though: he definitely was smarter than he let on. His bit consisted of hitting a joke, then rambling on about it (kinda similar to early Kevin Nealon), eventually ending with a surprising twist or reference that seemed WAY out his league, like a callback to Carol Burnett. There was potential for him to be something pretty cool, funny, and informative at the same time. Of course, he had a few racial/sexual gags in there, but they were fairly toned down and, again, came from a fairly smart place.

So it’s really no surprised Comedy Central tagged him for Tosh.0, a Soup-esque take on various internet videos. In Daniel, they could filter humanity’s insanity through a engaging comic personality, filtering hilarity with a clever point here and there. Indeed, early in the show’s run, it was like watching Youtube with a bit of Wikipedia on the side. He would also have pretty astute observations of said videos, noticing odds and ends in the background and off-screen. I may not be a fan of Daniel Tosh, but the show was suited perfectly for him. And, yeah, I was more than happily amused by the show.

Unlike other “make fun of the internet” shows, Tosh.0 was strangely appreciative of the wacky shit that was sent it, to which I would attribute its sudden popularity. Other shows would ridicule and laugh at the participates in the videos; Tosh and company would “thank” people sending them in, and the Web Redemption segments had an underlying sweetness to them (especially to younger participants), allowing them to meet famous people, get involved with well-done videos, and otherwise have a good, goofy time, leaving Daniel himself as the butt of the joke.

I suppose, then, it was inevitable that, over time, it became weaker in insight and broader in raunchy comedy. Early in the show, his astuteness would get little to no laughs, which of course would result in the canning of said references. So there goes the wit, and in comes the sexist/racist jokes at a rapid pace. I’m rarely offended, so it didn’t bother me, but it definitely bothered a lot of people. He once aired a video of someone falling down an elevator shaft, who was actually killed. His ‘touching women bellies’ segment got an angry response from Jezebel. And so on.

So here we are on the incident in question, where Daniel Tosh tells a bunch of rape jokes, a woman yells out, “Rape jokes are never funny!”, and Tosh responds, “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now?” Understanding Tosh’s style, I can see that his “joke” was more in the irony of that happening, not in the comment itself. I’m a bit perplexed that people are perceiving it to be a threat.

But I DO understand those who are offended over the idea that the act itself would be funny, which it wouldn’t be, and I hope to god that wasn’t Tosh’s intention. I hate to come off thinking I’m defending him, since I care little about him either way, but the joke, as I see it, was in the attempt at irony. I was asked that — if he told a bunch of lynching jokes, and a black dude yelled out “lynching is never funny,” and Tosh responded with “wouldn’t it be be funny if that black dude was lynched by 5 guys right now?” — if I would find that funny. Hmm. Honestly, I kinda smirked at the idea. I don’t think I’d be offended. I doubt Tosh would actually want to see a lynch, no more than he would want to see a rape. but they’re both in poor taste. Also, didn’t we sort of go through that with Michael Richards?

I’m filtering the experience through two Louis CK bits. One, where he handles a heckler, calling her a cunt and tells her to “die of AIDS”:

And this second one, where he discusses the word “faggot” with a fellow comedian, who happens to be gay.

I really recommend watching both those videos, especially the second one. Nick Dipaolo, ending the segment with “Okay, thanks, faggot” is terrible, but terribly important in the scheme of what Louis CK is getting at. There can be tremendous pain behind the words we say, but for the sake of comedy we need to be allowed to say it. So maybe the difference is that Louie’s claim that his heckler die of AIDS is less of a direct “threat” than Tosh’s claim his heckler “be raped by 5 guys.” But then again, both are theoretical gags – one based on absurdity (imagine him saying that in the mid-90s), one based on the irony of the moment, but say what you will – both are pretty terrible.

Tosh also had the unfortunate timing in a burgeoning controversy concerning women issues. Lena Dunham show Girls; the gynecological invasive issues with Congress; contraceptives implying sluttiness; the threats against Anita Sarkessian – a douchebag-esque white male casually commenting on a woman being raped in public is only adding fuel to a raging inferno, and more and more people are getting pissed. I don’t blame them. It’s a serious problem.

But the truth is we honestly DO NOT KNOW how to discuss rape, and the reason is because we can’t determine any degree of discussion. We know, broadly, rape is terrible, but we portray it like a soap opera on Law and Order: SVU. We joke about prison rape and pedophilia, and discussions of rape usually end up in a bizarre argument on when the rape of a woman is worse than the rape of a male, whether heterosexual rape is worse than homosexual rape, and/or some sick combination of the two. We’re all over the place, which leads us nowhere. It’s unfortunate, because of the seriousness of the topic.

In the end I suppose that I fall on Daniel’s side, although I find his comments ugly and mean, and definitely believe he should apologize (which he did). And yes, the incident furthers a social idea of rape-as-whatever when it comes to dealing with it. But it stands in line with murder, nigger, faggot, AIDS, and a host of other terms that George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Louis CK and other famous comedians addressed. And you have to really convince me that Tosh did something that stands apart from them, other than being one-tenth of their total talent, an argument which is problematic, in itself.


, ,

No Comments