Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueBugs argues with the cartoonist who creates him over how he should be drawn.Bugs argues with the cartoonist who creates him over how he should be drawn.Bugs argues with the cartoonist who creates him over how he should be drawn.
- Réalisation
- Scénaristes
- Vedettes
Mel Blanc
- Bugs Bunny
- (voice)
Arthur Q. Bryan
- Elmer Fudd
- (voice)
- (uncredited)
7,7907
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avis en vedette
Reasonable idea but doesn't work and Bugs isn't himself
The new Bugs Bunny script is in production, but Bugs finds that the animator on the picture is a difficult sort; he threatens to walk off the picture. However, as the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword and Bugs find himself at the mercy of the animator's imagination.
Ironically enough for a cartoon where the animator is (literally) the star, the actual animation here is only average. The plot is quite a good idea but it doesn't really work. The various little tricks that the animator pull just get a little dull after a while and, while it is different, it simply isn't very funny.
Worse still is the fact that Bugs isn't really himself his personality isn't really Bugs as we have come to know him and he could easily be any character at all. In fact, given that much of the action involves redrawing Bugs (or bits of Bugs) as something else, it never really feels like him. The animator may be given a face at the end but really he is a meaningless paintbrush for the most part and fails to be a part of the cartoon.
Overall this is a good idea but nothing is done with it that works. The gags tire after a while, the animation is average at best and there is a shocking lack of character in Bugs and the cartoon as a whole. Not really worth a look.
Ironically enough for a cartoon where the animator is (literally) the star, the actual animation here is only average. The plot is quite a good idea but it doesn't really work. The various little tricks that the animator pull just get a little dull after a while and, while it is different, it simply isn't very funny.
Worse still is the fact that Bugs isn't really himself his personality isn't really Bugs as we have come to know him and he could easily be any character at all. In fact, given that much of the action involves redrawing Bugs (or bits of Bugs) as something else, it never really feels like him. The animator may be given a face at the end but really he is a meaningless paintbrush for the most part and fails to be a part of the cartoon.
Overall this is a good idea but nothing is done with it that works. The gags tire after a while, the animation is average at best and there is a shocking lack of character in Bugs and the cartoon as a whole. Not really worth a look.
There Should have been a third short! & "A 3-ring CIRCUS" times 2!
Warner Brothers' animation should have created an additional short! Where Daffy creates problems on Elmer Fudd! If there was one. It would have been a "three-ring circus", among Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck & third, Elmer Fudd. Duck Amuck, first of all, (as almost everyone knows), is of Bugs Bunny's animation fun with Daffy Duck. Second was Rabbit Rampage, as Elmer Fudd created numerous problems, to Bugs Bunny. If there was one created, of Daffy as a one-time animator, creating problems, to Elmer Fudd. If this had occurred, then the "revenge factor" would have been evened out as a 3-way tie! Among all three Warner brothers' animation characters, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd & Daffy Duck! Plus there should have been a short on Yosemite Sam as an animator and was the victim, of a secret animation group, Tweetie & Grannie creating numerous problems, onto Yosemite Sam. And then, later on Yosemite Sam is the secret animator creating problems onto Sylvester, the Cat. Then next, there should have been a short of Sylvester, as secret animator, creating problems, with Granny & Tweetie!
Bugs replaces Daffy
Sort of a re-imagining of "Duck Amuck", "Rabbit Rampage" has Bugs Bunny getting tormented by an unseen animator (whom he apparently recognizes at the beginning). Whereas the original cartoon made use of Daffy Duck's explosive personality, Bugs obviously can't do that. It seems to me that he behaves here more like Heath Ledger's version of the Joker in "The Dark Knight".
Overall, I can't quite figure out why Chuck Jones repeated the story from one of his greatest cartoons. It's not a bad cartoon, and we certainly shouldn't lower our opinions of Jones for it. But other cartoons were definitely better.
Overall, I can't quite figure out why Chuck Jones repeated the story from one of his greatest cartoons. It's not a bad cartoon, and we certainly shouldn't lower our opinions of Jones for it. But other cartoons were definitely better.
Daffy works much better in Duck Amuck (1953) but this is good entertainment anyway.
I think this cartoon was released to enhance the success that Daffy Duck's Duck Amuck (1953) achieved by using an even more famous and loved character in Bugs Bunny (better-loved for an unknown reason). It did not work. Though it's funny and I like it, Daffy is the kind of character that is supposed to do this kind of thing. Bugs just isn't himself when at the recieving end of torment. But I guess it shows his other side. But as always, you still get some Jones hallmarks, like the vivid use of colour, good verbal comedy and great animation and expression. The score complements all of that, but as Bugs takes on several forms through the animator's whim, he doesn't feel like Bugs except he continues to crunch his carrot even when he has been drastically modified. Duck Amuck was a better cartoon, much, much better. But this is entertainment, and a funny cartoon is a funny cartoon, I'll admit. So if you look for nothing but seven minutes of a good cartoon, I recommend this one. Good to see it's in print.
"I've got a good mind to tell the Warner Brothers on you!"
Trying to replicate his success with Duck Amuck, Chuck Jones returns to the "breaking the fourth wall" routine with this short. Here Bugs Bunny fights with his unseen (until the end) animator, who has a grudge against him. It's not a bad cartoon and I don't really fault Chuck Jones or writer Michael Maltese for ripping off their own idea. After all, ideas were (and still are) recycled all the time in cartoons. But this one does suffer by comparison, as well as the fact that, as other reviewers have mentioned, the plot is more suited to Daffy than Bugs. No one watches a Bugs short to see him frustrated and one-upped at every turn. We like to see him get the upper hand and outsmart his foes. At one point Bugs even mimics Yosemite Sam by using the word "idjit." Still, there are some amusing bits here and there. The animation, music, and voice work are all top notch. On a related note, there was a video game for the Super Nintendo called Bugs Bunny Rabbit Rampage that was released in the 1990s. It was obviously inspired by this short, both in title and plot. I haven't played it since I was a kid but I recall liking it.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis short's plot is similar to Duck Amuck (1953), both of which involve a character being annoyed by an animator.
- Citations
Bugs Bunny: [Pointing to his tailless behind] All right, you vandal, put that tail back!
[a horse's tail is painted in place of Bugs Bunny's tail]
Bugs Bunny: That is a horse's tail, my friend. It belongs on a horse.
[the rest of Bugs Bunny is erased and replaced by an old nag of a horse. The horse immediately stands on its hind legs and starts munching on a carrot]
Bugs Bunny: [as a horse] Look, my contract CLEARLY STATES that I am always to be drawn AS A RABBIT!
- ConnexionsEdited into Fifty Years of Bugs Bunny in 3 1/2 Minutes (1989)
- Bandes originalesAin't She Sweet
(uncredited)
Music by Milton Ager
Played when Bugs is wearing the flouncy hat with the bird
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée
- 7m
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant



