Anyone Remember this Disney Afternoon Series

[Dingo]

Out of those of us who watched Disney Afternoon while growing up, does anyone remember the Bonkers TV series. It was similar in premise to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, minus the fact that there was no live action filming for Bonkers.

It was a favorite of mine growing up and I only just now remembered it. Does anyone else hae any remembrances of this show or of Disney Afternoon in general?

 

[Spot's Meow]

Yes I definitely remember the show. It wasn't one of my favorites though. It always seemed very...chaotic.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

No, that was after my time. But I remember Bonkers candy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnarE_i6FI

 

[Zulu Romeo]

I remember that show - about a cartoon bobcat who joins the LAPD, isn't it? Very similar to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" in its premise and setting too...

 

[Dingo]

Hit the nail squarely upside the head, Zion Ravenscene.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Bonkers was very interesting.

 

[HappyDayRiot]

All I remember is that it was on with Marsupilami (or however that was spelt) and I didn't really like either of them.

 

[Dingo]

Bonkers was very interesting

Yes he was. And that combining toons and humans bit was rather interesting to me. I use it in some of my own writings.

 

[Christopher]

I remember that show - about a cartoon bobcat who joins the LAPD, isn't it? Very similar to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" in its premise and setting too...

Yeah, it was blatantly meant to be as close to an WFRR series as they could get without actually being WFRR. But the conceit of Toons existing in the human world didn't work here, because the humans were just as cartoony as the Toons. Maybe it could've worked in animation if the animated human characters and their environment had been naturalistic in design and behavior, but they were just as caricatured and just as subject to cartoon physics and logic as the "Toons." There was no meaningful difference between humans and Toons except that the Toons were talking animals and objects rather than hominids. And that kind of misses the whole point of WFRR.

Its main value was as a showcase for the range of Jim Cummings, who was a ubiquitous voice artist at the time and who did both lead characters, the Roger Rabbit knockoff character Bonkers and his long-suffering human partner Lucky.

 

[CaptainCanada]

This was one of the few DA shows I didn't care for.

 

[Jayson]

Is this the thing that Micheal Eisner would sort of narrate or say something at the beginning before he would then show a Disney movie?


Jason

 

[Goji]

All I know about it is that they made fun of it relentlessly on Animaniacs. That and ripping on the Disney Channel in general, which is just as funny today as it was then. Probably more so (making fun of the Disney Channel that is, not the channel itself... *shudders*).

 

[Christopher]

Is this the thing that Micheal Eisner would sort of narrate or say something at the beginning before he would then show a Disney movie?

You're thinking of The Wonderful World of Disney, which was an early-prime time showcase for Disney films. It's been around on and off since the '50s or '60s and was originally hosted by Walt Disney himself, with Eisner continuing the tradition. The Disney Afternoon was a syndicated programming block of half-hour animated series in the '80s and '90s. Disney made many such shows starting with Duck Tales in the '80s and continuing with such series as TaleSpin, Chip 'n' Dale's Rescue Rangers, Darkwing Duck, Gargoyles, shows based on movies such as The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, etc. Eventually TDA kinda faded out as Disney moved more and more of its programming to its cable networks.

 

[Dingo]

Yeah, it was blatantly meant to be as close to an WFRR series as they could get without actually being WFRR. But the conceit of Toons existing in the human world didn't work here, because the humans were just as cartoony as the Toons. Maybe it could've worked in animation if the animated human characters and their environment had been naturalistic in design and behavior, but they were just as caricatured and just as subject to cartoon physics and logic as the "Toons." There was no meaningful difference between humans and Toons except that the Toons were talking animals and objects rather than hominids. And that kind of misses the whole point of WFRR.

That didn't mean that it wasn't an enjoyable series, however. I rather liked it because Jim Cummings was rather talented in playing both Piquel and Bonkers.

I much preferred the Miranda era episodes, the one where Carla DeVito plays Miranda Wright (nice pun on Miranda Rights BTW). When I was a kid (circa 10-11 years of age) I had a kinda crush on that character. (Let me re-iterate the disclaimer that I was 10 at the time, she was cute, intelligent and kindhearted, three traits that are winners in my book.)

If one is a fan of this particular show, I highly recommend this website for some great Bonkers Fanfiction.

Out of other Disney Afternoon shows Duck Tales, Aladdin, and Tale Spin were particular favorites of mine. I remember when I was eight those were my three favorite TV programs.

 

[Jayson]

Is this the thing that Micheal Eisner would sort of narrate or say something at the beginning before he would then show a Disney movie?

You're thinking of The Wonderful World of Disney, which was an early-prime time showcase for Disney films. It's been around on and off since the '50s or '60s and was originally hosted by Walt Disney himself, with Eisner continuing the tradition. The Disney Afternoon was a syndicated programming block of half-hour animated series in the '80s and '90s. Disney made many such shows starting with Duck Tales in the '80s and continuing with such series as TaleSpin, Chip 'n' Dale's Rescue Rangers, Darkwing Duck, Gargoyles, shows based on movies such as The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, etc. Eventually TDA kinda faded out as Disney moved more and more of its programming to its cable networks.

I think I know what your talking about now. Is "Duck Tales" the one with Scrooge McDuck watching over Huey,Louie and Dewie. It also had a scientist guy and a pilot Duck who had his own show which I would guess would be "TaleSpin." Heck they even had a cavemen kid I think in the later seasons.

Jason

 

[Christopher]

I think I know what your talking about now. Is "Duck Tales" the one with Scrooge McDuck watching over Huey,Louie and Dewie. It also had a scientist guy and a pilot Duck who had his own show which I would guess would be "TaleSpin." Heck they even had a cavemen kid I think in the later seasons.

DuckTales was based on Carl Barks's Scrooge McDuck/Duckburg comic books, and made use of just about all their large cast of characters and many of their storylines. DT also introduced new characters such as the bumbling pilot, Launchpad McQuack, the caveduck Bubba, and the superhero GizmoDuck. Launchpad never quite got his own spinoff, but he was a supporting character in Darkwing Duck. Darkwing was basically a Disneyfied version of one of Chuck Jones's Daffy Duck-as-hero cartoons (particularly "Stupor Duck" and "The Scarlet Pumpernickel"); appearance aside, Darkwing/Drake Mallard essentially was Daffy with a bit more competence and a softer, family-friendly side. The humor and surreal physics of the show were very much in a Warner Bros. style, which made it hard to reconcile with the much more naturalistic, Disneyesque humor and physics of the DuckTales universe. (In DT, if someone fell from a plane, you knew they'd die if they weren't rescued. In DD, Darkwing could fall from a plane, hit the ground, turn into an accordion, and be fine in the next shot.)

TaleSpin had no connection to the Duckburg universe. It was a very strange show conceptually. It took the animal characters from Disney's The Jungle Book -- Baloo, King Louie, Shere Khan, etc. -- and placed them in a faux-1930s South Pacific series that was basically plagiarized from Donald Bellisario's short-lived TV series Tales of the Gold Monkey. I'm not someone who makes "ripoff" accusations lightly, but both shows' protagonists were the pilots of amphibious cargo planes named for waterfowl (Cutter's Goose and Sea Duck), they both had scatterbrained mechanics as comic-relief sidekicks, they both had love-hate relationships with their brunette female leads, and they both hung out at bars called "Louie's." And of course both titles begin with the same five letters.

 

[Dingo]

TaleSpin had no connection to the Duckburg universe. It was a very strange show conceptually. It took the animal characters from Disney's The Jungle Book -- Baloo, King Louie, Shere Khan, etc. -- and placed them in a faux-1930s South Pacific series that was basically plagiarized from Donald Bellisario's short-lived TV series Tales of the Gold Monkey. I'm not someone who makes "ripoff" accusations lightly, but both shows' protagonists were the pilots of amphibious cargo planes named for waterfowl (Cutter's Goose and Sea Duck), they both had scatterbrained mechanics as comic-relief sidekicks, they both had love-hate relationships with their brunette female leads, and they both hung out at bars called "Louie's." And of course both titles begin with the same five letters.

I dunno, I liked Tale Spin personally. Sure there might have been copies off of Tales of the Gold Monkey, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It definitely captured the Golden Age of Aviation in a nice, kid friendly format and once I got older and more interested in history I could spot many of the historical parallels in it.

 

[Christopher]

I dunno, I liked Tale Spin personally. Sure there might have been copies off of Tales of the Gold Monkey, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It definitely captured the Golden Age of Aviation in a nice, kid friendly format and once I got older and more interested in history I could spot many of the historical parallels in it.

It was an entertaining show, sure, but my beef is not so much with the show itself as with the mentality of the studio behind it. I suppose one could justify the imitation as parody, allowing Disney to get away with it under fair-use copyright laws, but at the very least it's strange that they'd parody a show hardly anyone ever saw, and they never openly acknowledged Gold Monkey as a source material. It feels less like a pastiche or tribute and more like "Hey, nobody remembers that show so we can copy it and pretend it's ours." It's the same unoriginality that led Disney to copy the anime series Kimba the White Lion, cross it with Hamlet, name it The Lion King, and have the gall to promote it as their first "original" movie. Whatever Disney's strengths may be, originality has not historically been among them. Heck, their best, most innovative show of the Disney Afternoon era, Gargoyles, only turned out so well because Disney wanted to copy Batman: The Animated Series and its dark, adult tone, and had the good sense to hire really great people who made it far more than just a copy. If not for that, Gargoyles would've been another one of their comedy shows.

 

[Dingo]

Heck, their best, most innovative show of the Disney Afternoon era, Gargoyles, only turned out so well because Disney wanted to copy Batman: The Animated Series and its dark, adult tone, and had the good sense to hire really great people who made it far more than just a copy. If not for that, Gargoyles would've been another one of their comedy shows.

True, that's how it was intended. But I rather liked Gargoyles for how it blended the mythologies of many different cultures and added Shakespearean lore and the like. Myths and Shakespeare seem to be free use media. It was a good show and yes it capitalized on the 'dark animation' of shows of the ilk of Batman brought to the table.

Anyhoo, back to the original topic, yes Bonkers was a WFRR knockoff, but for a knockoff I thought it was an enjoyable one at that. It led to some great memories, developed the three traits I look for in a woman (see quote below), and inspired some fanfiction ideas spinning about in my brain.

I much preferred the Miranda era episodes, the one where Carla DeVito plays Miranda Wright (nice pun on Miranda Rights BTW). When I was a kid (circa 10-11 years of age) I had a kinda crush on that character. (Let me re-iterate the disclaimer that I was 10 at the time, she was cute, intelligent and kindhearted, three traits that are winners in my book.)

To each his own I guess.

 

[Christopher]

Heck, their best, most innovative show of the Disney Afternoon era, Gargoyles, only turned out so well because Disney wanted to copy Batman: The Animated Series and its dark, adult tone, and had the good sense to hire really great people who made it far more than just a copy. If not for that, Gargoyles would've been another one of their comedy shows.

True, that's how it was intended. But I rather liked Gargoyles for how it blended the mythologies of many different cultures and added Shakespearean lore and the like. Myths and Shakespeare seem to be free use media. It was a good show and yes it capitalized on the 'dark animation' of shows of the ilk of Batman brought to the table.

Again, I'm not critiquing Gargoyles, I'm critiquing the Walt Disney studio of the 1980s and '90s. Gargoyles was a brilliant and innovative show, probably second only to B:TAS as the finest of its time, but it ended up that way in spite of Disney rather than because of it. The studio itself was deeply imitative and bereft of fresh ideas, but it made up for that by hiring some of the best people around to make their shows. So when they wanted to copy B:TAS, they went to the source and brought over some of B:TAS's own people, including writer/story editor Michael Reaves, director Frank Paur, and composer Carl Johnson. Plus they lucked out with showrunner Greg Weisman, the main person responsible for developing the show's rich mythos and storylines. They're the people who made the show work despite its origins.