They redrew the black hunter into the Elmer Fudd we know today because of the racial implications.
http://aaea-la.blogspot.com/2007/09/bugs-bunny-was-originally-black.html
Why did they bother...
- Thread starter Captain Nebula
- Start date
They redrew the black hunter into the Elmer Fudd we know today because of the racial implications.
http://aaea-la.blogspot.com/2007/09/bugs-bunny-was-originally-black.html
I'll add those to the list.If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.
About 20 years ago (or more) I bought a friend of mine a TOS cast t-shirt because he loved TNG. Loving my gifthe took it away on a holiday to climb the Himalayas where he would be camping and staying in huts without running water and electricity.
He came back and he told me that he was amazed how many people recognised the people on the shirt. In places without TV or movie theatres where they didn't speak English, people would come up to him and say 'Kirk', 'Spock'.
So you claim they're not icons but a lot of people around the world recognise them.
Ever since My So-Called Life came on in the 90s, I have been told by almost every stranger I meet that I looked like Claire Danes (I do have an uncanny resemblance to her- this poster picture could easily be me). When lived in Japan 10 years ago, even Japanese people would tell me that I looked like her, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't an iconic character in anything as popular as Star Trek. The actors are not the icons...the characters are. I bet that if you showed those same people a poster from the new Star Trek, they would still say that those characters were Kirk and Spock.
Yeah, I read the whole article that guy quoted. His assertion isn't in there.
Elmer Fudd = 1940
Black Hunter Guy = 1941
Bugs Bunny was not originally black.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FirstBugs.jpg
I don't know what that guy's agenda is, but he seems to have his facts a little mixed up.
I'd be happy to discuss further via PM.
If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.
We should combine the two to create a new evil. Iconon? Icanonic?
If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.
We should combine the two to create a new evil. Iconon? Icanonic?
Iconian.
Wish I could, but I can't yet. Anyway, just wanted to say that the original Elmer Fudd in 1940 and in another cartoon in 1941 wasn't remotely anything like the hunter. I guess the better explanation is that they merged the two because they wanted the hunter character that wasn't offensive (the director Tex Avery left the studio before the cartoon was even aired).
One definite element that was remade into an Elmer Fudd cartoon was the log scene over a cliff. It appeared in All That and Rabbit Stew and then was reanimated into the 1946 cartoon The Big Snooze. {SOURCE}
trevanian
Rear Admiral
About 20 years ago (or more) I bought a friend of mine a TOS cast t-shirt because he loved TNG. Loving my gift
He came back and he told me that he was amazed how many people recognised the people on the shirt. In places without TV or movie theatres where they didn't speak English, people would come up to him and say 'Kirk', 'Spock'.
So you claim they're not icons but a lot of people around the world recognise them.
Ever since My So-Called Life came on in the 90s, I have been told by almost every stranger I meet that I looked like Claire Danes (I do have an uncanny resemblance to her- this poster picture could easily be me). When lived in Japan 10 years ago, even Japanese people would tell me that I looked like her, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't an iconic character in anything as popular as Star Trek. The actors are not the icons...the characters are. I bet that if you showed those same people a poster from the new Star Trek, they would still say that those characters were Kirk and Spock.
If they were in the yellow and blue shirts, yeah. But if you show them a picture of these guys doing the DRESS GREY thing, a decent guess would be 'is that STARSHIP TROOPERS?'
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Something wrong with his asking for clarification?
This is at least the second poster in the last week that you seem to have gone after -- and yes, I'm using that phrase very deliberately this time, after our PMs on the last one -- when they're really only guilty of being articulate while stating a position that goes against the popular view.
All the while allowing to pass w/o comment most of the snipes and unsupported declarations of dismissal from the other side, just as this board has done for well over a decade now.
Is there really some payoff -- no, let me use the word gain -- from actively attempting to decrease the level of intelligent discourse here?
About 20 years ago (or more) I bought a friend of mine a TOS cast t-shirt because he loved TNG. Loving my gift
He came back and he told me that he was amazed how many people recognised the people on the shirt. In places without TV or movie theatres where they didn't speak English, people would come up to him and say 'Kirk', 'Spock'.
So you claim they're not icons but a lot of people around the world recognise them.
Ever since My So-Called Life came on in the 90s, I have been told by almost every stranger I meet that I looked like Claire Danes (I do have an uncanny resemblance to her- this poster picture could easily be me). When lived in Japan 10 years ago, even Japanese people would tell me that I looked like her, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't an iconic character in anything as popular as Star Trek. The actors are not the icons...the characters are. I bet that if you showed those same people a poster from the new Star Trek, they would still say that those characters were Kirk and Spock.
If they were in the yellow and blue shirts, yeah. But if you show them a picture of these guys doing the DRESS GREY thing, a decent guess would be 'is that STARSHIP TROOPERS?'
Yes, because these:
..are nowhere near as dressy and practical as these original goofy-looking dress uniforms:
If you show them a picture of the characters in the yellow-blue-red uniforms, people will recognize them instantly. They updated the dress uniforms (which they hardly ever wear in TOS series, anyway) from something comedic to classy and professional. The "iconic" uniforms are still there, and still recognizable.
I do think the word "icon" tends to get thrown around pretty loosely these days. Back when I used to lurk on comic book boards, it was not uncommon to see Martian Manhunter or Blue Beetle described as "iconic" by hardcore comics fans . . . which is probably pushing things a little.
If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.
We need a "like" button here.
I do think the word "icon" tends to get thrown around pretty loosely these days. Back when I used to lurk on comic book boards, it was not uncommon to see Martian Manhunter or Blue Beetle described as "iconic" by hardcore comics fans . . . which is probably pushing things a little.
If I had my way, the words "canon" and "iconic" would be expunged from the internet.
We need a "like" button here.
/LIKE
The new dress uniforms look nice, and much dressier than the prime ones, but they're just too.... 21st century Earth.
I can look at the old dress uniforms and imagine that they're 150 years in the future and that they might be influenced by alien fashions. And I never found them "comedic."
I can look at the old dress uniforms and imagine that they're 150 years in the future and that they might be influenced by alien fashions. And I never found them "comedic."
My opinion only, of course, but I did. I nearly laughed out loud the first time I saw them. My friend and I joked that they decided to do arts and crafts with their dress uniform, and that they clearly liked glitter.
That is an absolutely horrible comparison.
Horrible. Inapplicable.
A racist character unfit for modern times has no parallel in TOS Kirk and Spock--the latter being characters who in their original form--stood the test of time, and remain pop culture fixtures to this day.
The characters have stood the test of time, and are now played by different actors.
Which is why I wondered why they bothered using the names of the original characters since their personalities are no where near the personalities of the original characters.
I think Zachary Quinto is a good actor, but just having pointed ears, funny hair, and a monotone voice doesn't make him Spock. Leonard Nimoy projected that character. I get none of that with the new movies. Spock is/was a scientist. nuSpock is an administrator.
YES!
You're mileage may very (sorry I didn't abbreviate that, I'm old and still type out entire words
). They are all are spot on to the characters. Scarry so. Whatever the weaknesses people think Orci et al have in storytelling, they've been very true to the characters, and the actors have been, too. Again, in my opinion.
Yes it does.
Spock is the "Vulcan science officer of the Starship Enterprise." Anything beyond that is subject to interpretation.
Just like Hamlet is "The Prince of Denmark." Within those confines, there have been countless interpretations of everything from portraying him as a lecherous sociopath to a whimsical comedian. None is more "right" or "wrong" than another.
Similar threads
