अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंBugs 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.
Mel Blanc
- Bugs Bunny
- (वॉइस)
Arthur Q. Bryan
- Elmer Fudd
- (वॉइस)
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
While not as iconic as Duck Amuck, Rabbit Rampage it's still a pretty great short on its own, being very funny to watch from beginning to end.
The gags are pretty effective and clever, and while the similarities with its predecessor are more than evident, but the formula still works here.
It's not uncommon for many artists to revisit some of their old ideas, giving them a new spin; rather than a "rip-off" it's more like another alternative take of the Duck Amuck premise.
The gags are pretty effective and clever, and while the similarities with its predecessor are more than evident, but the formula still works here.
It's not uncommon for many artists to revisit some of their old ideas, giving them a new spin; rather than a "rip-off" it's more like another alternative take of the Duck Amuck premise.
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.
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.
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.
Even before reading the reviews on here, I could see a number of similarities to Duck Amuck. Duck Amuck is definitely superior to Rabbit Rampage; I consider Duck Amuck not only one of the Daffy's best cartoons but also one of the best Looney Tunes cartoons in general, while for Bugs I would put What's Opera Doc?, Broom-Stick Bunny, Rabbit Seasoning, Rabbit Fire, Rhapsody Rabbit and Water Water Every Hare over this.
In general, the animation was not too bad, Bugs himself looks somewhat odd, but the colours, backgrounds and visual tricks are very nice. In fact, like Duck Amuck what actually made Rabbit Rampage were the visual gags, they were clever and funny. That and Elmer's last line at the end, which I was not expecting. The music is also a nice touch, the dialogue is amusing, Mel Blanc is superb and the pacing is secure enough. Overall, not Bug's best by all means, but worth watching. 9/10 Bethany Cox
In general, the animation was not too bad, Bugs himself looks somewhat odd, but the colours, backgrounds and visual tricks are very nice. In fact, like Duck Amuck what actually made Rabbit Rampage were the visual gags, they were clever and funny. That and Elmer's last line at the end, which I was not expecting. The music is also a nice touch, the dialogue is amusing, Mel Blanc is superb and the pacing is secure enough. Overall, not Bug's best by all means, but worth watching. 9/10 Bethany Cox
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThis short's plot is similar to Duck Amuck (1953), both of which involve a character being annoyed by an animator.
- भाव
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!
- कनेक्शनEdited into Fifty Years of Bugs Bunny in 3 1/2 Minutes (1989)
- साउंडट्रैकAin't She Sweet
(uncredited)
Music by Milton Ager
Played when Bugs is wearing the flouncy hat with the bird
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि
- 7 मि
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें