#clampett

[cluepoke-archive]

Revisiting some old designs !! I haven't drawn any of my object head characters in a looooong time, so it was fun to revisit them and figure out expressions! I think this is the first time I've really nailed down brollys body language(drawing umbrellas is hard oughsh)

Annnd a line up. Brollys short and clampett is ridiculously tall lookit her what a figure

[otterperlo]

Ob jects

[foursidecity]

Lookin through old sketvhbooks and forgot how much I loved this doodle of my object crew hehehe

[funbearer]

[astralbondpro]

Looney Tunes: Breakdowns of 1938 // Dir. Robert Clampett

[dailylooneys]

Bacall to Arms

(1946, Bob Clampett, Arthur Davis)

[vintagewildlife]

Marbled frogmouth By: A. D. Trounson / M. C. Clampett From: The Complete Encyclopedia of the Animal World 1980

[inthedarktrees]

“Tortoise Wins by a Hare” | 1943  

[acmeoop]

Have A Light? “Bacall to Arms” (1946)

[animatejournal]

Porky in Egypt Director: Bob Clampett Studio: Warner Bros. | USA, 1938

[twoheadedfilmfan]

[screwball-duck]

why pre-1950s daffy duck should be considered the canon version

synopsis: this personality for daffy was the original idea (name), is more entertaining, complex, and versatile, and is a great way to explore new relationships between this daffy and other characters. i’m also not trying to erase chuck jones’s daffy or gatekeep what version people can like, just my opinion

what i would consider my strongest opinion about looney tunes is that bob clampett’s daffy duck (1930-1951) should be considered the canon personality for daffy duck instead of chuck jones’s daffy duck (1951-1969). what i mean by canon personality is that i think in future looney tunes content (movies, spin-off shows, video games, merchandise, etc.) that version of daffy duck should be the one depicted. we’re already seeing this in stuff like new looney tunes (2014), looney tunes cartoons (2020), and bugs bunny builders (2022), but i think most people still know daffy duck to be selfish, greedy, and caustic. i want the silly, insane, daffy daffy duck to be known in the cultural zeitgeist. i don’t want to erase chuck jones’s daffy duck, because i think that he has made some great cartoons and has lots of potential. the hunting trilogy contains some of the best cartoons in cartoon history. but here’s why the original daffy duck is a more interesting character.

first of all, daffy duck was made to be silly. it’s in his name. the definition of the word “daffy” is silly, odd, or peculiar in an amusing way. and i could argue that this version of daffy duck is more entertaining, but obviously that’s subjective and depends on the personal preference. i’ve always been a huge fan of random and insane cartoon characters, i.e. pinkie pie from my little pony and bill cipher from gravity falls. so instead i will argue that this version of daffy duck is more versatile. jones’s daffy duck can really only be put into situations where there’s something he wants, almost always money, fame, or survival. he then will do anything that he can to get this no matter who gets hurt, usually bugs, and then his plans backfire on him. a very simple format that can only be repeated so many times before being stale. but clampett’s daffy has such a strong personality that he can be put into almost any situation and it be very entertaining. obviously there’s the classic hunter and prey cartoons, like one of my favorites: duck soup to nuts (1944). but there’s so much more. in the daffy doc (1938) he’s a doctor, in porky and daffy (1938) he’s a boxer, in the henpecked duck (1941) and wise quacks (1939) he plays an incompetent husband and father, in plane daffy (1944) and daffy - the commando (1943) he works for the U.S. military, and many, many other examples. jones’s daffy just wouldn’t work in these circumstances, at least not in a way that’s equally entertaining. and clampett’s daffy is so much more versatile because he’s more complicated. the daffy we all know is a very one-dimensional character with simple motives. this is made apparent by the fact that jones’s daffy is a component of clampett’s daffy, as seen in you ought to be in pictures (1940) and daffy dilly (1948). silly daffy is selfish daffy, and so much more. he has a complex relationship with other characters, especially women (i.e. the stupid cupid (1944)), and has a shaky moral compass (i.e. tom turk and daffy (1944)). in 1951 his character was changed, but specifically simplified, to fit with bugs bunny.

which brings me to my next point: imagine bugs bunny with clampett’s daffy duck. why has that combination never been tried? i think that the two of them working together against elmer fudd or yosemite sam has great potential. daffy could be the chaotic and ridiculous one, while bugs has the more thought-out and successful plans and schemes. one of the greatest tragedies in looney tunes is that silly daffy was rarely paired with characters other than porky pig and elmer fudd. what about him with sylvester, foghorn leghorn, witch hazel, or marvin the martian? there are so many possibilities yet to be explored in future looney tunes media. even baffy (a ship i am not a fan of) could be interesting with this version of daffy duck.

anyway, this is something that i’m very passionate about and you need to understand about me before looking at the rest of my posts. i hope this has shown you new possibilities for this beloved character.

[outlawssweetheart]

The elves of Mirkwood are basically seen as the White Trash™ Hillbillies of the elf community, and that is precisely why they are my favorites.

[comic-covers]

(1963)

[stone-cold-groove]

Today yore vittle money fetches more than ever before.