Doug: Today's Saturday fare doesn't have anything to do with footie pajamas and Cocoa Puffs. Nope, while we're sticking with cartoons we're changing the time of day. We'd like to hear your thoughts and memories on those Winnie the Pooh cartoons that often played on The Wonderful World of Disney, and later as simply network specials. I'm thinking Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, and of course Winnie the Pooh and Tigger, Too!
10 comments:
I loved this when I was a kid and when my first daughter was young, we bought the VHS with all three of the original episodes on it. We had to watch it at least twice a day with both of my kids as they were growing up. May have to dig it out and see if it will still play. :)
There's not much in the world that signifies or embodies the innocence of youth like Winnie. Just those blustery fall days, when the colors change, walking with Christopher Robin.
Ah, the voicing of Sterling Holloway as the original Pooh seemed ever so perfect.
It's endearing warmth, like a walk through fallen leaves will always serve to remind me that our childhood memories are always a mere thought and gentle smile away...
I used to love the Winnie cartoons when I was really little, and when they aired as those all-too-rare network specials. However, when I watch them now, they don't seem to hold the same magic for me, not like the old Warner Brothers or Tom & Jerry cartoons - and I've found that that's often the case with many of the Disney features that I loved so much as a tyke.
But my love for the Pooh cartoons led me to A.A. Milne's books, which I still like to occasionally pick up and read. Those are very well-crafted - albeit somewhat melancholy - children's books.
We always made a point to watch those specials when they aired. My wife is crazy about Pooh Bear; she once had me paint a Pooh mural on the wall in our kitchen!
Like Edo, I read the books, and found them quite pleasurable. Nowadays I read them to my grandson on occasion, when I can pull him away from the Wii...
My first memories of Pooh on TV were watching the Disney Special or featurette of Pooh. We'd ge on our PJs, pop pocorn and watch Pooh on TV while holding all of our Pooh stuffies. 10,001 Poohs later I can say it DID make a lasting impression.... Deb
Deb -
Welcome to the BAB! Thanks for your comment!
Doug
I never saw the cartoons but we had this little set of books when I was a kid...oh, maybe, '73 or so. Probably might be worth something now, but people weren't all that sentimental back then...about stuff. But the image Pooh getting his head stuck in a honey jar...I've been in similar situations.
The Winnie-the-Pooh features on Wonderful World of Color/Disney were non-negotiable Must-See viewing for my two sisters and I. And like Graham, we got that same VHS when HBSon was a little, little tyke-- likely before his 2nd birthday, I imagine.
But the original two books were part of my youngest childhood storybooks, and I do still prefer them just a hair to Disney's wonderful film versions. As mentioned, those films do capture a wonderful, lush, innocently imaginative make-believe world that's layered on top of a real one; and the voice characterizations are just perfectly managed. But they do "Disnify" the source material ever so slightly, taking away Milne's extremely subtle edge, which is what makes many of the stories laugh-out-loud funny for the grown-ups reading them. Eeyore's dry, relentlessly morose and pessimistic wit just kind of becomes a vague mopiness (man, neither HBWife or I were ever able to read the bridge story or Eeyore's House story w/out having to stop the narrative to laugh at the poor donkey's under-his-breath remarks); Piglet has a couple of episodes in the books where his half-cocked hysterics do leave him out to dry; Tigger is somewhat less charming and a bit more understandably aggravating, Kanga can be almost nail-bitingly inattentive to Roo's perils, and so on.
Personally, I think I always liked those clearer, more recognizably human foibles in these little make-believe creatures. The films did manage to capture a bit of it (think about Rabbit's fussiness, for instance), but definitely toned it down-- softened it, perhaps, in thinking that it would make the characters more suitably palatable for a visual representation.
I dunno-- or maybe I'm 'waaaaay over-thinking it?
HB
HB, far from overthinking it, your analysis pretty much sums up my own reasons why I still have a hefty respect for the books, while the cartoons really don't captivate me any more. And yes, I agree that the Eeyore scenes in the books are often laugh-out-loud funny.
Also, two characters that the cartoon (and the comic book version based on the Disney cartoon) really botched are Rabbit and Owl. I love how, in the books, Owl puts on a big show of being a well-read intellectual, but he's actually illiterate. Meanwhile, Rabbit can not only read, he has wonderful handwriting.
Thanks Edo-- your reassurance does indeed make me worry a little less that I might come off like a loopy wingnut--!
With Rabbit, I do think that the visual character design for the films was an improvement over the book illustrations, where Rabbit tended to look really like any run-of-the-mill yard rabbit. He was a bit lacking in distinctive visual personality. Visually and vocally they got a nice bead on a fussy old guy who's likely to keep telling kids to get off his lawn.
The VHS collection does kind of draw attention to the fact that different kids voiced Christopher Robin over the years. And that Christopher Robin morphed between being British and being American. American Chris, I believe, was Clint Howard-- Ron Howard's oddball little brother ("Corey" from GENTLE BEN, right?).
HB
Post a Comment