One might think it was a foghorn oleghorn cartoon (late 1940s Warners onward + Rooster = Foghorn Leghorn. Of course those of us who read creditsd will see otherwise if we see the restored credits ("Directed by ROBERT MCKIMSON") and if you notice the directors, style, it's different than McKimson (and years back when I saw this rerun in the 60s/70s, hardlyu anyone cared enough about someone as obscure as Art Davis, let alone non-Disney or non-UPA animation in general then..though UPA only then was well knbown, and earlier, it's now slipped out of most's consciousness.)
Back to the short, there's not much diaglouge, but again, one could mistake it for a Foghorn cartoon. --Steve Carras gcarras@aol.com (signing as Anponymous due to "Forgetfulness of my passowrd")
Great voices too. I thought it was brilliant as always from Davis. I like the dynamic of the characters. I thought the gags were executed cleverly and uniquely.
I never cared for this one, but I love the design of the rooster, and the Don Williams animation.
ReplyDeleteOne might think it was a foghorn oleghorn cartoon (late 1940s Warners onward + Rooster = Foghorn Leghorn. Of course those of us who read creditsd will see otherwise if we see the restored credits ("Directed by ROBERT MCKIMSON") and if you notice the directors, style, it's different than McKimson (and years back when I saw this rerun in the 60s/70s, hardlyu anyone cared enough about someone as obscure as Art Davis, let alone non-Disney or non-UPA animation in general then..though UPA only then was well knbown, and earlier, it's now slipped out of most's consciousness.)
ReplyDeleteBack to the short, there's not much diaglouge, but again, one could mistake it for a Foghorn cartoon.
--Steve Carras
gcarras@aol.com (signing as
Anponymous due to "Forgetfulness of my passowrd")
Great voices too. I thought it was brilliant as always from Davis. I like the dynamic of the characters. I thought the gags were executed cleverly and uniquely.
ReplyDelete