Castle_Box_Woody Castle_Box_Woody
Feature Film

Illumination developing CG “Woody Woodpecker”

The Hollywood Reporter is reporting about Universal Pictures new plans to revive Walter Lantz’ classic cartoon star Woody Woodpecker in a CG feature film.

Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me, Hop and The Lorax) is now developing the film with Blades of Glory co-writers John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky, who are planning to “modernize the character for contemporary audiences”. Altschuler and Krinsky were exec producers and writers on Fox’s King of Hill and currently on MTV’s Beavis and Butt-head.

Reviving classic cartoon characters is a hit-or-miss proposition. Alvin and the Chipmunks and Yogi Bear were huge commercial successes, but aesthetic disasters. Can Woody work in the 21st Century?

(Thanks, Paul Mular)

  • Andrea Ippoliti

    Maybe this could let them release a third volume of the Woody Woodpecker Collection, if you’ll ask them.

  • Harry P

    I predict maximum loathsomeness for the “re-boot”.

  • The teaser for the fanmade Woody 2D Movie:

  • Valentin Moretto

    I can imagine this plot being approved by the Universal execs: Woody spent months in a psychiatric ward, Woody is definitively cured of his looniness to become a goody two-shoes, a random super-evil character threatens to bring chaos to Woody’s world, Woody -quite reluctantly- teams up with Wally Walrus, Buzz Buzzard and Miss Meanie in order to defeat him, Woody is forced to perform tricks on him the way the original, loony Woody did at his debuts. Our heroes win and everyone went back to performing their antics to each other just like in the original cartoons.
    See? I spent less than 5 minutes coming up with this plot.

    • Annabel Cole

      I’d actually enjoy watching that, as long as “goody” Woody has uncontrollable, psychotic flashbacks that he’s visibly struggling to suppress.

      And as long as the “random super-evil character” is David Stainton.

  • I have a couple of ideas these guys might want to use.

    * Make Woody look as much like an actual woodpecker as possible. Especially if this means changing aspects of his design that are pleasing to the eye, or that have been part of his design for many years.

    * Perhaps there is some way for Woody to, thru circumstances beyond his control, end up in the Big City? Maybe he could find himself lost in the streets of New York!!

    * I believe your best bet with Woody’s voice is going to be finding a pop singer, then speeding his voice up to the point where nobody recognizes him anymore. The flat delivery will still make it thru the editing process. I recommend Justin Bieber if he’s available.

    Good luck you guys!!! Still eagerly awaiting that live-action and CGI-hybrid SNORKS feature!!!

    • snip2354

      Get that magical animated portal to New York ready yet again!

    • R. Araya

      If they hire that “joik” who still believes that he is a singer, they would run out of money. I (sarcastically) recommend to get one of the Disney Channel or Nickelodeon “pop star” wannabes. No one will notice the difference, and it will be a phenomenal success (I’m still sarcastic).

    • sam

      the movie is not even out yet!!!! you don’t know what they’re planning for the script, it could be the best movie of the year, for all you know!

      give it a chance. geez!

  • Ed Thompson

    The things that made him funny in his best cartoons are no longer permitted in kids movies.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Well thanks for being obvious.

  • Who is making these decisions…..

  • Whenever I hear the words “modernize the character for contemporary audiences” I immediately have concerns.

    Woody’s been around for over 50 years, he must be doing something right.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

  • “Reviving classic cartoon characters is a hit-or-miss proposition. Alvin and the Chipmunks and Yogi Bear were huge commercial successes, but aesthetic disasters.”

    The sad truth is that ss long as it is a commercial success, the execs won’t care what Woody looks like.

    • Sad but true.

    • I’ve noticed’s really hard to hit both..commercial success and awesome pats-on-the-back by the industry/artistic’s really hard..your stuff was a commercial success but to your artistic peers/industry creators if there’s a slight possibility that they could gut you and hang your rotting corpse upside down in Hollywood then they’d do it in a very hard..*sigh*

      • Paul A McCarthy

        It’s hard … but not impossible …Pixar seem to be able to achieve it fairly regularly. (Cars 2 excepted).

        A starting point is finding a good original story. I see plenty of amazingly creative amateur talents on You Tube that could come up with something much better than a rehash of W-W.

    • Funkybat

      Right you are, if something makes money no one in charge of production gives a rat’s ass whether the character design has any fidelity with the original or even basic appeal. What amazes me is that so many of these “reboots” of old cartoon characters *do* make substantial money with the unappealing designs.

      Granted, not all of these have been successful. That live-action “Underdog” didn’t do very well, and no one went to see the live-action “Josie and the Pussycats.” But when they have CG-versions of the marquee characters, even if they are offputting to everyone I know and everyone in every online forum I know of, there still seem to be enough people out there with no discernment. I mean, there has to be some kind of threshold, where even Average Joe and Jane middle-america parents looking for an afternoon of mild family entertainment would take one look at the ads and say “that looks like a piece of flaming crap!”, right? I mean, it’s sort of like the Uncanny Valley, there must be some way they can make these 3D characters so off-putting and lame that no one would take their family to the movie. It seems like they have gone about as close to that line as possible without (apparently) crossing it with the recent successful “reboot” films.

      I have very little hope that “Woody” movie featuring him “modernized for contemporary audiences” is going to be any good, unless he were made “contemporary” in such a way that he actually mimicked what makes the few good modern comedies work. But somehow, I doubt loads of “discomfort humor” and juxtapositions of dated tropes with ironic self-parody of the same will make it to the final cut of a big-budget “children’s film.”

  • I’m just hoping they’ll get a third volume of Woody Woodpecker cartoons out for release circa the films release.

    • zac

      Nah, they’ll just re-release the whole batch on blu ray instead.

      • Kristjan

        I have better Idea release the entry Walter Lantz library on Blu-Ray.

  • Chris Sobieniak

    I’m scared, Jerry!

  • uncle wayne

    omg! Now, wait. didn’t they do a revive-tv-show version a few years (maybe a decade) ago. THOSE films are not bad at all.

  • Amy

    Too bad for Chris Meledandri. Universal now owns him completely on every level. What a sad waste. It’s really hard to create original content–but you can’t do it unless you do it.

    Looking backwards is not the answer.

    • Funkybat

      I would hope to see more original content out of Illumination. Despicable Me was a great film to launch with, and while it certainly references films and genres that came before, it was a new idea with new characters, and it was a hit.

      Seems like everything on their slate for the near future is either sequels or adaptations of existing stuff.

  • Well, I dunno – it’s not like Woody aged all that well. In a fair fight between independent stations in the seventies, Bugs, Popeye and Tom & Jerry always wound up preferred over the Woodpecker by my household. At the same time, the purveyors of (non-Pixar) CG have been getting better at character and nuance, and “Despicable Me” was a pretty good example of a story well-told rather than a gee-whiz exercise. Eh, who knows?

  • JimBob

    NO! Not again! *Runs and hides*

  • Well, at least it’s entirely CG, instead having live-action elements.

  • Peter H

    “Illumination and the writers will seek to create a story that modernizes the character, hopefully launching a franchise in the process.”

    Woody began as an aggressive screwball in the Bugs/Daffy mold, with the unique (but ultimately underused) ability to decimate wood. True to the formula established for comedy stars (both cartoon and live-action) in the silent era and in force ever since, he then appeared in what ever plot set-up the writers could devise, from contemporary life through historical and fictional cliches to myth and fantasy. Any background for him to perform his routine.

    Through the comics and the TV series he became blander and even more interchangable with other cartoon characters.

    So a redefining, a sharpening, of his basic personality is probably appropriate.

    But surely the point of a character like Woody is that you could put him in a modern setting and let him run riot without having to do any ‘modernizing’.

    If the writers are attuned to modern audiences (in short, if they are writing for themselves) they will automatically write a Woody for today.

    So you can bet they won’t be allowed to. This requires a committee of the ‘out of touch’ to pontificate on what ‘the kids of today (and tomorrow!) want’. So that it ends up satisfying nobody.

    Hooray for Hollywood – 2011!

    And I DO hope I’m wrong.

    • Five gets you ten that according to an ad exec, the “kids of today” want a product similar to YO YOGI—one which would, realistically, do about as well.

  • spur


    Woody Woodpecker in the middle of Times Square, looking around astounded as the camera circles around him.

    Hey! They should be paying ME to make these!

    • Funkybat

      Would be nice if, just for fun, one of these “character finds self a fish out of water in a big city” scenarios featured a city other than NYC or LA. I mean, aside from all the international cities, just within the U.S. there’s Boston, Philly, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas, Miami, Nawlins…..

  • uncle wayne

    “I like cartoons. Don’t you like cartoons, mister??”

  • Justin Delbert

    You know for years I’ve said, “Don’t change this or don’t do that to these characters.” But now I have an understanding why they do. And you will too with this video:

    For me though, some are ok like Yogi Bear, while others such as Underdog, are crap to me.

  • What is it with studios butchering the past?? Why must every classically drawn cartoon be made into “vinyl looking” 3D??

    So glad The Muppet Movie wasn’t made in 3D. That would have been a slap in the face to Jim Henson (*rip)

  • Dan Kyder

    I for one look forward to seeing what Woody’s poop looks like

    I’m sure its on the top of their list of gags

  • Clint H.

    You know, with all these modern revivals of classic characters nowadays, why bother getting all worked up? We all know it’s gonna suck, so what’s the point?

    • snip2354

      The point is, these make the money, and that’s what drives Hollywood. This may mean animation jobs that may not be rewarding.

  • eeteed

    instead of a cg cartoon, have they considered making this film in live action with jim carey running around in a woodpecker costume?

  • Jonah Sidhom

    I would normally automatically think it will be terrible, but the fact that Illumination is doing it gives me hope. I don’t see them making one of those live-action/realistic CG cartoon character movies like Yogi or The Smurfs. I love the world they created for The Lorax, and they seem to have a pretty good sense of humor.

    I’m looking forward to it!

  • Sometimes this is too easy.

    City guy buys log cabin in woods. Doesn’t care about nature. Lunatic woodpecker plagues him. City guy tries to kill it. Can’t. Evil logging company tries to destroy whole forest. Woody and city guy unite to defeat them. Do. Now city guy loves nature. “That’s great because in the sequeal I’m moving back to the city with you.” “NooooOOOOOoooooo!”

  • Dave

    PREDICTION: Gene Wilder & Richard Pryor in STIR CRAZY as the costumed,singing/performing woodpeckers in the bank scenes will STILL look better – and more woodpecker realistic – than the upcoming Woodrow Woodpecker CGI film.

    Bank on it.

  • Craig M

    As a studio is apparently working on turning “The Munsters” into an hour-long drama, I would encourage the new Woody Woodpecker movie to be a sensitive profile of a bird’s sad and terrifying descent into madness.

    • R. Araya

      By the way, are you serious about remaking “The Munsters”? Because if so… we will desperately need a time machine to see (and then get rid of) what went wrong.

  • Brendan Spillane

    “If Woody had gone right to the police, this would NEVER have happened.”

  • Tony McCarson

    disney’s re-naming the rapunzel movie to “tangled” and the hip and edgy trailers of “tangled” are also commercial successes, but aesthetic disasters.

  • You know what? I don’t care anymore. If they want to piss on classic animation history for a few bucks, that’s just fine with me.

    Go on. Make Woody dance to hip-hop music. Have him make poop jokes and pop culture references fawn after the human female lead. Hell, make it in 3-D. Kids will love it.

    Nobody’s gonna remember this movie in ten or twenty years anyway, so what’s the harm?

    • sam

      exactlly!!! THIS guy knows what he’s talking about. it’s not made for you.

  • Matt

    If it’s anything like this: I think it can easily work. But we shall see.

  • Shaw

    What they should do is spend the money to make NEW Woody Woodpecker cartoons – put ’em in theaters like they used to. Take the rest of the money and put the whole Walter Lantz collection on Blu-Ray. Of course, movie studios can’t figure out what the heck to do with their classic cartoon properties.

    • R. Araya

      I second that! I bet that at least 12 or so 7-minute cartoons per year may cost as much as a 90-minute film.

  • Deaniac

    “Altschuler and Krinsky were exec producers and writers on Fox’s King of Hill”

    To be fair, I’d rather have these guys than the writers of, say, Alvin and The Chipmunks or Yogi Bear. Remember when the Pooh movie that came out this year was announced to feature “a faster pace punctuated with humour that’s appropriate for modern audiences”? It turned out just fine. On top of that, the Lorax film Illumination is working on looks promising, so there’s some hope…

    Perhaps I’m either trying to be optimistic or playing the devil’s advocate. Your choice.

  • snip2354

    “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.” – Professor Farnsworth

  • Christopher Cook

    There hasn’t been a clamor for Woody in TV exposure since Fox got rid of the 2001 retool. Why would they greenlight something nobody’s aching for?

    • Because some mid-level executroid at Universal said, “Hey, THE SMURFS MOVIE and YOGI BEAR and ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS all made a shitload of money! Don’t WE own some old cartoon characters we can pull out of mothballs and exploit the same way?”


    They’re trying to destroy a property that I haven’t seen plenty of episodes in a while, just like Yogi Bear!

    Please make him cartoony-looking.

    I think Popeye will be ruined, but I hope it releases the Famous color cartoons from “Her Honor the Mare” to “Spooky Swabs”

  • ya’know what? I think the MPAA needs to ban CGI (and ones with live action) features of animated short film series. Now that’s somethin’ to talk about.

  • david

    remember the woody cartoon where he’s in the trash can trying to blow his brains out?

    I think it’s appropriate

    • sam

      no it’s not. it’s a CARTOON man!!! you still have your precious little classics to watch…though if you ask me you should get different interests than watching cartoons at your age!!!!

      who cares if they make a new movie with the character? ignore it and talk about things you actually LIKE for once.

      • The Gee

        Though I will take issue with dissing people who are adults who watch cartoons.

        There’s an awful lot of people who post on this site, some on this topic, who work making animation and cartoons for a living. There’s no reason to diss livelihoods….which is what you are doing with the comment.

  • Joe

    If they’re gonna do it. Please use the Fred Moore design. Maybe some of his girls too!

  • NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! And WHY always CGI???

    • R. Araya

      Because kids like it, because it looks “better”. Some time ago, at the now-defunct G.A.C. Forums, there was a discussion about the rather absurd trend of titling films as they were “new” creations.

      • I’m sick of it. CG is a crutch unless they pull off a Paperman then forget it.

  • “If I had a gun, I’d shoot myself.”

  • Toontown is Burning

    Good grief.

    Is Judge Doom now in control of Hollywood?
    Because these guys sure seem hellbent on putting every good toon into the “Dip.”

  • Toontown is Burning

    Why would Woody even need to be “modernized”? The character has pretty much always been a good natured anarchist, and that seems to be in vogue now more than ever—well, except for the good natured part.

  • I wonder if he’s going to be paired with a loser celebrity that nobody cares about…

  • Brad

    Two guys, looking up and offscreen:

    Guy 1: What kinda bird is that?

    Guy 2: That is one ugly woodpecker.

    White drips onto Guy 2’s shoulder.

    Cut to Woody, looking down, holding a vanilla ice cream cone.

    Woody: Sorry!

    Guy 2: Ugly and sloppy.

  • sam

    wow…tough crowd! are you people serious? blowing your brains out over changing a freaking cartoon character? you may not like it, but then again, this movie is not being made for adult males who have an obsession with children’s cartoons…it’s being made for kids! and believe it or not, kids like this stuff! my niece is a big fan of the alvin and the chimpmunks movies and i think that she’ll definetely want to see something in a similar light because it’s being made for her! not you!!!!!!

    it’s like the looney tunes show all over again. you guys are making assumptions about a movie that doesn’t even have a TRAILER out yet!! you don’t know if it’s good or not. yogi bear was a step in the right direction in my opinion, and i’d like to see more of these movies made for KIDS to watch, rather than pandering to internet NERDS.

    grow up and get real lives!!!!!

    • The Gee

      He was just quoting the character from this cartoon:

      But, I do agree with you to a point.

      There’s not much reason to make a fuss about this. The studio owns the properties and will do with it what it wishes. I don’t see taking characters from shorts and making features as being a solid creative choice, but, it worked with some characters, like Mr. Magoo, The Pink Panther series and some of the TV adaptations over the decades going back to the Flintstones.
      Not everyone needs to be entertained by everything.
      And, the originals still exist somehow, someway.

  • dbenson

    I look forward to hearing the hip, contemporary version of the song. Available on CD with “Scrub Me Momma with a Boogie Beat” and “Chilly Willy”

  • Spargs

    If this gets us a third volume of Woody Woodpecker & Friends on DVD, then I’m all for it!

  • CJ

    Personally I have no problem with reviving old characters into a new setting. The problem I have is that many of these films don’t age well.

    When I was a kid there were two Don Bluth films I loved. Rats of NIMH and Rock A Doodle. I watched both every weekend from the age of 5 to 10. When I turned 16 or so I bought Rock A Doodle thinking it would still be amazing. It did not age well… at all – While NIMH still holds the same wonder it did when I was five. The animation was great, the characters well developed, and the tone was well balanced.

    So the problem I have with many of the new films is that they don’t age well, at all. Most of them are filled with pop references and poor character development or contrived plots. A kid will love it; but if they bought it as an adult as I did with Rock A Doodle, it will be tossed to Great Escape months later. While the classics such as NIMH are watched over and over.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      NIMH certainly aged well for me too. It has a story to tell and characters that you want to follow with along the way in a live or die situation.

      • Bobby Bickert

        Well, it was adapted from an existing book, “Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH”. I assume “Rock A Doodle” wasn’t.

  • Even if it were good natured it won’t work for an important reason:

    They will try to make Woody a generic hero.

    I mean, he’s easily the most violent classic cartoon character out there.

  • Even if it were good natured it won’t work for an important reason:

    They will try to make Woody a generic hero.

    I mean, he’s easily the most violent classic cartoon character out there.


    Obvious troll is obvious

  • Forganza

    They’re missing a bet unless they use the lance-wielding Woody on the Castle Films box in the final shot in his new role as a feathered proctologist on horseback.

  • So… will this film be fully CGI-animated, or will it be a hybrid between animation and live-action?

  • Gray64

    I don’t want to shoot it down before it’s even off the ground, but I have to think it’s a losing proposition to try to do a feature length film with characters who were conceived for short subjects. What kind of long-form plot can they dream up for him that lets him remain himself, and behave as he’s been shown to behave? It’s the same reason, really, why those Looney Tunes movies never work; the characters really can’t behave as themselves in a long format, or at least they haven’t been able to thus far.

    • They got rather close to it in Looney Tunes: Back in Action. Not perfect, but better than most anything else I’ve seen when it comes to capturing the characters of the characters.

      • Yeah, the characters did behave like themselves in Back In Action, especially Bugs and Daffy. The movie was still lacking, though, mostly because of a too stupid plot (I like wacky and silly, but not stupid) and life actors that didn’t deliver (Brendan Fraser and Steve Martin have been funnier and better in other movies and Jenna Elfman was totally miscast). Finally the animation was kinda mediocre because of an overuse of shadowing and bad integration with the life action.

        I believe it isn’t really that difficult to use ‘comedy’ characters in a long feature. Look at Spongebob The Movie, South Park Bigger, Longer and Uncut or Beavis and Butthead Do America. I haven’t watched it yet but I’m pretty sure the new Muppets movie would have the characters acting in character for the most part.

        I think it’s more a problem of misconception around writers and executives who think that you have to add pathos, emotion or heroic behaviour in a long animated feature, maybe because of the everlasting shadow of Disney movies (including Pixar’s). If they just assumed to do a pure comedy there shouldn’t be a problem to create a plot mostly based on gags. I mean, Monty Python’s Life Of Brian doesn’t have a lot of pathos or character evolution (maybe a little but never in a dramatic way) and it’s still well written and hilarious. And Duck Dodgers The Series had longer plots than Duck Dodgers the original short, but the characters still acted like themselves.

        And even if it’s inavoidable, a little pathos could be ok. A Woody Woodpecker Movie with the same amount of pathos of Kung Fu Panda or Rango could work. Those are still very funny movies with plenty of gags and it’s not like the characters main traits had changed that much at the end of it all. Actually in Rango you could pretty much substitute the hero for Daffy and it may work as some sort of combination of Duck Amuck and Drip-Along Daffy. The problem with classic characters revivals is that the conflicts are usually cliched and not suited to the character personality at all. At least in Back In Action the main ‘dramatic’ conflict (Daffy feeling jealous of Bugs’ fame) was based on a trait he already had in Chuck Jones’ shorts.

  • I forgot to mention something: as much as I love Woody’s cartoons he actually doesn’t have a lot of personality. His personality is more based on the way he looks and moves, or his voice, rather than something too elaborate in the way he behaves. Depending of the cartoon he acts different.

    So in this sense it could be a little difficult to make a feature around him. Still I think the main problem is that they would end with some ugly semi-realistic design and a cliched story. The fact that he was created for shorts or didn’t have a too elaborated personality wouldn’t be that much of an obstacle if the movie were done by people who love the character creating gags to entertain themselves.

  • DB

    Can’t wait for the CG movie versions of Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill, South Park and a CG sequel to South Park featuring Terrance & Phillip

    • Funkybat

      One of the funniest things about last week’s Family Guy episode was (SPOILER) the bit where we see the “future” and everything is in CG 3D. That, and the mockery of Seth’s poor-quality drawing in the “past” alone made it worth watching.

  • Al jordan

    @ Matt: Thanks for that. Looks like the work of an art student from Brazil. If the suits at Universal want to play their cards right, they should hire a good number of these ambitious Brazilian artists to handle the animation chores to make this movie really happen. In that country, Woody Woodpecker (known there as “Pica Pau”) is practically a celebrity.

  • Guys,

    Of course films like the recent Alvin and the Chipmunks films and the recent Yogi Bear are huge successes commercially but can also be disastrous aesthetically. I agree that reviving even old cartoons on TV by turning them into movies can be a hit-or-miss proposition.

    Anyway, I have a dream project, and that project is a massive, elaborate, multi-part theatrical big screen live action and/or animated cartoon hybrid Dexter’s Laboratory and the Powerpuff Girls crossover and/or Dexter’s Lab/The Powerpuff Girls-inspired fantasy epic tale of mythic and legendary proportions.

    For that, to bring the Dexter’s Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls cartoon characters (or, ‘toona’kâiya’, as the production should refer to them) to life on the big screen, even though it’s a live action/animation hybrid epic, I’d rather stick to the technique that works best for these characters: 2D traditional hand drawn cel cartoon character animation, and in a character design and animation art style that should hark back to both Cartoon Network shows’ earlier Genndy Tartakovsky-involved character design and animation art roots.

    I also intend to photograph all the live action elements using real 35mm anamorphic and real 15/70mm IMAX motion picture film cameras, making it one of, if not the last movie production ever to be photographed on real celluloid motion picture film as we know it, especially of the anamorphic 35mm and/or 70mm IMAX variety.

    As for the music score for it, it should be an epic cinematic music score that should incorporate unusual and exotic, ethnic instrumental (i.e. ethnic woodwinds and ethnic percussion) and vocal musical sound from around the world, as well as some electronic synthesizers and computers, into a full traditional orchestral score.

    As for the sound work, I think Skywalker Sound or the like should handle such and even a theatrical 7.1 channel audio mix.

    As for a production company that should handle releasing and distribution duties for it, I would root for Cartoon Network, Warner Bros. Pictures, 20th Century Fox, or maybe all three studios plus Legendary Pictures or New Regency.

    And of course, I think the main central lead character in it that audiences are to identify with, besides Dexter and/or Dee Dee, shall be Lee Lee, the Asian friend of Dee Dee.

    That project, guys, should be called “Dexter’s Odyssey”.

    Dexter’s Odyssey should be set in a world beyond our imagination, where dinosaurs still roamed, where dragons rule the skies, where mystical god-like spirit beings known as ‘avatars’ (actually derived from an actual Hindu word from Ancient India meaning the manifestation of a deity in human or animal form or a variant phase or version of a continuing entity) kept balance between the realms of flesh, spirit, and even nature, for good or ill, and where four unlikely young heroes (Dexter, his sister Dee Dee, and her Asian and Black friends Lee Lee and Mee Mee) embarks on an epic journey of even redemption and discovery, as the brave young quartet leads a heroic battle/war to save their world, and civilization as they know it, from the forces of the evil malevolent avatar, the Dark Lord Mandark (who, according to an ancient prophecy, one of Dee Dee’s friends, Lee Lee, as a benevolent avatar, is to destroy).

    A thousand apologies for typing such a long comment, but Dexter’s Odyssey is gonna be cool and awesome and great and epic! Or would it?

    Yours truly,


  • uninformed student

    Hasn’t Woody been “revamped” twice already? I’m by no means an animation historian, but I seem to remember an almost ludicrously insane looking woodpecker as the original, then a more looney-tunes looking (pear shaped body, white stomach and bugs bunny feet) and finally, one much more tamed design.

    I also remember Woody’s personality changing quite a bit throughout the history of his shows…and…I’m also fairly sure that Woody has had different voice actors portray him.

    My comment isn’t meant to be interpreted as for or against the feature, but rather an interest in how Woody has already changed from Lantz’s original character. I wonder which Woody will be used as the basis for the new design.

    ….Personally…I’m hoping this modernized Woody will have a sweet rap. Maybe he’ll have a loop station and use his laugh for the beat.

  • I’d like to see them try to do Buzz without my grandfather. Yes, this is Buzz-Buzzard/Gumby’s grandson here!

  • Jeff Missinne

    Found this quote at a general entertainment-news web site. File it under “Some People Just Can’t Enjoy Anything!”: