Alvin and the Chipmunks: What were they wearing?

[furryman]

@Trinopus

I’ve just been searching and can’t find it…but there was a comic book in the 80s or 90s with a title like “Screwy Squirrel” that took a Tex Avery-style wacky squirrel…

Hold yer horses! That’s it! It was “Wacky Squirrel!”

Anyway (what, ain’tcha ever heard of stream-of-consciousness) – they took a wacky squirrel and gave him nephews, a la Huey, Dewey, and Louie, and they went out and had Carl Barks-style adventures. In one, Wacky was in an old-fashioned diving suit – the kind with hoses to an air pump – and much was made of the “tail gasket,” so the tail could be out in the water, without having to be inside the suit.

Fred Perry, in Gold Digger, deals with costume modifications such as you describe.

The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl just keeps hers inside her pants…

It’s been a long time since I read “Wacky Squirrel” but all I remember is ripoffs of old Screwy Squirrel cartoons.

[Evan_Drake]

@Ethilrist

Ankle-length turtle-neck sweaters, probably to avoid questions about why they’re not wearing pants. And why does Alvin get an “A” on his, but Simon and Theodore don’t get an “S” or “T”?

It was my understanding that over-size sweaters/jumpers/jerseys were a thing for college youth in the 1950s/60s. Plus letters. Maybe his siblings didn’t go to college. The decision to go without lower wear would be hard to justify were it not for the difficulty of drawing little chipmunk pants.

Myself, I think it is a fashion whose time has returned, for others: all politicians wearing giant jerseys sans pants, instead of suit and tie, would make a definite statement, of hepcat up-to-the-minute cool modernity.

[Son_of_a_Rich]

@Ukulele_Ike

Nuts. Word came down from the TOP ECHELONS to draw Donald Duck and Porky Pig with no pants on. It was a sex thing.

Peter Griffin in his Donald Duck costume.

[Trinopus]

@furryman

It’s been a long time since I read “Wacky Squirrel” but all I remember is ripoffs of old Screwy Squirrel cartoons.

It started that way: giant mallets and sticks of dynamite. But, quite oddly, it moved onward and upward, to Carl Barks style adventures.

(In their very earliest appearances, Huey, Dewey, and Louie were brats! Troublemaking little stinkers! Very different from the noble Junior Woodchucks we can to know!)

[nightshadea]

@Trinopus

It started that way: giant mallets and sticks of dynamite. But, quite oddly, it moved onward and upward, to Carl Barks style adventures.

(In their very earliest appearances, Huey, Dewey, and Louie were brats! Troublemaking little stinkers! Very different from the noble Junior Woodchucks we can to know!)

part of the idea of that came from ducktales in the original shorts they were always brats 8 times out of 10

[Trinopus]

Then there was the ghastly Quack Pack, where they grew up into total delinquents. Terrible, terrible premise.

[Lucas_Jackson]

@Jophiel

And, inexplicably, a shirt collar.

And a snappy hat!

Googling Yogi I found this interesting bit…

@Wikipedia

Animation historian Christopher P. Lehman considers the original concept of the Yogi Bear series to contain political symbolism relative to its era of production. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, racial segregation in the United States was still legally enforced, people were confined to living in their designated social “place”, and attempts to venture outside it came with serious consequences. Yogi also has a designated social place, restricted to spending his life in Jellystone Park, under an overseer in the form of a White park ranger.

Yogi is living in social confinement, but tries to take advantage of his situation. People come to the Park to have picnics and bring with them picnic baskets. Yogi resorts to theft, stealing the picnic baskets, and enjoying their contents. Yogi’s habitual criminality and preoccupation with his own nourishment and survival are not portrayed as negative traits. He is depicted as a sympathetic protagonist.

Yogi never actually challenges the social hierarchy of the Park, does not seriously challenge the authority of the ranger over him, and does not seek more autonomy in his life. Lehman contrasts Yogi’s acceptance of the way things are with the activists of the series’ contemporary African-American Civil Rights Movement who did challenge the way things were. They wanted to move beyond their designated place and integrate into wider society. The press and politicians of the time were portraying these activists as radicals and opposed their efforts. "

[chappachula]

@White SIFL

Googling Yogi I found this interesting bit…

{a long-winded Wiki post by a professor of “animation history”…}

yeah…right.
So we’re suposed to believe that Yogi bear was a deep, philosophical statement about the nature of society.
Fer chrissakes…it’s a kiddy cartoon.
Not everything needs to be analyzed to death…even here at the Dope

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, ya know.

[Tom_Tildrum]

There is a cgi children’s cartoon on these days called “Franklin and Friends,” featuring talking animals who are all neighbor kids that go to school together. The turtle wears a shell, the bear wears a vest, but the fox, the rabbit, and nearly all of the others are naked. It’s such a violation of cartoon convention that I find it a little disconcerting. (And I’m sure it’s just happenstance that the beaver is a girl :o).

[Mister_Rik]

Just for fun:

Cuniculus Vulgaris

[DesertDog]

@Mister_Rik

Just for fun:

Cuniculus Vulgaris - The Perry Bible Fellowship

The same idea was presented in Zootopia where animals (the mammals, anyway) wear clothes except at the ashram Nick takes Judy to, much to her embarrassment.