Thursday, September 19, 2013

Woo-Hoo? Hoo-Hoo? Or, Woo-Woo?

Just what IS it that duck says, anyway? 

You can decide for yourself, when you return on Monday for our profusely-illustrated COMIC BOOK REVIEW of Gold Key Comics’ DAFFY DUCK # 36! 

...Or, go to it HERE!

 See this special, one-time-only event of Daffy and an All-Star Warner Bros. cast – that never assembled for his comic book title before, and never would again. 

 …After working with him, would YOU come back?  He tends to be sooo annoying! 
Actually, I think I'm rather charming -- for a greedy coward of a duck, that is!

Thrill to the talents of Warner Bros. legends Michael Maltese and Phil DeLara, as they deliver what was for 1963, and remains fifty years later in 2013, a very special issue! 

 And discover the graphic oddity that made the DAFFY DUCK title different from EVERY other title in the Gold Key line! 
Don't TELL 'EM, Pal!  I'm BEGGIN' YA... don't TELL 'Em!

 So, return on Monday, September 23 for our Looong Comic Book Review of DAFFY DUCK # 36… it’ll be “despicably delicious”! 



Chris Barat said...


I always thought it was "Hoo-Hoo" simply because the goofy laugh was based on radio comedian Hugh Herbert, who used that phrase.

Incidentally, some of the closed captioning on the DUCKTALES DVDs rendered the famed "oo-ooh" as "Hoo-Hoo." A subtle tribute to Daffy, or another example of Disney DVD's lack of care in putting those packages together? What do YOU think??



Joe Torcivia said...

I vote for Disney’s “lack of care”, Chris. The overall evidence is simply too supportive of this to ignore.

The cartoons have always sounded like “Hoo-Hoo!” to me. Yet, the Dell and Gold Key comics always wrote it as “Woo-Woo!” And, perhaps we should rightly consider the cartoons as the correct source.

Then again, the Road Runner cartoons sound like “Meep-Meep!”, but the Dell and Gold Key comics wrote that as “Beep-Beep!” – as was also the case in the Road Runner TV theme song: “If you’re on a highway, and Road Runner goes Beep-Beep!” So, there’s one clearly for the comics, over the cartoons.

So we could split the difference and call it “Woo-Hoo!”… assuming we get no catch-phrase infringement complaints from Homer Simpson!

Anonymous said...

It always sounded like "Hoo Hoo" to me. BTW, Daffy Duck #36 was the only comic I ever had (AFAIR, anyway) that had a Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck crossover, although maybe they were both in the Tasmanian Devil self-titled one-shot. (Or maybe not; I never had that one.) As I recall, each issue of DD usually had one story with Yosemite/Pirate Sam, and one with Taz. There was also usually a Tweety & Sylvester story. It seems that the Bugs Bunny comic tended to have one relatively long story (by funny animal comic book standards) (e.g. "The Rocketing Radish," "The Foreign Legion-Hare") and a short back-up. Porky was a semi-regular co-star in the BB comic, IIRC. And "The Day Daffy and Bugs Bugged Elmer" was always a favorite. Maybe because (SPOILER WARNING) Daffy actually won that one. Well, sort of. (END SPOILER ALERT). -TC

Jim Fanning said...

Looking forward to your review, Joe! Where else can I find a review of a 1963 funny-animal comic published by Gold Key...especially from the Gold Key comics expert himself. I know you had said you were going to be doing more reviews of vintage comic books and this sounds exactly like something I will really enjoy reading.---JIM

Joe Torcivia said...

TC: That's a great assessment of the DAFFY DUCK and BUGS BUNNY comics of the period in question!

Though Elmer Fudd was the most frequent “pester-ee” for Daffy in the Dell and Gold Key comics, “Pirate” Sam and Taz also had their regular appearances.

Bugs, if I recall correctly, never appeared in the DAFFY DUCK title until # 36, which was a shame because they were one of animation’s great comedy duos – and the few Silver Age era stories in which they appeared together were great fun!

Bugs and Daffy did not appear together in the infamous TASMANIAN DEVIL One-Shot, but there were several noteworthy efforts in BUGS BUNNY, all around this same basic time.

BUGS BUNNY # 90 (September, 1963) “It’s Free If You Can Afford It” had Bugs and Daffy on the trail of “Little Ajax – the Strongest Flea in the World”, so they can earn free passes to the circus. As with DAFFY DUCK # 36, the art was by Phil DeLara – and, considering the things Michael Maltese did with “French-speaking fleas” in SNOOPER AND BLABBER cartoons, I’m certain he wrote this one as well. They certainly come across as Maltese’s Bugs and Daffy.

Other such stories were “Let Sleeping Ducks Lie” (BUGS BUNNY # 91, December, 1963) by Maltese and DeLara and “Excess Baggage” (BUGS BUNNY # 94, July, 1964). By the characterizations, I’d also guess written by Maltese… and drawn by Tony Strobl!

Though he drew lots of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, this may be the ONLY time Strobl drew Daffy! And he gives him a definite McKimson look, especially in the beak! It’s both unusual for the comics’ Daffy – and nice!

Daffy actually got into an ADVENTURE with Bugs and Porky, in a mid-fifties era Dell reprint titled “The Ship Sinkers” (drawn by Fred Abranz) that I best remember as having appeared in BUGS BUNNY # 121 (January, 1969), which was the issue that introduced Cool Cat to comic books.

Didn’t intend for this comment to be longer than the post, but there’s just so much great stuff to be told about these comics!

As you have clearly read DAFFY DUCK # 36, and are well-versed in the general period of these comics, I will look forward to your comments on the Daffy post – which will also feature somewhat of an overall look at the Gold Key DAFFY DUCK series in general.

Joe Torcivia said...


Thank you for the kind words! …And, honestly, I’d be shocked if you could find a comprehensive review of DAFFY DUCK # 36 ANYWHERE else on the Internet! Not to mention all that “Bugs and Daffy stuff” right here in this very Comments Section!

Yes, this was one of the comics I’d planned to do for a while and, now that I can scan interior pages (…albeit a little too crudely for my tastes – but they “do the job”), I’m really hoping to do more going forward. Now, all I need is the time! Many of those DVD Reviews have been written previously, and I will pull one up to format and illustrate it, when a new post is required. …Or, I cheat with “teaser posts” like this.

I really do hope you enjoy reading the Daffy review, and I will enjoy your reaction in return.

Dana Gabbard said...

Joe, this proves what I told you years ago -- with the internet informed folks like yourself are more needed than ever!

scarecrow33 said...

I remember Daffy uttering the "Woo Woo's" in the comics, and every time I imagined it as imitating, for no particular reason, a train sound. It took me a long time to connect it with the "Hoo hoo" or "Woo Woo" of the cartoons, maybe because I was less familiar with the earlier Daffy cartoons--it seems to my recollection that the ones primarily shown on Saturday mornings were the Chuck Jones and McKimson ones, but not so many of the earlier ones. Daffy seems to have "outgrown" the craziness by the later period. Or it may be that at that point the earlier Daffys didn't make that much of an impression on me. I do remember finally catching onto it by about age 9 or 10, because those "Woo Woos" in the comics seemed somewhat incomprehensible to me. Why, I wondered, was Daffy always imitating a train? When I finally equated it with the irritating noise he made in the cartoons while jumping up and down, then it made more sense.

Anyhow, I am delighted at the prospect of a review of a comic book that I never even knew about until this post. I'll just have to try to find me one to add to my collection.

I do remember "The Ship Sinkers" and being impressed with having a real adventure-type story that included Daffy along with Bugs and Porky--allies for once instead of having to one-up each other.

I'm anxious to read the review!!

Joe Torcivia said...

Thank you, Dana! I suppose you’re right, simply because no one else is going to write the kind of DAFFY DUCK comic book review that you’re going to see here on Monday!

For all of you that were not part of Dana’s and my decade-old conversations:

I once said that, given the wealth of “experts” on the Internet – citing things like INDUCKS, in particular – that the old “Go-To Guys” like Dana, myself, and many other old-line fans, who (in the ‘70s and ‘80s) “dug from the earth” precious nuggets of fannish-information like Scrooge McDuck dug up nuggets of gold (with both sweat and a persistent diligence), were no longer needed!

Dana countered with: “They need us more than ever!”

…And, there are times like this, particularly in view of Jim’s kind comment above, that I begin to believe he is correct. There are things to be found here, that probably exist nowhere else on the “expert-engorged Internet” – I’ll give Dana that much due, at least.

Dana, come back Monday, and let’s see how right you are! Okay? Hoo-Hoo!

Joe Torcivia said...

Scarecrow: That’s a great observation on Daffy “outgrowing” the “Woo-Woos” and “Hoo-Hoos”!

I never thought of it in those precise terms, but, that’s exactly what he did, in the hands of Jones, Freleng, and McKimson, after the earlier zany period that was dominated by Avery, Clampett, and Frank Tashlin. Back then, Daffy was truly “daffy” – as opposed to later being “daffy” in name only.

Western Publishing’s template for Daffy Duck reflected the late-1940s “pesty” version, and that’s where it pretty much remained. Lots of funny stories sprang from that, so I can’t complain.

DAFFY DUCK # 36 is my favorite issue of that run and, on Monday, I hope to show you why.

BTW, check out that illustration by Phil DeLara (at the end of the post), and tell me that isn’t a true “classic”, from a guy who actually animated those characters during the prime period! Look at Bugs’ EARS! Most artists would have simply drawn them straight up, but what a GREAT pose for them, and one that fits the situation!

Anonymous said...

I'd never thought of it that way, either, but agree that Daffy outgrew the "Woo Woo" and "Hoo Hoo" when his character evolved. My impression (although I've seen relatively few of the Avery or Clampett cartoons) is that Bugs and Daffy were both originally obnoxious pests who played pranks on the straight men (Elmer Fudd and Porky Pig). Later, Bugs developed into a good guy who only bothered the villains, and then only when provoked ("Of course, you realize, this means war"). When Daffy became Bugs' foil, the zany screwball persona was replaced by the "greedy coward." Wikipedia said that McKimson's Daffy was as good or bad as the particular cartoon required. Looney Tunes characters did adapt to the needs of each individual cartoon. Sylvester was a villain when chasing Tweety, and a hero (well, sort of) when trying to save Porky in "Claws for Alarm" or "Scaredy Cat." And Porky was clueless in those three "haunted hotel" cartoons, but had to cover for a clueless Daffy in "Duck Dodgers." Kind of like Batman, who started as a grim vigilante in 1939, then lightened up into a straight superhero in the 1940's through the 1960's, then went back to the grim vigilante image in the 1970's. Adam West never shot vampires with silver bullets, and the Dark Knight doesn't dance the Batusi. And yet, some of the original Bugs and Daffy characterizations seemed to survive in the comic books. In DD #36, they seem to torment Elmer for no other reason except that...well, because they can. -TC

scarecrow33 said...

The symmetry within that panel is impressive--the more you look at it, the more balanced the picture looks.

I agree that the posing of Bugs' ears is very appropo for the situation. It also nicely accommodates the word balloons above, yet not calling too much attention to that fact. Daffy's expression is also interesting.

Fun stuff! Looking forward to Monday's post--hey, Joe, you even know how to bring some delight into a Monday, and that is no simple feat!

Joe Torcivia said...


One incredible thing about the Looney Tunes characters in general – and Bugs and Daffy, in particular – is that, in personality and characterization, they were whatever they needed to be within the context of an individual cartoon.

Yet, there was an almost paradoxical “consistency” to them, which slowly evolved over time! That speaks incredibly well for both the characters and their creators!

The closest their development came to becoming “frozen or locked-down”, during their original production run, was in the licensed comic books produced by Western Publishing – in sort of a late ‘40s mode. Now, of course, they are “classically frozen” (in ALL merchandising) to a clichéd extent into the Jones and Freleng characterizations, circa 1950-1955.

The latter makes sense from a marketing standpoint, because the 1950-1955 era of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies is, if not the most popular, certainly the best known. Unfortunately, it may also preclude WB comics like those from Dell and Gold Key from ever being done again – and has charted the course for the last (just shy of) 20 years of DC Looney Tunes comics.

Good gosh! Unless it’s been recently canceled unbeknownst to me, the DC LOONEY TUNES title will be around for 20 years, less than a year from now!!!

I liked the DC versions (when I read ‘em from the beginning and on into the first few years of the 21st century) because, as I said above, they are true to the best known versions of the characters (especially when they were drawn by David Alvarez), but the Western comics will always win out with me, due to their more classically-styled art and often more complex stories.

Joe Torcivia said...


The art is all the more incredible, given the STEEP AND IRREVERSIBLE decline Western’s art would undergo in the seventies and eighties. In certain cases, it’s difficult to believe that such comics would even come from the same publisher! Though even the TWEETY AND SYLVESTER comic, with its weird seventies look, would never reach Charlton Hanna-Barbera level!

I will NEVER understand how such a decline could have occurred. But, I’ll say it to my dying day (…and knowing me, I probably WILL, too!), the Gold Key comic books from 1964-1966, in particular, were incomparable!

And, imagine that… ME making Mondays a little more delightful! Heh!

That delight stems from all of you who leave me such interesting comments, as well!