This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years.
9 Reviews
Elmer's Pet Rabbit has a Bugs Bunny with a different voice that didn't hamper my enjoyment of this early cartoon
tavm19 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Just watched this early Bugs Bunny (first time he's named here) and Elmer Fudd cartoon on the ThadBlog as linked from YouTube. This was Chuck Jones' first time directing the "wascally wabbit" and as a result, Bugs has a different voice provided by Mel Blanc than the Brooklyn/Bronx one we're more familiar with. In fact, according to Thad, he's channeling Jimmy Stewart (his "shy boy" type personality of that time). Anyway, after Elmer buys his pet, Bugs goes all obnoxious on him by turning the radio real loud, pretending to die after his master repeatedly throws him out of his shower, and saying "Turn off those lights!" whenever Elmer catches him in his bed. Even with the different voice, Bugs is definitely his mischievous self and I laughed myself blue the whole time! According to Thad, there was an additional scene at the end of Elmer just giving the house to Bugs after the hell he went through but that was probably considered too sad since he suffers a mental breakdown at that point so it's just as well that cut scene is lost. Anyway, I highly recommend Elmer's Pet Rabbit.
A Bugs 'n' Elmer Oddity
Pumpkin-229 June 1999
Of course you realize, this means more cartoons!
lee_eisenberg8 July 2007
Probably the two main significances of "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" are that the wacky leporid featured in "A Wild Hare" now has a name, and that he utters his famous "Of course you realize this means war!" for the first time. Mostly, the Termite Terrace crowd was still trying to figure out what exactly to do with this long-eared rascal. It's certainly a must-see for hard-core fans of this genre, but others will probably have little reason to take interest.
But make no mistake, it's quite hilarious what Bugs Bunny does to the eternally gullible Elmer Fudd. Clear shades of things to come abound throughout the cartoon. I recommend it.
But make no mistake, it's quite hilarious what Bugs Bunny does to the eternally gullible Elmer Fudd. Clear shades of things to come abound throughout the cartoon. I recommend it.
Elmer's rabbit nightmare
TheLittleSongbird4 June 2018
Love animation, it was a big part of my life as a child, particularly Disney, Looney Tunes, Hanna and Barbera and Tom and Jerry, and still love it whether it's film, television or cartoons. Actually appreciate it even more now through young adult eyes, thanks to broader knowledge and more interest in animation styles and various studios and directors.
Chuck Jones deserved, and still does deserve, his status as one of animation's most legendary, greatest and most important directors/animators. He may have lacked the outrageousness and wild wackiness of Bob Clampett and Tex Avery, but the visual imagination, wit and what he did with some of the best-known and most iconic characters ever were just as special. 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' is not one of his best representations, it's a decent, fun and above average cartoon certainly though with some unusual oddities.
With the slower and not as lively pace as to usual, there is a deceptive sense that Jones was still finding his feet when actually he did a lot of cartoons before 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' and in some of his previous efforts there wasn't as much of that sense.
'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' features the legendary pairing of Bugs and Elmer and one can see definitely what was so great about the pairing. It is very witty and fun. Elmer does fare better of the two characters, but while Bugs is entertaining and likeable he does sound and act like he was still evolving, which is strange considering this is not even his debut and the look, voice and personality were better established then.
Arthur Q. Bryan does a great job voicing Elmer. Mel Blanc surprisingly is more troubling, he was a master of voice acting and Bugs is one of his best achievements but here it sounded like he was experimenting because his voice work for Bugs is distractingly odd and like others here it doesn't do it for me.
The animation is as always bright and colourful, with lots of smooth movement, imaginative detail in the gags and rich and meticulous detail in the backgrounds. Carl Stalling's music score is as ever high in energy, liveliness, character, lushness and whimsy, and not only is dynamic and fits effortlessly with the action but enhances everything.
What's more, 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' is entertaining, with some wild looniness, wit (if not always razor sharp) and sardonic bite shining enough in the dialogue. Plus there are some beautifully timed and animated and imaginative sight gags, that contain enough surprises.
In summary, decent but not the best of representations of Jones, Elmer and Bugs paired together (it would become even wittier and funnier later) and Bugs. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Chuck Jones deserved, and still does deserve, his status as one of animation's most legendary, greatest and most important directors/animators. He may have lacked the outrageousness and wild wackiness of Bob Clampett and Tex Avery, but the visual imagination, wit and what he did with some of the best-known and most iconic characters ever were just as special. 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' is not one of his best representations, it's a decent, fun and above average cartoon certainly though with some unusual oddities.
With the slower and not as lively pace as to usual, there is a deceptive sense that Jones was still finding his feet when actually he did a lot of cartoons before 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' and in some of his previous efforts there wasn't as much of that sense.
'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' features the legendary pairing of Bugs and Elmer and one can see definitely what was so great about the pairing. It is very witty and fun. Elmer does fare better of the two characters, but while Bugs is entertaining and likeable he does sound and act like he was still evolving, which is strange considering this is not even his debut and the look, voice and personality were better established then.
Arthur Q. Bryan does a great job voicing Elmer. Mel Blanc surprisingly is more troubling, he was a master of voice acting and Bugs is one of his best achievements but here it sounded like he was experimenting because his voice work for Bugs is distractingly odd and like others here it doesn't do it for me.
The animation is as always bright and colourful, with lots of smooth movement, imaginative detail in the gags and rich and meticulous detail in the backgrounds. Carl Stalling's music score is as ever high in energy, liveliness, character, lushness and whimsy, and not only is dynamic and fits effortlessly with the action but enhances everything.
What's more, 'Elmer's Pet Rabbit' is entertaining, with some wild looniness, wit (if not always razor sharp) and sardonic bite shining enough in the dialogue. Plus there are some beautifully timed and animated and imaginative sight gags, that contain enough surprises.
In summary, decent but not the best of representations of Jones, Elmer and Bugs paired together (it would become even wittier and funnier later) and Bugs. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Same voice actor, different voice
stephen06846 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, Mel Blanc voiced Bugs in this short. But, in an different voice. Anyway, Elmer buys Bugs at an pet shop and takes him home. Bugs complains about his surroundings when he sees the gate and home Elmer has built for him. Bugs decides to get in Elmer's home and move in with his owner. How DID Bugs got in Elmer's home in the first place? We'll probably never know. Still, the bathtub gag was good far as worrying Elmer to death. Bugs isn't through he even tries sleeping in Elmer's bed twice. The first time lead to an brief chase but Bugs went back to Elmer's bed again. Also, at one point the two characters danced, which lead Bugs to be kicked out. Now the animation was OK, but the one thing that I didn't like was Bugs Bunny's voice I mean what is, an prototype voice or something? Anyway it's OK but, unless you love Bugs or Elmer, don't watch it.
Final score: an 6 out of 10.
Final score: an 6 out of 10.
Perhaps this is an attempt at "range"!!! LOL
PeachHamBeach8 September 2003
I agree with a lot of the comments: this Bugs is different. After "A WILD HARE" by Tex Avery, this cartoon seems to be presenting some sort of "cousin" to Bugsy rather than the real thing. I noticed something very weird here: No BUCK TEETH!!! Not to mention this guy spoke in a different voice. Elmer is lovable and actually so is this strange bunny who wears yellow gloves, not white. He has some really funny moments. He does his share of highjinks and heckling, but still, this just isn't the Bugs we all know. So I have a suggestion: either they were still not sure who he was, or maybe he was trying to have some "range" of character!!!
Not a terrible member of the body of work I love, but not my fave either.
Not a terrible member of the body of work I love, but not my fave either.
Bugs Bunny fans will be SHOCKED to hear . . .
oscaralbert8 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
. . . their favorite hare yakking in the guttural tones of White House Pretender Don Juan Rump during this prophetic offering from Warner Bros.' prognosticators of (The Then) Far Future, that unparalleled Animated Shorts Seers bunch (aka, The Looney Tuners) during this Pre-World War Two offering, ELMER'S PET RABBIT. This brief cartoon begins with the mentor of Red Commie KGB Chief Vlad "The Mad Russian" Putin (as an Elmer Fudd dressed in Classic KGB garb) buying a young Bugs in a pet shop for 98 cents, reflecting how Putin's tutor recruited reform school teenager Rump for a couple copies of Mad Magazine (not every traitor holds out for 30 pieces of silver!). The remainder of ELMER'S PET RABBIT documents the sexual perversion inherent in the Rump\Putin relationship once the latter assumes the responsibility of being Rump's KGB controller (this switch is telegraphed when a noticeably younger Elmer dons a bathrobe, "I-Swim-Across-the-Volga-Daily" Putin's trademark gear). ELMER'S PET RABBIT will strike 21st Century Viewers as being right up to the New York Minute, even down to the strange Moments of Rump\Putin Bromance dominating Today's headlines (that is, July 8, 2017).
Bugs Bunny, where are you?
catradhtem25 March 2001
One would think that after the theatrical success and response the first Bugs Bunny cartoon, "A Wild Hare," generated that the Termite Terrace boys would follow it up with something even--pardon the pun--"wilder" for their new star.
However, that does not seem to be case with "Elmer's Pet Rabbit." Unlike the first encounter between Bugs and Elmer in which Bugs knows from frame one how it will end, in this one the control between the two characters shift back and forth. In one scene Bugs has one-upped Elmer, in the next Elmer is throwing him out. Bugs seems less confident, which at times makes it hard for the audience to really root for him.
This is most surprising when one considers that it was scripted by Rich Hogan, who wrote the previous "A Wild Hare." Not surprising, however, is that this slow ordeal was directed by Chuck Jones. Sure, he has conceived some of Bugs' grandest films in the 1950's, but at 1941 Jones was still concentrating on micro-directing...slowing down every action to a crawl so that you pick up every detail, every twitch and expression, and every aside. 1941's Jones was not the man to follow wildman Tex Avery.
And of course, Bugs is still growing into his true self at this point. It could be speculated that "Pet Rabbit" was in production before or at the same time of "A Wild Hare," because how else can one explain the slushier pre-Bugs baritone voice Mel Blanc uses for the wabbit?
As a Bugs cartoon, this one is only for completists. As a non-Bugs cartoon, it is simply slow and pointless.
However, that does not seem to be case with "Elmer's Pet Rabbit." Unlike the first encounter between Bugs and Elmer in which Bugs knows from frame one how it will end, in this one the control between the two characters shift back and forth. In one scene Bugs has one-upped Elmer, in the next Elmer is throwing him out. Bugs seems less confident, which at times makes it hard for the audience to really root for him.
This is most surprising when one considers that it was scripted by Rich Hogan, who wrote the previous "A Wild Hare." Not surprising, however, is that this slow ordeal was directed by Chuck Jones. Sure, he has conceived some of Bugs' grandest films in the 1950's, but at 1941 Jones was still concentrating on micro-directing...slowing down every action to a crawl so that you pick up every detail, every twitch and expression, and every aside. 1941's Jones was not the man to follow wildman Tex Avery.
And of course, Bugs is still growing into his true self at this point. It could be speculated that "Pet Rabbit" was in production before or at the same time of "A Wild Hare," because how else can one explain the slushier pre-Bugs baritone voice Mel Blanc uses for the wabbit?
As a Bugs cartoon, this one is only for completists. As a non-Bugs cartoon, it is simply slow and pointless.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
