Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 5 - Page 3

Andrew Radke · 07-12-2007, 03:32 PM

I hate to say it but every year you guys suck the fun out of looking forward to these releases. Is it really THAT big a deal where the news is posted?? Seriously? Boy, I'd better call up HMV headquarters (one of the largest Canadian music/DVD retailers) and demand they remove the Golden Collections from their TV on DVD shelves, because that's where they sit. Ditto for MusicWorld, Best Buy and Future Shop. Guys, this is pointless. Come release date, when we have this set in our hot little hands, no one's going to give a crap about where it belongs......at least until this time next year when V6 is announced.

So for once, can we please just enjoy this announcement, as well as wait with baited breath for the list of shorts that will be on this collection. This debate's gone on for 5 years now.......Has a resolution been made since the first set was announced in 2003?? I think not. Please, just let sleeping dogs lie.

Keith Paynter · 07-12-2007, 03:43 PM

Corey, is "with all respect to Gord" mean-spirited? Is the image of young Homer's tv shadow mean-spirited? I certain spent many of my pre-teen years in front of Saturday morning television. Fortunately, I haven't yet suffered the effects of radiation poisoning

.

P.S. Sorry to burst your bubble about Santa Clause. I AM KIDDING!!

I'm now finished butting heads over this, since it gets us all nowhere, and my head just hurts more... I will hereon in engage in discussion of the contents of the disc as it approaches. Allow the speculation of Bob Clampett's disc to begin! (Coal Black, Coal Black, Coal Black, Coal Black,...)

Scott-S · 07-12-2007, 03:49 PM

I agree that the discussion about where this news belongs should be stopped.

It doesn't matter to me where the news is posted as long as we keep getting these released on DVD.

I just wish that they would have the guts to release the "Banned" shorts. There is a lot of classic Looney Tunes that we will never see in any form other than the terrible internet video versions.

tjguitar85 · 07-12-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulP

That is irrelevant. Most films are first released in theaters, then on DVDs, and then on TV. So once something hits TV it's no longer a theatrical film?

Apples and oranges. 7 minute cartoons are not feature-lenth movies.

PaulP · 07-12-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjguitar85

Apples and oranges. 7 minute cartoons are not feature-lenth movies.

They are, however, theatrically released animated short films.

Keith Paynter · 07-12-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

I just wish that they would have the guts to release the "Banned" shorts. There is a lot of classic Looney Tunes that we will never see in any form other than the terrible internet video versions.

Agreed, Scott. I think Disney's "Front Lines" disc was a great example of what can be done with controversial material. Warner could do likewise on disc 3 or 4 of the collector sets (Family friendly sets use just discs 1 & 2).

BTW, did many of you know that the "Nagasaki" performance in Tin Pan Alley Cats was simply redrawn footage (and soundtrack) from Freleng's September In The Rain, black characters all intact, except the Fats Waller and trumpeter characters are changed to cats? Yet, SITR is not a Censored 11 cartoon? Check the image in my sig - is Coal Black's stance any different than Beyonce's stock pose for photographers?

I agree that the web has (to the consternation of WB and Turner) made the Censored 11 a bit moot. They may be banned from television, but they are more visible now than ever for those who choose to look for them. All WB has to do is put them into proper context. Coal Black is a polarizing example of the best and worst of Hollywood animation's past, but after seeing it, you you can't deny its energetic fervor. There are far worse black cartoons (Lantz's "Scrub Me Mama With A Boogie Beat" comes to mind), and I've seen Native Americans (sic) handled in entertaining and questionable ways ("The Daffy Duckaroo" is funny for me, but the throwaway gag in (again) Lantz's "Recruiting Daze" bothered me).

There was an interesting argument about taking Disney's "Ichabod Crane" short and recasting it with black characters. Ichabod as white is slow and skinny. Brom Bones is a swaggering cocksure bully. The girl is gorgeous, flirtatious, and the object of every male's affection. Yet, what is the perception if these characters act the same but are simply painted as blacks?

In Coal Black, Prince Chawin's a zoot-suited, dice-toothed self-assured individual. How is he any different from today's black hip-hop culture who flaunt loud clothes, chrome or gold dental grills (including images of dice) and insist being surrounded by bumpin' and grindin' women who use the promise of sex to their advantage (like So White was, herself)? Check Coal Black's pose in my sig - is her stance any different than Beyonce's stock pose for photographers?

Jeff-Wooten · 07-12-2007, 05:09 PM

Would it be wrong to think that if “Coal Black” isn’t included on this set (what with a “Clampett” disc AND a “Fairy Tales” disc) then it’ll probably NEVER appear on a future Golden Collection? I'd like to think that with "Mississippi Hare" on last year's set and the "uncensored" Droopy shorts, the door for this possibility might be a little more open. But, please Warners, let’s get a nice number of Foghorns out there. And with a Chuck Jones documentary confirmed, maybe a Ralph Phillips short or some of the “one-shots” (such as “Nelly’s Folly"). Looking forward to October 30--when we can start complaining about the DVR process!

I’m not going to jump into the thread argument, but I can’t see why anyone is upset that this set was announced on tvshowsondvd.com. You actually want to limit the exposure of this set? If anyone should complain about it being posted on Gord's site, it shouldn’t be theatrical purists (there are other sites out there for you to get this news), but tv-on-dvd fans. However they can't complain. I know these films ARE theatrical shorts, BUT they were repackaged for broadcast network television on a weekly basis with consistent timeslots--not once a month or once a year. (I know Woody Woodpecker was repackaged as a weekly Saturday Morning series as well; not sure about Popeye.) But to complain about this set being promoted on a Web site. Honestly!?! Wouldn’t you want MORE people to know about it and possibly buy it?

Kevin Martinez · 07-12-2007, 10:33 PM

JasonJason · 07-13-2007, 01:14 AM

My whole point has NOT been that these belong in the TV section (I don't necessarily believe that they do), but that they don't fit neatly into either category, so who cares? When I made my original post, it was a plea to NOT have people come in and complain about where this is posted as it's been done to death. I only defended the TV side of it to prove that it's still a grey area. Tons of short films and documentaries have their premieres on television, but do they belong in this section or in the Film section? Michael Moore's The Awful Truth is both a television show AND a documentary. A&E Biographies: same thing. And, countless others. Where do they belong? Who knows - it doesn't really matter. This whole thing seems like a case of people competing to be the first one to show their film "brilliance" and inform everyone that these were originally created for theaters. Congratulations, you were the first to say something that we all already know. Pull out something new to impress us at the party... But, the fact of the matter is that most people look here for the threads about LT as that is where I would guess 99% of us discovered them (yes, even the people arguing AGAINST them being here), and I agree with Jeff W. in that as long as it's getting exposure, it doesn't matter what section it is in. There's room for topics about the Looneys in BOTH forums (they deserve the exposure), and if it truly "offends" anyone that it is in here, then just stick to the one in the film section. Seems like a pretty easy solution...

Gord Lacey · 07-13-2007, 02:24 AM

Guys, this discussion is hilarious, and had me laughing so many times (especially when my name showed up). I purposely avoided the thread for awhle so I could get the full effect of the discussion (and it didn't disappoint).

I think we can all agree that:
-These are theatrical shorts
-They aired on TV as part of shows many of us remember from our childhood
-We all love Bugs and the other Looney Tunes characters, though we'll probably all have different "favorites"

We cover these on the site because there will never be a release of the episodes from "The Bugs Bunny/Looney Tunes Comedy Hour," yet many people want them released. If we didn't post news about these then we'd have many people writing in to say "Why aren't you covering the Looney Tunes releases??" (many more than write in asking us why we ARE covering them, which I think has been one or two people, ever). The DVDs are worked on by the people who do the animated Warner TV titles, and the person who handles the publicity only works on TV titles (and sports....but no theatrical movies). This is set up as a TV title at Warner Bros, and people expect us to cover the releases (and I think we do a great job covering them, most of that is thanks to Dave).

Whether you look at this as a theatrical title, or a TV title, volume 5 is coming out on October 30, and people are excited; does it really matter where you discuss the release?

Gord

Tory · 07-13-2007, 07:06 AM

My only question for Gord and TVShowsonDVD is why do you not carry information about the Walt Disney Treasures? I am fine with any information you can give us on classic animation, I just do not understand why these were left out.