Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 5 - Page 7

Tony S · 08-10-2007, 09:06 AM

What i've read about this 10 Volumes business is that they have the first ten GC's "planned out". That doesn't mean that they will stop once they reach the tenth set. It just means that they have a tentative plan of what shorts will appear on the first 10 volumes. As long as sales are good, there is no reason to stop at Volume 10.

Eric Peterson · 08-10-2007, 09:14 AM

This has got to be one of the craziest arguments that I've seen during my membership on this forum.

Kevin,

I'm not sure how old you are, or where you grew up, but from your posts we sound like we're of a similar age. I'm 35, and grew up watching Looney Tunes on TV (Primarily through the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show). I find it quite shocking that more post '48 toons were shown on this show, but you are probably right. If that is the truth, then I have to say that most of those cartoons did not stick with me. Obviously they did for you, and that's great FOR YOU. Not everybody your age that grew up seeing these on TV is as obsessed over the later period cartoons.

I'm not sure what all the arguing is about. Are you really that worried about he reputation of the cartoons that you so dearly love. As far as I'm concerned, they are getting equal treatment on these sets. I do have to admit that after re-watching many of these cartoons, that the early 40s cartoons hold up much better (IMHO). A lot of the later cartoons were either direct re-makes or rehashes of the same concept.

Nonetheless, I broke down all five sets in to a spreadsheet and here are my findings.

Total Cartoons - 310

1930-1947 - 138
1948 - 15
1949-1967 - 157

I'm not sure where the dividing line takes place, but either way you are still ahead. What is all the fuss over?

Directors:
Avery - 13 (+1 partial credit)
Clampett - 40 (+1 partial credit)
Freleng - 79 (+2 partial credits)
Jones - 91 (+2 partial credits)
McKimson - 40
Tashlin - 29
Misc - 15

Once again, your beloved Jones & Freleng cartoons represent more than 50% of the total released so far. Avery, Clampett, McKimson, & Tashlin equal a total of 140 while Jones & Freleng get 170. Once again, what is all the fuss about?

In my opinion, you seem to be more upset about your opinion of the cartoons being higher than the animation historians. If that's your beef, I don't think that truly belongs here. It's interesting to read, but has no direct impact on these DVD releases. If you're so upset, go out and write a book about the later period toons and trump them up. That is most likely the exact reason that the earlier cartoons currently have a higher status.

Just my 2 cents.

PaulP · 08-10-2007, 09:50 AM

I just wish everything listed here is released restored, doesn't matter what order to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_...es_filmography (yes, even the 1980s and 1990s shorts, even if as extras - but restored).

Patrick McCart · 08-10-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin L McCorry

How sad. "Wild Wife" is quite a nice little cartoon with something to say about modern society.

If the current pattern holds (and I'm skeptical about that), and it's 40 and then 20 approx. post-'48s in consecutive volumes, then we can expect 200 more post-'48s. Which means that more than 130 of them won't reach DVD.
And even that's an optimistic scenario.

It's worth noting that there's 529 pre-1948 cartoons and 471 post-1948 cartoons. I think it's only 400 once you take out the post-1964 cartoons, with about 450 pre-1948 if you take out most pre-1935.

MarkMel · 08-10-2007, 01:40 PM

I just hope they do the WWII ones that were on the Bugs and Daffy Wartime cartoons VHS soon. That one would probably need a preface by the UN.

Kevin L McCorry · 08-10-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Peterson

This has got to be one of the craziest arguments that I've seen during my membership on this forum.

It's not meant to be an argument. Only a discussion with concerns raised. When adjectives such as "ridiculous" and "craziest" are leveled, then being dispassionate does become something of a chore. But why and how exactly is this discussion actually crazy? We're talking about a product here, a DVD product, and there are people at Amazon.com who have expressed misgivings or disapproval over the configuration of titles on several of these discs. While such reviews may admittedly not be in the majority (I would think that within the public at large theirs is actually the majority viewpoint), the people writing them are consumers to whom this product is being marketed, and they have a right to speak-- as do I.

I do nonetheless find it interesting that people who label my discussion in negative terms or who fault the stand I'm taking always happen to be biased against the material whose appreciation I am espousing. Now, one might ask, how many of us are objective? I don't claim to be myself-- but I have noted (Google me) some very intelligent (if I really must say so myself) aspects to the cartoons whose era I favor, and those are insights and discernible observations about subtlety in particular cartoons or TV compilations, not just an uttering of opinion that a cartoon is second-rate or that Friz Freleng is a boring director. I've been through this time and time again on the Web on various topics. It's always the people who do not rate what I am "trumping up" who brand me unfavorably for speaking out contrary to the prevailing opinion. But in the interests of not outstaying my welcome any longer on this thread for even the more sympathetic fellow HTFers, I do assure you that after this posting, I will desist.

Quote:

I'm not sure how old you are, or where you grew up, but from your posts we sound like we're of a similar age.

Try 41, Canadian. Canada- a country where MGM/UA had no rights for selling videos of Looney Tunes, and in a region of the country where every broadcast of the cartoons was exclusively post-1948. This was probably true for most of Canada bar the most major cities and likely also true for mamy Americans who only had access to ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Quote:

If that is the truth, then I have to say that most of those cartoons did not stick with me. Obviously they did for you, and that's great FOR YOU. Not everybody your age that grew up seeing these on TV is as obsessed over the later period cartoons.

No, not everybody did. Did I say that they did? As for the word,
"obsessed", and its connotations, I'll leave that aside.

What I'm saying that there is a predominent school of thought, this groupthink, that the cartoons made after 1948, or at least after 1950, that *exclusively* formed some of my very favorite TV programs just "don't cut it" artistically and that *nobody* of consequence thinks otherwise. I've been through this similar process in a fandom of another entertainment and have seen it from a distance in some other fandoms whose focus is an enttertainment I'm quite fond of. I had hoped that for once, just once, something I fancy falls somewhat in line with "right-think" and it looked precisely that for decades. How disillusioning to find after so long that it isn't the case! And to buy DVDs that reflect that demoralizing reality.

Quote:

I'm not sure what all the arguing is about. Are you really that worried about he reputation of the cartoons that you so dearly love.

Yes, because although the general public of my generation may enjoy them casually, there is a "right-think" now that they don't deserve a reputation as art while the earlier ones do. While some people on the DVDs are complimentary of them, some others are downright scathing-- and it's more appealing, it appears, for people nowadays and in future to latch on to an unfavorable appraisal and reject any other.

Quote:

I do have to admit that after re-watching many of these cartoons, that the early 40s cartoons hold up much better (IMHO). A lot of the later cartoons were either direct re-makes or rehashes of the same concept.

The ideas are re-used (sometimes) but with more color, more impressionism, more subtlety, irony, symbolism, statement about man, creature, and society- and with characters whose personalities seem more developed, more refined, more consistent (even with different directorial styles), and more accessible. I just don't understand why the fan gestalt can't see that.

Quote:

I'm not sure where the dividing line takes place, but either way you are still ahead. What is all the fuss over?

The fuss is over what we can expect forthcoming, why Tashlin, Clampett, and I presume Avery all get their honorary discs first, why characters are barely appearing at all after 5 whole volumes and what that bodes, and why we who were weaned on and inspired by the works of Jones and Freleng can't be given the same courtesy as the Clampett-philes and be spared the propaganda from John K. and others on the discs. And yes, I'll admit it, I want more emphasis on the big 11 characters, of whom the majority, the lion's share, or the entirety of their cartoons are post-1948 (Porky being the one exception)-- and I don't think the early '30s cartoons should be included while the post-'64 ones should-- because cartoons of particular major characters continued into those. Save the early '30s for a separate collection somewhere down the road.

As far as numbers go, I think a further distinction that does need to be entered is Jones and Freleng early cartoons versus later Jones and Freleng, but I'll not go there. I've already voiced my concern whether higher praise for volumes such as Vol. 5 might lead to all subsequent volumes being similarly constructed.

Quote:

In my opinion, you seem to be more upset about your opinion of the cartoons being higher than the animation historians. If that's your beef, I don't think that truly belongs here. It's interesting to read, but has no direct impact on these DVD releases. If you're so upset, go out and write a book about the later period toons and trump them up. That is most likely the exact reason that the earlier cartoons currently have a higher status.

I just wish the historians that be, were more appreciative of the body of work that formed the entirety of the network television packages. There has been one book written that was very compilmentary- Steve Schneider's That's All Folks!, a book that, when I bought it in 1994, contributed to my then belief that the cartoons that Warner chose to retain in its library were the ultimate creations of the studio. We hear very little of Mr. Schneider's work these days. I don't fancy myself a cartoon historian, but I have written about the appearances of the cartoons on TV (and all of that work is available on the 'Net) because I thought it would be of value not just to myself. Haven't gotten around to publishing a book because of 1) a major writer's block in recent years; 2) lack of publishing houses in my area who could go ahead with a project on a copyrighted subject; and 3) doubt about the potential receptive readership of such a book.

But for now, I propose to cease further comment, return as always to my isolation, buy the DVDs, watch what's there, wince at the put-downs, pine for the many, many cartoons not yet released (and which were released very early to other formats), wonder if they ever will be, and carry on- with the humanity I still get from my youth in which these cartoons and other expressive entertainments once upon a time bonded me with friends, and fight as always against the cynicism and the negativity that comes of being perpetual outsider in the online community.

Eric Peterson · 08-13-2007, 02:58 PM

Kevin,

I apologize if you took any of my comments in a personal manner. Perhaps, I chose some wrong words, but they were not intended to be derogatory. My intent was simply to get some clarification on the points being contested. I deeply appreciate your love of animation, and you are very knowledgeable. Most people still talk about cartoons as kiddie fodder and if you dare to state that you are a fan, you suddenly become inferior to them, which is something that I cannot stand. So in many ways, we are in the same boat.

My comments came purely from the point that you seemed to be repeatedly arguing that there were not enough post 1948 cartoons being released, but all of the numbers prove you wrong.

Your other point of contention seems to be based on predicting what will be in future sets. The key word here being predicting. Why get hot and bothered about predictions? Especially, when according to Jerry Beck all of the first 10 volumes are already outlined.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I in no way was trying to tell you to shut up or keep to yourself, I was simply hoping for you to clarify your point, because I could not understand it. Even now, I'm struggling to grasp it.

Personally, I don't hold a strong affinity for any particular era of these cartoons, but do have a stronger leaning towards the earlier material. That said, I have had nothing to complain about on any of the releases thus far .... and yes they have not included many of my personal favorites so far.

Anyway, I wish you luck with any future endeavors and hope that you follow through with your writing. I am also working on some writings and have many of the same doubts that you are having, in particular as to whether an audience exists.

Brian Himes · 10-31-2007, 11:48 AM

I picked up my set last night and I watched the shorts on the first 2 discs. There were, again, some of my favorites on there. I think I'm getting close to having all of my personal favorite Bugs shorts. There are still some that I don't have, but I'm getting closer.

Also, there are a few more Daffy shorts that I'm waiting for.

I hope on the next set there is more of a spot light on Taz, Marvin the Martian, Peppy, Foghorn, and the Gophers. There are only a few more Gophers, Marvin and Taz cartoons left to release. I'd like to see the last few Road Runner get released on the next set as well.

I think it's just about time to drag out the Sylvester, Sylvester Jr. and Hippety-Hopper shorts as well.

Something tells me that the first 10 volumes are going to be the best ones.