Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joe Lugoff 
In response to Joe Tor1, his idea would be fine with me. It's funny, though, that he said starting in 1938 wouldn't make the sets chronological, and then came up with an idea that also isn't strictly chronological.
Far be it from me to split (um…) “hares” in a thread devoted to Looney Tunes, but I DID suggest: Two discs per set… Chronological within each disc… with a “less popular year” and a “more popular year” packaged together. This is to say 1930-1931 with 1948, or 1952 with 1966.
And by starting off with 1930-1931 – even if paired with 1948, it would be “Chronological” in nature.
Then, we would infer, 1932-1933 and 1949, etc., etc…
…Finally having the “more popular year” PRECEED rather than FOLLOW the “less popular year” – as in my example of 1952 and 1966. (Please don’t hold me to exactly when the switch would occur… that’s for people who get paid to do that kind of analysis!)
The “Chronology” would move forward – until it overlaps itself – and then skips ahead.
But, by its end, it would ALL be “Chronological”!
Not a perfect situation by any means, but one that might please the folks that feel that Warner could somehow “shoehorn” the vastness that is Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies into the same type of chronology that works for more tightly focused series like Donald Duck and Popeye. …And not take a severe bath on the early, pre-Porky sets.
As I said in my last post, this has always been a no-win situation for Warner and Jerry Beck, and whoever else was responsible for creating the format of the Golden Collections in the first place.
To my mind, having gone down the Golden Collection road for six years, Warner should have CONTUNUED to do so – mixing in more ‘30s and ‘60s toons as the backlog of prime ‘40s and ‘50s toons dwindled.
It’s too late to rethink this – but I suspect Warner will do it anyway and, despite earlier claims, we’ll get stuck with a lot of double dipping before we’re done!