The Warner Brothers chat ANIMATION question you have been waiting to be answered..... (1 Viewer)

[MarcoBiscotti]

So because the medium has since improved from the days of 16mm film reels, we should just be thankful that these cartoons are available?

No.


There's no doubt whatsoever that these are some of the greatest animated short films around, but a DVD is more than it's content.

That's something that I'd expect forum members here to recognize more than anyone else. This DVD is nothing more than it's content.

In fact, it's content is not even presented in it's entirety... these are 7 minute short films to begin with (not that it should make a difference) but imagine how that percentage would translate into a full feature.

This is no different than a p&s dvd release or a framing error such as the Back To The Future set (it's actually much more significant than the latter)...

I'll justifiably use the word censorship because that's what this is - censored art. In the most litteral sense.

I've patiently waited almost 7 months to express myself, hoping WB would make right the situation by offering some sort of correction... at the very least an apology or understanding, some sort of acknowledgment that this was an oversight... but they don't even care to do that much. In fact, their curt thoughtless response almost makes it seem as though these edits were deliberate.

How does anything get improved if people like us don't speak up and raise our voices?

Again I say, we deserve much better.

We fund these ventures, we buy these products, we are a percentage of the market, our feedback should matter and should be bluntly stated.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As long as it's stated in a respectful manner, otherwise, your feedback will never be properly received by those who's actions you're trying to correct.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I don't really know what that has to do with anything. Most of us were around at least for VHS, Beta, & LD. Does that mean that if the film was released properly on one of those formats, that we shouldn't be upset if the DVD is not correct? That's a silly argument in my book. That's like going to a restaurant and getting food poisoning, and justifying it by saying "My previous meal here was fine".

As for those of you, who seem to think the sensoring of cartoons is OK, I wonder if you would have the same opinion if this was a live action movie. What if Dooley Wilson was cut out of Casablanca, because he's a negative black stereotype? Would that be OK too? In general, I think there are a lot of people who write these off as "JUST CARTOONS", but to many of us, they aren't "JUST CARTOONS". These are incredible works of art by incredible artists, every bit as much as the great live-action movies.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Who's saying it's OK?

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Robert,

I wasn't suggesting that these were exclusively marketed but from the way they were being promoted - yes they did seem to be marketed to an audience that understood and appreciated animation.

Rather than use terms such as "golden age animation enthusiast" I should have simplified and stated... adults.

These are the folks that grew up and became familiarized with these films. It's not really a niche or specialized market... it's older individuals like ourselves who can appreciate these films for what they are.

By stating that all the T&J shorts would be offered in chronological context, UNCUT, and remastered... that points to a specific market.

Those that are more knowledgable about the films, about the medium, those that care about and are willing to spend the extra funds on a quality comprehensive set. That to me, is specific marketing.

What more could animation enthusiasts ask for, right?

So I don't think I misinterpreted anything or expected unreasonable product based on the above.

WB have been marketing cheap compilation discs of edited cartoons for years now to the soccer mom's who want to toss their children in front of the tube for an hour while they get housework done or whatever... am I wrong in assuming that by swaying from such release formats and by issuing what was initially billed as a comprehensive collection of uncut cartoons, that the target demographic was no longer the soccer moms and young children?

They have their optional releases afterall.

This was supposed to be something more. Apart from a few extras and a bunch of rehashed still-edited cartoons, the only difference I really see is that WB packaged them in a digipack and falsely promoted them to the members of the Home Theatre Forum, at the very least.

 

[Gregory E]

Well, I purchased the first Tom and Jerry Spotlight Collection. And thanks to Warner's response to this issue, I will not buy any Warner animation titles in the future.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You see that's where I kind of disagree with you. I'm not so sure that the vast majority of those that bought that dvd is as knowledgeable about those cartoons as those that posted in this thread. I still want to know where and how did WHV specifically targeted a certain group with their marketing. You say WHV falsely promoted them on the HTF. Where did that false promotion occur?






Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

At last year's chat they had promised us chronological releases of UNCUT cartoons in response to a question regarding the viability and future release of Tom & Jerry on DVD.

Our own Jerry Beck, a trusted respected resource to many of us, had been led down this same path; promoting Warner's intentions to offer us uncut films as originally presented. That is unfair to so many people on so many levels.

Based on this information, many articles from The Digital Bits to TVShowsOnDVD and so on, had been marketing these releases in a certain context.

It was all bltant false-promotion.

At the fault of nobody other than the WB representatives who marketed it as such.

Anyone willing to dig up last year's chat can read this word for word.

I believe it was even Robert Harris (though I might be mistaken) who in conjunction with WB and The Digital Bits had offered an entire write-up regarding this studio's intentions to steer clear of the popular political correctness syndrome and that it was their attitude and appreciation for these films (specifically citing animated properties) which would lead them to issue all works uncut and as originally produced.

This too turned out to be false.

There are entire topic threads at Jerry Beck's Animation History and GAC forums, DVDToons among many other messageboards that link to these articles, discuss and praise the attitudes promoted.

Too bad, they did not practice what they preached.

And the statement that Warners offered in response, is in all honesty, impassive, trite and insulting.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I just read last year's chat and I didn't see anything about them promising chronological releases of uncut cartoons. Maybe, I missed it, so I'll check again later.





Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

But by promising us unedited transfers, that points to an audience that can discern and ultimately has some understanding of these films.

That's not to say it is their prime demographic; but by stating such, it leads many to believe that WB was directing the set to a more refined consumer and not the general soccer mom / dadddy-I-want-this-movie! impulse shopper.

I'm sure being a 22 year-old university film student does not place me in the prime demographic of those who would normally purchase Care Bears The Movie either, but it's mixed in my collection on a shelf somewhere. Just because somebody isn't intended as a prime target for a DVD release, doesn't exclude them from purchasing.

Tom & Jerry are popular characters. There are quite a few cheap compilation discs of edited cartoons currently available as I already mentioned, but this was from how I took it... being offered to an older more knowledgable audience. Jerry Beck wouldn't have been brought on board for consultation otherwise...

 

[Robert Crawford]

The following is the only thing I can find that Warner specifically addressed the Tom and Jerry cartoons. This chat was in March of 2004.

You're making an assumption on Warner's intentions that I'm not so sure is correct. We need to stay with the facts of the situation and not conjecture about Warner's promotional intentions.






Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

If this isn't a direct indication of who these sets were supposedly being marketed to, than I don't know what would be...


- George Feltenstein courtesy of The Digital Bits, interviewed by Robbert Harris last year.


"GF: We had finally had the first release last year, called Looney Tunes: The Golden Collection, and again it was one of my marketing battles because I was having to defend the fact that this is not "kids product". While Warner Bros. cartoons are perfectly appropriate entertainment for children who can enjoy them and grow up on them as I did, these films were made for adults. They need to be marketed to adults who can share them with their children.

It's not children's product. You demean these works when you refer to them as "kid vid." These are classic American films that are animated, and the filmmakers are on camera and on record saying "We did not make these films for children. We made them for ourselves." And they were shown in theatres to adults and they needed to be funny to adults.

One of the classic examples of messing up marketing of a product is the way that some people did and some still do… think… it's a cartoon, then it must be for kids. That's just plain wrong. Treat them as you would treat classic films. Period.

I used this approach at MGM for marketing the Looney Tunes that they distributed at the time before the merger… as well as on the Tom and Jerry and Tex Avery cartoons. We went out and marketed them to classic animation fans and not specifically to children, and suddenly what was not a terribly impressive business turned into a windfall of profit. I'm happy to say that the Looney Tunes sets which came out last year were a magnificent success.

RAH: It was a magnificent set, that looked like the film should look. They were properly represented on video.

GF: Well thank you very much and thank you to all the people who worked on the restorations here, and to my dear friend and cohort, Jerry Beck, who worked with me in selecting the cartoons, and has worked with me going back to the first classic Looney Tunes box on laserdisc in 1988. He and Greg Ford are both great friends of mine, and those two gents know more about classic animation than anyone in the world."

etc.



I'll also dig up quotes later this afternoon referring to the prospect of uncut cartoons that were promised.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Here's a direct quote from Jerry Beck on his messageboard. Please understand that the information he posted is only the result of details passed along to him via Warner Bros. Animation and he should not be held responsible for offering this perspective...





I know there are many more relative posts to back up our sentiments but I've got to meet a friend for lunch now so I'll dig deeper this evening.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Marco,
You're mixing George Feltenstein's comments about his MGM days and what's he trying to accomplish at Warner. Sure, he's trying to sell his cartoon products to adults which would increase his targeted demographic groups, thus, expanding his market to sell more dvds. Also, just because a person is a classic animation fan doesn't make him an expert on how a cartoon is suppose to look and what was edited out.

So far, I haven't seen anything from what Warner posted on the HTF in which they lied to the general public. What's been stated on other sites is fine and dandy, but my concern is what facts were posted here because that was your main implication in which you stated that Warner misled HTF members on what they posted here.






Crawdaddy

 

[Eddie Estes]

I don't know how many ways I have to say this.
There was a Warner Rep at either a chat here or on another site that said:
The set in question would be remastered and uncut. I have a good memory this is exactly what was said.
Jerry Beck said it was Warners policy not to release edited carttons.
So these two statements at different times corroborate each other.
Why would Jerry Beck who is a reputable person say there was going to be a disc replacement program if they had never said the disc would be uncut?
Your facts don't add up.
You can justify their behavior all you want but the truth is out there!!!

 

[TravisR]

All this arguing for three black face jokes...

Yes, I understand it's about that they were edited at all, etc. but this isn't the type of thing that should keep you up at night. It happened and it sucks but that's the way it is.

 

[Eddie Estes]

No we just want the Tom and Jerry shorts the way they were made.
Just like a Casablanca fan wouldn't want parts of that film cut out.
These films are important too.

 

[Eddie Estes]

This needs to be fussed about.
Maybe the next film that is butchered might be one
you really want TravisR

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's not my concern to justify anybody's behavior, unless it's disruptive to the operation of this forum. I'm searching for the actual facts involved in this issue without allowing misinformation and emotion to cloud the situation.







Crawdaddy

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Exactly. Every time I watch the film, I wince when Ingrid Bergman asks about that "boy" playing the piano, but it is part of the film and always should be.

Regards,