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

[Patrick McCart]

Warner stopped using snappers last year (except for one or two bargain bin releases).

The Space Ghost DVD's are incomplete because of rights issues with interviewees.

Also, even if WB licensed T&J out (they don't license out anything), it would still depend on the RIGHT MASTERS being sent over. If WB only has the older masters, it's not really going to improve anything.

Again, for a studio that has hundreds of releases in a year, how do a handful of screwups make them incompetent? Incompetent is more like studios such as MGM and Buena Vista putting out over-filtered masters over and over again. Even the worst studios don't screw up every single release.

 

[Paul Pro]

All is forgiven if they release the edited shorts in the next collection or if they explain why there was some confusion regarding the "replacement" process that was or wasn't suppose to happen.

I've always been impressed with Warner Bros. in the DVD market so seeing something like this seems so uncharacteristic of them.

And Ron ,(or mod) if your reading this I regret my earlier comment on this thread regarding Warner Bros. and apologize.(especially since we may not know all the facts.)I was speaking out of frustration and not information.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Not true, they still release many animated titles in this packaging concept, including recent animated Rankin Bass classics, the upcoming 'A Pup Named Scooby-Doo' installments, 'Rainbow Brite & The Star Stealer' and various other exclusively ANIMATED titles which goes to show that they really don't expect any of us to be buying these anyways. Well I didn't and refuse to. The packaging wasn't good enough for the average consumer... but apparently the average consumer doesn't buy cartoons - Kids do. So WB could sacrifice quality and cut corners, just like they could edit cartoons and not be bothered to offer proper remastered prints, etc. They simply don't respect their animated catalogue. So why should we be so enthusiastic about buying it? It's the small subtle characteristics that reflect the overall quality of a product, WB apparently knows this well in handling their live action releases, but seems to make it a point to steer in the exact opposite direction with their animated catalogue. This is why I'll continue to refuse to support these lackluster efforts, even for something as simple and insignificant as a snap case. It's a lack of thought really and I don't want to spend my hard-earned money on anything that doesn't honestly and justifiably deserve it.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Nobody's accusing them of incompetance, but I find it amusing how so many of you are so quick to jump at their defense simply based on their live-action track records which don't have any connection to the situation at hand. Yes, Warner Bros. is the number one studio around for it's live action titles. THIS TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT WARNER BROS. LIVE ACTION TITLES!!! I don't want to see mention of that again, it's totally irrelevant! The fact of the matter is that they own the animated equivalent of their classic film library and yet when it comes to producing quality sets of these masterpieces... they are for the most part absolutely careless!

The Hanna Barbera TV sets are admittedly great and appreciated, we can't ask much other than thay they be released in broadcast order w/ cleaned up transfers and original audio tracks. It's not hard to screw that up... (I'm crossing my fingers and praying they get the Yogi and Hucklberry Hound sets right since there's many more elements)... but when it comes to their theatrical cartoon library, they manage to screw up every single release to some extent. It's just not right and the fact of the matter is that if these weren't animated, nobody would let such issues slip! We shouldn't either!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Er...wow. Sorry, Dad.

DJ

 

[Robert Crawford]

Marco,
Let's be careful on telling other members what they can post in this thread! Furthermore, you're not the only one amused by comments made in this thread.








Crawdaddy

 

[ChrisPearson]

I'd say they're variable. All the Flintstones sets have had childish, moronic extras that don't become the classic status of the series, such as embarrassing footage of nonentities singing the theme song and "How to Draw Fred Flintstone"; only Season 2 has commentaries or worthwhile documentaries. Top Cat lacked original end credits and the documentaries veered between the genuinely informative and the childishly obvious. The Jetsons used the new syndicated prints with the story credit title cards (featuring Orbitty, who was a feature of the 1980s revival), and was packaged as "season one" when only one season (plus a revival) was made. Jonny Quest had one censored episode. Flintstones Season 3 had one edited syndication episode. Wacky Races omits the end credit narration from most episodes. The Scooby Doo Movies is incomplete for no apparent reason (do some of the omitted episodes contain stereotypes as well?).

These are all minor compared to the debacle under discussion and don't bother me much, but they nevertheless suggest that Warner's animation dept is staffed with more than a few people who don't know what they're doing.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

And you can read my thoughts on The Golden Collection sets at Jerry Beck's forum in this post from many months back:

http://www.animationshow.com/forums/...llection&st=45


"As great as this set is and as happy as I am with the film selection and such (which btw, I attribute mostly to folks such as Jerry Beck who I'm sure had most influence in this department), I still feel as though Warner Bros. is not putting the effort that's deserved into these Golden Collections. When I see the ugly clip-art melange cover packaging and embarassing menu screens, mastering glitches, bonus films presented without any context (i.e. the commercial short on disc 4), and so on and so forth, I just feel like Warners could be doing so much more with these sets. Again, I have to look to Disney as an example because they really hit the mark and these collections are just as deserving of the same quality devotion. The cartoons are obviously, first and foremost, the main draw and significance here, but that shouldn't detract from other such factors. Afterall, this is a DVD release aimed at collector's and animation fans and yet every aesthetic element says otherwise when looking at these from a marketing standpoint.

Why not do your best to produce top quality sets, especially when the profit margin is guaranteed??? I have to be completely realistic and honest when I say, that in terms of DVD critique and not the actual feature content as presented, Warners capable of producing much better... the Marx Brothers set was technically a much more elegant and arranged collection. If WB can offer box-sets like that in which every aspect is carefully and exquisitely presented, than why not with Looney Tunes? I know I shouldn't be critical when in truth I've been watching the set all weekend long and haven't grown tired of it for a second... but I just don't think that these little aspects, regardless fo how minor, should be neglected. There's no reason for production oversights on a major release of this caliber. There's no reason for the ugly cover art and menu screens which humble even the worst of the public domain releases. There's no reason why "Daffy Duck For President" or any of the extra cartoons should be presented without any brief intro segment explaining it's context and significance and giving reason for it's inclusion on the set. There's just no reason, because Warners is capable of so much more, and we've seen so much more with other releases (i.e. Disney Treasures), so why cut corners here? Why not aim to be the best?

It seems as though were the exception used to be justified, this now seem to be the rule... "woops we issued censored cartoons on our Tom & Jerry set even though we promised uncut releases...", "oh well, we didn't master this disc properly, we'll have to work on that...", etc. I'm just concerned that if attention is not brought upon these issues, the objectives of the studios might quickly degenerate into the get out fast in whatever is easiest to release mode...

Again, I hope this isn't taken as me being too negative or not appreciating the great cartoons that are being made available, because I do! I thank Jerry and others like him for being so devoted to bringing us these treasures, but it's the corporate element which brings these factors into play which I find displeasing. Maybe in another home video format, WB will swing for 1.000?

In the meantime though, I do very much appreciate having all these great cartoons to watch and am very much looking forward to volume 3, hopefully a little more care might be devoted to the production at least because the mastering issues should NOT be!"


Jerry agreed with every issue raised.

Warners is just half-assing it in their animation department and that's why this incident, and moreso the lack of attention and neglection of it, has driven many of us fans over the top. I hadn't brought myself to complain nor raise these issues with EB's releases in the past... I was just happy they were actually putting them out, but really, that's not enough! As I said, a dvd is more than it's feature content and most companies (WB included) seem to recognize and acknowledge this in other departments. We want more effort and attention devoted to these releases and things like mastering glitches, DVNR, censorship of content, etc just won't be tolerated. There's simply no exuse.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Sorry Robert, I didn't mean to tell anyone what they could/couldn't post. I was simply stating the silliness and redunancy of posting about their live-action releases which are obviously universally acknowledged as being excellent, when this issue has no relation to that. A company could be great at one thing and suck horribly at another. We shouldn't feel the need to constantly suck up praise for those unrelated successes when dealing with the failures. I think we all need to be honest with ourselves and call a spade a spade. They've heard enough praise from us all year round and will likely continue to in other departments for a long time to come. I think we have a right to take a harsher stance when they veer in the opposite direction without candy coating the issues.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You can if you want to, but that doesn't mean others have to follow your lead. If somebody wants to continue to praise Warner for their overall dvd output then so be it because this forum allows them an opportunity to express their opinion just as it does for you. The people that post on this forum are smart enough to formulate their own opinions and express them accordingly.





Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

That's fine, but it only succeeds in glossing over and whitewashing the issue at hand.

People have the right to their opinion and I understand the strong relationship between HTF and Warner Studios, but wouldn't you agree that it would be considered off-topic and somewhat inappropriate if I started posting how terrible WB's animated ventures have been in threads praising their live-action titles?

To me, this is the same thing in reverse.

It has nothing to do with the discussion, with the apt heading ANIMATION all in caps, and seems like an attempt to go to great measures to simply not offend anyone.

That's certainly not any of our intentions, WB should be able to accept harsh criticism just as well as they can our consistent praise. I'd hope they'd appreciate our honesty, in order to imporve upon areas which need be.

This is DEFINITELY that area.

The response to our community in regards to the issue of edited content and poor print transfers did not seem an indication that Warner had any intention nor incentive to improve upon these issues.

This is why we in the animation community, who unlike most other hobbyists here, must constantly push hard to defend and preserve the films which drive our enthusiasm and see that they are properly and respectfully treated, have taken such concern.

It's a critical issue and perhaps it's understandable if you don't realize this, as you might be coming from an outside perspective of this being "one animation release" out of the hundreds of thousands of dvd's discussed on these forum... but for our community, it is extremely significant.

Tom & Jerry are akin to the Citizen Kanes of the golden age animation properties and to see them released and treated in such a manner is extremely disheartening and an awful representation of the way most company's regard the films that we love.

If Warner would treat these properties as such, imagine how they'd deal with lesser-acknowledged quality properties... if they'd even see release at all.

It's like if you were pushing for Fox to issue it's follow-up "Studio Classics" series, and all was dependant on their more popular highly regarded titles, which they were treating abismally.

Warner Bros. owns the film rights to all of MGM's claasic cartoon output, all of Tex Avery's classic works, many lesser recognized (outside the animation community) series from the golden age that are on par in quality with these classic series and overall the greatest animated films of all time.

They are doing a terrible job with the small and insignificant catalogue of theatrical animation that they've released to date and haven't even gotten around to dealing with the majority of these other classics, let alone even acknowldged our inquiries regarding their status.

We are fighting for the viability of the greatest animated films of all time.

I just want that to be understood by those who wander into this thread to simply praise WB for releasing it's classic film box sets. That to me, seems inappropriate. Or those who make smarmy remarks about a few edited cartoons...

I hope you can appreciate why we would feel it's much more significant than that Robert.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Furthermore, the viability and preservation of art lies in it's public exposure and accessibility. These are films which transcend the medium and are artistic works in the most absolute literal sense, produced over half a century ago! Consider that when approaching these topics from now on and perhaps your perspectives will shift. It is this reason, that we are so defensive of these properties. It's unacceptable for any company to be withholding them from the public's reach, censoring their content and treating them in such a way. Thousands of prints and sequences, titles cards and credits, etc. have been neglected in such a manner and are now lost and never to be seen again. Works of pure art that executives actually have the gall to classify and treat as children's entertainment. Manipulating their compositions by removing drawings and literaly portions of the art work, is taking it too far. We need to shift the public's misinterpretation and misconception of these films, which ironically have been brought on by the companies and studios years ago, the same studios that 50 years prior, had commissioned artists to produce these works! We cannot succeed in doing that if studios like Warner Bros. continue to take the attitude that these films are intended for children and treat them as less significant than their other film properties. People need to respect these "cartoons" as art so that we can continue to enjoy them in their pure and original form, for decades to come.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Well said Marco. I couldn't agree more strongly. The idea that these are now sold as kiddy fare angers me more than just about anything. These cartoons were written and drawn by adults for adults. Too many people think that just because they saw these on Saturday morning that they're kiddy fare, and that just is not true. I grew up watching them after school and on Saturday morning, but at a relatively young age, I could tell the difference between the cartoons that were made for TV and the ones that for some reason looked much better (The theatrical cartoons!)



I take big issue with statements like this. First of all, I don't think they're stereotypes as much as they are racial humor. A black face is a black face, and may be inappropriate, but it's not a stereotype. If racial humor is now inappropriate, why do we have people like Chris Rock, and movies like "White Chicks"? Obviously, this kind of humor is not outdated, and sells like hotcakes, or would not continue to exist. That said, it seems very obvious to me that these cartoons are being treated differently, because they are "KIDDY FARE" - AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! When somebody overdubs Hattie McDaniel or Butterfly McQueen in "Gone With The Wind", I'll agree that society no longer tolerates these stereotypes, but it's more than obvious to me that they do.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It happens everyday here when people read and participate in threads about any studio's products. Most of the time, there are always comments positive and negative in each of those threads.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I appreciate all the opinions expressed about this matter, but judging by your comments you don't feel the same way and your continue commentary on chastising other members is coming off in a dogmatic manner. Frankly, I think you're turning some members off with such an approach and thus, hurting a gathering of support for your cause of concern.







Crawdaddy

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Without letting the issue veer too much off-topic, here is the formal definition of a cartoon, Ed:

a. "A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption."

b. "A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon."

c. "A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation: criticized the actor's portrayal of Jefferson as a historically inaccurate cartoon."

d. "To draw a humorous or satirical representation of; caricature."


These same stereotypes and exagerrations are constantly being used in today's society just the same, in newspaper and magazine print, on television, in mainstream music.

To indicate that black people should be segregated from the application of said humor is a prejudice in and of itself. Can we think of any controversial statements to be made regarding that?

Obviously many of the caricterizations should not be held up to the standards of todays sociological contexts, but what if it were executives of a minority race in charge of the company? Do you really think these films would be censored in the same light or is that apprehension towards our culture's past history perhaps a way of avoiding and neglecting the fact that such times did exist?

Not that these films in anyway express any form of prejudice, but perhaps it's feelings of guilt and neglect towards our history that associate the two?

Really, I'm not sure where people would find the satirization and exageration of such black caricatures offensive, do people really exist in this world who are under the impression that cartoons are supposed to pertain to the actual honest portrayal of real life reflections and situations?

This is not directed to anyone on this board, but I truly wonder if these same people have the common sense and judgement to conceive their own decisions regarding what it is they chose to watch and purchase in modern media because apparently they do not have the intelligence to make the obvious distinction between present day documentary and animated short. It seems that these people who complain to the studios and toss around issues of controversy make these obnoxious and frivolous complaints because they can't come up with a more substantial means of passing their time.

What if we were to gather all the excessively overweight, big-shoed, squeeky voiced citizens and talking animals of this great nation and have them all submit complaint forms to animation studios regarding the exagerated and satirical stereotypes of their images being portrayed in these so called "cartoons"?

Do we ever rally in support of censoring the generic characterizations of middle southern-Americans when portrayed as ingnorant, loudmouth gun toting cowboys in cartoons?

Of course not, because we understand that it is a character and a charcter as such, is not in any way a reflection of real life but an exagerration of humorous stereotypes.

Often times, characters as seen in blackface in cartoons are actually not even caricaturizations alone... but caricaturizations of caricatures! Lampooning the exagerrated stereotypes of early hollywood, etc.

Perhaps we can place these people who bring about the censorship of our media through protest and outcry, back in the middle ages and see whether they than have the capacity to identify the subtle differences in sociological context.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Actually, Jerry Beck put out a request to film collectors for lost footage for Top Cat. Also, it's "The Best of Scooby-Doo Movies".

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

I agree with Patrick that the company is doing fine with their television properties. TV releases seem to be on par and it's understandable that certain elements might have been out of their hand, ie. the end credits which couldnt be located, etc... but not their theatrical clssic animated works. They just don't know how to deal with those.

 

[ChrisPearson]

I think it was actually Mark Evanier who made the initial request on newsfromme.com and the titles acquired as a result weren't used for "legal reasons". I stand by my other comments, though – why a "best of" for the Scooby-Doo Movies and not a complete season? I'm not a Scooby fan and haven't bought the set, but I recall this angered a lot of people on the TV Shows forum.

Anyway ... I think all that needs to be said on this subject has been said; the ball is in Warners' court now, if they're listening...

 

[Steve...O]

I thought the omission of certain episodes had to do with an inability to come to terms with the guest stars featured in the episodes. The stars probably wanted more money than what Warners' budget would have allowed.

If someone knows for a fact that something else is at play here, please correct as appropriate but I don't think Warners should take the blame if securing the rights would have been prohibitively expensive.