Of Mice And Magic by Leonard Maltin

[Marty26]

I bought this book just Monday and it should be coming in the mail today. Any thoughts/opinions on it?

[Tom Stathes]

Well, it's considered somewhat of a bible in animation history studies. Basically a primer on major studios is what it is, it's also one of the earliest books to accomplish just that. A fun read, a starter for the budding enthusiast.

[FleischerFan]

The first, and in my opinion the best, overview of the Golden Age of the Hollywood Cartoon. Maltin is a knowledgable and skillful writer.

This provides nice summaries of all of the major studios that produced cartoons in the early sound era. I think it remains the cornerstone for any library of animation information.

Maltin was also the first to attempt a comprehensive filmography of the major studios. That alone made an an invaluable resource for me as I began to assemble my own collection of cartoons at the dawn of the home video era.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

I would love Mr. Maltin to up date it. since I think some info might be out dated.

[frizfrelengfan]

It's a great book. My love of classic cartoons was re-kindled a few years back when I saw some episodes of Toon Heads on CN. I went to the library to find anything that I could about classic animation, and they had a 1980 edition of the book. Maltin is not just a historian; he's a fan.

[Fibber Fox]

I bought this book just Monday and it should be coming in the mail today. Any thoughts/opinions on it?

My first copy fell apart years ago through use. Fortunately, I found another one (though it was a second edition) in a used book store.

It's pretty well *the* starting point for anyone who wants to get an overview of each studio in the Golden Age.

F. Fox

[cbrubaker]

My copy fell apart years ago but as everyone said it's a good place to start to know about the classic studios.

Wish he updates it, though, since some infos are either outdated or wrong (well, no one's perfect).

The Terrytoons filmography in particular needs a cleanup. Maltin left out a chunk of "Sidney" cartoons that I'm very certain got theatrical releases and he lists Bakshi as a director of all the "James Hound" even though there were a few directed by Art Bartsch and Dave Tendlar.

[Bradskey]

I enjoyed it a lot, it goes in depth about the producers, directors and animators who were at the various studios during various periods during all decades of the golden era. The major studios are all covered with their own chapters, as well as the minors (Van Beuren, Iwerks, etc). Lost of artwork, stills and screenshots and all the major milestones and masterpieces are covered. Its pretty good right up to the early-mid 60s, which is what interests us anyway. Disney, Fleischer, Lantz and WB command the largest chapters by far.

Then toward the end there is kind of a "the rest of the crap" chapter. It surprises me what a slighting mention DFE gets there, before Maltin goes into a sequence of animated features that are mostly forgotten and insignificant by today's standard's, especially considering what has been released since 1987, but naturally seemed relevant at the time. Fieval is okay, but I wouldn't consider He-Man, Heavy Metal, Fritz the Cat or various forgotten Bakshi productions and totally obscure production studios of the 70s are worth a lot of mention in a revised edition. But at the same time he was making a commentary about the state of the industry as it was then (just before we had a short renaissance of sorts). It ends with a rumor of what would become The Land Before Time, while the Disney chapter also mentions the planned release of an afternoon series called Duck Tales.

[Marty26]

I dunno. I think Heavy Metal has its place in animation history for being among the first "adult animated cartoons" (or, in this case, movies). If you watch more modern adult animated programs like Family Guy, King Of The Hill and especially Beavis And Butt-Head, the influence from that movie is quite blatant. It's a little odd, though, that the movie would be referenced in the 1987 edition of OMAM since it didn't really start to develop its cult following until the early-90's.

[zavkram]

This was the first book on the history of American animated cartoons that I had ever read, when I was about 16, and it still occupies a special place on my bookshelf.

Over time I noticed that Maltin had made a few mistakes here and there, particularly in the filmographies; but I agree that it is a good starting place for the animation enthusiast and the cornerstone of any library on the subject.

In the opening paragraph to his forward for both editions, Maltin says, "I love cartoons..." and this sentiment can clearly be felt throughout the book.

[Keith Paynter]

I've yet to purchase it, because our local public library has a copy. Regardless, a great starting point to get some of the basics behind the major cartoon studios, and probably the first to focus on anyone other than Disney.

Enjoy!

[Bugsmer]

It's a fantastic, in-depth book featuring all of the studios that made sound cartoons and released them theatrically. It's very light on the silent studios, and lists no filmography for silents other than those of the Fleischer and Disney studios. Every chapter is a pleasure to read from start to finish, even if you already know the information. His enthusiasm for the subject matter makes you wish you were there with him. Jerry Beck did a good chunk of research for this book, research that he's continued doing ever since. I keep picking it up every now and then for a filmography that isn't there, from the silent era. He mentioned the American studios and who was in charge of them, but didn't go into great detail about any of them. That's really the only major flaw in the book. You'll enjoy your new purchase. You can't go wrong with someone who makes you smile.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

It's one of the best books on classic animated cartoons. I first bought and read the book in 1983. I kept that copy for years, re-reading it several times until the spine broke and the pages began falling out. I bought an updated copy a few years back as a replacement.

[Fibber Fox]

I keep picking it up every now and then for a filmography that isn't there, from the silent era. He mentioned the American studios and who was in charge of them, but didn't go into great detail about any of them. That's really the only major flaw in the book.

How can it be a "flaw"? That isn't what the book was intended to be, any more than it's a flaw he doesn't mention pizza recipes.

It's not an encyclopaedia. It's intended as a general overview of cartoon studios of the Golden Age and Maltin, more or less, wrote one before anybody else did. And I'd hazard a guess his chapter on Van Beuren was ground-breaking at the time.

F. Fox

[wiley207]

I loved that book! Two of my high school's libraries each had a copy of it, the 1980 edition. (Yes, my high school had more than one library and cafeteria). Of course, I often checked out this book and would sometimes renew it, or sometimes return it. This book was also how I began to practice drawing the Looney Tunes (from looking at the character poses in it). And also, thanks to this book, I learned a lot more about classic cartoons, including studios I never heard of like Ub Iwerks' company and UPA.

[Gasmask Ted]

If the lack of silents isn't a flaw, then the subtitle "A History of American Animated Cartoons" is a flaw (which, considering it does more or less ignore all non theatrical animation, at least in my 1980 copy, I am willing to accept as the weakest link).

[Tom Stathes]

The subject of the book overlooking silents to a major degree can in fact be cited as a flaw, or biased lacking of information. Denis Gifford did much of the necessary research in documenting silent cartoon series and release information only a few years later, so it was certainly possible to accomplish. Of Mice and Magic, to me, represents the generalized fandom for mainstream, golden age cartoons and is just that: a basic primer to the history of the art, not one to end your research with...one to begin with.

[Tom Stathes]

And I'd hazard a guess his chapter on Van Beuren was ground-breaking at the time.

F. Fox
At the time, yes...but much has been learned since then. We are overripe not only for an updated version of the book, but for enterprising and writing fans/historians to put their owns pens to paper to come up with more encompassing books on just the individual studios. Warners and Disney have been rehashed ad nauseum, in my opinion.

[Mac]

I haven't read this book since I was a kid. I loved reading 'serious' books about cartoons and remember I found a copy one summer in the library. I remember I found it hard to put down and staying up really late reading it on nights where it was too hot to sleep. At this point I knew quite a lot about Disney which was my favourite studio, but as I went through the chapters, I kept thinking "no, maybe Warner Bros is better, no MGM, no Fleischer!" By the time I'd finished the book I realised just how much I liked a lot of cartoons!

One thing that struck me about the book though was all the sad endings. It was depressing to read about the downfall of each of the studios that made such wonderful entertainment. With the talk in the book about all the crap that was being made at the time after reading about the classics that had gone before, it couldn't help but end on something of a downer! I read the book while Disney seemed to be in the mist of its second "Golden Age" and I almost wanted to go back in time to tell the author of the book that it was okay, things were going to get better!

[Bradskey]

At the time, yes...but much has been learned since then. We are overripe not only for an updated version of the book, but for enterprising and writing fans/historians to put their owns pens to paper to come up with more encompassing books on just the individual studios. Warners and Disney have been rehashed ad nauseum, in my opinion.

Van Beuren, to me anyway, is a very interesting studio, and reading Maltin's history of it was enlightening. Although I like some of their cartoons, I had a tendency to lump them in as being of the same uninspired stripe as Terrytoons, Mintz, etc. But reading about Van Beuren, wheelchair-bound, telling his disgruntled animators he was behind them 100% and behind Gillette 110%, you really get the sense that Van Beuren wanted to succeed and do great animation, and not just be another cartoon sweatshop. I think they were getting a lot closer under Gillette, the animation was certainly improving dramatically. Were it not for the way things unfolded, RKO dumping them for Disney (couldn't blame them), and Van Beuren's death, I think they might have found a real degree of success and might actually be remembered today.

[Jack G.]

Very enjoyable book. Maltin's a fan which I appreciate.
Good start into cartoon history. Mine's quite worn out. Hasn't fallen apart yet.

At the time the book was put together certain films were hard to come by and it seems
that the Terrytoons chapter might suffer from this.

[Bugsmer]

How can it be a "flaw"? That isn't what the book was intended to be, any more than it's a flaw he doesn't mention pizza recipes.

It's not an encyclopaedia. It's intended as a general overview of cartoon studios of the Golden Age and Maltin, more or less, wrote one before anybody else did. And I'd hazard a guess his chapter on Van Beuren was ground-breaking at the time.

F. Fox

No, it's not an encyclopaedia, but it's partly because of this book that so many later books were written about animation history in the theatrical age. In interviewing him for his book, Maltin may have inspired Adamson to later write his books about Tex Avery and Bugs Bunny. This book does a service to everyone who reads it, whether or not they've actually seen any of these cartoons. I found the chapters about the studios whose product I hadn't at the time seen any of just as interesting as those on Disney and Warners and MGM, the three major cartoon studios we already know so much about.

His first chapter about the silent era was really interesting. It was a shame that he didn't devote a chapter to each of the silent studios like he did with those that produced sound cartoons. He does give an excellent overview of the period before Steamboat Willie, and it rather whets your appetite for the goodies to follow. There's a lot of information that isn't in his book, but much of what ended up in his book was derived through interviews with some of the surviving artists from the Golden Age. He didn't have any other way of finding out what the people who made them actualy did, and because of the interviews, his book is probably a lot more accurate than one written 100 years in the future by a man who will never have known any of these people. We know more now than we did then because this book got people interested enough to ask more questions and find out more answers. It took nearly thirty years of research to be able to spot the gaps in information that this milestone of a book happened to overlook at the time.

[Bob K]

Maltin's book led to my passion for animation as an adult, when I started browsing through it in my college library. Indispensible.

[J Lee]

In interviewing him for his book, Maltin may have inspired Adamson to later write his books about Tex Avery and Bugs Bunny.

Actually, Adamson's book on Avery came out in 1975, five years before Maltin's book arrived on the scene (IIRC, Leonard's contemporaneous book to Joe's "King of Cartoons" was a book on famous movie comedy teams).

"Of Mice & Magic" definitely a book worth getting for the overview it provides for the various studios, even if some parts of it might come across as a little shallow 29 years after the fact, thanks to the wider availability of information and the greater research both done and made available since then.

[Thad]

Actually, Adamson's book on Avery came out in 1975, five years before Maltin's book arrived on the scene (IIRC, Leonard's contemporaneous book to Joe's "King of Cartoons" was a book on famous movie comedy teams).

Maltin also did the first edition of "The Disney Films" in the early 70s. It's really incredible he was able to do all of this stuff before he was even thirty and in the days before the VCR.

[zavkram]

I had a paperback copy of The Disney Films back in the late 1970's. I don't remember now why I eventually got rid of it; it might have simply wore out from having re-read it so much. The book is out of print but occasionally copies might be found on eBay or Amazon.

Maltin also wrote a book about Abbott & Costello, complete with a detailed filmography and synopses of each of their 28 feature films.

[Dave Mackey]

You have to remember, though, this book was last updated in 1987, so it's missing a big chunk of the last 22 years of animation history, including the Warner Bros. revival and the rise of Pixar. But it's a great history and Maltin and Beck found just the right time to corral key interview subjects, something that's near impossible to do nowadays, when the only links to the old days left are Bob Givens, Bill Littlejohn, Howard Beckerman, and a few scant others.

The omission of a chapter devoted to the DePatie-Freleng studio is glaring, as it was the discontinuation of their studio - not Walter Lantz - that tolled the end of the cartoon as theatrical short subject.

Maltin also co-wrote with Dick Bann the definitive history of Our Gang, so he is quite valued as a film historian.

[Bradskey]

The omission of a chapter devoted to the DePatie-Freleng studio is glaring, as it was the discontinuation of their studio - not Walter Lantz - that tolled the end of the cartoon as theatrical short subject.

See, that's what I thought too -- no chapter for DePatie-Freleng??? And Lantz gets all the credit? The only justification I could come up with for dissing it was that DFE actually started pretty much after the golden era and in its earliest days it probably more closely resembled the fledgling Filmation before landing the Pink Panther.


Maltin also co-wrote with Dick Bann the definitive history of Our Gang, so he is quite valued as a film historian.

I intend to get that book, I've been enjoying the Genius DVD set.

[didi-5]

It's a book I go back to quite a lot and it started me on an interest in early cartoons, so I guess it did its job. It is an easy read with lots of information although as others have pointed out there are some omissions.

[Bugsmer]

Actually, Adamson's book on Avery came out in 1975, five years before Maltin's book arrived on the scene (IIRC, Leonard's contemporaneous book to Joe's "King of Cartoons" was a book on famous movie comedy teams).


Ah, sorry. My mistake.

[zavkram]

I'm guessing the reason that a 3rd edition of the book hasn't come out (and probably won't come out) is because the suits at a certain Hollywood studio and video distribution company are paranoid about someone ripping off their cartoon characters; if it were ever revealed just how old the characters (and the cartoons which featured them) really are. It is, if I understand correctly, for this very same reason that another well-known and much-beloved book on the history of Hollywood cartoons has never been updated, either.

[gflinn]

My first copy fell apart years ago through use. Fortunately, I found another one (though it was a second edition) in a used book store.

It's pretty well *the* starting point for anyone who wants to get an overview of each studio in the Golden Age.

F. Fox

Too many years ago, I had the softcover book bound with a hard cover after the glued binding broke.

[Marty26]

Gflinn, I'm guessing you took that Bob Clampett photo from "50 Years And Only One Gray Hare", right?

[larriva9/11]

If Maltin didn't do DFE justice, so to speak, keep in mind that despite the gallant efforts to keep the theatrical short tradition alive, in the end it was more commonly identified with the H-B/Filmation/Rankin-Bass school of TV-based purveyors. You might as well argue in hindsight that H-B deserved its own chapter, too--at least, in acknowledging how judgment of their oeuvre is (rightly or wrongly) more charitable now than it was at the time of Maltin's writing...

[Nelson]

Basically, "Of Mice And Magic" is the holy grail of books on the golden age of animation and I have an updated great version on this book.My only problem is that there's not much devoted in the studios during the silent era and it always kinda made me go "huh"? when it seems like Maltin praises the Van Bueren studios over Paul Terry's Terrytoons.

[Fibber Fox]

If Maltin didn't do DFE justice, so to speak, keep in mind that despite the gallant efforts to keep the theatrical short tradition alive, in the end it was more commonly identified with the H-B/Filmation/Rankin-Bass school of TV-based purveyors.

Besides, the Golden Age was, more or less, over by the time DFE came onto the scene, so I think that's why it was lumped in the with Loopy De Loop, etc. in the last chapter.

F. Fox

P.S. Something to consider as well is we don't know what editorial restraints were placed on Maltin.

[Matt the Y]

P.S. Something to consider as well is we don't know what editorial restraints were placed on Maltin.

Editorial restraints? You mean, like objections from outside parties, for instance? Or do you just mean that his book could feasibly only be [X] number of pages long?

[WoodpeckerWoody]

Basically, "Of Mice And Magic" is the holy grail of books on the golden age of animation and I have an updated great version on this book.My only problem is that there's not much devoted in the studios during the silent era and it always kinda made me go "huh"? when it seems like Maltin praises the Van Bueren studios over Paul Terry's Terrytoons.

I have to agree with this that pre-golden era doen't have to many word on them I think its need an addition filmograpy for those studio and only other flaw I have with the book is the filmograpy since there might be more better information about the shorts on the filmograpy in the book now than when it was last up-dated.

[Fibber Fox]

Editorial restraints? You mean, like objections from outside parties, for instance? Or do you just mean that his book could feasibly only be [X] number of pages long?

X pages long. And maybe the focus of the content. As it's not a scandal-laden biography, I doubt outside parties would have objected.

People have to remember that the book came out in 1980 there was no book with an overview of the Golden Age studios. Not one. One doesn't claim a wagon trail to the old west was "flawed" because it isn't paved and doesn't have rest-stops along the route.

I think it made major publishers take notice that there was an audience for books on cartoons (other than about Disney) and blazed the proverbial trail for the many books that followed.

I had never heard of Van Beuren or Iwerks until I read the book, and I'm sure many other readers hadn't either.

F. Fox.

[TServo2049]

I'm guessing the reason that a 3rd edition of the book hasn't come out (and probably won't come out) is because the suits at a certain Hollywood studio and video distribution company are paranoid about someone ripping off their cartoon characters; if it were ever revealed just how old the characters (and the cartoons which featured them) really are. It is, if I understand correctly, for this very same reason that another well-known and much-beloved book on the history of Hollywood cartoons has never been updated, either.

As has already been stated, the character trademarks are still in effect (perpetually?); Ray Pointer has already explained it.

Furthermore, do they really think people can't already get that information? If they really wanted to suppress that info, they'd go after Wikipedia or the Internet Movie Database...

[Tom Stathes]

Some leading figures uphold that studios like WB don't want the general public knowing how old their characters are for that very reason, regardless of how stupid it sounds to us.

[TServo2049]

Some leading figures uphold that studios like WB don't want the general public knowing how old their characters are for that very reason, regardless of how stupid it sounds to us.

I'm not arguing that fact. What I'm saying is that it's ridiculous for them to have that mindset, because 1.) Their own DVD releases give that information; 2.) That information is easily accessible on the Internet, and 3.) They still control trademarks on their characters, which do not fall under the same expiration rules as for individual copyrighted works, AFAIK...

If these leading figures hadn't told me this fact, I'd have assumed that was something made up by the anti-copyright ideologues, because it sounds so ridiculous...

Besides, the studios have enough legal muscle to stop any infringement on their characters; don't intellectual property rights last longer than copyrights? Or am I wrong? Ray Pointer, where are you?

[Tom Stathes]

Indeed it's incredibly ridiculous and illogical, really. With all the litigous power had by entities like Warners and Disney, they need not worry about bottom feeders making a tiny buck here and there with their characters' likenesses- they can stop it so easily.

[TServo2049]

Getting off this tangent...

...what good would a new book do us, in this Internet-centric age? Most of this info is at our fingertips, why spend $40 on a book? :)

Yeah, I know, a glossy color book would be great. But the question is, would it sell well enough to recoup costs in this age of the Internet?

But, anyway, I am amazed at how far filmography accuracy has come since Maltin's book. Some of us have disproved the existence of several dubious titles listed in filmographies, for example (remember "Fanny the Mule"?).

I have done my part, getting such non-existent titles deleted from the Internet Movie Database, and in slowly adding info from such filmographies as those hosted by GAC to the IMDB.

[FleischerFan]

The reason a 3rd edition hasn't come out is most likely the opinion of publishers (and/or Mr. Maltin) that there are not enough book sales to justify paying Maltin & his researchers to write a 2nd revised edition and then send it back to press.

After all, the focus of the book is on the "Golden Age of the Hollywood Theatrical Cartoon" - a period from the advent of sound until the rise of television effectively killed off theatrical cartoon distribution.

As that period is history, how much new information is there (to justisfy the afore-mentioned expenses)?

The subject of silent cartoons and cartoons post-1960 are fascinating subjects, but they are outside the focus of Maltin's book and have been covered in other texts.

Maltin's work was foundational - but that means it also left plenty of room for others to build on.

[Dave Mackey]

Some leading figures uphold that studios like WB don't want the general public knowing how old their characters are for that very reason, regardless of how stupid it sounds to us.
If Warner's REALLY didn't want anyone to know how old their cartoons are, they'd have shut down my site and the Looney/Toonzone one years ago.

[gflinn]

Gflinn, I'm guessing you took that Bob Clampett photo from "50 Years And Only One Gray Hare", right?

I forget where I captured the Clampett drawing Bugs avatar.

[Magpie]

Just slap the words limited edition on the cover...that'll sell! (Kidding!!):)

I have the earlier edition, not the revised edition...and noticed no filmography for MGM? Maybe it is there...no, wait...:eek:

[Tom Stathes]

If Warner's REALLY didn't want anyone to know how old their cartoons are, they'd have shut down my site and the Looney/Toonzone one years ago.

If anyone really goes looking, of course they are going to find out easily how old the cartoons are...websites like yours should not be targeted that easily or for such a ridiculous reason; thankfully it has not been. From their standpoint, it must make sense not to advertise this to the poor sap trolling around a store, seeing how old the cartoons are on a mainstream DVD and figuring he can rip them off. Anyone with further interest and research would already be circumventing that passive approach to seeing what can be bootlegged.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

Best Music writen before-1900.
Best Books wirten before-1900.
Best films filmed before 1990.
Best cartoon done before 1970.
Greatest cartoon caracters before end of second World War.

As I say older then better.

[FleischerFan]

I have the earlier edition, not the revised edition...and noticed no filmography for MGM? Maybe it is there...no, wait...:eek: Not sure how to interpret your last sentence.

I happen to own the original trade paperback (like many, my copy is now coverless and in 3 pieces), a copy of the original edition in hardcover(!), and a copy of the revised edition (which is in very good shape as I still use the filmography in the original edition).

There are listings for M-G-M cartoons in all 3.

[Magpie]

Right you are...:)