Hit or Miss: Famous Studios

[Thad]

Discuss this criminally neglected and maligned studio.

[Geezil]

Hit! There can be no doubt that Famous Studios hit the ground running with its first 1942 cartoon releases. From then on, apart from a clunker or two as the Superman series was quickly wound down (and even though poor Little Audrey doesn't get very much love here at GAC :( ), Famous enjoyed a high-quality run in virtually every respect until the mid-1950s.

From there, even until its demise in 1967, Famous/Paramount Cartoon Studios still struck the occasional spark of glory when it ventured away from its later lackluster series with well-thought-out one-shots (for instance, "La Petite Parade" or "The Story of George Washington").

And having Ralph Bakshi in charge during its final months didn't hurt too much. ;)

[nickramer]

Hit. Although, I have the feeling this thread was opened as a parody to the past hit and miss threads.

[Geezil]

Hit. Although, I have the feeling this thread was opened as a parody to the past hit and miss threads.

And so what if it was? (I still give Thad more credit than that.) Let's turn that around anyway, and make it all serious-like.

:sailor: :huey: :audrey: :buzzy: :cool:

[nickramer]

And so what if it was? (I still give Thad more credit than that.) Let's turn that around anyway, and make it all serious-like.

:sailor: :huey: :audrey: :buzzy: :cool:
Okay.

Anyways, my favorite series from Famous is Buzzy. Jackson Beck put some energy in that crow's voice.

[Mr. Semaj]

Hit.

The studio had in interesting and sometimes surreal history, but a lot of good products came from their facilities.

[Marty26]

Actually, Famous has taken some heat (for some reason) from "animation purists." But hey, they were both a great and significant studio during the GAC-era.

[cbrubaker]

My guess is Famous got more heat from animation fans because they tended to be more juvenile compared to other studios.

Was never a big fan, but there were some interesting stuff. Irv Spector wrote some of the funniest cartoons to come out of the west coast. I'll say hit by default.

[Bradskey]

Ah, Famous. Its interesting that at least the quality of their animation remained pretty high (until after the wash sale at least), yet they along with Terrytoons would have taken the limited animation route much earlier if it had ever occurred to them. They saw it on TV and the little light came on I guess. Good musical scores... often formulaic cartoons, but they have their moments.

I actually like some of their series, beyond just their continuation of Popeye. They had many of those little one-off spoof or gag cartoons that were amusing, sometimes even pretty funny. Some of the Modern Madcaps are pretty good, even with the limited animation (TV Fuddlehead anyone?). And I have childhood memories of them in syndication along with Terrytoons on weekday afternoons so maybe I'm just biased. They are not my favorites, not by a longshot, but they're not just awful either.

[J Lee]

Just to go over my usual Paramount talking points:

-- Famous' one-shot cartoons were good right up through the end of the 1950s, especially the ones with Irv Spector as credited writer in the 50s. It was when they took some of the characters from the one-shot Noveltoons and turned them into continuing series that they ran into problems with repetitive story lines and/or violence that was more painful than funny.

-- The Popeye series was excellent when the studio started in the mid-40s, started dipping down with the arrival of the duller animation at the end of the decade (and the depature of one James Tyer) and took a bit of a step back up in the final two or so years before the series ended (though judging by 1957's "The Crystal Brawl" it's probably a good thing the series ended before Popeye, Olive and Bluto were UPAised by the studio).

--The Lulu cartoons allowed the studio's two divergent strands of ultra cuteness and large-scale violence to co-exist in harmony -- Myron Waldman could still indulge in cute, child-like personality animation in a slapstick cartoon, while Dave Tendlar or Nick Tafuri could unleash all sorts of wanton violence on the cartoon's adult male authority figure and still throw in a couple of cute bits, because Lulu was a relatively quiet character who allowed for pantomime personality animation (as opposed to Little Audrey, who in many of her cartoons managed to combine the traits of being a loudmouth with an annoying laugh and being a borderline narcoleptic at the same time).

-- The post-60 stuff tends to be a little sparse in entertainment value, since they had no recurring characters, but there's still a few really good cartoons in there; you just need to know where to look (including at some of the made-for-TV KFS stuff that was being churned out at the same time).

-- "The Cat" > "Swifty and Shorty" > "Honey Halfwitch" > "Laddy and His Lamp" > "Sir Blur", but none of that is still saying much, as far as the attempts at post-1960 recurring series go.

[Jeffitarian]

Can we vote "Hiss?". That's what I'd give Famous. A "Hit" for what I've seen of their post-Fleischer 1940s offerings, a "Hit" or a "Miss" for most of their 1950s output (depending on the cartoon and leaning more towards the "Miss" most of the time) and a "Hit" for their late 50s/early 60s UPA-esque period. Haven't seen anything past 1962 so I can't comment on that period. Overall, a very mixed output in terms of overall quality for this studio.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I've got to be the gadfly and disagree with most of the posters here. I like some of the Famous cartoons from the early forties (the animation is nice and the cartoons are charming), but once World War II ends the quality of the cartoons start to decline. They created the most consistently mediocre product of any of the golden age studios (excepting maybe Terrytoons). I've never liked their original characters like Casper, Little Audrey and Herman & Katnip. It was only with characters they adapted from other sources that they had success with, like Popeye and Little Lulu.

Sorry guys. I wish I could say nicer things about the studio. However, after suffering through the Harveytoons DVD, I have to conclude that Famous' quality work was brief and that their formulaic and dull cartoons outweigh whatever good shorts they made in their salad days.

[Thad]

They created the most consistently mediocre product of any of the golden age studios (excepting maybe Terrytoons)

Even Walter Lantz? :daffy:

[Matt the Y]

I voted hit.

While I thoroughly despise ALL of the Casper cartoons and find the Screen Song cartoons to be among the most boring and mediocre cartoons ever produced, the more interesting cartoons in this studio's output are what makes me vote "hit" for the deciding vote for the studio. Bizarre off-the-wall shorts like "The Plot Sickens", "Chew Chew Baby" (pretty nightmarish stuff here!), "Crazytown", "Mr. Money Gags", etc. are at least interesting to watch and some of their 1940's shorts, especially their Popeye cartoons, are laugh-out-loud hilarious. In fact, I think a lot of their 1940's Popeyes are among the sailor's all-time best. Famous, in general, was certainly a more enduring and more overall entertaining studio than its' other New York animation studio counterpart, TerryToons.

Overall, my Famous top 10 would probably be as follows.....

1) Popeye Meets Hercules
2) The Plot Sickens
3) How Green is My Spinach
4) The Hungry Goat
5) Happy Birthdaze
6) Rocket to Mars
7) A Wolf in Sheik's Clothing
8) Crazytown
9) Sleuth but Sure
10) Pop Pie a la Mode

And, yes, I'm aware that most of those are Popeyes but, hey, that's what I like out of Famous the most.

[Leviathan]

Little Lulu is my favorite cartoon series of the Golden Age, bar none.

Unlike the dud series of other studios (Warners and MGM) included, I CAN sit through a marathon viewing of Caspers, so I won't discount Casper.

The Popeye cartoons of the 40's are funny and energetic, which makes the flabbier and more lethargic entries of the 50's sort of depressing to watch.

I won't bother with anything after the late 50's.

[Jack G.]

...They created the most consistently mediocre product of any of the golden age studios (excepting maybe Terrytoons). I've never liked their original characters like Casper, Little Audrey and Herman & Katnip. It was only with characters they adapted from other sources that they had success with, like Popeye and Little Lulu.

Sorry guys. I wish I could say nicer things about the studio. However, after suffering through the Harveytoons DVD...Yep, I feel pretty similar.

From a very young age I didn't like Famous
(this is before I knew the Famous Popeyes and the Harveytoons show were produced by the same studio).

For some reason I can deal with Terrytoons better.

And I still haven't been able to get through the Harveytoons set despite having a list of highlights from the disc provided by this forum.

[Steve Siegert]

I had to vote hit. I am only familiar with Famous' Popeye cartoons, and most of their cartoons that have fallen into the public domain. Based on what I have seen from this studio, I have been entertained by their work just as much as I have been entertained by the cartoons produced by Warner Bros., MGM and Disney during the 1940's. These cartoons all have a charm to them that make them unique, even if they were often times childish. The works of Famous during the 1950's are not exactly my cup of tea, though.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

I say Miss, just becouse the fact that Parmount over took the Studio from there original founders the Fleischer Bros.

[frizfrelengfan]

Like Screen Gems and sometimes Lantz, Famous Studios is a cartoon studio that I want to like, but I can't always do it.

What I like:


The cartoons always look slick and polished
The Winston Sharples music is wonderful
The pre-1950 cartoons especially the work of Bill Tytla are OK
The cartoons written by Irv Spector are funny (sometimes in a sick sort of way)
The Shamus Culhane cartoons of 1966-67 are offbeat and sometimes very funny


What I don't:


Much of the hack work of Kneitel and Sparber
Casper, Herman & Katnip, Baby Huey - BORING and REPETITIOUS and the reason I disliked "Harveytoons" growing up
The way Popeye deteriorated under Famous

I'm having a hard time deciding whether they are a "hit" or a "miss," but I'll always consider them a second-tier studio along with the studios mentioned above.

[Der Captain]

All the major studios (except UPA and - for a while - Warners) started showing deterioration in the fifties, but Famous seemed to suffer more than the others. Lantz cartoons of the fifties, despite their bargain basement budget, occasionally had some spark thanks to help from Don Patterson, Sid Marcus, Michael Maltese and Tex Avery. But I can't think of a single Famous cartoon from that decade that looks like anything more than an insomnia cure. (Okay, maybe "Pleased to Eat You" - maybe.) Sad, because they showed so much promise in the early 40's. After Shamus Culhane arrived things perked up, but it was never consistent enough to save this sinking ship.

[Dave Mackey]

I said Hit, for most of the reasons mentioned above. Dave Tendlar, Jim Tyer, Bill Tytla, Johnny Gentilella, Nick Tafuri, Al Eugster, Tom Golden, Myron Waldman. What a talent pool! Some of the cartoons were formulaic and relied on groaner gags, but the gems far outweigh the clinkers.

[Jon Cooke]

Can we vote "Hiss?". That's what I'd give Famous. A "Hit" for what I've seen of their post-Fleischer 1940s offerings, a "Hit" or a "Miss" for most of their 1950s output (depending on the cartoon and leaning more towards the "Miss" most of the time) and a "Hit" for their late 50s/early 60s UPA-esque period. Haven't seen anything past 1962 so I can't comment on that period. Overall, a very mixed output in terms of overall quality for this studio.

That pretty much sums it up for me, too. It's hard to call the studio a clear "hit" or "miss". It's a shame the energy of the 1940's shorts didn't carry over into the 1950's. I also like those crazy UPA-esque shorts ("Mr. Money Gags", "Fido Beta Kapa", "Jolly the Clown", et al) but that did lead to the ultra-cheap-looking shorts that the studio was known for until the very end. I just can't get into those.

That said, even at their most repetitive, I seem to be able to sit through more Famous shorts than I can Terrytoons. At least Winston Sharples' scores were consistently good (the guy sure loved working "It's a Hap-Hap-Happy Day" into nearly every cartoon :p ).

I also can't totally hate any studio that gave us these guys... :huey: ("Duh, you're the FOX and I think you're tryin' to KILL me!") and :buzzy:

So, um... "borderline hit"?

[captchucky]

The production values at Famous were above those at Terry, Columbia and Lantz for the most part. I think they were a true "A" level studio, where the other studios I metioned here seem, at least to me, to be "B" movie studios. The animation and backgrounds were almost always first-rate at Famous, at least in their 40's and 50's films.

[nickramer]

I should mention I like some of the Casper, particularly the later ones where they move out of the formula and some of TV adaptions of the
Harvey comics. I do prefer the Harvey comics of this character. Those were good and sometimes bizare.

I also like the KFS Popeye cartoons they did. They were the best of the package bunch and were better than the later '50's cartoons (storywise, of course).

[Jon Cooke]

A perfect example of "40's Famous" vs. "50's Famous" - compare "Me Musical Nephews" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_BQsGUiegA) (1942) to its remake, "Riot in Rhythm" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxcTMP9G2fU) (1950).

"Riot" is pretty much "Me Musical Nephews" with all the life sucked out of it.

[Bugsy-Kun]

It's rather hard to say if it's a hit or a miss. I know a lot of this cartoons are repetitive with predicatble plots but they was able, mostly for the end-50's/60's one-shots to make variety in their works and make much adult-oriented look. The recent 60's cartoons posted by Jerry Beck is a example i give.

[Geezil]

A perfect example of "40's Famous" vs. "50's Famous" - compare "Me Musical Nephews" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_BQsGUiegA) (1942) to its remake, "Riot in Rhythm" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxcTMP9G2fU) (1950).

"Riot" is pretty much "Me Musical Nephews" with all the life sucked out of it.

Just to further amplify your point, Jon: Is it my imagination, or is the first 2:35 or so of "Riot in Rhythm" all but identical in staging, music, and dialogue to the opening scenes from "Me Musical Nephews" (down to the way the nephews' caps flip in midair as Popeye is wrapping up his condensed fairy tale)? If there had only been computer colorization back then, the Famous sound crew and animators could have been spared a lot of work on that later short alone. :eek:

(P.S.: One additional clunker does not change my overall opinion of Famous Studios! Thankyouverymuch®.)

[Debbie]

Honestly, I find much of the Famous Studios library to be rather difficult to sit through. They're just either too cutesy or too sadistic for my taste.

[That 70s Mom]

I voted Hit, mainly for the music and all the human characters. The jack-in-the-box theme is still my alltime favorite.

[Don59]

A Hit, without a doubt. Although many people seem to look down at the Famous Studios cartoons compared to the ones from WB or MGM, I find most of them fun and enjoyable. Sure there are a few clunkers, but every studio released films that weren't up to par. Famous had some of the finest animation on screen and Winston Sharples' scores were also great to listen to. When I was growing up, there was a local station that ran the Harveytoons package for two hours every Saturday morning, and that is how I was introduced to these cartoons, not knowing at the time that these were really made by Paramount/Famous Studios. I only knew the Harvey jack in the box. I loved Herman and Katnip, especially the one where the mice made Katnip think he was dead as they decorated the attic to look like heaven(sorry don't know the title). I also loved the Screen Songs/Kartunes with the Bouncing Ball. Some of these cartoons were really funny and imaginative, along with singing along with some fun songs. Hey, I learned how to spell "M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I" from "Drippy Mississippi". Recently, I had a chance to watch "Chew Chew Baby" on the web and that cartoon is great! It's also amazing to see how many cartoons Paramount/Famous released in a 25-year time period. Casper, Popeye, Buzzy, Little Audrey, Baby Huey, Herman & Katnip, Tommy & Moe, Little Lulu, and the scores of one-shot Noveltoons & Modern Madcaps. That is quite an accomplishment. So if it's a crime to like Famous Studios cartoons, then I'm guilty and proud of it.

[lonesome-lenny]

Famous Studios are the great "middleman" of classic animation. True, most of their post-1950 series cartoons are dreary in large doses. Their one-shots are consistently of interest from the first "Noveltoon" through the ups and downs of the 1960s.

Their better cartoons are often unsettling in nature. I think Famous' output tends to make many viewers uneasy. They have a darkness that I'm sure is unpleasant to some.

There is something of substance to many Famous cartoons. They deserve a bad rep for the poorness of their series shorts, and deserve a better rep for the one-shots and the more innovative cartoons.

No one can deny that most of the 1940s Famous output is fine. Some of the black-and-white POPEYEs have brilliant timing and wild, cinematically playful ideas.

Even late in the game, the studio would try a short like BOUNCING BENNY. Though a mild-mannered cartoon, its animation technique is quite unusual and haunting.

Their UPA-inspired stylizations of the later '50s wear very well, with dazzling graphics and great use of color.

The Irv Spector-written one-shots are unsung classics--cartoons that deserve to be better-known (and, perhaps, will be some day).

A really good Famous cartoon falls, quality-wise, somewhere between a good Freleng and a good Jones cartoon at WB. They have a totally different vibe, but the best ones tend to hit that mark--and, on occasion, to surpass it.

Just as most of Warners' series cartoons are dull (Bugs and Daffy somehow manage to transcend the strictures of an ongoing series, and the Road Runner blatantly embraces those strictures, to ironic, post-modern effect), just as most of the MGM series cartoons are dull, most of Famous' series are lackluster.

No one is making you watch those. Be selective in your approach to the Famous output, and you will be rewarded for your effort.

[Bradskey]

The Harveytoons DVD collection was okay, but I just wish they would come back do a better job and release the entire library uncut and not in a syndicated compilation (a few of the best cartoons are truncated or missing entirely). Of course it won't happen as Classic Media is not a company that can be trusted to do anything even remotely like that -- they came closest to a pristine collection (but not quite) with Bullwinkle before giving up on it. So we have what we have.

Would also be nice to see the rest of the Paramount/Famous output in a collection or two as well, the pre-1950's and whatever they coughed up after selling everything to Harvey. Then I could go on and on about wishing even the Terrytoons were released, etc, etc. Glutton for punishment I guess. :shame:

[Don59]

Oh I couldn't agree more about my disappointment with the Harveytoons DVD. Although it's nice having the cartoons, it would have been much nicer to have the cartoons uncut, not those dumb Toon Takes from the Harveytoons TV show, let alone not having opening and closing credits or theme songs. I feel cheated not being able to see any of the Bouncing Ball cartoons complete, or the chopped up versions of other Famous cartoons.

[Tom Stathes]

HIT HIT HIT. These are probably my most favorite 40s cartoons with Warners coming in slightly behind.

[Gasmask Ted]

Do you have a list of cartoons (preferably with references to where they are on the Harveytoons box if they're there, or the 600 PD collections if they're there) that you feel back up your point, Tom?

[Jack G.]

The jack-in-the-box theme is still my alltime favorite.The Harveytoons theme song is a great piece.
If only the cartoons were that good.

[Geezil]

HIT HIT HIT.

And that's the real deal ... lots of Famous shorts include lots of hitting! (Why deny it?) ;)

[Bradskey]

And that's the real deal ... lots of Famous shorts include lots of hitting! (Why deny it?) ;)

True, Herman and Katnip are basically Itchy and Scratchy without any blood.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Even Walter Lantz? :daffy:
Hmmm...that's quite a dilemma you pose. I do think the 50's Lantz cartoons are mediocre (except for a handful of cartoons, mostly by Avery). However, I would rate Lantz above Famous since I like the 40's Lantz cartoons more, and Woody was a better character than any of the Famous stable of characters (excluding Popeye, which they inherited from their days as the Fleischer studio). I also like the Lantz's early Oswald cartoons, too.

Sorry it took so long to answer your question, but my computer is down, and I have to use the one I have at work for now.

[larriva9/11]

My beef with Famous remains what I call its "Lileks-ian" quality, i.e. of all the studios, it leaves me with the most of that nasty, queasy low-level 50s cold war vibe. It's like a cache of particularly grubby, musty comic books found at a rancid small-town flea market. And even the Sharples music bugs me to that end...

[Studio Toledo]

True, Herman and Katnip are basically Itchy and Scratchy without any blood.
Also thought of as a poor man's Tom & Jerry by one of the guys behind The Simpsons. :D

[Chooch]

My beef with Famous remains what I call its "Lileks-ian" quality......

You from Minneapolis?

[larriva9/11]

No, but very familiar with his needling of 40s/50s/60s-style kitsch and ephemera..

[Thad]

Just as most of Warners' series cartoons are dull (Bugs and Daffy somehow manage to transcend the strictures of an ongoing series, and the Road Runner blatantly embraces those strictures, to ironic, post-modern effect), just as most of the MGM series cartoons are dull, most of Famous' series are lackluster.

I would include Sylvester & Tweety in your list of exceptions, and also add the Disney series cartoons. I wonder if people would rate the Disney studio a miss based on its pathetic and often artless shorts division of the 1940s, in spite of the often brilliant work in their mid-1930s shorts and the features division? I mean, why be fair?

[Der Captain]

I keep reading the excuse "But the other studios made dull cartoons". Yes, but the other studios also made masterpieces. I can think of "Snow White" (both Disney and Fleischer), "Rabbit of Seville", "King Sized Canary", "Bimbo's Initiation", "Rooty Toot Toot", "Dumbo", "The Cat Concerto" (and to be fair "Rhapsody Rabbit"), "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery", "Red Hot Riding Hood", "One Froggy Evening", "The Band Concert", and "The Tell Tale Heart" to name just a few. These films are still fondly regarded as all time greats by critics and audiences alike. Even one of the Woody Woodpeckers mananged to make it into Jerry Beck's top 50 book.

But Famous Studios gave us - - what? Well, I like some of their early films. "No Mutton for Nuttin", "Happy Birthdaze", and "We're on our way to Rio" are all very well done, but I hesitate to list them among the heavyweights. Even when Culhane made some good films later on, the studio had to undergo just as drastic a style change as Gene Deitch brought to Terrytoons and UPA brought to Columbia.

[Thad]

Off the top of my head I'd name Chew Chew Baby, Le Petite Parade, and Bakshi's Marvin Diggs as "masterpieces". (And maybe Cilly Goose, Sudden Fried Chicken, and Kitty Cornered. MAYBE.) Not many, I know, but there are dozens of others I'd give the title of "classic" to. There's probably just as many "masterpieces" at Terrytoons and probably even fewer "classics". What little is there is a distinctly different flavor than the West Coast stuff. I could see not finding value in them because of it, but pity that decision.

All historians offer us in their books is that those cartoons mostly suck; they don't bother going into the complex stories of why a lot of them suck. Maybe if it weren't for this snobbery we'd understand how the system made it impossible for a masterpiece to be made there.

Those polls can't be taken completely seriously anyway. It's a miracle any non-Warner/MGM cartoons made it into that book, given that: A) the actual ballots 'recommended' what people should choose based on the author's specialty (Looney Tunes) and what the publisher (Turner) owned; B) the majority of the voters hadn't seen anything but those.

[Der Captain]

Off the top of my head I'd name Chew Chew Baby, Le Petite Parade, and Bakshi's Marvin Diggs as "masterpieces". (And maybe Cilly Goose, Sudden Fried Chicken, and Kitty Cornered. MAYBE.) Not many, I know, but there are dozens of others I'd give the title of "classic" to. There's probably just as many "masterpieces" at Terrytoons and probably even fewer "classics". What little is there is a distinctly different flavor than the West Coast stuff. I could see not finding value in them because of it, but pity that decision.

All historians offer us in their books is that those cartoons mostly suck; they don't bother going into the complex stories of why a lot of them suck. Maybe if it weren't for this snobbery we'd understand how the system made it impossible for a masterpiece to be made there.

Those polls can't be taken completely seriously anyway. It's a miracle any non-Warner/MGM cartoons made it into that book, given that: A) the actual ballots 'recommended' what people should choose based on the author's specialty (Looney Tunes) and what the publisher (Turner) owned; B) the majority of the voters hadn't seen anything but those.

I actually like "Cilly Goose" better than the other cartoons you mentioned. "Chew Chew Baby" and "La Petite Parade" are interesting but don't bowl me over. Even during the 40's Famous Studios cranked out too many Bouncing Bores and formula plots.

I agree with you, however, that historians have been too quickly dismissive when they insist that nothing good ever came out of the studio. I feel the same about Lantz and Screen Gems.

But there's still a good reason why Disney, Warners and MGM get the lion's share of the attention. They really were the best. The films speak for themselves.

[Thad]

But there's still a good reason why Disney, Warners and MGM get the lion's share of the attention. They really were the best. The films speak for themselves.

When it comes to appraising and analyzing them, yes absolutely. (I am growing to think that without Avery, there'd be a lower consensus of how great the MGM studio was.)

But that's still no reason for the shaft given to the actual histories of the studios and why their films turned out the way they did. I'll cut Maltin some slack because he had to cover a lot of ground in a short period of time, but the others not so much. How many more books on the Nine Old Men or Walt or Chuck Jones do we need. Jerry Beck is coming out with another Looney Tunes book (his fourth one)... is that really needed? And the histories of these maligned places seeps further into the ether.

[J Lee]

I think, given Jerry's oft-stated love for Famous/Paramount shorts, if he could get a publishing house interested in a book on Paramount's animation history, he'd do the book. The problem's more what Culhane ran into with the Paramount execs in 1966 when he was trying to do new stuff and they kept asking him "Why can't you just create another Bugs Bunny?" The publishers, if they recognize Golden Age animation at all, recognize Disney, Warners and maybe on a good day, MGM. All other studios draw just blank stares.

The best hope for any book on Famous would probably have to be one that took in all of Paramount's theatrical cartoon history, starting with the Fliescher years. Maybe some Betty Boop revival might key that, and hopfully if a book did come out it wouldn't be 80-90 percent Max and Dave, with the 1942-67 period being nothing more than 25 years crammed into 12 1/2 pages.

[Chooch]

....these maligned places seeps further into the ether....

I dig.:buzzy: :audrey: :huey:

[frizfrelengfan]

I think, given Jerry's oft-stated love for Famous/Paramount shorts, if he could get a publishing house interested in a book on Paramount's animation history, he'd do the book. The problem's more what Culhane ran into with the Paramount execs in 1966 when he was trying to do new stuff and they kept asking him "Why can't you just create another Bugs Bunny?" The publishers, if they recognize Golden Age animation at all, recognize Disney, Warners and maybe on a good day, MGM. All other studios draw just blank stares.

The best hope for any book on Famous would probably have to be one that took in all of Paramount's theatrical cartoon history, starting with the Fliescher years. Maybe some Betty Boop revival might key that, and hopfully if a book did come out it wouldn't be 80-90 percent Max and Dave, with the 1942-67 period being nothing more than 25 years crammed into 12 1/2 pages.Any book on Paramount's cartoon history should go back even further, to the Bray studios.

[Mr. Semaj]

I think, given Jerry's oft-stated love for Famous/Paramount shorts, if he could get a publishing house interested in a book on Paramount's animation history, he'd do the book. The problem's more what Culhane ran into with the Paramount execs in 1966 when he was trying to do new stuff and they kept asking him "Why can't you just create another Bugs Bunny?" The publishers, if they recognize Golden Age animation at all, recognize Disney, Warners and maybe on a good day, MGM. All other studios draw just blank stares.

Joe Adamson got a Walter Lantz biography published in 1985, John Canemaker got a Felix the Cat book published in 1991, and Jerry Beck got a Pink Panther book published in 2005. There are people out there who care about the "lesser" studios.

The best hope for any book on Famous would probably have to be one that took in all of Paramount's theatrical cartoon history, starting with the Fliescher years. Maybe some Betty Boop revival might key that, and hopfully if a book did come out it wouldn't be 80-90 percent Max and Dave, with the 1942-67 period being nothing more than 25 years crammed into 12 1/2 pages.

"The Fleischer Story" already did something like that, where the last few pages were devoted to a very brief history of Famous Studios.

But if there was a time to conduct a comprehensive history on Famous, now would be the time. Many key artists are long gone, and we missed a chance to learn more about Seymour Kneitel thru his son Thomas. But we still have Jack Mendelson, Howard Post and Ralph Bakshi around, as well as the son of Irv Spector. This could also involve some microfilm research from the New York area libraries, as well as input from Classic Media, which currently owns the Harveytoons library, including the 1950-62 Noveltoons.

[Tom Stathes]

Any book on Paramount's cartoon history should go back even further, to the Bray studios.

If I can buckle down for it, I would like to produce a visual guide to and filmography of the Bray cartoons in book form.

[Studio Toledo]

But if there was a time to conduct a comprehensive history on Famous, now would be the time. Many key artists are long gone, and we missed a chance to learn more about Seymour Kneitel thru his son Thomas. But we still have Jack Mendelson, Howard Post and Ralph Bakshi around, as well as the son of Irv Spector. This could also involve some microfilm research from the New York area libraries, as well as input from Classic Media, which currently owns the Harveytoons library, including the 1950-62 Noveltoons.
I'd love to read that. Getting Mendelsohn and Post in on this would be nice to see how it was during that period after Kneitel's death and what kind of direction the studio went during it, though I often think during Post's era, it was business as usual for the time being, it really wasn't until Culhane showed up and tried to steer it to a new direction some of the staffers weren't prepared for. I often think of Bakshi's time at the studio as more 'moping up' after Culhane left, given the 4 cartoons he made before the studio's closure.

[That 70s Mom]

The Enchanted Square is another masterpiece IMO. I watched it about 10 times in a row when I first saw it. That and Thad's "masterpiece" picks are all cartoons about people. Fleischer and Famous excelled at making drawn humans "real". Chew Chew Baby would have been slapstick and not nearly as creepy if it was Bugs running from Taz.

[J Lee]

Any book on Paramount's cartoon history should go back even further, to the Bray studios.

While Paramount distributed animation starting in the mid-teens, the unbroken line of the sutdio's staffing history starts with the deal the Fleischers signed in 1928, following the demise of Red Seal, and runs through the closing under Bakshi at the end of 1967. That's 40 years right there, and while the first 15 have been pretty well documented over the years, it's the last 25 that have gotten the brush-off and need to be focused on.

I'm not saying you can't do a preface and mention the Bray work, especially since it includes Max and Dave's first connection with Paramount. But if you want to get the Famous/Paramount stuff from 1942-67 focused on and sold to a publisher, the book would have to stay limited in its range of subjects.

Also, as far as rights go, I believe Jerry has said Paramount still owns the theatrical rights to the 1950-60 cartoons, so I suppose everything in terms of research outside of the Popeye and Superman cartoons could be done through the studio ... if the people in charge actually knew or cared about their company's cartoon history (maybe if you told theme there was a lost Spongebob cartoon amid their catalogue of Noveltoons they'd suddenly start combing every storage warehouse itemization list to track down all the cartoons...)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Although many people seem to look down at the Famous Studios cartoons compared to the ones from WB or MGM, I find most of them fun and enjoyable. Sure there are a few clunkers, but every studio released films that weren't up to par.


Just as most of Warners' series cartoons are dull (Bugs and Daffy somehow manage to transcend the strictures of an ongoing series, and the Road Runner blatantly embraces those strictures, to ironic, post-modern effect), just as most of the MGM series cartoons are dull, most of Famous' series are lackluster.

I would include Sylvester & Tweety in your list of exceptions, and also add the Disney series cartoons. I wonder if people would rate the Disney studio a miss based on its pathetic and often artless shorts division of the 1940s, in spite of the often brilliant work in their mid-1930s shorts and the features division? I mean, why be fair?
Sure, every studio made it's share of clunkers, but it's the ratio of hits to misses that makes the difference. At Warners, there were more hits than misses, and what hits they were -- some of the greatest cartoons ever! At sudios like Columbia, Van Beuren, Famous and Terrytoons, the ratio of misses was greater than their hits.
I agree that Disney fell into a long period of mediocrity, but they also had a short period of making brilliant and innovative in the 30's. Famous never had a such a period in their filmography. They made some good cartoons in the 40's, but not on the level of Disney in the 30's.
Their better cartoons are often unsettling in nature. I think Famous' output tends to make many viewers uneasy. They have a darkness that I'm sure is unpleasant to some.
I think the Famous cartoons are unsettling for different reasons. The slapstick always came off as sadistic and painful, instead of humorous. I think the reason was because they didn't understand the style of comedy they were copying from MGM and WB. Basically, it was an insincere imitation.

[Thad]

I don't think the slapstick in Tom & Jerry works much better than in Famous cartoons. I'd compare T&J to the Freed musicals MGM was also putting out. Probably about three or four of them are really genuine classics and/or masterpieces, but the rest (the bulk) are just flashy talent shows with no substance. The labored attempts at comedy in the Famous shorts at least seems a little more genuine and down to earth.

As for Disney's masterpieces... well there were quite a few in the 1930s, but I would have to say that the majority are just white elephants. Ever try sitting through those Mickey B/W sets? Or the Silly Symphonies? There's some great ones (spare the list, everyone here's memorized it), but most of them are terrible. Just like the government, lying to your face about life. That said, I would still rate the Disney studio a hit, based on the many shorts and movies I do like and love.

I also like the Terrytoons, though would borderline between hit and miss with those. I'm not keen on Van Beuren either, but I probably just have to actually watch them to be swayed. All of the Columbia eras (save the 1939-41 Al Rose shorts) are fascinating for their dystopian quality... all the ingredients for not making a good cartoon, yet doing it anyway. I know I'd rather watch just about any of these than Donald or Pluto versus an inatimate object (as if there aren't other interesting people in the world).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I don't think the slapstick in Tom & Jerry works much better than in Famous cartoons. I'd compare T&J to the Freed musicals MGM was also putting out. Probably about three or four of them are really genuine classics and/or masterpieces, but the rest (the bulk) are just flashy talent shows with no substance. The labored attempts at comedy in the Famous shorts at least seems a little more genuine and down to earth.

As for Disney's masterpieces... well there were quite a few in the 1930s, but I would have to say that the majority are just white elephants. Ever try sitting through those Mickey B/W sets? Or the Silly Symphonies? There's some great ones (spare the list, everyone here's memorized it), but most of them are terrible. Just like the government, lying to your face about life. That said, I would still rate the Disney studio a hit, based on the many shorts and movies I do like and love.

I also like the Terrytoons, though would borderline between hit and miss with those. I'm not keen on Van Beuren either, but I probably just have to actually watch them to be swayed. All of the Columbia eras (save the 1939-41 Al Rose shorts) are fascinating for their dystopian quality... all the ingredients for not making a good cartoon, yet doing it anyway. I know I'd rather watch just about any of these than Donald or Pluto versus an inatimate object (as if there aren't other interesting people in the world).
I feel the same way about the violence in the Tom & Jerry cartoons, too. (At least the one before they were influenced by Avery.) I was thinking more along the lines of Tex Avery and the WB crew. The slapstick in those cartoons is funny, and the pain is usually not the focus of the comedy. (Even with Wile E. Coyote -- it's more the humiliation of failure, than just the painful outcome of the situation, that provides the laughs.) In the Avery MGM cartoons, and the WB Looney Tunes, the reaction to the slapstick is usually exaggerated, or sometimes it creates a visual metaphor (Spike shatters like glass when hit with a brick in the Avery cartoons, for example). In other words, you usually don't have something as sadistic as characters decorating a Christmas tree with the dead carcass of their antagonists, like in the Herman and Katnip cartoon.

I agree that many of the Disney cartoons are boring, but certain classics of theirs from the 30's (you know which ones) are infinitely better than most of the Famous output.

I also don't like how Famous changed the Popeye series. They were still good in the 40's, but I never liked the new characters they introduced like the 4 nephews or shorty. They hardly ever used Wimpy, and they changed Olive Oyl's design so that she wasn't funny anymore. Popeye also took more abuse than he should have.

I agree that Columbia's cartoons are fascinating for their odd failures, but most audiences aren't going to feel the way we animation fanatics do. The cartoons are supposed to entertain and make them laugh, and they miss the mark most of the time.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

When it comes to appraising and analyzing them, yes absolutely. (I am growing to think that without Avery, there'd be a lower consensus of how great the MGM studio was.)

But that's still no reason for the shaft given to the actual histories of the studios and why their films turned out the way they did. I'll cut Maltin some slack because he had to cover a lot of ground in a short period of time, but the others not so much. How many more books on the Nine Old Men or Walt or Chuck Jones do we need. Jerry Beck is coming out with another Looney Tunes book (his fourth one)... is that really needed? And the histories of these maligned places seeps further into the ether.

I probably could put to gether book about Nine Old Men, Walt Disney, Chuck Jones and Looney Tunes just based on the book already relsesd. I agree ther should be futher rescrech into other studios that has been mentoned in all other post of this thrend.

[Mr. Semaj]

I also don't like how Famous changed the Popeye series. They were still good in the 40's, but I never liked the new characters they introduced like the 4 nephews or shorty. They hardly ever used Wimpy, and they changed Olive Oyl's design so that she wasn't funny anymore. Popeye also took more abuse than he should have.

The nephews began with the Fleischers' Wimmen is a Miskerry (1940).

[larriva9/11]

I think the Famous cartoons are unsettling for different reasons. The slapstick always came off as sadistic and painful, instead of humorous. I think the reason was because they didn't understand the style of comedy they were copying from MGM and WB. Basically, it was an insincere imitation.

And Maltin even attributed insincerity to their knockoffs of UPA...

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The nephews began with the Fleischers' Wimmen is a Miskerry (1940).
In that cartoon the kids were only a part of Olive's nightmare. They also weren't nephews of Popeye, but his and Olive's children. It was a funny one shot idea, and it should have ended there. The trouble started when they became part of the regular cast.

[Studio Toledo]

In that cartoon the kids were only a part of Olive's nightmare. They also weren't nephews of Popeye, but his and Olive's children. It was a funny one shot idea, and it should have ended there. The trouble started when they became part of the regular cast.
nephew-itis was so contagious in those days!

[J Lee]

In that cartoon the kids were only a part of Olive's nightmare. They also weren't nephews of Popeye, but his and Olive's children. It was a funny one shot idea, and it should have ended there. The trouble started when they became part of the regular cast.

Blame Seymour Knietel, since he was writer/head animator on their return (and to be fair, all of the early cartoons with the nephews actually were pretty decent. After "Her Honor, the Mare" they were retired for the next six years, and it was the second round of cartoons, from 1949-57, that were for the most part stinkers).

[Thad]

The boys were also in "Pip-Eye, Pup-Eye, Poop-Eye an Peep-Eye", another Fleischer short.

I have to say given that the vast majority (42 out of 50!) here rates Famous as a "hit" that history has not been kind to this studio.

[The Budman]

I voted "Hit." When I was young, I found the Famous Studios cartoons to be suspenseful due to their approach to appalling violence, the seriousness with which they approached their plots and gags, the dire perils of the protagonists and the ruthlessness and cruelty of the villains, and Winston Sharples' scores. The heroes often were in physical danger or often had their hearts broken. The Famous Studios cartoons made me feel something. This made them different from the other cartoons I watched on TV. And being a Baby Boomer, I watched them all.

As I grew up, the FS cartoons still had a fascination for me for the above reasons, and because sometimes I couldn't believe the strange subject matters or the violence I was seeing.

All the above applies to the Popeye cartoons. In addition, the Popeye cartoons added sex and romance to the mix. Not only were the re-vamped Olive Oyl and Bluto often very attractive in terms of looks and personalities, but they were placed in situations that would be quite erotic if they were in live action films. Examples: a rich playboy lures Olive to his penthouse and then traps her in a straitjacket; a sheik carries Olive away across the burning sands to his tent. Then there were the reactions the males had to Olive Oyl, often rivaling Tex Avery's Wolf. Yes, Popeye was often a big zero in the cartoons, but that added to the tension and ambiguity I felt while watching them. Okay, I was supposed to root for Popeye and wanted to because he was an old friend of mine and he was the good guy, I guess, but the other guys and Olive were often just so much hotter together and the other guys seemed better matches for Ms. Oyl!

The FS ambiguity made it possible to feel sorry for Bluto and Catnip in ways that I never felt sorry for Yosemite Sam or Elmer Fudd. What Popeye, Herman, and Buzzy did to them was sometimes worse than what the "villains' did to the "heroes" to begin with!