Cartoon Discussion Of The Week #2: Tom Thumb In Trouble

[Marty26]

Well, I guess I either chose a bad cartoon to discuss or made a mistake by doing an "early" discussion. But this week's new CDOTW will be for Chuck Jones's somewhat infamous 1940 short Tom Thumb In Trouble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDUubglMb_c

I'm borderline with this cartoon. It's certainly charming, but it just isn't a WB cartoon. It's a Disney cartoon with a concentric circles opening/closing. It's very well animated and has a good plot. But I just can't shake the fact that the same Jones who did cartoons like Bully For Bugs and Long-Haired Hare was, just a decade prior, doing such innocuous and gentle cartoons as this. I suppose, if nothing else, it's a good "date cartoon." But it certainly isn't what I look for when I watch WB cartoons.

[oceansoul]

Why do you need this? The other thread didn't get enough responses, so you open another one? Possibly people are tired of discussing "homework" WB cartoons from the 50s and 60s.

Anyway, Lighthouse Mouse is definately better than this one.

[quack-up]

If Jerry Beck didn't have a commentary, I would skip right over it on the golden collection disc with it.

[Glowworm]

Okay-so this isn't a slapstick, violent, comedic chase cartoon-not all cartoons have to be like that. As a matter of fact I really like this one better than most of Chuck Jones' Sniffles' shorts. The animation is beautiful, the music lovely-and the ending with the bird lovingly curled up in the father's beard is adorable. I especially like when the father drinks his coffee and says "Man, that's good." while Tom being a little boy drinks from his cup and says "Boy,that's good." It may be more Disney that Warners, but this really is a heartwarming cartoon and I surprisingly enjoy it.

[captchucky]

I get the sense that the dad has some issues in that cartoon. Where's the mom? How does he expect Tom to deal with large amounts of water and dishes? Why is he so anxious to hate small birds? There's something sinister going on in this cartoon.

[Glowworm]

I get the sense that the dad has some issues in that cartoon. Where's the mom? How does he expect Tom to deal with large amounts of water and dishes? Why is he so anxious to hate small birds? There's something sinister going on in this cartoon.
Well keep in mind that the father thought that the bird harmed Tom-after all it did break the window...

[nickramer]

It's okay. I wouldn't call it one of my favorite Jones' films, though. I did find it found the part where Tom goes out in the cold to find his friend touching.

[Marty26]

Why do you need this? The other thread didn't get enough responses, so you open another one? Possibly people are tired of discussing "homework" WB cartoons from the 50s and 60s.

Anyway, Lighthouse Mouse is definately better than this one.

What do you mean by "homework" cartoons? Do you mean cartoons that seem like they were made strictly for contract fulfillment? And also, this is a 1940 cartoon.

[Ray Pointer]

Well, I guess I either chose a bad cartoon to discuss or made a mistake by doing an "early" discussion. But this week's new CDOTW will be for Chuck Jones's somewhat infamous 1940 short Tom Thumb In Trouble:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDUubglMb_c

I'm borderline with this cartoon. It's certainly charming, but it just isn't a WB cartoon. It's a Disney cartoon with a concentric circles opening/closing. It's very well animated and has a good plot. But I just can't shake the fact that the same Jones who did cartoons like Bully For Bugs and Long-Haired Hare was, just a decade prior, doing such innocuous and gentle cartoons as this. I suppose, if nothing else, it's a good "date cartoon." But it certainly isn't what I look for when I watch WB cartoons.

Is it because it's a "charm" cartoon and not slapstick that you feel this way? This is similar to the constricting concept that cartoons are for kids, which has been the arch arguement that has created this forum.

Perhaps you are not taking into account the impressions of the times that these were made. Jones was certainly impressed with Disney and saw him as the standard barrer in his formative years as a director. In this, he learned a great deal, and there was a lot of beautiful drawing and animation in his Disneyesque cartoons. The obvious issue was that the pacing of such cartoons was not in keeping with the WB brand. And while Jones' efforts were certainly a standout, they were not what the package was supposed to represent. Audences expected broader humor and faster pacing in WB cartoons, and so did management. One would wonder why management let Jones continue doing these types of cartoons that seemed less popular with audiences. Accounts have are that he was ordered to concentrate on making funny cartoons and cease the intellectual approach. It is to Schlesinger's/Warner's credit that they kept him on to make this change without letting him go, which would have happened at other studios who were not happy with a director's work.
It is a fortunate thing that they kept him, and that he got the idea.

[oceansoul]

What do you mean by "homework" cartoons? Do you mean cartoons that seem like they were made strictly for contract fulfillment? And also, this is a 1940 cartoon.

I confused this with another Tom Thumb cartoon, sorry. Anyway, yes. Homework cartoon is a typical nothing-special, run-of-the-mill type stuff, which was made for contract fulfillment. The majority of the post shutdown era classifies there.

[Marty26]

I think I can guess which Tom Thumb cartoon you were thinking of (hint: It's also directed by Chuck Jones, albeit 23 years later). And yes, I agree that it's a horrible cartoon.

[captchucky]

Is it because it's a "charm" cartoon and not slapstick that you feel this way? This is similar to the constricting concept that cartoons are for kids, which has been the arch arguement that has created this forum.

Perhaps you are not taking into account the impressions of the times that these were made. Jones was certainly impressed with Disney and saw him as the standard barrer in his formative years as a director. In this, he learned a great deal, and there was a lot of beautiful drawing and animation in his Disneyesque cartoons. The obvious issue was that the pacing of such cartoons was not in keeping with the WB brand. And while Jones' efforts were certainly a standout, they were not what the package was supposed to represent. Audences expected broader humor and faster pacing in WB cartoons, and so did management. One would wonder why management let Jones continue doing these types of cartoons that seemed less popular with audiences. Accounts have are that he was ordered to concentrate on making funny cartoons and cease the intellectual approach. It is to Schlesinger's/Warner's credit that they kept him on to make this change without letting him go, which would have happened at other studios who were not happy with a director's work.
It is a fortunate thing that they kept him, and that he got the idea.

I'm guessing that they liked these cartoons, at least for a while. I think they must have thought of them as classy cartoons or they would not have let him continue these for such a long time.

[captchucky]

Well keep in mind that the father thought that the bird harmed Tom-after all it did break the window...
Yes, I understand that. It just seems the father was looking for anybody to blame, even the unlikely little bird.

[aalong64]

I found this cartoon to be pretty dull, like most of the early Chuck Jones shorts-- with the exception of Tom's dad. For some reason, I find this character absolutely hysterical. I haven't seen the cartoon in a while, so I don't remember if it was his voice, his appearance, mannerisms, etc.. Possibly a combination of it all. Anyway, every time I think about him I laugh. He's just so... cheesy.

[AnthroCoon]

uh...

>>This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

[captchucky]

I found this cartoon to be pretty dull, like most of the early Chuck Jones shorts-- with the exception of Tom's dad. For some reason, I find this character absolutely hysterical. I haven't seen the cartoon in a while, so I don't remember if it was his voice, his appearance, mannerisms, etc.. Possibly a combination of it all. Anyway, every time I think about him I laugh. He's just so... cheesy.
Well, the dad takes himself very seriously. I don't think he plays well to modern tastes.