Jones at Disney

[Jon Cooke]

Here's an interesting article about Chuck Jones' four months working for Disney: http://www.mouseplanet.com/8944/Chuck_Jones__Four_Months_At_Disney

[J Lee]

Reading the quotes and diary excerpts, you can see the various egos crashing into each other, especially at a time when it was obvious the jobs in the animation department at Disney outside of the molasses-paced Sleeping Beauty were tightening up, and the idea of an outsider from Warners coming in and jumping the line didn't sit all that well with a few people (while at the same time Chuck didn't seem to realize that while things may have changed a bit in 20 years as far as hiring people from other studios based on their reputations, there was still a feeling of superiority among the Mouse Factory denizens, and he wasn't going to get that higher salary based on his work for J.L.)

[Matthew Hunter]

It would be hard for anyone to adjust to a new environment after being at one job with an established system for nearly 20 years, and then coming to a new one with people they've never worked with and have been at their job and system for even longer.

Then you have to consider the situation of being forced to start at the bottom of the ladder all over again after being on the top for so long. I find it really interesting that Jones didn't hold a grudge about it, considering he was notorious for doing so against people who wronged him.

[Brandon Panther]

Chuck certainly had more nice things to say about Walt Disney then Friz Freleng ever did.

[Fibber Fox]

Chuck certainly had more nice things to say about Walt Disney then Friz Freleng ever did.

Maybe it's because Chuck wanted to be Disney, judging his cartoons when he was starting out as a director.

It's a little difficult to bad-mouth someone when you're in awe of what you perceive them to have accomplished.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[LooneyFan]

Chuck certainly had more nice things to say about Walt Disney then Friz Freleng ever did.

I can believe that.


Some might say that he "went back" because if you look at the files on the "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", you'll see some sketches of Donald Duck by Chuck Jones. Did he work on Don in the film?

[R.J. Smith]

I also heard that Jones worked on Cinderella while still working at WB in the late 1940's.

[Matt the Y]

Chuck certainly had more nice things to say about Walt Disney then Friz Freleng ever did.

I'm interested in hearing some of those comments of Friz's..... (although I had heard Walt was quite hard on Friz when Freleng was working for him way back in the 20's.)

[Brandon Panther]

I'm interested in hearing some of those comments of Friz's..... (although I had heard Walt was quite hard on Friz when Freleng was working for him way back in the 20's.)
According to Mark Kausler, Walt treated Friz like a whipping boy. Which I can only guess means that if something ever went wrong, Walt would blame Friz.

Walt would later "pull an NBC" and hold a grudge against Friz for leaving his studio for WB (or rather just joining up with Harmon and Ising). Seriously, what was Disney thinking?

[Ray Pointer]

According to Mark Kausler, Walt treated Friz like a whipping boy. Which I can only guess means that if something ever went wrong, Walt would blame Friz. Walt would later "pull an NBC" and hold a grudge against Friz for leaving his studio for WB (or rather just joining up with Harmon and Ising). Seriously, what was Disney thinking?

According to what I learned, it was Hugh Harmon who was the leader against Walt, and he approached Charles Mintz about knowing more about animation than Walt, and lead the revolt that resulted in the loss of OSWALD THE RABBIT. Friz was one of those men who went with Harmon.
It was Harmon who wanted to be Walt, and he had the ego to match.
It is interesting that as the Harmon-Ising organization became affiliated with MGM, they were the only Hollywood studio producing animation equal in quality to Disney's. So much so that they accepted subcontract work on WATER BABIES and portions of SNOW WHITE. It would be interesting to know which sequences were indeed produced by Harmon-Ising since this very act contradicts Walt's reputation for harboring a grudge against certain people. He certainly accept Ub Iwkerks back, didn't he? Lastly, what is this term, "pull an NBC"? Last I knew, NBC stood for National Broadcasting Company.

[Brandon Panther]

Oh, I was comparing Walt Disney to Jeff Zucker and the other executives at NBC, who are currently holding a petty grudge against Bill lawrence, and everyone else involved in the TV series "Scrubs", which last year, left NBC for ABC.

NBC spent several years hardly promoting the show, and usually putting new episodes on the back burner until whenever needed (usually during Spring, when other shows were nearing their season finales). "Scrubs" isn't owned by NBC, it's a Disney-owned series, so NBC has never felt the need to acknowledge its existance. However, when Bill Lawrence took the show to ABC, Jeff Zucker started making nasty remarks about Lawrence, as well as forbidding two of their "Heroes" actors from appearing in Scrubs' season 8 finale.

Basically the mentality seems to be this, "How DARE you leave us for another company?! You should have stayed HERE so we could treat you like crap some more!" That's what I meant about Walt "pulling an NBC". He was upset over Friz ditching him, yet it's like he never stopped to think about WHY he left him.

"Pulling an NBC" may not have been the best phrase since Walt obviously came long before NBC. So if anything, NBC was "pulling a Walt Disney."

BTW, even though Walt allowed Iwerks back, they still weren't "buddies" again like they were in the late 20s.

[Thad]

That was an interesting read. I'd be interested to know what conversations went on between Jones and Kimball during those months, particularly because it sounds like Ward was telling Chuck to stand up to Walt. The bit about even Kimball being "dispensable" is very revealing. Mike Barrier has been promising a piece on this subject, though god knows when that will come to be.

[Thad]

since this very act contradicts Walt's reputation for harboring a grudge against certain people. He certainly accept Ub Iwkerks back, didn't he?

Desperate times call for desperate measures. It's funny you should mention this because an old-timer just went on a spiel to me how Walt never would take Bill Tytla back (he tried to go back several times), and how Tytla's verboten status at the place was in effect even after Walt's death.

[Mr. Semaj]

A lot of ex-Disney artists, and even some of Disney's life-long crew had made Walt out to be an egotistical ogre. Yet Chuck Jones' brief stint at Disney was one instance that was surprisingly mutual.

A part of Jones always wanted to be Walt Disney. He made that attempt again when he produced The Phantom Tollbooth.

ALSO, it should be noted that during the time in question, Robert McKimson wasn't too far behind Jones. There was a source somewhere revealing that McKimson helped design a Pinocchio coloring book, probably for the film's 1954 re-release.

[Wings]

Ray, Harman and Ising worked on the Merbabies, not the Water Babies. And Harman said that Winkler approached him on being the creator of the Oswald shorts. Also Friz left the Disney studio in November 1927 before the revolt even happened.

Very interesting article, though.

[frizfrelengfan]

Chuck says he stayed with WB until the animation studio closed in 1962. I thought he was fired for moonlighting at UPA when they made Gay Purr-ee, and that when the studio closed only Friz Freleng and Bob McKimson were left.

[Matt the Y]

Chuck says he stayed with WB until the animation studio closed in 1962. I thought he was fired for moonlighting at UPA when they made Gay Purr-ee, and that when the studio closed only Friz Freleng and Bob McKimson were left.

That is how it happened. But Chuck never would reveal this to the public (not even people who were interviewing him), such a blemish on his "Hollywood profile" would be irredeemable in his eyes, so he went out of his eye to keep it as secret as possible from anyone no matter how much he had to mince his words or tighten other peoples' (ie. close partners' and family members') lips. Hence, in memoirs and such, he always insisted the studio closed its' doors in 1962 (the year Jones was fired) when really it was closed a year later in 1963. Also, you'll never catch anyone else associated with Jones disclosing his being fired from the studio either (ie. anyone at Chuck Jones' official website, any commentators on past or future GC DVD sets, etc.) because Jones has sworn them to secrecy even beyond his death.

[Matthew Hunter]

That is how it happened. But Chuck never would reveal this to the public (not even people who were interviewing him), such a blemish on his "Hollywood profile" would be irredeemable in his eyes, so he went out of his eye to keep it as secret as possible from anyone no matter how much he had to mince his words or tighten other peoples' (ie. close partners' and family members') lips. Hence, in memoirs and such, he always insisted the studio closed its' doors in 1962 (the year Jones was fired) when really it was closed a year later in 1963. Also, you'll never catch anyone else associated with Jones disclosing his being fired from the studio either (ie. anyone at Chuck Jones' official website, any commentators on past or future GC DVD sets, etc.) because Jones has sworn them to secrecy even beyond his death.

I don't really see why he felt he had to hide that information. "Gay Purree" is a pretty good film. I can think of worse things to get fired over! Besides, Warner obviously forgave him years later. It was probably a blessing in disguise...can you imagine Chuck Jones working on a DePatie Freleng or 7 Arts budget? Yikes!

[Matt the Y]

I don't really see why he felt he had to hide that information. "Gay Purree" is a pretty good film. I can think of worse things to get fired over! Besides, Warner obviously forgave him years later. It was probably a blessing in disguise...can you imagine Chuck Jones working on a DePatie Freleng or 7 Arts budget? Yikes!

The reason he was fired for working on "Gay Purr-ee" had nothing to do with the film itself but because he was working on a film for a rival studio (ie. UPA) behind WB's back without the studio's permission. Naturally, Chuck assumed he'd never get caught since "Gay Purr-ee" was going to be distributed through Columbia Pictures, UPA's theatrical film distributing company..... but because of a last-minute change in events, Warners picked up plans to distribute "Gay Purr-ee" from Columbia and whose name should they discover on the film's but Chuck's? The sh-t hits the fan, as they say, and Chuck is terminated. That is the reason for Chuck's wanting to keep the whole "Gay Purr-ee incident" completely isolated from the general public, especially his fans and followers of his legacy.

[Thad]

And who was the guy who gave Chuck his pink slip? Why, none other than Mr. David DePatie!

[Matt the Y]

I suppose, looking back at this whole thread, there's something quite ironic here..... Chuck Jones' entire stint at Warners ended in bitter terms (being fired from your job will do that) but his brief stint at Disney of all places didn't! How unexpected.....

[J Lee]

I suppose, looking back at this whole thread, there's something quite ironic here..... Chuck Jones' entire stint at Warners ended in bitter terms (being fired from your job will do that) but his brief stint at Disney of all places didn't! How unexpected.....

Part of it was probably because he had a safe harbor and his own characters to return to at Warners when he left Disney after J.L. decided to reopen the animation department, while his end at WB was basically being thrown out in the street with no immediate job prospects over (in Chuck's eyes) doing something for his former animator that had no bearing on his work at Warners (i.e. -- if there hadn't been a Warner Bros. animation department to return to in late 1953, Jones' views of Disney probably wouldn't have been as surprisingly warm as they were, since he seems to have enjoyed being there more than the long-time Disney staff enjoyed him being there).

[Brandon Panther]

And who was the guy who gave Chuck his pink slip? Why, none other than Mr. David DePatie!
Is that the reason Chuck never did anything for DePatie-Freleng Enterprises?

I'd like to hear DePatie's thoughts on the matter. Oh wait, can't. Chuck swore everyone to secrecy!

[Matt the Y]

And who was the guy who gave Chuck his pink slip? Why, none other than Mr. David DePatie!

I'm guessing you don't have an awful lot of admiration for DePatie, do you, Thad?

I know I certainly developed a healthy amount of scorn for "Dave" upon reading that.

[Brandon Panther]

I'm guessing you don't have an awful lot of admiration for DePatie, do you, Thad?

I know I certainly developed a healthy amount of scorn for "Dave" upon reading that.
Well to be fair, I read it was WB themselves firing Chuck, right? DePatie was just the messenger right? I'm sure he felt bad about what was going on, but knew he had a job to do.

[Fibber Fox]

And who was the guy who gave Chuck his pink slip? Why, none other than Mr. David DePatie!

You sure he didn't blame Clampett? ;)

F. Fox

[Brandon Panther]

BTW, if Jones wanted everyone to be tight-lipped about the Gay Pur-ee incident, then how did it ever come to light? Whose the fart that blabbed?

[frizfrelengfan]

The reason he was fired for working on "Gay Purr-ee" had nothing to do with the film itself but because he was working on a film for a rival studio (ie. UPA) behind WB's back without the studio's permission. Naturally, Chuck assumed he'd never get caught since "Gay Purr-ee" was going to be distributed through Columbia Pictures, UPA's theatrical film distributing company..... but because of a last-minute change in events, Warners picked up plans to distribute "Gay Purr-ee" from Columbia and whose name should they discover on the film's but Chuck's? The sh-t hits the fan, as they say, and Chuck is terminated. That is the reason for Chuck's wanting to keep the whole "Gay Purr-ee incident" completely isolated from the general public, especially his fans and followers of his legacy.Am I correct in assuming that the "change in events" was Columbia signing a distribution deal with Hanna-Barbera, thus shutting out UPA?

[Matt the Y]

BTW, if Jones wanted everyone to be tight-lipped about the Gay Pur-ee incident, then how did it ever come to light? Whose the fart that blabbed?

Somebody not associated with Jones, that's for darn sure!

[laugh4me]

The reason he was fired for working on "Gay Purr-ee" had nothing to do with the film itself but because he was working on a film for a rival studio (ie. UPA) behind WB's back without the studio's permission. Naturally, Chuck assumed he'd never get caught since "Gay Purr-ee" was going to be distributed through Columbia Pictures, UPA's theatrical film distributing company.....

Wouldn't people have noticed Chuck Jones' name on this after it was released no matter who was the distributor? Or was Jones going to be uncredited onscreen as part of the Columbia deal?

I guess I'm just wondering if the switch from Columbia just made people realize he was involved sooner than they would have otherwise.

[Matt the Y]

Wouldn't people have noticed Chuck Jones' name on this after it was released no matter who was the distributor? Or was Jones going to be uncredited onscreen as part of the Columbia deal?

I guess I'm just wondering if the switch from Columbia just made people realize he was involved sooner than they would have otherwise.

I would assume the suits at Warners kept their noses out of screen credits/production personnel info involved in non-WB product most of the time (remember, Chuck told not a soul at WB management he was working at both WB and UPA the entire time "Gay Purr-ee" was in production) and probably didn't go to features not produced by WB to boot. Jones probably figured this when he went to work for "Gay Purr-ee" while thinking ahead of time that the film would always end up being released outside of Warners (he obviously had SOME idea in mind that the execs wouldn't find out about it, albeit faulty, otherwise he would've known right off the bat he'd be committing job suicide from the start and that doesn't seem incredibly likely knowing Jones).

[laugh4me]

Maybe what I'm thinking is something like this - whiile Jones might hope to remain anonymous if the film was a failure, a successful film would surely lead to his involvement being more widely known. I'm not pessimistic enough to suggest he wanted it to fail.

So what was his motivation in all this? Could he have been calculating that a successful film would lead to new and presumably better opportunities beyond WB? Or was it simply that those at WB knew that theatrical cartoons were fading and Jones was busy building connections which might give him a leg up on the others at WB when the inevitable studio closings began? This could explain why he didn't tell anyone at WB about it...

[Fibber Fox]

he obviously had SOME idea in mind that the execs wouldn't find out about it

Matt, I just can't believe Chuck Jones was that stupid.

I also can't believe when Saperstein (or whoever) gave him and Dorothy an offer to work on the film, he didn't have a lawyer check out his Warner's contract first.

Either that, or he just didn't care.

What we're left with is few facts and lots of speculation and opinion.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[Jack G.]

I was always under the impression that Jones was "just helping out his wife" with the UPA work.

Was it more than that? Was he paid?

[Eric B]

It was probably a blessing in disguise...can you imagine Chuck Jones working on a DePatie Freleng or 7 Arts budget? Yikes! He probably would have done them good. His stuff at MGM seemed more classic WB'ish than the DFE/7 Arts stuff. Eugene Poddany was a much better successor to Stalling/Franklyn, I'm sure weveryone will agree, than Bill Lava. Perhaps the WB stuff from that era (especially the Roadrunners) wouldn't be so despised if he was still around.

Well to be fair, I read it was WB themselves firing Chuck, right? DePatie was just the messenger right? I'm sure he felt bad about what was going on, but knew he had a job to do. Wasn't DePatie the head producer, and successor to Schlesinger and Selzer? Or are you saying it was JL telling them to fire him.

I would assume the suits at Warners kept their noses out of screen credits/production personnel info involved in non-WB product most of the time (remember, Chuck told not a soul at WB management he was working at both WB and UPA the entire time "Gay Purr-ee" was in production) and probably didn't go to features not produced by WB to boot. Jones probably figured this when he went to work for "Gay Purr-ee" while thinking ahead of time that the film would always end up being released outside of Warners (he obviously had SOME idea in mind that the execs wouldn't find out about it, albeit faulty, otherwise he would've known right off the bat he'd be committing job suicide from the start and that doesn't seem incredibly likely knowing Jones). Don't studios screen the others productions, so they know what each other is doing? (Not going to features as paying moviegoers, but special screenings, and then don't you have the film festivals, etc). I know you hear about Hanna Barbera and Filmation screening each other's stuff, but since that was TV, maybe it was different.

Maybe what I'm thinking is something like this - while Jones might hope to remain anonymous if the film was a failure, a successful film would surely lead to his involvement being more widely known. I'm not pessimistic enough to suggest he wanted it to fail.

So what was his motivation in all this? Could he have been calculating that a successful film would lead to new and presumably better opportunities beyond WB? Or was it simply that those at WB knew that theatrical cartoons were fading and Jones was busy building connections which might give him a leg up on the others at WB when the inevitable studio closings began? This could explain why he didn't tell anyone at WB about it... That's what I was thinking.

Perhaps, as a middle view to this debate, in 1962 he could see the beginnings of the studio's impending closure, (these things usually do not suddenly happen in a vacuum. It is after a long period of decline and then analysis, talks of closing or staying open, etc. Hence, leading him to go looking at other studio propects in the first place).
So he could stretch it and claim left directly because of "the closing".

[Ray Pointer]

I think people's imagination is running away. First, this direction of the discussion seems to belong in the other thread about Jones Leaving Warner's. This was supposed to be about Jones at Disney. However, I'm unable to find any references to GAY PURR-EE in CHUCK AMUCK. However, my recollection from what I heard was that Jones was certainly in contact with the UPA people, as he had done freelance work for them in their early years, directing HELL BENT FOR ELECTION for UPA. Jones apparently was not under an exclusive services contract, and was free to take on other projects that interested him.

GAY PURR-EE was a project he and Dorothy developed for UPA, and Warner's ended up distributing it. That's just the way the deal went. Jones' connection to Warner's was purely coincidental. It was also becoming apparent that the Warner's cartoon department was scalling down, finally closing in 1963. So Jones was looking ahead. It seems the most ambitious animation Warner's partook in was for THE INCREDIBLE MR. LIMPET, directed by Robert McKinson. This was released in 1964.