Fleischer Color Classics

[BloodyChamp]

I've been watching my new Somewhere In Dreamland DVD. I finally got to see SONG OF THE BIRDS. It's really good but the short itself called SOMEWHERE IN DREAMLAND is what almost snatched a tear out. I haven't watched all of the cartoons but I'll have them taken out soon.

However, I feel confident enough to say that these shorts spank anything Disney did. Don't get me wrong, I respect Walt Disney and I like alot of the things Disney eventually did in the entertainment business as a whole, but their theatrical cartoons stunk. I'm a shameless fan of emotional cartoons, whether they're tear jerkers or something else. Disney cartoons were pointlessly jolly and happy, though. They were just two little animals walking around singing for seven minutes then the cartoon ended. The best Fleischer cartoons actually hit a chord.

The animation was great, also. I'd never seen that technique outside of the Popeye special.

[musicradio77]

I've been watching my new Somewhere In Dreamland DVD. I finally got to see SONG OF THE BIRDS. It's really good but the short itself called SOMEWHERE IN DREAMLAND is what almost snatched a tear out. I haven't watched all of the cartoons but I'll have them taken out soon.

However, I feel confident enough to say that these shorts spank anything Disney did. Don't get me wrong, I respect Walt Disney and I like alot of the things Disney eventually did in the entertainment business as a whole, but their theatrical cartoons stunk. I'm a shameless fan of emotional cartoons, whether they're tear jerkers or something else. Disney cartoons were pointlessly jolly and happy, though. They were just two little animals walking around singing for seven minutes then the cartoon ended. The best Fleischer cartoons actually hit a chord.

The animation was great, also. I'd never seen that technique outside of the Popeye special.

I have the cartoon on VHS under "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer". The main credits for "Somewhere in Dreamland" was cut off when it got replaced by a Paramount title card from 1949 instead of the main credits as shown here.

http://www.geocities.com/argussventon/cartoondistributors/paramount/paramount47.jpg

This was taken from Argus Sventon's Cartoon Distributors Site. I haven't seen the original Flesicher version of "Song of the Birds" before but I have the Famous Studios version featuring Little Audrey. :audrey:

[MF TOON]

I don't understand how anybody who claims him/herself a fan of classic animation could front on Disney's short series.


I also don't know what theatrical shorts you've watched where cute animals frolic around for 7 minutes singing, because frankly I haven't seen a single one that came from the studio.

[BloodyChamp]

Nothing personal man-get a grip.

I've seen some of the Silly Symphonies. Granted, I haven't seen the so called great ones but I've seen a handful of them and many Mickey, Minnie, Donald etc cartoons. They're just, I dunno, bland...

[Ray Pointer]

Perhaps it's a matter of whether one person likes an apple or an orange. It's a matter of taste, as this is such a subjective issue. Also, one needs to look at the works of both studios as they progressed and not make appraisals based on one period or one type of cartoon. The one thing that is apparant in Disney's development is how he used formulas to build the foundation of his early sound cartoons, then eventually developed more sophisticated formulas. Other producers such as Harmon and Ising and Fleischer in the early 30s stuck with the same formulas for several years. H-I made the greatest effort to follow Disney's lead, but Fleischer remained in the same format for several years without making great artistic advancements. Their cartoons reached a certain level by 1935 and remained at that level for the rest of the decade.

As the rest of the industry was advancing in areas of character animation and
advanced drawing techinques in animation, the Fleischer cartoons start looking old fashinioned by the late 30s compared to what was starting to emerge from Schlesinger's as an example. Although SOMEWHERE IN DREAMLAND is probably the finest of the COLOR CLASSICS cartoons, the animation in it overall, with no intended disrespect to Crandall and Kneitel, was behind what the rest of the industry was doing by 1936. Such acting cliches as turning to the camera, raising an index finger and saying "Ah-hah!" to register a bright idea were being abandoned in favor of animation with more subtle forms of acting and registering of emotion.

But to be fair, we msut look at the product as a whole from both studios, and try to see what is good about it on its own merits.

[Leviathan]

I've tried to defend the Disney cartoons on those Disney vs. WB topics that oft turn up on message boards.), but even i can agree that while they're nicely animated, they're just not funny, just maudlin.

Edit: As Ray Pointer pointed out, Animation can be applied to more than just comedy. However, as far as Animation goes, It is Comedy that works the best and is the most well-recieved (one exception includes Japanese Anime) and as far as audiences are concerned, it's what makes or breaks a cartoon.

Proably the Whole "Disney is cutesy" thing is proably a product from the relative elusiveness of the Disney Cartoons on Television in the 60's and 70's (as opposed to the abundant syndication of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies), but Disney's putting Animation over comedy could've contributed to it as well

[Ray Pointer]

Let's not forget that animation is a story-telling medium. Just as it can make us laugh, it can educate, inspire, and motivate. Comedy is not its only application.

[frizfrelengfan]

I have "Somewhere in Dreamland." I'm a big fan of Fleischers, preferring them to Disneys, but I find the Color Classics a mixed bag. I would much rather watch early Betty Boop and Bimbo. I think my favorite Color Classic is "Play Safe."

[Ray Pointer]

PLAY SAFE has always been one of my favorites!

[J Lee]

After you get past the early attempts at mimicing Disney in terms of story, like "Song of the Birds" or "Somwhere In Dreamland," I think the Fleischers did their best work in the Color Classic when they were sticking with what worked best for them -- straight comedy, like in "Hold It!" or nightmarish themes, such as "Play Safe" or the later "Small Fry."

(You can also see in "Play Safe" why Paramount might have focused on Dave Tendlar's work in "Tears of an Onion" -- the only CC not on the "Somewhere in Dreamland" DVD -- in deciding the Fleischers could handle a full-length feature. Tendlar's dog is really the first successful effort by the studio to create a realistic-looking animal with a sympathetic personality in the Disney vein. That makes the start and finish of the cartoon work, apart from the dream sequence involving the 3-D rail yard and harrowing train ride.)

[BloodyChamp]

I think "Song of the Birds" and "Somewhere in Dreamland" blew Disney films away of the same type. Those two cartoons actually got to you-made you think and stuff. Disney's were happy and jolly but nothing serious imo.

[rbl100]

I also do not think all of the "Silly Symphonies" are that great. I much rather watch "Happy Harmonies" as a whole. But, the "Skeleton Dance" and "The Haunted House" (w/Mickey Mouse) are excellent.

:o

[frizfrelengfan]

I saw "Gulliver's Travels" (downloadable from Archive.org) recently. I had seen it years ago on television, but I think this was the first time I saw it in color. The similarity to the Disney features of the time is obvious. The animation and color are beautiful, the songs are catchy, the story is like a fairy tale. (I haven't read Swift's novel but I understand that the film is only partially based on it and doesn't capture the author's satire. That's the way it always is with movies derived from books.)

This was quite a turnaround from the early days when Disney and Fleischer were the prime makers of animated shorts and they couldn't have been more different.

It's too bad that production of this feature (with its budget overruns and disagreements) was the beginning of the end of the Fleischer studio.

[Ray Pointer]

THE THREE WORLDS OF GULLIVER, released by Columbia Pictures in 1960, starring Kerwin Mathews, with effects animation by Ray Harrihausen, was closer to the nature of the book. It takes Gulliver from England, to Lilliput where he meets the tiny people, then to the land of the giant Brobdingnagians, where Gulliver is the "Lilliputian" by comparison. The reason for Gulliver loosing the favor of the Lilliputian court is addressed in a "watered-down" version. In the book, Gulliver puts out the fire that breaks out at the banquette by urinating on it and the nobility in the process. In the movie, even with the state of the production code 45 years ago, this was changed to Gulliver taking in a mouth full of wine from the small barrels, and spewing it on the fire, spraying the nobility that just sits there in the path of spray, waving their arms stupidly, and screaming instead of simply ducking out of the way. The original Swift concept makes more of a "political statement" about royalty. Now that your interest is aroused, you should read the book.