Cartoon Production time

[Frank]

I know that MGM's cartoons usually took 10-12 months to produce but what about the other studios (WB, Paramount, Disney, Screen Gems, UPA, Terrytoons, etc)? It appears to me that a Terrytoon cartoons took 3-4 months to make! :mighty::gandy: Is that right?

[J. B. Warner]

Months? Hardly. From what I understand, the average Warner cartoon reached completion about five weeks after its conception, and I doubt the other studios were drastically different.

[cbrubaker]

Yeah, it's about 5 weeks. But processing the negative and making prints takes longer from my understanding.

[J Lee]

It depends on what you mean by the process. Chuck Jones always talked about how the average cartoon was budgeted for six weeks of work within the studio itself, and how he was able to cheat sometimes and do a Road Runner short in just four weeks to allow him extra time to work on more complicated shorts.

But once the cartoon process got outside the studio, into the Technicolor processing and the distribution chain, then the process bogged down. Technicolor's main problems apparently came during the mid-1940s, to where they couldn't get the work done fast enough to get the cartoons out promptly, but in other cases, it was simply Warners holding onto the cartoons for periods of up to a year or more before releasing (which is why they could shut the studio down for eight months in 1953 and not miss a beat, since the last of the early '53 cartoons didn't hit the screen until April 1955).

Of course, if they really wanted to get a cartoon out to the theaters in a hurry, they could -- Bob Clampett's first Bugs short, "Wabbit Twouble" debuted in December 1941, just over three months after Clampett had assumed control of the Avery unit, so that cartoon zoomed through production.

[JDWeil]

A Classic Tom & Jerry short would take approximately 18 months to make from storyboard to final print. Tex Avery's shorts had smaller budgets and took less time. A Looney Tune could take anywhere from 6 to 12 months depnding on its complexity. Famous Studios cartoons took three months to make (six weeks in storyboard, six weeks in animation). Terry, about the same time (these guys were pretty efficient). I'm not so sure how long it took Disney. Some of those cartoons often languished for years in storyboard Though they woulkd spend about six weeks in animation.

[Sogturtle]

Frank and guys~

Hmmmmm... I would suspect that this question has come up because of the "Rhapsody Rabbit/Cat Concerto" thread and my;) bringing up there the massive amounts of time between first idea and final release...

And unfortunately Chuck Jones' mentioning that it took 4 to 6 weeks to make a Warner's short is, well, ummmm not quite right. (Brickbats now fly my way;) ). That is the amount of time it took only to ANIMATE (on twos) the cartoon. Don't believe me?? Try the math... Each animator was expected to do 25-35 FEET per week, okay? Multiply by the (*1945 onwards) standard of 4 animators... Result? Should be 100 to 140 ft. per week, okay, now times 4-6 weeks. Result, will be 400 to 840 ft. of total pencil animation produced by 4 animators in 4-6 weeks. Sound standard is 90 ft. of film per minute.

BUUUUUT before this process began, the director and storyman/men sat down and wrote and storyboarded the cartoon... Alright, how long did they take? BARE minimum time seems to have been two weeks for this... At Warners they then got to endure the 'big yes" (or "no no") session of debuting the completed storyboard for all the storymen and directors, producer etc. to say positive things about and possibly help improve any deficiencies. They could then end redoing the story and storyboard.

The director of course after okaying the finished storyboard then had to cast the voice parts and get the recording session scheduled (keep in mind that most cartoon studios had to wait for a main studio to have a recording opening). How long was this wait? A day? A week? You have to factor that in (and Warner's made at various times, 30 to 42 cartoons besides their massive feature output). As far as known most cartoons were recorded in a single day (but it could take a fair number of hours). Alright then after that the track would be read, and the director would time it all out on an exposure sheet... How long did he take on this...?? AND he would (or have an assistant) draw out the animation layout drawings. Tex Avery would draw 1 drawing for every foot of film, alright so on a six-hundred ft. toon then the director would draw 600 rough animation layouts. How long did it take him to draw all these??? If you allow him 4 drawings per hour times 8 hrs. it comes to 32 drawings per day, okay so at that slow rate it would take him about 20 DAYS to finish the animation layouts... Ifffff he drew a lot faster than that then of course the number of days would be reduced. But this has to be figured in as well.

Okay... After the animation and inbetweening (and the backgrounds were designed and painted at the same time), THEN it went to ink and paint... How many pencil drawings are we sending down there??? TWELVE drawings for every second of film, 60 seconds in a minute;) , soooooo 720 drawings for EVERY MINUTE of film!! [If animated "on twos"]. Alright times what, 6 minutes?? That equals 4320 (four thousand three hundred and twenty) drawings to ink and paint!!!:eek: And this is if it is all animated on "twos" and is only 6 minutes long... How LONG did this take??? Former Schlesinger employee Martha Sigall says her first scene to ever PAINT was about 300 cels and that it took her 10 (TEN) days... Alright, that was 300 cels out of over 4300, so it would take fifteen girls working for ten days (two work weeks roughly) to paint the cels for one fairly short cartoon. Inking came before this and was a very painstaking process... Interestingly enough, Martha Sigall stated that they commonly had cartoons with 10,000 drawings!!!:eek: [For the very rough math on THAT just multiply my above figures by two...].

After all this was writing and conducting the musical score, editing and creating the sound effects etc., before off to the lab.

Okay, cutting to the chase, I've tried to indicate that it was a MASSIVE, MASSIVE undertaking that despite Chuck's misleading assertion, took numerous months. The earliest Schlesinger cartoon that I have a number on took about 4 to 4 1/2 months to complete (using the animation pool). By 1939 the number was up to 6 months and that was using an average of 5 to 6 animators NOT just 4. Martha Sigall says that when she was there it was up to a full 9 months of production time from storyboard to COMPLETION of cartoon (she was there from 1936 to 1943). And this was BEFORE going to Technicolor for processing and printing... And the War grinding on slowed down the Technicolor labs much, much more. Hence the very high numbers I mentioned over in the other thread from storyboard to final release.

In the WILDLY ABNORMAL cases like I mentioned before, a director (with the producer's approval) could twist matters around to finish a toon quicker. Literally in ONE case at ONE studio, the entire studio dropped what it was doing to focus on ONE cartoon. Result? In that freaky occurrence and with around 18 full animators (plus assistants and inbetweeners) and the entire inking and painting dept. all at work on this one toon, it was finished reportedly in ONLY 2 1/2 months from storyboard to completion.

The average production time at most studios in the Thirties was similar to that at Schlesinger's. For instance, we know the month Shamus Culhane joined Ub Iwerks (May 1932) and what the first cartoon was he animated on there ("Phoney Express") and that it was ALREADY in production when he started on it. It was copyrighted in Oct. 1932, so allowing it to have been in production already when he started on it, still gives a time of five plus months. At Charles Mintz Screen Gems studio at that same point the production time was also five months.

Tying up loose ends now...

On the massive backlog at Warners (and at MGM and some other studios)... At Warners it really was right at two years up until the brief shutdown in 1953. A huge percent of their copyrights prior to the shutdown will have the copyright date but also the words "in notice" and then a year date most often two years before the noted copyright date.

Lastly, I'm sorry, but "Wabbit Twouble" was in production much, much longer than 3 months. Tex Avery was the essential director of it despite what the credits say. Know who redesigned Elmer into the "fat Elmer" used first in this cartoon? Tex Avery:) Despite Clampett's tale of HIS redesigning Elmer to look more like Arthur Q. Bryan it was in reality Tex who did it. Think about it... Why would Merrie Melodie-newbie Clampett be allowed to redesign a character that was working fine...??:confused: He wouldn't! But the man who created the character would have full power to do so. I actually have written an entire article (unpublished) on the subject of the real authorship of "Wabbit Twouble". And from an email with him, I know that Mike Barrier like moi;) , came to basically believe that Avery directed "Wabbit Twouble", though it's meant his having to disbelieve the credits and Bob Clampett himself.

Nobody shoot me!!:p Wrote this last night with no sleep... And so I see a giant math error. Will correct it! Sorry!!! Okay, I THINK I got it corrected...:p

[Detroiter]

Thanks, Tim. That was pretty interesting. I think something we all forget is that animation is an absurdly difficult thing to pull off. Some buddies and I were going to do our own animated cartoon when we were in high school until we did the math. Drawing caricatures of the teachers for the school paper made a heck of lot more sense. Phrases like "time-consuming" and "labor intensive" don't begin to touch it. The crummiest theatrical cartoon is frankly an amazing achievement.

[Ray Pointer]

The length of time to produce your own cartoon is based on other factors, mainly the length and how full the animation is to be. I don't think that your purpose is to make a theatrical level cartoon of the type that is discused here, since it sounds like your concept is more of a parody, and driven by the joke of the caricature over the actual animation itself. If this is the case, you want to keep it simple, especially since this is a first effort. This will not only get you through the process faster, but will produce the desired effect with minimal disappointment and frustration.

When I was making my first cartoons, they would take anywhere from two months for a three minute cartoon, to eight months for a six minute cartoon. This was with me doing all of the drawings, then the ink and paint, and finally the camera work. So in a three minute film, you could figure a month for each step, although shooting took only a few days. In full-blown production using multiple cel levels, it takes an average of eight hours to shoot a minute of film. On the other hand, I spent two years making a 30 minute animated version of THE WIZARD OF OZ between the ages of 12 and 15. This was only because I was continuing to discover new techinques and was doing sequences over to make use of them. Then I stopped it for a year to make a six minute experiment with sound, and that experience was carried over into
fininshing the OZ film the following year. Aside from my exploration of techinques, cutouts may be an effective technique for you that is very quick to produce, with the results being very funny. Ever heard of a little thing called SOUTH PARK?

If you are interested in cel technique, there is a lot to take into consideration, mostly the cost of supplies, time and labor that is required technique. One of the things that adds to the consumption of time is inefficient production methods. This is especially crucial when doing your own film, and if you realize the techiniques early on, you can avoid a lot of mistakes and disappointments while 'reinventing" of the wheel. If it is a first time effort, you'd be best off checking out some of the instruction books and materials still available that teach cartoon animation. It's not a simple matter of just making a bunch of drawings because there are so many other factors that enter into the picture that included a realization of spacial relationships compared to time, as well as the applications of weight and volume, distortion effects, and other illusions of fluidity such as Squash and Stretch, and Drag and Follow-through. So for your purpose, you want to think of simple movments without working yourself into traps that you are not ready to deal with.

While CG has taken over, there seems to be a returning interest in 'traditional" or drawn animation. I started my company with the distributuion of THE KEN SOUTHWORTH BASIC ANIMATION PROGRAM, a Home Instruction course teaching animation basics, with text written by me. Although we discontinued its listing on our website, it can be made available by special order. There are also excellent books by Brian Lemay at The Cartoon Factory website. These go into more specific aspects of character design and layout from a contemporary point of view.

Since there are so many techniques available, you need to determine which route you will take and just how much work you really want to do. You do have your choices these days.:tweety:

[Dave Bennett]

Tim ---

Thanks for that wonderful explanation and assessment of a theatrical short's production time-line! It really made me smile.

Your numbers are accurate . . . but I'm not sure (since you didn't explicitly mention it) that all the different processes you detailed (storyboard, recording, layout, animation, inking, etc.) were usually happening in rolling overlaps. Layout artists could start creating environments and character designers could work up model sheets, even as storyboards were being knocked out.

I'm sure that as soon as Tex timed out a few sheets, he whipped them to an animator, along with his prodigious roughs, to keep the flow going. All this overlap neatly cuts down the time involved.

This all reminded me of a typical day when we were in production on half-hour TV specials (a vanished species!). I would start my day (this is well after storyboarding, recording and sheet-timing was finished) with a trip to Hollywood to pick up 'dailies' at the film lab, and thread them up on the old movieola for the boss to preview. Most of my morning would be involved with doing layouts, handing out scenes to animators, and accepting finished scenes from the inbetweeners and cel painters.

Then lots of checking ---- going over all the pencilled scenes . . . and then switching to checking the painted cels that had been brought in, figuring camera moves, checking match lines against the BG, (even doing some quick repaints or FX animation if it was needed) and packing up my car.

Then it was off on a big roundabout tour to deliver pencil animation to the Xerox service (and pick up the workload they'd completed from the day before), and deliver the final heavy (painted cels are surprisingly weighty when you're talking about thousands of them) scenes to the camera service for shooting!

Eat dinner -- sleep a bit -- repeat!

It took us 10 months to do a 26-minute show from script to delivery print . . . so I'm guessing a well-oiled machine like Termite Terrace could do 7 minutes easily in 6 or 7 months. It's an interesting debate -- I would be surprised if there were not production schedules or charts still extant for some of the studios' output to provide us with a more accurate answer.

•

[RetroMan]

Very informative Tim and Dave!
I always thought it was a little odd that it was said that the Termite Terrace crew finished a short every 2 months, which is practically nothing, now that I see it. Now another question comes up - How many cartoons would a unit have in production at the same time?

On a related note, last year my school held an animation contest and naturally I wanted to participate. In a mere 2 and a half weeks, I managed to draw storyboards and backgrounds, draw and photograph 2 minutes of hand-draw animation, rotoscoping, and colouring.... granted the animation was rather jerky and probably done in fours... and I couldn't use cells so I coloured it by computer... and I couldn't add the soundtrack because the machinery wasn't cooperating... and I used A LOT of held frames and VERY limited animation... and technically the short ain't finished yet, thus it has been in stalled production for nearly 10 months. Doesn't get any more amateurish than that.

[Frank]

The length of time to produce your own cartoon is based on other factors, mainly the length and how full the animation is to be. I don't think that your purpose is to make a theatrical level cartoon of the type that is discused here, since it sounds like your concept is more of a parody, and driven by the joke of the caricature over the actual animation itself. If this is the case, you want to keep it simple, especially since this is a first effort. This will not only get you through the process faster, but will produce the desired effect with minimal disappointment and frustration.

When I was making my first cartoons, they would take anywhere from two months for a three minute cartoon, to eight months for a six minute cartoon. This was with me doing all of the drawings, then the ink and paint, and finally the camera work. So in a three minute film, you could figure a month for each step, although shooting took only a few days. In full-blown production using multiple cel levels, it takes an average of eight hours to shoot a minute of film. On the other hand, I spent two years making a 30 minute animated version of THE WIZARD OF OZ between the ages of 12 and 15. This was only because I was continuing to discover new techinques and was doing sequences over to make use of them. Then I stopped it for a year to make a six minute experiment with sound, and that experience was carried over into
fininshing the OZ film the following year. Aside from my exploration of techinques, cutouts may be an effective technique for you that is very quick to produce, with the results being very funny. Ever heard of a little thing called SOUTH PARK?

If you are interested in cel technique, there is a lot to take into consideration, mostly the cost of supplies, time and labor that is required technique. One of the things that adds to the consumption of time is inefficient production methods. This is especially crucial when doing your own film, and if you realize the techiniques early on, you can avoid a lot of mistakes and disappointments while 'reinventing" of the wheel. If it is a first time effort, you'd be best off checking out some of the instruction books and materials still available that teach cartoon animation. It's not a simple matter of just making a bunch of drawings because there are so many other factors that enter into the picture that included a realization of spacial relationships compared to time, as well as the applications of weight and volume, distortion effects, and other illusions of fluidity such as Squash and Stretch, and Drag and Follow-through. So for your purpose, you want to think of simple movments without working yourself into traps that you are not ready to deal with.

While CG has taken over, there seems to be a returning interest in 'traditional" or drawn animation. I started my company with the distributuion of THE KEN SOUTHWORTH BASIC ANIMATION PROGRAM, a Home Instruction course teaching animation basics, with text written by me. Although we discontinued its listing on our website, it can be made available by special order. There are also excellent books by Brian Lemay at The Cartoon Factory website. These go into more specific aspects of character design and layout from a contemporary point of view.

Since there are so many techniques available, you need to determine which route you will take and just how much work you really want to do. You do have your choices these days.:tweety:

Very interesting. I do have one question though: What is Drag and Follow-through?

[Marty26]

It depends on what you mean by the process. Chuck Jones always talked about how the average cartoon was budgeted for six weeks of work within the studio itself, and how he was able to cheat sometimes and do a Road Runner short in just four weeks to allow him extra time to work on more complicated shorts.

But once the cartoon process got outside the studio, into the Technicolor processing and the distribution chain, then the process bogged down. Technicolor's main problems apparently came during the mid-1940s, to where they couldn't get the work done fast enough to get the cartoons out promptly, but in other cases, it was simply Warners holding onto the cartoons for periods of up to a year or more before releasing (which is why they could shut the studio down for eight months in 1953 and not miss a beat, since the last of the early '53 cartoons didn't hit the screen until April 1955).


Which cartoon specifically?

Would this sort of thing also have to do with why the early 1955 shorts either have the "new opening/closing music" or the "old opening/closing music"?

Also, could you may be list some other cartoons that were finished at one point but not released until how much later?

[Sogturtle]

Tim ---

Thanks for that wonderful explanation and assessment of a theatrical short's production time-line! It really made me smile.

Your numbers are accurate . . . but I'm not sure (since you didn't explicitly mention it) that all the different processes you detailed (storyboard, recording, layout, animation, inking, etc.) were usually happening in rolling overlaps. Layout artists could start creating environments and character designers could work up model sheets, even as storyboards were being knocked out.

I'm sure that as soon as Tex timed out a few sheets, he whipped them to an animator, along with his prodigious roughs, to keep the flow going. All this overlap neatly cuts down the time involved.

This all reminded me of a typical day when we were in production on half-hour TV specials (a vanished species!). I would start my day (this is well after storyboarding, recording and sheet-timing was finished) with a trip to Hollywood to pick up 'dailies' at the film lab, and thread them up on the old movieola for the boss to preview. Most of my morning would be involved with doing layouts, handing out scenes to animators, and accepting finished scenes from the inbetweeners and cel painters.

Then lots of checking ---- going over all the pencilled scenes . . . and then switching to checking the painted cels that had been brought in, figuring camera moves, checking match lines against the BG, (even doing some quick repaints or FX animation if it was needed) and packing up my car.

Then it was off on a big roundabout tour to deliver pencil animation to the Xerox service (and pick up the workload they'd completed from the day before), and deliver the final heavy (painted cels are surprisingly weighty when you're talking about thousands of them) scenes to the camera service for shooting!

Eat dinner -- sleep a bit -- repeat!

It took us 10 months to do a 26-minute show from script to delivery print . . . so I'm guessing a well-oiled machine like Termite Terrace could do 7 minutes easily in 6 or 7 months. It's an interesting debate -- I would be surprised if there were not production schedules or charts still extant for some of the studios' output to provide us with a more accurate answer.

•

Very informative Tim and Dave!
I always thought it was a little odd that it was said that the Termite Terrace crew finished a short every 2 months, which is practically nothing, now that I see it. Now another question comes up - How many cartoons would a unit have in production at the same time?

On a related note, last year my school held an animation contest and naturally I wanted to participate. In a mere 2 and a half weeks, I managed to draw storyboards and backgrounds, draw and photograph 2 minutes of hand-draw animation, rotoscoping, and colouring.... granted the animation was rather jerky and probably done in fours... and I couldn't use cells so I coloured it by computer... and I couldn't add the soundtrack because the machinery wasn't cooperating... and I used A LOT of held frames and VERY limited animation... and technically the short ain't finished yet, thus it has been in stalled production for nearly 10 months. Doesn't get any more amateurish than that.

RetroMan and Dave and Marty26~

Thanks for the kind words (and Dave I hope you were smiling and not laughing;) ). And congruatulations RetroMan on your animation work, it's a shame everyone doesn't get to try making their own cartoon to add new appreciation to the artistry of the "Masters of the old days".

As to how many cartoons a director would have in production at once, hold onto your hat... According to Friz Freleng, while at Warner Bros. he routinely would have about 5 (possibly more) cartoons in various stages of production at once... The Warner's directors had to virtually be multi-headed octopi to pull it all off!:p

Dave, I always loved half-hour animated TV specials, especially those that were full-animation...:)

I should mention that I deliberately chopped out a number of stages (the darned post was getting to mega-length), for instance I left out the pencil-test camera work and the sweat-box for the poor animator and his pencil-test animation (and then whatever re-dos the director might order). And of course I mentioned nothing of character-designing (usually the director's domain at Warners and Metro), nothing of the massive logistics of checking, etc. All of which ate up more and more time...

Yep, I'm fully aware that all of the Warner's or MGM directors would have had various overlapping processes in their individual production schedules. Annnnnnd like I mentioned a second ago they each had numerous cartoons all at once clamoring for the director's and the crews attention.

Termite Terrace and MGM were indeed like 'well-oiled machines', but when Schlesinger's production went past 40 cartoons a year things just had to give and it started slowing things down, hence Martha Sigall's remembering production being up to 9 months. Having to produce the government films (Snafu, Hook) bogged things down more yet during the War years. And before that Schlesinger (on average) would accept one outside project per year for some other studio's feature film, that also meant a small monkey-wrench in the process each time. And so despite in OPTIMAL conditions a fast production had been possible, things just got slower, hence one main reason for the disappearance of most current jokes from Warners and MGM.

....

Also, could you may be list some other cartoons that were finished at one point but not released until how much later?

Marty~

Although your post was directed to our friend John, I'll give you an answer or three:D...

Highdiving Hare (c) Oct. 7, 1949, in notice 1947-rel. April 30, 1949
Big House Bunny-(c) March 30, 1950, in notice 1948-rel. April 22, 1950
The Leghorn Blows At Midnight (c) Dec. 31, 1948-rel. May 6, 1950

...And the above is just a teeny sampling!! They really were sitting around moldering awaiting release.:eek:

[J Lee]

Frank and guys~

Hmmmmm... I would suspect that this question has come up because of the "Rhapsody Rabbit/Cat Concerto" thread and my;) bringing up there the massive amounts of time between first idea and final release...

And unfortunately Chuck Jones' mentioning that it took 4 to 6 weeks to make a Warner's short is, well, ummmm not quite right. (Brickbats now fly my way;) ). That is the amount of time it took only to ANIMATE (on twos) the cartoon. Don't believe me?? Try the math... Each animator was expected to do 25-35 FEET per week, okay? Multiply by the (*1945 onwards) standard of 4 animators... Result? Should be 100 to 140 ft. per week, okay, now times 4-6 weeks. Result, will be 400 to 840 ft. of total pencil animation produced by 4 animators in 4-6 weeks. Sound standard is 90 ft. of film per minute.

BUUUUUT before this process began, the director and storyman/men sat down and wrote and storyboarded the cartoon... Alright, how long did they take? BARE minimum time seems to have been two weeks for this... At Warners they then got to endure the 'big yes" (or "no no") session of debuting the completed storyboard for all the storymen and directors, producer etc. to say positive things about and possibly help improve any deficiencies. They could then end redoing the story and storyboard.

The director of course after okaying the finished storyboard then had to cast the voice parts and get the recording session scheduled (keep in mind that most cartoon studios had to wait for a main studio to have a recording opening). How long was this wait? A day? A week? You have to factor that in (and Warner's made at various times, 30 to 42 cartoons besides their massive feature output). As far as known most cartoons were recorded in a single day (but it could take a fair number of hours). Alright then after that the track would be read, and the director would time it all out on an exposure sheet... How long did he take on this...?? AND he would (or have an assistant) draw out the animation layout drawings. Tex Avery would draw 1 drawing for every foot of film, alright so on a six-hundred ft. toon then the director would draw 600 rough animation layouts. How long did it take him to draw all these??? If you allow him 4 drawings per hour times 8 hrs. it comes to 32 drawings per day, okay so at that slow rate it would take him about 20 DAYS to finish the animation layouts... Ifffff he drew a lot faster than that then of course the number of days would be reduced. But this has to be figured in as well.

Okay... After the animation and inbetweening (and the backgrounds were designed and painted at the same time), THEN it went to ink and paint... How many pencil drawings are we sending down there??? TWELVE drawings for every second of film, 60 seconds in a minute;) , soooooo 720 drawings for EVERY MINUTE of film!! [If animated "on twos"]. Alright times what, 6 minutes?? That equals 4320 (four thousand three hundred and twenty) drawings to ink and paint!!!:eek: And this is if it is all animated on "twos" and is only 6 minutes long... How LONG did this take??? Former Schlesinger employee Martha Sigall says her first scene to ever PAINT was about 300 cels and that it took her 10 (TEN) days... Alright, that was 300 cels out of over 4300, so it would take fifteen girls working for ten days (two work weeks roughly) to paint the cels for one fairly short cartoon. Inking came before this and was a very painstaking process... Interestingly enough, Martha Sigall stated that they commonly had cartoons with 10,000 drawings!!!:eek: [For the very rough math on THAT just multiply my above figures by two...].

After all this was writing and conducting the musical score, editing and creating the sound effects etc., before off to the lab.

Okay, cutting to the chase, I've tried to indicate that it was a MASSIVE, MASSIVE undertaking that despite Chuck's misleading assertion, took numerous months. The earliest Schlesinger cartoon that I have a number on took about 4 to 4 1/2 months to complete (using the animation pool). By 1939 the number was up to 6 months and that was using an average of 5 to 6 animators NOT just 4. Martha Sigall says that when she was there it was up to a full 9 months of production time from storyboard to COMPLETION of cartoon (she was there from 1936 to 1943). And this was BEFORE going to Technicolor for processing and printing... And the War grinding on slowed down the Technicolor labs much, much more. Hence the very high numbers I mentioned over in the other thread from storyboard to final release.

In the WILDLY ABNORMAL cases like I mentioned before, a director (with the producer's approval) could twist matters around to finish a toon quicker. Literally in ONE case at ONE studio, the entire studio dropped what it was doing to focus on ONE cartoon. Result? In that freaky occurrence and with around 18 full animators (plus assistants and inbetweeners) and the entire inking and painting dept. all at work on this one toon, it was finished reportedly in ONLY 2 1/2 months from storyboard to completion.

The average production time at most studios in the Thirties was similar to that at Schlesinger's. For instance, we know the month Shamus Culhane joined Ub Iwerks (May 1932) and what the first cartoon was he animated on there ("Phoney Express") and that it was ALREADY in production when he started on it. It was copyrighted in Oct. 1932, so allowing it to have been in production already when he started on it, still gives a time of five plus months. At Charles Mintz Screen Gems studio at that same point the production time was also five months.

Tying up loose ends now...

On the massive backlog at Warners (and at MGM and some other studios)... At Warners it really was right at two years up until the brief shutdown in 1953. A huge percent of their copyrights prior to the shutdown will have the copyright date but also the words "in notice" and then a year date most often two years before the noted copyright date.

Lastly, I'm sorry, but "Wabbit Twouble" was in production much, much longer than 3 months. Tex Avery was the essential director of it despite what the credits say. Know who redesigned Elmer into the "fat Elmer" used first in this cartoon? Tex Avery:) Despite Clampett's tale of HIS redesigning Elmer to look more like Arthur Q. Bryan it was in reality Tex who did it. Think about it... Why would Merrie Melodie-newbie Clampett be allowed to redesign a character that was working fine...??:confused: He wouldn't! But the man who created the character would have full power to do so. I actually have written an entire article (unpublished) on the subject of the real authorship of "Wabbit Twouble". And from an email with him, I know that Mike Barrier like moi;) , came to basically believe that Avery directed "Wabbit Twouble", though it's meant his having to disbelieve the credits and Bob Clampett himself.

Nobody shoot me!!:p Wrote this last night with no sleep... And so I see a giant math error. Will correct it! Sorry!!! Okay, I THINK I got it corrected...:p

I believe there has been some mention in the past that Clampett has said he and Tex fiddled around with Elmer's dimension, which at the very least would make the initial planning of the cartoon something that Tex did. Others are the Averyesque facial designs on Bugs, similar to the characters in other cartoons of the same period in having something of a vertical oval pattern, and the red nose on Fudd, seen here and in "A Wild Hare", but nowhere else.

On the other hand, given the anamousity between Bob and other people on staff, if it was a wholly-Avery helmed short, chances are the misleading story credit would have gotten out by now, especially since the titles being rendered in Fuddese make it among the most famous titles of all time. And since it was Bugs, and his popularity was growing by leaps on bounds (to the point that either Leon or Jack l. Warner was willing to go to war over dropping him off another cliff at the iris out), it's quite possible that, like "The Cagey Canary" or "Crazy Cruise" this cartoon was started by Tex and finished by Bob, but pushed through the production line ahead of those two cartoons and other shorts, including Tex's last solo efforts (you can skip up to the mid-1950s to see that Warners was still doing this with the bunny toons -- the first releases from the re-opened studio with the new music LT and MM cues were both Bugs shorts -- "Sahara Hare" and "Hare Brush" from the Freleng unit, while several other pre-closing cartoons were still awaiting their release dates -- and the first cartoons where Freleng was allowed to be called "Friz" and Jones was "Chuck" were also Bugs shorts; "Roman Legion-Hare" and "Knight-Mare Hare" which came out ahead of several other cartoons that still listed Friz as "I. Freleng" and Chuck as "Charles M. Jones")

[J Lee]

Which cartoon specifically?

Would this sort of thing also have to do with why the early 1955 shorts either have the "new opening/closing music" or the "old opening/closing music"?

Also, could you may be list some other cartoons that were finished at one point but not released until how much later?

As far as the "stealing time" quote from Jones goes, the one he apparently was talking about was "Zoom and Board", which Jones and Maltese were working on at about the same time as "What's Opera, Doc?" was made.

As far as the opening music, see my reply above on "Sahara Hare" and "Hare Brush". Going by the animation credits, "Tweety's Circus" may have been the first short actually done by the re-opened studio, though it uses the 1945 MM opening music; the next short from Friz debuted the new LT theme and "Hare Brush" introduced the new MM theme.

You can even go to Warners' final days and see how much of a backlog the studio had. "Nuts and Volts" was released on April 24, 1964 and was Friz Freleng's last short for the original WB studio. Meanwhile, the original "Pink Panther" movie, with opening title credits directed by Freleng, was released on March 10, 1964, and in-between, Friz even had time to go off and do the story for "Hey There, Yogi Bear" for Hanna-Barbera. Jones was fired by Jack Warner in July 1962, and his final Road Runner cartoon "Ware and Pieces" didn't show up in theaters for another two years (amazingly, with Chuck's name still attached eight months after his first Tom and Jerry cartoon for MGM had hit the theaters). And Bob McKimson's last WB short in '64 barely beat his animation work for UPA's "The Famous Adventures of Mr. Magoo" onto the screen.

[Ray Pointer]

Very interesting. I do have one question though: What is Drag and Follow-through?

Since your question is how much time it takes to make a cartoon within the context of making your own film, I don't think a history lesson that compares what studio directors were doing qualifies as the answer you are seeking.
As for explaining what "Drag and Follow-Through" is, it is advisable for you to acquire the learning resources already suggested, as I am not inclined to
offer free lessons in animation techniques within this forum. Your best bet is to pick up the classic Preston Blair CARTOON ANIMATION book that is found in any Art Store, Hobby Shop, and on the Internet as well.

Animation is a self-study, self-application discipline. If you have the motivation to make your own film, you must be willing to do the work which includes going to the sources that offer this information.

[Sogturtle]

I believe there has been some mention in the past that Clampett has said he and Tex fiddled around with Elmer's dimension, which at the very least would make the initial planning of the cartoon something that Tex did. Others are the Averyesque facial designs on Bugs, similar to the characters in other cartoons of the same period in having something of a vertical oval pattern, and the red nose on Fudd, seen here and in "A Wild Hare", but nowhere else.

On the other hand, given the anamousity between Bob and other people on staff, if it was a wholly-Avery helmed short, chances are the misleading story credit would have gotten out by now, especially since the titles being rendered in Fuddese make it among the most famous titles of all time. And since it was Bugs, and his popularity was growing by leaps on bounds (to the point that either Leon or Jack l. Warner was willing to go to war over dropping him off another cliff at the iris out), it's quite possible that, like "The Cagey Canary" or "Crazy Cruise" this cartoon was started by Tex and finished by Bob, but pushed through the production line ahead of those two cartoons and other shorts, including Tex's last solo efforts (you can skip up to the mid-1950s to see that Warners was still doing this with the bunny toons -- the first releases from the re-opened studio with the new music LT and MM cues were both Bugs shorts -- "Sahara Hare" and "Hare Brush" from the Freleng unit, while several other pre-closing cartoons were still awaiting their release dates -- and the first cartoons where Freleng was allowed to be called "Friz" and Jones was "Chuck" were also Bugs shorts; "Roman Legion-Hare" and "Knight-Mare Hare" which came out ahead of several other cartoons that still listed Friz as "I. Freleng" and Chuck as "Charles M. Jones")

John~

I'm going to TRY NOT to go into great depth on it here:rolleyes: ... But here's a wee bit... I asked Mike Barrier about how animator Sid Sutherland came to leave the studio right at the time this cartoon was made (Sutherland receives his next-to-LAST Warner screen-credit here on "Wabbit Twouble"). What he told me shouldn't have surprised me, but yet did. Keep in mind that Virgil Ross and Sid Sutherland had both served Tex Avery VERY LOYALLY for 6 years, ever since the first formation of the original Termite Terrace in 1935. What he told me was that when he brought up Sid Sutherland's name to Bob Clampett, the reaction by Bob was that Avery had fired Sutherland just before leaving the studio himself...:eek: Clampett then CLAIMED that HE put Sutherland's name ("Suvverland") onto the cartoon because he felt sorry for him... What the?!?! Stop and think about that one... That doesn't make ANY SENSE:eek: :confused: ... Sutherland had worked for Tex for 6 years, Avery wouldn't have fired him after all that time. Annnnnd Sutherland's name would have NEVER gotten on the cartoon if he was already gone from the studio, Schlesinger's studio didn't work that way... Sooooo what this means is that ol' Bob is lying (yeah again)... And why would he lie praytell??? Only to cover up something. Now what do you think he'd be covering up??? How about the essential authorship by Tex Avery of this cartoon rather than Bob Clampett.

As for the goofy "Fuddese" mangled credits... Yep they're darn famous. But stop and think about it... Do you or anyone ever remember Clampett monking around with his own cartoon credits before?!?!;) Nooooo you don't do you? But who DID mess with their credits in a cartoon not long before??? Think back... That's right it was TEX AVERY in "Tortoise Beats Hare" where he had Bugs come out and read and mangle the crews names to the audience:eek: . Soooooo even though the director's name on the finished credits reads "Wobert Cwampett", you can bet dollars to donuts that when originally conceived it was going to say "Fwed Avewwy" (very like "Sid Suvverwand"). And before leaving this all, let's not forget that Clampett went so far as to claim co-writing credit on Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" in a magazine in the mid-1970's.

And intriguingly, "Wabbit Twouble" was the ONLY TIME Dave Monahan's name would EVER appear on a cartoon with Bob Clampett's name as director... WHY??? Because Monahan (along with Rich Hogan) was TEX AVERY'S story crew... No, this is a Clampett cartoon only in the thinnest possible sense, its heart and soul, design and timing point straight to Tex Avery.:bugs2: The studio NEEDED a new really good Bugs Bunny cartoon and Avery had left one waiting in his office.

[J. B. Warner]

John~

I'm going to TRY NOT to go into great depth on it here:rolleyes: ... But here's a wee bit... I asked Mike Barrier about how animator Sid Sutherland came to leave the studio right at the time this cartoon was made (Sutherland receives his LAST Warner screen-credit here on "Wabbit Twouble"). What he told me shouldn't have surprised me, but yet did. Keep in mind that Virgil Ross and Sid Sutherland had both served Tex Avery VERY LOYALLY for 6 years, ever since the first formation of the original Termite Terrace in 1935. What he told me was that when he brought up Sid Sutherland's name to Bob Clampett, the reaction by Bob was that Avery had fired Sutherland just before leaving the studio himself...:eek: Clampett then CLAIMED that HE put Sutherland's name ("Suvverland") onto the cartoon because he felt sorry for him... What the?!?! Stop and think about that one... That doesn't make ANY SENSE:eek: :confused: ... Sutherland had worked for Tex for 6 years, Avery wouldn't have fired him after all that time. Annnnnd Sutherland's name would have NEVER gotten on the cartoon if he was already gone from the studio, Schlesinger's studio didn't work that way... Sooooo what this means is that ol' Bob is lying (yeah again)... And why would he lie praytell??? Only to cover up something. Now what do you think he'd be covering up??? How about the essential authorship by Tex Avery of this cartoon rather than Bob Clampett.

As for the goofy "Fuddese" mangled credits... Yep they're darn famous. But stop and think about it... Do you or anyone ever remember Clampett monking around with his own cartoon credits before?!?!;) Nooooo you don't do you? But who DID mess with their credits in a cartoon not long before??? Think back... That's right it was TEX AVERY in "Tortoise Beats Hare" where he had Bugs come out and read and mangle the crews names to the audience:eek: . Soooooo even though the director's name on the finished credits reads "Wobert Cwampett", you can bet dollars to donuts that when originally conceived it was going to say "Fwed Avewwy" (very like "Sid Suvverwand"). And before leaving this all, let's not forget that Clampett went so far as to claim co-writing credit on Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" in a magazine in the mid-1970's.

And intriguingly, "Wabbit Twouble" was the ONLY TIME Dave Monahan's name would EVER appear on a cartoon with Bob Clampett's name as director... WHY??? Because Monahan (along with Rich Hogan) was TEX AVERY'S story crew... No, this is a Clampett cartoon only in the thinnest possible sense, its heart and soul, design and timing point straight to Tex Avery.:bugs2: The studio NEEDED a new really good Bugs Bunny cartoon and Avery had left one waiting in his office.

You know, Soggy, I think I've learned more about classic animation from you than I have from most of my classic animation books. :D

[J Lee]

John~

I'm going to TRY NOT to go into great depth on it here:rolleyes: ... But here's a wee bit... I asked Mike Barrier about how animator Sid Sutherland came to leave the studio right at the time this cartoon was made (Sutherland receives his LAST Warner screen-credit here on "Wabbit Twouble"). What he told me shouldn't have surprised me, but yet did. Keep in mind that Virgil Ross and Sid Sutherland had both served Tex Avery VERY LOYALLY for 6 years, ever since the first formation of the original Termite Terrace in 1935. What he told me was that when he brought up Sid Sutherland's name to Bob Clampett, the reaction by Bob was that Avery had fired Sutherland just before leaving the studio himself...:eek: Clampett then CLAIMED that HE put Sutherland's name ("Suvverland") onto the cartoon because he felt sorry for him... What the?!?! Stop and think about that one... That doesn't make ANY SENSE:eek: :confused: ... Sutherland had worked for Tex for 6 years, Avery wouldn't have fired him after all that time. Annnnnd Sutherland's name would have NEVER gotten on the cartoon if he was already gone from the studio, Schlesinger's studio didn't work that way... Sooooo what this means is that ol' Bob is lying (yeah again)... And why would he lie praytell??? Only to cover up something. Now what do you think he'd be covering up??? How about the essential authorship by Tex Avery of this cartoon rather than Bob Clampett.

As for the goofy "Fuddese" mangled credits... Yep they're darn famous. But stop and think about it... Do you or anyone ever remember Clampett monking around with his own cartoon credits before?!?!;) Nooooo you don't do you? But who DID mess with their credits in a cartoon not long before??? Think back... That's right it was TEX AVERY in "Tortoise Beats Hare" where he had Bugs come out and read and mangle the crews names to the audience:eek: . Soooooo even though the director's name on the finished credits reads "Wobert Cwampett", you can bet dollars to donuts that when originally conceived it was going to say "Fwed Avewwy" (very like "Sid Suvverwand"). And before leaving this all, let's not forget that Clampett went so far as to claim co-writing credit on Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" in a magazine in the mid-1970's.

And intriguingly, "Wabbit Twouble" was the ONLY TIME Dave Monahan's name would EVER appear on a cartoon with Bob Clampett's name as director... WHY??? Because Monahan (along with Rich Hogan) was TEX AVERY'S story crew... No, this is a Clampett cartoon only in the thinnest possible sense, its heart and soul, design and timing point straight to Tex Avery.:bugs2: The studio NEEDED a new really good Bugs Bunny cartoon and Avery had left one waiting in his office.

Well, Bob did fiddle with the credits a wee bit in "Porky's Poppa" and "Porky In Wackyland", though not so much to acknowlege the credits were there as to start the action within the opening sequence. ;)

But as far as actual authorship, I'm not doubting the Avery connection to "Wabbit Twouble", especially since Tex's last films for Warners wouldn't hit the screen until the spring of 1942. I just have my doubts that it could have been a wholly Avery production, due to the cartoon's popularity and the anger Clampett created among several of his former co-workers. Someone would have spilled the beans by now, espeically after Bob's overly-possesive 1969 interview with Barrier that prompted Jones' outraged letter to Avery (Tex may have been self-evasing enough not to say anything, but Chuck would have). That's why I lean towards the idea that Bob served as clean-up man for Tex, in the same way Artie Davis would finish off Clampett's final shorts in 1945 (the difference here being the Bob was taking credit 25 years after the fact not only for his own final shorts, but for ones done by Artie and Friz with recurring characters after his departure).

Bob probably had most of the stuff in place, given that it looks like the other cartoons Tex was making at the same time (the Clampett/McKimson Bugs of "Any Bonds Today?" released at the same time doesn't look like the "Wabbit Twouble" bunny, but does look like the one used in "The Wacky Wabbit"), but he did enough finish-up work to keep folks from disputing credit. And the fact that it was a Bugs cartoon caused it to run through production in late '41 faster than the other shorts that Tex was working on when he walked out of the studio. (And if you look at the available animation credits for the Avery unit, "Wabbit Twouble" would have been the right time for Sutherland's name to come up again, since it was on "Aviation Vacation" and the animatiors in the 1939-44 period generally got their name on the screen roughly every fourth cartoon, as long as the unit remained unchanged.)

[Ray Pointer]

Once again, Frank's question was regarding the time to make a cartoon on his own, or with a group of friends. I don't believe he was asking for a comparison of production time in making theatrical cartoons using a large production staff producing 12,000 to 14,000 drawings, and linked to a studio production and distirbution system. The question, as I understand it requires someone with production experience from a personal perspective based on having made cartoons, and particularly one's own cartoon films. Unfortunately the statistics and facts being offered, while fascinating, may proove too overwhelming to the point of discouragement, and are not offered from this personal perspective. The answer would come from someone who has actually done it at the level of interest here. This answer also should be one that is reasonable and motivating, with an understanding of what the requester is seeking.

[Jack G.]

You know, Soggy, I think I've learned more about classic animation from you than I have from most of my classic animation books. :D
He got some great info doesn't he?

Glad yer here Soggy!:)

[Dave Bennett]

Once again, Frank's question was regarding the time to make a cartoon on his own, or with a group of friends. I don't believe he was asking for a comparison of production time in making theatrical cartoons . . . . .

Ray - - -

I think you're misinterpreting the seventh reply in this thread as being the one that started it. The original question DID focus on the studio system.

If you're unhappy with all the neat information being exchanged here, just avoid this thread! I'm really enjoying it!

(And you could have been a little gentler with poor Frank merely asking you to clarify the terms "Drag" and "Follow Through" you had used!! What's the big difference if he reads it here or goes out and buys a book? If I could have read explanations about animation directly from a pro when I was just starting out, I would have been thrilled! )

•

[mmtper]

No, this is a Clampett cartoon only in the thinnest possible sense, its heart and soul, design and timing point straight to Tex Avery.:bugs2: The studio NEEDED a new really good Bugs Bunny cartoon and Avery had left one waiting in his office.


[Perhaps this subject deserves it's own separate thread. However...] While not seriously disagreeing with Sogturtle's overall theory that this is mostly Avery's cartoon, to my untrained layman's eye something changes when the Bear shows up, and the gags and drawing style seem to become less Avery and more Clampett-y. [At the risk of getting into trouble] Do you think the other Clampett/director and Sutherland/animator production, The Wacky Rabbit wasalso started by Avery as well?:)

[Sogturtle]

Well, Bob did fiddle with the credits a wee bit in "Porky's Poppa" and "Porky In Wackyland", though not so much to acknowlege the credits were there as to start the action within the opening sequence. ;)

But as far as actual authorship, I'm not doubting the Avery connection to "Wabbit Twouble", especially since Tex's last films for Warners wouldn't hit the screen until the spring of 1942. I just have my doubts that it could have been a wholly Avery production, due to the cartoon's popularity and the anger Clampett created among several of his former co-workers. Someone would have spilled the beans by now, espeically after Bob's overly-possesive 1969 interview with Barrier that prompted Jones' outraged letter to Avery (Tex may have been self-evasing enough not to say anything, but Chuck would have). That's why I lean towards the idea that Bob served as clean-up man for Tex, in the same way Artie Davis would finish off Clampett's final shorts in 1945 (the difference here being the Bob was taking credit 25 years after the fact not only for his own final shorts, but for ones done by Artie and Friz with recurring characters after his departure).

Bob probably had most of the stuff in place, given that it looks like the other cartoons Tex was making at the same time (the Clampett/McKimson Bugs of "Any Bonds Today?" released at the same time doesn't look like the "Wabbit Twouble" bunny, but does look like the one used in "The Wacky Wabbit"), but he did enough finish-up work to keep folks from disputing credit. And the fact that it was a Bugs cartoon caused it to run through production in late '41 faster than the other shorts that Tex was working on when he walked out of the studio. (And if you look at the available animation credits for the Avery unit, "Wabbit Twouble" would have been the right time for Sutherland's name to come up again, since it was on "Aviation Vacation" and the animatiors in the 1939-44 period generally got their name on the screen roughly every fourth cartoon, as long as the unit remained unchanged.)

[Perhaps this subject deserves it's own separate thread. However...] While not seriously disagreeing with Sogturtle's overall theory that this is mostly Avery's cartoon, to my untrained layman's eye something changes when the Bear shows up, and the gags and drawing style seem to become less Avery and more Clampett-y. [At the risk of getting into trouble] Do you think the other Clampett/director and Sutherland/animator production, The Wacky Rabbit was also started by Avery as well?:)

John~

Will make this brief (have to, going to pick my sis at the airport:p ). There's a palpable difference between "Wabbit Twouble" and "The Big Snooze". "Big Snooze" (and the other Clampett-Davis cartoon) show obvious signs of their being barely partway done when Davis took over. "Wabbit Twouble" by contrast is nearly seamless, and it has SO MANY marks of Avery, including the Avery rabbit as to put to the lie Clampett's claiming the cartoon and the official credit to him.

Ask yourself "why did Bob want and get rid of Virgil Ross and Sid Sutherland??". Two possible answers. One is that they were the final remains of the 1935 influx of Universal animators which had not only helped establish Avery, but who had been loyal to Tex. And of course Avery's arrival pushed off Clampett's (and Chuck's) ascension to the director's chair for 2 more years. Second answer MIGHT be that Sid Sutherland being loyal to Avery MIGHT'VE agitated to NOT put Clampett's name on this cartoon, or worse yet, that Sid could've vocally not wanted Clampett in Avery's spot.

Clampett of course would've been under the gun to finish Tex's unfinished films, and finding a Bugs Bunny toon amongst them would've been a special thing. If indeed he just 'walked' it through the pencil tests then he could indeed claim he was the director of it.

Mmtper~

Whooooooops!!!! My mistake!!!!:o (ay-yi-yi, guess you can call me a complete dork for missing Sutherland's name in "The Wacky Wabbit", that happens when I do things straight out of my noggin:o ). You're darn right that Sid Sutherland is credited on it as well... And that makes Clampett's lie to Mike Barrier all the more egregious about Tex firing Sutherland!!

My own view is that Clampett's function on the cartoon was basically looking at the pencil tests and approving/disapproving them, and not much else.

[And nooooo what trouble could you get into? NOW if you'd asked me whether I thought Tex directed "Horton Hatches The Egg" THEN I'd have been royally ticked:D ].

He got some great info doesn't he?

Glad yer here Soggy!:)

And thank you Masked Stinker for your kindness, it is much appreciated (and I'm always glad to be here:cool: )

[Ray Pointer]

[QUOTE=Dave Bennett] Ray - - -

I think you're misinterpreting the seventh reply in this thread as being the one that started it. The original question DID focus on the studio system.

If you're unhappy with all the neat information being exchanged here, just avoid this thread! I'm really enjoying it!

(And you could have been a little gentler with poor Frank merely asking you to clarify the terms "Drag" and "Follow Through" you had used!! What's the big difference if he reads it here or goes out and buys a book? If I could have read explanations about animation directly from a pro when I was just starting out, I would have been thrilled! )


I am not "unhappy" about the thread, and have gone out of my way to clarify my responses, which were indeed following the seventh post, yet unanwered.
Regarding the "Drag" and "Follow Through" issues, I said, these are explained in books. And what is 'ungentle" about advising someone to do some research on their own? On the other hand, with all of the "experts" we already have here, I'm surprised these things would have to be explained. But since teaching about these principles is not what this thread is about, I am correct in not explaining in this context. If Frank is interested in learning about them, I have motivated him to find out, and this process will teach him more than simply telling him about it here.:tweety:

[Jack G.]

Since we've kinda veered of onto who really did Wabbit Twouble, my take is simply this:

Bob Clampett's cartoons have a very distinct style that's pretty easy to spot, especially when he moved up to color. I don't spot much of his wild distortions and such on this.

[Thad]

I always felt that Wabbit Twouble was more of a Tex Avery short than a Clampett one. Elmer still has a trace of Egghead (the pink nose), and the line "I do this kind of stuff to him all through the picture" is a pure Avery trademark.

Wacky Wabbit also hints at some Avery involvement, but the Rod Scribner animation makes it a genuine Clampett product.

[Duck Dodgers]

By the way, Soggie my dear friend, could you give us some charming details about your theories about the by Clampett started- by Davis finished productions?

Do you think this also include " Mouse Menace" ?

[Leviathan]

You know, Soggy, I think I've learned more about classic animation from you than I have from most of my classic animation books. :D

Quite. It's very intiruging to read Soggy's posts on the topic of Classic animation (especially for someone who hopes to enter the animation heap someday :o )

Really Glad yer here, Soggy.

[Ray Pointer]

Originally Posted by J. B. Warner
You know, Soggy, I think I've learned more about classic animation from you than I have from most of my classic animation books. :D
Quite. It's very intiruging to read Soggy's posts on the topic of Classic animation (especially for someone who hopes to enter the animation heap someday :o )
Really Glad yer here, Soggy.


Hurary for that! Then at long last we will finally know all the secrets behind these classic cartoons of 50 to 80 years ago, which was before any of us here were born.:bosko:

[Frank]

John~

I'm going to TRY NOT to go into great depth on it here:rolleyes: ... But here's a wee bit... I asked Mike Barrier about how animator Sid Sutherland came to leave the studio right at the time this cartoon was made (Sutherland receives his next-to-LAST Warner screen-credit here on "Wabbit Twouble"). What he told me shouldn't have surprised me, but yet did. Keep in mind that Virgil Ross and Sid Sutherland had both served Tex Avery VERY LOYALLY for 6 years, ever since the first formation of the original Termite Terrace in 1935. What he told me was that when he brought up Sid Sutherland's name to Bob Clampett, the reaction by Bob was that Avery had fired Sutherland just before leaving the studio himself...:eek: Clampett then CLAIMED that HE put Sutherland's name ("Suvverland") onto the cartoon because he felt sorry for him... What the?!?! Stop and think about that one... That doesn't make ANY SENSE:eek: :confused: ... Sutherland had worked for Tex for 6 years, Avery wouldn't have fired him after all that time. Annnnnd Sutherland's name would have NEVER gotten on the cartoon if he was already gone from the studio, Schlesinger's studio didn't work that way... Sooooo what this means is that ol' Bob is lying (yeah again)... And why would he lie praytell??? Only to cover up something. Now what do you think he'd be covering up??? How about the essential authorship by Tex Avery of this cartoon rather than Bob Clampett.

As for the goofy "Fuddese" mangled credits... Yep they're darn famous. But stop and think about it... Do you or anyone ever remember Clampett monking around with his own cartoon credits before?!?!;) Nooooo you don't do you? But who DID mess with their credits in a cartoon not long before??? Think back... That's right it was TEX AVERY in "Tortoise Beats Hare" where he had Bugs come out and read and mangle the crews names to the audience:eek: . Soooooo even though the director's name on the finished credits reads "Wobert Cwampett", you can bet dollars to donuts that when originally conceived it was going to say "Fwed Avewwy" (very like "Sid Suvverwand"). And before leaving this all, let's not forget that Clampett went so far as to claim co-writing credit on Avery's "Tortoise Beats Hare" in a magazine in the mid-1970's.

And intriguingly, "Wabbit Twouble" was the ONLY TIME Dave Monahan's name would EVER appear on a cartoon with Bob Clampett's name as director... WHY??? Because Monahan (along with Rich Hogan) was TEX AVERY'S story crew... No, this is a Clampett cartoon only in the thinnest possible sense, its heart and soul, design and timing point straight to Tex Avery.:bugs2: The studio NEEDED a new really good Bugs Bunny cartoon and Avery had left one waiting in his office.


Wow! I didn't know that Bob Clampett stretched the truth that much!:eek:

Speaking of Virgil Ross, how many cartoons did he animate under Bob Clampett's supervision? I know he did animate on some of his early MM cartoons.

[JIM ENGEL]

[QUOTE=Dave Bennett] Ray - - -

I think you're misinterpreting the seventh reply in this thread as being the one that started it. The original question DID focus on the studio system.

If you're unhappy with all the neat information being exchanged here, just avoid this thread! I'm really enjoying it!

(And you could have been a little gentler with poor Frank merely asking you to clarify the terms "Drag" and "Follow Through" you had used!! What's the big difference if he reads it here or goes out and buys a book? If I could have read explanations about animation directly from a pro when I was just starting out, I would have been thrilled! )


I am not "unhappy" about the thread, and have gone out of my way to clarify my responses, which were indeed following the seventh post, yet unanwered.
Regarding the "Drag" and "Follow Through" issues, I said, these are explained in books. And what is 'ungentle" about advising someone to do some research on their own? On the other hand, with all of the "experts" we already have here, I'm surprised these things would have to be explained. But since teaching about these principles is not what this thread is about, I am correct in not explaining in this context. If Frank is interested in learning about them, I have motivated him to find out, and this process will teach him more than simply telling him about it here.:tweety:

Ya know, Ray, virtually every question asked on these boards by ANYBODY hoping to find an answer HERE could be answered with a stock "Go look it up in a book--then you'll know, and it builds character!", so why not just shut these forums down altogether?

[Javeman]

Ya know, Ray, virtually every question asked on these boards by ANYBODY hoping to find an answer HERE could be answered with a stock "Go look it up in a book--then you'll know, and it builds character!"Including things that take days, weeks, months, even years of study and dedication? I think that was what Ray meant, not everything can be answered on a forum post. Heck, I'm no animation expert, but "drag-and-follow-through", doesn't sound like something that can be explained in a matter of minutes.

[Ray Pointer]

[QUOTE=Ray Pointer]

Ya know, Ray, virtually every question asked on these boards by ANYBODY hoping to find an answer HERE could be answered with a stock "Go look it up in a book--then you'll know, and it builds character!", so why not just shut these forums down altogether?

Because after taking the time to offer a great deal of information and alternatives to Frank's interest, it was not necessary to explain this one principle, among the others mentioned., and had nothing to do with the subject of production time. This is the second time that someone has voiced offense to my answer simply because I suggested that someone open a book and do a little work on their own. What is so harsh about that? If this is too difficult, you might be surprised at what you will find on the Internet. Again there must be some amount of initiative exercised here, as I'm not inclined to do it all for him. And while I could have provided the answer, it would have taken up too much room here, and would have taken the discussion too far off topic. Also, taking into account what people are interested in here, I was allowing for that courtesy. Maybe there are others who are not interested in this detail. Had I gone into an essay on the principle of "Drag and Follow-Through" you can expect that someone would have made an issue because I did.

I was not following all the details about studio production because it is not something that I have a need to read about. I was most interested in Frank's question however, and offered my suggestions to help him. If you will indeed read the entiretly of my posts, I suggested that much of the talk about studio activies and production could be too overwhelming in the context of Frank's interest, to the extent that he could be discouraged and give up on his idea, scared off by too many statistics about the time and labor involved, the result of the employ of a large staff of workers in an industrial environment. You will also notice that I offered many other practical alternatives and suggestions to "help" him in realizing his goal. I have not seen anyone else step forward to help him in this respect.

The suggestions I offered about various alternatives for making Frank's cartoon were made after some considerable time and thought. And after spending all of this time to try to inspire and motivate, it is indeed odd that directing someone to a book should be taken as an offense, especially by those not connected to the answer. It appears that some individuals are unhappy because I did not provide an answer they thought they were entitled to. That's the trouble today, too many people want everything handed to them without doing the work. So what if I didn't tell Frank what Drag and Follow-through was. If he was interested enough, he could find out on his own without having the answer given to him. You will notice that no one else offered the answer because it had nothing to do with the topic of discussion, or maybe it's because they aren't animators. So if I am a bad person for not offering a lesson in animation principles which is off topic,
so be it. Life is that way at times.

Regarding the book referral remark above, I do recognize the sources of a lot of information that is posted here from time to time as coming from books.
While most of my own posts are off the top of my head or from my own material, if I do make a referral to a book or article, I will be honest enough to quote that source, crediting that researcher so not to appear as my own work. Failure to do this is not only bad form, but it is plagerism. Acts such as this, discourteous remarks aimed at other posters, and needless picking of arguements over trivial issues are the things that have forums shut down, not common sense advise about information sources that are readily available.

While Frank raised his question in terms of a personal project, my answer was in response to him and in that context. You do not see him complaining
because I suggested that he turn to learning sources that would help him. There seems to be some amount of confusion here as to how we learn and why someone should be offended. As a matter of fact, I sent him a Private Message on this matter, but I have yet to have had the "courtesy" of a reply. Perhaps it is reasons such as this that I may at times be reserved about what information I am offering freely due to such displays of gratitude. That said, I believe this issue is closed deserving no futher discussion or arguement since the topic of interest is cartoon production time.

[Sogturtle]

Wow! I didn't know that Bob Clampett stretched the truth that much!:eek:

Speaking of Virgil Ross, how many cartoons did he animate under Bob Clampett's supervision? I know he did animate on some of his early MM cartoons.

Frank~

I don't think I can give you a definitive answer on how many cartoons Virgil animated under Clampett. The last four cartoons directed by Tex Avery (I'm including "Wabbit Twouble") would have all had Clampett basically functioning as a nursemaid on them.

Virgil Ross only ever received SCREEN CREDIT on 2 Bob Clampett cartoons ("Nutty News" and "Eatin' On The Cuff") both from 1942. Virgil stated unequivocally that he animated on "Coal Black And De Sebben Dwarfs" (rel. Jan. '43) despite the credit going to Rod Scribner (who probably deserved it for drawing the animation layouts for the whole cartoon). Okay, sometime in this period is when Clampett got rid of Sid Sutherland as his name turns up one last and final time in the July 1942 release "Wacky Blackouts" (so once and for all, despite Bob lying and blaming Tex, it was indeed Bob who got rid of Sutherland). Ross knew that he was unwelcome with Clampett as well. In point of fact the rotation cycle mysteriously changes about the time of "Coal Black...", suddenly Scribner is credited twice in a row, and only he and Bob McKimson screen credit until the Spring of 1944 (Phil Monroe (in 'floater animator' status received one credit as well in that period).

Virgil stated that the FIRST Freleng cartoon he animated on was "Bugs Bunny Nips The Nips", but that didn't come out till April 1944. Sooooo there's OVER a YEAR GAP between "Coal Black..." and "Bugs Bunny Nips..." with nary a single credit for Virgil Ross in either the Clampett or Freleng unit (or in either of the other directors). I know for a fact that Tom McKimson worked on some late 1943 Clampett releases, was he taking Sutherland's place or Virgil's??

Concluding this now, I feel only comfortable giving Virgil Ross credit on the Clampett cartoons of 1942 to early '43, from "Horton Hatches The Egg" through "Coal Black And De Sebben Dwarfs". Sooooo in other words we can safely say that 9 (nine) Clampett cartoons (besides those last four Avery films) had Virgil Ross animation.

Any of our keen-eyed animation-style friends should take a glance at the Clampett toons of '43 and early '44 to search for Ross... And for that matter at ANY of the Schlesinger films of that period, as Virgil may VERY LIKELY, like Phil Monroe and Shamus Culhane been functioning in "floater-animator status". Clampett by that time was borrowing animators right and left (Art Davis, I. Ellis, Shamus Culhane etc.) to fill the huge gap he'd created within the former-Avery unit.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Any of our keen-eyed animation-style friends should take a glance at the Clampett toons of '43 and early '44 to search for Ross....

In Corny Concerto (c. 1943) I believe it was Virgil Ross who animated the part where Bugs tied the dog's tail to a tree just as it started running.

[Jaime_Weinman]

Ross also animated some scenes in "Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid," including the first conversation between Bugs and Beaky.

[Sogturtle]

Originally Posted by Sogturtle

Any of our keen-eyed animation-style friends should take a glance at the Clampett toons of '43 and early '44 to search for Ross....

In Corny Concerto (c. 1943) I believe it was Virgil Ross who animated the part where Bugs tied the dog's tail to a tree just as it started running.

Ross also animated some scenes in "Bugs Bunny Gets the Boid," including the first conversation between Bugs and Beaky.

OKay fellers, thanks for the input:):) (though "Bugs Bunny Gets The Boid" coming before "Coal Black..." would've certainly had Ross animation). Here's how it shapes up as of right now...

Virgil Ross animation for Bob Clampett...

Horton Hatches The Egg--rel. April 1942
Wacky Wabbit
Nutty News [Virgil Ross credited]
Wacky Blackouts
Bugs Bunny Gets The Boid
Eatin' On The Cuff [Virgil Ross credited]
The Hep Cat
A Tale Of Two Kitties
Coal Black And De Sebben Dwarfs--rel. Jan. 1943

--A Corny Concerto--[possible Ross animation of tail-tying scene]

Calling Larry T.!!!! Where ARE you?!?!?:D

[rbl100]

The bottom line in all this is simple... Society has become impatient, anxious and accustomed to less. There once was a time when effort, pride, patience, diligence, and caring for something great, flowed among workers in this great nation. No longer do we see time and detail injected into most finished products of any kind in this day. Every company wants to beat the competition to the market, putting product and services out in a haphazard way, sacrificing long term durability, quality, elegance and class. Look at the homes from long ago… The detail and workmanship in the woodwork, the man-hours needed to complete those structures were incredible. Look closely when watching a movie or series on cable or TV… Notice how as soon as the credits start rolling at the end, the broadcasters immediately crop the picture, split the screen, compress the picture all to advertise the next show or upcoming event. What happened to gradually letting the audience gravitate away from the ending slowly, while the credits go by with a tune playing. Instead of abruptly startling the audience and adding to dysfunction in society by forcing the audiences attention to what is next. I do not appreciate this at all. It is also a fact that a half hour show used to have 25 mins. of show and 5 mins. of commercials back as late as the early eighties. Now a half hour show has about 18 mins. of show and 12 mins. of commercials. When was the last time anyone saw a driver on the roadways expressing patience, yielding, or displaying courtesy to other drivers? As a New York driver all I see is a battle every day to get from point A to point B. Everyone seems to try to get ahead of everyone else to the front which when driving on the roads does not exist… There is no front. Everybody passes, switches lanes every 10 seconds, tailgates and so on. What ever happened to pacing yourself and driving calmly with such a dangerous machine? If one is late, try leaving earlier for your destination… duh. In conclusion, the breakdown of patience in our society is not just seen in the production of the cartoons of this day, which are abhorrent as far as content and quality. It is seen all around in what we buy, use, and do. No longer will we have a comfortable pace that we can all enjoy to project patience, courtesy, proper manners and caring for others as long as we get caught up in the rat race and continue to believe the slogan… ‘Want it now’ instead of saving up to get something better in the future through sacrifice, effort and hard work. I am sad to say the Golden Age type toons will never again be created with the same hard work by masters of the craft as they were in that time period.:(

[Ray Pointer]

In response to the wonderful analysis of the loss of quality in our society, in keeping with the topic of discussion I think this issue boils down to the actual management of time. The classic cartoons of the past were largely time managed by necessity. There were certain short cuts taken from time to time, but it is agreeded that there was more of an allowance for time in their production. All of this changed due to television due to its demands and low budgets. The application of 1950s graphic design styles was more of an artistic decision, it was an ecomonic and time efficiency decision as well. You will notice that there are fewer drawings in the more stylized cartoons made after 1953, particularly those of Warners, MGM, and Famous Studios. The move towards flat graphic design animation was cheaper and faster to produce with few drawings and simple backgrounds with applications of flat colors with selected texture. These steps cut the production process down to four weeks or less for theatricals, and one week for television production. And as theatrical cartoons started to more closely resember television product the time was cut even shorter.

In the past decade, the production time for television series became a bit more generous. In the late 1970s, I worked in a small studio supplying eight minute, and later three minute segments to a show for ABC called ANIMALS, ANIMALS, ANIMALS. Each step of production was one week. One week in animation, one week in Ink and Paint, one week in camera, which usually took three to five days. We generally hit the air in three to four weeks.

When I was on CatDog at Nickelodeon we had a finished cartoon after 12 weeks. The schedule was later pushed to eight weeks. Scripts were written in one to two weeks. Storyboards were in production four to six weeks.
Layout for two to three weeks, directing one week. The first cartoon took
six months to be delivered, but once the initial 12 week process was in place,
the camera negatives and prints were coming in from Korea every three months, then two months. So by the above examples, the issues of economics and the pressures of commercialism seemed to dictate the amount of time necessary, resulting in the quality of the product. Then too, the concepts as developed by the creators has a great deal to do with the quality that no amount of time can improve upon if the concept was bad from the start.

[Geezil]

[...]So by the above examples, the issues of economics and the pressures of commercialism seemed to dictate the amount of time necessary, resulting in the quality of the product. Then too, the concept as developed by the creators has a great deal to do with the quality that no amount of time can improve upon if the concept is bad from the start.

Well put in every way.

[Frank]

In response to the wonderful analysis of the loss of quality in our society, in keeping with the topic of discussion I think this issue boils down to the actual management of time. The classic cartoons of the past were largely time managed by necessity. There were certain short cuts taken from time to time, but it is agreeded that there was more of an allowance for time in their production. All of this changed due to television due to its demands and low budgets. The application of 1950s graphic design styles was more of an artistic decision, it was an ecomonic and time efficiency decision as well. You will notice that there are fewer drawings in the more stylized cartoons made after 1953, particularly those of Warners, MGM, and Famous Studios. The move towards flat graphic design animation was cheaper and faster to produce with few drawings and simple backgrounds with applications of flat colors with selected texture. These steps cut the production process down to four weeks or less for theatricals, and one week for television production. And as theatrical cartoons started to more closely resember television product the time was cut even shorter.

Speaking of Tom and Jerry, it looks like as early as Neapoliatian Mouse, they were obviously trying to hold down costs. The cost cutting got more obvious as T&J went into Cinemascope. By 1958 the art and animation in the T&J series had dropped down to its cheapest level. Did production times for Tom and Jerry cartoons drop during the 1950s? I mean the simpler UPA style art design had to have saved some time and money and would have been somewhat quicker to produce than the older more detailed designs of the 1940's and early 1950's.