Pre/post 1948 cartoons continued (was Golden Collection News))

[Kevin McCorry]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Weinman

Well, I suspect that the contents are another compromise between the historical/archival stuff and the marketing/character-based demands of Warners. That is, the people who put together the set would presumably prefer to emphasize particular directors, chronological development of the cartoons, etc., while WB (with an eye on sales) would probably prefer to emphasize popular series characters. So the contents feature lots of pre-'48s, lots of animation-buff favorites, but also big chunks of characters who are familiar from Saturday morning repeats, like the Road Runner and Tweety.

Are the cartoons that were shown on Saturday mornings somehow not legitimate animation buff favorites? For that matter, are the post-1948 cartoons, including character series like Tweety and Road Runner, not legitimate favorites for animation buffs?

The main reason I'm buying this set *is* for the Road Runner and Tweety cartoons and the post-1948 Bugs Bunnies, plus "One Froggy Evening" and other cartoons like "The Three Little Bops", "Cheese Chasers", and "Mouse Wreckers". Of additional but not primary interest are the Freleng '40s Bugs Bunny cartoons like "Rhapsody Rabbit". The other cartoons in the set are curiosities.

I have yet to find a post-1948 Tweety cartoon on our Region 1 releases that was not on one of the three I Love Tweety Japanese DVDs. Still, I feel they're worthwhile content for this collection, and hopefully the commentary on "Ain't She Tweet" will be specific to that cartoon and to Freleng's Tweety series and not another 6-minute accolade for "A Tale of Two Kitties".

Originally Posted by Jamie_Weinman

While I think 11 Road Runners in a row will be a bit much even for kids to take in one sitting,

Agreed, but won't the kiddies be mostly getting the Spotlight Collection, which will probably port over only a partial selection, if any, of the Road Runner cartoons? And I return to my first question here. Are not the Road Runner cartoons of interest to legitimate animation buffs, i.e. people who can appreciate the stylistic spread of the Road Runner cartoons over the fifties.

Originally Posted by Jamie_Weinman

I do think from experience that the Road Runner/Coyote and Tweety/Sylvester are extremely popular, both with kids and non-animation-buff parents

Again, can't animation buffs appreciate these cartoons?

As regards the popularity of these cartoons, I do sometimes wonder about that. Once upon a time I used to think they were popular, but since coming onto the Internet in 1996, I've seen little more than put-downs of these cartoons.

Originally Posted by Jamie_Weinman

and I think these selections will be very popular and help the set sell well, and besides, there are some great cartoons in the Tweety section that aren't as familiar as they should be (like the hilarious "Snow Business," which I almost never saw growing up).

I agree that "Snow Business" is an brilliant entry in the Tweety and Sylvester series. Freleng and Foster excelled at creating situations of nervous tension for Sylvester, with Tweety as his ultimate craving, and foil.

Originally Posted by Jamie_Weniman

I do agree that considering Daffy's popularity, it's surprising that there's not more of him this time around (maybe the inclusion of the new Daffy short is meant to make up for this in part),

Well, Daffy did share a whole disc of Golden Collection 1 with Porky, and had a couple of selections on the All-Star discs as well.

Originally Posted by Jamie_Weinman

but there are several very popular characters who are under-represented this time, and are probably being held in reserve for future volumes. I suspect we'll see a bunch of Yosemite Sam cartoons on a future volume, since there's only one Bugs/Sam cartoon this time out.

I'm hoping Volume 3 will have coverage of the Foghorn Leghorn series similar to what we're seeing here with Road Runner and Tweety, and, yes, more Yosemite Sam cartoons, including "Knighty Knight Bugs". Pepe and Speedy could be represented also, with a few more cartoons, and then maybe, in Volume 4, we'll see discs mainly dedicated to them.

I'm surprised I'm the only person concerned that these discs might be DVD-14 or DVD-18 flippers, which are much more prone to layer failure, cracking at the more fragile hubs, and scratches. And I do speak from experience. I've got three cracked and/or delaminated Battlestar Galactica set DVDs and a freezing and skipping Flintstones Season 1 Volume 4 disc to prove it.

[guy incognito]

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

Are the cartoons that were shown on Saturday mornings somehow not legitimate animation buff favorites? For that matter, are the post-1948 cartoons, including character series like Tweety and Road Runner, not legitimate favorites for animation buffs?

Jaime was responding to the question of why those characters are so heavily represented on the new set. Certainly the post-'48 stuff featured on Saturday morning TV for so many years is as "legit" as any other classic animation, but the point was that those shorts--unlike something like, say, The Daffy Doc--also attract lots of people who *aren't* animation buffs. You can bet Warner is aware of this, which explains why there's so much RR and Tweety on the set.

I don't have a problem with it at all, other than the nagging fear that they'll use up too many of the "crowd-pleasing" titles early on and thus reduce the potential for sales of future volumes.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

Are the cartoons that were shown on Saturday mornings somehow not legitimate animation buff favorites? For that matter, are the post-1948 cartoons, including character series like Tweety and Road Runner, not legitimate favorites for animation buffs?

One could turn that question around and ask why anyone would think the pre 1948 cartoons don't have enough popular appeal to stand on thier own - why do they need the Road Runner and Coyote to appeal to average people?

But the answer to both questions is how the cartoons were packaged for TV. Most average people grew up with the post 1948 cartoons, and thus love them more. Popular mainstream things get backlash. The pre 1948 cartoons are familiar in animation buff circles, but are unknown to many average people. It's unfortunate because a lot of later cartoons do deserve some critical attention, and many earlier cartoons are much more than "curiosities," but are actually quite definitive.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

The main reason I'm buying this set *is* for the Road Runner and Tweety cartoons and the post-1948 Bugs Bunnies, plus "One Froggy Evening" and other cartoons like "The Three Little Bops", "Cheese Chasers", and "Mouse Wreckers". Of additional but not primary interest are the Freleng '40s Bugs Bunny cartoons like "Rhapsody Rabbit". The other cartoons in the set are curiosities.

Are you saying that you don't like the pre-48 cartoons? I'm not challenging your opinion but I find it interesting and surprising to hear that someone doesn't want to buy this set for old cartoons that look pretty faded and losing colour that are now completely remastered.

I like the pre-48 cartoons and the post-48 cartoons equally myself.

Originally Posted by Jack

It's unfortunate because a lot of later cartoons do deserve some critical attention, and many earlier cartoons are much more than "curiosities," but are actually quite definitive.

I completely agree with you. I don't like it when people say that the later Jones' cartoons 'define' the character's personalities. Friz Freleng's 1940s Daffy has a much more deep personality than the one in "Ali Baba Bunny", just as an example.

[Kevin McCorry]

Originally Posted by Jack

One could turn that question around and ask why anyone would think the pre 1948 cartoons don't have enough popular appeal to stand on thier own - why do they need the Road Runner and Coyote to appeal to average people?

Obviously they can stand on their own, as they sold well when MGM was selling them on VHS. But with Warner now owning the whole kit and kaboodle, surely the company's not going to limit any DVD release to pre-1948 cartoons, telling the people like myself who happen to favor the post-1948s, sorry,
maybe next time. Particularly as most of the signiature characters (the icons of the classic Warner cartoon line) have most- if not all- of their cartoons in the post-1948 range. ..... Who knows? Maybe it will. I don't know.

As far as Road Runner and Coyote are concerned, is it not their turn to dominate a disc, after Porky and Daffy had a disc of their own first time around with Road Runner and Coyote limited to one cartoon? Sylvester and Tweety had a slightly better representation in Volume 1, but still were due to be highlighted on a disc. Hopefully, Foghorn, Pepe, and Speedy will receive similar treatment, and the fact that most if not all of their cartoons are post-1948 oughtn't be to the detriment of such an arrangement.

Originally Posted by Jack

But the answer to both questions is how the cartoons were packaged for TV. Most average people grew up with the post 1948 cartoons, and thus love them more.

Here in Canada, that seems to be the case, but I'm increasingly under the impression that the opposite is the prevailing condition south of the border.
Or maybe it is the backlash that I'm seeing. The notion that the post-1948 cartoons are popular mainstream was something I'd accept as gospel 8 years ago. But my experience on the Internet has told a much different story.

Originally Posted by Jack

pre 1948 cartoons are familiar in animation buff circles, but are unknown to many average people.

It would appear from the contact I've received on the Internet over the last 8 years that most people are more familiar with the pre-1948 package. I've lately been wondering if Saturday morning ratings for CBS and ABC were in error and viewership of the Saturday morning show was much lower than reported and that TBS and stations like that were the key medium by which the vast majority of Americans were introduced and raised on Bugs and the gang.

Originally Posted by Jack

It's unfortunate because a lot of later cartoons do deserve some critical attention, and many earlier cartoons are much more than "curiosities," but are actually quite definitive.

I said that to me they are personal curiosities. They're interesting to see every now and then, but no emotional or intellectual attachment. They
are evidently much more than that to other cartoon buffs, and that's fine. As long as my own preference is not trivialized in sweeping statement. As long as the post-1948s can be said to be on the DVDs to appeal to appreciative cartoon aficionados like myself as well as the kids and their non-cartoon buff parents, and the cartoons of interest to cartoon buffs are not said to be limited to the pre-1948 period.

Originally Posted by Nick

Are you saying that you don't like the pre-48 cartoons?

It is true I've been liking them less and less since coming onto the Net. You might call it something of a backlash on my part. I saw a whole lot of them for the very first time in the early '90s and thought they were all right. Although I got a good laugh out of some of them, few of them really jumped out at me, engaged me emotionally or aesthetically. I didn't appreciate the way the characters were acting, or the less abstract and somehow drab looking backgrounds. Film print condition didn't help, but I don't think it was much of a factor in and of itself. As it turns out, I've been inspired a whole lot more by what I've seen of the post-1948 cartoons as they appeared on network TV, how they were compiled on the TV shows, and so on. As my insights have more or less been dismissed online and I was more or less told that, no, these cartoons you grew up with and lived with for 30 years and now love are no longer where it's at; these earlier ones are better; you should now fancy these instead, I guess a backlash reaction was inevitable. And the fact those earlier cartoons have no nostalgic connection to my treasured youthful past doesn't help.

Having said all this, I do in fact like a sizeable number of the pre-1948 cartoons, particularly the ones closest to 1948 where the characters look and act fairly close to what I've grown used to and in which there's rather more
inventiveness to the settings and situations, and a few others of earlier years ("Rhapsody in Rivets", for instance, is brilliant, and I can't wait to see its eventual DVD release).

Originally Posted by Nick

I'm not challenging your opinion but I find it interesting and surprising to hear that someone doesn't want to buy this set for old cartoons that look pretty faded and losing colour that are now completely remastered.

It's nice, of course, to see the improved picture quality, clarity and color, but after watching the new transfers of the earlier cartoons once or twice, I don't feel compelled to watch them again, whereas I'm again and again all over the later cartoons on DVD, marvelling at the detail and crispness and enjoying them with that much more vigor. Improved print color on the earlier cartoons is nice, but as I lack an emotional connection with those cartoons to start with, it doesn't really stir up a good deal of compulsion to rewatch. And depth of color is but one aspect of the look of the cartoons. There is, after all, the mixing and juxtaposing of color, background and character design, animating style, and story premise, structure, and pace. The colors may be deep and vibrant, but if the style of their presentation in the picture doesn't hold much appeal, then I'm still going to be partial to watching, responding to, and contemplating the later cartoons. I really had to push myself to sit through "Elmer's Candid Camera", "Bugs Bunny and the Three Bears", etc.. Even with those beautifully restored prints.

Originally Posted by Nick

I like the pre-48 cartoons and the post-48 cartoons equally myself.

Can't argue with that. I wish I shared that taste. But I seem unable to.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

As far as Road Runner and Coyote are concerned, is it not their turn to dominate a disc, after Porky and Daffy had a disc of their own first time around with Road Runner and Coyote limited to one cartoon? Sylvester and Tweety had a slightly better representation in Volume 1, but still were due to be highlighted on a disc. Hopefully, Foghorn, Pepe, and Speedy will receive similar treatment, and the fact that most if not all of their cartoons are post-1948 oughtn't be to the detriment of such an arrangement.

I never said they didn't deserve it.... I didn't grow up seeing only a fraction of the WB output, I saw black and white cartoons, pre 1948 cartoons, post 48 cartoons, and even post 1964 cartoons sicne my family had cable - so I have fondness for a wide array of cartoons (and a lack of fondness for others...), mostly loving the cartoons from the late 30's to the mid 1950's.

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

Here in Canada, that seems to be the case, but I'm increasingly under the impression that the opposite is the prevailing condition south of the border.

No, it's the same here, though to a lesser extent. I regularly run into people who have never seen a pre-1948 cartoon. It's only at online message boards (which usually aren't a good indicator of what everyone everywhere thinks) like this, where the members have sought out or have been exposed to the pre 1948 cartoons that there is a lot of fondness for them. Read the many Golden Collection Vol. 1 reviews that appeared in newspapers and you'll get what more mainstream people think. I don't think I saw any reviews that gave attention to the hanful of pre 1948 cartoons, but praised the 1950's Chuck Jones entries and complained about the lack of "What's Opera Doc?"

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

Or maybe it is the backlash that I'm seeing. The notion that the post-1948 cartoons are popular mainstream was something I'd accept as gospel 8 years ago. But my experience on the Internet has told a much different story.

I experiences the exact opposite when I first came online. I remember reading some really cruel reviews of the Golden Age of Looney Tunes sets because they didn't have any of the classics on them, and lacked the Road Runner. These people completely overlooked the numerous classics that did appear.

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

It would appear from the contact I've received on the Internet over the last 8 years that most people are more familiar with the pre-1948 package. I've lately been wondering if Saturday morning ratings for CBS and ABC were in error and viewership of the Saturday morning show was much lower than reported and that TBS and stations like that were the key medium by which the vast majority of Americans were introduced and raised on Bugs and the gang.

As I said before, the post 48 package is the most well-known still. I myself watched both packages and didn't notice a startling difference. It was the early early 30's cartoons and the cartoons made from the mid/late 50's onward that seemed the most different, with the late 30's-mid 50's cartoons being my favorites.

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

Having said all this, I do in fact like a sizeable number of the pre-1948 cartoons, particularly the ones closest to 1948 where the characters look and act fairly close to what I've grown used to and in which there's rather more
inventiveness to the settings and situations, and a few others of earlier years ("Rhapsody in Rivets", for instance, is brilliant, and I can't wait to see its eventual DVD release).

I must admit I don't see the drab backgorunds and off-characterizations you see. The backgrounds in Friz Freleng's cartoons didn't change much at all between 1942 and 1952 in terms of looks and colors (if anything, they got a little less abstract), while Chuck Jones' cartoons from 1942-1945 are more abstract than the cartoons made between 1948-1953.

As for the characters, it depends how you look at them. In my opinion, the "mature" years of WB cartoons started in 1942/43. It was this time that Bugs and Daffy were defined in both personality and design, and characters created after this time were pretty much fully formed in their initial appearances. I can see someone being turned off to the early Robert Givens Bugs Bunny design, but anything after that is too nitpicky. The difference Between the look of 1943 Bugs Bunny and 1953 Bugs Bunny isn't as jarring when compared to the Bugs Bunny in a cartoon like "Transylvania 6-5000."

At any rate, I imagine that when the next golden Collection comes out most reviewers will focus on the Chuck Jones cartoons included.


Jack

[Jaime_Weinman]

I've been inspired a whole lot more by what I've seen of the post-1948 cartoons as they appeared on network TV, how they were compiled on the TV shows, and so on. As my insights have more or less been dismissed online and I was more or less told that, no, these cartoons you grew up with and lived with for 30 years and now love are no longer where it's at; these earlier ones are better; you should now fancy these instead, I guess a backlash reaction was inevitable. And the fact those earlier cartoons have no nostalgic connection to my treasured youthful past doesn't help.

Kevin, while I appreciate and enjoy your analysis of the later cartoons, I'd point out that your attitude toward the earlier cartoons is much more "extreme" than almost anybody's attitude toward the later ones. Yeah, I've encountered a few Clampett-firsters who basically dismiss everything made after Clampett's departure (with the possible exception of Art Davis's cartoons) as a sad breach of the faith. But I haven't encountered many of them on this board or the last board. In other words, you seem to dismiss the pre-'48s much more than most people here would ever dismiss the post-'48s, since I daresay most people here, even those with an overall preference for the earlier stuff, would be able to name a lot of favorites from the late '40s and early '50s.

Look, it's not surprising that critics would pay more attention to the earlier cartoons. It's not just that the earlier cartoons are "wackier" or have broader animation, it's just that there's more to talk about. From 1948 to 1964, you've basically got Jones, Freleng and McKimson (plus one last year of Art Davis). Great directors all. But discuss 1946, and you've got Jones, Freleng and McKimson plus Bob Clampett, the last of Frank Tashlin and the first of Art Davis. You've got the end of the wartime cartoons and the beginning of the postwar era. Go back a little earlier and you've got Tex Avery to talk about. That's not a conspiracy against the post-'48 era, just an acknowledgement of the fact that the studio had more directors making more cartoons in the '40s. (Also, critics naturally gravitate to "experimental" cartoons -- like "Dover Boys" or "Coal Black" -- and there were more experiments and one-shots in the '40s, whereas in the '50s the studio was concentrating more on series cartoons, which are harder to analyze. But a highly unusual or experimental cartoon from the '50s, like "One Froggy Evening" or "What's Opera Doc," will get just as much critical attention as anything from the pre-'48 era.)

Finally, I think the whole pre-'48/post-'48 division is basically bunkum anyway. There are several dividing lines in WB cartoon history: Avery's departure, Clampett's departure, the firing of Art Davis, the shakeups around 1950/51 (with the budgets shrinking, the length of the cartoons shrinking, and McKimson and Freleng "trading" story men), the 3-D shutdown, the departure of Maltese and Foster. None of these things coincides exactly with the start of what is described as the post-'48 era (Davis's last cartoons as a director appeared in 1949, so that comes the closest). The only reason 1948-1964 is considered some kind of coherent "era" in and of itself is because that's the era that Warners still owned and was able to package for TV. But honestly a cartoon like "Daffy Dilly" has much more in common with a cartoon from 1942 than a cartoon from 1963, both in terms of time period and style. I grew up on the Saturday Morning packages too, but I do think it's a mistake to analyze the cartoons based on the way they were packaged for TV, because they are films, not TV shows, and should be analyzed that way. (I'm not pointing the finger at you, Kevin, because you've done some very fine and interesting analysis of '50s cartoons as stand-alone films.) And I think that now that we're about to get a DVD set that finally includes a more or less equal number of post-'48s and pre-'48, including a Bugs Bunny disc arranged chronologically from the early '40s to the late '50s, it's really time to drop the idea of two separate eras of WB cartoons, because it no longer holds true. There are separate eras of WB cartoons, but the dividing line is no longer in 1948; that was an artificial partition created by Warners and the people who bought their early film library. Sort of like all the trouble caused by the British dividing up the Middle East.

[Kevin McCorry]

Originally Posted by Jack

No, it's the same here, though to a lesser extent. I regularly run into people who have never seen a pre-1948 cartoon. It's only at online message boards (which usually aren't a good indicator of what everyone everywhere thinks) like this, where the members have sought out or have been exposed to the pre 1948 cartoons that there is a lot of fondness for them.

Yes, I can't dispute that. The facts speak for themselves. What I find quite perplexing, though, is that if the post-1948s are as popular as they've been said to be, why it hasn't translated into some appreciable level of interest and support on message boards. Even if the level of support is markedly lower than in the public at large, it shouldn't end up being a small
minority. The only person who seems to be of my preference or persusion, in this discussion anyway, is me.

This being the case, it is understandable that some might say that it's the pre-1948s that are for the animation buffs.

Read the many Golden Collection Vol. 1 reviews that appeared in newspapers and you'll get what more mainstream people think. I don't think I saw any reviews that gave attention to the hanful of pre 1948 cartoons, but praised the 1950's Chuck Jones entries and complained about the lack of "What's Opera Doc?"

It could be that the pre-1948s on the first volume weren't the stand-out
ones that merited special mention (quite a few of the post-1948s on Volume 1 weren't mentioned either). Volume 2 will have a lot of those. I saw one newspaper atticle online a day or two ago about the coming second volume
and it of course mentioned "What's Opera, Doc?" and "One Froggy Evening" but also "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery", "Porky in Wackyland", "Old Glory",
and other pre-1948s, as well as "French Rarebit" and "Hyde and Hare".

Originally Posted by Jack

I experiences the exact opposite when I first came online. I remember reading some really cruel reviews of the Golden Age of Looney Tunes sets because they didn't have any of the classics on them, and lacked the Road Runner. These people completely overlooked the numerous classics that did appear.

I'd be interested to see them, just out of curiosity. Most of the discussion I've come across about the laserdiscs mention only the GAOLT discs and didn't even acknowledge, or if they did only in a cursory fashion, the 12 single-disc Warner releases.

As I said before, the post 48 package is the most well-known still. I myself watched both packages and didn't notice a startling difference. It was the early early 30's cartoons and the cartoons made from the mid/late 50's onward that seemed the most different, with the late 30's-mid 50's cartoons being my favorites.

I guess you'd have to be raised almost entirely on one set for the first 25 or so years of your life on network TV and then sit down and watch the other set on independent TV stations or public domain videotapes. The difference seems plain as day. Only time as a kid I ever saw pre-1948 cartoons was "Hare Trigger" and "Along Came Daffy" on CBC in 1974 as filler after an unexpectly short football game on a Sunday afternoon. I knew intuitively that these cartoons would never be seen on The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour, which I'd been watching on CBC for several years. I don't know how I knew; I just did. And it wasn't the film print quality. At least I don't think so. CBC's film prints were always of a very high standard, and I don't remember the prints of these two cartoons looking all that haggard.

I saw "Hyde and Hare" in 1972 (syndie package), and that one strangely enough DIDN'T feel like a cartoon I'd expect to see on The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour. For quite awhile (virtually until it turned up in French one night in 1989 on a Bugs Bunny et ses amis show), I thought it to be 15 minutes long (that's how it had been slotted back in '72), some kind of dark Bugs Bunny special.

I later saw "Racketeer Rabbit", "Hare Force" and a few others on WLBZ Bangor's My Backyard show and thought the same thing again. That these were a different breed of Warner Bros. cartoon. Still later I saw syndie packaged prints of "Rabbit Hood", "Napoleon Bunny-Part", "Hurdy-Gurdy Hare", "Guided Muscle", "Which is Witch?", and "Bowery Bugs" on WLBZ and remember thinking that these cartoons (except for "Bowery Bugs", which seemed a bit different) could be on The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show and puzzling over why they weren't.

But it wasn't until I stumbled upon public domain tapes in the video rental age
(late '80s) and discovered "Wacky Wabbit", "Falling Hare", and other really early cartoons that I knew there was a distinctly different large set of cartoons, with these ones evidently being completely excluded from network TV broadcast for some reason. I couldn't understand why the post-1948 syndies weren't on network TV but I seemed to think that these earlier ones didn't fit the network show, and that's why they were excluded.

I didn't learn about the AAP deal, Ted Turner, and all of that until I was almost 25, and wasn't exposed en masse to pre-1948s until our cable TV company started offering TBS in 1992. By then, the stylistic difference was
glaring to my eyes.

I must admit I don't see the drab backgorunds and off-characterizations you see. The backgrounds in Friz Freleng's cartoons didn't change much at all between 1942 and 1952 in terms of looks and colors (if anything, they got a little less abstract), while Chuck Jones' cartoons from 1942-1945 are more abstract than the cartoons made between 1948-1953.

Even if I could put into words the different visual style I perceive (and I don't think I can, not much beyond what I've said already), it would still, I guess, not be convincing. The UPA style of design to express character would be a good starting point, but it doesn't apply to all post-1948 cartoons, or even most of them. I do, for example, find the ship in "Mutiny On the Bunny" to be a more detailed and even more inviting setting than the ship in "Buccaneer Bunny". It's still unconvincing, unless you can actually see my perceived difference in style yourself, even provisionally.

But where characterization is concerned, yes, I can certainly articulate that.

Sylvester. The Sylvester in the post-1948 cartoons is a victim. A desperate victim. At times a mentally anguished victim. Victim of Tweety, of Speedy, of Hippety Hopper, of bulldogs, various mice, a kitten, and an abusive little girl. In McKimson's cartoons, he's a victim. In Freleng's cartoons, he's a victim. And in Jones' cartoons pairing him with Porky, which admittedly portray Sylvester in a manner significantly different from the Freleng-McKimson Sylvester, Sylvester still usually gets the worst of it. In 3 pre-1948 cartoons, "Kitty Kornered", "Doggone Cats", and "Back Alley Op-Roar", Sylvester is not victim but heckler. He heckles. No, no, no, no. I just don't get that. That's not the Sylvester I know. It could be any old cat. "Back Alley Op-Roar" is actually a remake of a cartoon, "Notes to You", where it *was* any old cat doing the heckling. In another cartoon, "Catch as Cats Can", though he is a loser, Sylvester doesn't sound like the Sylvester I know. Off-putting? Yes.

Tweety. Well, I think it goes without saying that Clampett's Tweety is a far cry from Freleng's. When I saw him pull a worm out of an apple and eat it and break into a wide grin, I thought, nah. The Tweety I grew up with doesn't grin much at all. His beak is petit, and so is his grin. An exception might be "Home Tweet Home". But his grin in that cartoon is meant to endear himself to his protector in the park. He daintily eats bird seed out of a bowl. And if he sees a worm, he thinks it's spaghetti to be protected from chickens. That's the Tweety I know and love. When I heard him bellow, "Put out those lights!", I thought, nah. The Tweety I know doesn't shout. Even when transformed into a Hyde monster, he may cackle and laugh dementedly, but he doesn't shout. Tweety can be sadistic and physically aggressive but only because he's been provoked by an attempt on his life (like in "Home Tweet Home" when he's pounding Sylvester's butt with a stick after Sylvester has tried to eat him) and then in proportion to his size. Whacking Sylvester with a stick is one thing, but with a full-size shovel in "Tweetie Pie"? No.

Bugs. The Bugs I know wouldn't pull out a gun and shoot someone in the audience for coughing. He might hold up a sign saying, "Throw the bum out," but he wouldn't attempt to maim or murder a member of his own audience. Not without sufficient provocation. And coughing ain't sufficient motivation. The hotheaded little conductor in the Pink Panther cartoon, "Pink, Plunk, Plink", does the same thing. That I can believe. But Bugs Bunny? Not on your life. The Bugs I know wouldn't trick Elmer Fudd into a grave and then, cackling, cruelly compound the deed by shovelling the dirt in to bury Elmer alive. If he did, at the very least he'd say, "Ah, I can't do it, I just can't do it. I couldn't do it to the nimrod." Nor would he dupe a dog into wishing it were dead and then provide the gun for the dog to do the deed- or worse still, do the deed himself. And what's with a cartoon taking place underwater? There are some physical laws that I always was led to believe still applied to Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies. Bugs *is* underwater in "Water, Water Every Hare", but not for very long. Foghorn Leghorn says in "A Fractured Leghorn" that he needs air. Sylvester needs an air tube in "Tugboat Granny" as does Ralph Wolf in "Don't Give Up the Sheep". Pepe Le Pew is a skunk and can hold his breath for a long time, granted. But the exception is expressly stated.

Bugs as the Masked Marauder? And bellowing, "Stink you fool, stink!" Nah, don't buy it. Bugs even saying the words, "You fool." Nope. And I've never liked the Cecil Turtle cartoons. That's not the Bugs I know. Losing not because he deserves to by a weakness or vice of his own, or even because he made a mistaken assumption. He loses because the turtle always wins. It's futility for Bugs. No matter what he does, he has to lose. I just don't like the scenario. The Bugs I know may lose, but only by way of some shamefully indulged vice of his own. The Bugs I know is self-assured and confident. He should not lose a race against that smug, cocky turtle. I just don't like the Cecil Turtle cartoons. They wrong-foot me every time I see them. Bugs is set up to lose right off the bat, because he's in the tale of The Tortoise and the Hare. I understand the intention to use that tale as a basis for a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I see how it sprung to mind, but I don't think they should have gone ahead with it, much less make 3 cartoons about it. Bugs seems to fit into every historio-literary scenario he's put in- and they were most inventive in doing that post-1948. All but this one. Ultimately, I can only just assimilate these cartoons into my conception of Bugs by saying they're part of Bugs' youth, where anything goes as Bugs is still learning. But I still don't like 'em.

Daffy. The Daffy I grew to know is an overweening, self-aggrandizing, or plain greedy loser, sometimes a heckler, but with the understanding on the viewer's part that if he heckles he could very well get it in the end, finish up in bad shape. And if he doesn't, it was probably because his opponent deserved to lose even more than he did. That smug, muscular duck in "Muscle Tussle", for instance. Daffy is really a complex character. He can win sometimes if he's set up to do so by the story and doesn't go overboard in his methods. He can can be greedy but also cowardly. He can stand up to hunters and yet, if he goes too far, end up with his beak blasted off. He doesn't just jump around going, "Woo, woo, woo." Bugs and Daffy are almost interchangeable rambunctious hecklers in many pre-1948 cartoons.

"The Stupid Cupid". Straight-and-narrow Elmer as the impish Cupid? Elmer?!? That's a case, it seems to me, of casting a character to a part because he looks the part. And while we're on the subject of Elmer's looks. What is that... that thing that's supposed to be Elmer in several early '40s cartoons? These things definitely wrong-footed me on the pre-1948s. And that's beyond the overall visual aspect. In the pre-1948s, Elmer is also too easily driven to hysterics. In his post-1948 cartoons, he's resolute. He gets angry, not despondent. And even when giving in to defeat, he still won't be taken alive. Look at him in "Ant Pasted". When he does crack, it's sudden, after a build-up of years of failure. And even then, it's not with hysterics, but a mental collapse and delusions.

Prissy, bachelor Porky is not a hero in the post-1948s but a put-upon victim, or a hero by default only, because Daffy is failing to do what needs to be done. And even then, Porky is understated. He doesn't cheer. In early cartoons Porky's a cheering hero, and has a girl-friend or wife. They started to make Porky rather prissy and set-upon by pests in the '40s, and that's where my appreciation of his cartoons kicks in.

Pepe. Married, and his French accent a put-on? No, no, no, no. It may be his first cartoon, but I still don't like it.

Foghorn and Sam are very close to what they became, but there are still some notes to their portrayals in their pre-1948 outings that seem a bit off.

As for the minor characters like Sniffles, Babbitt and Catstello, and Conrad Cat. Nope. Don't like 'em. Babbitt and Catstello are simply annoying. The human characters they were based on, likewise. Don't like the Three Bears until "What's Brewin', Bruin?" Never cared for Beaky Buzzard, even in the post-1948 cartoons he's in. Inki and the Minah Bird are all right, but then I was introed to them by "Caveman Inki".

Interestingly, most of the pre-1948s I do hold in higher esteem are those without the regular or even the minor characters. One-shots like "Rhapsody in Rivets", "Pigs in a Polka", "Holiday For Shoestrings", "Bone Sweet Bone", and "A Hick, a Slick, and a Chick".

I remember being quite excited to see "The Impatient Patient" when I saw it on the video store shelf on a public domain video in 1989 and the synopsis told of Daffy meeting Jekyll and Hyde. Wow! This should be good! But once I'd viewed it, I was scratching my head and asking, "What the heck was that?!?"

Ultimately I could only say, these were the early, experimental cartoons, before the style I grew up with and appreciate took hold. And the characters still in their infancy, or early life. I can assimilate them on that basis.

I'm sorry to go on so long about this, but I do feel that at least an attempt of explanation for my POV is in order.

Originally Posted by Jack

As for the characters, it depends how you look at them. In my opinion, the "mature" years of WB cartoons started in 1942/43. It was this time that Bugs and Daffy were defined in both personality and design, and characters created after this time were pretty much fully formed in their initial appearances. I can see someone being turned off to the early Robert Givens Bugs Bunny design, but anything after that is too nitpicky. The difference Between the look of 1943 Bugs Bunny and 1953 Bugs Bunny isn't as jarring when compared to the Bugs Bunny in a cartoon like "Transylvania 6-5000."

I find Bugs in "Transylvania 6-5000" to be indeed quite like the Bugs in, say, "The Hasty Hare" (witness his pose at the end of both cartoons as he talks to I. Frisby and to the "goyles", while leaning out of the flying saucer and out of the window). He's more self-assured in the former (or should I say, latter) case but let's face it, he has the experienced, composed finesse and suavity down pat in the 1952 cartoon also, even as he confusedly asks, "What's biting him?" as Frisby is walking away in convulsion. Contrast that with the early to mid-'40s, where he's screaming "You fools! I'm the rabbit!", or looking up in boyish innocence to the Gildersleeve character as he's being led to the taxidermy room or reacting in exaggerated fear at the image in his mirror and leaping off a building in "Hare Conditioned".

At any rate, I imagine that when the next golden Collection comes out most reviewers will focus on the Chuck Jones cartoons included.

You may be right. Time will tell.

Jamie, I'll respond to your message later tonite. Until then.

[Sean Gaffney]

Originally Posted by Kevin McCorry

Yes, I can't dispute that. The facts speak for themselves. What I find quite perplexing, though, is that if the post-1948s are as popular as they've been said to be, why it hasn't translated into some appreciable level of interest and support on message boards.

Familiarity. We've loved the classic cartoons such as What's Opera, Doc? or Rabbit Seasoning for so long that there's no longer a great need to reiterate the praise we have given. How many times can one go on about Maurice Noble's backgrounds?

Whereas if a cartoon like, say, Greetings Bait gets on a collection, it's a cartoon that wasn't in constant play on the Bugs Bunny shows or in syndication, and you can discuss the reasons for its Academy Award nomination or the influence Jerry Colonna had on the LT and MM cartoons. It hasn't been analysed to death.

We want to see all the cartoons, but there's less of a need with something like What's Opera, Doc? or One Froggy Evening except to admire a masterwork one more time. Just nod at it and make impressed "mmm, mmm" noises.

As for the characterization problems you mentioned, I feel one simply has to hold multiple impressions of characters in your head. The WB characters HAD to contradict themselves, as the directors did so much. Especially in their formative years. The only WB characters I can think of who are note perfect in their debut exactly as they would be in the future are Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn.

But if you try to reconcile Clampett 1943 Bugs with Jones 1957 Bugs, you'll just give yourself a migraine.

[Jaime_Weinman]

Kevin's point of view is always interesting to hear. I'd analyze your point of view, Kevin, as being that you prefer characters to follow certain rules of characterization -- and that leads to a preference for the '50s cartoons, where the characters were narrowed in scope. Chuck Jones came to feel that comedy was better if you gave it more rules and "narrowed" it, whereas Bob Clampett was the opposite; he liked characters to be as broad as possible and to change from cartoon to cartoon if necessary (so Daffy could be a lunatic in one cartoon and a craven coward in the next). If you prefer characters to be broader in terms of what they can do, you'll go for the '40s Bugs and Daffy; if you prefer more rules and consistent characterization, you'll prefer the '50s. (I actually don't go as far as some people on this, because I think you can, too, take a cartoon character "out of character" -- or at least, I don't think Bugs is a very appealing or interesting character in some of Clampett's cartoons, which is my problem with Clampett as a Bugs director.)

While I really hate the idea of evaluating the cartoons by the way they were shown on television ("The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show" is not a real show; it's just a chopped up collection of old films), I do think there's an analogy to be made between the '50s cartoons and a TV show. The '50s cartoons follow more rules and have more consistent characterizations; an entry in the Tweety/Sylvester series offers more or less the same characters every time, like an episode of a TV show. The '40s cartoons are more like stand-alone films that happen to utilize some familiar characters; they don't follow the rules of continuity and consistency that a TV show requires.

I prefer the earlier stuff, ultimately, because I don't think comedy comes from narrowing the scope of a character. Bugs is a far better character in "Haredevil Hare" than in "Hare-Way To the Stars," because in "Haredevil" the writer and the animators put him through every possible emotion and reaction, whereas in "Hare-Way" he's just kind of smug and blase all the way through. To me every character gets duller as he gets more limited; this is true even of the Coyote, who had a wider range of emotions in the first half of the '50s than in the late '50s and '60s. To say that the Sylvester in "Back Alley Oproar" is not the Sylvester we know is not a bad thing, IMO. He moves like Sylvester; he talks like Sylvester; the animators make him physically "act" like Sylvester -- it is Sylvester, except he's in a different mood; he's taking a break from his victim status and having some fun doing what cats do at night (singing really badly). That's an advantage of a character who hasn't been "narrowed" yet -- he can display a broader range. It's sort of like the early episodes of a sitcom are sometimes more fun than the later ones, because the characters can do more things and aren't limited by the audience's expectation that they will always say or do the same kind of thing.

But this is a difference of opinion. Again, the thing I'd dispute is the attempt to talk about "post-'48" as some kind of coherent era in itself. That's not justified by the facts; it's just a trick of the fact that those cartoons were packaged together.