Why I like this board better than the newsgroup....

[Greg Method]

There's nobody from Spumco on here determined to curse Chuck's name in blood because he didn't direct films exactly like Clampett did!

For those of you who do frequent the WB newsgroup, you probably know who I'm referring to. At least he put his rantings on hold a whole whopping day and a half out of respect.

Sheesh! No wonder that studio doesn't have more friends in the industry.

[J Lee]

I haven't been there this weekend -- you mean we're not on the colorization debate anymore? ;)

[Greg Method]

Originally posted by J Lee
I haven't been there this weekend -- you mean we're not on the colorization debate anymore? ;)

No, that ended due to Chuck's passing, as did the Tom and Jerry debate. Now, the tribute messages are slowly turning toward a discussion on whether Dr. Seuss like Chuck's specials or not.

:rolleyes:

[laugh4me]

Originally posted by Greg Method


No, that ended due to Chuck's passing, as did the Tom and Jerry debate. Now, the tribute messages are slowly turning toward a discussion on whether Dr. Seuss like Chuck's specials or not.

:rolleyes:
Sounds like yet another petty worthless debate to me...
;)

[J Lee]

I went and looked through the threads this afternoon. It's about what I expected, though as I put it over there, the posts in question come off sounding a lot like Daffy's cry after the sawing-in-half routing from Freleng's "Show Biz Bugs":

STOP APPLAUDING! IT'S A FAKE!

Of course, the sawing in half routine wasn't a fake, and neither was Jones (and there's a certain irony about opting for immediate fame and glory over a greater and more long-lasting fame for posterity -- Clampett was far more famous than Jones from 1949 through the mid 1970s due to his TV work, mostly unavailable today -- but that's the subject for another debate).

[Mike Toole]

I only read rec.arts.animation and rec.arts.anime.misc. Is there another animation newsgroup that's actually worth reading? If so, I'd like to know about it.

[Paul Penna]

Originally posted by Greg Method
There's nobody from Spumco on here determined to curse Chuck's name in blood because he didn't direct films exactly like Clampett did!

Calling Chuck Jones one of the top 4 all-time great cartoon directors is cursing his name???

[Sogturtle]

Originally posted by J Lee
I went and looked through the threads this afternoon. It's about what I expected, though as I put it over there, the posts in question come off sounding a lot like Daffy's cry after the sawing-in-half routing from Freleng's "Show Biz Bugs":

STOP APPLAUDING! IT'S A FAKE!

Of course, the sawing in half routine wasn't a fake, and neither was Jones (and there's a certain irony about opting for immediate fame and glory over a greater and more long-lasting fame for posterity -- Clampett was far more famous than Jones from 1949 through the mid 1970s due to his TV work, mostly unavailable today -- but that's the subject for another debate).

John~

The thing about all such debates is the utter folly of them. Similar to arguing whether hamburger is better than pizza or steak better than ribs. Literally all a matter of taste. I love all the great directors equally well (with some reservations about Tashlin, sorry Tashlin fans).

Iffffff we really want to get analytical about it all though. We can make a very good case that Jones, Avery, Freleng, Davis and McKimson were much more COMMITTED to animation as a comedic art-form than were Clampett and Tashlin. The former group worked their whole lives in it, the latter group opted to quit it at a very young age to pursue a "bigger" more famous and better paying career. But regardless, the massive talents of any of these men is without doubt.

A tremendous pity that there are literally no replacements for them, thanks to the unwillingness of studios to live dangerously and risk financing new theatrical cartoons as a training ground.

[Paul Penna]

Originally posted by Sogturtle
The thing about all such debates is the utter folly of them. Similar to arguing whether hamburger is better than pizza or steak better than ribs. Literally all a matter of taste. I love all the great directors equally well (with some reservations about Tashlin, sorry Tashlin fans).

Iffffff we really want to get analytical about it all though. We can make a very good case that Jones, Avery, Freleng, Davis and McKimson were much more COMMITTED to animation as a comedic art-form than were Clampett and Tashlin. The former group worked their whole lives in it, the latter group opted to quit it at a very young age to pursue a "bigger" more famous and better paying career. But regardless, the massive talents of any of these men is without doubt.

Welllllll, I have to say that has to beat the pizza/ribs question in the subjectivity department. What exactly is being "committed" besides staying in the job longer? And how did this "committment," whatever it is, show up in the artist's work? Would "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery" be a better cartoon if Clampett had stayed in cartoons longer? Would "Rabbitt of Seville" be less good if Chuck Jones hadn't kept going on? Is there something we can identify in either that's a result of some hazily-defined factor that led one man to stay in cartoons and the other not?

Surely one can trace the progress of an artist's creativity over time and see how it developed and influenced his later work. Beethoven's life, for example, culminated with acknowledged masterpieces. Sadly, Chuck Jones's did not. Speculation over what Bob Clampett might have done had he stayed with Warner can provide some tantalizing daydreams, but both men's reputations, as with all artists, stands upon their existing body of work. Whatever other qualities they may have possessed as human beings is besides the point. Certainly, such personal factors can influence an artist's work but, being personal, they are essentially unknowable in any but the broadest sense, as are the precise ways in which they exerted their influence. Delving into an artist's psyche, or anybody else's for that matter, is a risky business. If you want to know what's on the canvas, look at the canvas. Arguments about an artist's quality as a human being are pretty much irrelevant; usually, their purpose is to justify one's opinions. "I must be right to think X's work is great/crap because he was such a saint/rat."

Still, I think it is possible to discuss even pizza, steaks and ribs as well as cartoons objectively. They all have physical qualities which can be described, they're all end results of a set of causes which can be investigated and analyzed. For someone interested in food or cartoons, this can be fun and edifying. What is pointless is to attempt to prove that your personal preference is objectively "correct." Too often, this is how discussions of this sort get sidetracked, until it gets down to people screaming "My opinion is just as good as yours because they're both just opinions" at each other. Well, everyone's entitled to their own personal preferences, but an opinion by itself is not only boring but ultimately worthless to anybody else unless backed up by informed and, one would hope, thoughtful discussion of the factors which lead one to hold said opinion. This is, in fact, what makes talking about _anything_ interesting. Simple "Top 10" lists get old pretty fast.

Before you charge me with putting words in your mouth, I'm mainly using your statements as a convenient springboard for my rant.

[J Lee]

OK, since we are into a little of the Jones-Clampett discussion here, I'll add this:

Come the day when computer sophistication reaches the level that you can take a blurry, poor sounding kinescope and digitally remaster it into a clear looking, clear sounding image (and even possibly colorize it, though I know that's stepping into dangerous territory) then the body of Bob Clampett's work during the 1950s will be able to be judged better than it is today. Because Bing Crosby's people didn't invent videotape until 1956 (at least 44 years before his horse came in, I guess ;) ) Clampett for all intents and purposes vanishes from the popular culture radar in 1946, since none of his work with "Beany and Cecil" from the KTLA days is available unless you want to go to the Museum of Broadcasting or other special locations. And so long as his later B&C cartoons are kept off TV, the further his post-1946 legacy fades from view (and I like most of the 1959-62 output better than Jones late one-shots at WB, which go too far over the cuteness line).

Jones, by staying in the animation business, gained nowhere near the fame Bob did during the 1950s (Chuck never got close to being introduced on The Ed Sullivan Show), but now has a far larger body of work readily available to people, and it's his post-1946 work that has attracted the most attention and raves from people like Lucas, Speilberg, Bogdanavich, etc. Longevity also helped here -- when Tex Avery died in 1980 he merited a slim Associated Press obit, because the renessance of Warner cartoons was still in its infancy and there was little differentiation between directors (a trait still seen in some of the clips that aired in connection with Jones' obit over the weekend). Clampett's death four years later also gained only limited attention, but after the 1985 showing at the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the heavily promoted Golden Jubilee the same year (back when WB didn't mind people knowing how old the characters really were) and the books on Warners by New York Timesman Steve Schneider and by Jerry Beck and Will Friedwald, and the individuality of the men behind the cartoons was brought more into focus for the mainstream public. So Jones' death on Friday, and Freleng's death five years ago, gained far more public attention (even Mike Maltese's death got more publicity than Avery or Clampett).

I have no desire to get into a Jones-versus-Clampett fight and spoil my enjoyment of one director's films because I'm mad that too many people like the other one better (or as Bluto says to Wimpy after he declares his enjoyment of a Popeye clip over his in 'Customers Wanted' "Aww, this is the best picture we've got; you don't even know what's good!"). I'd certainly rate the bulk of Clampett's work 1938-46 ahead of Jones work for the same time period, but would I rate that eight year period ahead of any eight-year period of Jones' career, like 1948-56? It's close; there's so much to be said for the wildness of Bob's 1940s work with Scribner, McKimson, etc. -- stuff that could never be done today because of the animation talent required. But Jones' subtile reactions played off against full animation also provide great comedy through the contrasts, and his work with Maltese produced the best dialogue of any Warners cartoons, IMHO.

If someone wants to get into arguments over whether or not Bob or Chuck was the better director, fine. But jumping into threads on the newsgroup to try and start one up less than 48 hours after Jones' death just comes across as petulant to me.

[Greg Method]

Originally posted by Paul Penna

Calling Chuck Jones one of the top 4 all-time great cartoon directors is cursing his name???

If you-know-who said that, then he slipped that one past the radar because I didn't see it. All I've been reading from him is "Well Ray Katz didn't like him because of this..." and "Geisel didn't like his designs because of that..." Yawn. Slinging dirt about a peaceful man only days after he passed away is a little too morbid and asinine for me.

Almost every post I've seen from him (not just this weekend, but for about the last year or so) sounds like he's hoping Mike Barrier is secretly reading to make him a consultant on his next book.

J Lee pretty much summed it up how it is over there.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone is entitled to have their favorite directors, cartoons, and opinions, but the attitude that this individual gives off is "Well, I'm right for liking Bob, you're wrong for liking Chuck, and that's that." It seems less discussionary than it does almost bullying and mocking. I'm sorry, but I just expect a little more class from someone in the animation industry.

I think what makes me irritated is the fact that when he posts, he's representing the animation studio he works for (Spumco). In the past I've talked to a few people there, and their tastes in cartoon directors varies as it does for all fans. When he posts under the Spumco domain, he's giving off the vibe that he's speaking for all of them.

I dunno...I didn't make a point of watching "The Ripping Friends" simply because of his arrogance. If I caught it, I probably would have watched it, but I wasn't going to make a conscience effort to watch a show if one of the producers thinks I'm wrong for liking a director that he doesn't care for.

[Paul Penna]

Originally posted by Greg Method
If you-know-who said that, then he slipped that one past the radar because I didn't see it. All I've been reading from him is "Well Ray Katz didn't like him because of this..." and "Geisel didn't like his designs because of that..." Yawn. Slinging dirt about a peaceful man only days after he passed away is a little too morbid and asinine for me.

Quite frankly, your characterization of what Steve Worth is saying and has said is way off the mark. Not by any stretch of the imagination could any of it be fairly called "slinging dirt," far from it. Unlike so many people who post about cartoons, I know exactly what he thinks about them, and more importantly _why_, because he goes into specific detail. That gives me, the reader, the basis for comparing my thoughts, opinions and feelings for areas in which we might agree or disagree. Better yet, it can give me the opportunity to check out something _I_ hadn't noticed before that might interest me. That's infinitely more than I get from the diime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill Internet blowhard.

And another thing. From time immemorial, the passing of a noteworthy artist has _always_ brought forth retrospective comments about his life's work, both the good and the bad. That's the nature of things. While it would not be appropriate to make gratuitous insults immediately after someone's death (with the exception of people like Hitler, maybe), there's no "say only nice things" law except at the guy's funeral.

[J Lee]

And another thing. From time immemorial, the passing of a noteworthy artist has _always_ brought forth retrospective comments about his life's work, both the good and the bad. That's the nature of things. While it would not be appropriate to make gratuitous insults immediately after someone's death (with the exception of people like Hitler, maybe), there's no "say only nice things" law except at the guy's funeral.

Which is the point of my comments near the top of the thread, Paul. Steve obviously feels very strongly about his opinions (see the colorization threads for a recent example) and it's perfectly within his right to perfer Clampett over Jones -- lots of people do.

But in this case, the cross-postings critiquing of others' comments just after Chuck's body assumed room temperature comes across, as I said, as the real life equivalent of Daffy yelling at the audience to stop cheering for Bugs (ironic since Jones always said he identified with Daffy more). When Gene Kelly died, there were critiques about his work, but someone running around going "Astaire's better" to everyone who like Gene's work would not have been as much a critique as a needlessly obsessive preference for someone that can't even be put aside for a few days or mourning.

If you don't like the thread and want to promote your favorite director, there's nothing wrong with responding a few days later, not while the funeral arrangments are still being made. Nobody else is going to feel like you're not being true to youself if your comments come 96 hours or more down the line.

[redhotrider]

Seriously to all those involved in the constant ongoing debate-give it a rest.

They both were brilliant in there respective fields, and their best cartoons are CONSTANTLY regarded by animation fans as "the greatest". The cartoons were polar opposites, and yet each excelled equally in achieving there artistic dream. Clampet's best work is known for it'ssurrealism and intensity, while jones is known for his brilliantly subtle characterization and expression. A true animation fan should seek the merits of each directors accomplishments, and appreciate them in there own right.

If anything it will finally put to rest the Clampet/Jones feud that has spilled over from the directors to there respective fans. Yes Clampet boasted way too much, and yes jones completely ignored clampet in his later books and movies, but in the spirit of both men's passing-let's every animation fan put this to rest once and for all.

Rip Chuck Jones, Bob C, Friz, Bob M, and the rest of cartoons golden age of animation

[Greg Method]

Originally posted by Paul Penna

Quite frankly, your characterization of what Steve Worth is saying and has said is way off the mark. Not by any stretch of the imagination could any of it be fairly called "slinging dirt," far from it.

Would you prefer "mean-spirited gossiping?" "Nobody's paying attention to my favorite guy, so I'll disrupt these happy proceedings?" I'm sorry, I can't sugar-coat it much more than that.

It sounds like you're under the impression that I think Steve is maliciously trying to anger and annoy people. If that is the case, then I do apologize for any confusion in that. I don't think Steve is doing it intentionally, but that doesn't change my opinion of him.



Unlike so many people who post about cartoons, I know exactly what he thinks about them, and more importantly _why_, because he goes into specific detail.

Like when someone commented that Seuss liked working with Chuck, and he responds with something like "That's not the way I hear it" and doesn't explain it right then and there? It reads like he's baiting someone to ask him about "dirt" and to talk about how great Clampett was, nothing more. Whether or not he's really doing that is besides the point, because that's what his replies turn into....and I have better things to do than read the manifesto of the "Why We Have to Hate Chuck Jones Club."

I'm not saying Steve doesn't know what he's talking about or has made outright lies, but when someone starts browbeating their opinion onto everyone else with a "My way or the highway" attitude, then it makes me want to read their messages less and less.

A well-informed jerk is still a jerk, Paul. Just because Steve's opinion is based on vague facts doesn't mean everyone has to agree with him.

It's like last week when everyone was discussing black and white cartoons vs. colorized cartoons. If I recall correctly, every other message in the thread was Steve essentially saying "Black and whites are the purest form, colorized cartoon negatives should be burned, and there should be no middle ground."

Well, without getting into a side debate on colorization, that's simply not going to happen....and there are very few people on the newsgroup that have the power to make it happen anytime soon no matter how often he repeats it.

Someone also mentioned in the thread that they have a friend who prefers colorized films to black and white, and Steve (and I'm not making this up or "over characterizing" this; check Google) flat out called them a liar.

Maybe you can, but I certainly can't respect and be interested in someone's opinion if they act like that.



That gives me, the reader, the basis for comparing my thoughts, opinions and feelings for areas in which we might agree or disagree. Better yet, it can give me the opportunity to check out something _I_ hadn't noticed before that might interest me. That's infinitely more than I get from the dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill Internet blowhard.

Well, I'm glad you are able to get that much out of Steve's posts. That's what the Internet is for, to share and explore ideas.

However, when I read his posts, I see someone who is acting like they're jealous of Chuck because Bob isn't getting the same kind of attention....and I'm certainly glad he's not on here to spread such a bitter attitude.



And another thing.

I'm just going to pretend there wasn't an intended "tone" to this sentence.



From time immemorial, the passing of a noteworthy artist has _always_ brought forth retrospective comments about his life's work, both the good and the bad.

I hardly see how hinting about Chuck supposedly making up stories about Ray Katz can be considered a retrospective comment about his life's work.

Instead it comes off as "Oh yeah, well you guys won't like Chuck anymore when you hear about this...."



That's the nature of things. While it would not be appropriate to make gratuitous insults immediately after someone's death (with the exception of people like Hitler, maybe), there's no "say only nice things" law except at the guy's funeral.

No there's not, but as I said in my previous post, his posts are representing the Spumco studio. He's allowed to post whatever he wants, but as long as he does it from his spumco.com address, it reflects on the company he's the spokesman for. If it came from just steveworth@someISP.com, then I would just shrug it off as some (your words) Internet blowhard.

I can't simply killfile his address, in case he posts some actual news about the studio.

Again, I don't think he's intentionally trying to sound like a jerk, as much as I doubt he's trying to use the name Spumco to make his opinions sound authoritative, but he comes off that way....and there's very little imagination stretching that needs to be done for that.

And to me, that's very dangerous in a business sense. It can turn people off your brand and products.

As I said, I've spoken to people at Spumco in the past, and I highly doubt everyone there shares the same extreme preferences Steve does.

I'm sorry if my opinions about Steve cannot be more on the mark to yours, but as you said there's no "say only nice things" law.

[Sogturtle]

Just a (sort of) brief note to Paul Penna~

My earlier post was simply meant to state that the love of a single particular director is always just a matter of taste. Whether Tex, Bob, Friz, Chuck or whoever. I suspect that somewhere out there we could even find a person who is slavishly devoted to Jack King ;) :) :D

My mentioning Clampett & Tashlin as being less committed to the art-form is a valid point even if it is a mucho-unpopular viewpoint. Frank Tashlin made NO SECRET of the fact that he wanted to be a feature film writer and director more than anything and that animation was just a springboard to that end. Bob Clampett's commitment to animation at Schlesinger's was somewhat greater, unless we factor in his quitting in 1936 to go make the "John Carter On Mars" cartoons for MGM (he of course returned in only one month after that debacle). His stated reasons for quitting once and for all in 1945 were simply that he didn't like the new non-Schlesinger atmosphere (they plastered up his favorite hole in the wall ;)), and was too busy with his ad work at his new company. What is much more telling is that he then BRAGGED that he was literally making TEN TIMES AS MUCH money making ads in the Forties and on "Time For Beany" as he had made working as a Schlesinger/Warner's director. So for Robert E. Clampett it would appear that his commitment was to...? Whereas for Friz, Chuck and the rest it is evident that they honestly loved what they were doing, namely creating and making those darned little figures breathe and move around and talk, and audiences laugh...

Regardless of anything, Bob Clampett still ranks as one of the cartoon greats, despite his relatively small body of theatrical work. Annnnd I love him even though he jumped ship in 1945. (I just got a large signed drawing of Porky Pig by Bob Clampett, and another old Clampett Christmas card signed by him). Annnnnnd even though I am a Beany and Cecil fanatic I do draw the line at considering the Cecil cartoons as being Clampett works. They were ALL DIRECTED by ART SCOTT and NOT Bob Clampett and need to be acknowledged as such.

[Paul Penna]

Originally posted by Sogturtle
My mentioning Clampett & Tashlin as being less committed to the art-form is a valid point even if it is a mucho-unpopular viewpoint.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll just capsulize what I was driving at by saying I don't think there's any way of nailing down specific qualities in the cartoons themselves as being a result of the committment/non-committment angle. I think that artists on this level generally give their all to whatever project they're working on at the moment (barring extraneous circumstances, like the producer saying "Make _this_ cartoon or else!") Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you on the work of these directors, though I'm not familiar with your reasons for not liking Tashlin's as much.

[Paul Penna]

Originally posted by Greg Method
Like when someone commented that Seuss liked working with Chuck, and he responds with something like "That's not the way I hear it" and doesn't explain it right then and there? It reads like he's baiting someone to ask him about "dirt" and to talk about how great Clampett was, nothing more.

Well, it's not my intention to become Steve Worth's pro bono public defender, but later on you said to check it out on Google, so I did. What he said was "That's not what Geisel said." When asked, he specifically stated what Geisel's objections to "Grinch" were. He didn't use it as a launch pad for Clampett glorification, unless his statement, including a very clear "in my opinion," that "Horton Htches the Egg" was the best Dr. Seuss adaptation counts. Should there be a moratorium on correcting misstatements of fact?


It's like last week when everyone was discussing black and white cartoons vs. colorized cartoons. If I recall correctly, every other message in the thread was Steve essentially saying "Black and whites are the purest form, colorized cartoon negatives should be burned, and there should be no middle ground." Well, without getting into a side debate on colorization, that's simply not going to happen....and there are very few people on the newsgroup that have the power to make it happen anytime soon no matter how often he repeats it.

Here you're mistaking strong rhetoric employed to convey depth of feeling about an issue for a literal call for action.


Someone also mentioned in the thread that they have a friend who prefers colorized films to black and white, and Steve (and I'm not making this up or "over characterizing" this; check Google) flat out called them a liar.

Like I said, I did check it out and not only did he not use the "L" word, he didn't even imply it. He did not impugn the veracity of the original poster in quoting this friend's contention that colorization was the factor which caused said friend to like a film he'd otherwise hate in b/w. As an alternative theory Steve offered the perfectly reasonable possibilty that this was likely a person who just couldn't get into old films, period. Zillions of people are like that. What he said was "Prove it," i.e., that it's b/w and not oldness that the friend can't stand, and even suggested a test film. Nobody called anybody a liar.


I'm just going to pretend there wasn't an intended "tone" to this sentence.

Here you're referring to my "And another thing." I can see how it can come off that way, but it's something of a catchphrase with me (I'm a wise-guy in real life) and I tend to throw it around in an offhanded manner. No snideness was intended.


Again, I don't think he's intentionally trying to sound like a jerk, as much as I doubt he's trying to use the name Spumco to make his opinions sound authoritative, but he comes off that way....and there's very little imagination stretching that needs to be done for that. And to me, that's very dangerous in a business sense. It can turn people off your brand and products.

Well, the hard-core fandom that pays attention to things like this are statistically insignificant in real-audience terms. Internet opinions don't even approach being a make-or-break factor for a show.

I'm really uncomfortable about lecturing people, but I know the following will come off that way, so I'll say it and then let the matter drop. You're obviously an intelligent person (I'm being sincere, not patronizing), but I think you're falling into the same trap a lot of people do when discussing issues they care deeply about, and that's mistaking a strongly-expressed opinion for an intent to stifle opposing ones. It's leading you to read into the things other people say motivations and agendas which simply aren't there. Counter strong opinions you disagree with with your own strong opinions, supported by your specific reasons for holding them.

And another thing... oops; I promised I wouldn't do that again.