What is considered "classic animation" on this board?

[John Doe]

The vast majority of discussion on this Termite Terrace Trading Post board revolves around Warner Bros., Tom and Jerry + Popeye cartoons. Although I'm also a big fan of these cartoons, I'm wondering if Hanna-Barbera cartoons, particularly from 1957 through the late 1970's and possibly early 80's, can be considered "classic" as well? I have numerous likes and dislikes about H-B cartoons, and would like to "voice" those either here or on a similar board. Thanks for any clarification. :D

[Jon Cooke]

Discussions of theatrical shorts from ALL studios are always welcome here. There are also plenty of Jay Ward fans here. I think the Hanna-Barbera cartoons are welcome, too. However, when it comes to 1970s and 1980s shows, those may be more suited for "The AniTainment Board" on TZ Forums.


-Jon

[Daffyfan2002]

Well, if we're going to mention Hanna Barbera cartoons, let's not mention, you know that show that began in 1969 with the teenage detectives and their talking dog, or else all h-e-double hockey sticks will break loose.

[dendawg]

Originally posted by Daffyfan2002
Well, if we're going to mention Hanna Barbera cartoons, let's not mention, you know that show that began in 1969 with the teenage detectives and their talking dog, or else all h-e-double hockey sticks will break loose.

You do realize that you're only showing your immaturity by continuing to harp on how other people feel about Scooby Doo, I take it? In the end, that kind of attitude won't win you any friends. :(

[Daffyfan2002]

You're right. I guess I'm too obsessed. I'll shut up now.

[Gossamer]

Originally posted by Jon Cooke
Discussions of theatrical shorts from ALL studios are always welcome here. There are also plenty of Jay Ward fans here. I think the Hanna-Barbera cartoons are welcome, too. However, when it comes to 1970s and 1980s shows, those may be more suited for "The AniTainment Board" on TZ Forums.


-Jon

In a thread that I started on Monday, I believe, I mentioned the Academy Award winning Feature and Short and said that I felt this was not off-topic. Someone posted that they did not see how it could be on-topic. I've been considering a response. With apologies to Jon, for using his comments above in my own arguments, For the Birds was released theatrically by Pixar Studios, else it would not have been eligible for the Academy Award. It was part of the Spike and Mike Festival of Animation.

My reasons for considering the post on-topic were and are as follows:

Shrek is a prime example of building on the work of those who came before. The influence of WB and Disney is clear.

For the Birds is clearly one of the best Tex Avery cartoons not made by Avery. Avery would have ramped it up double-speed, but the idea is pure Avery (the short Technological Threat is also obvious in its owing a great deal to Avery) and I think that to overlook what's been done in the last twenty years is to miss the impact all the greats have had worldwide. I like good cartoons. Not just WB or Lantz, but Bob Godfrey and Bruno Bozetto as well, to name two.

[Pilmedium]

Although many people consider 1960s television shows "classic", I tend to think more about any theatrical cartoon released 1969 or earlier. That's only an opinion, not a suggestion.

Therefore, discussion of 1960s television shows and probably even up to 1972 would seem appropriate here. I would have to agree with Jon Cooke that most 1970s and 1980s cartoon discussion would be more fitted for AniTainment.

Gossamer, thanks for explaining that, because I am the one who made the comment. :understands now:

[J Lee]

"Classic Cartoons" IMHO, applies to the theatricals delievered by the major studio's animation departments up through the closing of the Lantz Studio in 1972, though if you want to throw in the United Artisits cartoons between 1964-78, they somewhat qualify.

The early Hanna Barbera work is interesting, because as with the theatrical cartoons, you can actually see Fred, Barney, Yogi, Magilla, etc., evolve through their early cartoons, either in design, voice or both. But they belong in a different category from the "classic" cartoons (and the H-B work from 1966 onward, when TV execs like Fred Silverman started telling the studios what cartoons to make, qualify in another category that could probably best be titled "classic crap").

[Jimmy Kustes]

I thought animated theatrical short films of any decade could be discussed here, but I could be wrong.

[Gossamer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by J Lee
[B]"Classic Cartoons" IMHO, applies to the theatricals delievered by the major studio's animation departments up through the closing of the Lantz Studio in 1972, though if you want to throw in the United Artisits cartoons between 1964-78, they somewhat qualify.

that's a reasonable definition, quite legitimate and acceptable-that omits anything not made in the U.S. (NFBC, Rembrandt (except for the T & J shorts) , Zagreb Films and many others) and anything not made at the major studios, which tosses out the Hubleys independent work, Ernest Pintoff and George Pal's Puppetoons, although they were distributed by a major (Columbia (?)), so they might slide by, as well as Nick Bosustow's stuff, Will Vinton and Bambi Meets Godzilla. Munro would miss out by that definition. Mind you, I don't disagree with it's validity. But it does seem incongruous that the lesser works of the majors (i.e. some of the late Terrytoons) are classics, and Pintoff's The Critic and The Violinist aren't. End of sermon.

[J Lee]

I have no problem if you want to use age instead of location for determining "classics." I just feel that the cartoons made within the Hollywood studio system have their own niche -- even if the cartoons are as bad as Paul J. Smith's late 1960s Woody Woodpecker shorts -- while the independent and foreign shorts made in the period of, say, 1955-1970 have their own seperate category (yea, Dietch's Munro and Tom & Jerry cartoons for Paramount and MGM do blur the line, but I'd have less problems including the latter than the former because Dietch was working with his own creation made in Prague, while the MGM cartoons were based on Hollywood-created -- or Culver City-created -- characters and designed for theatrical release).

Basically, the Hollywood cartoons were made on budget X to be delivered in time period Y at a continuious annual pace of between 10 and 26 cartoons, depending on the studio. As funny as the ending of "Bambi vs. Godzilla" is, it was not made under the same types of assembly line time constraints, even if the budget was far less. Avery, Jones, Freleng, et al had to be funny 8-10 times a year, every year for a quater century or more and that's why I put those cartoons into their own category.