The Screwy Squirrel modelsheet on display here has had me thinking about the backlogging of cartoon shorts again. For those unfamiliar with the term, it refers to how the cartoons were sitting on the shelf for months to years before being released to theaters. It’s why Rod Scribner’s animation shows up in cartoons released in 1955 even though he was part of the 1953 Warners layoff, or why Dick Lundy’s Barney Bear cartoons were released three years after he left MGM.
My question is: how were series and characters established if the backlog was an average of 18 to 24 months at most of these studios? As the modelsheet shows, Tex Avery had Screwy Squirrel redesigned almost a whole year before the first cartoon was even released. Similarly, I have a Baby Huey modelsheet (somewhere) dated 1949 for the third cartoon in that series, months before the first one hit theaters.
Unless I’m mistaken, it doesn’t seem like average movie-goers were used as a basis of what constituted an entertaining character (not before a few thousand was spent on dud series, learning the hard way). It sounds like the suits told the animators to be the judge themselves what would catch on. In a way, the old Chuck Jonesism, “We made them for ourselves,” has some truth to it.
It’s also probably why good animation making a comeback won’t happen any time soon, because that art was part of a society that is now antiquated. Back then, unless the studio was in some state of near bankruptcy, they didn’t need to see immediate revenue. It’s why Walt Disney could afford a bomb or two now and then without folding up.
Today’s society can’t handle that. Everything needs to be instantaneous, and done faster and cheaper. We need to see whether the film bombed or not 36 hours after it premieres. Every retard with a keyboard is allowed to voice an opinion, often destroying others’ work simply because they are able to so quickly and for free. There is no room for error.
Another problem is, unlike with movies in the 1960s, animation didn’t have enough people wanting to figure out how to get around the new system and still produce great work. Just about all of them embraced the shit. I can count the big names of people who tried to preserve quality animation on one hand. And about half of even those people wanted to stick to ‘tried and true’ principles that didn’t deserve to be preserved (i.e. the Disney studio, Jones, Bluth). This is why there have been only a few bright patches in the otherwise soiled mattress that is the last 45+ years of animation.
We all encourage it though, whether we want to admit it or not. We’re all reading and bitching about this with a high-speed Internet connection, are we not?
At the present moment, things have been very slow. Maybe because I don’t watch as much television as I used to, but almost every animated show seems to be in indefinite hiatus (and not just because of the economy).
The 90’s had a fair number of cartoons that have demonstrated creative integrity while adapting to modern economics (The Simpsons, Nicktoons, Cartoon Cartoons). It is because of that, plus a few remaining glimmers that I do not buy into the doomsday theory.
What I do believe, however, is that no one has fully realized the creative flexibility that lies on the Internet. Many television practices, particularly Neilsen ratings are quickly becoming obsolete. Yet there are hardly any examples of animated Internet series or programs that are sealing the deal.
But yeah, there is an overwhelming call for speed these days, plus the multitasking lifestyles the lot of us have. The time that could be spent practicing and collaborating on our own animated projects is instead, in our meager spare time, spend shooting the breeze on blogs and message boards.
“Every retard with a keyboard is allowed to voice an opinion, often destroying others’ work simply because they are able to so quickly and for free. There is no room for error.”
That’s for sure. People sure have a lot to say when they have done JACK SHIT themselves.
I can’t think of a single watchable cartoon to have hit the cinema or television screen for the last 45 years. Comparing the so-called cartoons of today with even the worst of the animated films of the 40’s and 50’s is like comparing dog crap with the Sistine Chapel. Animation has gone the way of the dinosaurs.
So, the point is modern cartoons suck because older cartoons were finished and then sat on for months on end?
You know, TV animation has actually improved a great deal. Look at how much of a step up Family Guy is from Crusader Rabbit and Ruff and Reddy
Even in the early days of TV animation, there was some tinkering around the edges with the characters, either in design, voice and/or overall tone and personality, from their initial debuts. You don’t see that anymore — how a character is in Episode 1 is pretty much how they’re going to stay for the life of the series, at a time when, thanks to the Internet and things like the (hopefully ever-improving) Flash animation, a better ability to get public feedback on animated characters than ever.
As far as the classic cartoons in revival efforts, that’s a little different. When we see a new version of an old favorite, we expect the people doing them to at the very least know why the characters are successful in the first place, and not try to change them or their story lines in their very first efforts with the character(s) to fit what they consider a more modern and “edgier” style (Larry Doyle’s LT efforts are a perfect example of this kind of thinking, as is something like John K’s “Boo Boo and the Man”. Efforts like that aren’t really reviving the characters as much as it is borrowing their names to lure audiences in to a sloppy self-indulgent mess, like hiring a bunch of big-name celebrities and then putting them in “The Star-Wars Christmas Special”).
With new versions of the old cartoons, everyone knows what worked, and if you’re going to use those characters, start off doing the things that worked (though at least try not to use the exact same gags again). With the new characters, don’t get locked into some style or personality before anyone’s seen the cartoon that can’t be changed if it’s not as successful as you expected it to be, especially now with all the avenues of public feedback that are available.
Another thing between back then and now is people have become so dull, they have no hobbies to keep them occupied so they rely on the sauage factory of entertainment. They will sit and watch something that is not entertaining because they can’t think of anything better to do, I have seen it myself several times. I have seen kids watch today’s nicktoons or “nickcoms” and they stare like zombies. I have seen a group of an adults watch Ameircan Dad, not even a chuckle. Nobody likes this shit.
“Look at how much of a step up Family Guy is from Crusader Rabbit and Ruff and Reddy”
Please explain to me because I can’t see it.
Several of the later Family Guy episodes (for example Road to Germany and the “Stewie dancing with Gene Kelly”) feature some of the most lavish animation done on a TV budget. In Crusader Rabbit and Ruff and Reddy, the characters barely move unless its their mouths. I don’t think that needs further explanation.
“for example Road to Germany and the “Stewie dancing with Gene Kelly”)
Are you aware they simply just animated Stewie over Jerry the Mouse in that scene ? And it looked horrible because Stewie is composed of shapes completely unfriendly for animation. Family Guy never has any lavish animation period. The characters move mechanically all the time.
“In Crusader Rabbit and Ruff and Reddy, the characters barely move unless its their mouths. I don’t think that needs further explanation.”
Yes you really do. Unlike Family Guy, both shows contained specific character animation despite the limited animation. Also the character designs are alot more appealing and organic.
Kevin.. You still think Family Guy is “Lavish”? You must be legally BLIND. Don’t ever get a job driving a school bus. I wouldn’t want to see a bunch of kids smashed into a ravine.
Can you count off some of those people? I would like to know who was trying to preserve great animation.
These arguments that try to defend Family Guy as “animation” just make my head hurt. Look, why can’t people just admit that they like it for the simple minded “perv” jokes and stop holding it up as an example of the animators’ art?
All the poses and movement that make up any given scene have been traced directly off model sheets that feature the characters as static, straight up and down, no line of action, flat ( no indication of weight or volume) drawings. Even their expressions are pulled from a pre-existing collection of dull faces designed to ensure conformity to product resulting in drawings that move a little, but have no actual life to them. Backgrounds come straight out of the “show bible”. Family Guy’s layout style , such that it is, was ripped off from the Simpsons, but without the inventive color design and all the linear personality removed.
Using Crusader Rabbit or Ruff and Reddy as a comparrison is unfair, since both those programs were done with a miniscule budget,and kept graphically simple to “read” on circa 1960 B&W TV sets, while Family Guy spends over two mil an episode. The super talented guys that worked on those early TV shows would have loved to have had access to the kind of money and equipment used today, but back then, they had nothing but their own talent to rely on.
I have a dial-up connection, so obviously I am not part of the problem.
“Look, why can’t people just admit that they like it for the simple minded “perv” jokes and stop holding it up as an example of the animators’ art?”
Because they like it and then they automatically think it’s worth defending. I enjoy Aqua Teen Hunger Teen Hunger Force for example but I am not dumb enough to defend it.
Look, I’m just saying saying modern TV animation is inferior to Golden Age theatrical shorts is like comparing Seinfeld to Laurel and Hardy or The Three Stooges. Apples to oranges.
More like comparing gold to horse shit.
*checks calendar*
So it’s time again to bitch about Family Guy, is it? This is was actually a really interesting blog post (kudos, Thad). It’s just too bad the comments are full of pompous fans who think they know everything about everything.
“More like comparing gold to horse shit”
Exactly.
I’d rather have somebody splash Agent Orange into my eyes rather than sit through even 30 seconds of Family Guy.
‘More like comparing gold to horse shit’
More like comparing the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World to an enema
Another good example of backlogging is how Tex Avery’s last cartoon for MGM, “Cellbound” was actually released 5 months after his last cartoon at Lantz. On a similar note, I remember seeing a model sheet for “Deputy Droopy”, released 28 October 1955, dated 14th October 1952.
If you go by the production numbers on the WB shorts, there are some peculiarities on the order in which the cartoons were released. It’s really apparent with the Cinecolor cartoons, which were released earlier because they were quicker to process. One later oddity though is “By Word of Mouse”, which was most likely produced soon after the studio re-opened, being released around the same time as pre-shut down cartoons in late 1954, so it seems that some cartoons were rushed into theatres sooner than others.
Nick,
It’s possible that Warners did start speeding up the release of a film after its completion.
Milt Franklyn died half-way through the music production of “The Jet Cage”, with Bill Lava taking over.
Franklyn died on April of 1962. “Jet Cage” was released on September of that year, just 5 months after the death.
“The Jet Cage” is interesting, wasn’t the music generally one of the last production processes of a cartoon? There was still a backlog of cartoons at this point though I believe, if you consider that Chuck Jones was fired from the studio on 23 July 1962, and cartoons were still being released baring his name until 1964.
Hey, I might be retarded and have a keyboard, but…
…
…
…
…
What was that third thing you said?
Back then, unless the studio was in some state of near bankruptcy, they didn’t need to see immediate revenue. It’s why Walt Disney could afford a bomb or two now and then without folding up.
I thought the only way Disney avoided folding was through licensing and diversifying (shorts & features, then tv & themeparks)? I’m not much of an historian, but I was under the impression Disney’s studio almost folded a few times.
Efforts like that aren’t really reviving the characters as much as it is borrowing their names to lure audiences in to a sloppy self-indulgent mess.
Well said, John. The upcoming Tom and Jerry *ahem* “adaptation” *cough, cough* comes directly to mind and is a prime example what you stated.
Good point about the backlogs Thad. I can’t imagine what moviegoers would have thought when they were trying to figure out why Sylvester goes through so many transformations in 1948.
Technically this doesn’t count but I’ll mention it anyway.
Even though Terrytoons shut down in the end of 1960s FOX continued to have shorts released until 1971. Alot of these shorts were directed by Connie Rasinski, who died five years before the cartoons finally appeared in theaters!
There was even one Astronut short directed by Bob Kuwahara that made its theatrical debut in 1970…seven years AFTER Bob died.
No, Terrytoons wern’t that ahead. These were actually made-for-TV cartoons that 20th Century Fox just released to theaters to fill the quota
Still, I found that interesting.