Toonbots message board: signs of life!

mouse Fri Jan 11 14:40:23 2002 Re: signs of life! or not..... hello? hello?

Michael Fri Jan 11 15:50:57 2002 Re: signs of life! > hello? hello? If you go into that baseball thing you're going to have to identify the movie it's from.

mouse Fri Jan 11 18:34:26 2002 Re: signs of life! > If you go into that baseball thing you're going to have to identify the > movie it's from. no no - i haven't done the echoing bit.

Emsworth Sat Jan 12 00:21:31 2002 Re: signs of life! > or not..... > hello? hello? THE BUGS BUNNY/ROADRUNNER MOVIE (1979) A Chuck Jones Production released through Warner Brothers. Producer: Chuck Jones; Directors: Chuck Jones, Phil Monroe; Writers: Michael Maltese and Chuck Jones; Music: Carl Stalling, Milt Franklyn, Dean Elliott; Animation: Phil Monroe, Ben Washam, Ken Harris, Abe Levitow, Dick Thompson, Lloyd Vaughan, Tom Ray, Virgil Ross, Manny Perez, Irv Anderson. Running time: 92 minutes. Voices: Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Marvin Martian, Wile E. Coyote, Pepe LePew, Caveman, Man in Cinema, Others: Mel Blanc Elmer Fudd: Arthur Q. Bryan In this compilation feature, Bugs Bunny invites the audience into his luxurious carrot-decorated home, where he proceeds to discuss the history of the chase and its frequent use in movies, utilizing old silent film clips. Bugs then proceeds to very briefly discuss his career and his creators, and introduces several classic cartoon shorts directed by Chuck Jones. These cartoons, which also feature Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig, Marvin the Martian, and Pepe LePew, include Hareway To The Stars (1958), Duck Dodgers In The 24 ½ Century (1953), Robin Hood Daffy (1958), Duck Amuck (1953), Rabbit Fire (1951), Bully For Bugs (1953), Ali Baba Bunny (1957), For Scentimental Reasons (1949), Long Haired Hare (1949), What’s Opera Doc (1957), and Operation: Rabbit (1952) and are followed by a fiften minute compilation featuring the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, culled from 16 cartoons. The bridging sequences were also directed by Chuck Jones, with former storyman Michael Maltese writing the new dialogue with Jones, and most of the old staff doing the animation. Like so many compilation films, the individual shorts are enjoyable without any attempts to connect them. However, some of Jones' best shorts are showcased, and many are amongst the best short cartoons of all time. This is possibly one of the better Warner Bros. Compilation features, in fact. Apart from the Roadrunner section, most of the shorts are shown more or less in their entirety, albeit shorn of original titles. The bridging animation is somewhat more appealing. Moreover, the technique of Bugs showing guests around his home while reminiscing about his career is obviously little more than a framing device. In this respect, however, it seems almost less forced than later attempts to force clips from different cartoons together with new material to somehow form a thin storyline, and the fact that the vintage and new material shared the same director also helped (as compared, say, to DAFFY DUCK'S FANTASTIC ISLAND.) Bugs himself is aware that he's merely introducing cartoons. The cartoons may be better seen individually and *entirely* uncut, but this is still a pleasant diversion (and admittedly an inexpensive way for Warner Bros. to release their first Bugs Bunny "feature.")

mouse Sat Jan 12 13:30:14 2002 Re: signs of life! ok - now i know where _you've_ been. once again, you have me longing to spend a day holed up watching old movies. > luxurious carrot-decorated home first bag end, now this - maybe i could just spend the day redecorating.... and 'michael maltese' - what a _great_ name! my editorial instinct however, is forcing me to make two small suggestions: > (para 4, sentence 3) The bridging animation is somewhat more appealing. unclear - this suggests that the bridging animation is more appealing than the shorts. i suspect what you mean is that it is more appealing than that in other compilations; make this distinction. > (para 4, sentence 4) Moreover, the technique of Bugs > showing guests around his home while reminiscing about his career is delete 'moreover' - unnecessary, also ads to confusion above. (sorry, i've been getting a paper ready - been correcting everything in sight)

Brother Emsworth Tue Jan 15 21:57:32 2002 Re: signs of life! > ok - now i know where _you've_ been. once again, you have me longing to > spend a day holed up watching old movies. Indeed! Had alluded to this in pasing within an earlier post, in fact (though at present, completion of this project may be delayed slightly, it seems.) > and 'michael maltese' - what a _great_ name! Indeed! Of course, Michael Maltese was one of the most notable cartoon story writers of the Golden Age, spending the bulk of his career at Warner Bros., most often in collaboration with Chuck Jones, and contributing to the development of such classic characters as the Road Runner and Pepe LePew, to say nothing of such famous shorts as "One Froggy Evening," "Feed the Kitty," "Duck Amuck," and "What's Opera, Doc?" > my editorial instinct however, is forcing me to make two small > suggestions: At present, I'm somewhat more concerned with actually providing an adequate synopsis/critique for each animated feature (or at least as many as possible), which is not a light chore for one to attempt singlehandedly. However, grammatical correctness and whatnot are not to be taken lightly either, so I certainly appreciate your assistance in that regard! However, apart from that, if you don't mind my asking, do you think I need add a brief description for the shorts in question as well, or just assume that anyone reading this entry would be either familiar with the shorts or would probably be better off experiencing them for themselves? (Most of the other compilation features, I've decided to stick mostly to the framing sequences, particularly in later ones where the footage is increasingly cut up and fewer whole cartoons are presented.) Or perhaps just briefly discuss one or two of the more notable shorts? Any general thoughts about the entry overall, including the information provided? (Upon reflection, have decided I should probably list the layout artists and production designer Maurice Noble as well.)

mouse Wed Jan 16 15:57:55 2002 Re: signs of life! > However, apart from that, if you don't mind my asking, do you think I need > add a brief description for the shorts in question as well, or just assume > that anyone reading this entry would be either familiar with the shorts or > would probably be better off experiencing them for themselves? no problem at all - i'm always happy to tell other people what to do! :^p to a certain extent it depends on the scope of your project - both 1) how broad your definition of a 'feature' is and 2) how much time & space you have to put into it. if you have the time & space, i think it would be worth adding (as a seperate entry, which can be referred to) a brief description of at least the better/better known/more important shorts (duck dodgers, for example, is clearly a classic in its own right) - of course, this interprets 'feature' rather broadly (well, they _were_ originally shown in theatres) - and you may not want to do that. I think including descriptions of the shorts within the description of the features might get clunky, but it would be nice to have a description available somewhere. the classic way to deal with this would be to add the shorts as an appendix (so people could look stuff up there if they wanted, but ignore it otherwise). > Any general thoughts about the entry overall, including the information > provided? (Upon reflection, have decided I should probably list the layout > artists and production designer Maurice Noble as well.) i think it reads very well. it presents the essential information concisely, and in an organized fashion (credits, brief description, then your critique) which i quite like - that lets people find the part they particularly want quickly. (caveat: you have more experience than i about what constitutes 'essential' - sounds like layout artists and production designer would be good to include as well, but if you hadn't mentioned them, they wouldn't have occurred to me - so i bow to your experience on that). i like the critique paragraph very much - short and sweet, but with stuff to chew on. anyway, it looks good to me - good luck! (and thanks for the review on Gosford Park - i'm determined to see that if i can find it at a reasonably close theater -- for some reason here it is playing only at a few far-flung malls)

Brother Emsworth Fri Jan 18 22:47:35 2002 Re: signs of life! > To a certain extent it depends on the scope of your project - both 1) how > broad your definition of a 'feature' is and 2) how much time & space > you have to put into it. Well, the general long-term goal of this is to include as many feature-length animated films released in the United States as possible. I believe AOL should be able to provide enough space for the entire thing once completed (it will be mostly limited to basic text, after all.) Time is another factor, though, especially as school has begun. >if you have the time & space, i think it > would be worth adding (as a seperate entry, which can be referred to) a > brief description of at least the better/better known/more important > shorts (duck dodgers, for example, is clearly a classic in its own right) > - of course, this interprets 'feature' rather broadly (well, they _were_ > originally shown in theatres) - and you may not want to do that. I think > including descriptions of the shorts within the description of the > features might get clunky, but it would be nice to have a description > available somewhere. the classic way to deal with this would be to add the > shorts as an appendix (so people could look stuff up there if they wanted, > but ignore it otherwise). As I said, the primary goal of this is to provide an accurate (and hopefully informative) resource on theatrically released animated features. For the time being, I think I may just try including a brief description or discussion of the shorts, and then, if time and inclination allows, consider adding an appendix, though as such an appendix would be limited to shorts included in compilation films, that might seem almost more work than simply including the information in an expanded summary. (On the other hand, might also make it easier to include fuller summaries and clearer credits for certain segments of the Disney "package" features, though those segments were only released as shorts much later). Hmm. Well, will probably wait until I can at least finish the rest of the A and B sections, anyway. Thanks for the help anyway, though.

mouse Sat Jan 19 13:39:49 2002 Re: signs of life! > Thanks for the help anyway, though. any time!