Toonbots message board: to: all people who....

Brother Emsworth Fri Jan 18 22:30:57 2002 Re: to: all people who.... > are more knowledgable about cartoons than me..... Ahem! I'll choose to take that as my cue! > i mean, wouldn't like 90% of the story of a talking dog who chases ghosts > have to be done with computer animation or other special effects > manipulation? - which hardly seems to qualify as a 'live-action version'. For the record, sadly, the Scooby-Doo project has been in the pipeline for some time now, and the official website is already up (http://www.scoobydoo.com/)) and displaying a mildly disturbing poster image for "The New Doo." Trailers havealready started popping up at theatres, and apparently in just a few months, the pestilential picture shall be upon us. Naturally, Scooby-Doo himself is rendered through CGI animation (the result is a tad unnerving in my opinion). However, I'm not very surprised that the article used the term "live-action version." Though "live-action/CGI version" would be more accurate, it saves space, and after all, the primary human co-stars are played by live-actors (including such immensely talented and erudite thespians as Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jr.) against live sets. I'm sure many people thought of, say, "Stuart Little" or even "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle" primarily as "live-action films." From what I've gathered, the proposed "Garfield" film (which I recently found out about at Cartoonresearch.com) is still only in the planning stages, but the fat cat and presumably Odie will indeed by rendered through CGI, with live actors portraying Jon Arbuckle and others. (Uncertain of how they'll ever be able to find a suitable replacement for the late, lamented Lorenzo Music as the voice of Garfield, though.) As for Scooby-Doo and ghosts, in the original series, most of the "ghosts" (many were actually vampires, werewolves, gorillas, cavemen, strange clowns, walking suits of armour, or in at least one case, just a weird looking fortune teller, I believe) were, after all, nothing more than the museum curator/disgruntled farmer/land owner/caretaker/professor/hired hand/lawyer etc. in disguise. I suppose computer effects probably will be used (considering how so many films seem to have gradually become dependant upon them), but have no idea to what extent. I doubt whether they'd dominate, though, but who knows? > (i leave aside the other question which instantly leaps to mind - 'why on > earth bother?' - because that one is just me) That one is *not* just you, but it's obviously not many Hollywood executives, either. "Scooby-Doo" is one of the comparatively few cartoons for which I have rather little nostalgia and fondness, though Don Messick was excellent voicing the cowardly Great Dane, and I suppose the show does have its moments. However, this is merely part of the sadly continuing trend of creating big-screen live-action (in most cases, and still usually pre-dominately) adaptations of older television cartoons, most of which... confidentially... They stink! But I suppose they believe there's sufficient money to be made, and that enough people will attend out of sheer nostalgia or for the possible camp value (I may wind up renting the dashed thing myself at some point, though I'll try to hold off for awhile.) The "Garfield" project and the fact that production has supposedly started (at Universal, I believe) on an upcoming "Fat Albert" film prove that the end is not yet in sight. The line may stretch out 'til the crack of doom! The "Scooby-Doo" film, along with the fact that the Warner Bros. Studio Stores closed yet a Pokemon store and a Tweety/Hello Kitty store, and the upcoming video release of "Dumbo II" and "Cinderlla II," "Peter Pan II: return to Neverland" coming directly to theatres, and the fact that the Italians foisted "Titanic: The Animated Movie" on unsuspecting video buying mothers and children, that lead me to weep for the state of animation in this country today. Oh, and the fact that ABC canceled "The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show" a couple of years ago, and yet is now airing a cheap animated series starring the wretched Olsen Twins. I think I need to listen to Carl Stalling cues and selections from the score to "Lady and the Tramp" before I become any more depressed.

Tirdun Mon Jan 21 11:40:52 2002 Scooby! I had to sit through the Scooby trailer during LOTR and cringed at the CGI. My children have also recently begun a full-throttle love affair with the old series (via cartoon network). The movie looks awful. As for the "old" scooby, Emsworth is correct in the "ghost" business. The stories took the pattern: Gang stumbles into ridiculous mystery involving some supernatural entity, gang finds clues/gets captured/wanders about, gang reveals that said entity is really a person in a costume with some awful-techno babble thrown in at times to support the earlier displays of supernatural powers. There were several ghosts, but the gang hit just about every possible kind of baddie underpaid writers could steal from popular culture. SD went through 4 or 5 different series, including the awful "Pup named Scooby Doo" and the never-to-be-spoken-of Scrappy years (shudder). It was truly pathetic stuff at times. The scooby drinking game was great in college, though. (Jinkies = take a drink). The cartoon suffered from some -major- faults (ad nauseum repeat of backgrounds, awful animation, poor editing, laughable plots) but it could all be taken in fun and the writers had a sense of self-parody at times. The newer videos (post 1990) used "real" baddies like real aliens, witches and zombies that infuriated me. Although the latest video release (SD and the cyber chase) was passable.

Michael Mon Jan 21 14:09:06 2002 Re: Scooby! > I had to sit through the Scooby trailer during LOTR and cringed at the > CGI. My children have also recently begun a full-throttle love affair with > the old series (via cartoon network). The movie looks awful. Let's face it, we all only watched Scooby Doo because nothing else was on. I've caught a few eps on the Cartoon Network, though, and it was surprisingly watchable. There's something to be said for knowing exactly what's going to happen.

Jenn Tue Jan 22 09:27:00 2002 Ruh-roh! I loved Scooby Doo! Course, I was 7. And there's a lot of things from back then that I loved (Dukes of Hazard and NightRider comes to mind off hand) that I've seen since and wondered what on earth I was thinking. I think I was thinking that I was 7. And it had good sound effects, too. That one jibblyjobbly noise that they make when they're running? You know the one I mean? Pure gold, baybee...

Tirdun Tue Jan 22 09:41:57 2002 Re: Ruh-roh! I still like watching Scooby-Doo, although mostly because of my kids and the deep satisfaction I get noting each time the animators really got cheap and lazy. I feel the same way about the old He-Man and D&D cartoons. Yeah, they were crap, but they're a lot of fun to watch if you get past the plot, characters, animation and lack of reality. Admitting I have a problem is the first step. I haven't taken that step yet.

Jenn Thu Jan 24 10:53:11 2002 Ladies, Tramps, and French #1: Isn't 'je ne se quois' French for 'mindless drivel'? #2: Peg died?!?! I loved Peg! She was like, the quintessential bad girl with a heart of gold, tied up in a dog. Now I'm all depressed. #3: I have been gone. I've been looking at the board, but I haven't been able to get up the energy to actually post. I blame Michael. I think he mailed his ennui (oh, that's probably spelled wrong...) to me, in a diabolical plot to ummm...keep the spam off his board. Yesh. > Admitting I have a problem is the first step. I haven't taken that step > yet. I'll go with you to your first CA (comics anonymous) meeting, Tirdun. Just as soon as I finish watching the Smurfs.

Tirdun Thu Jan 24 12:31:28 2002 Re: Ladies, Tramps, and French > Isn't 'je ne se quois' French for 'mindless drivel'? I ran it through bablefish and apparently it means "Your dog was slapping jelly on the clutch". Those wacky French. > I'll go with you to your first CA (comics anonymous) meeting, Tirdun. Just > as soon as I finish watching the Smurfs. Those smurfy smurfs. Smurf them. I'd like to smurfing smurf the smurfy smurf out of them. Right in their smurfs. I tell you, much love.

mouse Thu Jan 24 20:27:31 2002 Re: Ladies, Tramps, and French > I ran it through bablefish and apparently it means "Your dog was > slapping jelly on the clutch". it does not! it means "i don't know what", which is tactful for "she's loopy, but she always gives us something to laugh at". ennui, now -- i'm not sure that's language we should even be using in a potentially family-friendly forum.

Michael Fri Jan 25 00:32:54 2002 Re: Ladies, Tramps, and French > it does not! it means "i don't know what", which is tactful for > "she's loopy, but she always gives us something to laugh at". No, sorry, that would be "je ne sais quoi", which is *not* what was said. Now I'm going to stop being pedantic (yeah, right) and go to bed.

mouse Fri Jan 25 15:16:52 2002 Re: Ladies, Tramps, and French > No, sorry, that would be "je ne sais quoi", which is *not* what > was said. well, it's what i _meant_ to say (stupid french spelling)

Michael Thu Jan 24 14:10:57 2002 Re: Ladies, Tramps, and French > #1: Isn't 'je ne se quois' French for 'mindless drivel'? It is here. > #3: I have been gone. I've been looking at the board, but I haven't been > able to get up the energy to actually post. I blame Michael. I think he > mailed his ennui (oh, that's probably spelled wrong...) to me, in a > diabolical plot to ummm...keep the spam off his board. Yesh. Spelling of ennui: dead on. Diagnosis of plot: way off. Sorry. I think it was less a case of ennui than just being sick and tired. Usually I'm just tired.

mouse Tue Jan 22 16:17:15 2002 you're back! you have no idea how quiet this place gets without you....

Emsworth Tue Jan 22 22:44:28 2002 Re: you're back! > you have no idea how quiet this place gets without you.... LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) A Walt Disney Production released through RKO Radio Pictures. Producer: Walt Disney; Directors: Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson; Story: Erdman Penner, Joe Rinaldi, Ralph Wright, Don DaGradi (based on a story by Ward Greene); Music: Oliver Wallace (songs by Peggy Lee and Sonny Burke); Directing animators: Milt Kahl (Lady), Frank Thomas (Lady, Tramp, Trusty), Ollie Johnston (Tramp), John Lounsbery (Tony & Joe), Wolfgang Reitherman (Rat, Dogs), Eric Larson (Peg), Hal King, Les Clark; Animation: George Nicholas, Hal Ambro (Aunt Sarah), Ken O’ Brien, Jerry Hatchcock, Eric Cleworth, Marvin Woodward, Ed Aardal, John Sibley (Si & Am), Harvey Toombs, Cliff Nordberg, Don Lusk, George Kreisl, Hugh Fraser, John Freeman, Jack Campbell (Aunt Sarah), Bob Carlson (Si & Am). Songs: “Belle Notte,” “The Siamese Cat Song,” “He’s a Tramp,” “Peace on Earth,” “La La Lu,” and “What is a Baby?” Running time: 76 minutes. Voices: Darling, Si and Am, Peg: Peggy Lee; Lady: Barbara Luddy; Tramp: Larry Roberts; Jock, Bull, Joe, Dachsie, Policeman: Bill Thompson; Trusty: Bill Baucom; Beaver: Stan Freberg; Aunt Sarah: Verna Felton; Boris: Alan Reed; Tony: George Givot; Toughy, Professor, Pedro, Hyena: Dallas McKennon; Jim Dear, Dogcatcher: Lee Millar; Alligator, Dogs in Pound: Thurl Ravenscroft; Dogs in Pound: Bill Lee, Max Smith, Bob Stevens; Pet Shop Clerk: Jerry Mann [And expect more random text of a similar nature next time I notice any complaints about things being to quiet on the forum! Also my way of paying homage to Peggy Lee, who passed away at the age of 81 this week. Sigh. Oh, and hello again to Jenn!]

mouse Wed Jan 23 15:03:47 2002 Re: you're back! > [And expect more random text of a similar nature next time I notice any > complaints about things being to quiet on the forum! Also my way of paying > homage to Peggy Lee, who passed away at the age of 81 this week. Sigh. Oh, > and hello again to Jenn!] well, you gotta admit - jenn does bring a certain je ne se quois to the forum > Directing animators: Milt > Kahl (Lady), Frank Thomas (Lady, Tramp, Trusty), Ollie Johnston (Tramp), > John Lounsbery (Tony & Joe), Wolfgang Reitherman (Rat, Dogs), Eric > Larson (Peg), Hal King, Les Clark; Animation: George Nicholas, Hal Ambro > (Aunt Sarah), Ken O? Brien, Jerry Hatchcock, Eric Cleworth, Marvin > Woodward, Ed Aardal, John Sibley (Si & Am), Harvey Toombs, Cliff > Nordberg, Don Lusk, George Kreisl, Hugh Fraser, John Freeman, Jack > Campbell (Aunt Sarah), Bob Carlson (Si & Am). ok, i'm confused - one guy (wolfgang reitherman) can direct the animation of a whole pack of rats and dogs, but it requires 7 just to animate two cats? (i can see 7 for a person, what with the clothes and hair and all - but cats are more straightforward). and why is poor bob carlson isolated from the other cat artists? (actually now i look, there's two other guys with apparently a whole other part of aunt sarah - don't these people talk to each other?) and if all those guys are directing animators of dogs, where are the animators they direct? i need _logic_ here, people!

Brother Emsworth Thu Jan 24 23:21:23 2002 Regarding sundry animation matters... >ok, i'm confused - one guy (wolfgang reitherman) can direct the animation of a >whole pack of rats and dogs, but it requires 7 just to animate two cats? (i >can see 7 for a person, what with the clothes and hair and all - but cats are >more straightforward). and why is poor bob carlson isolated from the other cat >artists? (actually now i look, there's two other guys with apparently a whole >other part of aunt sarah - don't these people talk to each other?) and if all >those guys are directing animators of dogs, where are the animators they >direct? i need _logic_ here, people! All right, obviously a great deal to clear up here (and a bit uncertain about how to go about it without creating further confusion.) First of all, the animator/character identifications included in the earlier message are unfortunately incomplete at the present time. Thus far in the course of my research, I've only been able to identify the contributions of a handful of animators in regards to the film (and in some cases, probably only partial contributions at that.) When I've been able to identify an animator as having worked on specific character(s), I include it in parentheses after the name. When I've yet to find out anything in that regard, nothing follows. So in other words, those credited animators with a specific character (s) in parentheses *directly* after their names are the only ones who I've been able to identify a specific character or scene for. You may ask why I don't simply place those animators first, and leave the names of the others afterwards, but I've tried to maintain the order in which these artists were billed in the original film titles (also easier for me on those rare occasions when I dome across a new reference with information on the work of a particular animator on a particular character or scene.) While the majority of post 1991 Disney animated features (and several non-Disney features as well) do credit the animators according to character units (and for those films, the names of multiple animators are followed by the name of the character (s) they all shared), such identifications are somewhat harder to find in regards to the older films. (Though long-time animation historian John Canemaker's recent book THE NINE OLD MEN AND THE ART OF DISNEY ANIMATION should prove very useful in that area, the list price of $60, and the fact that the book must be special orderd to boot, means it may be a little while before I acquire that reference.) I've had to rely on what little I've been able to find, as I find it. Regarding the "directing animators," though I probably need to refresh myself with Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston's definition of the term next time I have a chance to look at UTEP's decaying copy of their DISNEY ANIMATION: THE ILLUSION OF LIFE (which has been one of my primary sources for many character/animator identifications), the term is the equivalent of "supervising animator" (which now seems to be the standard term for it) or "principal animator," if you like. Usually these are the animators who did most of the work on specific key scenes or sequences within the film (and in some ways, it seems to have been a title accorded to certain notable or senior animators, whether or not they actively "directed" animators.) In some cases (as has been recorded in regard to BAMBI), these animators *did* act in something akin to a director's capacity, supervising closely the work of other animators, but as far as I can tell (mostly from Mike Barrier's HOLLYWOOD CARTOONS), this seemed to apply more often to films where the animators were "cast by sequence," as opposed to "casting by characters." In other words, in the case of the latter, specific animators would be assigned to do most of the work on specific characters, staying with that character for most of the film, and often sharing scenes with another animator. In casting by sequence, however, when an animator would do specific scenes, he would also animate every character in that scene. While casting by character has been said to have proven useful for character consistency, casting by sequence allowed for greater freedom and advancement in the character relationships. (A few films, such as DUMBO, in which "casting by character" dominated, also credit sequence directors, whose exact capacity I can't fully explain, but usually either helped oversee special sequences [as Norm Ferguson did for the "Pink Elephant" scenes] or possibly to help aid interaction for shared scenes. Unclear on this myself.) According to Barrier, casting by character "was still very much alive" in "Lady and teh Tramp," but as with some of the preceding features, major characters might be split up among several animators, "while minor characters each enjoyed the attention of a single animator and were often correspondingly more real." In the famous Spaghetti dinner scenes, for example, Frank Thomas animated Lady and the Tramp (including the meatball kiss) while John Lounsbery animated Tony and Joe (and did throughout the film, as far as I know, with no one under him for those characters, despite his "directing animator" credit.) According to Frank Thomas, "whoever had the main action of the scene took the first crack at it but only after ckecking with the other animators... it was a clumsy way to make a picture, but I guess it protected the integrity of the characters." Wolfgang Reitherman did animate the rat (not merely "directing" the animation), though I'm fairly sure he shared the fight with either Thomas on Tramp (have a notion Reitherman *may* have animated both Tramp and the street dogs in that scene, though.) In a useful chart included in Thomas and Johnston's THE DISNEY VILLAIN (identifying the animators for the villains in each Disney feature from 1937 through 1993), they identify Hal Ambro and Jack Campbell as animating Aunt Sarah, and John Sibley, Bob Carlson, and Bill Justice as working on Si and Am. (Bill Justice was uncredited, and went unmentioned in Graham Webb's recently published THE ANIMATED FILM ENCYCLOPEDIA which lists most uncredited animators for the Disney features, but as Thomas and Johnston worked on the film, they probably know best, despite the fact that later memoirs or recollections of any kind are sometimes prone to the fallibility of fickle memory and whatnot.) As to why Bob Carlson was "isolated," as with live action films of the time, the strange methods behind credit billing are not always fully understood, and while they may be arranged according to relative responsibility for major characters or scenes (in DUMBO, the first billed "directing animator" was Vladimir "Bill" Tytla, who animated nearly all of the scenes of Dumbo, his mother, and the other elephants.) Finally, while as you can see only one more animator (apparently) worked on the cats than on Aunt Sarah, it's a mistake to say that Aunt Sarah would be more difficlut just because she's a human. Though this doesn't always apply, and such things as the individual skill and speed of the animator(s) involved in completing the needed scenes, the amount of screen time a character receives, and the amount of movement and the general difficulty of those scenes are more likely to determine how many artists render the character than hair or clothes. And again, whether the film featured primarily "casting by character" or "casting by sequence" is another factor in determining how many animators work on a given character. (Again, much of this was gathered from my research, and I can't claim to be able to always tell the difference simply by looking at the film itself, no, just as I usually have trouble identifying animators simply by watching. [A few animation experts/historians do seem to possess that skill (and I've debated whether ot not to e-mail one or two of them), but most of these people are also or animators themselves, so this may to some degree make it easier for them to distinguish the work of one artist from another.] Well, lengthy and involved (and took well over an hour to do), but I hope this clears things up.

Michael Fri Jan 25 00:37:43 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > (Though long-time animation historian John Canemaker's recent book THE > NINE OLD MEN AND THE ART OF DISNEY ANIMATION should prove very useful in > that area, the list price of $60, and the fact that the book must be > special orderd to boot, means it may be a little while before I acquire > that reference.) Three words for you, Emsworth: Inter-Library Loan. Any public library in these United States can do it, thanks to my personal patron saint Benjamin Franklin, who realized that free information is the fundamental requirement of a democracy. Exercise your civil liberties while they still exist, and partake of a nice ILL.

Brother Emsworth Fri Jan 25 08:12:17 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > Three words for you, Emsworth: Inter-Library Loan. Any public library in > these United States can do it, thanks to my personal patron saint Benjamin > Franklin, who realized that free information is the fundamental > requirement of a democracy. Exercise your civil liberties while they still > exist, and partake of a nice ILL. While I often *do* try to take advantage of Inter-Library Loan, absolutely no success as of yet in this case, possibly because the book itself was only published in November.

mouse Fri Jan 25 15:32:21 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > While I often *do* try to take advantage of Inter-Library Loan, absolutely > no success as of yet in this case, possibly because the book itself was > only published in November. the other option is, see if the university library will go ahead and buy a copy - they are often willing to take suggestions (or even requests, but you might need to get a faculty member to front for you). local libraries will also often buy books at the request of patrons, but if the university library already has a collection of books on animation, it may be easier to get them to add to it. and, thanks for the explanation - somehow it never occurs to me how much organization it must take to organize a mass of people to create one product. (the notation on who does what might be clearer if you could list people's names in columns, so it would be clear the paren just referred to one person - which of course is hard to do here)

Brother Emsworth Mon Jan 28 12:15:44 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > the other option is, see if the university library will go ahead and buy a > copy - they are often willing to take suggestions (or even requests, but > you might need to get a faculty member to front for you). local libraries > will also often buy books at the request of patrons, but if the university > library already has a collection of books on animation, it may be easier > to get them to add to it. > and, thanks for the explanation - somehow it never occurs to me how much > organization it must take to organize a mass of people to create one > product. (the notation on who does what might be clearer if you could list > people's names in columns, so it would be clear the paren just referred to > one person - which of course is hard to do here) Well, while one can write down suggestions for specific texts to be purchased, I've done so at least once that I can recall, and nothing came of it. May give it another try, I suppose, but despite the fact that the acccumulated fees which this depository of the written word has collected from me during my time here surpasses the book's price, I'm not too sanguine, and have a feeling that I may very well have sufficient funds to buy the thing myself before the l. of u. pitches in. But we'll see. And regarding columns, no thank you! I've already arranged principal voice talent or live cast members in that manner, for a start, and even that takes up a bit of space. Frankly, I know I'd certainly find it rather distracting to have the animation credits arranged in that way as well (and if I were to do that with the animators, I'd need to do that with the director and other crew as well or else ruin the symmetry.) Besides, would that not have the reverse effect, unless one were to re-arrange the credits order? I've seen several reference works which have included alphabetical cast lists, with the character names for those that have been identified in parentheses, and few (except the ever fallible Jeff Lenburg when borrowing from Bill Cotter's Disney television reference, which he failed to cite in addition to mucking up the credits in an utterly incomprehensible manner) have assumed that all of the names preceding any name with a parentheses afterwards played that one role (though in this context and given the workings of animation, that mistaken assumption is somewhat more understandable.) Thanks for the suggestion, but I still think it's not particularly confusing, and even if it were, would be much easier for me to simplye state a brief explanation somewhere on the first page than to alter the system I've been utilizing for over 5 years! (Though lately I have considered the possibility of italics, mind you.)

mouse Mon Jan 28 14:29:47 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > Thanks for the suggestion, but I still think it's not particularly > confusing, and even if it were, would be much easier for me to simplye > state a brief explanation somewhere on the first page than to alter the > system I've been utilizing for over 5 years! ouch - yes, 5 years of work is too much to redo....explanations are always good. > (Though lately I have > considered the possibility of italics, mind you.) how would italics help? - the problem is making clear to the reader whether the parens go with the preceeding name only, or the whole preceeding list of names - adding another signal (the italics) would add another layer of complexity for the reader to decypher.

Brother Emsworth Mon Jan 28 17:56:20 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > how would italics help? - the problem is making clear to the reader > whether the parens go with the preceeding name only, or the whole > preceeding list of names - adding another signal (the italics) would add > another layer of complexity for the reader to decypher. More as a general means of making the technical animation credits stand out, I meant. (However, I *had* briefly considered utilizing them as Graham Webb does in his entry for "Mary Poppins," the only film for which his book *does* offer animator identifications, and a film which I'll probably be excluding until such time as I'm able to add a seperate section for pre-dominantly live action films with brief animated sequences. He lists the character names first in italics, followed by the animator name, which might work, except again, for the credit order, and the fact that to maintain that order while also avoiding further confusion as to who did what, I'd probably need to use more semi-colons within that area, which might simply be even more confusing.) Though admittedly few outside the familial circle have glanced at the thing, this is the first time I've heard such a complaint has been given (though you may suggest that others may not have been paying attention, which is possible.) I honestly don't think that this is that much of a problem. If necessary, I'll simply point out that any animator identifications for films which do not contain such information within the credits (which applies to all pre-1991 features except Richard Williams' 1978 film "Raggedy Ann and Andy") are incomplete, and any known identifications of characters or sequences will immediately follow the name of the animator in question.

mouse Tue Jan 29 17:01:27 2002 Re: Regarding sundry animation matters... > If necessary, I'll simply point out that any animator > identifications for films which do not contain such information within the > credits (which applies to all pre-1991 features except Richard Williams' > 1978 film "Raggedy Ann and Andy") are incomplete, and any known > identifications of characters or sequences will immediately follow the > name of the animator in question. that would work (and it may be just me - i am used to seeing citations for multi-author things, so tend not to be surprised by a list of names attached to one thing - if that makes any sense)