Mr. Bug goes to Town Japanese trailer

[Thad]

You can buy CDs with Ray's appearances on Stu's Show from the Shokus site very cheaply. I don't recall the dates of the others, but the show with Ray from 7/2/08 is a must for anyone interested in animation history. You learn more about the Fleischers from Ray on that show than you will in any book!

[Ray Pointer]

Originally Posted by Jack G.

It's a matter of taste, but I don't find anything appealing about Famous' characters or design. They are bland.
Popeye (a series that was continued by Famous) certainly became more bland on all fronts. But all the Famous characters are lame and there designs are nothing to write home about.

It's not a matter of "taste," but a matter of artistic realization. Perhaps you are doing the very thing that I metioned, dismissing the merits of the earlier works. Look at the POPEYE cartoons of 1944. These are not "bland." The other Famous characters were well designed compared to 1940 Fleischer characters, and certainly were consided appealing enough design wise to merit being picked up for comic book publishing by Harvey Publications, which later bought the television rights to the cartoons, as you most likely know. I believe your impression of "bland" character design is from the 1949 to 1953 period.

[Wings]

Originally Posted by Thad

I agree with your kind of thinking throughout this thread (the term "artist" is used so much that it's lost its meaning), but the Fleischers were indeed artists. Just about every innovation in animation that didn't happen at Disney happened at their studio.

That implies to me that they were innovators (although you going to have list the innovations for me, only thing I think of right now is rotoscope) which puts them in a similar class as Winsor McCay. Important? yes. Artist? Well, let's look at that portfolio. Don't get me wrong, the Fleischers is my fourth overall favorite studio, but for me there's not enough of their work passes my test what I consider art.

I admit that I'm not a fan of the Famous Popeyes, that's because of how they used him, especially later in the 50's (for crying out loud they cast him as Cinderella), and not the designs, which are improvement of the Fleischer's style of copying Segar's designs. Segar wasn't a great draftsman, but was definitely a talented writer, I think.

[Senbei Norimaki]

Originally Posted by nickramer

Interestingly, I just found out there's going to be a free screening of a restored copy of this film next month at the Wexner Center in Columbus, Ohio. I'm planning to see it.

I wonder if Studio Ghibli will be using the same print.

I too prefer Fleischer studios to Famous studios, but I might be bias because the 1930's is my favorite decade for American animation

[Ray Pointer]

Originally Posted by Wings

That implies to me that they were innovators (although you going to have list the innovations for me, only thing I think of right now is rotoscope) which puts them in a similar class as Winsor McCay. Important? yes. Artist? Well, let's look at that portfolio. Don't get me wrong, the Fleischers is my fourth overall favorite studio, but for me there's not enough of their work passes my test what I consider art.

I admit that I'm not a fan of the Famous Popeyes, that's because of how they used him, especially later in the 50's (for crying out loud they cast him as Cinderella), and not the designs, which are improvement of the Fleischer's style of copying Segar's designs. Segar wasn't a great draftsman, but was definitely a talented writer, I think.

Oh, my! Wings, I believe you are new here. As such, you would have known many of the details that you bring up here. Yes, the Fleischers were indeed innovators in their era, and this was beyond just Max's developement of The Rotoscope. I have commented in great detail on these matters here many, many times. Such details have been documented in several books, forum postings, and Internet Radio Broadcasts, many of which I have been a part of. Since there is so much information on this subject that is available, it would be most enlightening for you to read about them.

Your comment about the Famous designs being an improvement upon the Fleischer's copying of the Segar style skips over a decade of design development that originated at Fleischer Studios. Watching the evolution of the series reveals improvements of the character designs starting in 1935, allowing for greater expression and flexibility in the animation, continuing well into the 1940s when the draftsmanship and character animation was at its tops. These improves eliminated the shortcuts of quick moves into held poses, and various "symbols" of acting as a substitute for more subtle character animation as was being developed on the west coast. The results of this were inherited by Famous Studios and carried on from that point based upon the foundation laid by Fleischer Studios.

[Jack G.]

Originally Posted by Ray Pointer

It's not a matter of "taste," but a matter of artistic realization. Perhaps you are doing the very thing that I metioned, dismissing the merits of the earlier works. Look at the POPEYE cartoons of 1944. These are not "bland." The other Famous characters were well designed compared to 1940 Fleischer characters, and certainly were consided appealing enough design wise to merit being picked up for comic book publishing by Harvey Publications, which later bought the television rights to the cartoons, as you most likely know. I believe your impression of "bland" character design is from the 1949 to 1953 period.

I can see from the B&W Famous Popeyes that they are well constructed.
They still don't do much for me.

Basically I'm going by my desire to draw these characters Famous created.
And I don't want to - they don't appeal to me visually.

I don't waste my time questioning whether Harvey Publications made a good choice getting the rights to these characters.
I wouldn't buy the rights - not from any admiration anyway.

Edit- OK I'm probably not as well-versed on the earliest period of Famous, so I withhold judgement on that era.

...I don't see how anything in the Tom Johnson or Dave Tendlar units is any 'blander' than anything in the non-Avery MGM variety or Terrytoons.

I agree that Terrytoons designs aren't great. I don't want to draw the characters on the whole - maybe I'd draw H&J.

Non-Avery MGM?
In Tom & Jerry almost every animal character is basically the same design with different appendages.
I have slightly more motivations to draw Tom - but not much.

[Ray Pointer]

Originally Posted by Jack G.

I can see from the B&W Famous Popeyes that they are well constructed. They still don't do much for me.
Basically I'm going by my desire to draw these characters Famous created. And I don't want to - they don't appeal to me visually.

I don't waste my time questioning whether Harvey Publications made a good choice getting the rights to these characters.
I wouldn't buy the rights - not from any admiration anyway.

Edit- OK I'm probably not as well-versed on the earliest period of Famous, so I withhold judgement on that era.


I agree that Terrytoons designs aren't great. I don't want to draw the characters on the whole - maybe I'd draw H&J.

Non-Avery MGM?
In Tom & Jerry almost every animal character is basically the same design with different appendages.
I have slightly more motivations to draw Tom - but not much.

While this thread is about MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, in a remote sense it relates to the subject of character design, inspired and bland. The character design in MR. BUG seems to be a pre-cursor to what was to become the Famous Studios "appealing character" designs. Much of this was the influence of Graham Place.

It seems your dislike of the character designs may be the result of trying to "copy" a design that you are struggling with. While much can be learned from "copying," this can be more frustrating than enlightening.
Since you are unhappy with the results, perhaps it would be to your betterment to take what you have learned and create something original.
This would be far more satisfying than trying to slavishly re-create something that has arleady been done and is actually an old fashioned stylization. This is something that I have been harshly criticised for in the Industry, and undeservingly labled or pigeon-holed for in spite of the fact that I can draw in varous styles. Yet when revitalizations of such classic characters came up after 50 years or more, we see a definite "re-invention."

For the biggest laugh, the main source of my being criticized for being "old fashioned" came from the "former" head of Hanna-Barbera. When he saw the animated spots I produced for the Navy with superior animation to what H-B was producing, I was told it was "old fashioned." I asked him what H-B was producing that year. His response was TOM AND JERRY KIDS! And topping that off, he said, "And we're putting more 'animation' into it."

[Jack G.]

Originally Posted by Ray Pointer

It seems your dislike of the character designs may be the result of trying to "copy" a design that you are struggling with. While much can be learned from "copying," this can be more frustrating than enlightening.
Since you are unhappy with the results, perhaps it would be to your betterment to take what you have learned and create something original.

I think you're mistaken there.
I'm certainly not the ultimate judge of what's a good character design or not.

I may be frustrated with my slow progress, but I'm happy with the drawings I've copied
- I didn't think I could do such a thing a year or so ago.

If I'm inspired to copy a drawing, then I'm copy it.
I've never struggled with Famous designs because I haven't sat down to copy one; they don't make me go, "I wanna draw that."

Oh, I also admit I'm kinda finicky in my tastes for everything.
And I also admit that Famous Cartoons never worked for me since I saw them as a toddler.

I don't feel I have the skill to create the kind of original drawing I want to do.
That's gonna take more studying of the masters before I tackle that.

Sorry to veer of topic. I hope I didn't cause a good thread to be derailed.

[Ray Pointer]

Originally Posted by Jack G.

I think you're mistaken there.
I'm certainly not the ultimate judge of what's a good character design or not.

I may be frustrated with my slow progress, but I'm happy with the drawings I've copied - I didn't think I could do such a thing a year or so ago. If I'm inspired to copy a drawing, then I'm copy it. I've never struggled with Famous designs because I haven't sat down to copy one; they don't make me go, "I wanna draw that." Oh, I also admit I'm kinda finicky in my tastes for everything. And I also admit that Famous Cartoons never worked for me since I saw them as a toddler. I don't feel I have the skill to create the kind of original drawing I want to do. That's gonna take more studying of the masters before I tackle that.
Sorry to veer of topic. I hope I didn't cause a good thread to be derailed.

OT: If you'd like, please contact me privately and let me see what you are working on. Maybe I might be able to help.

[Jack G.]

Originally Posted by Ray Pointer

OT: If you'd like, please contact me privately and let me see what you are working on. Maybe I might be able to help.

Thank You!
Give me a little time and I'll get in touch.