Mr. Bug goes to Town Japanese trailer

[Leviathan]

Lantz, Terry and the Fleischers were animators in the silent era, as opposed to Leon Schlesinger, Eddie Selzer and Fred Quimby, who had no animation experience whatsoever (and, in spite of their meddling, ran tighter ships and held onto their talented artists for years)

[Wings]

I know full well that Lantz, Terry, and the Flesichers were animators in the silent era, but again that doesn't mean they were artist. Artist is a term, like I said, that I don't apply loosely. Areas such as music, painting, film making, etc. have people in it that are regular practitioners, hacks, and then there are those who better talented that I consider artists. You need something more than to be one and not be considered regular practitioner. Whatever it was, I don't see any of those four having it, not enough of their work I think is art. To go back to my painting analogy, Warhol and Lichtenstein were painters, but artists, not in a million years because I see their work as copying kitsch.
I agree that Schlesinger, Selzer, or Quimby were not artists either.

[Senbei Norimaki]

Originally Posted by Studio Toledo

You know how bad you have it when Japan gets finer things!

Love your avatar Senbei!

Thanks its from an episode of Urusei Yatsura.

[Ray Pointer]

With regards to the issues that brought about the demise of Fleischer Studios, anyone who has been following my posts here and also had the chance to hear the three Internet programs I was featured on will have learned the details. Much of what has been offered here is an overly simplistic explanation to a far more complicated situation. It is not so much a lack of business sense, although this may have played a part in Max Fleischer's case, but it was a lack of vision and realization of the place animated cartoons had as a form of cinema. It is this aspect that propelled Walt Disney and his product. This lack of realization of the medium was partly a limited artisitic concept.

Interestingly, while people are a bit too dismissive of Famous Studios, they actually moved in the directions of better character design and more appealing characters--an area that Fleischer Studios was unable to accomplish in their shorts of 1940 with so many failed series with under-realized stories, poor musical scores, and ugly characers that made the product look crude compared to the rest of the industry. It seems they did put their best efforts into their last feature however, which had fantastic animation hung on a good story premise with weak lead characters. In both Fleischer features, the concepts were largely environmental, focused on scale and "technique," yet failing in lead character development.

[Wings]

Originally Posted by Ray Pointer

With regards to the issues that brought about the demise of Fleischer Studios, anyone who has been following my posts here and also had the chance to hear the three Internet programs I was featured on will have learned the details. Much of what has been offered here is an overly simplistic explanation to a far more complicated situation. It is not so much a lack of business sense, although this may have played a part in Max Fleishcer's case, but it was a lack of vision and realization of the place animated cartoons had as a form of cinema. It is this aspect that propelled Walt Disney and his product. This lack of realization of the medium was partly a limited artisitic concept.

Interestingly, while people are a bit too dismissive of Famous Studios, they actually moved in the directions of better character design and more appealing characters--an area that Fleischer Studios was unable to accomplish in their shorts of 1940 with so many failed series with under-realized stories, poor musical scores, and ugly characers that made the product look crude compared to the rest of the industry. It seems they did put their best efforts into their last feature however, which had fantastic animation hung on a good story premise with weak lead characters. In both Fleischer features, the concepts were largely environmental, focused on scale and "technique," yet failing in lead character development.

Ray, I've been developing a theory for a while that even if Max and Dave stayed onboard, the studio would taken the same decline that the Famous studio is often accused of. I also think that some people surround the two Flesichers with a sort of barrier against criticism because they were kicked off and believe that if they weren't, the cartoons in the 40's made by their studio would have been equal to say the Warner brother's cartoons of the 40's (it sort parallels with another person in more recent animation history (coughJohnKcough) only by a different camp). What do you think of this idea?

[Jack G.]

Originally Posted by Ray Pointer

Interestingly, while people are a bit too dismissive of Famous Studios, they actually moved in the directions of better character design and more appealing characters--

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.

Yes I know Fleischer seemed to be unable to create it's own great characters
(unless you count the Helen Kane inspired Betty).
But all the Famous characters are lame and there designs are nothing to write home about.

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Wings

I know full well that Lantz, Terry, and the Flesichers were animators in the silent era, but again that doesn't mean they were artist. Artist is a term, like I said, that I don't apply loosely. Areas such as music, painting, film making, etc. have people in it that are regular practitioners, hacks, and then there are those who better talented that I consider artists. You need something more than to be one and not be considered regular practitioner. Whatever it was, I don't see any of those four having it, not enough of their work I think is art. To go back to my painting analogy, Warhol and Lichtenstein were painters, but artists, not in a million years because I see their work as copying kitsch.
I agree that Schlesinger, Selzer, or Quimby were not artists either.

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.

[Thad]

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.

Yes I know Fleischer seemed to be unable to create it's own great characters
(unless you count the Helen Kane inspired Betty).
But all the Famous characters are lame and there designs are nothing to write home about.

They had to make the character designs work with the 40s style of animation. Personally I love the character designs of the mid-40s at Famous where it's a weird hybrid between the 'old' and 'new' in cartoons like NO MUTTON FER NUTTIN', CILLY GOOSE, and CHEESE BURGLAR. As for the later designs, 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.

[Ray Pointer]

Originally Posted by Wings

Ray, I've been developing a theory for a while that even if Max and Dave stayed onboard, the studio would taken the same decline that the Famous studio is often accused of. I also think that some people surround the two Flesichers with a sort of barrier against criticism because they were kicked off and believe that if they weren't, the cartoons in the 40's made by their studio would have been equal to say the Warner brother's cartoons of the 40's (it sort parallels with another person in more recent animation history (coughJohnKcough) only by a different camp). What do you think of this idea?

Your theory is sound. What everyone seems not to realize is that Paramount was in complete control as of 1941, even though the Fleischer name continued on the product. Max and Dave were employees to Paramount, and Parmount "owned" the Fleischer Studios name as well as the use of the names Max and Dave Fleischer. These are some of the many details that I revealed in my last appearance on STU'S SHOW last year.

[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.