Talk:Chuck Jones

I just learned from paying some attention to the the rolling credits, last night, that Chuck Jones is the director, etc. of my favourite Christmas movie of all time, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Bugs Bunny is already one of my very favourite cartoon so it was amazing to find out about the Mr. Grinch connection after all these years.

Yep, Chuck Jones was certainly a talented animator/director, arguably the best that we've ever seen. I love the "Grinch" special too. You can see some of his Looney Tunes masterpieces just recently restored and released on DVD (see Looney Tunes Golden Collections). Some of the very best Chuck Jones cartoons are on these sets, including "What's Opera, Doc?", "The Rabbit of Seville", "Duck Amuck", "The Ducksters", "The Dover Boys", and of course, "One Froggy Evening". The DVDs include special features devoted to Chuck Jones and other cartoon directors (like Bob Clampett). Volume 1 includes a very nice introduction to the Looney Tunes characters by Chuck himself (if you're curious to see what he looked like in his later years). Volume 2 also includes at least one audio commentary by Chuck Jones himself (pieced together from various interviews post mortem, since Chuck passed away before DVDs hit the mainstream). It's great to hear his perspective on some of these cartoons. Jeff schiller 17:53, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

----

Thanks Jeff for the information about the Looney Tunes Collection. I'd like to get it soon from Amazon or the like, I'm sure it will cost some pretty pennies but it'd be nice to have.

RE: "Controversy"

I removed the "Controversy" section. It's very much violating our NPOV policy, as it's an opnion shared by some people, but not by many others. --b. Touch 03:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE: RE: "Controversy"

Controversy section is not from a point of view. It is view nuetral. It is no more biased that this quote from the beginning of the article:

Many of Jones' cartoons of the 1930s and early 1940s were lavishly animated, but lacking in genuine humor. Often slow-moving and overbearing with "cuteness," Jones' cartoons seemed to be an attempt to follow in the footsteps of Walt Disney (especially with such cartoons as Tom Thumb in Trouble and the Sniffles cartoons)

For similarly themed article see the "Quality Controversy" section of Hanna Barbera.

Some people may like these elements of Jones' career, others may not. If you can only despute the negative or positiveness of the facts and not the facts themselves this section should not be removed. Please explain what about it is factually wrong before removing it again. What would be even better is if we could work together to make the section more acceptable to you as nuetral if you truly feel it isnt already.

Because it's a long section with a completely negative viewpoint. It needs to be re-written and presented from both sides of the story, therfore renaming it "Critical analyses of Jones' work". The Hanna-Barbera section explains and justifys both sides of the story and keeps a neutral viewpoint; this on the other hand looks like it stands to trash Jones and no other reason. On top of all of that, it's not even properly formatted: a section like this doesn't NEED headers; it causes it to draw undue attention to itself. I will rewrite it and neutralize the point of view in an hour or so. --b. Touch 13:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned up the article, removing these two sections:

• Jones also reenvisioned many established characters' personalities dramatically to the versions we recognize as standard today. Bugs Bunny became far more docile and kind, protagonist Daffy Duck lost all his daffiness and became an angry spoiled sport antagonist, and Porky Pig went from a clumsy straight man style star to a mostly irrelevant sidekick.

• Jones also seemed to write the same cartoons over and over again. Series, such as Pepe Le Pew, Sam Sheepdog, the Road Runner and the Wabbit Season trilogy had nearly identical plots, gags, and resolutions.

All Warners directors had different versions of the main characters: Robert McKimson's Bugs is more talkative and scheming and less active, while Friz Freleng's Bugs s more mischevous and playful. Freleng re-invented Bob Clampett's Tweety characer int othe cute, docile one adrning childrens' backpacks to this day, Frelend and Jones have seperate characterizations of Sylvester, and McKimson reinvented Jones' Henery Hawk into Fogehorn Leghorn's brash-talking antagonist.

And as far as repetition, Freleng's Bugs/Yosemite Sam cartoons, McKimson's Foghorn Leghorn cartoons, and--most obviously--the Tweety & Sylvester cartoons all use the same plots (and gags sometimes) over and over again. In the case of some of the Warners series (particularly the Tweety & Sylvester, Road Runner, and Sam Sheepdog/Ralph Wolf cartoons), the repitition is the point of the series; and the challenge is to explore all of the different variations one can get from the same theme. Jones has a list of rules that he does not break for the Road Runner series ("The Road Runner must tstay on the road", "they must stay in the desert setting", etc). Remember, many of these cartoons were released to theaters anywhere from a few months to an entire year apart, they aren't meantto be digested all at one time asa whole; Jones in particular ususally made only one Road Runner cartoon a year.

The thing about the cuteness factor is dead-on, however, particualrly the bit about Tom & Jerry. THat, obviously, needs to stay. I added a paragraph discussing the other side of the token; i.e. why Jones is the most honored and recognized director fro mthe Warner cartoon studio. Also, as stated before, such a section should be written in paragraph form, not sectioned off as a list; it makes the formatting of the page awkward. --b. Touch 14:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: editing controvery

I agree with most of your edits, but I think you are being a bit one sided in some ways. The entire article could be seen as a slanted positive toward jones. This section is a sort of balance. Idolizing someone is as bad as simply bashing them. I'm glad that the part about plot is left in, but I think the character reenvisionment must be put back in and I will be reincorporating it. After all saying it doesn't belong because other animators did it too is a "two wrongs" falacy. Daffy was NOT an antagonist until jones and porky was NOT a sidekick until jones. He was a star or costar, no simply giggling in the background.

"If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone." (direct from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Jones is a major figure in animation, and the prupose for having an encyclopedia article about him is to explain why he's important, not to tear him down because of our own personal preferneces. As much as I like Jones' work, I like Avery's and Clampett's just as much, and I'm not a big fan of greedy Daffy. You can go ahead and enter a paragraph on the character reimaginement, but please remember to use NPOV. --b. Touch 18:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've already added that information back to the article. But, again, all articles need a generally positve (though not glowing, which this article does not have) tone. The Diana Ross article doesn't attack the lesser elements of her character, and the articles for Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, etc. do not attack their works. A consistent tone has to be maintained. If you do not like Jones' work, and want people to know, the Wikipedia is not the place for that. --b. Touch 18:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you 100% on using paragraphs as opposed to bullets, I think this has been a large exercise in your ego. I don't see how you've changed any of the ideas I wrote except to enlongated them in your own prose. My usage of words like "reinvented" amd "reenvisioned" are completely nuetral. I could have used "ruined" instead if I intended to be negative. You're paragraph comes off as more negative because it sites that some views don't like it. I never placed a value on the change in characteristics or on the cuteness factor, I just stated it existed. I think the sections on Jones' wanting to bring respect to cartoons boarders on the sycophantical. I think every director of the 40's was out for the same goal, especially Clampett who considered his work an extention Surrealism. The way you phrase Jones as the only force besides disney, makes light of other directors' work.

Jones is not the first to add obscure intellectual notes into his work. The Fleischers were the masters of this and their, and ealier WB directors were much more daring in their use of oscure Jazz songs and classical music. I think this is another spot where Jones was influenced, but was not an innovator as you make him seem.