ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Cinemaniac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Cinemaniac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enter, O seeker of knowledge! ... That's you, fathead!

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cinemaniac.
This is the user talk page for User:Cinemaniac, where you can send messages and comments to Cinemaniac.


Cinemaniac is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.



Contents

[edit] Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "This Means War"

That phrase originated in Duck Soup (just in this context, not in the course of human history). That exact phraseology was used by Ambassador Trentino (Louis Calhern). Groucho echoed it by saying, "Then it's war!" It's possible Groucho said "This means war" in A Night at the Opera, I can't recall. But the phrase, in connection with the Marx Brothers, originated in Duck Soup. Maybe the Bugs Bunny article should say it's connected with the Marx Brothers, rather than Groucho himself. It's kind of like "Play it again, Sam", which everyone knows Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman said in Casablanca, and of course neither of them actually said it quite that way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I watched A Night at the Opera just recently. During the scene involving Chico, Harpo, and Allan Jones disguising themselves as Russian aviators (with Groucho there to monitor the situation), an undercover policeman discovers Harpo's fake beard is coming off. He confronts Groucho, saying, "I think these fellows are phonies!". Groucho then goes on and talks with the other two (in an unintelligible dialect that was actually recorded normally then inserted into the film in reverse), after which Chico and Jones walk off angrily. Groucho then stares at the policeman and mayor and quips: "Of course you know, this means war!", before walking off himself. — Cinemaniac 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Ya know, looking back at it, it's funny you mentioned the famous misquotation from Casablanca, "Play it again, Sam", as an example. Because that quote was actually first uttered in A Night in Casablanca, the Marx Brothers's spoof of the 1943 Bogart/Bergman classic. — Cinemaniac 23:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Groucho's statement echoes the same line featured in Duck Soup. As I said, the exact phrase is actually spoken by Trentino. This funny scene goes like this:

Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything within my power to keep our Freedonia at peace. I'd be only too happy to meet Ambassador Trentino and offer him, on behalf of my country, the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit in which it is offered... But suppose he doesn't? A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept it. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is that he can come here and make a sap out of me in front of my people? Think of it: I hold out my hand, and that hyena refuses to accept it. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine. He'll never get away with it I tell you!
(Trentino enters)
Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?! (slaps Trentino with gloves)
Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw! There's no turning back now. This means war!
(Trentino leaves)
Groucho: Then it's war!
others: Then it's war! (leads into a song)

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And Bugsy's phrase also varied. Sometimes he said, "Of course you realize this means war!" and other times he said "Of course you know this means war!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if we mention in the Bugs Bunny article something along these lines: "Bugs's famous catchphrase, "Of course, you know this means war!", had actually been popularized earlier by the Marx Brothers in their films Duck Soup and A Night at the Opera." … I think that would work. I still believe that it technically should be attributed to Groucho because he actually said the words in the latter film, but, as you've pointed out, variants of the phrase were spoken by many others (specifically Louis Calhern) in Duck Soup, also. I'm willing to comply and say the Marx Brothers, if not Groucho himself, used the phrase in both films. — Cinemaniac 14:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I already revised it somewhat. The tendency to attribute it to Groucho is made by many authors. Returning to the "play it again, Sam", it was Ingrid Bergman who said "play it, Sam" and later Bogart said, "If she can stand it, so can I. Play it." Those two statements homogenized into the not-quite-factual "Play it again, Sam." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This Duck Soup script [1] is a little hard to follow, but I find at least 3 places where someone says "This means war!" First by Trentino, then by Groucho, then by Trentino again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The actual phrase "This means war!" long pre-dates the Marxes, I'm sure. It's just a melodramatic statement, for comic emphasis, in both Marx and Bugs pictures. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Note the reference in Case of the Missing Hare. This might be the first time Bugs says it on-screen. He says "realize" instead of "know". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That pie-in-the-face incident is the first time Bugs says it (according to Greg Ford, at least), but the line [specifically "Of course you KNOW that this means war!"] was said by Happy Rabbit in the 1938 cartoon Porky's Hare Hunt. That short was the debut of Happy Rabbit, now considered the prototypical version of our favorite hare. He's barely recognizable compared to his more familiar later form, and he's got that sort of grating Woody Woodpecker-like voice that would later be carried on to Hare-um Scare-um. The first true Bugs Bunny cartoon did not come out until two years later, in Tex Avery's A Wild Hare. — Cinemaniac 01:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Good research. And as a side note, one editor is now saying the name "Happy Rabbit" was a fig newton of Mel Blanc's imagination. More research is needed on that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In looking back at it, I don't think it's unlikely that Mel Blanc actually may have made this 'Happy Rabbit' info up in his later years and interviews. Evidence of this possibility is present in many of Blanc's interviews themselves. For instance, Blanc's favorite story of how he created Porky Pig's voice is of him visiting a farm and wallowing around in the mud with the pigs for awhile, later realising that pigs, if they could talk, would talk with a grunt; thus, Porky Pig's "stutter" is, according to Blanc, not a stutter at all but a grunt. But, as Bob Clampett's son has pointed out, "Mel conveniently forgot that he was Porky's second voice!" Indeed, that job was originally that of Joe Dougherty, before he was fired because of his inability to control his own stammering problem.
Mel Blanc's credibility can, in other cases, be called into question even more. We all know of Mel Blanc's contract regarding him being given sole credit in the cartoons. But in some cases where he could have given more accurate info concerning those uncredited performers, he did not: Blanc did not say anything about Paul Julian being the actual voice of the Road Runner (crediting the "mheep-mheep!" alternately to himself or to some erroneous device), and only once, I think, did he confess that he actually did not take up Elmer Fudd's voice immediately after Arthur Q. Bryan passed away (in reality, in those cases Fudd's voice was done by "a fellow by the name of Smith"). There's always something …
Finally, in regards to "Happy Rabbit" being the prototype for Bugs: I can recall some interviews with Friz Freleng talking about this subject. (I think they're featured in the first and second Looney Tunes Golden Collection volumes.) Anyway, in both interviews, he says that "There were other Bugs Bunnys before [the true Bugs Bunny we all know], but they weren't really the same character. Those Bugses were more like Daffy Duck in a rabbit suit." Now, why didn't Freleng just say "Happy Rabbit" when referring to these "Bugses"? It sort of reminds me of how Michigan J. Frog and Marvin the Martian didn't acquire their current names until many years after their debuts. I think Ted Watson's and jeff schiller's arguments are valid. — Cinemaniac 02:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. In many cases, the names came later. Porky and Daffy were some exceptions. Bugs, Leghorn, Sylvester, Tweety, etc., all named later. The tricky part is to come up with exact citations that contradict Blanc's claims. Also, I don't know that he demanded exclusive voice credit. It's that he was the only one in any position to make demands of any kind, so he was the only one whose contract called for credit. He was a great talent, and knew it. Nothing wrong with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of this funny story from fellow voice actor Stan Freberg: Some time after being employed, Mel Blanc went to the boss and asked for more pay. Of course, Schlesinger "refused". With that, Blanc asked for solo screen credit (more or less); and since that didn't cost Schlesinger anything, he went ahead and gave it to him! :)
In fact, there are only two times when Mel Blanc was not given solo credit for his voice acting: 1) The Three Little Bops, a late 50s Freleng cartoon with "voice characterizations by Stan Freberg"; and 2) The Mouse that Jack Built, a Robert McKimson-directed parody of The Jack Benny Show, complete with the original cast (which, notwithstanding, included Mel Blanc in two roles). --- Cinemaniac 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be Freberg's view on the "exclusive credit" story, which is possibly contrary to whatever Blanc may have said, and it's hard to tell who would be correct. More research needed. Blanc was, of course, a regular on the Benny radio and TV shows. His "Si, Sy, Sew, Sue" routine had to be seen and/or listened to, to understand how funny it was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, The Jack Benny Program was probably Mel Blanc's "home away from home" (when he wasn't doing something for Warners). In addition to his famous contribution as Benny's dying, sputtering Maxwell, Blanc also appeared on the program as Benny's violin teacher, parrot, and polar bear, as well as the often-tested store clerk and train announcer ("and COOC-amonga!").
Before I undertake the research needed for finding reliable sources that may contradict Mel Blanc's claims, I do want to provide some more clarifying information. I hope no one thinks I have anything against Blanc in bringing this info about him out. On the contrary, in my opinion he's probably the most responsible for Warner's success in the field of animation (his vocal range has provided a certain continuity in the cartoons and provided a link between the audience and the characters). To elaborate on my thoughts I will quote Simpsons animator Milton Gray from this [essay]. It's admittedly more about Gray's thoughts concerning the Bob Clampett/Chuck Jones feud, but I found the following paragraph particularly relevant to many of the other key people at Termite Terrace as well:
"For many years surrounding 1969, it was practically impossible for anyone in animation outside of the Disney Studio to get any publicity or promotion for their careers, and almost the only way to get any at all was to claim to have been the creator of several famous cartoon characters. And so it was common in those days for the various Warner directors—including Chuck Jones, plus voice artist Mel Blanc—to claim the creation of virtually all of the Warner characters that they were ever associated with, in whatever little newspaper or magazine articles they could get. This practice led increasingly to injured feelings among the various Warner directors. Tex Avery once publicly criticized Chuck Jones for taking too much credit for the creation of Bugs Bunny, and I have a publicity release, which was being sent to the media from the DePatie-Freleng Studio as late as 1973, that flatly states that Friz Freleng was the sole creator of Bugs Bunny (who actually came into being while Friz was away at MGM for one-and-a-half years), Daffy Duck, Tweety, Porky Pig and others. In 1969, Bob Clampett didn't really know Mike Barrier or myself, and the uncommonly intense integrity that we brought to our research and reporting, and so I would have to say that any exaggerations of emphasis that Bob allowed himself in the 1969 [Funnyworld magazine] interview were well within the bounds of acceptability that had already been established by his peers."
Again, for any users reading our ongoing discussion, I don't have anything against Mel Blanc at all; I'm simply trying to collect and analyze information and get closer to the truth. In this case, be thankful for enthusiasts like Keith Scott and Jerry Beck, without whom we may never know many of the people who went uncredited in these early cartoons. — Cinemaniac 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
When I get more time, in a few weeks, I'll be looking into this some more also. I'm curious to find out the real story of "Happy Rabbit". For example, there is a website [2], kind of an old one, that has all manner of interesting minutia, and I don't think it mentions "Happy Rabbit". However, I don't have time to peruse the whole thing tonight. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The hyperlink you provided was extremely helpful. That web site (one I, oddly enough, had not been aware of) is a treasure trove of information; it's a real eye-opener. For instance, I've always enjoyed watching Arsenic and Old Lace, almost as much as I've enjoyed watching Clampett's 1946 work Kitty Kornered. I had no idea that the former was being referenced in the cartoon, but after reading that tidbit at that [site], it makes since! It will no doubt be helpful in the upcoming days as I try to find and figure out some reliable sources for this Mel Blanc/Happy Rabbit investigation. (I'm getting tired just thinking about all the information I'll have to wade through. Oh a-gony! A-GO-NY! ) Thanks again.  :) — Cinemaniac 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The author of that website seems to have done his homework and also admits where there is doubt. I think it's a great resource. It has the ring of truth to it. The author obviously knows a lot about old-time radio. I've used that site many times to point out radio catch-phrases that would show up. The WB cartoons of the 1940s were an excellent barometer of pop culture, just as The Flintstones and The Simpsons were and are in their times. Remember the one with the gremlin? I think it's called Falling Hare. The final gag in the film, where Bugsy says, "You know how it is with these 'A' cards!" probably got a huge laugh from the contemporary audience. I know what it means, but the average kid seeing it now would probably go "Huh?" unless he knew about WWII gasoline rationing. Then there's A Tale of Two Kitties, one of my all-time favorites and which is on LTGC 5, released just a couple of weeks ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I truly regret not yet having purchased the most recent Golden Collection DVD; I've heard it's great, but apparently none of the stores in my area are stocking it (except for all of the Spotlight Collections, which I have no intention of getting, for reasons I explained here.) I sincerely hope I'll be able to get it soon though .
Speaking of Falling Hare, d'you think it's possible that the ending of that cartoon might have been inspired by Chico's nonsensical "airplane" speech in A Night at the Opera? It certainly brings it to mind. — Cinemaniac 03:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to review my copy of A Night at the Opera once I can get to it. Regarding the Vol 5 DVD, I ordered mine from my nearby Barnes & Noble. They only got one copy in, and someone else already had dibs on it. But they'll order anything, for no charge, and in this case they had it in the store within a few days of its release date. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porky's "S.O.B." story

It would be best to avoid "recent" as a description, and give at least the specific year in which it was released. LTGC Vol. 4 was a year ago. I don't know about the other one. In any case, Porky's speech impediment is funny if not very PC. Perhaps the most extreme case was when he thought the earth was being invaded by Martians. This was in Kitty_Kornered. As I recall he looks into the camera with a terrified expression, and in more of a stammer than a stutter, he shouts, "M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-MEN FROM MARS!" (Print doesn't do it justice.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do! If I remember correctly, the Each Dawn I Die DVD was released in 2004. If it turns out my edit is wrong, though, I'll probably end up pounding my head against the wall...  :)
While I'm at it, I might need your help again. A few days ago I created a page concerning Greg Ford; would you mind visiting it and cleaning it up? It was the first article I created, so it understandably lacks citations. I'll be asking several more Wikipedians with a great knowledge of animation and its history to drop by that new article, too. — Cinemaniac 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't claim to have a broad knowledge of animation history, just certain aspects of it. I need to find out more about this guy Greg Ford. I'm not in any position to do that right now. Remind me in a couple of weeks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Greg Ford is one of the more recent (and in my opinion, the better) of the contributors to post-Golden Age Warner Bros. Animation. His 1991 work (Blooper) Bunny (now having garnered a cult following among Looney Tune fans) has been heralded as one of the best WB cartoons of our day—according to IMDb, at least.
By the way, I just searched the Web. … It looks like I was a little bit hasty editing: The Each Dawn I Die DVD was released on July 18, 2006, not 2004. I'll fix the edit soon, as soon as I take some aspirin for my headache... — Cinemaniac 03:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I took out the "recent", which is discouraged for various reasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Blanc/Happy Rabbit Investigation, Cont'd

This "investigation", if you will, is coming along a lot faster than I thought it would. Here's an interesting tidbit I found in Michael Barrier's 1999 book, Hollywood Cartoons, bringing one of Blanc's most common (and oft-repeated) claims concerning Bugs Bunny's evolution into serious question:

"The most prominent of New York-flavored characters was, of course, Bugs Bunny, although there was disagreement among the people who worked on the cartoons about just how much of a New Yorker Bugs really was. Mel Blanc described the voice as a combination of Bronx and Brooklyn accents; Tex Avery said, to the contrary, that he had asked Blanc to give him not a New York voice as such, but a voice like that of actor Frank McHugh, who turned up frequently in supporting roles in the thirties and whose voice might be described as New York Irish. ( [Still, t]he resemblance is slight at best.)
Bugs's voice in A Wild Hare is actually "straighter", that is, with a less sharply defined accent, than his voice in many of the cartoons made a few years later. It was in the late forties that Bugs sounded most like a cagey New York street kid. The only hole in the ground where this rabbit was truly at home was the subway---and, in fact, in Bob McKimson's Hurdy-Gurdy Hare, he bambooles an unfortunate gorilla (a real one, not the human equivalent) in the authoritative tones of a subway conductor: 'Okay, push in, plenty of room in the center of the car, push in, plenty of room,' pausing to remark to the camera, 'I used to work on the shuttle from Time Square to Grand Central.'"

An interesting bit of info from a respected historian... I hope it's a good enough reliable source. I'll be quoting from this book a lot (along with another similar landmark, Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic), as I continue to investigate this subject. (I unfortunately don't have access to other invaluable sources, such as Steve Schneider's That's All, Folks!! or Jerry Beck's Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies guide---but, then again, we are always free to ask questions at their websites.) While I'm on the subject of Mel Blanc, I found this fascinating ten-minute-or-so interview by David Letterman of him at this link: (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/classic/mel-blanc-on-letterman-1981). --- Cinemaniac 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to give it a listen once I'm on a computer with usable sound. That should be fascinating. You're right about the evolution of Bugs' voice. Oddly, the first one in which he was actually named had his old "Happy Rabbit" voice (so-labeled here for convenience only) which was like a buck-toothed country bumpkin. That suggests they either (1) weren't quite sure what to do with him and/or (2) that the cartoons were released out of production order. I've got the Beck guide, which is priceless for plot and production details. I don't know if it's still available in any way, shape or form. I like Bugs of the 40s. By the 50s he was getting kind of repetitive, and the WB cartoons from that era that I like the best are Road Runners and also, of course, gems like One Froggy Evening. The main thing with the Road Runners were to see just how Wile E. Coyote was going to get clobbered in each gag. One tidbit from LTGC 5, in Buccaneer Bunny: Bugs is up in the crows nest, Sam stands at one end of a seesaw, tosses a cannonball on the other end, bounces straight up and bangs his head on the underside of the crows nest. Pretty tame now, but a forerunner of the Road Runner jokes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably, although I can remember similar gags happening in Freleng's Tweety-and-Sylvester series, and in a 1951 Bob McKimson-directed Bugs Bunny cartoon entitled Big Top Bunny. --- Cinemaniac 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that instead of rubbing out references to "Happy Rabbit", it might be better to reinstate him, with the caveat that apparently no one, outside of Mel Blanc, used this name for him, and that it serves only as a time-frame reference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: In one scene in Buccaneer Bunny, Sam is at the bottom of the ocean, mouthing unheard words. My guess would be he was saying "G.D.S.O.B." (to put it semi-politely), which the WB artists were known to do sometimes, escaping the censors (unless they were lip-readers). The Beck book makes specific mention of that, not in Buccaneer Bunny, but in the one about Myles Standish. One Indian accidentally clobbers another, and the angry Indian turns and mouths those words, with little musical tones for each syllable, but no words spoken out loud. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The cartoon you are probably referring to is Hardship of Miles Standish, an early Elmer Fudd cartoon released in 1940. — Cinemaniac 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
About Jerry Beck's must-have guide, I just found out that it has apparently been out of print for some time. A bad thing---I don't think I'll have good luck at finding this book at my town's public library. It looks like I'll have to go to Beck's weblog (http://cartoonresearch.com) and ask questions myself. --- Cinemaniac 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bummer. Well, pester him with enough questions, and maybe he'll think about doing a re-issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the Beck/Friedwald book. I abandoned my copy as part of a major relocation a few years ago because it was falling apart and I assumed it would be fairly easy to get another (ditto Maltin's Of Mice and Magic). An article on the "character" might be better entitled The Bugs Bunny Prototype or something of the sort. I've been going through related articles and changing references to "Happy Rabbit" to "the Bugs Bunny prototype." Should I put that on hold pending the outcome of this discussion (especially since I can't make that change in the Warner Bros. cartoon characters template)? Ted Watson 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for a little while; at least until I can get this information sorted out. Your arguments were (and are) valid; what I'm trying to find out is whether or not anyone else can contradict Blanc's claims concerning Bugs Bunny's evolution (or any other questionable statements that present themselves). For instance, Blanc is often called "The Man of a Thousand Voices". Not really an exaggeration, even though, according to the back cover of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 3, IMDb only lists 904 voice credits in his filmography. :) [Just a little attempt at humor....] I'll be back with more revelatory information to share, I'm sure. — Cinemaniac 01:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Many of Blanc's specific character voices were variations on the same thing. Bugs and Tweety have a lot of similarities. So did Leghorn and Yosemite Sam. And obviously Daffy was a sped-up version of Sylvester. But as important as the voices themselves were, it was Blanc's infusion of character and personality that really "made" them. Regarding "Happy Rabbit", I wonder if it would be worthwhile to see who loaded up all that info originally and quiz them about it. I'm thinking it was not that long ago, and whoever did it might still be a wikipedia editor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Happy Rabbit" article started about a year ago [3] by a red-link user which appears to be the one later named (i.e. spelled correctly) "Mr. Sanitizer"). I seem to recall having some issues with him about which cartoon was Bugsy's true debut, but I think we reached agreement. That was some months ago. Maybe you could quiz him about this issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (I jposted the above in 3 talk pages, as this discussion is spreading out.)
I just posted a summary of this ongoing discussion at Mrsanitazier's talk page, along with a link to my page. Unfortunately, Mrsanitizer may longer be an active contributor anymore, as he hasn't made an edit since August 25, 2007. I'll be visiting his talk page off and on, if he doesn't respond here. — Cinemaniac 02:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Either I had originally mis-read his name, or else he changed it. In any case, here is some discussion on it [4]. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered, one of the libraries in my town holds a copy of historian Joe Adamson's 1990 book Bugs Bunny: Fifty Years and Only One Grey Hare. That book will undoubtedly be invaluable for this investigation. I'll try my best to get my hands on it. — Cinemaniac 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cinemaniac and Greg Ford

Sure, thanks! WAVY 10 Fan 14:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no; thank you! — Cinemaniac 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Blanc's "Happy Rabbit" Mystery: Solved, Maybe

In a recent discussion [5], Amcaja, Ted Watson, and WAVY 10 Fan agreed to hold off on entirely removing the "Bugs Bunny prototype" Happy Rabbit from relevant articles until my investigation ended. I am now happy to say I think I have some pretty definitive answers concerning the character. But sadly, an attempt to pick off Joe Adamson's Bugs Bunny history has proven fruitless, so it looks like I'm limited to the sources I have on hand. Nevertheless, I have done some thorough research, pulling together much information concerning the wabbit's evolution from the following primary sources:

[[6]]. Here's a length excerpt from a 1970 Bob Clampett interview for Funnyworld magazine:
Clampett: During 1937, I became very enthused about the newest trend in feature film comedy, where, in place of comedians in baggy pants, normal-appearing actors were performing hilarious comedy in a more underplayed and sophisticated manner. But, when you least expected it, there would be a broad comedy breakout. These films, which began with My Man Godfrey, were known in the trade as "screwball" comedies. I was looking for a character with which to try and capture the brash but sophisticated spirit of this new comedy style.
Then, in early 1938, one of Leon's units was having story trouble. They had started a story that covered a number of boards and had lots of characters in it. They had a lot of good material, but somehow it wasn't jelling. Leon called me into the office, and asked me if I had any two- or three-character story ideas that were very simple and could go into production quickly. I'm sure he asked the same thing of others. As I recall, there was only a week or so before it had to go to the animators.
So, I looked in my desk drawer, and among my other story sketches, I found this big pile of gags that we didn't use in Porky's Duck Hunt. Now, the second Daffy Duck hunt cartoon was going over big in the theaters, so I went to Leon and I said, "I've got all these great hunting gags left over from the first duck-hunt picture. I could organize them, put in a little new material and have you a story in just a few days." Leon said, "I don't want to give Warners another duck-hunt picture so soon." I said, "What do you object to, another hunting picture?" He said, "No, I just don't want another duck hunt." I said, "Maybe I'll get an idea."
This was on a Friday afternoon. So I took these sketches with me, and driving home I mulled over what else I could do with these gags. Should I switch it into a quail hunt? Or a fox hunt? Or a . . .? And then, recalling some of my 1931 "wabbit" and hunter gags. . . I settled on making him a rabbit.
After dinner, I began putting the duck sketches on my light board, intending to just draw the rabbit doing the duck's actions and gags. But I found that the rabbit simply refused to do the same things that Daffy did. It just didn't feel right. And as my work progressed into the early morning hours the rabbit took on a personality of his own. I had found the character I was looking for. This was the birth of Bugs Bunny.
I worked on the sketches all that weekend, showed them to my folks for their reaction, and delivered them to Leon Monday morning, He chuckled through it, thought it was pretty funny stuff, and assigned it to the Ben Hardaway-Cal Dalton unit to film.
My story timed a little short, so the gag men added some material, such as Bugs spinning his ears and flying through the air like a helicopter, and a few other actions like that, which was off what I was attempting to do. They also added a new end gag. In the pell-mell rush to and through animation, many of the refinements in Bugs's appearance and actions were lost. But, there is one thing that all newly born cartoon stars seem to have in common, and that is a certain indefinable "magic" that endears them to the audience from the moment they first set foot on the screen. This first Bugs Bunny cartoon was a hit.
Barrier: That was Hare-um Scare-um?
Clampett: No, my story was called Porky's Hare Hunt, and came out a full year before Hare-um Scare-um did. In fact, Scare-um wasn't even started until Hare Hunt was already causing talk in the theaters.
The head of Warner Bros.' short-subject sales, Norm Moray, sent us word from the East that people were stopping on their way out of the theater to ask the manager when they could see the next rabbit cartoon. But, there wasn't any! It was then that Leon assigned Bugs to a second hare-hunt story, this time in color. For this film, a model-sheet maker (Charles Thorson) was assigned to try and advance the design of the character. My first sketches were simple, but they were very close to what you saw finally in A Wild Hare. But, instead of progressing Bugs Bunny in the direction his development was headed, the model-sheet maker instead took him back way over into left field, changing him to a dumpy, silly-looking thing which ended up bouncing around the screen a la Daffy, singing how "looney tuney" he was. In a sped voice, yet! This was Hare-um Scare-um. And this was the model sheet that some have mistakenly thought to be "the birth of Bugs Bunny."
Barrier: So, that was the second Bugs Bunny.
Clampett: Yes. So, now, about a month after Hare-um Scare-um was previewed at the studio, Leon assigned the other Merrie Melodies units to do the next rabbit cartoons. Chuck was given the third hare hunt to do, which was his first. It was called Elmer's Candid Camera, in which the rabbit was hunted with camera instead of gun. And as you pointed out, Mike, Chuck used roughly the Hare-um Scare-um likeness.
Tex was assigned the fourth hare-hunt cartoon, which was his first. Tex was a little scared of it, since there was some confusion as to how the rabbit should be handled. Now, after seeing the Daffy-like regression of Bugs in Scare-um, I decided to stay close to all future storyboard development, and worked with Tex in order to help get Bugs back on the track to what I had envisioned in the first story sketches. This film, A Wild Hare, was the first with the more sophisticated and underplayed treatment that I had hoped to see. And it was the first cartoon in which we used Elmer's "wabbit" voice, and Bugs Bunny's famous catch-line, "Ehhh, what's up, doc?" A Wild Hare was nominated for an Oscar, and Bugs Bunny was on his way up the ladder. He made it to the top five years later; when we were voted the No. 1 short.
Barrier: Was there any particular effort to keep the same character from going in divergent directions in different directors' cartoons?
Clampett: Yes. For example, I talked to Tex and then went to Leon and initiated model sheets of Bugs that would really give everybody something to work from. Leon okayed my using whoever I needed to work out a final model sheet. I had excellent help from several artists but the most important role, that of finalizing these sheets, was that of Robert Givens, and resulted in the first truly definitive set of model sheets. They were printed up, and given out to the entire studio.
As I and other users and editors have noted before, some exaggerations of Clampett's have been discovered since the initial publication of this interview, but most historians believe it to be, in most cases, generally accurate. Most strikingly, perhaps, is that there's no mention of these "Bugses" as "Happy Rabbit".
[[7]]. Here's another long excerpt from a similar Chuck Jones interview of 1970:
Barrier: Something I've often wondered is how the characters were parceled out at Warner's—that is, who decided who was to make so many Bugs Bunny cartoons, and Daffy Duck cartoons, and so on, and as a corollary to that, whether the directors tried to co-ordinate their versions of the same characters.
Jones: The characters tended to be different in different directors' cartoons, a little bit, but we also tended to learn from one another. Actually, there was a troika situation with the three directors—Friz Freleng, Bob McKimson and me—running parallel. We were called directors, but we were really producer-directors, because we had absolute control over our material. We had to do a certain number of cartoons with basic characters like Bugs Bunny, but we also had specialized characters that nobody else used. For example, Friz used Yosemite Sam and Sylvester; I occasionally used Sylvester with Porky Pig, but he wasn't really the same cat. He was a well-drawn cat, and I enjoyed working with him. I did all the Road Runners and Pepe le Pews until I left Warner's. So far as allocation was concerned, the distributing organization in New York would simply tell us how many Bugs Bunnys they wanted in a given year, usually six or eight, which would mean that each director would end up with two or three Bugs Bunnys a year. You had to keep an eye out for good Bugs Bunny ideas.
There were certain characters who evolved slowly, like Bugs Bunny and Porky Pig. Tex Avery, I think, must be given the basic credit for the character of Bugs Bunny, although there were a few Bugs Bunnys made before Tex's first Bugs Bunny. But Tex was the first to have him say, "What's up, doc?" and give him what you might call controlled insanity, as opposed to wild insanity. Originally, Bugs was very much like Daffy.
Barrier: I've hard that you consider the rabbit in your Prest-O Change-O (1939) the ancestor of Bugs.
Jones: That was one of them. It was made before A Wild Hare (1940), Tex's first Bugs Bunny, but A Wild Hare really set Bugs' personality.
Barrier: You had a cartoon called Elmer's Pet Rabbit (1940), which was released several months after A Wild Hare. It seems to be the first cartoon in which Bugs is identified by name. The Bugs in that cartoon is like the rabbit in your Elmer's Candid Camera, which was released early in 1940, and Hardaway and Dalton's Hare-um Scare-um, which was released in 1939. Both came before A Wild Hare.
Jones: I'm not sure of the chronology, but the Bugs Bunny personality has to be started with A Wild Hare. That and two or three Tex Avery cartoons after that really made Bugs what he was.
Jones says Tex Avery should be credited with Bugs Bunny's creation, and that's something I'd concur with—the other "Bugses" are not as self-evidently sane as the Bugs Bunny we know today. (One cave-eat, though, is that Jones, holding Schlesinger in contempt, stated that Daffy's and Sylvester's lisps were based on Schlesinger; but Clampett, Avery, and Blanc have helped confirm that that was not the case.) One thing particulary stuck out to me while reading over his interview again: There, again, was no mention of "Happy Rabbit".
[[8]]. Michael Barrier himself reports in his book Hollywood Cartoons, that "Tex Avery once expressed wonder that Disney didn't sue WB for copyright infringement since Bugs Bunny so closely resembled Max Hare, the star of Disney's Silly Symphony, Tortoise and the Hare." Neither Avery nor Barrier say anything of "Happy Rabbit" there... Barrier further elaborated on his blog:
It seems that the beloved bunny really may have dodged a bullet. This from the Motion Picture Academy's Margaret Herrick Library:
On November 18, 1949, Gunther Lessing, Disney's legal counsel, wrote to Art Arthur, executive secretary of the Motion Picture Industry Council, to thank him for sending a clipping of a piece on character merchandising that mentioned Bugs Bunny repeatedly, and Disney not at all.
"The peculiar circumstance," Lessing wrote, "is the fact that 'Bugs Bunny,' according to our contention, is an absolute infringement of our character, 'Max Hare.' Some time ago [Leon] Schlesinger wrote us a nasty letter claiming that we were infringing his 'Bugs Bunny.' Walt and I decided that we might as well live and let live notwithstanding the fact that 'Max Hare' preceded 'Bugs Bunny' by more than five or six years. So we gave Schlesinger a license to use his character. I wrote the letter of transmittal and it so formally related opposition that Schlesinger never replied. However he did retain the license agreement."
Was Schlesinger joking when he complained about Max Hare? Did Disney, or more likely Lessing, simply not get it? Harry Tytle writes in his memoir One of "Walt's Boys" of hearing that "Walt kiddingly sent a letter authorizing Warners to use the character." That sounds believable. It's Lessing's letter that sounds truly strange.
4. And finally, as I said before, Friz Freleng made no mention of Happy Rabbit in his 1975 Camera Three interview (conducted by John Canemaker and Greg Ford). He said, "Bugs Bunny started off as a rabbit outwitting a hunter in Tex Avery's A Wild Hare. I'm talking about the rabbit that finally ended up being the popular rabbit. There were Bugs Bunnys prior to that, but they weren't really the same character. They were more like Daffy Duck in a rabbit suit."

I think it's safe to say, from all the research I've gathered, that the general consensus by many editors is correct; "Happy Rabbit" was a later fabrication made by Mel Blanc during his later years. Let's admit: Mel Blanc had wonderful talent—talent that was put to very good use by the WB and H-B Studios—but even he had his faults.

Still, I don't think we should really do anything until someone comes up with a reference to Joe Adamson's Bugs Bunny: Fifty Years and Only One Grey Hare. That would be the definitive answer, I have no doubt, if Adamson's book debunks it. Still, that is entirely up to you more experienced editors. Let me just say that, where animation history is concerned, there's always something new to learn, and it's what ultimately makes it, in the end, such an enormous pleasure. — Cinemaniac 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent research. You've just about put "Happy Rabbit" to rest. I think I've got the Adamson book somewhere, but I am not in position to check it at present. Meanwhile, can you cite Blanc's exact words in reference to "Happy Rabbit"? If nothing else, it would be a pre-emptive service to state in the article that Blanc is the only known user of that term. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Blanc's exact words were cited in an interview linked in to the talk page of the now-defunct Happy Rabbit article. If some administrator still has access to that, then they can be obtained. I must advise caution in putting so much weight on Joe Adamson's work, however, given his Tex Avery: King of Cartoons, De Capo Press, 1975. After an opening passage in which he criticized and categorized major errors that used to be found in books on animated films (they can be found in all film and television reference books/studies, and that sadly continues to this day), he made several of his own. The worst was probably stating that during Avery's temporary leave of absence from the MGM cartoon studio in the early 1950s, Dick Lundy directed several Droopy cartoons, including Cabellero Droopy. The reality is that the one cited was the only Droopy short Lundy ever directed. I would consider Adamson giving Crazy Mixed-Up Pup a release date incompatible with the year of its Oscar nomination not much better (if it didn't play in an L.A. theater--the criterion for determining the year of Oscar eligibility--until after the first of the calendar year following its general release [and the reverse is what usually happens], he should have known of the seeming contradiction and added a parenthetical explanation). -- Ted Watson (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The Happy Rabbit page was thankfully only redirected, not deleted. See if you can find it in the history: [9] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up concerning Joe Adamson's book. Regarding Happy Rabbit: I didn't have much luck in finding the exact words Mel Blanc said concerning the character in the old article itself; and when I clicked on the hyperlink to the Mel Blanc interview, it appears that the webpage no longer exists. But in the archived "Happy Rabbit" article [10] itself, all I could find was this:
"Nobody knew the name of the Bugs Bunny prototype, until voice actor Mel Blanc talked about the origins of the character in a 1970s interview. … Most people believe Happy Rabbit is the prototypical Bugs Bunny, due to Bugs's voice in "Elmer's Pet Rabbit" which is the voice Happy Rabbit had in "Elmer's Candid Camera". They are both voiced by Mel Blanc."
Still… not good enough! But I hope you have better luck than I. — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe there will be something about it in Blanc's biography. In a few days I'll be in position to check on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could the link to the Blanc article/quote on the Happy Rabbit article's talk page not work because that is no longer a current page, that is, archiving disconnects external links? It was the only EL there, and I have no idea of how to find an archived copy of any "redirected" article to try another one to check the theory. Anyway, I will go back to changing "Happy Rabbit" to the "Bugs Bunny prototype" where ever I come across it. Ted Watson (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was certainly possible, but when I simply tried to go to the web page itself (without the use of a hyperlink), my screen read: "The page you are trying to reach cannot be displayed." Either there's simply a problem on the page not permitting my computer to download it, or the page simply no longer exists.
About "Happy Rabbit": As far as that "character" is concerned, I think it'd be fine if you went back to changing mentions about him to "the Bugs Bunny prototype" instead. As far as our investigation is concerned, I believe we've basically proven (through proper and solid citation, of course) that "Happy Rabbit" was not the name of the pre-1940 Bugses. As many fellow Wikipedians have suggested, that name was a long-after-the-fact "fabrication" by Mel Blanc, and I'm inclined to agree.
Keeping in mind what you said about Joe Adamson's Tex Avery biography, I will still try to find out if his 1990 Bugs Bunny work is being held in any of the libraries in my town. With any luck I'll have it in my hands shortly after I return to wikipedia after Thanksgiving vacation, and we'll know then if that historian debunks it or not; just to make sure, you know?
Baseball Bugs made an interesting suggestion, however: "Perhaps instead of rubbing out references to 'Happy Rabbit', it might be better to reinstate him, with the cave-at that apparently no one, outside of Blanc, used this name for him, and that it serves only as a time-frame reference." Whadaya say, Ted? — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the acknowledgement of Blanc's use of the name "Happy Rabbit" would probably be best left to the prototype section of Bugs' article, and out of those of the various 'toons that the prototype appears in and of those people who worked on them--Mel himself excluded, come to think of it! And I guess bypassing the link to the article with the Blanc quote and not getting it pretty much puts the problem at the other end, all right. Well, I was trying, anyway. Ted Watson (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Ford: RE

No problem. If you need help with anything, just ring a bell on my talk page. Agtax Call box | 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It's quite interesting. I'm still looking into that about Greg Ford. Agtax (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you know his DOB yet? Agtax (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Responded there. -- Cinemaniac (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So you can create articles without an administrator's permission? Just need to know, because I created one a while back. Agtax (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Replied there. — Cinemaniac 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can create articles for Warner Bros. shorts. Agtax (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Responded there. — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It don't have to be deleted. I created Satan's Waitin' 6 months ago, and it wasn't deleted. Agtax (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Replied there (again). — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How big a fan are you with Looney Tunes? Agtax (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that there needs to be more LT & MM articles created. Agtax (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're going to create a Wiki-project group? Agtax (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Joined up. Agtax (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Replied there. — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing. Agtax (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
How old are you? Agtax (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my username (Why Not A Duck)

No, I'm not actually a fan of the Marx Brothers, but yes, that's where my username came from (the famous "why a duck" line). Went to pick something, and the first few things I thought of were either stupid, or implied I was an expert on something I wasn't, or might be considered offensive. -- Why Not A Duck 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a fan? "Hey, come here! You act-a craze! What's-a matter for you-a!"  :) — Cinemaniac (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Ed, Edd n Eddy

Tell that to the idiot IP editors who insist on changing this several times daily. Maybe you should put this page on your watchlist, and help with deleting the fancruft. I face it ongoingly. The IPs have no concept of "discuss". -- Elaich talk 05:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I used to be an IP editor too, of course (I used three IP Addresses, although the one I used most often was 164.58.96.126). What separated me from most of them was that I actually tried to assess things logically, bringing up valid arguments only when I could be backed up by a reliable source. See here for a rather odd discussion I (JS) had with another IP editor over Open Season. In any case, I'll help you guys out on that page. — Cinemaniac (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget this: There are some good IP editors, too. — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who named the bunny "Bugs"?

In my revision work restricting "Happy Rabbit" to being just Mel Blanc's decades-later claim with no corroboration, I noticed a contradiction that I thought you just might be able to straighten out. In the article on Bugs Bunny, it is stated that the man who drew a model sheet of a rabbit character for Ben "Bugs" Hardaway and identified it as "Bugs' bunny" was Gil Turner, and I added his name to Ben's article when I removed Happy from it. However, the article for Charlie Thorson describes him, "as the man who designed and named Bugs Bunny...." I find it highly implausible to interpret this as anything other than an attribution of that model sheet and notation to him. So, was it Turner or Thorson? We need to get that straight or not attribute it to any specific person, as had been the case in the Hardaway article until I took the Turner reference in the character's at face value. Ted Watson (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My gut says Charlie Thorson, for some reason, but in a few days I should be able to check the books I have concerning the subject. — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'll wait patiently but anxiously. Ted Watson (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Baseball Bugs more than beat me to it [11]. But I think I'll expand a bit on both of your postings concerning Charlie Thorson. I just took a look at Michael Barrier's Hollywood Cartoons: American Animation in Its Golden Age. On page 360, he reports:
"[In Hare-um Scare-um], the rabbit's appearance had changed and he had a name, both thanks to Charles Thorson, a former Disney story-sketch artist who had joined the Schlesinger staff as a character designer in 1938. When Thorson made the model sheet of the rabbit character in different poses for Hare-um Scare-um, he labeled it "Bug's [sic] Bunny" because he had drawn the model sheet for Bugs Hardaway. The name was picked up and used in publicity for Hare-um Scare-um, but with a corrected spelling: Bugs Bunny"
… And, as they say, the rest is history.  :) — Cinemaniac (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'll eliminate the credit to Turner right away. Ted Watson (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some book notes

OK, I am back home and can check some books. I'll do this piecemeal...

Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies, by Beck Friedwald, 1989

  • Bugs and his predecessors are grouped under Bugs Bunny in the index. Some comments are from the index, some from the cartoon articles.
  • Porky's Hare Hunt (1938) - "Prenatal Hardaway / Dalton"
  • Hare-um Scare-um (1939) - ditto - points out that this character anticipates Woody Woodpecker, another Hardaway creation, as much as it does Bugs
  • Prest-o Change-o (1939), a Jones cartoon, also involved a wacky wabbit, but is not listed under Bugs in the index.
  • Elmer's Candid Camera (1940) - "Formative Jones" - "not quite the Bugs Bunny to come, but close"
  • A Wild Hare (1940) - "Avery's version which evolved into the Bugs Bunny we all know and love." - "Solidified the personalities of Bugs and Elmer and became the blueprint for their future encounters."
  • Elmer's Pet Rabbit (1941) - "Introduced as Bugs Bunny for the first time, but with a different voice." Specifically, though they don't say this, the voice used in Elmer's Candid Camera, the "country bumpkin" instead of the "wise guy" of A Wild Hare. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not all Folks!, by Mel Blanc and Philip Bashe, 1988

The book discusses "Happy Rabbit" on p.85-86. Let's keep in mind that it was co-written, so it might not be fair to totally blame Mel Blanc for this one. However, the book has Blanc stating that the rabbit had already been dubbed "Happy Rabbit", that he didn't think much of that name, and suggested to Leon Schlesinger that the rabbit be renamed for the man who had drawn him, Ben "Bugs" Hardaway, except as the alliterative Bugs Bunny, not Bugs Rabbit. He also says he came up with this name while reading the script for Porky's Hare Hunt. That was the first cartoon with the primordial Bugs, of course. Make of all that what you will. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny: Fifty Years and Only One Grey Hare', by Joe Adamson, 1990

The origins of "The Rabbit", as they call him, start on p.51. Nothing about "Happy Rabbit", and a different story than Blanc's: "When Bugs Hardaway decided to make Porky's Hare Hunt all over again with a different hunter and a rabbit, he went to Max Hare's designer, Charlie Thorson, now working at Schlesinger's, and asked him to design him a new model sheet. It came back, labeled "Bugs' Bunny", and the rabbit, now one year old, was turned prematurely grey [instead of white]. Then Hardaway went to work on the cartoon he called Hare-um Scare-um, giving his rabbit the same voice and the same kinds of gags as before..." The author goes on to point out that although the name had been assigned, this wasn't really the Bugs we know, and that McKimson, Freleng and others (including Bob Givens, "who designed Bugs and Elmer for A Wild Hare") agreed with that and really didn't consider the predecessors as constituting an "evolution", but more like false starts. Givens: "Bugs isn't Hardaway's bunny. Tex [Avery] gave it the personality and Mel gave it the voice, and that was it." As they point out, A Wild Hare was again kind of a rehash of the other rabbit hunting pictures, except this time they got it right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Excellent research! Now these sources can be cited and the knowledge of Wikipedia's users can grow. By the way, I found a slight error in one of the quotes from Joe Adamson's work (see above [12]). But again, nice work.  :) — Cinemaniac (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the quote was accurate. But the author, like me, didn't pay enough attention to the style sheet. Its actual wording and punctuation were: "Bug's" Bunny. Keep in mind that in those days, double-quote marks were often used around nicknames, even when the real name wasn't used. Nowadays we would say either Ben "Bugs" Hardaway, or just Bugs Hardaway without the quotes. (Another example: George "Babe" Ruth, whom we call Babe Ruth nowadays, was called "Babe" Ruth in the press most of the time, with or without the George part.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of model sheets... Here's a link to an enjoyable site often devoted to such [13], the model sheets posted there ranging from Bugs Bunny to Screwy Squirrel. Also, here's an archived post concerning Bugs Bunny's evolution (complete with model sheets) at John K's blog [14]. Enjoy! — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise I'm a little late in posting this, but I haven't checked my e-mail for awhile. Anyway, as I promised I would, I e-mailed animation historian Jerry Beck the following message, dated November 21, 2007, 5:04:42 PM Eastern Standard Time:

To: Mr. Beck,
A few animation fans and I are currently undergoing an "investigation" of sorts concerning the character of "Happy Rabbit". Happy Rabbit, as you probably already know, was the name Mel Blanc gave to the prototypical Bugs Bunnys seen before A Wild Hare (1940). But, after doing some research of our own, we couldn't find any references to Happy Rabbit in the interviews and memoirs of the other key people at Termite Terrace. The absence of any mention of "Happy Rabbit" is leading us to believe that Blanc simply made up the name in his later years. Do you have any information that you could give that would help us out in this investigation?

And it looks like he did! Here is his response in full:

You are correct that Blanc made this up. Much in his bio is imaginary shorthand to explain things in layman terms - but they are not facts.

There it is—in black and white! Not only has primary and secondary research confirmed our thoughts about this "Happy Rabbit" nonsense, but also a well-known authority on animation! Thus, our investigation can finally conclude. CONCLUSION: "'Happy Rabbit' = Mel Blanc's fantasy." CASE CLOSED. :) — Cinemaniac 04:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

dude, you are nothing but an egotistical braniac Who can't find anything in his free time but edit things on wikipedia. Get a life... AEM - 70.254.11.156 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I can take the criticism, but what you said is completely unfounded and goes against everything I've said. First of all, I try my best not to be egotistical and uncivil, as it is harmful not only to who I am speaking with but also harmful to myself. Secondly, your remark "can't find anything in his free time" makes no sense; if you'd read the template at the top of both of these pages, it says that I'm "busy in real life" and because of that busy schedule I "may not be very active on weekdays." I can, and will, take honest criticism, AEM, but only if it is grounded in reason. — Cinemaniac (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, com'on, Jessie. You KNOW your nothing but a geeky jerk! ... AEM - 70.254.11.156 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you're starting to act uncivil. A guideline that we try to follow here on Wikipedia (and in real life, hopefully) is politeness. And also, refrain from personal attacks. I expect the same respect from you that I give to others. Attacking others for no reason is degrading only to the attacker.
On a related note: How in the world did you know my name? — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, man. It's just that... well, I'm very blunt. and speak my mind a lot. Probably something I need to work on ... AEM - 70.254.11.156 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. Apology accepted. And welcome aboard, AEM!  :) It's funny, you're name reminds me of some—... Wait a minute! ...A-E-M... Hmmm. Oh my gosh! I think I KNOW who you are! — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: There's absolutely nothing wrong with speaking your mind; it's one of our basic rights guaranteed by The First Amendment, and on Wikipedia it's encouraged and even essential for growth. Remember, be bold; just don't attack users. :) — Cinemaniac 23:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hold UP a minute.I fell inclined to say that AEM is not related or has anything to do with me since My original username was AEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.47.73 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you certainly like to speak your mind, don't you?
Hey, folks, I think I know who AEM is; the three initials affirm my doubts. AEM is actually a good real life friend of mine at my high school! Realizing this understandably comes as a shock at first—why would a friend vandalize my page—but it didn't really stun me. AEM tells me that he thinks of vandalism as a joke, and it's on this subject that we could not disagree more.
Out of curiosity, I skimmed AEM's last edits to the Princess Leia article. Seeing your long edit all the more affirms your identity. Let me tell you—and this is an honest criticism—AEM's writing can be some of the most brilliant, stylistically engaging, vivid, and quirky prose, and then dissolve into the most poorly-written, rambling, nonsensical, grotesque compositions imaginable. (See this old banter he and I delved into about a year ago for a good example of this.)
Then again, maybe not all of AEM's edits are misplaced. For example, to say that Jabba might have raped Leia during those awful scenes from Return of the Jedi is not a far-fetched idea at all, and it's even backed up by evidence. But please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a fanbase, so edits are best kept narrative-like but not overly discriptive. Even so, I can recall stumbling upon some webpage (at this site [15] undoubtedly) that actually confirmed that Leia did in fact sleep with Han Solo while she was wearing the golden metal slave outfit, the position they used at that time, and a few other suppotring details, but the dirty-novel-like descriptions in AEM's edit were mercifully absent. Moreover, I can make no sense of the final paragraph of his work:
"In a later midnight romp with her husband, Leia wore the golden bikini again. But this time, Han was so wrapped up in taking it off her, he accidentally tore the loincloth of her costume in two. Leia, enraged, kicked Han out of the house. Knowing that it was the only thing that made her look pretty, Leia realized she couldn't wear it any more without the bottoms, and so tearfully had the rest of it melted down and discarded. Leia was so upset she even threatened Han with divorce."
Do I need to point out how nonsensical that paragraph is? It's merely a piece of writing, with only the most tenuous link to reality. First of all, I can't back up the statement that Leia wore the costume again during such a private moment. I also can't find anything supporting that Han was the one that caused the bikini's destruction. Furthermore, saying Leia only looked beautiful in the outfit is not objective, and in her defence I offer these pictures [16] [17] [18] of her. The fourth thing I point out is that Leia could indeed continue wearing the outfit, if she wanted to, even with it somewhat torn, simply because Han's going to be the only one around when she's wearing it. In addition, I can find no source that supports her "melting down and discarding" the rest of the outfit; it simply reported that she had it destroyed, no doubt because it sickened her by what it reminded her of. Lastly, the final sentence strains credibility even more; I highly doubt such a strong couple as Solo and Organa would fight over something so petty as that.
But then again, I know AEM in real life, so maybe I should give him a break and just encourage him to make edits that are more constructive and less harmful. It's worked before (not too long ago, I convinced him not to blank the Casablanca and Citizen Kane articles). He's actually not a bad writer at all in the real world, and I see in his composition some potential. He'd be a great asset to the encyclopedia. . . if only I could encourage him to quit vandalizing.
Oh well, I'll report back here to tell you how it went. — Cinemaniac (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks like my persuading worked! AEM informed me earlier today that he has decided to quit vandalizing, and that he will be devoting much of his free time at penning "the next Lord Of The Rings". Well, good luck with that! — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
AEM informed me earlier that he made this edit to the "Future Studies" article. The edit looks very well-written and more constructive. Kudos to you, old pal! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Idea

What do you think of making an article about Looney Tunes television broadcasting over the years, not the theatical ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtaz (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That would cover a lot of ground, given how many local kiddie shows telecast the cartoons in the 50s and 60s. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, well. Baseball Bugs, I remember you. Agtaz (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Fondly, I assume. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea; I'll see what I can do. I've taken a lot of notes concerning the Looney Tunes TV history at this site. And of course, no such article could be complete without references to Jerry Beck's Looney Tunes: The Ultimate Visual Guide. (Aw no, another book I don't have!)
The only negative virtue I can think of now is...well, as has been noted, that would cover a lot of ground. Say, you cover a lot of ground yourself. You better beat it; I hear they're gonna tear you down and build an office building where you're standing. You can leave in a taxi. If that's not good enough, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and huff. Y'know, you haven't stopped talking since I came back. You must've been injected with a phonograph needle. =) — Cinemaniac (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
'At's-a good. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it... I'll get a new lawyer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've done some research. And here's a partial list of Looney Tunes-related television programming from the last 50-or-so years:
While there are probably more Wikipedia articles concerning the Looney Tunes TV history, I've not been able to track them down. In any case, if there's a movement to create an article concerning the Looney Tunes television broadcast history, I'm up for the task. Even so, the page will definitely need more input than all three of us can provide, so I'm going to contact a few other Wikipedia:Wikiproject Television/Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation participants and solicit their suggestions and advice. An article like this is long overdue, I've been thinking, and I certainly hope that it can be made. — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did forget a few other things, like the various Looney Tune television compilation specials. — Cinemaniac 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looney Tunes on TV: Think that's a good idea; but I don't really know of anything at this time that has not been covered elsewhere. I've got finals next week and will be editing very sporadically between Sunday and Wednesday night. Probably can help more after that point. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The dreaded end-of-semester exams! AGONY! AGONY! I know whatcha mean; I've got a lot of finals fast approaching, too. Not until after December 22 will my edits come in greater frequency. Until then, you should expect most of my edits to be during the weekends, or (occasionally) on weekday mornings. — Cinemaniac 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting thought, as relayed by Collectonian just about ten minutes ago: "I'm curious as to why that can not go in the main Looney Tunes article? It would certainly be appropriate and give the article a boost." Any ideas, folks? — Cinemaniac (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the invite, but, even though I've been watching Looney Tunes on TV all my life, I don't think I know enough about them to make any real contribution. -- Elaich talk 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's okay; thanks for answering anyway! — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Expanding on a previous comment, Collectonian provides this from her talk page: "Considering I AfDed the Golden Collections, there really isn't anything I could add. I'd rather see such information in the main Looney Tunes article, but that view is unlikely to be shared."
This from Thomprod, at 00:09, December 9, 2007: "Since the Looney Tunes were shorts shown in cinemas and not originally produced for television, I'm not sure it's notable enough for an article on their broadcast history."
Ah well, at least we tried!  :) — Cinemaniac (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess no. I was just thinking out loud. Agtaz (talk 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; Wikipedia, in order to grow, needs more ideas like the one you proposed. I'm just surprised that so many people actually responded! In any case, keep up the good work, Agtaz!  ;) — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It also brought to my attention the work needed to be done on the various Looney Tunes television-related articles, like The Porky Pig Show. I'll be expanding on those articles from now on. — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I definitely like the idea and would certainly help, but as my tardy response and lack of recent edits sadly show; I, too, am busy with real life at the moment. I'll be glad to help when I can, though. Chickenmonkey (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you back! I just got through with a few mind-boggling exams, and I'll have more tomorrow, so I'll be busy until the weekend truly arrives. Sorry you weren't able to answer when the discussion was active, but I'm just glad to see you back again! — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Wryspy also provided this amusing but all-true comment: "Figuring out their broadcast history would be a nightmare. They used to be syndicated and included in all kinds of programs. Public domain cartoons pop up all over the place." — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Elmer Fudd and Rabbit Stew

Actually, I meant my phrasing there to suggest that I had some doubt about Joe Adamson's claim of a version with Elmer "rotoscoped" (his word) over the "pickinniny" (ditto). However, the same gag about the cliff, the hollow log, and Bugs pushing said log around, IS in Heckling Hare. I admit to being wrong to say "a dog" as it was a group of hunting hounds; after the bunny dispenses of them early on via the log gag, a big and dumb straggler walks up and is Bugs' nemesis for the rest of the short. The animation of at least Bugs-pushing-the-log in Clampett's Snooze looks like the same stuff to me. I've seen Stew only once, c. 2000, and as I was in shock that it was being shown at all, won't dispute with you that the same gag was utilized there as well. Avery made both of them, after all. Ted Watson (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I have The Heckling Hare here on DVD—via the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 2—and I don't recall the same gag being used. The cartoon starts out with Willoughby the Dog (Bugs's hound adversary in this short) sniffing on the ground and follwing Bugs's footprints; he's solo throughout the entire cartoon, and no other hounds appear. Maybe the current print is not the way it was when it was initially released? After all, the print was reportedly cut down.
While we're on this subject, considering that you have the Tex Avery bio, I hope you wouldn't mind my asking help in figuring something out. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Avery walked out of the studio to protest Leon Schlesinger's order that 40 feet be cut from "a recently completed Bugs Bunny cartoon," presumably The Heckling Hare. Apparently, according to Greg Ford, Bugs and Willoughby originally took three more long falls after the first one, with the cartoon finally coming to an end during the third fall. The reason those falls were cut out was, according to Ford, because Bugs, immediately before the third fall, says: "Hold on to your hats, folks! Here we go again!" The gag was, at the time, a common risque radio joke, probably something the Warner execs didn't want Bugs associated with. However, I don't recall Tex Avery mentioning that incident. Leonard Maltin reports that Avery walked out because Leon didn't want to expand on his idea of having real animals speaking witty dialogue with animated mouths (something that Avery eventually did do, later, for Paramount).
Do you know which version of events caused Tex Avery's suspension, and later hiring by MGM? — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe it was Tex's other "Willoughby" short (he was the straggler I mentioned), Of Fox and Hounds, with a fox instead of Bugs, although that sure doesn't sound right to me. Does "Heckling" have Bugs wearing a fox suit? Or is there another Avery/Bugs/Willoughby short not in Tex's Wiki-filmography? As for the other, Adamson's book--not really a bio, incidentally, but more a study of Avery's work--says that Leon interpreted "Heckling" as ending with Bugs falling to his death, to which he objected. Joe does not indicate more than one fall being cut. But as I said elsewhere, he makes just enough mistakes that anything unsubstantiated must be taken with a grain of salt. I sadly no longer have my copy (I loved it, and went through it so many times that such concepts remain quite clear in my memory), so can't check it for that Willoughby short, to be completely honest. Wish I did. Ted Watson (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other Willoughby film other than the two mentioned, save Bob Clampett's The Hep Cat (which featured, according to some, Sylvester the cat's prototype, although the resemblence—in appearance as well as voice—is slight at best). I do recall, though, a Bugs Bunny short that features him in a fox suit; however, it's been admittedly years since I've seen it, and from what images are clear in my mind, it wasn't one of Avery's films. In fact, I think it was either a Bob McKimson or Friz Freleng short—obviously made some time after Avery left Warner's. I'll see what other information I can find about that short, though.
In regards to Heckling Hare, I listened to Greg Ford's DVD audio commentary for that cartoon the other day. Towards the end of it he says that he and another cartoon editor—I think, Rick Gere—are searching through the vaults of the studio for the allegedly "cut footage" of the cliff falls. That commentary was recorded in 2004, so I'm not sure if any such print has been discovered yet. Oh, well, we can certainly hope. . .
The Wikipedia page for Heckling Hare reports similar information regarding the ending; however, no citation was given. It points out, though, that the allegedly-controversial line "Hold on to your hats, folks, here we go again!" had already been included in an earlier Tex Avery film, Daffy Duck and Egghead (1938). Such information makes me wonder if this is just an urban myth, of sorts, regarding Avery's historic move from Warner to MGM. I'll probably require help from animation's greatest scholars to answer that inquiry. — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I must insist that I've seen the log-at-the-cliff gag done with a group of hunting dogs, as well as with one human hunter, but I concede the remaining dog might not have been Willoughby. In fact, it may have been the "Mad Russian" dog in Clampett's Hare Ribbin', who looks like Will. The more I think about the Bugs-in-fox-suit short, I believe the dog was a dumb Saint Bernard who sounded like Of Mice and Men's Lenny ("Which way did he go, George, which way did he go?"). My mistake completely, and my apologies. 75.91.205.184 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) OOPS! Didn't notice that the system inexplicably failed to "remember me'. Sorry again. Ted Watson (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a little bit of time before I have to dive back into studying, so I'll answer your post. Truth of the matter is, there were quite a few Willoughby-esque dogs that appeared in the Warner cartoons. For example, there's one in Bob Clampett's An Itch in Time, and yet another in Friz Frelengs's Hare Force; the latter, however, is the only one of the two to feature a dog with both a similar intellect and voice as Willoughby.
As I said in a previous discussion, I don't yet have the fifth Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVD—which includes Hare Ribbin' and its various alternate endings—but I hope to have it in my hands by Christmastime, so that I can confirm your thoughts.
Speaking of the Looney Tunes DVD, Jerry Beck has informed me that the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 5 made #5 on the list of the "Top Ten DVD Releases of the Year" in last week's issue of TIME magazine. Beck also says that the first Golden Collection DVD made #1 on the same list back in 2003. Cheers! — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Leia

No problem about the fix, I'm a perfectionist! But one important thing I should note: the text in Princess Leia Organa which was copied from that IMDb trivia page needs to be rewritten, as it was lifted verbatim. Even though we know IMDb is user-written, this still constitutes copyright infringement. I didn't note it on the article talk page or anything because I didn't want the material to be deleted, but if someone else notices, it will be. — TAnthonyTalk 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You can put specific phrasing you wish to keep in quotation marks, but as the page isn't really an article itself, it's probably best to rewrite. — TAnthonyTalk 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! But don't worry, I'll do my best to rewrite write away…uh…right away. — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I just took I shot at re-editing it. See if it works... — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks, I've taken steps towards adding citations and footnotes to the aforementioned article. However, almost all of these have been only for the two sections of the article I created . The whole article (along with many other Star Wars characters like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo) is unsourced, I notice. But I can only do so much, especially considering I don't know where a lot of the statements in Leia's article specifically come from. I'm currently researching the never-ending "Han shot first" debate, and will probably be of more help to Han Solo's Wikipedia page after my exams let up. Anyone else mind taking a crack at it? — Cinemaniac (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Kudos to you, TAnthony, for cleaning up my edit to the Leia article and for improving the citations. I went ahead and added the Friends episode reference for you. Hopefully, this vigorous adding of references will spur others to add more in the other sections. — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Looney Tunes Characters

Yep, there are few LT characters without articles, such as Prissy the hen, JP Cubish (Daffy's antagonist from Quackbusters), and Colonel Rimfire (Cool Cat's main antagonist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agtaz (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be busy throughout the week—with exams and all—but I should be back and active by the weekend. Until then, have a safe and merry Christmas, everybody! — Cinemaniac (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, my exams are over now, so I'll be actively contributing again. What exactly do you suggest we do? I've heard of similar thoughts to create more LT character articles, but some other editors have said that such articles would A) be extremely short, or B) become saturated by speculation and fancruft. — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Man, it's like when everytime I'm trying to do something good, people judge. Agtax 04:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to discourage, and I hope that you didn't think I was trying to do so. I was simply communicating what other editors had said before. That doesn't necessarily mean consensus was reached, and that certainly doesn't mean you should stop trying to do The Right Thing. I think that we should still pursue giving these more obscure characters their own articles—just keeping these earlier advisings in mind. . . — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I'm saying, obscure characters having their own articles. Agtax 04:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And that's a wonderful idea! Here are two weblinks [19] over "obscure" and "rare" Warner cartoons that should prove helpful in this regard. [20] (I especially like the tidbit concerning Daffy Duck's Fantastic Island!) — Cinemaniac (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been to that site in years, but it sounds like a good idea. Agtax 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently—and I'm sure you know this already—Prissy Hen is a redirect to Foghorn Leghorn, Colonel Rimfire is a redirect to Cool Cat, and JP Cubish warrants no successful search results, and is not a redirect to Daffy Duck's Quackbusters. I'll help out in the creation and expansion of these articles (and many others) when I can.
And as an aside: I scored 100% on each and every exam! Hallelujah! — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I also want to personally express my appreciation on your string of corrective edits to the Greg Ford article. Not too many others have made any substantial edits to that article since its creation nearly two months ago, but then again, what else should I expect? In any case, thank you again. :) — Cinemaniac (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Prissy, there was an article of Prissy on Forghorn Leghorn's article, but it was more likely that some vandal messed the page up a long time ago. Agtax 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Young Turks (talk show)" Article in Need of Assistance, please!

What is your question? Lara❤Love 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The tags on the article for cleanup and such alert editors who are interested in making such improvements. If you have a question, please replace the helpme template followed by your question. Lara❤Love 02:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
My main concern was the article's current status—it's just a hodgepodge of random facts! As you can see, I tried to improve the article by adding sections and confirming the external links, but, as far as that, I wasn't sure if there was anything else I could do to make the article better. I'd hoped I helped draw attention to that article. It's in dire need of cleanup. — Cinemaniac (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!

Oh, what a merry Christmay Day!
Here the joyous music play.
Bells are ringing, choirs singing,
Oh, what a merry Christmas Day!
Sharing the season of good cheer
With the ones we hold so dear.
Friendly faces, warm embraces
Oh, what a merry Christmas Day!
Snowflaked-covered country lanes,
Christ's birth-painted windowpanes,
Twinkling stars atop Christmas trees,
Oh, what happy memories!
Gathered 'round the fireplace,
Families filled with love and grace.
From the peaceful ember's glow
Blessed yuletide spirits grow
Grow and grow,
Grow and grow!
Joy to the children far and near.
What a wondrous time of year!
Isn't it just grand to say!
Merry, merry Christmas
Merry, merry Christmas
Oh, what a Merry Christmas Day! [21]

Call me a sentimental old fluff if you want to, but my time so far as an official Wikipedian editor has been great! In fact, far better than I could have anticipated. After nearly two months and 600 edits, I've:

1) built a friendly relationship with many editors of the Wikipedian community;
2) Created an article;
3) Joined several different Wikiprojects;
4) Successfully persuaded an IP editor to stop vandalizing;
5) Encouraged another user to join a Wikiproject;
6) Substantially expanded many articles;
7) Helped resolve several debates;
8) Helped solve niggling mysteries;
9) Generated a lot of healthy discussion; and
10) Learned how to make footnotes.

I'm feeling pretty good right now! ... and I sincerely hope all the rest of you out there are, too. Let's work together to make 2008 the best year for Wikipedia that the world has ever seen. Merry Christmas to one and all, have a Happy New Year, and. . . oh, forget the overly-PC-minded media. . . GOD BLESS US, EVERYONE! 8^) — Cinemaniac (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
  • Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

Cheers for correcting the link. Bit stupid of me not to have noticed it really... asyndeton talk 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently, vigorous discussion is underway concerning the Bourne film franchise at "The Bourne Supremacy"'s talk page and "The Bourne Ultimatum"'s talk page. — Cinemaniac (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
i notice that you're changing your signature to add in a link to your contribs after you sign; it's needless hassle. Go to 'My preferences' next to your watchlist and in the middle of your page you will see 'Signature' with a box next to it. You can change your signature so that when you type ~~~~ it includes your contribs. IF you want you could also go nuts and change the colour, font, size etc ;). asyndeton talk 02:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me of this. I'd been doing this manually for a day or two and find it relieving that I can get the software to do it. (When I first signed up for an account two months ago, I wasn't really concerned about my signature's look as much as I was "getting the facts out".) Much obliged! I'll get to it right away. — Cinemaniac (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. Time to see if it worked... — Cinemaniac (Drop me a line! • Admire my work!) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. It worked. :) — Cinemaniac (Drop me a line! • Admire my work!) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Welcome back.

Thanks. Seems I just can't stay away from here for too long; it's the perfectionist in me, I guess ;). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He's working furiously. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marxes

The articles seem pretty good to me in general. I'll study them more when I get back to my regular PC in a few days. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll focus my contribs on those Marx Brothers articles for the next few days; then, I'll work on improving a few Star Wars-related articles, and after that I'll come back to the animation-related articles, which I think need a lot more work than the former two. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The articles about specific cartoons can pretty much follow a formual. The basic info can be had from the LT & MM book. The plot outline can be paraphrased from there as needed and/or the actual cartoon viewing can be used as the source. That works for WB's anyway. Others, I can't say. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Duck Soup has now been requested for peer review; anyone interested in contributing feedback can go that articles talk page and follow the link. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for not responding sooner. While I find the Marx Brothers quite funny and have seen all of their films at least once each, I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to take part in such a project as you describe. Sorry. Ted Watson (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied at his talk page. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
A peer review (by others besides me, as I'm too close to the topic) is a good idea. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Although it sounds like I should look at it some more, as per your recent note. I'll have a better chance to do that after I get off my current road trip. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WB cartoon website

I think I might have told you about a website that was a good resource for details about the WB cartoons. I'm not seeing it offhand in your history here. But, alas, the last time I checked, that site was no longer online. The fleeting nature of websites. :( Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did tell me about that website, and it can still be found (in cached form, no doubt) here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey-hey! It's there. Maybe the server was down or something. I'll check on it some more when I can get back to my home PC. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup

I'm not a big fan of the Marx Brothers' style of comedy, so don't count of me for much. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; even if your not exactly a Marx Brothers fan, you can still contribute by cleaning up the references, or balancing out the article so that it doesn't appear as "fangush". In fact, someone not too close to the subject would probably help out the most! ;) And again, Happy New Year to you, Clarityfiend! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Happy New Years to you too. I might look into that later, after I wake up. It's 2008 now, but I call it 1988. I know, I'm wierd. Once again, happy new year. Agtax 09:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter

First, happy new year, I hope you enjoy '08! Concerning the newsletter, it normally would have been sent out yesterday, but the person that usually sends it out is on a WikiBreak and won't be able to send it until tomorrow, so you should see it then. For the peer reviews, I didn't see anything else that the other reviewers already said for Duck Soup, but let me know when you finish making the changes and I'll give it a copyedit and see if it is ready for B class. For the Princess Leia article, if you want to bring it up to GA class or higher, it is going to need more inline citations, especially for the sections that have none at all (which appear to be from the books after the films). Also throughout the article there are multiple single sentences. These shouldn't stand alone and should either be expanded or merged into another paragraph. For the inline citations, consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET, as you can then include information about the website, title, author, access date, etc. It will make the references easier to read, but if you haven't used the templates before, I'd recommend practicing with them a bit and previewing a lot before saving. If you have any further questions let me know, and again welcome to the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice. Concerning your comments on the Princess Leia article, I went ahead and copy-edited your comments at the peer review page for that article. I hope you don't mind; I went ahead and duplicated any relevant information you provided verbatim, as well as your time stamp. In any case, thanks, and a Happy New Year to you, too! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too! I haven't much time on Wikipedia today, what with the Bowl games and all, so here's a couple of brief thoughts:

  1. Duck Soup is an old film, so I think that for the article to significantly improve, you would need to track down offline resources. I have a feeling that this film has likely been covered at length in books and newspaper articles between its release and today, so you may want to try out keywords for Duck Soup in Google Book Search, Google News Archive Search, and Google Scholar Search. If you have a university account, you can learn to search the keywords in newspaper articles locked in subscription-only databases. The one I've used frequently is Access World News -- hopefully, it's available to you! Like Nehrams mentioned above, implementing templates is also a good idea. Though I'm biased, I'd suggest Fight Club (film) was an example to follow. You'll see a healthy mix of offline and online resources for a 1999 film. For this one, I think that there'd likely be a slant toward offline resources. If you have questions about researching, let me know, and I can help out! I've provided subpages to some editors with some headlines.
  2. For Princess Leia Organa, I think that there is plenty of room for improvement. One important thing to remember is that this is an encyclopedia grounded in real-world context. Thus, in-universe information should be downplayed and used to complement the real-world context of the character. I would suggest reviewing WP:FICTION if you haven't already. Also, I would recommend the character articles Jason Voorhees and Captain Jack Sparrow (good works by editors I know) to serve as guides. You can ask them for advice, too. My thought for this particular character is to find out about its conception, like how Lucas came up with the character and why he designed her the way he did. Also look at how the character has been publicly received. I imagine that there's probably some commentary on the sibling kiss and perhaps some feminist studies about her, since she seems to be a major female icon. She's also been in quite a number of Star Wars books since the original trilogy, so you could look at how reviewers have criticized different authors' portrayal of the character. Perhaps one author wrote her as independent and another one wrote her as clingy. This would definitely be a big project, encompassing films and books and probably more. Like I said about Duck Soup, offline resources may need to be involved. Nobody said editing was easy. :)

If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Happy New Year, Asyndeton! Given our vast banter in the past and your vast contributions to the Film Wikiproject, I thought I could solicit your help and advice. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:

  1. Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
  2. Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and, again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I finally got around to adding that section to the Bourne Ultimatum's page that we were talking about. To see that section, click here. The section probably needs more work, though, so if you see ways for that section to be improved, please don't hesitate to do so. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'd be happy to give you my opinion on them; I'm really quite flattered that you've asked me to look over them. I should have the chance to do it in a couple of hours or so and then I'll be able to tell you what I think of them. I only hope I can be of help to you, since I haven't really done this before. Where would you like me to post my comments, on your talk page or the articles'? asyndeton talk 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You can post your comments at all three: here at my talk page, at the article's talk pages, and at the peer review pages. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to do it as well. The Star Wars series of movies happens to be one of my all time favorites, so I'd love to look at them. ~ Bella Swan 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for asking for my opinion. I had no idea I was so highly esteemed. Most of the time I get yelled at for reverting people's ridiculously long plot additions. I've already gone through Duck Soup and left some comments on the talk page as well as some edits in the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I may have to let you down on the Leia review front; I'm fairly busy in real life and so I don't think I'll be able to find the time. Sorry. asyndeton talk 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do know. In fact, I almost always do that. But in this case, I'm copying relevants made by other editors to the appropriate peer review pages, in which case I do not want to claim those contributions as my own. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't you love it when robots talk to you? And don't you love answering them? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry. I've already notified slakr about it. [22] :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I just wanted to express my gratitude for your personal request of my input for the two peer reviews you're conducting. Like ColdFusion said to some extent above, I didn't know that I was so esteemed (if in fact I am, hah). Regards, Cliff smith (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any editor who's editing for the good of Wikipedia's users is esteemed in my book. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I figured that the DVD commentary would shed some light on those things. It looks great. Cliff smith (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leia review

At one point, the Return of the Jedi section was almost pornographic in nature, going into way more detail than was in the movie or even existed outside of fandom. As long as it keeps true to the story, keeps true to the real history behind it, and brief enough with lots of sources, I really don't have a problem with the Bikini section. DarthGriz98 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I've had to deal with such vandalism to the page in the not-so-long-ago past. Evula and I had to clean up all the soft-core erotic fanfic that IPs kept on inserting into the article. Obviously, this is still a problem as some horny fans have huge "Slave Leia" crushes. . . Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you, it just doesn't belong here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] citation templates

You can see some examples of them at BYU. Just look at pretty much any of the refs in the history section. Seeing examples should make it a bit easier to understand. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK! I think I get it now. Thank you. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

Thanks, that was unexpected. And congratulations also in your work on the Leia article - when you started to put together the gold bikini section I had my doubts about its encyclopedic value. I am now forced to concede that it is a detailed and well-research improvement to the article and is possibly the best-explained and referenced pop culture section I've seen on Wikipedia. Compared to that, some minor vandalism reverts are as nothing. Euryalus (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd hoped by giving you a barnstar that you would feel a sense of encouragement.  :) Regarding the gold bikini section in the Leia article, it's interesting to think that that whole section came about just because of piqued curiosity! Knowing my question at that article's talk page concerning the outfit probably wouldn't be answered (at least, not immediately, anway) I decided to do some research myself. I'm glad to see that the section came about so well (and that it has basically satisfied/discouraged the IP fanboys!). Thanks again! ;) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review request

Sorry about the delay in answering your message. I've been very busy for the past few months and have not been very active on Wikipedia. If I can find time I'll try and look at these articles, but I can't make any promises. Good luck with them. Dmoon1 (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Peer reviews

Sure thing. Hopefully I can get to it this week. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, did you try searching for keywords in Google Books? Google Scholar is more for academic papers, and I don't think that there would be that many papers about Duck Soup. If you try Google Books, you could get a preview of the relevant pages to cite in the article instead of having to get the book yourself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey-hey-hey! Thanks for the help. Here's a source [23] I've found already. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And another... — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
More [24]. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Still more [25]! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Evening with Groucho

You must read this, if you didn't know about it already. [26] It's a transcript of Groucho's concert at Carnegie Hall, ca. 1972. I have the vinyl LP somewhere. It's a priceless window into Groucho's head as well as the era from which he came. And it (or at least the record) is a good source for "Groucho said..." Specifically, in the section called "My Family, How We Got Our Names", he says, "Harpo played the harp, that was pretty obvious. Chico was what they used to call a chicken chaser. In England now they call them birds, which is the equivalent of a chicken chaser in America fifty years ago. He did very well with that, too. Zeppo was born when the Zeppelin arrived at Lakehurst, New Jersey. He had nothing to do with the arrival. My other brother Gummo - it's not his real name, his real name was...eh...was Milton. It seemed like such a silly name, and we used to call him Gumshoes, because somebody had given him a pair of rubbers. In a nice way, I mean. And that's his name: Gummo Marx. My name, of course, I never did understand." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being so late in my response, but my schedule is getting increasingly busier. And besides, the Wikistress was starting to get to me, what with my resolution to help the Duck Soup article meet the good article criteria.
About An Evening with Groucho: Thank you for providing that link, as I hadn't read that before. It was quite fascinating to see the famous interviewer and talk show host Dick Cavett giving the introduction; I'd always known that he has possessed a great appreciation and respect for Groucho, and in that transcript it really shows. It also stirs up a feeling of regret, too, 'cause I haven't been able to catch The Dick Cavett Show on TV for at least a year!
I've always enjoyed songs like "Lydia the Tattooed Lady" and "Hello, I Must Be Going!", so glancing over the lyrics again always brings a smile. :)
About the funny stories concerning Greta Garbo, Samson and Delilah, and the priests—I'd already read them before in Simon Louvish's bio of the Brothers and in excerpts from Glenn Mitchell's Encyclopedia; and yet, unsurprisingly, those stories still are just as fresh!
Finally, I don't doubt that Groucho knew about the true origins of his nickname. There have been plenty of stories concerning it, and, although there's no doubting Groucho's brilliance as a comedian, we all know he wasn't a particularly nice man. (Harpo, everyone agrees, was, but not Groucho.) Groucho was always dubbed the moodiest of the Brothers, and I really believe that's why Julie was given the name Groucho, because of his grouchy disposition. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some of the stories were old even to the audience, but it was always fun to hear him tell them. What's missing from that transcript is audience reaction: laughter, applause, etc. When Groucho said, "My name, of course, I never did understand," he got a good laugh. Obviously, regardless of the supposed origin of the name, it seemed to fit his sarcastic sense of humor. One of my favorite spots, which I used to play for my late father every year, and which didn't fit my dad at all, was his "Father's Day" bit. He said, "I have a friend in Hollywood... I think I do, I'm not sure." [laughter] "His name is Harry Ruby." [lots of applause] Then he sings the Father's Day song and gets lots of laughs and applause. Groucho was really sounding old on the LP, and when he said, "I hardly exist anymore," he wasn't kidding. He sang the Father's Day song on the Cavett show a few years before, when he was sounding better, and of course it got a huge laugh then, too. Groucho was razor-sharp at that time. One time he was talking about his upbringing. Cavett remarked, "I understand they're tearing down your old neighborhood now." Groucho came back with, "This is not a coincidence, you know!" Big laugh. That could have been rehearsed, but this wasn't: Groucho was talking about his long-departed father, and suddenly there was a crash from somewhere offstage, somebody dropping some equipment or something, and immediately Groucho said, "There he goes now!" Huge laugh. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Many times in Marxian comedy, the key element was this: It's not just funny because the dialogue is funny, it's funny because of who is saying it. Groucho often made lines that were not essentially funny actually come off that way; reading some of his dialogue on paper without envisioning Groucho in your mind doesn't help much. It's all in the delivery. For example, remember Groucho's defense of Chico in Duck Soup: "Gentleman, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you—he really is an idiot!" Imagine anybody else getting a laugh with that line! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A typical Groucho non-sequitor which makes a surreal leap. It reverses the obvious comment, that he's not an idiot, and instead carries the assumption that someone might act like an idiot just to fool someone, except Chicolini is not trying to fool anyone, because he really is an idiot. (An assumption continued from Prof. Wagstaff's comment to Baravelli in Horse Feathers, "Why don't you bore a hole in yourself and let the sap run out?") It's true of many actors, when the scripts are written with the actor in mind, coming of as "something they would say". Groucho, in fact, used to complain that he couldn't actually insult anyone, because when he did, the target just assumed he was being funny. An oft-quoted Groucho comment was, "Now, that's the nastiest remark I've ever heard." Not funny at all, unless you put the Groucho twist on it, "Now, that's the nastiest remahk I've evuh hoid!" Then it's sort-of funny. One of my favorite Bugs Bunny lines is another non-sequitor which Groucho could have uttered, as it makes no sense on close examination: his remark to the scientist in Hair-Raising Hare, in which he goes through this schtick of packing as if to go to California, and then says, "And don't think it hasn't been a little slice of heaven... 'cause it hasn't!"Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Groucho did first utter that joke from Hair-Raising Hare. Bugs, of course, was known to imitate Groucho on more than one occasion: in fact, in Hair-Raising Hare, he did Groucho's famous "duck-walk" throughout that cartoon.
Chico, of course, is the only real competition Groucho ever gets. While talking with Chico, Groucho finally reaches the level of exasperation that he dishes out to other people; Groucho always tries his darndest to get the upper-hand on Chico, who then responds with a wheezy play-on-words with his patently-phony Italian accent, leaving Groucho scrambling to one-up Chico again. Chico really the believes the only response to "viaduct" is "Alright, why-a-duck? Why-a no chicken?" I get the feeling this sort of thing would continue forever if Harpo or Zeppo didn't drop by and interrupt them.
BTW, one of my favorite lines from Groucho is one he said to Chico directly after the "co-ed and 2 pair of pants" joke from Horse Feathers: "Baravelli, you've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it!" — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In which film did Groucho say that line that Bugs said in Hair-Raising Hare? Some of the Marx films, I have not seen in decades. Looks like I've got some catching-up to do. You're right, Chico's character, the supposed fool, drives Groucho's character nuts. So whether he's playing the fool, or really is the fool, either way it's the same result. Of course, Harpo's character is so surreal he can drive both of them nuts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Y'know what? I don't even remember myself! I'll have to review my copies of the MB films when I get the chance, although I think that quote was from Room Service. You are correct in your analysis of Chico's on-screen persona. Chico's onscreen character is also often similar to his own real life lifestyle, as you have often noted. Chico's affinity for the ladies and the gambling halls often got him into trouble both on and off screen, but he was admittedly as good a businessman as was his big screen character—after all, it was Chico who saved the Brothers's screen career by suggesting a move to MGM after a card game with Irving Thalberg. Chico's and Harpo's relationship on film is particularly delightful. Chico thinks that Harpo is the fool, that his instructions to Harpo actually have meaning in keeping his silent partner on track. But Harpo is obviously smarter than he seems: The guy can a play a harp—that's no small feat! And, as you note, it's ultimately Harpo who leaves his antagonists in shambles by simply toying with them until their sanity leaves. Thus, Harpo could easily get by without Chico, but he decides to keep it to himself, and their scenes are very satisfying the way they play out. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar!

Hey Cinemaniac, many thanks for the barnstar - much appreciated. I'm afraid that IP has been splattering that image inappropriately across Star Wars-related articles for a couple of days. Hopefully they will grow tired eventually. Best, Gwernol 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why that IP editor can't understand that the pic is already being used appropriately further down the page in the right section. Having the same image occurring twice on the page is just unnecessary.

I'll admit, though, that the Leiabikini pic does look good as a desktop—... Ha! Just kidding! Personally, that costume has no particular effect on me; in fact, I think it's rather overrated. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the most skin any of Lucas' characters ever showed though, methinks. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Is Leia attractive? Sure. Does she look good in the costume? Of course. Fisher was twenty-six at the time, so it benefited her to let her hair down and show off her figure, as I'm sure the modest, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth attitude of her character would eventually get tired. But is that metal bikini the real point of the sequence? Well, maybe. . . if you're Jabba the Hutt. . . IMO, however, the real shocker is that Leia was the one who managed to kill Jabba, not Luke or Chewie. She also improvised it skillfully, what with the chain and all (it brings to mind something from a 1970's gangster movie, although I can't remember which). That was the real shocker to me, when I first saw it, but most people just remember the bikini. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that Leia is every bit as resourceful as her brother and her father are/were. You're right, I had forgotten that she had used the chain to strangle Jabba, who was repulsive enough before he was choking to death. That took some strength, for sure, both physical and spiritual... which she had also demonstrated in the original Star Wars: she had a blaster-gun and knew how to use it. I don't think we ever saw her with a light-saber, but I bet she knew how to use that, too, or could have learned quickly. Hmmm... The scantily-clad Leia, wielding a light-saber... how's that for a mental picture? Oh, wait, we've seen that, or something like it. It was called Xena: The Warrior Princess. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, here's an image of Leia wielding a lightsaber, thanks to Wookiepedia; she may not be in a bikini, but she still looks youthful and the picture is satisfying enough. Leia, according to Star Wars literature, later became a Jedi Knight herself, thanks to her brother's training.

Y'know, this is an interesting discussion, as I hadn't known you were a Star Wars guy. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm not really a Star Wars maven; if I was, I reckon I would have known about that poster. :) I'm old enough to recall seeing it when it first came out, and it was great stuff, but I didn't go back and watch it 50 times like a lot of guys did... and it has also left me thinking that everything else in the franchise was a rehash of the original (including, as it turns out, the original, once Lucas began tinkering with it). I've seen all 6 films, obviously. I have to wonder whether it would have been better if they had not tried to technologically out-do themselves with each new film. I think if you watched them in "episode order", the "later" films would seem primitive by comparison, despite Lucas' recent efforts to beef them up. If they had kept the special effects fairly comparable, instead of bombarding us with CGI effects (especially in Episode III) and not tried to out-do The Lord of the Rings, things might have worked out better. There is certainly a great story going on in Episode III, and it could have been done more straightforwardly or with less distraction. I concluded that to make it really work, if you've never seen any of them, you should start with "Episode IV", i.e. the original, and watch them in filmed order. That works for me, anyway. When they concluded part III, with the double-sunset and the quiet music from the original (which did have some quiet moments, something that's easy to forget), it brought a tear to my throat and a lump to my eye... or something like that. It was a little like going home again, to 1977, the Summer of Disco. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I saw Episodes I, II, and III when they first came out, but I have done little more than catch glimpses of them since. I much prefer the Episode IV, V, and VI, simply because those film's glisten with more "quality", and even though the SFX in those three films are more primitive compared to the others, it's not as distracting as the rather "phony" CGI in the more recent SW films. It's not that I didn't enjoy the recent entries, but the computer-generated imagery in the second and third episodes was so glaring it actually made me cringe at times. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's where Lucas went wrong: He betrayed his own principles. I recall in Episode VI where he had some terrific-looking effects, but he didn't dwell on them, they were just part of the story. He said at the time that you shouldn't spend too much time filming the effects, just because they cost a lot and you want to show them off. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he did in I, II and III. Too often, the screen practically screams, "Look at my special effects!" But all those little bits of business going on, all over the screen, are reduced to dots on TV. Not so with the original films. Even in VI, he was starting to get carried away. A couple of decades later, he just went nuts with it. I'm pleased to see that you've reached the same conclusions independently. I know some who don't necessarily agree. But I also know that some who had never seen the others were disappointed in III, because it's obviously a very "down" ending. It only makes sense if you've seen the other five before it, in filming order. Then it becomes more like a "cycle", and kind of makes sense. One other thing worth mentioning: A lot of people didn't like V when it came out, because of the unspoken "To be continued three years from now" at the end. But now we know what all happened after that. So when it was re-released to the theaters in the late 90s or so, I went to see it with a fresh eye, and said, "Wow, this is a great film." Previously I didn't understand why critics thought it was the best one of the six, with IV being a fairly close second. Now I know. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User name

That Jesus-whatever guy is here to cause trouble. I think you and I both should stop with our single respective comments and let the admins take over. The first thing he put on his user page was normal Christian preaching. The second thing was obviously intended to evoke a response. So let's just keep an eye on him and see if he does anything or if he's just bored and messing around on chilly Saturday, and will go away soon... especially if we don't talk to him (i.e. he's a troll). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Troll or not, there's nothing that upsets me more when someone so blatantly contradicts what they preach. Haven't people ever heard of The Golden Rule? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the dilemma - is he being serious, or is he just a troublemaker? I think the latter, as they tend to turn up here from time to time, mocking something by taking it to an extreme (like the Marx Brothers, minus the humor). But he hasn't done much of anything, and I alerted an admin to his presence, so hopefully it will be no problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
He gone, along with another that's probably the same guy. [27] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The changed username probably wasn't the best choice, either. REPENT OR FACE ETERNAL DAMNATION!? I thought the whole point was to change your username to something less—uh—heated? . . . — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Could have been a different guy. Either way, they be gone. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Businessmen

Thank you for moving the citations in Monkey Businessmen behind the periods. Greatly appreciated! Oanabay04 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob! I've been a fan of the Three Stooges myself since I was a little kid, so I'm glad to help out whenever I can. ;^) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I broke down and got the new DVD that is remastered, so to speak, and is in chronological order, their first couple of years' worth of work. It's great stuff. I don't know the Stooges that well overall, though. Do you recall which film it was that they were brought in to be plumbers and ending up nearly tearing the house down? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's A Plumbing We Will Go, which stars Curly as the third Stooge. And thanks for joining the Animation Wikiproject as a supporter! It looks like the project is starting to grow! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be the one! And according to the text, one of their "quissential" films. Oy! That will probably be on their third or fourth DVD, whenever it comes out. I saw it in a theater once. Great stuff. Regarding animation, I'm not sure what a "supporter" is supposed to do (be a cheerleader, maybe?) but I reckon I'll find out. One more thing about the Stooges, and other Hollywood location-films in general, is that they sometimes capture long-demolished buildings... such as ballparks and stadiums, which are a special interest of mine. The football scenes in Three Little Pigskins, for example, take place in the then-brand-new and now-long-gone Gilmore Stadium. I wonder where the football scenes in Horse Feathers were shot? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
So far as filming locations for Horse Feathers is concerned, this is all I could find for now. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Excellent. The Occidental College article also has a list. But it seems like the college has been virtually rebuild since Horse Feathers was filmed there. At some point in the film Groucho says "tomorrow we start tearing down the college." I guess they took him literally. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello All - I created most of the pages for all 190 Three Stooges shorts. I have been adding to them whenever possible (with books in hand to add the appropriate references ! :-) ). Please feel free to add to the entries. I am hoping to have a super, comprehensive filmography for the Stooges, and then eventually, Our Gang. Again, thanx to all! Oanabay04 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! The Stooges are a rather unappreciated and unrecognized comedy team in comparison to others, but I'm very happy to see that you and your fellow associates have been working on articles related to the team. As I said before, I greatly admire the Stooges and their knack for physical comedy. Y'know, the day they released the fifth Looney Tunes Golden Collection I was a little torn, since the new Three Stooges DVD was released at the same time; unfortunately, I've not been able to get my hands on either yet. :-/ — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I received both items for the holidays as well, and it is very difficult to choose between the two. PHEW! I thought it was just me. Oanabay04 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No question the Stooges are underappreciated. I think it's snobbery on the part of the critics. If you compare them with Laurel and Hardy, whom the critics love (and justifiably), a lot of times L & H do the same kind of stuff. I gained a new appreciation for the Stooges when they were being run on AMC for awhile. The films were shown with a degree of awareness instead of blindly... like running an episode which has Curly doing a bit where he's trying to bake a cake... and then another episode where Shemp is doing the exact same schtick, serviceably enough but not nearly as funny as Curly's. Then there was the one with the 100 steps to climb, similar to Laurel & Hardy's classic about the piano, and every bit as funny. And then there was the TV-movie produced by Mel Gibson, that showed their human side. They were very nice, gentle souls in real life... and deserved a lot more good things than they got, although they seldom complained. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
True. In reality, the Stooges were undoubtedly both influenced by and influencing their contemporaries. For example, you can clearly see similarities between the Stooge short Boobs in Arms and the Abbott and Costello landmark Buck Privates, including a few of the routines. Costello himself seems to have picked up some things from Curly Howard, and vice versa—not to mention that Shemp appeared in a few A&C films, too. A young Lou Costello can be seen in the audience during a fight scene from The Battle of the Century, and the Three Stooge short you're referring to deliberately alluded to L&H's The Music Box, going so far as being shot only a few blocks away from that original staircase! Curly himself referenced the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup in one of the You Nazty Spy! shorts.

Still, there are some that cringe at the very mention of the Three Stooges, dismissing them as nothing but rag-a-muffin, slap-happy misfits. If that were so, how have they achieved so much fame for the last near 75 years? Maybe those critics like their comedy more refined? I dunno, but I can tell you this: The Stooges have lasted for the last 75 years because they were funny. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if I remember correctly, the Three Stooges article states that, sometime in late 2007, there was to be a massive DVD release of colorized Stooges shorts by Legend Films. While I have the first wave from a few years ago (which includes Sing a Song of Six Pants, Malice in the Palace, and my own personal faves, Disorder in the Court and Brideless Groom), but so far I've not heard or seen anything else concerning such. Were those DVDs ever released?

Also, the last time I saw the Stooges on television was about one year ago, on Spike TV, during a certain holiday break—in contrast to my childhood, when the Stooges were featured on at least two or three different channels and run frequently. Are there any plans to bring the show back to mainstream television? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that unsourced info concerning Legend Films' 2007 Stooge DVD release from the Three Stooges article, as that year is now gone and I've heard nothing of the sort. Feel free to re-add it with a reliable source, though. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looney Tunes on Kids WB

I was just looking over how the Bugs Bunny Show article was expanded. What do you think about having an article about the Looney Tunes that aired on Kids WB? Agtax 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Much of the credit for the excellent expansion of The Bugs Bunny Show page must go to Furious Freddy; props to him! And I don't think that's a bad idea at all! Unfortunately, most of my Wiki-time will be, for a while, devoted to bringing Duck Soup and Princess Leia Organa to GA status, but I'll certainly do my best to help you out! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that you've mentioned it, there can be an article called Looney Tunes on television or Looney Tunes on Kids WB!. Agtax 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If we're going to be specific, the latter would be the best title to use. However, if we do create such an article, should we include Loonatics Unleashed? It's not exactly the Looney Tunes, even though the characters on the show are based on them. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, that show isn't nothing! We're talking about the real Looney Tunes shows, like Bugs N' Daffy, The Daffy Duck Show, Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon, etc. Agtax 04:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay! That's what I was hoping. BTW, if we're going to start an article just over the various mainstream Looney Tunes television programming, then the former title would be better, since I don't think Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon ever aired on The WB!. ;-) And I sincerely hope you enjoy your barnstar. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I do enjoy it. Your Wiki partnership is greatly appriciated. Agtax 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looney Tunes: Back in Action

I'm currently trying to cleanup this article and add citations, but I think the cultural references list may be a little too long, if not, at the very least, vastly uncited. I realize that you're the one who really expanded this article back in its early stub days, so I thought that you might be able to provide some assistance concerning this matter. Best wishes! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I created that list (actually, the article itself) back when I was young and foolish, and had not realized the critical need for reliable sourcing of article material. It's occasionally eaten at me that I should hit the libraries and drum up sources for this data. I'm sure some of this has been independently documented. But I've currently cut way back on my Wikipedia work, and do not want to stand in the way of conscientious efforts to fix such problems. I recommend you remove everything you or someone else can't readily find a citation for, and will support you on the talk page if anyone complains. (After all, we can always add it back — if desirable — if we find sources later.)
I now believe that unsourced cultural references are a plague, allowing us Wikipedians to inject our own personal opinions, comparisons, and other original research into articles that often overwhelm the sourced, verifiable material that we strive for here. I'm rather embarrassed that I'd done such a lopsided job in creating this article. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to fix this mess. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
With that in mind, I'll do my best to cite some of this information, and remove what else looks personal opinion and original research. Thanks for answering my posting and giving me your support. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found mention of much, if not all, of these cultural references in the many reviews of the film that I've read at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic; as time goes by, I'll do a massive rewrite of both the "Reception" section and the "Cultural references" section. I congratulate you for being able to catalogue all of this information, as it must have been a truly daunting task. I must admit, when I first saw the film about a year after its release—I bought the DVD—I can recall thinking, from the first few minutes till the end of the film, "Hey, I remember that!", but then losing it almost immediately when I tried to remember the next one that popped up just seconds later. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing more than combining a mind preoccupied with cultural riffing (à la Mystery Science Theater 3000), a DVD player with pause and slow-motion controls, and too much free time. You're doing the real work of getting reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
While certain scenes like that Psycho "shower scene" spoof and the opening Rabbit Fire-like sequence are rather obvious, other riffs like the momentary reprisal of the Gremlins theme are not so obvious. And every critic has rightly praised the Louvre scene as a stylistically zany and original endeavor. In any case, the citations are coming together. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
While I believe I added most of what's there, to be fair, someone else contributed the Gremlins reference. But I appreciate the compliment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry—a lot of critics have admitted that they let a lot of the riffs slip by them, and I certainly didn't catch all of 'em. This film really makes you have to keep your eye out for them, although others have stated that it's all just a big blur. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Barnstar

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. I have noticed these on some other editors' talk pages, and am quite honored to have received one myself. Again, thank you. Ted Watson (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! You've made some excellent contributions to many articles, and you're particularly skillful at helping me settle some disputes. I'd say you deserved it! :^) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, have you ever considered becoming a member of the American Animation Wikiproject? I'm sure you'd be a big help to the project. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twilight Zone Userbox

I just left some prototype userboxes on the Twilight Zone Project talk page. I thought you might like to take a look. Shinerunner (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Dog unmerge

Found your message. Sorry, but I don't know anything about the actual mechanisms for merging and unmerging articles. On the other hand, I've just encountered a problem that I posted a note concerning it on the talk page for the first title on which it happened, Gold Diggers of '49. I tried to make an ext. link to the IMDb page for that cartoon, but the result was a "Title search" page, similar to a Wiki disambig. page. Studied everything very closely, but couldn't find anything wrong in what I did--had the one for Thugs with Dirty Mugs on an adjacent tab for a guide--and this happened with several other Avery shorts, while a number of others worked just fine. In fact, I found a few titles that had one but set up differently, and when I tried to redo the first one I found, I got that problem and so left the others as they were. Any ideas? Ted Watson (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the related IMDb external link to the Gold Diggers of '49 article. I'm not sure exactly what caused you to encounter such a problem, since when I typed the full title into the "go" box and pressed "Enter", I was taken straight to that page. I decided to make said EL a bare-boned link, instead of using the standard IMDb profile template. Hope that helps. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the IMDb's "Go" box worked fine for me too, which I did say on the post on "Diggers"'s talk page, but forgot to say here. Sorry. I'll follow what you did for the others, whenever I do them. I'm running out of time for today's session. Thanks. Ted Watson (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It took the use of some major brain cells, but I think I've been able to restore the Charlie Dog article (by way of copying the original text from the Porky Pig article's history and then pasting it back on the Charlie Dog page). I hope that was good enough. Thanks, anyway, and good luck with the rest of the IMDb links. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would've reverted it back anyway. But now that you mentioned it, should we create an article on Miss Prissy, and put it in the "Foghorn Leghorn" article? Agtax 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely what to do with Prissy. The Foghorn Leghorn article currently consists of sections devoted to both Leghorn and his nemesis, The Barnyard Dawg. I don't think Prissy herself is exactly notable enough to merit a section in that article. A separate, individual article for Miss Prissy is probably the best choice. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have to say that if The Barnyard Dog doesn't rate his own article--that link redirects to Foggy's--especially considering the fact that McKimson used him in non-Foggy shorts the same way Chuck Jones used the Coyote away from the Road Runner (the appearance would be slightly altered, and the voice/personality would vary sometimes as well), then Miss Prissy can't possibly deserve hers. BTW, about those IMDb links: it seems I was putting in "title=" where it should have been "id="; with the link for Avery's "Thugs..." in an adjacent tab, I don't know how I did it, but that was it. My goof, and I'm sorry I bothered you about that. Ted Watson (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, Brian advised me, some time before his retirement, against creating an article such as "Miss Prissy", believing that they would get saturated by fancruft and speculation. Still, I always hung on to the hope that, through my collaboration with Agtax, I would be able to counter such cruft. But, since Miss Prissy doesn't really have too much to her and vandals being the way they are, maybe that was a little too much hope. In any case, I'll wait and see what Agtax thinks before completely giving up hope creating articles for these obscure cartoon characters. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was lookinh through Looney Tunes articles and there's no mention of Miss Prissy at all. Agtax 04:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The abscence of any mention of her in articles is likely because, as I said before, there's not really too much to her. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Watson: BTW, that's fine. Believe it or not, I had the same trouble when I was trying to insert IMDb links for pages like Porky Pig's Feat and Hollywood Daffy. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The weird thing is, I did make the one for Thugs... with "title=" instead of "id=" and several others did work that way, too. Oh well. Ted Watson (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --10:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] animation userbox

Try this.

Haven't tested it myself, but it should work. :) - Revolving Bugbear 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Use this: {{User:Captain Infinity/Anim}}. Thanks Bugbear, keep on revolving! Captain Infinity (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes! It worked! Thank you! :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marxes and religion

I think Groucho, at least, identified with being Jewish, not especially as religion, but as culture or ethnicity, as is often the case with Jews. Like the remark he made once about the Marxes just being "four Jews trying to get a laugh". He told a story in his Carnegie Hall concert about one guy walking with another, one of them was hunchbacked; the one said, "Did you know I used to be Jewish?" and the other one said, "Did you know I used to be a hunchback?" Some Jewish comedians (or comedians that were Jewish) made a thing of it, many didn't. There wasn't much, and maybe nothing, on-screen about the Judaism of the Marxes, or Jack Benny, or George Burns (whose wife was Irish) or the Three Stooges. However, some entertainers have fed on it, such as Woody Allen, Jackie Mason and Allan Sherman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That page also confirms a certain "spirituality" of the other Brothers:

[During the summer of 1929,] Chico, his wife Betty and Maxine were staying in Lake George, New York and looked in at a nearby hotel. The assistant manager, embarrassed, explained that the hotel did not admit Jews. Maxine, who had never before experienced such attitudes, was doubly confused owing to her father's otherwise sought-after status. Chico summed up the matter briefly: "There are some stupid people who don't like Jews. We don't need that hotel."

Harpo seems to have been the most theologically inclined of the brothers, recording in his memoirs disgust at an anti-religious play he had seen in Russia, non-specific belief in a greater power and, on his death, leaving his harp to Israel. The usual whispering game metamorphosed this story into a quite untrue variant, to the effect that Gummo had been buried there.

For Groucho, his lack of faith in life after death was confirmed by an understanding he had made with Chico and Harpo, in that whoever died first would, in the event of an afterlife, make every effort to contact those remaining on earth. "So far I have not heard from them" he said later.

Groucho's consciousness of his Jewish identity, though presumably a matter of heritage alone, was extremely strong: On hearing of the Israeli massacre at the 1972 Olympics, Groucho was so shocked that he actually suffered a stroke, forcing the postponement of his Los Angeles stage show from September to December.

You learn something new everyday, as they say.

BTW, I think I used that excerpted passage from The Marx Brothers Encyclopedia to cite a previously {{fact}}-tagged statement concerning Harpo willing his famous harp to Israel, but I, at the moment, am unsure whether I did or not. I'll have to give his page another look. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. Good-bye, Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo and Gummo; and thank you. Rest in peace. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See here for more discussion about this topic. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup

Hey there - I will take a look at Duck Soup but I am not sure what else I can add the the footnotes. I only know the basics. I will give it a shot, though. Thanx for the vote of confidence! Oanabay04 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Perhaps, when you're through reading the article, you could leave some comments about it, too. It'd greatly be appreciated. Thanks again, in advance! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCarty or McCarthy?

It's both. It's a continuity or script mistake. See Talk:Horse Feathers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I edited your userpage

Hi Cinemaniac! I hope you don't mind, but I edited your userpage. I wanted to read your Important Projects, but the formatting of your user boxes was corrupted about down half way down the page and they overlapped that text. So I threw some formatting breaks into your userbox section at the mid-point to separate the project stuff. If you don't like it I apologize. Peace, out! --Captain Infinity (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, and thank you! It looks a lot better than what I had earlier. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, but unfortunately on a wider screen than the one I was using at the time, it still gets whacky: the projects section slides up and left of the boxes. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about how the userbox templates work, not to mention DIV tagging, to know how to fix this. --Captain Infinity (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, at the very least, it looks a little more organised. Thanks, again. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daffy Duck is Jewish

Yes. Do you have the Looney Tunes Golden Collection vol 5? That's what it says in the commentary. Daffy Duck is as Jewish as Betty Boop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiloid (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure. And Bugs Bunny is a Rabbi. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall Daffy Duck "endorsing" any ethnicity or religion. I also don't remember Betty Boop being Jewish, either. Besides, these character's aren't even real, so how this mention of their "religion" would be relevant is beyond me.

BTW, while I've purchased the first four Looney Tunes Golden Collection DVDs, I have yet to get my hands on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 5, for reasons I explained here. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not producing another response sooner; I've been busy lately, which accounts for why I haven't made any edits since Monday. Maybe if you provide a cited quote from the commentary, we can judge for ourselves. For more information, see a similar discussion at that article's talk page (note to self). Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Note to self: A very interesting debate over this topic—and many other things—is going on at Baseball Bugs's discussion page. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
With this, I have now made the point on 3 different pages that while Daffy or Bugsy might lapse into an ethnic schtick sometimes, that doesn't make them part of that ethnic group. In fact, technically their "ethnic groups" are duck and rabbit (or hare?) respectively. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit, while it is interesting to recognise the "ethnic roots" of these characters, we must remember that their creators (who all probably had some religious beliefs) have never confirmed any alleged "religion" for their creations. . . Or have they? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Not for their main characters, anyway. They would have ethnics turning up as one-shots, but that's different. It's important to keep in mind that the purpose of these cartoons was to be funny, not to fit some logical order. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus it might have put 'em in hot water, as I think this previous chat concerning Walt Disney's spirituality illustrates. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to me. That, along with other comments this morning, allow me to boil it down further: Bugs and Porky and Daffy are only as "Jewish" as Chico Marx is "Italian". If you were to list those guys as "fictional Jews", then you would also have to list Chico as a "fictional Italian". Also, as I said on the Disney page, "Don't confuse the artist with the art." Playing a role doesn't make someone what that role is. What was Yosemite Sam? Was he a cowboy? A pirate? A medieval knight? None of the above. He was an actor playing a role, that's all. The difference is that he didn't exist in real life, but only the minds of his creators. Were Daffy or Bugsy Jewish? No, but sometimes they played one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bugs' Bonnets

I'd love to say I could help, but I can't...at least, not immediately. I'd have to dig the tape up over the weekend (I had it on a tape when Cartoon Network did what would be the last of their "Big Game" Super Bowl parodies in '01). I'll let you know from there. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah! I remember those! Didn't Daffy win that last one? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've had time to think about it some more, Daffy did win that last "Bowl"—all because Bugs decided to go on vacation during the final showdown! I guess he really is a "wascawwy wabbit"! :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I just watched the cartoon. I had never seen that one before. I was just thinking that Bugs has left Elmer at the altar before, but this time they might go through with it. (Too much information, if ya ask me, Doc.) It's on disk 1, right after one of my all-time favorites, Buccaneer Bunny. I'll take a look at your article shortly. FYI, LTGC Volume 5 Disk 1 had it as "Bugs's" instead of "Bugs'" and I fixed it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you wanting more plot detail? I could add a little bit to that. I could list everything, even, although that seems like overkill. Maybe a few examples? One thing that caught my attention is that Arthur Q. Bryan enunciated the letter R correctly several times. I'm thinking he must have developed that habit during the 1950s. He didn't do it much in the 1940s. That's OR, of course. Also, I'm pretty sure that it was Robert C. Bruce narrating, and unless they lifted his lines from some earlier cartoon, he must not have died in 1948 as his own article used to claim. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest—in no small part due to Cartoon Network's unforgivable removal of the cartoon classics—I haven't seen Bugs' Bonnets in four years! My memories of the film are hazy, which is why I simply used the "plot synopsis" from its IMDb page and cited it. I do remember a few particular gags, though, like Bugs, wearing the huge traditional white wig of a judge, giving "family man" Elmer Fudd a sentence of "only 45 years. . . and hard labor"; I also sort of recall a gag involving the characters in a variation of the "helping-an-old-lady-across-the-street" cliche.

It was my sincere, if not futile, hopes that TCM's Cartoon Alley would evolve into the new "Cartoon Network" replacement. It has since been cancelled, unfortunately. When will the Looney Tunes characters ever return to the airwaves? :-( Sorry, I lapse into nostalgic fits, sometimes. Yes, more plot detail would be nice. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. . .This particular "Robert C. Bruce" must be Robert C. Bruce, Jr., the son of Robert C. Bruce I, since his IMDb dossier credits Jr. for the narration of Bugs' Bonnets. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's right, and I fixed it. Regarding Bonnets, how about if I try to list the different hats, on that talk page, and you could try writing about them? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that, to me anyway, and all tastes differ, I didn't find the cartoon all that funny. I may as well mention that I have mixed feelings about Chuck Jones' direction in general. I know he's an icon, I just don't think he did Bugs any favors with his approach, at least by the time the 1950s were coming along. People rave about What's Opera Doc, and I think it's overrated. But he also authored some true classics, such as the Road Runner series, and also One Froggy Evening, an extraordinary cartoon, "the Citizen Kane of animation," as Spielberg said. The Frog came onto the scene the same year as this cartoon. I like the Bugs of the 40s, as with Buccaneer Bunny, which was directed by Friz Freleng. Directors like Clampett and McKimson did Bugsy well also. But that's just me. Bugsy remained popular throughout. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess some other critics, including Michael Barrier, whose comment about the film in his 1971 essay over Chuck Jones's slow directorial decline I included in the reception section. A lot of the user comments at the film's IMDb page don't speak especially well of Bonnets either.

About What's Opera, Doc?: While I think that it's an excellent cartoon overall, it rather sags in that ballet dance segment. Bugs looks a little too pleased of himself there, a little too effeminate. Thankfully, this sort of interpretation of Bugs wasn't as gapingly flawed and feminine as he was in the Wile E. Coyote cartoon To Hare Is Human. (Both these cartoons are availabe, BTW, in the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 2.) The Wikipedia page for What's Opera, Doc? might be in need of at least one negative comment about the film, probably something along the lines of what I've just said, if I can find a source for such. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, although I wonder exactly how you're going to pin down all the hats; if memory serves me right, there must've been dozens of them spilling out of that truck. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is where the "pause" key comes in. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, check it out and see what you remember. I would guess that the Beck book covers it pretty much that way, probably with less detail. And FYI, there were other hats all over the place. I've just covered the ones that covered Bugs and Elmer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Much obliged for supplying this information. I won't have enough time to peruse it all tonight, though. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I spent a good 15, 20 minutes working on this item! Well, OK. Sleep well. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was nearly 50 minutes between timestamps. As with many things, I appreciated it better the second time around. Also I'm intrigued by the 1950s style of abstract backgrounds like the one in the short intro. It could have been a movie from Disney or even Bell Labs. A time capsule in and of itself. That was a very common illustrative style in the 1950s. I think of it as post art deco. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I finally got around to adding that information to the synopsis section of the article. It probably needs to be trimmed down some, though, as I basically included practically everything you relayed me. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I came across this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claws_for_Alarm It looks like it needs some major fixing. What do you think? Agtax 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The lead section, synopsis, availability section, and references all need clean-up. While I'm at it, would you mind stopping by Bugs' Bonnets, a new article I created? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 14:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try. Though I haven't seen that cartoon in years. Agtax 21:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I listed all the gags in the talk page. Someone smarter than I could try to distill them into an appropriate synopsis. The ending would seem worth discussing, and the others could be summarized by giving a good example or two. I like the MacArthur bit, which would be totally lost on today's youth unless they had studied their history. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll admit, I haven't seen Bonnets for a long time, either. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Agtax: I just gave the Claws for Alarm article a quick, massive cleanup [28], although another editor had already fixed a lot of it, including the infobox. The plot section still needs trimming, though. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job! Agtax 05:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --16:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Year in film" template

Because I got tired of writing out all those "year in film" wikilinks, I've written a little template which may be useful: filmyear or fy. It expands, for instance, {{filmyear|1999}} or {{fy|1999}} into 1999. I've tried it out, and it seems to work. Of course, I know nothing at all about template writing, so... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. Not too long ago, I once asked some of the members of the American Animation Project about the possibility of implementing a specialized "Welcome" message. The two I talked with both seemed up for it, even though neither I nor Captain Infinity knew much about creating templates. :-/ In any event, thanks for the note! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elmer Fudd r/w vandalism

Concerning the substitution of "w" for "r" in Elmer Fudd, I think I've got all of them. However, in checking a bizarrely formatted link for World War II, I saw one I missed and hadn't caught in "preview"ing, so there might be another or two. I also deleted speculation from the discussion of the famous role/reversal short that Elmer-as-Bugs' last line ("...not going to Alcatraz") may have meant the whole thing for him was an act to duck the IRS. Never took it that way myself, but I forgot to say more than "some text tweaking" toward that direction in my edit summary, even though I had plenty or room left there. My bad. Ted Watson (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job, and thanks! :-) I would've done it myself, but at the time when I relayed you that message, I was running out of time for that day's session. Thanks, again! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disorder in the Court

How familiar are you with this Stooges classic? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit, given that the film is included in several of my collections of the Stooges films; however, that's probably because Disorder in the Court is in the public domain. I can barely get by buying any Three Stooges DVD without having Disorder on it. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Any insight into that weird throwaway comment by Curly, "Oh, vigh sigh, kid" or whatever it was? Some guy insisted on posting that. It's audible and makes no apparent sense, but the only references I can find to it are apparently spinoffs from this site. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
To be frank, no—I don't really no anything about it at all, though I've often wondered about its meaning. The closed captioning on my DVD version of this short proves no help in this matter—it doesn't even bother to try to put this enigmatic bit on screen. I'll surf the Web and see what I can find out about the line, though. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can find anything besides self-refferences to this article, good luck. The poster who insisted on putting it there made vague references to a couple of sites, but I couldn't find it there. I wondered if it was some obscure Yiddish phrase, or pig Latin or something. Doesn't really sound like pig Latin anyway. Meanwhile, Moe's comment just ahead of that is just about as obscure. After they destroy some guy's toupee, he says, "I'll sue you!" Then Moe says, "Oh, superstitious, eh?" If that's supposed to be a play on "sue", it's pretty lame. But I can't help wondering if the "vigh sigh" comment connects with that somehow. Unfortunately, Moe has been dead for 33 years, so we can't really ask him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And I should mention that it's really funny stuff. We've talked about Marx / Stooge crossover, and there was a line I recognized from a Marx film. And of course I can't think of it just now. The important thing, though, is that I keep reading that Moe and Curly's parents were in the jury, but I can't find them. Have you tried? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
After taking a look at the Disorder in the Court Wikipedia page, it recommended going to stoogeworld.com for further discussion of Curly Howard's "Oh, vigh sigh, kid!" line. I did so, and stumbled upon this [29] discussion at that fansite. The original poster suggests that we're interpreting it wrong, and that Curly is saying, "Vice eye, kid", in response to Moe Howard's line to the toupee-wearing guy, "Oh, superstitious, eh?" The guy offers a lot of hypotheses to the meaning of Curly's enigmatic aside—such as it being "vernacular", which of course Curly decided not to drop—but, as he admits, he's not been able to back it up as of yet. Interesting hypothesis, though, I must admit.

BTW, Curly and Moe's parents are sitting rather close to each other in the front row. You can see the Howards' glasses-wearing father reacting rather happily while watching Gail dance—only to turn away when another woman (I think, the Howards' mother) sitting nearby looks at him in disgust. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I was also thinking that it sounded like it could be "vice eye". They may be onto something. I'm sure it meant something to its audience. As for the other, I found it:

Moe: I say, Jasper, what comes after seventy-five?
Larry: Seventy-six!
Moe: That’s the Spirit! (clink shotglasses together)

Was that in any way connected with the script? I'm thinking not, but you can correct me on that. Now, for extra credit, what does that little exchange remind you of? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah! That makes me think of Groucho Marx's opening monologue in Horse Feathers, where, after making quite a few seriously satirical comments about education, he asks the student body:

Any questions? Any answers? Any rags? Any bones? (singing) Any bottles today? Any rags-- (quits singing, bangs gavel on table) Let's have some action around here! Who'll say 76? Who'll say 1776? That's the spirit! 1776!

Given that Disorder was released in 1936, and Horse Feathers in 1932, it seems perfectly plausible that the Stooges may have indeed "borrowed" that joke from the Marxes. But then again, "all great minds think alike". . . :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, you're onto it. Three points about Moe and Larry's comment: (1) It seemed to be totally disconnected from the script, but I would have to watch it again to be sure; (2) It was delivered exactly the way a vaudeville hack would deliver that corny joke, they were making fun of their vaudeville roots, and their delivery would have made perfect sense to their audience, and it also indicates how old that joke must be; and (3) yes, Groucho made the same joke in that opening speech, which I think was actually, "Who'll say 6? Who'll say 76? That's the 1776!" That, along with the gavel, was imitating an auctioneer (a role he had played in The Cocoanuts). Now, for extra-extra credit, do you have any notion what the rags and bottles comment is about? I think I do. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, no, I don't. I've often thought this "rags and bottles" comment to be a somewhat sarcastic mention of a song by Irving Berlin, given that (according to Groucho, at least) the song he wrote for The Cocoanuts was the only song of Berlin's that did not become a hit. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, please enlighten me about the Berlin song it could refer to. I'll tell you what I know about it, which opens a whole different can of worms, into a time when black people were de facto second class citizens and had no political clout. It has to do with minstrel shows and so-called "coon songs", i.e. songs sung by white people about, and/or pretending to be, stereotyped black people. In this particular case, I'm talking about a 1903 recording by famous "coon song" recording star Arthur Collins, called "Any Rags?" I've heard that song before, and I think the Marx comment is taken from it. Unlike Groucho's upbeat rendition, Collins' song is sung in a very slow, melancholy style. The "ragman" was typically a black man who would go around the neighborhood collecting bits of junk from people, to eke out a meager living by selling or trading them to recyclers: rags, bones, bottles, whatever; usually crying, "Any ra-ags?" as per the Collins song. This writeup, to which I just added these comments in digest form, talks about it like it were a British phenomenon, but it was American also. This all comes vaguely close to home, as my Mom used to tell me that in her youth, her own Mom would scare her or her siblings by saying if they didn't behave, they would be given to the Rag Man. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. You learn something new everyday, as they say. :)
BTW, since we're on the subject of the Marx Brothers, I thought I might as well remind you of Duck Soup's good article candidacy—of which we will, by morning time today, know whether or not you and mine and Ed's efforts have been "good" enough. Whatever happens, I've enjoyed our collaboration on that article, and relish the fact that we have developed an engagingly well-researched, well-written, well-sourced Wikipedia entry for users and fans—and that's no small accomplishment. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And then some IP-address vandal will trash the article tomorrow. >:( Well that's show biz. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One funny bit in Horse Feathers is the "pun-within-the-pun" joke during the "swordfish" routine, and I apologize if this is redundant:

Groucho: I got it - haddock!
Chico: At's-a funny, I got a haddock too.
Groucho: What do you take for a haddock?
Chico: Sometimes I take an aspirin, sometimes I take a calomel.
Groucho: I'd walk a mile for a calomel!

Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I just saw your changs to "Swordfish (password)". You're way ahead of me. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added that whole "swordfish" scene to Swordfish (password), which I had no idea was able to warrant its own article. And why not? It's a memorable scene from one of the Brothers' most memorable films. Regarding my edits to the "Swordfish" page, I think I've actually been able to incorporate almost all of the puns, although I'll confess up front that I've never been able to get the "Mary drinks like a fish" joke. Must be one of the more dated references. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The expression "drinks like a fish" you've probably heard, i.e. someone who's a drunkard, but why "Mary", I have no idea. Either a now-obscure reference, or an inside joke. That's how authors make money writing volumes about pop culture whose references don't make sense anymore. "Alice in Wonderland" is like that. It's loaded with Victorian England references that its audience "got" but which have to be explained to the modern audience (and no, I wasn't around then). :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, as you probably already know by now, Duck Soup has yet to achieve Good Article Status. The reviewer evidently still has a few issues with the article and has left a few notes at the article's discussion page. You can join the conversation by following the previous link or by clicking here here. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes of an Angel

To Collectonian: It wasn't my intention for my edit to look like I was hiding the tags. I've been given the general impression that tags are better placed under their relevant sections, and not at the top of the page, where they may potentially ward off the user. Please remember that no harm was meant here, but I apologize if you thought I was reverting your edits without cause. Regards, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. In general, major tags relevant to the majority of the article should be placed at the top, especially unreferenced. There are some section specific tags, and uncategorized usually goes at the bottom, but in general, tags go at the top.Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: GAC

Thanks. I read through Duck Soup last night (wow I need to see this film). The only big change I'd suggest that hasn't already been discussed is the use of bold in the section discussing some of the set pieces: I don't think the bold is necessary. Other than that, I think the article looks great. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, indeed. But is it "Good"? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, FuriousFreddy, for your positive comment and for the suggestion. So far, despite the issues we've had over the last week or so with the reviewer—e.g., why bullets can't be used, why it matters to have the character names in bold, etc.—I think the article does meet the good article criteria; again, all the article needs is a few more images. Whether or not it actually does, however, we should know pretty soon. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
An illustration from the mirror scene would be excellent, provided the FU deletionists don't zap it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I provided the URL to a Google Image Search for screenshots of the mirror scene here, at the article's talk page. However, I'm not sure I know how to upload an image yet, and the Fair Use requirements discourage me to upload it any way. I hope that either I'll eventually find the guts to upload an image, or that someone else will do the same. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I just attempted to upload this image of the mirror scene several times, but, for some reason, I kept on getting a "file error" message. Knowing me, I probably got the "source filename" and the "destination filename" mixed up again, but at least I tried. Does anybody else mind taking a whack at it? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, this evening, unless someone beats me to it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded and inserted into the article images of the mirror scene, the war song and the vendor scene with Edgar Kennedy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and nice work! The article looks so much better now with those pics. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Now just hope the deletionists don't get hold of them. Also, does anyone have the I Love Lucy DVD that would have this episode? Assuming it's even on DVD? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
According to IMDB, it's episode #125 (season 4, episode #27), originally broadcast 9 May 1955, so it should be on this or this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Lucy probably personally asked for Harpo to appear, I'd say. I know she liked and indentified the most with Harpo—and it's hard to argue with that. I can remember seeing that episode, too—it was a great homage to that scene. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Lucille Ball had a lot of pull in the industry. There weren't too many woman running production companies in those days. She appeared in an early Three Stooges film, you know. I saw a quote that, "The only thing I learned from the Three Stooges was how to duck!" But she could do physical comedy also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race matters?

To show how keen my powers of observation are, I just now noticed that you are an American of African ancestry. So I feel kind of ashamed for going on and on about the songs of Arthur Collins or that general subject, which I suspect you might be all too familiar with already. And if not, that's just as well. But I would like to ask: What's your take on the racial stuff in the comedies and cartoons of that era in general, and specifically the (at least) two items in Duck Soup where this comes up? Does that kind of get under your skin a bit? Or do you just kind of say, "Well, that was then and this is now?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm surprised you had the guts to actually look at the userboxes on my userpage (assuming you really read them), as it's a rather long section; you can thank Captain Infinity for formatting that section so that it would look better. I'm also somewhat surprised that my ethnicity is just being noticed, as I dropped hints of it here and there. Remember our "code and two pair of pants" discussion at Duck Soup, specifically the discussion of the "All God's Chillun Got Guns!" number? Look closely and you'll see, in my talking about, I say that "it didn't offend me at all".

 :) Just a little humor before I dig deeper. Now. . .

To answer your first inquiry: No, I wasn't really familiar with Arthur Collins, so don't be ashamed of providing that information at all; it was very, as I like to call it, "infotaining". :)

Second, I have long been well aware of the racial and ethnic stereotyping in the comedies and cartoons of The Golden Age of Hollywood. Even so, TCM remains my all but favorite channel. My response towards such ethnic jokes is based on whether or not any ill intent was truly meant. I often laugh at such jokes, too, simply because if they're funny, they're funny, and that's all that really matters. In reality, there is no way to be funny without risking insult.

For example, I know very much about the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies series of permanently banned cartoons—the "censored eleven"—and I've seen no less than three of them: All this and Rabbit Stew, Jungle Jitters, and Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs. While all three of those films have their own certain merits—especially Rabbit Stew, which features that unforgettable moment of Bugs's arms and legs separating from his body during a double take—I came away from most of these films feeling that they were crude and held a certain amount of contempt in all the comic bits of business. However, I must defend Coal Black, because, yes, even though the stereotypes are paramount throughout that short, I can clearly see that no malice was meant. Having studied that film and its history closely during the most recent Black History Month, I think what really propels Coal Black beyond those visible stereotypes is the energy that the film has, in its beautiful animation and in the film as a whole. Besides, as a Looney Tunes devotee, I realise it clearly wouldn't have mattered whether the characters in that Clampett film were actually Black or not; his films were always wacky. :)

I guess you could say that I see such stereotyping as a virtual relic of the time it was prevalent, and I don't usually let that get in the way of whether or not I enjoy a film (although I must confess that hated Eddie Murphy's weak film Norbit pretty much for that reason).

I hope that answers your questions. . . if you actually read all of that. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, the whole book's worth. :) As I hinted, I often don't pick up on things that should be obvious, but sometimes something odd will catch my eye. What brought me to this was an unusal edit summary on your re-adding of an apparently "phantom" category about WikiCommonSense (and aptly phantom, all too often, it seems). Then I took a look through your categories and everything else on your lengthy but creative user page, at the very least to see if there's anything I could steal. :) For one thing, I'm pleased to see that your interests are not confined to cartoons. Wet T-shirts are good, too. :) Related to that, the "human form" drawing appears to be extracted from the Voyager plaque. You see, I also pay attention to things besides cartoons. :) For another, I am always heartened when someone as young as yourself takes an interest in pop culture and history from generations past. And it occurs to me that your embracing of Christianity in a positive way coincides with your positive attitude in general. Including, I hope, forgiveness of my lack of observational skills. :) One thing I might be able to help with: You said something about being unsure how to archive stuff from your talk page. At some point, if you're interested, I'll tell you how I do it. I don't know if it's the "right" way, but it works for me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
About [[Category:WikiCommonSense]]: I added that to my user page as a proclamation of sorts of my advocating something whose use seems to be dwindling and dwindling every day. I often emerge discouraged when I see nothing but bickering and edit warring at some of the pages I visit. Whatever happened to the fun of collecting information and collaborating to publish that information to the rest of the world who may need it? Isn't that the whole point? That certainly is why I joined Wikipedia, and so far I hope I've upheld that goal. However, upon reading your former talk page, I see that you encountered the opposition to that core goal, which apparently spearheaded your temporary retirement. Glad to see that you came back, though, as you've made some pretty outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia. I hope that I won't run into the same kind of "vandalising deletionists", but I regret that I eventually won't be able to avoid it.

On a somewhat-related note, although I may not always approve of what is published, I do not believe censorship is the way to go. I may not approve of what you say, but I will fight to the end to ensure your right to be able to say it. And hey, why not show a little bit of honest humor while fighting for that, eh? :)

I've often faced reproach in real life because of my fondness for vintage pictures and classics, but, to be honest, I can't apologise for that. I do like a lot of newer films, but I can't seem to enjoy them as much as I do the films of the "golden age". I can watch them over and over again and still derive enormous pleasure from them. I guess that's a testament to the skill and talent of the artists of that period, who have given us a template of high standards that my generation will have to live up to as it's churning out those often-debased, shoddy products year after year.

RE Christianity: While I'll be the first to admit that I am a Christian, I do not believe that avoiding—and, as often happens nowadays, bashing—those who aren't is the way to go. After all, as the villian Shylock essentially said in The Merchant of Venice, we're all humans, battling the same things and reaching for the same goal. As a result, I do my best to respect other religions and live by Jesus's commandment to love others.

Finally, about talk page archiving: As I say on my user page, I've read the instructions, but still remain unsure about how to do it without screwing up. While I may be persuaded to archive my talk page in the future, I have no intentions to now, since I actually like the discussions I have here with other editors, and, since I often refer back to the chats I've had here, it helps chart my growth and development here at Wikipedia. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for a little rant of my own, and I apologize if I've said some of this stuff to you already. :) Back to the actual point I originally brought up, you're right that intent counts for a lot. I've only seen clips of Coal Black and it looks like it's a great cartoon. I have to commend WB for not censoring their stuff on the LTGC DVD's, but instead providing a disclaimer (done by Whoopi Goldberg initially, and then simply appearing as text), which is the right way to do things: Don't patronize the viewer, don't play "nanny", just let them know what's coming. Ethnic stereotyping is only one issue with cartoons of that era - extreme violence is another, satirized by "Itchy and Scratchy", and which is not far removed from the truth. The dilemma is that with any work of art, you don't know how someone is going to take it. Racists will use it to reinforce their own bigotry. But artists can't cater to those kinds of people, or they'll never do anything. I think it's fair to say that there was no racism in Groucho Marx at all, or for that matter in any of the other Marx Brothers, that I know of. Groucho was very liberal politically, as you probably know. Going farther back, I'm curious about your take on things like Stephen Foster songs. He throws words like "darkie" around quite a lot, which seems racist in one way of looking at it - yet his songs also seem to have a great deal of affection toward his "darkies". Is that racism? I don't think so. But it's not my call. One thing that offends me more than anything is white people telling people of other ethnic groups that they are "too sensitive". I find that extraordinarily patronizing. It's not my place to tell anyone how they "should" feel about anything. I want to know how they do feel, and why. You're right about comedy running the risk of insulting someone. One of my all-time favorite films is Blazing Saddles, which takes shots at just about every stereotype you can think of. I expect you've seen it, and you know that they throw the "N-word" around freely. I didn't hear this, but someone I knew who watched the film in the theater told me about it; they heard someone respond to this joke ("All right, we'll give some land to the n*gg*rs and the ch*nks; but we don't want the Irish!) with an indignant, "That's not funny!" Well, sorry, but it is. And I'm 1/4 Irish myself. :) Way back when, I recall a college instructor saying, "Meanings aren't in words, meanings are in people." How you treat someone individually matters more than anything. OK, end of rant. I now return control of the screen to you. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, Groucho was not racist at all; nor were any of the other Brothers, who all stated their disgust of the stupidity and hypocrisy of Anti-Semitism. As Chico Marx once told his daughter when they were thrown out of a hotel by some bigot managers: "There are some stupid people who don't like Jews. We don't need that hotel".

I have seen Mel Brooks's Blazing Saddles—in fact, I think I've seen all of his films—and I agree that it is very funny indeed. Maybe it's because of that film's self-satirical nature that we can laugh at such jokes; or maybe, as I've mentioned before, it's just funny because of the way it's said. After all, we live in the time of Richard Pryor and Chris Tucker and Dave Chappelle, all who have gained fame for their embracing mockery of stereotypes and slurs. I've seen Chappelle's Show on more than one ocassion—and if you didn't laugh at the pilot episode, you were pretty much meat to the dogs from then on out. But when Dave Chapelle uses it, in that sketch and in many others, there doesn't seem to be any venom in it, and it's mainly a sarcastic, ironic use of the word, so I laugh (and I mean, belly laughs) at his comedy, and others' like it. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Just for possible future reference, I do it the way someone once taught me. Maybe you know you can create sub-pages. That is, you have a user page and a user talk page. From either of those pages, you can create a sub-page just by going to the URL line and adding "/[whatever page name]" to it, and hitting return. It will prompt you to create a new page, just like it would for an article. Then you can create it and add whatever you want to it. Some folks use those sub-pages for developing new articles, for example. If you want to create your first archive page, you could do the following: (1) go into edit mode on the talk page; (2) click-and-drag to select everything you want to archive; (3) ctrl-x to cut it; (4) save the talk page; (5) start a new page by tacking /Archive001 to the URL, or whatever name you want to give your new page; (6) when prompted, create it; (7) paste in what you cut; (8) maybe say "New archive" in the edit summary; (9) save it; and (10) go back to your talk page and add a link to that archive page, maybe the way I did on my own talk page. I don't create a new archive every time, although I certainly could; instead, I just keep adding to the most recent one until it gets too big. I don't really go back to it too often, but sometimes it comes in handy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! These instructions will come in handy if—well, I should say when—I archive my talk page, since it has grown to an almost intolerable length (as of this writing, 70 pages), and I highly doubt anyone with even the most patience would feel like nagivating this page. :) Thanks again! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Depending on how you want to group things, you could create a separate archive for each time period, like maybe one for each month (in which case you could name them /Archive_2008_01 or some such) so that each one is a reasonable size. That's how I would do mine if I were to start over. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Others use methods used in wiki administrative pages, like archiving "resolved" issues periodically into separate numbered archives; or archiving "old" discussions, e.g. more than some number of days or weeks since the last comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I dislike that method, since there is no real time span for discussions, and I know how difficult it sometimes can be to find time to respond. I prefer to keep discussions open as long as possible. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Another way, more innovatively, could be to keep the archives by topic. Then you could keep adding new stuff to them. And herr's another approach: I've seen some users who actually redirect their talk page to whatever their current archive is. When it gets big enough, they just switch the archive. That could be done by topic, also, which would be neat, except that it would compel the user to try to follow someone's system, which I would say has a limited chance of success. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. . . that's interesting, but I think it'd be too complicated for some of my visitors. While I might be swayed to use the archive-by-topic system, I think I'll just stick with the standard way of archiving, at least for now. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

--Mifter (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, I kinda forgot it was springtime. Hey, that means it sunny outside! *looks out window and sees pouring rain* Oh well . . . Thanks anyway! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Note to self: Actually, after doing some quick research, I realise that the first day of spring doesn't actually start for me until about 13-14 hours from now. Fortunately, I'll only have to wait a little over eight hours from now before I can deliver this message to other editors. Thanks for the template! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy Spring to you too! Have a good one. Agtax 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm gonna try to wish the same to many of the other editors I know 'round these here parts, but real life preoccupations may limit me from posting this message to everyone on my list. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking Mifter's lead, I've been able to post this same, courteous message on the talk pages of practically every editor I've been in contact with in the last six months. I hope no one minds. :) I might as well get this off my chest: I wish everyone out there a good Spring Break, and a Happy New Year! :-) --Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the Spring wishes! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. Happy vernal equinox! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the the "Spring in the Air!" message. Unfortunately, I'm too tired right now. Maybe after a little sleep, I'll do a little hop. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you as well for your kind message, and I must say it was a horrible day to start spring. It was about -5 degrees with the wind chill where I live. Yet, I braved it to get some free Rita's Water Ice. :P ~ Bella Swan 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! It's actually been a pretty good "first day" of spring where I live, although it feels like the summertime, the weather reaching around 80 degrees! It was so suddenly hot that, to adjust, I had to buy two Livewire Mountain Dews! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Havent you seen Ed, Edd n Eddy?

He's obviously black, it isn't vandalism. Sombrerowearer (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been a fan of the show since it was first broadcast about ten years ago. Looking at your edit again, I consent that I might have reverted it wrongly, given that, according to this fan wiki, he is the only character of the show with a clearly different race. However, according to said wiki, as well as a Q&A site, Jonny is actually mixed. --Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 04:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I think Mixed works better too. Sombrerowearer (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wack'd, however, thinks that, since most individual wikis are wildly inaccurate and that this fact in itself isn't notable, we should leave it out of it. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonny could simply have a tan. There is no evidence that he is of any ethnicity. Since there is no evidence, we don't publish it on Wikipedia. -- Elaich talk 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halle Berry

Read WP:NFCC. Fair use is not allowed in living people articles. Ultra! 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello this is The K.o. King. I was just looking at your User Page and I noticed that your User Box's are very neatly organized if you ever get a chance and if you feel like it could you organize mine I think it's a little messy? If you want to thanks and if you don't want to Bam you (just kidding). Oh, I am also happy to find another Christian on this site out of curiosity do live close to Blackstone VA.? Leave a message on my page when you get a chance please...God Bless!! The K.O. King (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, about my userboxes: For a long time that section was rather long and messy, too, before Captain Infinity went ahead and organised the section into split tables. I'm not sure how to do those kinds of things, but you can ask him if you want. :) And God Bless! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Rabbit is back!

Someone has removed the passage from the Bugs Bunny article that the idea that the Bugs prototype was a character in his own right named Happy Rabbit was a late-in-life invention of Mel Blanc, and posted a new Happy Rabbit article (the similar sentence in Mel's own article remains, however). I've posted a note on the Bugs article talk page to this effect, and now am marshalling our forces. We must enforce our earlier consensus! Ted Watson (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, until or if he comes back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice work! I apologize for not being able to participate in this latest revision; I've been rather busy in this week, and will remain so until the coming weekend. I see that you two are doing more than a fine job without my assistance, though. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, CM. This certainly has to be lower priority than real life. Ted Watson (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What? Surely you jest! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buckaroo Bugs

The risk of linking "Red Hot Ryder" to Red Ryder is that they are not the same character. I think there was a line that said "Red Hot Ryder is a takeoff on Red Ryder". I think that's the clearer way to state it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. I'll fix it right away. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Done [30]. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe

On a possibly nitpicky topic, did you notice the argument over Bugs' vs. Bugs's? I say the former is correct, and the best thing I have to go on is the one Bugs title that has a possessive in it, our old pal Bugs' Bonnets. The apostrophe article merely demonstrates that it's done both ways and that there is no universal agreement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting .02 in - I would have thought Bugs' was correct, but the NY Times style book apparently uses Bugs's: A Rabbit's Tale: Bugs's 50 Years in Show Business and With Bugs's Debut, It's Toons Square. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think the cartoons themselves take precedence. I don't know if any other WB source covers it, whether it's contradictory, or whatever. The best I can figure out from the apostrophe page is that it has to do with how you say it: Hence, "St. James' Court" if you're saying it like "James" or "St. James's Court" if you're saying it like "Jameses". But how can you tell, in print? Would you say "Bugs Bonnets", or "Bugses Bonnets"? My natural way to say it is "Bugs Bonnets", and presumably that's the intent of the scriptwriters also, especially to make a play on "Bugs Bunny" (without the apostrophe, of course). Complicating it is the style sheet that actually said "Bug's Bunny" rather than either "Bugs' Bunny" or "Bugs's Bunny" in reference to Bugs Hardaway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does it really matter? I mean, neither "Bugs'" nor "Bugs's" is actually incorrect. I think either would work, just as long as it's used consistently. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the guy made the assertion that it was Bugs's and went through and changed them without asking anyone first. So, I changed them back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably WB's take on it is the last word, as they own the character. I'm looking for possessives ending in "s" on the various DVD covers. There aren't many, but they'r consistent: "Chuck Jones' Wabbit Season Trilogy", Gonzales' Tamales, and "Unsung Maestros: A Directors' Tribute". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Warner's usage should prevail. "Bugs's" just looks so damned clumsy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it looks weird, and regardless of my opinion (and that of my elementary school teachers' opinions, on whom my opinion is biased, er, based), if WB was in the habbit, er, habit of saying "Bugs's" in their titles, then I would reluctantly argue for their approach. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad we've reached consensus on this, but are we going to be able to persuade Davecampbell to keep it consistent? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but I haven't seen any comments from him on the subject this evening. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Films, etc

Thanks for the compliment young man. In re editing animation articles: I'm sorry but my plate is full with the projects I work on. The Looney Tunes cartoons are my fav. I actually own one of the banned Bugs cartoons. I bought in Nashville when I lived there. Good luck in your studies. Best -- Luigibob (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think the banned Bugs Bunny cartoon you own is All This and Rabbit Stew, a "censored eleven" entry directed by the great Tex Avery. But, hey, I could be wrong, you know! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how or if LTGC is going to handle these things? Maybe put them all on a single disc, with more commentary by Whoopi Goldberg? In any case, they've got about 5 years to figure it out, given the approximate number of cartoons they haven't released yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I admit, I'm not exactly certain what they're going to do, but I'm encouraged by the short clip of Tin Pan Alley Cats that I saw on one of the discs from the second volume, that they probably will release these, considering the commitment they are making. They will likely release all the "censored eleven", as well as a few other generally "banned" cartoons, on one single disc in a future DVD set. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Cinemaniac: Yes, to your comment, but that was an easy one since that was the ONLY BUGS toon that was censored....you wise-guy... Best..and GO UCLA....Luigibob (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Die Another Day cuts

Some user gave his/her opinion on IMDb. It fails WP:RS.

Who stated the cuts in the audio commentary? Ultra! 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

While I can't remember who exactly said what in the audio commentary, according to a lot of critics, that scene between Bond and Jinx is the real on-screen sex scene in any Bond film. Also, to help sort of back-up that edit, I found this at the film's IMDb profile (the "alternate versions" page):

For the theatrical release, seven seconds were cut from the Jinx/Bond sex scene to secure a PG-13 rating in the US; this version was released on home video. All video versions released in or after 2006 are uncut. The main difference between the two is that Jinx moans loudly in the uncut version.

I realise that this might not be the best source, so I'll try to find a better citation. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But why are you still citing IMDb for such a challengeable claim? It's better to directly cite a release after 2006. Ultra! 14:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Your GA nomination of Duck Soup

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Duck Soup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Thelb4 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been able to iron out all the kinks you noticed in the article, save the final subsection of the "Soundtrack" section, but I'm sure I (or somebody else) can rectify that within time. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXIII - April 2008
Project news
  • Elections are now taking place for coordinators of the project for the next six months. Any editors interested in seeking a coordinator position, or who want a say in who is selected, should indicate as much here.
Member news
  • The project has currently 381 members, 69 joined & 0 leavers since the start of March 2008.
Other news
Task force news
Novel related news
Current debates
  • There is a discussion regarding further task forces for other genres of fiction now taking place here.
From the Members

Welcome to the Twenty Third issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask.

Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk), Initiating Editor
Collaboration of the Month
Newsletter challenge

Last month's challenge (South Wind) was completed by member User:Blathnaid with a nice starting stub.

  • The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Kate Christensen's 2008 PEN/Faulkner award winner The Great Man.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

John Carter (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Harman and Ising
Kjell Sundvall
The Road to Hong Kong
At the Circus
Ali Baba Goes to Town
Flowers and Trees
Yellow Submarine (film)
Abraham Ellstein
A Woman of the Sea
Roger Graef
Stuart Davis (painter)
Cries and Whispers
Color Rhapsodies
Henry Armetta
List of United States comedy films
Sixth Happiness
Burton Lane
Un flic
Joe Alaskey
Cleanup
My Stepmother Is an Alien
Granny (Looney Tunes)
Babs and Buster Bunny
Merge
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies
Thin-film optics
Goofy
Add Sources
Chuck Jones
Override (short film)
Laugh track
Wikify
Attilio Gatti
Scorchers (film)
The Irish Rovers
Expand
Planet of the Apes (1968 film)
Never Say Never Again
Ocean's Twelve

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anything New

What's the business. Have any Looney Tunes articles been created while I was gone? Agtax 06:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I did create one article, Bugs' Bonnets, but that was a number of weeks back, and I intended to create an article over a Mickey Mouse stop motion animation short by Mike Jittlov, Mouse Mania, but never got around to it. I've been contributing at a low rate of activity, too, for the past week or so, thanks to a very busy schedule, and that extended period of inactivity will probably continue indefinitely, what with my computer crashed and all. :-( Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on me

Hi. Just wanted to point out that an RfC has been filed on me, and invite you to participate (one way or the other) if you're interested. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I don't have much time at the moment. I'm rather busy with real life matters, and, thanks to the recent disastrous crash on my hard drive, I won't be contributing much here for a while. :-/ Keep me posted, though. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm back after almost a month of inactivity here, and I've replaced my old computer. You should expect more contributions from me on a regular basis from here on out. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you're back, and congrats on the new 'puter. Now get out there and edit articles for the Gipper. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It certainly feels good to be back again. d:) I need to catch up on current events, though. How'd the GA candicacy for Duck Soup go while I was away, as well as your own RfC? Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't know what's happening with the Duck Soup GA. I still have the article watchlisted but there hasn't been any action on it for a while. As for my RfC, it's still ongoing -- feel free to weigh in one way or the other. How is it going? I dunno, really, I've never really paid attention to RfCs, so I don't know how they are usually. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Soup GA failed

Hi. I'm sorry I had to fail Duck Soup's GA Nomination. I realize that, in that I became somewhat embroiled as my edits were reverted by the article's other major contributor, you may believe that I have lost some distance. In which case, I do encourage you to put the article up for Good Article Review, where other GA reviewers can have a look at it. Obviously, the article's had a rather long and complicated journey through the GA process: I started looking at it precisely because it was by some distance the article that had been waiting longest for a review. It is unfortunate if this complicated journey has turned major contributors off the process. I do think that the most important issue is that further research is required. Some reliable sources are cited, but not as many as should be, especially given the amount that has been written about the film. Any issues of style and format are really secondary. Good luck with it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right in stating that Duck Soup's journey through the GA process was "rather long and complicated"; I entered the article for GA candidacy almost two whole months ago—back in early February—and the article itself was reviewed by three or four different editors before a verdict was finally passed. I do want to thank you, though, for finally making a decision—it was getting sort of tiresome waiting to see if it would get passed or not.

I must admit, however, that I have emerged somewhat disheartened by this outcome. I'm not saying that your decision was a sign of haste or misjudgment; matter of fact, I blame myself somewhat for the article's GAN failure, as I wasn't able to really able to edit Duck Soup for nearly a month due to the disastrous crash of my hard drive. It was during those few weeks when the article could have been improved significantly, but I wasn't able to get around to it, and for that, I apologize.

I do want you to know, though, that I will consider putting Duck Soup up for Good article reassessment, so that we can get other reviewers' guidance on how the article could be improved. Thanks, again! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think it would be a good idea putting the article up for WP:GAR. NB though, I notice that many of the suggestions made at peer review have not been taken up. Some of them are things that I realize I was simply echoing (e.g. the lack of off-ling source, the triviality of the "Influences" section). You had a lot of feedback there, and it would have been good to have taken it all into account, working methodically through the suggestions, before putting the article up for GAN. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I now realise that my nomination of the article for GA might have been a bit hasty, but then again, I've had no prior experience with the GA process. I'll certainly learn from this undertaking, however. Thanks again for your critique and encouraging thoughts. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Bugs Bunny Cartoon Article

I created the Robot Rabbit article over the weekend. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Beki johnson. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all -- I made my explanation quite clear on why I deleted this article in the edit summary itself. Second, there doesn't need to be an "up for deletion" template, really, because the "article" is clearly just a quick little bio someone did over his/her best friend's birthday! The guidelines say "DO NOT create an article about your best friend"! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, welcome to wikipedia, since you've only been on it since October. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job

I see you created another Looney Tunes article. Keep up the good work. Agtax 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And glad to see you back again, Agtax! :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm on everyday. I just haven't edited anything that much. Agtax 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know the current statistics on race mixing? Much info would be appriciated. Agtax 02:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about actual numbers, but I'm sure it's more common than what it used to be. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like someone has done a little vandalism on this template.
This user's ethnicity is
African American.

Agtax 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I've corrected it accordingly. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bugs' Bonnets (Pt. 2)

Congratulations. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope I'll be able to buy the next LTGC much more quickly once it becomes available later this fall. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -