Sylvester the Cat...
Eric Python
nothing but off-topic spam???
Please, someone help me get a discussion started about WB cartoons!
Thanks in advance.
Studio Toledo
I wish I could. I haven't really thought about what to say otherwise
but read your plea (if only a month later).
I just assume this group has since died over time and is not used by
these spammers anyway. I haven't really been to this newsgroup
otherwise but just felt like finding another group right now to check
out. I assume this group has saw better days in the past. The group
I often posted at, rec.arts.animation, used to be very busy a decade
ago when I first got into it. Nowadays they're lucky if they make at
least a hundred a month in posts.
I hope I managed to make some noise here with this message among the
spammers.
Jim Bennie
news:2919e154-b510-49e5...@o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> I just assume this group has since died over time and is not used by
> these spammers anyway. I haven't really been to this newsgroup
> otherwise but just felt like finding another group right now to check
> out. I assume this group has saw better days in the past. The group
> I often posted at, rec.arts.animation, used to be very busy a decade
> ago when I first got into it. Nowadays they're lucky if they make at
> least a hundred a month in posts.
There were a lot of good discussions here, Chris, but everyone moved to
forums ages ago. Text-based newsgroups were faster and more practical in the
old dial-up days when web pages could take forever to load. Now, it's all
changed.
This is the first place that anyone (Greg Duffell) broke down the scenes of
a cartoon and outlined which animators were responsible. It was a real
revelation to me.
As for the topic of Sylvester, it's tough to pick a favourite short of his.
I love Back Alley Oproar.
Jim
Studio Toledo
On Dec 17 2009, 8:13 am, "Jim Bennie" <jg.stopspam.ben...@vcn.bc.ca>
wrote:
> "Studio Toledo" <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2919e154-b510-49e5...@o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I just assume this group has since died over time and is not used by
> > these spammers anyway. I haven't really been to this newsgroup
> > otherwise but just felt like finding another group right now to check
> > out. I assume this group has saw better days in the past. The group
> > I often posted at, rec.arts.animation, used to be very busy a decade
> > ago when I first got into it. Nowadays they're lucky if they make at
> > least a hundred a month in posts.
>
> There were a lot of good discussions here, Chris, but everyone moved to
> forums ages ago. Text-based newsgroups were faster and more practical in the
> old dial-up days when web pages could take forever to load. Now, it's all
> changed.
I know how you felt. I remember those days fondly. Nowadays I'm on
several forums anyway.
> This is the first place that anyone (Greg Duffell) broke down the scenes of
> a cartoon and outlined which animators were responsible. It was a real
> revelation to me.
I know how you felt about that. Just finding this stuff out first
hand and for the first time was something.
> As for the topic of Sylvester, it's tough to pick a favourite short of his.
> I love Back Alley Oproar.
>
> Jim
That was a classic.
Your Name
On Dec 17 2009, 8:13 am, "Jim Bennie" <jg.stopspam.ben...@vcn.bc.ca>
wrote:
> "Studio Toledo" <sobien...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2919e154-b510-49e5...@o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I just assume this group has since died over time and is not used by
> > these spammers anyway. I haven't really been to this newsgroup
> > otherwise but just felt like finding another group right now to check
> > out. I assume this group has saw better days in the past. The group
> > I often posted at, rec.arts.animation, used to be very busy a decade
> > ago when I first got into it. Nowadays they're lucky if they make at
> > least a hundred a month in posts.
>
> There were a lot of good discussions here, Chris, but everyone moved to
> forums ages ago. Text-based newsgroups were faster and more practical in
the
> old dial-up days when web pages could take forever to load. Now, it's all
> changed.
They may have changed for some people, but many of us are still using a
dial-up connection and find graphic-heavy forums a {beep}ing nuisance. :-)
S.J.Carras
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, glad to see some familia rnames. Ye,s the forums, blogs,
Facebook, MySpace, etc., are things that seem to have repalced the
usenet days..but anyway..I like most of the Sylvester cartoons..I like
how the 1960 "Tweety/Sylvester" short "Hyde & Go Tweet' had the window
credits reflecting the staff credits, kind of like Beany and Cecil
from Clampett which would a year later debut . Such as Story on a
window with story boards, Voices, a mike in a window, and Sylvester
then chasing Tweety.
[SPOIILER ALERT]
It's one of those "it was just a dream" stories that's kind of a "Deux
Ex Machina" thing since we aren't shown that it';s a dream.But the
1977 "Halloween" cut-and-paste clambake had this FRAMED as "a dream
from the very start":[complete with rippling segue, same as with the
outro from the dream state.] LOL
Jim Bennie
news:def286ad-276d-4165...@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>..I like most of the Sylvester cartoons..I like
> how the 1960 "Tweety/Sylvester" short "Hyde & Go Tweet' had the window
> credits reflecting the staff credits, kind of like Beany and Cecil
> from Clampett which would a year later debut . Such as Story on a
> window with story boards, Voices, a mike in a window, and Sylvester
> then chasing Tweety.
It's hard to pick a favourite one, Steve. I'm afraid 'Hyde and Go Tweet'
isn't among them. The first one that pops to mind is the Christmas
one.Others might say 'Birds Anonymous' because of the poses and Blanc's
performance.
My favourite Sylvester cartoon doesn't have Tweety in it at all. I've always
liked 'Back Alley Oproar.' The original it's based on is pretty good, too,
but Sylvester's gleeful enthusiasm makes it work. The other thing is
Sylvester (even in the last scene) is a winner in this one; his plans work.
With Tweety, they always backfire.
I've never warmed to the Gothic Sylvester cartoons Jones did. I don't know
what it is. Maybe it's because Porky is unbelievably stupid.
Jim
Paul Penna
"Jim Bennie" <jg.stopsp...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> I've never warmed to the Gothic Sylvester cartoons Jones did. I don't know
> what it is. Maybe it's because Porky is unbelievably stupid.
For me it's mainly because I'm constitutionally averse to
poor-schmuck-is-the-only-one-who-sees-the-scary-thing humor; it's a
one-joke schtick that gets old real fast (actually, it gets old
immediately after the first gag). A worse variation is when fright
causes the poor schmuck to lose his voice so he can't clue the straight
man in, the latter of course becoming dismissively condescending over
it. Think "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" where it goes on for a
whole feature. Basically it's frustration humor which for me is mainly
the former and hardly any of the latter.
Wow, this is like going back in a time machine: posting on
alt.animation.warner-bros,m just like the past 15 years didn't happen.
Ah, memories...
Jim Bennie
news:tterrace-C89E6E...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> For me it's mainly because I'm constitutionally averse to
> poor-schmuck-is-the-only-one-who-sees-the-scary-thing humor; it's a
> one-joke schtick that gets old real fast (actually, it gets old
> immediately after the first gag).
I get the impression Jones sometimes felt the gags of his cartoons were
really his poses, not the continuity that got to them. You're right, poor
Mike Maltese has to fill in continuity using one joke.
I suppose someone like Avery could have worked out some really funny
variations but his humour wasn't Jones' humour.
> Wow, this is like going back in a time machine: posting on
> alt.animation.warner-bros., just like the past 15 years didn't happen.
> Ah, memories...
Yeah, I haven't seen much of you for ages, Paul. We had a nice little place
here, always some interesting conversation. I suppose people are "Still
lurking about" as Daffy would say but conversation moved to forums ages ago.
I took the newsgroup (and rec.arts.animation) out of my newsreader for a
long time but put this one back in and check it every couple of days.
Jim
Paul Penna
"Jim Bennie" <jg.stopsp...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> "Paul Penna" <tter...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:tterrace-C89E6E...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> > Wow, this is like going back in a time machine: posting on
> > alt.animation.warner-bros., just like the past 15 years didn't happen.
> > Ah, memories...
>
> Yeah, I haven't seen much of you for ages, Paul. We had a nice little place
> here, always some interesting conversation. I suppose people are "Still
> lurking about" as Daffy would say but conversation moved to forums ages ago.
> I took the newsgroup (and rec.arts.animation) out of my newsreader for a
> long time but put this one back in and check it every couple of days.
Well, there's something to be said for being a die-hard! I never
actually got around to taking it off my list, and just check every week
or so to clear out the spam. Another problem is that a lot of people
don't have access to Usenet anymore, or don't know about the Google
portal, or don't even know there's such a thing. Or just prefer the
whole forum/social networking thing in general. OMG LOL TTL. BFD.
J. Bennie
> Well, there's something to be said for being a die-hard! I never
> actually got around to taking it off my list, and just check every week
> or so to clear out the spam. Another problem is that a lot of people
> don't have access to Usenet anymore, or don't know about the Google
> portal, or don't even know there's such a thing. Or just prefer the
> whole forum/social networking thing in general. OMG LOL TTL. BFD.
Heh. People like old relics from the theatrical days but not old relics of
the internet days.
Usenet flourished when download speeds for anything but text were
prohibitive for people, especially on dial-up. Now you can get conversation
and other things at the same time on a web or social networking site.
Anyway, Sylvester is a fun character, but I've been into the 'Porky horror'
cartoons.
Jim
Derek Gee
news:5b%dn.65088$Db2.27005@edtnps83...
> "Paul Penna" <tter...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:tterrace-7DEE15...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
>> Well, there's something to be said for being a die-hard! I never
>> actually got around to taking it off my list, and just check every week
>> or so to clear out the spam. Another problem is that a lot of people
>> don't have access to Usenet anymore, or don't know about the Google
>> portal, or don't even know there's such a thing. Or just prefer the
>> whole forum/social networking thing in general. OMG LOL TTL. BFD.
>
> Heh. People like old relics from the theatrical days but not old relics of
> the internet days.
>
> Usenet flourished when download speeds for anything but text were
> prohibitive for people, especially on dial-up. Now you can get
> conversation and other things at the same time on a web or social
> networking site.
Usenet was doing just fine until that a-hole Cuomo decided to blame it for
child pornography back in 2008. It had little to do with download speeds or
social networking sites. Most ISP's simply stopped carrying Usenet and most
folks were too lazy to find out how to still access it and went elsewhere.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
D
J. Bennie
news:4b79eb05$0$31033$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Usenet was doing just fine until that a-hole Cuomo decided to blame it for
> child pornography back in 2008. It had little to do with download speeds
> or social networking sites. Most ISP's simply stopped carrying Usenet and
> most folks were too lazy to find out how to still access it and went
> elsewhere.
It's pretty self-evident Usenet was taken over by spammers long before 2008
and people who actually wanted to discuss things moved to other venues.
We have no "Cuomo" here in Canada. People have simply moved on to other,
non-text-only locations to communicate on-line. The decline of dial-up
connections and faster computers than 10 years ago make it possible.
Jim, Vancouver
Paul Penna
"J. Bennie" <jg.stopsp...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
I agree. We don't need a bogeyman or conspiracy theory to explain it.
People just followed the path of least resistance, as they always do.
Online forum posting via a browser on a web-based forum is much simpler
for the average person, and that had dawned on people many years earlier.
Derek Gee
Believe whatever you want Jim, but the timing indicates otherwise, spammers
or no. The groups didn't abruptly die until the US ISP's were pressured to
drop the Usenet.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp
http://mashable.com/2008/06/10/child-porn-usenet/
Derek
Paul Penna
"Derek Gee" <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
Interesting that the PC Magazine article contains the following
paragraph:
"Usenet has been dying for years, of course. Some people date Usenet's
decline as early as 1993, when millions of AOL users dropped into what
was previously a geek paradise. As the '90s went on, the eye candy of
the Web and the marketing dollars of Web site owners helped push people
over to profit-making sites. Usenet's slightly arcane access methods and
text-only protocols have nothing on the glitz and glamour of MySpace."
While it's undoubtedly true that the anti-porn crusade led to a
wholesale dropping of Usenet by many ISPs starting in 1980, it's also
true that by then Usenet's role in online foruming had already become
marginal at best. Remember, you're talking to people who were here and
saw it happen. In my case, the last year I posted in any quantity here
was 2004; after that it was almost exclusively in web-based forums, and
I know for a fact that that reflects the activities of most of the
former frequent participants in alt.animation.warner-bros.
And again, the reason is simple: people found web-based forums easier to
use than newsgroups. That's what spelled, if not the death of Usenet,
its irrelevancy.