The 50 Greatest Cartoons

[The_Iceflash]

So I found this list of 'The 50 Greatest [North American] Cartoons' that was published in 1994 by animation historian Jerry Beck.

Here's the list:


http://www.listsofbests.com/list/42337


What do you think of the list? What would you add/remove from it?

[Margos]

Personally, I'd overhaul the entire thing. "What's Opera, Doc?" Seriously!? And with "The Old Mill" only at #14? Who on earth compiled this!?

[Elladorine]

I used to own this book and mostly agree with the list actually.

[Margos]

I don't know.... even as a child, I wasn't much of a Chuck Jones/Looney Tunes fan. They were just a little too wild for me. Not believable in the least, and a little predictable (once you've seen one or two, you can anticipate the gags in almost any other, in my opinion).
I don't know, call me biased. But I always feel for Mickey, or Donald, or Goofy. I just can't bring myself to care for Bugs, Daffy, etc. They just always cop too much of an attitude about everything, and it makes them all read as rather obnoxious.....

[Elladorine]

I dunno, Chuck Jones was an amazing guy and all around artist (I love his Chuck Amuck book). As much as I have loved and will always love Disney animation, I love a huge variety of animation in general.

Looney Tunes and MGM cartoons was a big part of my growing up. While I always felt for Mickey and the gang, Bugs & Daffy and Tom & Jerry typically made me laugh more.

[dvdjunkie]

So true. The list does feature a bunch of Disney shorts that I had forgotten about, and the fact that Chuck Jones dominates the world of animation is no surprise to me. He was pure genius when it came to animation. I just recently purchased "The Tom and Jerry Shorts" directed by Chuck Jones and forgotten how much better these were than some of the sad television series of cartoons.

"The Chuck Jones Animation Collection" belongs in everyone's DVD collection. It is one of the best collections of animated shorts you will find on one disc.

The 50 Best Cartoons of All-Time could be expanded to list 100, and the dominance of Chuck Jones would still be there. Let's face it, he was a pioneer in the world of animation and knew how to make people laugh.

[jlppr]

while i do love the cartoons that chuck jones has done for the most part i would not call him the best or make a list consisting of most shorts done by him. i like most of the classic cartoons and they have all been a major part of my life. Walter Lantz, Warner, MGM, Disney, Fleisher, and the other studios. "What's Opera Doc?" should not be at number one. i think "The Old Mill" is much better as well as many others.

[Margos]

while i do love the cartoons that chuck jones has done for the most part i would not call him the best or make a list consisting of most shorts done by him. i like most of the classic cartoons and they have all been a major part of my life. Walter Lantz, Warner, MGM, Disney, Fleisher, and the other studios. "What's Opera Doc?" should not be at number one. i think "The Old Mill" is much better as well as many others.

I guess it depends on priorities who will rank which cartoon in which place. "The Old Mill" and some other Disney shorts would be much closer to the top on a list in which emotional impact and visual artistry were the biggest consideration. But, if you're looking for a couple of nice quick guffaws, of course Chuck Jones will dominate.

[jlppr]

i totally agree. if you look at "the old mill" for example you not only see a cartoon you see a masterpiece. the artwork was far better than others of it's time and better than most art in all of animation for that matter. it's a true classic that doesn't depend on any major character which is very rare to see

[Elladorine]

Honestly, while I do enjoy the Tom and Jerry shorts directed by Chuck Jones, those characters didn't exactly agree with him. When it comes to Tom and Jerry I much prefer the older shorts that Hannah-Barbera directed, while Jones was more suited to the likes of what he did over at Warner Bros.

Regardless, it's nice to see so many diverse representations in the book . . . I'm partial to Tex Avery myself.

[Goliath]

First, I gotta ask: why is this thread not in the 'Movies'-section of UD?

Then: I don't agree with most of the list. I think it's too heavily biased to the Warner Bros./Looney Tunes-side. Too little great Disney cartoons on it. And I don't understand why they included Betty Boop and Popeye. I mean, sure they were popular, but animation- and story-wise, they were nothing special. They were run-of-the-mill cartoons, like most of the Fleischer-cartoons (same goes for Lantz).

From Disney, I would include:

Three Little Pigs (1933)

Simply because the character animation in this short is excellent. I think this short is really were the Disney artists began to grasp how they could animate fully believeable characters with whom the audience could identify. And its story is also very well told, it has good music ("Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?") and it's funny. So what more could you want?

The band concert (1935)

Very inventive use of music in this Mickey Mouse-cartoon. This still has me in stitches after watching it for unnumerable times, because the gags are so perfectly timed with the music. I would say this was Mickey Mouse at his best. Even though Donald Duck steals the show.

The old mill (1937)

There's nothing in it to make you laugh (like you'd expect from a cartoon), but this short is just beautiful to watch. The animation is so good, it has the quality of a film. Effects are great, and you really make a connection with the characters.

Brave Little Tailor (1938)

Best Mickey Mouse-cartoon ever. The story is so well-done, so perfectly played out. The beginning (how Mickey gets into the pickle) is a good example of terrific storytelling. I still laugh when Mickey finally realizes what the king wants him to do. He tries to talk himself out of it, but can't resist after having been kissed by Minnie. Classic!

Mr. Duck steps out (1940)

What looks like a typical, average Donald Duck-cartoon is in fact one of the most inventive. I *love* how the action never stops in this short. There's not one quiet moment in the cartoon, which is unusual for Disney. At the end, I have the same feeling as Daisy: "Whoopee! What a jitterbug!" It's fantastic.

The Nifty Nineties (1941)

Very unusual Mickey Mouse-cartoon, set in the 1890's. Love the new Fred Moore-design of the mouse. I also like the very a-typical sense of humor in this short, where a great deal of humor comes from situations in which Mickey plays no part (when he's in the theater with Minnie). The trip with his car is unforgettable!

Symphony hour (1942)

What goes for 'The band concert', also goes for this short. Only this one is zanier, funnier, wilder, much more energetic, even anarchistic. I've never seen more life in any Disney cartoon. I'll never forget the scene where a mad Mickey holds a gun against Donald. I could not believe Walt let that pass! I really like this design of Mickey, by the way.

Pigs is pigs (1954)

Wonderful funny parody on governmental bureaucracy. I don't think Disney did much satire of society in its cartoons (contrary to their comics, especially Carl Barks' Donald Duck comics), but I'm glad they made this exception. It's a gem.

[estefan]

As much as I am a massive fan of Disney's feature films, I have always prefered the animated shorts of Warner Brothers. The cartoon violence, the huge ensemble of crazy characters, Chuck Jones' crazy animation does it for me. "Duck Dodgers of the 24 1/2 Century", "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "One Froggy Evening" are just a couple of examples of why I put Chuck Jones alongside Hayao Miyazaki and Andrew Stanton on my favourite directors list.

[Escapay]

From Disney, I would include:

Three Little Pigs (1933)

Simply because the character animation in this short is excellent. I think this short is really were the Disney artists began to grasp how they could animate fully believeable characters with whom the audience could identify. And its story is also very well told, it has good music ("Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?") and it's funny. So what more could you want?

The band concert (1935)

Very inventive use of music in this Mickey Mouse-cartoon. This still has me in stitches after watching it for unnumerable times, because the gags are so perfectly timed with the music. I would say this was Mickey Mouse at his best. Even though Donald Duck steals the show.

The old mill (1937)

There's nothing in it to make you laugh (like you'd expect from a cartoon), but this short is just beautiful to watch. The animation is so good, it has the quality of a film. Effects are great, and you really make a connection with the characters.

Brave Little Tailor (1938)

Best Mickey Mouse-cartoon ever. The story is so well-done, so perfectly played out. The beginning (how Mickey gets into the pickle) is a good example of terrific storytelling. I still laugh when Mickey finally realizes what the king wants him to do. He tries to talk himself out of it, but can't resist after having been kissed by Minnie. Classic!

Those four are on the list.

albert

[PrincePhillipFan]

I pretty much agree with the list for the most part. Chuck Jones to me will always be one of the great masters of animation, but I do love the Disney shorts of the 40s and 50s as well. And I know many will probably disagree with me, but other than artistic merit, I personally don't find the Disney shorts of the 1930s that engaging to me personally. They're cute shorts such as the Old Mill with beautiful animation, but that's just it to me - it's cute and I don't find any of the shorts really particularly funny or enjoyable for me to watch. I much preferred the direction Disney went in the 1940s and 50s when they went with a more stylized look and introduced more zanier antics and characters - Donald Duck's 40s and 50s cartoons, the Goofy how to shorts, Ludwig Von Drake, Humphrey Bear and Ranger Woodlore. There's something I enjoy a lot more about those shorts and find enjoyable to watch than any Disney or Warner Brothers short from the 1930s.

However though, I will debate though that to say the Warner Brothers cartoons did have plenty of artistry. "What's Opera Doc?" introduced hundreds of people to Richard Wagner's opera without even realizing it, including Baton Bunny, the Rabbit of Seville, etc. While Disney did work with classical in Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty to beautiful results, I admire Chuck for going back to artistic roots and poking great fun at it.

Also the design work of the Warner Brothers cartoons in the 1950s to me are beautiful. Maurice Noble to me is one of the most brilliant layout men, color stylist, and background man in many ways. Look at the way he uses color to convey emotion in What's Opera Doc - the reds for anger, the bright purple with flashes, the stylized designs from the sweeping mountains to the fat pony. And that single stream of golden light casting down at the very end provides an emotional feeling to the scene, even though it's a gag at the very end. It's a Warner Brothers cartoon with a very gaggy premise (Bugs and Elmer fighting again) but it takes it to a greater degree with its classical score, witty gags, beautiful layout and color styling. Whether you agree with the comedy in it or not, it's one of the most stylistic and beautiful animation as well.

[Elladorine]

And I don't understand why they included Betty Boop and Popeye. I mean, sure they were popular, but animation- and story-wise, they were nothing special. They were run-of-the-mill cartoons, like most of the Fleischer-cartoons (same goes for Lantz).

The Fleischer cartoons were extremely innovative for their time even if they seem to fall short to modern audiences; if I remember right, that's one of the reasons given for the selections listed in the book. Personally I love Grim Natwick's early work and still find the Popeye two-reelers enormously entertaining. Plus I think there's something charming and gritty about the old urbanesque B&W cartoons they did.

I pretty much agree with the list for the most part. Chuck Jones to me will always be one of the great masters of animation, but I do love the Disney shorts of the 40s and 50s as well. And I know many will probably disagree with me, but other than artistic merit, I personally don't find the Disney shorts of the 1930s that engaging to me personally. They're cute shorts such as the Old Mill with beautiful animation, but that's just it to me - it's cute and I don't find any of the shorts really particularly funny or enjoyable for me to watch. I much preferred the direction Disney went in the 1940s and 50s when they went with a more stylized look and introduced more zanier antics and characters - Donald Duck's 40s and 50s cartoons, the Goofy how to shorts, Ludwig Von Drake, Humphrey Bear and Ranger Woodlore. There's something I enjoy a lot more about those shorts and find enjoyable to watch than any Disney or Warner Brothers short from the 1930s.

However though, I will debate though that to say the Warner Brothers cartoons did have plenty of artistry. "What's Opera Doc?" introduced hundreds of people to Richard Wagner's opera without even realizing it, including Baton Bunny, the Rabbit of Seville, etc. While Disney did work with classical in Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty to beautiful results, I admire Chuck for going back to artistic roots and poking great fun at it.

Also the design work of the Warner Brothers cartoons in the 1950s to me are beautiful. Maurice Noble to me is one of the most brilliant layout men, color stylist, and background man in many ways. Look at the way he uses color to convey emotion in What's Opera Doc - the reds for anger, the bright purple with flashes, the stylized designs from the sweeping mountains to the fat pony. And that single stream of golden light casting down at the very end provides an emotional feeling to the scene, even though it's a gag at the very end. It's a Warner Brothers cartoon with a very gaggy premise (Bugs and Elmer fighting again) but it takes it to a greater degree with its classical score, witty gags, beautiful layout and color styling. Whether you agree with the comedy in it or not, it's one of the most stylistic and beautiful animation as well.

Wow, I'll have to agree with just about everything you said here! I'd say my favorite Disney short from the 1930's would be The Ugly Duckling remake, but from there I'd actually have to skip to what they did in the following decades when I feel they moved past the learning phase and really hit their stride. Warner Bros. and other studios went in a different direction than Disney of course, and as much as I love Disney, that really isn't a bad thing (could any of us imagine, say, Chuck Jones trying to copy Disney? He'd have continued to give us a bunch of uninteresting Sniffles cartoons).

[Margos]

However though, I will debate though that to say the Warner Brothers cartoons did have plenty of artistry. "What's Opera Doc?" introduced hundreds of people to Richard Wagner's opera without even realizing it, including Baton Bunny, the Rabbit of Seville, etc. While Disney did work with classical in Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty to beautiful results, I admire Chuck for going back to artistic roots and poking great fun at it.

I guess that's part of the reason I have so much respect for Disney. It's like they're the only animation studio that can do beautiful, artistic things without poking fun at them.

[PrincePhillipFan]

Wow, I'll have to agree with just about everything you said here! I'd say my favorite Disney short from the 1930's would be The Ugly Duckling remake, but from there I'd actually have to skip to what they did in the following decades when I feel they moved past the learning phase and really hit their stride. Warner Bros. and other studios went in a different direction than Disney of course, and as much as I love Disney, that really isn't a bad thing (could any of us imagine, say, Chuck Jones trying to copy Disney? He'd have continued to give us a bunch of uninteresting Sniffles cartoons).

Oh lord, I can't stand those Sniffles cartoons. I just think all the time what was Chuck thinking. I agree with you about the classical aspects too.

It actually reminds me of an interesting story. Chuck Jones actually did work at Disney for a few months. In 1953, the Warner Bros animation studio closed down for a brief period and many of the animators and directors were out of work. Chuck went and applied at Disney that year and was accepted and he began to work on character designs and ideas for the forest animals in Sleeping Beauty. He continued waiting for a long time for Walt to come over and see his work, but he never did. So he kept waiting and waiting for Walt to come by, and he still never did. Chuck got tired of it and went up to Walt and stated that he was leaving. Walt asked him why, and Chuck said "There's only one job worth having around here, and that's yours." Walt truthfully replied that was true, and the two left on friendly terms. At that time, WB's animation studio opened back up and Chuck returned there. So Chuck did work at Disney and contribute on Sleeping Beauty for a few months after all.

I guess that's part of the reason I have so much respect for Disney. It's like they're the only animation studio that can do beautiful, artistic things without poking fun at them.

Don't get me wrong, I greatly respect Disney and what they did with the classical medium, especially since SB and Fantasia are two of my favorite films. But, I enjoy that Disney and Warner Bros both used classical but in different ways and I think helped what separated them from one another. Even though he poked a lot of fun of at it, Chuck really did love classical music and enjoyed using it whenever he could in his cartoons. I love his quote about What's Opera Doc, "We took Richard Wagner's 14 hours and boiled it down to 7 minutes. I don't think there's one person I know who has come out alive or sane after seeing the entire Ring of the Nieblungen." They just had two very different ways of going about the subject matter and I think that's what helped distinguished them the most.

Also, I hope I didn't come off as bashing earlier about the 30s shorts. I respect them greatly and understand their artistic and storytelling value, I just get more personal enjoyment watching Disney and WB cartoons from the 40s to 60s time periods myself.

[Goliath]

I much preferred the direction Disney went in the 1940s and 50s when they went with a more stylized look and introduced more zanier antics and characters - Donald Duck's 40s and 50s cartoons, the Goofy how to shorts, Ludwig Von Drake, Humphrey Bear and Ranger Woodlore.

I agree with you on Ludwig von Drake (I'm a great fan of the old cartoons, with Paul Frees providing his voice) and the "How to"-shorts. But when it comes to Donald Duck, I'll have to disagree. The Donald-shorts after the war become increasingly boring. because they would cast Donald as the 'victim' instead of the instigator, like they had previously done. Donald, in the 1930's and early 1940's, always was the source of all mishappenings. That slowly changed to the point where Donald was cast as a victim (of Chip 'n Dale, a bee or a bear), which, to me, was not half as funny. I also detest all those later Jack Hannah-directed shorts. I don't like the bees and the bears.