Never seen a Merlin short, but Cool Cat's cartoons had poor animation, dull if not annoying music, weak gags, and Cool Cat himself was dated the moment he was made. If Cool Cat's any indication of the quality of Merlin's cartoons, then I didn't miss out.
I think Merlin had exactly ONE short, and he acted like an extra in somebody else's short. If I remember he was smug , calm, and confident, which are not traits you want in a series centered mostly around over the top slapstick humor.
daffy and bugs could be placed into any situation and make it funny
on the opposite end you've got road runner, who isnt even a character. people watch for the coyote, and his gags are extremely versatile despite the setting and premise being exactly the same every time
merlin and cool cat are not versatile in any sense
Yeah but look at him - this is the quality of animation former WB animators were putting out in 1963/64, having left WB. Yes, it's simplistic stylistically, especially compared to Looney Tunes (even the later ones), but every character is constantly in motion. There's no repetitive backgrounds or stiff bodies with animated mouths and close-up talking heads to fill time cheaply.
The animated titles of a movie were seen by audiences as funny and sophisticated enough to warrant an animated series from an independent studio, while the studio that formerly employed them was in meltdown and their nearest rival was the 1960s equivalent of late 90s Flash animations.
He has his own style that draws on the animation styles of the era and it's not surprising he has imitators and near-relatives who look like him. He's still cool as frick today, with a distinctive style, despite being almost immediately run into the ground by his own popularity in the 60s.
Looney Tunes just should not be UPA shit, at all. I know that a lot of the shorts increasing grew into this style over time, but that's really just reinforcing the point. There's going to be a point where the camel's back breaks. And when you get to this period especially, you know something has gone horribly wrong.
They were Hanna-Barbera-lite, and Hanna-Barbera itself was Tom and Jerry-lite, making obviously cheap cartoons that undercut traditional animations (Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies etc were theatrical shorts originally, remember - they were made with different budget expectations and audience expectations because when they were made, long before this, theatrical releases were always packed - it was effectively pre-television even for the later shorts).
That made tv cartoons, including serialized cartoons, possible for very little money but with a noticeable drop in quality both on animation and, because of the shorter lead time, on the concepts underpinning each story. By 1967 Jack Warner was desperate not to let the studio fall out of his control (he was the last surviving Warner brother, and had seized control of the company from his brothers in the 50s) but his influence was waning on the lot as projects became grander in scope and more numerous, meaning he couldn't personally intervene on them as often as he might have liked, and he'd sold his controlling interest to Seven Arts the year before in any case; Seven Arts sold up to the mob front company Kinney National in 68. Moves like hiring Alex Lovy away from Hanna-Barbera looked smart on paper but produced predictable results - even in this single ad you can see the clear difference in styles between old and new WB animation. It was not popular, and part of the alienation of Seven Arts.
A couple of years later he retired from WB completely.
Basically, Jack Warner was an old man who didn't want to be an old man any more, so he did dumb things very often on the cheap to try and fix the world and by magical inference fix himself. Didn't work, but then, it never does.
Plus he was Canadian. Fricking canucks ruin everything.
Has any entrepreneur EVER had continued success within their company after they've sold out? I swear just take the money, sit on a beach until you non-compete runs out and start a new business.
Has any entrepreneur EVER had continued success within their company after they've sold out? I swear just take the money, sit on a beach until you non-compete runs out and start a new business.
Never seen a Merlin short, but Cool Cat's cartoons had poor animation, dull if not annoying music, weak gags, and Cool Cat himself was dated the moment he was made. If Cool Cat's any indication of the quality of Merlin's cartoons, then I didn't miss out.
Merlin's even more dated because he was a parody of W. C. Fields, who died twenty years before he was even created.
There was a W. C. Fields revival in the late '60s; he and the Marx Brothers were very popular with the counterculture
I have never heard of either before.
>a parody of W. C. Fields
Jesus.
Trying to appeal to that Great Depression demographic.
I think Merlin had exactly ONE short, and he acted like an extra in somebody else's short. If I remember he was smug , calm, and confident, which are not traits you want in a series centered mostly around over the top slapstick humor.
Merlin had ONE joke, he couldn't pronounce "prestidigitator".
That's it, that was the whole gag.
daffy and bugs could be placed into any situation and make it funny
on the opposite end you've got road runner, who isnt even a character. people watch for the coyote, and his gags are extremely versatile despite the setting and premise being exactly the same every time
merlin and cool cat are not versatile in any sense
Never seen Merlin either. Seen loads of Cool Cat and Bunny & Clyde.
Cool Cat was the 60’s version of “How do you do fellow kids?”
Norman Normal was okay though
Norman Normal, while a great short, feels like Warner Bros trying to make a Woody Allen Looney Tune.
why does Daffy look so fricking scuffed
That was what he looked like in that era. Bugs looking like a swiped image from the 40s and being right next to him doesn't help.
Look at the quality difference.
At least Merlin kinda sorta looks like a Chuck Jones character if you squint hard enough, but Cool Cat is just a shameless Pink Panther knockoff.
Pink Panther was made by the same people at WB at the same time. So not really a huge stretch that they look similar.
Yeah but look at him - this is the quality of animation former WB animators were putting out in 1963/64, having left WB. Yes, it's simplistic stylistically, especially compared to Looney Tunes (even the later ones), but every character is constantly in motion. There's no repetitive backgrounds or stiff bodies with animated mouths and close-up talking heads to fill time cheaply.
The animated titles of a movie were seen by audiences as funny and sophisticated enough to warrant an animated series from an independent studio, while the studio that formerly employed them was in meltdown and their nearest rival was the 1960s equivalent of late 90s Flash animations.
He has his own style that draws on the animation styles of the era and it's not surprising he has imitators and near-relatives who look like him. He's still cool as frick today, with a distinctive style, despite being almost immediately run into the ground by his own popularity in the 60s.
Looney Tunes just should not be UPA shit, at all. I know that a lot of the shorts increasing grew into this style over time, but that's really just reinforcing the point. There's going to be a point where the camel's back breaks. And when you get to this period especially, you know something has gone horribly wrong.
eat shit moron, looney tunes switched styles over time.
>Why didn't Cool Cat and Merlin the Magic Mouse ever catch on
because they aren't sexy.
They were Hanna-Barbera-lite, and Hanna-Barbera itself was Tom and Jerry-lite, making obviously cheap cartoons that undercut traditional animations (Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies etc were theatrical shorts originally, remember - they were made with different budget expectations and audience expectations because when they were made, long before this, theatrical releases were always packed - it was effectively pre-television even for the later shorts).
That made tv cartoons, including serialized cartoons, possible for very little money but with a noticeable drop in quality both on animation and, because of the shorter lead time, on the concepts underpinning each story. By 1967 Jack Warner was desperate not to let the studio fall out of his control (he was the last surviving Warner brother, and had seized control of the company from his brothers in the 50s) but his influence was waning on the lot as projects became grander in scope and more numerous, meaning he couldn't personally intervene on them as often as he might have liked, and he'd sold his controlling interest to Seven Arts the year before in any case; Seven Arts sold up to the mob front company Kinney National in 68. Moves like hiring Alex Lovy away from Hanna-Barbera looked smart on paper but produced predictable results - even in this single ad you can see the clear difference in styles between old and new WB animation. It was not popular, and part of the alienation of Seven Arts.
A couple of years later he retired from WB completely.
Basically, Jack Warner was an old man who didn't want to be an old man any more, so he did dumb things very often on the cheap to try and fix the world and by magical inference fix himself. Didn't work, but then, it never does.
Plus he was Canadian. Fricking canucks ruin everything.
you mean ill never be able to fix being old?
it doesn't mean you can't try
MySpace Tom?
Has any entrepreneur EVER had continued success within their company after they've sold out? I swear just take the money, sit on a beach until you non-compete runs out and start a new business.
Rescue these characters
Would be funny to see them in a skit doing marriage counseling .