Talk:Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special Note on new layout and custom TOC[edit]

The filmography has been reformatted into multiple columns and has a custom TOC to save screen space. The series codes and release dates (Beck/Friedwald) from 1935 on will be brought online soon. You can pitch in if you have a decent reference like the B & F.

Schweiwikist 02:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(watch here for updates; this section will be deleted once the whole filmography has been processed.)

Incorrect Info/Vandalism?[edit]

What's with the recent edits on this page? There are directors credited with many MM/LT shorts that had nothing to do with WB, like Hanna & Barbera, Takamoto, Nichols, and Deitch. In addition, there are multiple directors credited with cartoons they didn't even work on, like 1963's "Claws in the Lease" (which lists Tex Avery, who was gone from WB by over 20 years at that point!). Something tells me this article should be cleaned up to imdb standards and then locked, because there's some blatantly incorrect info here. Sb2007 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected[edit]

Somebody redirected my page "List of Looney Tunes VHS Tapes" into this page. It weird! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandharrison (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Outside References[edit]

I was thinking it would be a good idea to put external links to the Big Cartoon Database (http://www.bcdb.com) because all the cartoons have synopsis, characters, and other notes. What is the Wiki-style guide say for that? What do people think? Jeff schiller 19:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)


That's a possibilty. IMDB also lists a lot of these toons individually. --Igor-the-insane 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Idea[edit]

how about a template for each episode?

If by this you mean a stub page for each of the cartoons, I very much agree.

Episode Name[edit]

Synopsis[edit]

Year released: yyyy

Characters:

  • character 2
  • character 1
  • character 5

author/animator

Episode Description[edit]

ydda yadda yadda


Other info[edit]

Do you mean a template for each cartoon in the page itself? I personally like the concise list presented here and would not want to break that up...Jeff schiller 19:22, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, creating a stub page like this for each episode. We could use BCDB.com for help. Cl_ellison 04:52, 2006 July 11
In addition to the DVD info, how about the laserdisc info as well ? I have all of th em and would be happy to contribute.--Igor-the-insane 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total number[edit]

How many are there in total?--Richy 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many, doc? They made more cartoons than Mel had voices . . .[edit]

In the desktop reference to the LT/MM canon, Beck & Friedwald wrote (in April 1989):

“...watching over 1,000 WB cartoons is educational. We learned four rules which have enriched our lives and we will never forget:
  1. Hippety Hopper is not a giant mouse.
  2. Always get a warranty from ACME.
  3. Never let Bugs or Daffy shave you!
  4. The little light—it stays on!”


I’m working on breaking up the list into more easily edit-able chunks, just to add release months, based on published source(s). It’s an open question whether a capsule article on each title derived from B & F would be appropriate fair use of an out-of-print work, which fetches a steep price "new" on amazon.

Here’s the link to the book, with the customer reviews enabled (nothing very recent):

“Looney Tunes . . .” on amazon.com

Schweiwikist 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making each year it's own sub-section should make it manageable, there aren't that many films each year. Qutezuce 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Added UNDERCONSTRUCTION tag for the next few days. ttfn, must file by Sunday . . . ;)

Schweiwikist 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to top of pages[edit]

Do we need links to the top of the page? Does anyone actually use them? I find that they clutter the page up. Qutezuce 21:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

They would be less necessary if this filmography were not so large, and was broken into sub-filmographies (by decade, I suppose.) I took the step of columnizing the format because there was so much wasted space to the right of the titles, but the page is still very tall. Hence the “disclaimer” at the top regarding the volume of titles.

Another purpose I think the page serves as it is, is to see how many (or few) titles have articles, and the LT-MM short “profile” within WP. I was just suprised to accidentally discover there are no Cecil Turtle cartoon articles, but the 3 titles redirect to Cecil Turtle instead.

If there were enough articles overall, then they could be categorized, and WP would generate the lists itself. For example, “Category: 1947 Merrie Melodies shorts”. But till then it’s hard to get a bearing on what’s out there. Right now I find the extra navigation handy to get back to the custom contents section (which I learned to cook up). But I’ll certainly be glad to get rid of them later.

So, to put it succinctly: I use them because I needed them; I’ll trash ’em once they’re redundant. Thanx!

Schweiwikist 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Doyle Shorts[edit]

As far as I know, the shorts listed on the main page never made it off the planning stages and are scrapped. Any more info on these? Jeff schiller 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I just put the reference to the interview about those cartoons on the page. I don't know if they've been scrapped or still in the planning stages. All I know is what I've read in the interview and at the BCDB.com site Charlie Ellison 17:17, 28 June 2006

Regular Shorts vs. Misc. Shorts[edit]

I'm just wondering: What's the difference between the regular shorts (i.e. those listed first), and the "Miscelaneous Shorts?" Why can't we just put all of them together? Charlie Ellison 21:22, 03 July 2006

We need to define the difference, so people won't keep moving shorts back and forth between the two sections. I just noticed that someone moved some 1980s cartoons. Can anyone tell which is which and by which criteria? Cl ellison 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Let it Be Me"[edit]

This one takes us to the song rather than an entry for the cartoon.


Why the column changes???[edit]

Why is someone changing the format that the sorts are listed in the 1960s sections? And why are they putting the year of the short within the parenthases when it's already in a section that has the year? And is anybody even looking at this Talk page anymore? Cl ellison 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is an idiot who thought he was doing a good thing. However that idiot has decided to restore the site back and add director credits to the original site. -- the idiot

New Symbols for "Looney Tunes" vs. "Merrie Melodies"[edit]

What's the difference between putting the blue L as opposed to the circle symbol; and the note symbol vs. the pink M? Cl ellison 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red links[edit]

There are far too many red links. Can somebody please fill them in? Angie Y. 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help out! Agtaz 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm filling them in too. Done two so far today Box Car Blues and The Booze Hangs High‎ --Kisholi (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list complete?[edit]

Is it safe to say that the article currently lists all LT/MM films to date? Hotdoglives 07:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's that!?[edit]

Mr 76.188.8.144, who did extensive editing in June, appears to use an IP address registered to the RoadRunner Holding Company! Hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.162.58 (talk) 01:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Mr. 76.188.8.144[edit]

I am no one special really - I just forget to log in a lot. I did all that editing in June because I wanted to update which shorts were in the golden collections. Beep Beep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syst0aac (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY 1000 Regular Films in initial run (1930-69)[edit]

I think this point is notable, and should be pointed out here! Problem is, if you count (the decade totals, to make it easier), it is:

  • 1930's 270
  • 1940's 307
  • 1950's 278
  • 1960's 148

This adds up to 1003. But three of the films are not considered "regular" run LT/MM's; at least by Beck and Friewald! The Door (7-1-68) was a film produced by someone else that WB bought and added to their distribution. Then, you have Roadrunner A Go go and Zip, Zip Hurry, which are the two 1965 shorts cut out of the Adventures of the Roadrunner special, as noted here. I see they have release dates, but according to B&F, they were unreleased theatrically, and only shown on TV. (Those dates could have been tentative and afterward cancelled). All three of these films are considered specials by B&F, and not listed with the regular run. Just like all of the other productions, such as Private Snafu, Chuck Jones' "Ralph Philips" and other military and Health Dept. PSA's, Philbert, the live action Orange Blossoms for Violet, etc., are not apart of the regular filmography. (the ["LT/MM neutral"], "Cartoon Special" Norman Normal IS considered a regular run short, as it was produced by the studio (Lovy, director), and was not a PSA or other special produced for anyone else.

So that leaves exactly 1000 shorts, until the 80's revival and made for TV shorts. This should definitely be pointed out, but I don't want to delete/(move) those three films without discussing it.Eric B (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Dates vs. Release Dates[edit]

I just checked the copyright year on the opening titles of three different shorts (Duck Dodgers, Rabbit Fire and Rabbit Seasoning) and in each case the year in the title is one less than the year listed here. Was the copyright date generally assigned a year before the film's theatrical release? ~ RedSolstice (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe better to go by release date. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe FMAFan1990 can create a section called "Copyright" in his LT/MM filmography. Agtax 04:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article[edit]

Right now, the article size is 104,777 bytes. This is currently among the top 1000 articles by size (in bytes). So I propose that I split the article like so:

Each article would be a fraction of the size of the current aritcle. FMAFan1990 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already created what would be the first part at User:FMAFan1990/Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929-1939). FMAFan1990 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have created what would be the second part at User:FMAFan1990/Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1940-1949). FMAFan1990 (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the third part is here: User:FMAFan1990/Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1950-1959) FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:FMAFan1990/Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1960-1969) (the fourth part) is finally here FMAFan1990
Here is the swan song of all my work: User:FMAFan1990/Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1970-present and miscellaneous). FMAFan1990 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created 2 more pages: User:FMAFan1990/Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography and User:FMAFan1990/Template:Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography. The former would be the new look of this page, and the latter is a template FMAFan1990 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that it takes a bloody long time to load on my PC. So splitting it up would benefit me, at least. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. I could fix this up. Agtax 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me — let's do it! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tables; it makes everything a lot cleaner than its current format, and the notes section is useful too. If I could make a suggestion, "To Itch His Own" should have the note of being Carl Stalling's last score. Sb2007 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! The tables are a huge improvement. --Kisholi (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With everything all done, what do you think we should do now? FMAFan1990 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its time to do what you got to do = divide the article. 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just about everything is done, now the page histories from each of the userspace articles need to be merged into the mainspace articles. FMAFan1990 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Well done. Agtax 06:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG . . . it was completely WRONG to Split the article. Everything was easily viewable on ONE page. Now? Helll-looooo?????? Someone ought to make it all ONE PAGE VIEWABLE AGAIN like it was. Have the separate articles if you wish, fine, whatever, so long as there's a way to see every listing, like it was before, on ONE page. Comprende? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.89.246 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was too long or else was top-heavy with special characters. It took a long time to load. Splitting it was the right thing to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting up was NOT the right thing to do without ALSO having a viewer to view it ALL ON ONE PAGE.

Can't people have that option? Yes. It makes sense. When you want to view all years on one page, having to flip back and forth is just plain idiotic when it's not necessary. Keep split, if you desire -- but please, pretty please, allow viewers the option to see everything on one page... like it was before. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.41.47 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to two complete filmographies all on one page each. One is Jon Cooke's old "Looney Tunes Checklist", and the other is one I did based both on Cooke's and on the old format of this article, with all the info. I don't usually link to my own sites, but it seems people really are demanding the list all on one page, and these are apparently the only two filmographies like that out there.
That old list here really was way too big, and would momentarily freeze the browser when loading, so it was truly taxing the memory. Even some of the split decade articles by themselves are slow loading! The links are simple HTML, and do not have all those hundreds of little images to load (the MM, LT bullets, etc), and thus are not as big.Eric B (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reissues[edit]

Can there be a section on what has been re-released on DvD/etc? I am aware of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, but from internet searches there seem to be other collections too. Which are the latest, and which have been best restored to their original state? I found a site offering the golden collection in widescreen, but they were out of stock and I can't find them elsewhere? The ones I can find are fullscreen, but weren't most of these originally released in theaters? Wouldn't they orginally been in some sort of widescreen format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.8.253 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed width tables[edit]

The use of fixed-width tables on these pages makes the tables user-unfriendly as it makes scrolling impossible if you are halfway through a table. is there any rationale behind having the widths fixed? I've removed the fixed widths and the tables are perfectly functional. Any thoughts as to why these were fixed width? Rob Sinden (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I had them fixed width is because I don't want any line breaks that aren't forced by <br>. And I can scroll without any problems if I am halfway through a table, and I'm sure most other users can too. So, it's all in your head. 76.189.169.244 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, it also depends on what text size your browser is set to. 76.189.169.244 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's simply all in Rob Sinden's head like 76.189.169.244 has claimed. I have the same issue. In particular, really long tables (like this table here ----> Looney_Tunes_and_Merrie_Melodies_filmography_(1940–1949)#1941_.E2.80.94_41_titles) aren't suited very well for seeing all of the elements of the table. Changing the text size can help, but why not simply have it in a readable format to begin with? But, at the same time, I can also understand that forced line breaks "<br>" can be a pain as well. Does anyone have a solution that can satisfy both issues, or are we stuck taking one advantage but not the other? 98.202.38.225 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because 76.189.169.244 doesn't want any line breaks isn't a reason for there not to be any - the point is for wikipedia to be as friendly for everyone, whatever browser or computer you are on. I cannot see the reason for these fixed width tables. As I mentioned above, when reverted they're perfectly functional as normal tables. 76.189.169.244 seems to want these tables fixed width for personal preference rather than for the good of wikipedia. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - As no-one has given a reason as to why the tables SHOULD be fixed, other than the personal preference of one user who states "The reason I had them fixed width is because I don't want any line breaks that aren't forced by <br>", which is by no means a reason for other users to be disadvantaged, and as the tables function much better without the limitations of being fixed width, I am, yet again, reverting. Please do not revert these without giving a reason for the fixed width which isn't down to aesthetics, or personal preference. If you can explain how making the tables fixed width improves the functionality of wikipedia, and the general wikipedia experience, then maybe there is a case, but it needs to be explained. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has added additional tables to the 30s page in an attempt to reduce table width. I don't think that that these duplicate tables are the way to go, with long, mostly empty rows, but how about the footnotes system? I've updated the first three entries this way - what does anyone think? Rob Sinden (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a change of thought. Initially I said I wanted a compromise, which I now find is silly of me to have written after reading Rob Sinden's additional comments. I agree more with what Rob Sinden says, since the convenience of the viewers of Wikipedia should be first priority. Line breaks may be a problem, yes--it's inconvenient, yet that shouldn't be an excuse to make things inconvenient for potential readers to Wikipedia. I wish I had used a little common more common sense. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was remove the additional tables that someone added on [edit] for 1931 and 1932 and replaced with footnotes. This avoids having the additional tables, and stops the tables being so wide by removing the notes columns. If you look at these two tables now, then you will see that they are annotated "a", "b", "c", etc. I didn't go any further, in case people disagreed.
PS - this is a compromise :) That's the point of wikipedia
PPS - have you guys thought of creating logins?
Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of DVD titles from DVD Availability Columns?[edit]

I am growing increasingly frustrated by the continued removal of movie DVDs from the DVD Availability column which feature some of the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies as special features. One such example is the Cimarron DVD which includes the 1931 Merrie Melody Red-Headed Baby. Another odd set of removals involves the two volumes of "Uncensored Bosko" DVDs. I understand that the Uncensored Bosko DVDs might not be good to list (or maybe not even be allowed to be listed) because they are not official Warner Bros. DVD releases. However, many of these removed movie DVDs with cartoon extras ARE official Warner Bros. DVDs and those should be listed. Can whoever is removing these give everyone a good idea why the removals continue to happen? I want to create a valid list of LTs and MMs included as movie extras for a project I'm working on, and these repeated removals are driving me up a wall.

74.114.36.65 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 9 2014 rearrangement[edit]

Editor BookDen gave me quite a scare by removing so much content - without comment! But it looks OK, referring to other entries and not leaving this entry overloaded. So please, leave a comment for this vandalism chaser next time...Super48paul (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

total number of shorts[edit]

this page claims 1004 shorts were released altogether, but if you do the math - 1930s - 270 1940s - 307 1950s - 278 1960s - 146

grand total - 1001 (or 1002 with 1929 pilot, or 1003 with Norman Normal special) - I believe is the correct calculation. Or someone please correct me if i'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.157.53 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Director credits[edit]

The 1950s article cleverly credit directors by the name they were using professionally at the time the cartoons were released, for instance Charles M. Jones or I. Freleng. That follows a common guideline of the Infobox film, recommending not to retrospectively alter screen credits to accommodate name changes at a later date. If I could make a suggestion, we should try to do the same effort in other articles where feasible. What does anyone think? Valdx346 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Changes[edit]

There have been a lot of changed to titles (adding or removing hyphens, commas, spaces, etc.) are wrong based on simply looking at the title frames of the shorts, themselves. The titles you originally had were correct, so I don't understand all these nonsensical changes. It's like someone just went through and "prettied them up" without any regard for the actual titles. It makes me wonder about all the ordering changes that were made, too. I'd fix them myself, but knowing Wikipedia, you territorial editors would just change them back, anyways.

Orphaned references in Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

  • From 1932: Kershaw, Sir Ian. Hitler Hubris, New York: Norton, 1998, p. 366.
  • From 1950: Paul T. Hellmann (14 February 2006). Historical Gazetteer of the United States. Routledge. p. 7. ISBN 1-135-94858-5.
  • From United States Navy: "The Russian Navy Is Aiming To Be Much Larger Than The US Navy". Business Insider. 24 September 2014. Archived from the original on 26 November 2015. Retrieved 12 November 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HBO Max[edit]

Since WB is making the restored shorts available on HBO Max now, as opposed to releasing them on Blu-ray, should a note be added to the HBO Max availability of the shorts? Currently about 400 shorts have been added to the service. Jmj713 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Looney_Tunes_and_Merrie_Melodies_filmography&oldid=1203750672"