hiway29

I played little league for 2 years as a kid. I loved wearing the uniform, and playing on a beautifully maintained field. My parents came to one game, but otherwise didn't think it necessary. Back then we used to be suspicious of parents that showed up all the time. It didn't seem cooincidence that their kids got more playing time, or batted in a better position. It was my first education in the art of schmoozing. I honestly had much more fun getting some guys together and playing pick up games on a crappy field. We would start playing in the morning, break for lunch, pick it up later. There were no parents or other adults around, and we dtermined our own rules and stuck by them, the most common being the 'no right field' since we rarely had enough players to cover the field. The other was 'mound rule' where you threw the runner out by throwing to the pitcher since there wasn't enough players for first base either. As far as the kid who died, well, what can you say about a tragedy like that. I do know that a 10 year old kid knows full well what a bat to the head will do, and I can'tbelieve the parents are 'understanding'.

Maybe I'm just getting old. I'm one of a rare breed that grew up rooting for both the Yankees and the Red Sox. While I was always a Yankee fan, I rooted for the Sox when they were in the series, and feel that last year was a great 'storybook' achievement from them. But I'm sick of the whole thing. I know it's only some fans, but whenever I see close ups of fans in Yankee Stadium or Fenway, it makes me wonder what the hell I'm doing being part of it. The incident with Sheffield last night crystalized it. While it was not the worst infraction I've seen a fan make, it was an intentional swipe at Sheffield, which is something I've rarely seen at any game. The ensuing shouting match was a study in human nature, bordering on hatred in the faces of some of those yahoos. It's never smart for a player to acknowledge a fan. I was at the Dodger game last year when Milton Bradley went ballistic, and threw the bottle that was thrown on the field back in the stands, and while it was 'exciting' for a couple of minutes , it really put a wet blanket on the game. Anyway, I'm finding that I just don't enjoy these Yankee-Sox matches any more, and it's got nothing to do with who's winning. It's just ugly,like going to a Raiders game when they were in LA. OK I've vented. So I'm an old fart who wishes things were better. I know this crap has been going on forever, I just don't have any use for it anymore.

well, since you asked. I've loved cartoons as far back as I can remember. Looking back, I realize I was actually studying them when I was 8 years old. I knew there were differences between the way Bugs Bunny looked in one cartoon to the next, and wanted to know why. I knew the old Popeye cartoons were better than the newer ones and needed to know why. I thought about the 'limited animation' in Yogi Bear cartoons, and realized that didn't mean they couldn't be good. I didn't see myself doing animation then tho. The animation industry was a dying field in the 60's and 70's. The thought of moving to California and working at Disney was not even conceivable. I wanted to draw comic books, and saw myself drawing for Marvel comics. To that end I was an art major in college and was able to get in a class with John Buscema, one of Marvel's top artist. I also got into the way which was as great an impediment to starting a career as anything. In the 80's a drew comic books for some small level publishers, including 3 years working on 'Glad' magazine-the humore magazine put pout by the way corps guy in the early 80's. To cut short a long story, I got a job in animation in 1990, and have worked in animation since then, mostly at disney, but also several years at Warner Bros., as well as other studios. My first really nice job was in the early 90's working on Tazmania, a show starring the Tazmanian Devil, which I thought was pretty cool. Not to give my resume here, but I just finished 3 seasons on Kim Possible, which has become one of the better received shows on the Disney Channel. I guess I could have answered your question ,'yes'. believe it or not, I'm usually not this gabby.

Yes, Kathy. As you can see, the early Flip was much more frog-like. The later design was more practical and appealing. I'm curious about Sudo's pic there. The song was from the show 'Gypsy', which was about the life of Gypasy Rose Lee, but I'm not sure if that is who is in the picture. I also don't know if that song was written for the broadway play, or if it was an old 'standard'.

Since I know you love to hear me pontificate, here's some more stuff about Bosko, and early Warner bros. Bosko was indeed the first 'star' at Warners, and appeared in several early talk cartoons. He wasn't black in the stereotypical manner of most black characters back then. He was black mainly as a way of making him stand out among the white backgrounds. Either harman or ising left Warnersin the early 30's and somehow Bosko left with him. Harman and ising eventually partnered at MGM in the mid 30's on, producing some beautiful but to my mind, boring cartoons. To replace Bosko, they came up with 'Buddy'. A bland fellow who made Bosko look innovative. As hard as it is to imagine Warner Bros were having a difficult time developing any worthwhile characters. In the mid 30's , Tex Avery came aboard, and beagan working with animators such as Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones. They were given an edict to come up with characters, which led to such giants as Oliver Owl, Ham and Ex, and Porky and Beans. Most of them flopped, and beans eventually disappeared leaving Porky Pig as the first legitimate star. It was still a ways off from daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd. The embryonic Elmer Fudd character was called Egghead, who proved to be as insufferable a character as you've ever seen. But Bosko was there first-no relation to the fondly remembered Bosco chocolate syrup of my youth.

I just re read ex 10's post, and removed the commas. I realize that wasn't what she was saying at all,just that dave whatshisname was never in the corps. I guess it's still possible to have sore spots even after being out for 16 years, and I apologize for taking comments out of context.

I would say that if someone was named 'Dave whatshisname', then that negates fame status. It is interesting that you didn't remember his name because he wasn't in the corps. It reminds me of one time when I was doing 'Glad ' magazine with Taylor O, And Mark Fr***zak. We were at a word in business thing in Memphis, and a member from Joyful Noise came by, and talked to Taylor while I was sitting next to him. She referred to me as if I wasn't there, and said she didn't know if the magazine had any worth since she never heard of me, but now knowing corps guys were involved she was inclined to give it respect. Not the first or last time I felt less than human for not being corps, and I don't mean to equate ex 10's comments to that. It just reminded me of it.

you gave up too soon, Kathy-I was thinking Sudo or Pirate would know. That was actually Flip's second design. In his first cartoons he looked much more 'frog-like'. This version is cuter, but doesn't look like a frog, or anything else really.

well, I do. Witout naming him, I will say that he was the creation of Ub Iwerks, who was Walt Disney's partner in the early years, and who animated the first Mickey Mouse cartoons. To make a long stroy short, they had a falling out in the early 30's, and Ub started his own studio, with this fellow as his star character. While he is hardly a household name, he was in some pretty good cartoons. They used to show them on a local channel when I was a kid. Obviously, he did not become another Mickey Mouse, and Ub eventually went back to Disney, where he pioneered technologies such as the multi-plane camera, used in Snow White, Pinocchio,etc. Ub went from being a near equal partner with Walt in the 20's, to another cog in the creative machine in his later years-but that's another topic.

Shellon.. you are amazing. I hate the way.

Thanks Bluzeman. I should have remembered that. I like the other one better.

Thanks Steve-from now on it's no more than 2 syllables.

That's incongrous, not inconrous. That'll teach me not to try to use big words.

That was a big hit in Connecticut, Sudo. I always like the name of the group, with it's inconrous 'egyptian' reference, and the description of the lead singer. In other words, I'm searching for a way to not reveal the group. I'm also racking my brain to come up with their bigger hit.

I liked the last episode, but thought it didn't offer enough in terms of moving the plot forward. The extended surgery, and birth was nail biting, but offered no surprises. Boone was one of the least realized of the regulars, and was probably the easiest to kill off. Don't be surprised if we see him 'appearing' in later episodes, only to vanish again. They're promising the greatest cliff hanger since 'who shot J.R.?' for the season finale. A few answers along with another tease would be welcome.

That was probably M*ke F*ntz, who has worked for Jim Davis for years, and may be there still. The "Garfield" studio is located in Indiana. It's a beautiful setting, where a group of talented artists produce the garfield comic strip, as well as Garfield posters, ads, and you name it. I can assure you that M*ke would not claim to have 'invented' Garfield. While he is talented enough to be famous in his own rite, I'm not sure if being part of the Garfield team qualifies. I'm an artist at Disney, and am about as anonymous as one can be.

Well,Kathy, I make my living in animation, which gives me license to be a 50 year old geek.

Cartoon Network and most other tv stations rarely show cartoons that old-with the exception of old warner bros- and only those either in color or colorized. The thinking is that kids will not accept b+w . They may be right, but I love b+w cartoons. And I also believe that kids will still respond to many of the old cartoons. Somehow the 3 stooges have escaped the b+w prejudice. Plus cartoon network largely shows original stuff, and alot of Hanna Barbera and Warner bros. This is because Cartoon network is basically the result of Warner Bros having bought hanna barbera, and cartoon network has sorta sprung out as a result. The van Beuren studio was never very popular, and really not as good as others. Still, they produced some very likeable cartoons. They acquired Fleix the cat-who was extremely popular and innovative during the silent era, pre-Disney. The Felix cartoons they made in the 30's were quite elaborate, lushly drawn, and lacking much of the imagination of the original fe;ix's. Both incarnations have little resemblance to the Felix we grew up with. No bag of tricks, professor, or Rockbottom.

Keep the pictures coming, kathy. I think they're fun. I couldn't agree with you more about keeping older animation alive. The gentlemen in the above picture may not be the best representatives of 30's animation,but they don't deserve to be forgotten. A good Fleischer Popeye, or Betty Boop cartoon can still amaze. There are many others. There are good cartoons being made today tho. Maybe I'm more aware since I work in the industry. As always, cartoons range from excellent to just awful. In it's own way,SpongeBob is quite good.

Those fellows just happen to have the same names of a more famous cat and mouse. Not Fleischer. I don't think I'm revealing much to say that it's from the famous Van Buren studio. The only mystery here is how did Kathy come up with this one ?

One of my favorite novelty songs, Sudo. Let's see, Kathy may very well be right. She's certainly in the neighborhood. The original 'Alvin' show was broadcast around 1961, and this song had already been around for awhile. It was incorporated into a song segment of the show, of course. If you only remember Alvin from the 80's version, you don't know Alvin. The "Alvin Show' was witty and fun. The 80's version is childish and ponderous.

Well, Kathy, Woodstock emerged pretty much as you know him today in the early 70's. He was not part of the early Peanuts strip, and came along when Peanuts was at the height of it's popularity. The relationship between Woodstock and Snoopy began right away. Peanuts itself began in the early 1950's.

that's TWO (2) volumes, not to. Good grief.

I agree completely about Snoopy. He was such a cultural phenom back then. Schulz was at the peak of his career and "Peanuts' was at the height of it's popularity. The peanuts television specials just made Snoopy more popular. I do think that Snoopy still exists as an icon , but is not as relevant in people's minds. Shulz is gone, and the peanuts cartoon franchise is pretty much in the past. Snoopy greeting cards still abound. Knotsberry farm has 'Camp Snoopy', and there is not a child in the country who still doesn't recognize him. Fantagraphic Books has started to reprint the complete "Peanuts" comic strip, from day one, in a beautifully packaged format. There have only been to volumes out as yet, with a new one every 4 months or so. I give them my highest recommendation. For anyone who has never read the earliest peanuts, it will come as quite a jolt to see how different it is from the peanuts we know and love.It was a process of years to develop and shape the strip. Snoopy is very much a 'real' dog in these early strips, with flashes of what is to come.

Thanks Bluzeman-I'm certain that long intro on the first one was cut for radio play. Who knew one needed to buy the record for the extended version. I doubt if Snoopy is embraced today as he was way back when. He seems to have attained icon status, similar to ,but not as big as, Mickey Mouse. A character that everyone recognizes, but isn't relevant to today.