[HN Gopher] HBO Max's Great Looney Tunes Purge
___________________________________________________________________
HBO Max's Great Looney Tunes Purge
Author : lisper
Score : 114 points
Date : 2023-01-15 12:52 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (slate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (slate.com)
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I still don't understand the accounting logic, under which it
| makes sense for Warner Bross to stop putting shows _they own_ on
| a service _they own_.
|
| It's not like it's costing them any money!
| shp0ngle wrote:
| The linked article says this
|
| > Long story short, there are legal rules and regulations
| allowing a company like WBD to write down costs incurred as
| part of a post-merger restructuring -- but only for a short
| amount of time. Taking shows such as Minx or Westworld out of
| the HBO Max and, more importantly, WBD library will apparently
| help the megacorporation make its future balance sheets look a
| lot better. This isn't just about saving a few thousand dollars
| on residual checks or licensing costs; it's about writing down
| millions in amortization costs these titles would have incurred
| in coming years.
|
| It still doesn't make sense to me. What do they write down?
| They already paid for those shows! Several decades ago, in some
| cases. Can someone that understand accounting more explain?
| Jasper_ wrote:
| Residuals and royalties are still ongoing payments.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| They are basically doing a clean up of their balance sheet.
|
| Those old WB shows still had value. So they were an asset in
| the balance sheet. Long lived assets /intangible assets
| usually have a long life, something like 40 years, and the
| clock would have started from the moment that remastered show
| was created.
|
| These costs would have been hitting the income line as
| amorrization costs for many many years. Making their EPS look
| worse than it should.
|
| Still, I question the logic, because you can write down an
| impaired asset without actually retiring it from service.
| Some beancounter somewhere had the bright idea to write down
| the asset to improve the balance sheet and P&L... But that
| should not mean you pull the shows out of circulation,
| andbecause they are barely driving any traffic, they have a
| solid accountinh argument for saying that their economic
| value is zero.
|
| If a car has fully amortized but it still works, you probably
| dont stop driving it!
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| The efficiency of capitalism at its finest.
| vanderZwan wrote:
| Is this related to the Batgirl situation, where they shelved
| a practically finished movie for accounting reasons?
| species9606 wrote:
| Not to worry, HBO Max has replaced all that with "Velma."
| richwater wrote:
| I was actually jaw-dropped at how terrible the first episode
| was.
|
| HBO is normally known for high-quality content (even if I don't
| like it, it's not for me).
| HideousKojima wrote:
| [flagged]
| zeppelin101 wrote:
| [flagged]
| pictur wrote:
| [flagged]
| djur wrote:
| I have yet to encounter a single person defending the
| show on these grounds, and I know or follow a lot of
| progressive/feminist/queer/etc. type people.
| bitwize wrote:
| Some of the critics are, but far fewer than normal for
| this kind of thing, I think Mindy Kaling overplayed her
| hand.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| Have you met anyone defending the show?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I think this is a case where both takes are wrong, it's a
| bad show, but not because of how they make fred a
| stereotype
| rhino369 wrote:
| HBO Max isn't HBO--it's HBO plus other Warner bros stuff.
| Velma was made by the non-HBO side.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There has not been an HBO side for a few years now. ATT
| fired the HBO executives that made HBO HBO when ATT bought
| it.
| anderber wrote:
| Velma, I believe, is a holdover from the previous regime. The
| current one is more likely to replace it with some sort of
| trashy reality TV.
| cptnapalm wrote:
| Which would likely be a massive step up from Velma.
| willis936 wrote:
| I have a hard time shaking the feeling that this was
| unironically the pitch for the show.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| cm2187 wrote:
| I had never heard of it, but with an imdb rating of 1.7 for 10k
| votes [1], it makes it to the top 20 worst shows/movies (with
| over 10k votes) in history.
|
| The worst movie in that category seems to be a biography of
| Erdogan [2].
|
| [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14153790/
|
| [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5988370/
| optimalsolver wrote:
| That has to be the result of a coordinated down-voting
| campaign.
| thewebcount wrote:
| I haven't watched it yet, but it's been out for less than a
| week, so I suspect that rating may change going forward. (Or
| maybe it really is awful? Feels like brigading to me,
| though.)
| nervousvarun wrote:
| It's a Scooby-Doo property...without Scooby-Doo (think the
| explanation for that is it's meant to be a "Velma origin
| story").
|
| This is the kindof remake/re-imagining that gets made
| ostensibly for a different audience...but in the process
| alienates the traditional audience...which makes it end up
| with no audience.
|
| Mindy Kaling was a big part of the success of the American
| Office and has other successes in a relatively short
| career, so it's not hard to see why it was green-lit...but
| frankly it's rating is probably about what it should
| expected to be.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| From what I've heard, it is unlikely to go up much.
| Absolute mess of a show that seems to go out of its way to
| insult any audience likely to watch it and who's only
| redeeming feature is that when the animators are trying
| they're doing a really good job.
| cm2187 wrote:
| In my experience, after 1000 votes, the rating has
| converged to its final value.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| For what I've seen it is a show is actually about the
| author as the main character and used only tScooby-Doo as a
| theme to be sold
| anthomtb wrote:
| I am getting a ton of adverts for "Velma" when watching
| YouTube. My YouTube habit is exclusively mountain biking,
| woodworking and home improvement. I am not sure how targeted
| YouTube's advertising is but have come up with three theories:
|
| 1) Data sharing with Netflix (I do love Big Mouth)
|
| 2) Using the content I watch as a correlation for my age, and
| therefore susceptibility to Scooby-Doo nostalgia.
|
| 3) Wide net, no targeting. YouTube is just blasting these ads
| to everyone.
|
| Nothing in the advertisements has piqued my interest in the
| show either. It looks uninspired.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I have no take on Velma, but "Be Cool, Scooby Doo" is perhaps
| the best of all the more recent iterations of the show. Good
| writing.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| None of this stuff makes any sense to me. New kids are born every
| day. My 9 year old watched Tom & Jerry for the first time a few
| months ago and loved it. It's an evergreen market.
|
| I cannot fathom how these companies aren't making money showing
| cartoons that were made 60 years ago. Everyone's dead who made
| them, presumably they own the rights. If they don't want them on
| their platforms, put them on YouTube and promote them.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| More and more of these are getting censored. Save them while
| you can. The Black maid in many of the Tom & Jerry cartoons is
| going to be a reason to cancel these. Funny, we don't cancel
| books from the 19th century (eg Tom Sawyer), but we cancel
| cartoons from mid-20th.
| themadturk wrote:
| Isn't it also because those books from the 19th century are
| in the public domain, so it's unlikely (I won't say
| "impossible") for them to be canceled because no one controls
| them. The films from the 40s and 50s still belong to someone.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| I hadn't thought of that. But they can still be "canceled"
| by libraries and schools choosing to exclude them.
| marcos100 wrote:
| Crazy parents don't read books.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| You might be able to make a better case that "we don't cancel
| books from the 19th century" if you'd used something other
| than Tom Sawyer as an example, which has been banned/censored
| at various times in the US.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| True. But in 2022, no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et.
| al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to
| minorities than Tom & Jerry. Such books are considered art
| and in the American Parthenon of literature. Perhaps in 50
| more years, Tom & Jerry and Looney Tunes will reach similar
| artful status.
| Lammy wrote:
| Search "Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies HQ Project v2022" and
| then fire up your favorite BitTorrent client :)
| chiph wrote:
| It's v2020: Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies
| HQ Project v2020
| Lammy wrote:
| That's an older version, yeah. There's also a v2021.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| I searched 1337x and TPB. I see something like this but without
| "project v2022" and the torrent is from 2015. It's 159.5 GB.
| How do in find the more recent one you mention?
|
| EDIT: I found a link to it on Reddit r/looney tunes pointing to
| bt4g.org. 411.93 GB so much larger than the 2015 version.
| Comments say it has and more and more blu-ray and restored
| content over older versions.
| Lammy wrote:
| Even the old version will be a fine watching experience if
| you don't want to burn that much HDD space.
| jurassic wrote:
| Every time this happens I get angry. Whatever accounting rules
| are causing this to happen need to be changed pronto.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| Most looney tunes content seems to still be available through
| Boomerang at least in the United States:
| https://watch.boomerang.com/
| jghn wrote:
| I found their app to be terrible and wound up cancelling. Then
| I found the HBO Max content. Alas.
|
| In a recent reddit thread on this topic someone pointed out
| that archive.org has a bunch of old episodes for easy download:
| https://archive.org/details/20200303_20200303_0324
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| There are over 500 episodes that Warner released on disc at some
| point... _and over 500 they have not_ that probably haven't been
| seen in... forever.
| blacklion wrote:
| One more link to show to friends, who ask me, why I'm not using
| streaming platforms for music and buy all my music in
| downloadable or material format (or, yes, pirate it if buying in
| such formats is impossible). And own huge NAS. And pay hefty
| price (more than typical streaming subscription) for (encrypted)
| cloud backup.
| tptacek wrote:
| _Warner Bros. takes its goods to market on publicly maintained
| roads, sells its sitcoms and movies to networks that broadcast on
| public airwaves, and distributes its movies to theaters and homes
| through fiber-optic cables that run over and under public land.
| The company is bound up in our shared history, and it has
| produced a great deal of art that is essential to that history._
|
| This argument suggests that anything _you_ do partially belongs
| to the author, as well; airwaves aside, all of us are enabled in
| some way by public investments.
| replygirl wrote:
| yes, most things should be for the commons. it's unfortunate
| that we have so few reliable ways to monetize creative output
| that don't involve fabricated scarcity
| tptacek wrote:
| I think it has something to do with creators needing to,
| like, eat and protect themselves from the rain.
| mopsi wrote:
| Dead people are not known for their appetite, yet copyright
| lasts 70 years after death.
|
| It's particularly egregious when copyright to some of the
| most popular works of all time is inherited by people who
| had nothing to do with the author in his/her lifetime or
| had not even been born then:
|
| > _The composer died unmarried and childless in 1937. His
| heir was his brother Edouard, who died in 1960, leaving the
| rights to his former masseuse, Jeanne Taverne, who died
| four years later. A tangled legal battle in following years
| saw the rights divided between a number of claimants,
| including Ms Taverne's husband's second wife Georgette._ --
| https://archive.ph/NOLb7
| tptacek wrote:
| I've never been able to understand how this is even a
| colorable argument, and yet it comes up all the time.
| Yes: the term of copyright lasts long after the death of
| the artist. But it's that term that gives value to the
| work in the first place; it's what enables artists to
| sell their work to distributors.
| mopsi wrote:
| It doesn't, because nobody knows what works have
| commercial value 70+ years into the future and thus
| current business is not conducted on that basis. That's
| how many popular works end up in random hands in the
| first place, like in the case of Ravel - they aren't seen
| as particularly valuable at the time, but become sleeper
| hits when they earn a special nostalgia or new
| technologies emerge (television, internet, etc).
|
| Good luck selling a movie to Warner Bros on the premise
| that it'll be a real money-maker in 2090s on telekinesis-
| vision platform.
| tptacek wrote:
| This argument requires me to believe that Warner Bros
| would see no difference in value between a property that
| becomes public the moment the author dies and a property
| that has 70 years of exclusivity after that point.
| Obviously, the difference in value between those two
| properties is immense, and that value is realized _during
| the author 's lifetime_.
| mopsi wrote:
| Only the first few years after publication matter,
| because that's when virtually all of lifetime revenue is
| earned. Revenue earned beyond that is usually not enough
| to even justify proper preservation, leaving huge
| archives to rot away.
| benj111 wrote:
| Do you buy anything based on what it may be worth 70
| years after your death? Do you think any company thinks
| that long term?
|
| 1 year probably. 5 years pushing it. 10 years is
| basically off any reasonable financial projection any
| company is going to make.
| tptacek wrote:
| Yes, clearly they all do. Media companies don't push for
| extended copyright terms just to spite you. They have
| easier ways of spiting you than that.
| djur wrote:
| I think the stronger argument here is that Warner Bros. has
| profited from a legal regime that prohibits unlicensed
| distribution of their work. It's not unreasonable to suggest
| that they have some kind of reciprocal responsibility to the
| commons.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| The way to really enforce this is to reduce the copyright
| protection period from essentially forever (thanks to Disney)
| to being more like patents, ~20 years.
| benj111 wrote:
| Why even 20 though?
|
| Over what period of time do new works make most of their
| money? Over what period are production companies their
| payback over when deciding whether to invest in new works?
|
| I would suggest 5 years more than covers the above.
|
| To me the point of copyright, and the only way you can
| defend a state sponsored monopoly is to encourage creation
| of new works. If 5 years does that, any more just prevents
| derivative works, which are new creations in their own
| right.
|
| I'll grant that perpetual copyright is at least logically
| sound, but once you move away from that I don't see how you
| can make an argument for anything more than a minimal
| (enough to encourage creation) copyright term.
| tptacek wrote:
| That's less than half the copyright term we had before
| Disney even existed.
| benj111 wrote:
| And....?
| tptacek wrote:
| And at the very least you can factor Disney out of your
| argument if you think copyright terms should be less than
| half of what they were in 1909.
| Jochim wrote:
| 20 years is still roughly a third of someone's working
| life. I'm not sure what the argument is for longer, even
| 20 years seems too long personally.
| tptacek wrote:
| Again with this lifespan stuff. The term of copyright
| determines much of the value of the work, the very moment
| is put on the market by the author. The extra value
| realized by a term of 70 years versus 56 (the 1909
| number) is, in significant part, realized _during the
| author 's lifetime_. It gives them something more
| valuable to sell.
|
| There are other reasons to argue the term should be
| shorter, or that creators should be granted a less
| valuable right for their works. But "the current term
| doesn't track the lifespan of the author well" seems
| facially nonsensical. I mean, just to start with, there's
| the difference between John le Carre, whose last book
| (before he died) was published when he was 88 years old,
| and someone like Christopher Paolini, the Guiness record
| holder as youngest author of a bestseller. How does
| lifespan even make sense here?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Sounds good to me!
| sarchertech wrote:
| If you release what you create out into the world, that's
| already the way it works. Copyright gives you a monopoly for a
| while (a long while currently), but ultimately ownership is
| passed onto the public.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Do you disagree?
|
| I was educated at a public school, went to college on tuition
| funded by scholarships, where I learned things written in
| public libraries by people studying with public funds, now I
| commute physically on public roads and digital cables...
|
| Anything I accomplish is tied up in our shared history. To say
| that the unique things I built are attributable to me and me
| alone is to ignore that someone else with the same knowledge
| and the same problems would likely come up with the same
| ingenious solutions.
| seti0Cha wrote:
| I agree with the essential point that no one exists in
| isolation, we all build on the work of others, but I don't
| see how your last sentence follows from the previous
| statements. We can all have the same background, but that
| doesn't make us all the same. There's strong evidence, for
| example, that genes play a large role in how we behave.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| > There's strong evidence, for example, that genes play a
| large role in how we behave.
|
| I've heard this said before. Can you link to some science
| about this please?
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-
| of-g...
| seneca wrote:
| I disagree quite strongly. It's an inherently collectivist
| point of view. It enslaves the individual and post-hoc
| justifies the theft of their property with terms that they
| never agreed to and which were imposed on them as a child.
|
| Being born in the same country as you does not entitle you to
| my property and work.
| sobkas wrote:
| > I disagree quite strongly. It's an inherently
| collectivist point of view. It enslaves the individual and
| post-hoc justifies the theft of their property with terms
| that they never agreed to and which were imposed on them as
| a child.
|
| Nothing stops you from seceding or overthrowing government
| if you don't like it. But because what you want won't fly
| with the rest of society, peaceful options are not
| feasible.
|
| > Being born in the same country as you does not entitle
| you to my property and work.
|
| Of course you use collectivist idea that every individual
| can continue to own things while unable to defend them and
| themselves from potential new owners. Such idea is enforced
| by majority through government (it's not perfect especially
| in USA), it's collectivist idea. In natural state, people
| will fight for resources and take them from eachother. But
| such constant warfare also waste a lot of resources. So
| people compromised.
| benj111 wrote:
| So you don't use public roads as an adult? Or expect public
| courts to uphold your (copy)rights?
|
| I don't necessarily agree with the GP, but I don't think
| you can reject the argument out of hand because you don't
| like the answer.
|
| The GP has provided an argument as to why they are entitled
| to your copyrighted work. You haven't provided an argument
| in response.
| mjdiloreto wrote:
| Who is John Galt?
| Jochim wrote:
| > Being born in the same country as you does not entitle
| you to my property and work.
|
| In that case you wouldn't be entitled to any of society's
| collective work either. Electricity? Sorry you didn't
| invent it. Fire? Not your intellectual property either, no
| heat for you. Have you reimbursed anyone for your use of a
| language you didn't create lately? After all, it's immoral
| to benefit from someone else's work.
|
| Libertarians have this strange lack of awareness of the
| fact that the world we live in is built on millennia of
| other people's work, without which they'd be foraging naked
| in the mud with sticks.
|
| > It enslaves the individual and post-hoc justifies the
| theft of their property with terms that they never agreed
| to and which were imposed on them as a child.
|
| Leave then. You're no longer a child, it's in your power to
| simply start walking. What's stopping you? Perhaps the
| "collectivist" society is actually quite comfortable?
| Perhaps life outside of one isn't all it's cracked up to
| be.
| [deleted]
| googlryas wrote:
| You can attribute your success to that, but that doesn't mean
| anyone gets ownership over a thing.
| andromeduck wrote:
| Public school wasn't a choice.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Further not everyone learns so much from it. I learned to
| read before attending public school and was mostly meh at
| it. I learned math in spite of it (my math teachers would
| be schockedto learn I use it daily.)
|
| That said the internet is where I learned most things and
| it exists thanks to the DOD and ISPs have a lot of
| subsidies to thank for their existence (at least the ones
| in the rural area I grew up in)
| 8note wrote:
| How much ownership though? 50%? 1%? 0.05%?
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't want to nerd out on this too much and, like, come
| up with a Dungeons and Dragons rulebook-style answer to
| this problem, but we could do something like: if you make
| up to, like, $10,275, we could ask for 10% of that, and
| then if you make up to $41,775, we could ask for 12% of
| that extra money, and then up to, I don't know, $89,075, we
| could take ownership of maybe 22% of it, and if you're
| making a cool $170,050, 24%.
|
| I know this seems a little fantastical and engineering-
| brain-y but it also means we don't have to spend much time
| thinking about how much of Obi-Wan Kenobi the state of
| Oklahoma owns; we can just settle the whole obligation back
| to society in dollars. I don't know, seems simple to me.
| auctoritas wrote:
| I agree it is tied up in our shared history. I hope you take
| that fact as reason enough to share your work in a reasonably
| accessible manner. But I cannot compel you to do so, at least
| not in most circumstances, exceptions being inevitable of
| course.
| jdkee wrote:
| Cultural erasure.
| babyshake wrote:
| Whatever happened to the supposed future where information wanted
| to be free, and we would have these video libraries of the future
| that would contain virtually infinite selection? It did seem for
| a few years at least that we were headed in that direction.
|
| It would be interesting if there was a Popcorn Time style app
| that only streamed content older than 20-30 years and required
| you to do oAuth login for paid services that support independent
| artists. It might not be any less illegal, but it might seem
| reasonable to a lot of people that wouldn't support a less
| targeted form of piracy.
| JakeAl wrote:
| The pirates will always be free, and control freaks who can't
| control their own feelings will always impose their will on the
| rest of the world in the name of decorum, or civility or
| whatever word they want to attach to their elitism so they can
| see themselves as "better" even when it is less sophisticated
| and nuanced (ham-fisted).
| rhino369 wrote:
| They will probably resurface somewhere. While HBOmax was shelving
| some content for good for tax write offs--this is probably about
| selling rights to the highest bidder.
| techsupporter wrote:
| I've read a couple of commentators speculating that the
| cartoons will go to one of those "free ad-supported streaming
| television" (FAST) platforms like Tubi or Pluto. The ad model
| is supposedly more profitable for stuff where people will put
| it on and let it run for hours.
| DanAtC wrote:
| magnet:?xt=urn:btih:2606A5830780074B089FAB96904009DA412C1C3D&dn=C
| omplete%20Looney%20Tunes%20Golden%20Collection%20%5BDVDrip%5D
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| This one has the complete 1000 episode collection as well as
| movies and specials. Magnet link when you click "Open". It's
| got about a dozen seeders and I'm getting about 8 MB/sec
| download rate:
|
| https://downloadtorrentfile.com/hash/0d0a5a005906babfbfa6a30...
| Tunes and Merrie Melodies HQ Project v2022
| [deleted]
| mortenjorck wrote:
| _> There are vile ethnic caricatures and slurs in those patriotic
| cartoons from the Second World War, and to its immense credit,
| Warner Bros. has often worked to contextualize and preserve those
| shorts. In several cases, it has included those works in separate
| subsections on home-video releases, so that they won't autoplay
| with the rest of the cartoons._
|
| If only more shared this view that we should thoughtfully and
| critically engage with problematic elements of classic works
| rather than summarily banishing them.
| ksniwmidjd wrote:
| [dead]
| CharlesW wrote:
| Do you have a list of these classic, summarily-banished works?
| In a world where _Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever_ is available on
| mainstream streaming services, it 's hard to imagine what
| atrocities you're thinking of.
| swarnie wrote:
| Songs of the south
|
| Any Tom and Jerry episode involving Mammy Two Shoes
|
| A few WW2 era animations, Hitler-Donald duck springs to mind.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| "Song of the South" is a full-length Disney film and the
| first to mix live action with animation. One might think
| with that historic meaning, it would be preserved.
|
| But it's impossible to find. Even eBay has banned sale of
| the DVD.
|
| Fortunately I have a copy my father ripped to DVD from some
| unknown source sometime in the 90s. It's poor quality.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If you look into it, Disney (because, well... money, not
| any actual guilt) actually sold VHS tapes from the 90s to
| the early 00s in many countries except the US. Many
| "bootleg" copies originate from them.
|
| You can find the VHS on eBay for ~$40-$50 from the UK.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Interesting. I guess VHS is the low-quality source of my
| DVD rip.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Another thing you can look into, here's the secret words:
| _Cancion del sur_.
|
| The film went public domain in Spain. And surprise,
| there's some boutique resellers in Spain who do DVDs and
| Blu-rays... and add language tracks...
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Song-South-Blu-Ray-Reg-
| Spain/dp/B09BD...
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Also " The Princess and the Frog " and " Mary Poppins "
| (1964)
| parker_mountain wrote:
| They worst of them are referred to as the Censored Eleven,
| although you can easily find them intact (albeit, with a
| warning). It's not a complete list - others have been added
| to the list since, such as WWII cartoons with highly racist
| anti-Japanese charactures.
|
| An example of one illustrates why the content might be
| considered problematic: "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs". A
| contemporary review said, "A satire on Snow White done in
| blackface, set in modern swing, this is the best in a long
| time. It's very funny."
|
| The "atrocities" include rampant racism, sexism, and other
| needless offenses with the intent of comedy. Other media of
| the time, such as Theodore Geisel/Dr Suess' wartime cartoons,
| often show up on these lists as well.
|
| In my opinion, it's good that these cartoons are accessible,
| with content warnings, yet kept out of normal playback
| rotation. They're relics of an age gone, thankfully, past.
| [deleted]
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Even on all known re-releases, we know that some _Tom and
| Jerry_ episodes have been altered. And 2 episodes, even in
| their "complete set," are completely absent.
| RichardCA wrote:
| Here's a good example. I rememeber seeing this back in the
| 90's when they would have weekend "mini-Cons" in L.A. at
| places like the Ambassador Hotel for animation and Anime
| fans. They had to project it on 16mm film.
|
| https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6q8qen
|
| The "Scat" version of Nagasaki was provided by Leo "Zoot"
| Watson: https://looneytunes.fandom.com/wiki/Leo_Watson
| rado wrote:
| The only reason I subscribed was the "Paw Patrol" series. They
| removed them, so I unsubscribed. Streaming is weird.
| n3storm wrote:
| There is a torrent of emotions coming to my mind. Call me a mule
| but I'm still think those are some of the best entertaining
| cartoons ever.
| n3storm wrote:
| * I still think...
| DennisP wrote:
| You can edit typos if you don't wait too long. You'll see a
| little edit link over your comment.
| bsilvereagle wrote:
| If you're interested in purchasing the shorts that have been
| released on physical home media (nearly half of episodes have not
| been) I made this outline of the differences between the various
| sets and recommended purchasing order:
| https://frdmtoplay.com/maximizing-bugs-bunny/
| Finnucane wrote:
| Bought the Golden Collection during its original release. In
| retrospect it seems to have been a worthwhile purchase.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Thank you. Ordered some of them!
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Incredible work. THANK YOU! Anyone who has spent more than a
| few minutes trying to share a specific Bugs episode with a son,
| daughter, niece, nephew, or even grandchild... knows how
| infuriating it can be.
|
| "I wanna Easta egg! I wanna Easta egg!"
| chiph wrote:
| Schoolhouse Rock is probably next to vanish.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVKvqTItto
| WalterBright wrote:
| > LOCKSS, for Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe
|
| I've opined here many times that a lot of stuff is not digitized
| because it is too expensive to do a professional job, so just use
| your phone camera to take a snap of each page. (I've done this,
| it works great.)
|
| That's about 15 seconds a page, and requires no expertise and no
| equipment other than a phone.
|
| I'm always surprised at the horrified reaction people have to
| this. In my not-so-humble-opinion, a less than perfect photo is
| far superior to the museum burned it all up in a fire. Like the
| Hewlett Packard museum.
| falcolas wrote:
| To set expectations, I'm a proponent of copyright.
|
| Making a copy for yourself via a camera is fine IMO (and by the
| law). Distributing it while still under copyright is not.
| Distributing it after copyright expires (or even once it's no
| longer available for purchase), again perfectly fine.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| I'm surprised the article didn't mention the 2008 Universal
| Studios fire, instead deciding to mention much older fires:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Universal_Studios_fire
|
| It was mostly audio masters that were lost, but also some
| video.
|
| List of what was burned is in the Wikipedia page. I can almost
| guarantee you'll recognize some of the names.
| vjulian wrote:
| I find the article content infuriating and thus only skimmed. I
| don't know if copyright is a factor somewhere here, but to me
| personally it is irrelevant. I shall look for a complete
| collection online with the best possible restoration / transfer.
| Surely someone has compiled such a set. I appreciate the archive
| link shared here in another comment.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Here's a link to an active torrent magnet that has the complete
| Looney Tunes collection. Click "open" for the magnet link:
|
| https://downloadtorrentfile.com/hash/0d0a5a005906babfbfa6a30...
| Tunes and Merrie Melodies HQ Project v2022
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-15 23:01 UTC)