Hey all,

I'm looking to get my hands on rips of Mark Kausler's commentaries of the Toby the Pups, since they're the sole reason to own that set. Since I already have 2 discs with more complete Tobys in HD, and SD files of the other Tobys, I'm not looking to spend 20 dollars on a hashbin. Would anyone be able to share them with me? Please message me if you can, I'll be much thankful, as Mark's work is always inspiring

Yours Truly,
Strumm

Check your PM.

I would say the primary benefit of that set is the transfer of Circus Time: tampered with though it is, it's the only version available thus far.

As much as I respect Mark Kausler, and as enjoyable as the appreciation and some of the insight he expresses in these is, I must advise caution regarding the commentaries on that set. The animation IDs he provides therein are hit-or-miss in accuracy, and that goes for the assertions as well as the guesses—and yes, I was as taken aback by that as you may be in reading this, but I'd already studied those cartoons and surrounding work by the same artists enough myself to pin down much of the animation with certainty, and the truth is what it is. It's evident that he hadn't studied them all that thoroughly, and came to some premature conclusions based on what limited knowledge he did have of these guys' styles. Similar can be said regarding the Cartoon Research article discussing these and other early Mintz cartoons co-authored by Devon Baxter and Charlie Judkins a handful of years back, but they made different errors from Kausler's. Even if one is a master of the animation in other series' or studios' films or even work by the same artists at other studios or periods, one still needs to take the time to become well acquainted in studying a particular body of work before drawing conclusions on what's what.

I'm also not sure where he got the idea that particular cartoons in this series were directed by one artist or another; if any series reflects Dick Huemer's and Sid Marcus's memories of the multi-way collaboration in direction and animation, it is Toby the Pup (the situation is a bit more complicated with Scrappy, I've found).

I would say the primary benefit of that set is the transfer of Circus Time: tampered with though it is, it's the only version available thus far.

As much as I respect Mark Kausler, and as enjoyable as the appreciation and some of the insight he expresses in these is, I must advise caution regarding the commentaries on that set. The animation IDs he provides therein are hit-or-miss in accuracy, and that goes for the assertions as well as the guesses—and yes, I was as taken aback by that as you may be in reading this, but I'd already studied those cartoons and surrounding work by the same artists enough myself to pin down much of the animation with certainty, and the truth is what it is. It's evident that he hadn't studied them all that thoroughly, and came to some premature conclusions based on what limited knowledge he did have of these guys' styles. Similar can be said regarding the Cartoon Research article discussing these and other early Mintz cartoons co-authored by Devon Baxter and Charlie Judkins a handful of years back, but they made different errors from Kausler's. Even if one is a master of the animation in other series' or studios' films or even work by the same artists at other studios or periods, one still needs to take the time to become well acquainted in studying a particular body of work before drawing conclusions on what's what.

I'm also not sure where he got the idea that particular cartoons in this series were directed by one artist or another; if any series reflects Dick Huemer's and Sid Marcus's memories of the multi-way collaboration in direction and animation, it is Toby the Pup (the situation is a bit more complicated with Scrappy, I've found).

It’s funny—I recall you saying to me (either in a comment or private message, I can’t recall) to the extent of “Don’t let my observations stop you from doing what you’re doing.” However, there’s a difference between constructive criticism and being overcritical. For that matter, Kausler’s one of the kindest and giving human beings, and you choose to fault him for being wrong about a few things. I’d say Kausler’s commentaries are the only reason to buy the Toby set, misinformation or not.

"Overcritical" in what way—pointing this out at all? I chose to do so here because people need to know, and when has anyone else? I don't like it, all the more so when it involves someone rightly described as a "national treasure" for a variety of reasons, but "hit-or-miss" pretty well describes the accuracy of the IDs across these commentaries, and I can't in good conscience, as someone who knows better, recommend them without warning. It would be overcritical to turn that into an accusation that he's a bad scholar, which I'm not. If, in the time since that set, he's spent more time studying this material and corrected his knowledge of it, and eventually provides new, reliable commentaries (or other historical resources) on it, I'd happily vouch for them.

Holy sh*t Zaccary, I was just asking for some commentaries because of Mark’s insight into the people behind these. You came out to BASH him over a topic that is as hard in its certainty as it is collaborative. Like Devon said, he’s a wonderful guy and an incredible link to the people behind the golden age of animation, but you felt the need to sh*t on him because he some IDs on a half *ssed disc wrong? That’s being quite a d*ck if you ask me

Strumm, please remain civil about this. I can understand wanting to defend Mark Kausler, but we can strongly disagree with each other without resorting to profane ad hominems. Thank you.

---

I’ll admit that even I felt before you edited it that I was a bit harsh in how I put it, so I thank you for speaking up about it. It doesn’t change how I feel about what Zachary said in anyway. This will be the last thing I say on it, because I was peacefully unaware of what happened here until I was messaged about it, and I’d like to get back to that, and just enjoying the Tobys for what we have of them

Yeah, who the hell does this nobody think he is, daring to call into question insight from as estimable and knowledgeable an individual as Mark Kausler? I'd have potentially raised ire if I'd brought this up back when this set came out, too, and I opted to avoid dealing with it then—no need to distract from the bigger issue of Ray Pointer exhibiting himself for who he was, anyway—but over time, I've realized that I need to get my own findings out there sometimes and not just remain quiet about misinformation, because no one else is going to speak up regarding this stuff either.

The unreliable insight into who did what is a significant part of the overall content of these commentaries. I posted my reply so you didn't go into them simply accepting all the insight he gave on the basis of reputation, and because others who either already have them or who might want to seek them out on the basis of the recommendations for them might appreciate the advisory as well. No "bashing" intended. And apparently, a few longtime members of this forum who undoubtedly also did and still do respect Mr. Kausler were indeed level-headed enough to recognize and appreciate what I was trying to do. Excuse me for not letting errors slide unchallenged just to avoid the risk of hurting feelings.

And regardless of what anyone says, there is in fact a fair amount of animation out there (at least among the earlier, mostly-1930s series that I specialize in) that can indeed be attributed with absolute certainty, even without the help of "drafts", and that includes much of the animation in the Tobys, so I stand by my assertion that Mark indeed got things wrong here, and am willing to spell out what's what if requested. That there, sadly, aren't enough well-developed eyes engaged in this field of scholarly study—especially when it comes to animation from such "lesser" studios—to build solid consensuses on what's correct that non-scholars can safely accept, like in various formal areas of scholarly or scientific study, is another matter. So you'd have to get into such study to confirm for yourself the evidence and which of us is correct—and I encourage it, as learning to perceive the attributes in which the animation or overall films exhibit personal artistic expression, particularly with material not as encumbered with "on-model" demands or producer intrusion, is an important part of appreciating this medium of expression in its fullness, in my opinion.

I really don't post here very much, but felt I need to on this particular subject since I think I both have some experience in this area and greatly respect many that have helped me over these years.

My very short 2 cents here:

The internet full of a new brand of experts. I've been very fortunate myself to have learned a lot over these past 40 years in the film collecting hobby - and I've enjoyed the research I've been able to do over these years and enjoy others research as well. Mutual respect for others (especially *accomplished* others) should be rule number 1 if you are asking to be respected yourself. This, simply, is the problem I have with what Zachary has written.

Mark has contributed to a majority of the worthwhile animation related books on my shelf. He was writing articles about cartoons the year after I was born (and I was born in 1968!). He has studied these films his whole life as is as close of an expert on the subject than anyone else is.

While I appreciate that you've been able to identify many animators yourself and can point out mistakes, I have to ask, how many years have you been actively learning about these films? How many books contain a special thanks for your sharing your knowledge, archive of materials or films? How many animators and experts on these films do you know or talk to personally to compare notes and knowledge, or is everything you've learned from personal observation without other people helping with identifying or improving your own knowledge?

Would I have ever written a post as harsh and disrespectful of you as the ones you've written? No. That's the giant thing that I hope you learn sooner than later- that, at the very least, you need to respect those around you, especially those that deserve it. Mark has contributed to you being able to learn what you have more than you may ever know. He actually *knew* some of the artists rather than just speculated or proclaimed himself the biggest expert (and, honestly, he'd never do that-you've *never* see him do a post like these- and that is also a wonderful thing about him. I'm a piker compared to Mark. I'm happy to be able to call him a good friend, and we treat each other fairly because that's how people should treat each other.

Now, if somehow has stated something inaccurate, it's fine to point that out. No one would have a problem with that, but it's honestly *how* you did it. That, and other that, is the issue.

Spectrum or not, it's our job above all else to be decent to other humans. Sometimes that is difficult for some of us- but should always be something we check and, when needed, apologize.

So, with that said, please use your great knowledge by helping to contribute things. If you're doing scholarly study, then approach with your professional demeanor so that people will respect you as much as Mr. Kausler. Right now, your posts are (honestly) reading pretty self righteous and indigent at people's criticism. In that light, it becomes really hard to respect your knowledge, as accurate as it may be. So, please, for everyone here and yourself, remember that we're a community and should be respectful across the board.

Sincerely,

Steven Stanchfield
Animator, 1994-present
Professor, Animation and Animation History, College for Creative Studies
Owner, Thunderbean Animation, 1998-present
(not sure if any of that gives me any street cred!).

I'm not sure how much you were expecting Mark to check and double check his IDs of animators he actually met and knew on commentaries he did for free on a disc of content that the producer stole.

I wasn't planning to respond, but I'd like to thank both Thad and Steve for their very insightful responses. You explained much better than I ever could what the issues was with what Zachary said in a very respectful tone that I could not give. Even if I was kinder in my choice of words (which I probably would've been had Zac's posts not been put the way they were), I wouldn't be able to put it just as well as Steve did due to a lack of experience. So again, thank you both!

That there, sadly, aren't enough well-developed eyes engaged in this field of scholarly study—especially when it comes to animation from such "lesser" studios—to build solid consensuses on what's correct that non-scholars can safely accept, like in various formal areas of scholarly or scientific study, is another matter. So you'd have to get into such study to confirm for yourself the evidence and which of us is correct—and I encourage it, as learning to perceive the attributes in which the animation or overall films exhibit personal artistic expression, particularly with material not as encumbered with "on-model" demands or producer intrusion, is an important part of appreciating this medium of expression in its fullness, in my opinion.

If we were talking about sequencing coronaviruses, developing vaccines, or curing cancers, I believe you might have a very persuasive argument, and I'd be inclined to agree with fervor. In any case, this thread is proof perfect of why we so desperately need sex work to be decriminalized throughout North America.

If we were talking about sequencing coronaviruses, developing vaccines, or curing cancers, I believe you might have a very persuasive argument, and I'd be inclined to agree with fervor. In any case, this thread is proof perfect of why we so desperately need sex work to be decriminalized throughout North America.

Boy, sometimes these threads take a turn that you just never saw coming!

(That is a pretty good troll, though maybe it'd be more befitting of the common logosexuals who spend their days obsessing over original titles with little regard to the films themselves, or maybe some of those other "fandoms" I've seen out there... I happen to think studying art for appreciation's sake—and distinguishing the more freely expressive art from the rest—is a dignified hobby, and that scrupulous regard for historical accuracy is important.)

Wow, what a sh*tstorm! This reply had to be too long due to the amount worthy of response; therefore, don't read.

I'm sorry to Mark if he personally feels disrespected by my posts, which was never an intention of mine. I actually did make a good-faith effort to put things inoffensively in my initial post, futile though it was. Did I not preface it by acknowledging my respect for him and the enjoyable aspects of these commentaries? I may well have fallen short, and said more than I should have. In hindsight, expressing my personal opinion of the primary benefit of the set at the start of my post was unnecessary and may have set an unintended tone, although as painful as it is from my position to listen to Mark giving out IDs that are so hit-or-miss, it's hard for me to agree with the notion that those commentaries are the highlight of the set. Bringing up the article by Devon and Charlie? Perhaps I shouldn't have, given that their mistakes have been addressed in the past, but I was trying to illustrate that neither has Mark been the only one to get some of this wrong, nor am I the only one to derive different conclusions from him regarding this material. And I tried to provide some perspective on how he apparently went wrong based on my own experience, and acknowledge that he could still be as solid as he is known for in his knowledge of other groups of cartoons despite getting these wrong; thinking about it more, I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from there... All rather than simply saying he was wrong about these without elaboration.

And Thad, if Mark was simply throwing stuff out there off the top of his head in these commentaries without much regard for accuracy due to the unworthy nature of this set, why champion them as the set's "sole saving grace"?

I'll confess to some indignation slipping through to my detriment in my follow-up replies, although vague accusations of being "overcritical", and knee-jerk ad hominems, were unhelpful in aiding understanding or promoting calm discourse. I do not feel ill will toward Mark for getting this wrong—dismay, yes. I'm well aware of his inimitable importance to animation history and indeed, my debt to him and others in making it even possible to learn what I have at all. Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree.

I think the problem is that cautioning about those errors was going to be embarrassing for Mark to some degree, and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case. How much more courteous could I have been? Any reputable historian would be embarrassed by the revelation that he or she made errors like this, and we're all only human and screw up sometimes. While I hated to cause Mark any embarrassment, the only way I perceive I could have safely avoided it was to remain silent and let the errors continue to be accepted and promoted unchallenged.

I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there. I can see how one's own experience as an animator would make it easier, or even enable one to discern subtleties the rest of us might miss, but it doesn't make one more reliable, as demonstrated by some of the errors I'm aware of. I've been into studying these things for about seven years now (and have spent more time in hobbyist interests like this than to my own good over the years), so I have nothing on the seniority of various other scholars, yet I've still been able to learn a lot on my own in that time, in some cases things that scholars with overlapping interests such as Charlie Judkins may well have or did get to before me (with my findings normally agreeing with theirs), and others where I just might be the first to figure it out, because no one else had bothered. I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it.

I like touching grass. Do you like touching grass? Don’t knock it till ya try it.

How do you know Mark is wrong? You haven't addressed why your information is more accurate than his.

How do you know Mark is wrong? You haven't addressed why your information is more accurate than his.

To go along with this, not only did Mark actually KNOW Dick Huemer (and likely Art Davis), but Huemer also accurately remembered his Mutt and Jeff scenes in the 1970s. If he had the chance to see any of the Tobys (since the first one to be unearthed happened a few years after his passing), he would've probably of noted them well too. With this mind Zachary, how do you know any better?

Zachary is Mark Kausler in disguise.

Zach,

There is a teachable moment here *if you allow* it to be. When you have a whole series of people suggest something to you, I think it's important to listen and consider the basics rather than doubling down to prove you're right.

You say:
"I overlooked the potential that I'd be about the only one in the room to "get" where I was coming from".

There is a level of right fighting in your response; so much so that you're not willing to admit any of the things about your post that people have pointed out. Instead, you've defended yourself by suggesting people just don't 'get' your point. The major thing everyone is commenting on is your level of self-righteousness. Instead of hearing what anyone said, you've just doubled down instead. That's not really a strategy to respect your opinion since you missed entirely the very thing everyone was commenting on.

You say:
"Perhaps you need to take a step back from your own communal indignation, and take a good level-headed look at who in this thread is exhibiting ill will toward whom to the greater degree."

I don't believe I've exhibited any ill will in my response-but I also understand why others have in their response. I did point out that criticism is just fine--the "how it's done" is the issue, as stated before, especially when disrespectful.

You say:
"How much more courteous could I have been?"

The fact that you're unable to see it makes my point very clear.

You say:
"I have realized that neither your professional credentials, nor your seniority in the community, nor even your expertise in other aspects of animation research, make you inherently more reliable when it comes specifically to your expertise in studying the films and figuring these IDs out; what actually counts is that you've studied these things enough to develop a good eye for these attributes and familiarity with the material, and are careful enough in your critical thinking to rightly discern the certainties from the likelihoods and suspicions—however long it took for you to get there."

I have to make an observation here. It seems that you are convinced that, somehow, that people with a lot of experience are all somehow less capable than you are or have put in a lot less time- but that somehow you are clearly more observant or capable beyond the shadow of any doubt, so much so that it's important for you to note not only when an expert makes a mistake, but also how *they feel* or what they *should* feel. From your writing you are clearly quite smart, so it's puzzling to me how you are not seeing the vary basic point that, in a community, basic respect is shown to other community members by being careful to be respectful in approach to other members.

You say:
"I haven't shared as much of it over time as I probably should have, precisely because I didn't want to come across as a clout seeker and preferred not to risk stirring up this kind of controversy due to lacking it."


The funny thing is, you've not come off too well at this point, completely unrelated to knowledge. I have no idea what you know or you don't. I write a weekly article about animation, and people contribute to it all the time. There's been lots of times I've made a mistake, but I've always been corrected there with respect, sometimes even by Mark- and I've never been embarrassed for very long since there's a pretty good chance I won't make that mistake again. Community.

Now, back to your comments on Mark's commentaries:

So- if you've become expert on ID'ing things, that's wonderful- and even fun. Still, there's much more to learn, and I do hope the teachable moment that you hopefully gain sooner than later is that respect gives you much, much more satisfaction than knowing you were right about who animated a scene in a 90 year old film, or deciding that someone else's knowledge is definitely wrong because you're more of an expert than they are somehow.

You write:
"...and no amount of cushioning (at least without downplaying/misrepresenting the situation) could've avoided that. Combined with my lacking the pre-acquired "street cred" to be taken seriously—though I'm not completely sure even that would've actually mattered much in this case."

Quite honestly, I would have been perfectly fine with taking you seriously if you had thought about your approach in a more appropriate way. As said above, I honestly have no idea what you know (or don't) but I definitely know that you didn't spend time enough time considering that you were being really disrespectful of someone, and in this case it would have been very easy to actually represent the situation accurately without downplaying anything. Your post came off, instead, as you saying there was no value in the commentaries since you, as the expert, has proclaimed them worthless since you were more knowledgeable. There's certain animation historians who have trouble being taken seriously for such an attitude- one of those even mentioned by you. It's mostly your choice how other perceive you- and it all starts with understanding some basic rules of respect. Consider that please!

Now, back to fixing up stuff!

Stanchfield