Talk:Foxy (Merrie Melodies)

Freddy the Fox

Where does the information that Foxy was originally going to be called Freddy the Fox come from? — BrianSmithson 06:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse Allegation not NPOV

Please offer evidence for your insistence that Harman and Ising were copying Mickey Mouse. Please offer some citations from a credible evidence and not mere opinions. Your opinion that Foxy looks like Mickey Mouse is not evidence.. it is merely an opinion. I. for one, do not think they have any resemblance. They are both cartoon characters drawn in style of their times. Terrytoons 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• The sole reference for the article, the toonzone profile, strongly makes the claim. It would seem that if you wish to refute it, additional references should be brought to bear. The resemblance between Foxy and Oswald/Mickey is quite a bit closer than between, say, Felix and Foxy, or even Bosko and Foxy. That may be a critical observation, but I don't think its much of a stretch at all. In light of Ising's employment history, I would say that the claim that Foxy is not derived from Mickey would need some specific evidence. Surely someone could find a citation for it one way or another. --Dystopos 01:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• A little googling gives us "Don Markstein's Toonopedia" which acknowledges the debt that Disney and everyone else had to the design of Felix the Cat, but he also says "Foxy...was perhaps the leading Mickey Mouse imitator....Never in animation, before or since, has a character looked more like Mickey Mouse." [1].

Harman and Ising were producing the same style of cartoons in the late 1920's before Mickey Mouse ever appeared in a cartoon and they continued to produce cartoons in the same style in the early 1930's. Are you saying the cartoon Harman and Ising produced before Mickey Mouse were also ripoffs of Mickey Mouse? The absurdity of that statement should be apparent to anyone. I have looked at numerous sources from the time period and no one even asserts that Harman and Ising were attempting to copy Disney. As a matter of fact, when Harman and Ising were producing this cartoon in 1930 and 1931, Walt Disney was a one of the lowest points of his career and the quality of his cartoons during these two years can not be compared with the polished and expensive cartoon being produced by Harman and Ising. The proof that Harman and Ising were drawing characters in their own style can be seen easily by looking at their work prior to the creation of Mickey Mouse. Luckily, much of this earlier work survives, If you take a look at some of the Oswald the Rabbit cartoons they produced for Universal in the late 1920's you will notice that their drawing style is exactly the same, and this was before Mickey Mouse had been created. Please try to get a hold of one of these cartoons, you will be pleasantly surprised at how much they look like their early work at Warner Bros. "SICK CYLINDERS" (1929) is a great example as sequences from this cartoon were later re-used in "Sinkin'in the Bathtub" (1930) and "Bosko's Holiday" 1931. If you don't have access to these cartoons, please look at a poster Harman and Ising drew which has been posted at the following website: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/homelessposter.jpg It is evident that the style shown hear is exactly the same as what Harman and Ising would continue to produce in the early 1930's. As a matter of fact, they had a very distinctive style. If you watch the two Cubby the Bear cartoons they produced for Van Bueren you will notice the drastic change that is characteristic of their style. Terrytoons 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another good frame: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/jingles.jpg Notice the lion which would later reappear in the early Merrie Melodies. Also look at: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/cylinders.jpg It's a shame these aren't more widely available as they conclusively prove that Harman and Ising had a distinctive style. None of Disney's Mickey output has this same style. The early years for Mickey were dominated by Ub Iwerks' style and when he left, animation reached a low point for Disney (in 1930) until he was able to find good talent. When Harman and Ising left Universal, subsequent Oswald cartoon were poorly drawn and never reached the refinement achieved by Harman and Ising.Terrytoons 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way if you notice the shorts that Oswald wore on those cartoons made by Harman and Ising, it is exactly like those worn by Foxy. http://www.cartoonresearch.com/winkler/homelessposter.jpg http://www.vitaphone.org/foxy1.jpg There are no buttons like Mickey Mouse has. But of course, this was also an imitation of Mickey Mouse, right? Please look at http://mickey01.webcindario.com/1929%20Barn%20dance%20(ing).jpg and tell me that Foxy is still a copy of Mickey Mouse. Terrytoons 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article, at this point, says "Foxy is one of any number of early cartoon characters modeled after the successes of Paul Terry's and Otto Messmer's work in the 1910s and 1920s. Foxy himself is a close cousin to Disney's characters Oswald the Lucky Rabbit (1927) and Mickey Mouse (1928). Other than his teardrop-shaped ears and bushy tail, he looks and sounds almost exactly like the early Mickey, even down to his clothes."

Is this inconsistent with your published sources? It doesn't say that no character like Mickey existed before or that similar characters weren't being used by everybody at the time, so I'm not sure what you're refuting. The article could absolutely be improved with the references you have, so don't let me stop you. (I have access to what's on the Golden Collection DVD's (Bosko and Foxy), but as far as publications go, I'm limited basically to online resources). The more we can get away from original research the better.

That said, everything I've seen so far, except for your POV, supports that there is a derivation, not solely from Mickey, but most directly from Mickey. The general character-type predates Mickey, but their are specific developments that went straight from Oswald and Mickey to Foxy. --Dystopos 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenworthy and Mickey, again

• As far as I can tell, the article's presentation of Mickey's and Foxy's relationship is the result of compromise rather than of an authoritative reference. I do not know what, precisely, Kenworthy has to say on the matter, but he was introduced as a reference to the claim that Harmon presented a mouse character to Disney in the mid 1920s, NOT to the view that Foxy is or is not copied from Mickey. It would be preferable to attribute whichever view emerges, but right now we only have a collection of tertiary sources that go on and on about how Foxy is "clearly" a rip-off of Mickey; a not-very-precise idea about a cluster of mutually-interrelated characters who all look, act, and sound similar, especially to "modern eyes"; and a strong POV that Foxy is not a copy of Mickey, for which a few tangential facts have been referenced for support. Given those elements, the current wording is, in my view, the best we can do until someone finds a more specific account. --Dystopos 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is precisely the kind of situation where it is important to cite specific authors and not present anything as "Wikipedia's point of view". So, we say that Harmon and Ising presented a mouse character to Disney and site Kenworthy. Then we say (or quote) Maltin, Solomon, and anyone else who states that Foxy is a rip-off of Mickey. The bit about "to modern audiences" should be removed; either the characters look alike or they don't. The same argument goes for the Piggy article, which is also being edited to paint Harmon and Ising in a more favorable light. -- BrianSmithson 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to cite specific authors, and I hope to see progress. Wikipedia does have an official point of view, however, which is the neutral point of view. I believe we have enough, even at this stage, to be able to express a neutral POV which acknowledges the sources which have been brought to bear. As for "modern audiences", the phrase is not mine and I am not married to it, but I find your rejection of the role of historical context in crating subjective perceptions to be invalid. It is likely that in an era with only a handful of animated characters around, people would more readily perceive their differences while now, when placed in context with everything from the Animaniacs to Tranzor Z, we would make those distinctions less readily. --Dystopos 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but there shouldn't be a problem with saying the characters look alike. It's as true now as it was 70 years ago. We don't require a source for "The sky is blue", nor should we need one here for something so self-evident. But it's original research to assume that audiences 70 years ago would not have noticed that Foxy and Mickey looked virtually identical unless we can find a source for such an assertion. In short, the "to modern audiences" bit is unnecessary. I never thought this would be so controversial, but leave it to Wikipedia to bring in a Harmon-Ising apologist. ;) I wish I had access to my books; Solomon goes so far as to say that Foxy may have been discontinued under threats of legal action by Disney. -- BrianSmithson 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rudy Ising, creator of Foxy, confirmed for me (in a 1992 discussion) that Foxy was killed off at Disney's request; Disney actually phoned up Ising personally and asked him to stop using such a similar character. The subsequent character of Piggy in "You Don't Know What You're Doin'" and "Hittin' the Trail to Hallelujah Land" (both 1931) was originally to have been Foxy, but was recast as part of Ising's compliance with Disney's wishes. Ising didn't tell me about any actual legal action, though I've recently seen a 1934 newspaper article that mentioned the issue and referred to legal action -- this must be what Solomon referenced. My research has also suggested that contrary to Terrytoons' insistence, Mickey Mouse was every bit the hit in 1930 that he had been in 1928 and would again be in 1932. He was hardly "relatively obscure" and clearly the one to beat, or at least perceived as such in trade papers; and I say this as a Harman-Ising fan who actually considers their work in 1930-32 far better than the concurrent Disney output! I'd try to put some of this into the main Foxy article, but I'd like to wait until I can dig up my copies of the documents and provide proper footnotes. Ramapith 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be excellent if you could add material and footnotes as you describe. Be careful; your personal correspondences or conversations with Mr. Ising can't be used as sources unless you have published them somewhere (this is because there is no way to verify that Mr. Ising said what you say he said unless you've published the comments somewhere). But it sounds like you know what you're doing. Please don't hesitate to improve the article! — Brian (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If Ising was indeed phoned by Disney regarding Foxy, why wasn't this published in some reliable sources. I doubt Ising even wrote about this on his journal. Because Ising died in 1992, a discussion probably didn't take place unless it occured a few months earlier. Anyway, if the creator of Foxy really was contacted, it's unlikely he would give in, considering the character probably wasn't plagiarism. Also cartoonists wouldn't give in to something that would potentially bring their studio down. 119.93.67.178 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if Ising did received a complaint from Disney, he could have redesigned rather than retired Foxy. That explains why the character was redesigned in Foxy's guest appearance in Tiny Toons. That fact that he retired from films after 1931 was probably just a matter of popularity. 98.119.155.81 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse Popularity in 1931

BrianSmithson you have a tendency to project events and modern ideas into the past and seem to believe that just because something is true now, it has always been. Your assertion that Foxy was created to capitalize on Mickey's popularity is absurd. In 1931, Mickey was the NOT the star he would soon come to be. He was beung distributed by a cheap stingy distributer (Columbia Pictures) who only reluctantly accepted to distribute the series because they were interested in the Silly Symphonies series. The Mickey Mouse series reached one of its lowest points in 1930 and many believed at that time that Ub Iwerks' Flip the Frog would quickly overshadow Mickey Mouse. Harman and Ising could of cared less about a second-rank character known as Mickey Mouse back in 1931. It wasn't until late in 1932, when United Artists became interested in Mickey Mouse and bought the distribution rights that the Mickey skyrocketed into popularity. Before that time, he was just another cartoon character. You seem to believe that stars are made overnight, that someone the day the first Mickey Mouse cartoon was released he became a sensation worldwide... the idea is amusing, not to mention naive.Terrytoons 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks, Terrytoons. I'm not your enemy here; I'm merely trying to make sure the article reflects reality and is not too hagiographic to Harmon and Ising. My hands are of course tied for lack of access to sources here in Japan, so I suppose you have free reign here until I return to the States. C'est la vie. — BrianSmithson 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The above chronology is very useful toward settling the disagreement in sources. What reference should we cite for Mickey's low popularity in 1931 and subsequent wide success under UA's distribution in 1932? --Dystopos 23:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(Also, while the above is useful in establishing some relevant facts, to draw our own conclusions would still be original research. As noted several times above, surely if your analysis is so strongly supported by primary evidence, there must exist a secondary source who has formulated the correct conclusion.) --Dystopos 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have numerous sources to back everything I say. But I am SICK of this Double Standard as Brian is given full authority to state whatever he wants without once citing a source. Frankly, I'm fed up with this hypocrisy. Every time I make a statement and add a source, Brian has to come and re-arrange it to fit with his God given view of history. It's a shame that Wikipedia did not stick to its original plan of only letting verifiable academics edit articles. A large number of articles are kept hostage by fanatics who think their version of events is the correct one. No matter what the facts are, they will twist them to fit their twisted views of history and never cite any sources and then DEMAND that others do. If Brian had his way, he would have everyone believe that the day after "Steamboat Willie" premiered that people in the smallest villages in China were already singing "Minnie's Yoo-Hoo" and buying Mickey Mouse comic strips. Do whatever you want with this article, you can re-write it to state that Foxy was first actually drawn by Walt Disney himself and that Disney actually presented Hugh Harman and Rudolph Ising and that Harman and Ising were no talents and that Disney created every cartoon character under the sun. Take this and all the animation articles you have hijacked and shove them. Goodbye. Terrytoons 12:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Did you not see that above I wrote, "My hands are of course tied for lack of access to sources here in Japan, so I suppose you have free reign here until I return to the States. C'est la vie"? No one is trying to chase you off. — BrianSmithson 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, Terrytoons. You've added a lot to this article. I don't think that there is a double standard. I have been trying to work with the references we have at hand, as has Brian. You have been working mostly from a deep personal knowledge and a set of references that you have kept unrevealed. Aas long as there are verifiable sources that plainly state that Foxy was derivative of Mickey (and there are), we'll need more than your own assertions to present a completely different case and maintain a neutral POV free of original research. --Dystopos 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Twotonetown.jpg

Image:Twotonetown.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Merrie Melodies title with Foxy.jpg

Image:Merrie Melodies title with Foxy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)