Jump to content

Talk:Tom and Jerry

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YoshiFan155 (talk | contribs) at 05:35, 19 July 2016 (→Trivia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateTom and Jerry is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Old talk

I don't get it, why should anybody care about theories from some idiot who thinks Tom & Jerry is made by Walt Disney?? I removed this:

Though many critics lambasted these shorts due to its substandard animation (when compared to the pre-1958 shorts), the most successful and critically acclaimed of the Deitch/Snyder shorts (and, according to some fans, of the entire Tom & Jerry animated output) was Carmen Get It!, a spoof on Bizet's famous opera, Carmen. Here, Tom conducts a symphony orchestra prepared to perform Carmen when Jerry gets in the way, eventually taking over the entire stage and leading to a climactic crescendo.

The article is focusing on the overall history and development of Tom and Jerry. An in-depth synopis of a Gene Dietch era T&J cartoon is unnccessary in this article, when the only other cartoon that is so encapsulated is "Puss Gets The Boot" (and the only reason that one is is to set up the idea/plot/elements of the Tom & Jerry series. I will make a T&J filmography page, with breakout links for certain, and this information will resurface there.

Also, this bit: (and, according to some fans, of the entire Tom & Jerry animated output) is an opinion, specific to person and region and isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article on Tom & Jerry.

--b. Touch 17:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the name "Tom and Jerry" had been used for some other cartoon characters prior to these.

You are in fact right. See the article at Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren). They're a human Mutt and Jeff like pair from early 1930s black and white sound cartoons. --b. Touch 20:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article describes Tom as a "tabby cat". Surely that means a female cat, which he wasn't, he actually had girlfriends. Or is this some difference between British and US English? PatGallacher 15:02, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

In U.S. English, "tabby" refers to a spotted sort of cat, with disytinctive markings. See [1]. Tom looks very much like a simplified version of that cat. --FuriousFreddy 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded, though; to me, "tabby" has always meant striped or spotted; Tom has a solid gray coat. Check out Dictionary.com--
having a gray or brown streak or a pattern or a patchy coloring; used especially of the patterned fur of cats [syn: brindled, brindle, brinded]
A domestic cat with a striped or brindled coat of a gray or tawny color
Tom's coat seems to be solid which would not make him a tabby in the breeding sense. I think I'm going to go ahead and strike the "tabby"... Dvyost 21:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although there is some doubt whether the mouse was always named Jerry, inasmuch as the cat was named Tom very early in the cartoon's career, the name Jerry would naturally suggest itself as his co-star. A Tom & Jerry is a cocktail, a mix of eggnog and rum, whose name goes back to the late 1820s, derived from the two characters in a popular stage play of that time.Sussmanbern (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched Puss Gets the Boot on the Cartoon Network and Mammy says "O-U-T Out!" not "O-U-W-T Out!" like the article says. Is the article incorrect, or was it an edit in later years? --Borgendorf 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an overdub edit done in the 1990s to reduce Mammy's thick southern accent and remove her usually stereotypical speech patterns. --EmiOfBrie (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry series guide

All versions of Tom and Jerry are covered in enough detail here. The only reason to make such an article would be to include a filmography and episode guide. If you are seeking to expand information on the television versions of Tom and Jerry, write the expanded information first (on a temp page somewhere), and then make the article. Do not do a direct copy and paste of the exact same information.

Furthermore, all versions of Tom and Jerry should always redirect to the main article, and not to a series guide. --FuriousFreddy 03:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom and Jerry cartoons has much violence than others, the article mentions it all with the cat and mouse team. But, no any other cartoon had that much violence and action, many local TV stations had stopped showing Tom & Jerry. Why should this be shown on Cartoon Network now?

4.188.xxx.xxx

But what I probably didn't know, is that my pop was tired of Scooby Doo and Charlie Dog! Not only these two, but Bugs Bunny as well. Yes, other people told me they never heard of a show called "Charlie the Disco Dog."

These old violent Tom & Jerry (cat and mouse team) cartoons in which they chase each other, but also they try to hit each other with pies, pans, and golf clubs and bare fists are more worse. The cartoons featured the Great-Dane are gone on television. #*&$$*&&*$*#&# It's so stupid, is they canceled Scooby for Tom & Jerry in the half-hour. Remember, both are all comic character for adults?

About Filipinos calling Tom and Jerry "Wowowee"

I don't know if it's related or not, but in the Philippines, there is now a game show called Wowowee on the ABS-CBN network. You might still keep the trivia article in there, but the article Wowowee has to be changed from a redirect to an as of yet unwritten article about the game show. --Geopgeop 01:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No we don't! I live in the Philippines and I've never heard anybody here refer to Tom and Jerry as anything but Tom and Jerry. Wowowee is a jologs show. - Justice17

Error

Turner Entertaiment (Time Warner group) has got the OLD library. Only MGM (Sony/Comcast) can create NEW cartoons with Tom and Jerry. You can correct this error...

That is not an error. Time Warner own all rights to Tom and Jerry, and only Time Warner, Turner Ent., or Warner Bros can make anything relating to Tom and Jerry. --FuriousFreddy 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point... The "Tom and Jerry Kids" show was produced by Turner/HB in 1990, and Cartoon Network Studios released a new T&J short in 2000. --EmiOfBrie 10:42, 16 October 2005 (CDT)
If Time Warner owns MGM's characters... Why is MGM producing new films and cartoons with 'Pink Panther'?
The Pink Panther was never an MGM character; he has always been owned by United Artists, who did not sell the rights to the character to Turner (UA is now a part of MGM). Also, those films are not about a cartoon character, but about a "Pink Panther" diamond and a detective. --FuriousFreddy 23:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous When Wet

No mention of the Tom and Jerry appearance with Esther Williams? I'm surprised, especially since it was included in the first WB Home Video "Spotlight Collection" box set. --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was there, somehow it got removed. It's back now. --FuriousFreddy 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The War

Switch the names of protagonists of this 1941 cartoon, and you get a Feldgrau Jerry chasing after a khaki-colored Tom. Curious coincidence... Bastie 03:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added: Jerry (WWII) --Kickstart70 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the naming coincidence of British and Nazi soldiers, I contacted the owner of tomandjerrycartoon.com who I would consider extremely knowledgeable on the subject. His words are:

In all the books by Hanna and Barbera and many other authorities I have never seen any of your suggestions mentioned. Hanna and Barbera created the series and were at first torn between a "fox and dog" or "cat and mouse," two natural adversaries. They settled on a cat and mouse but they were nameless during the creation. In the first cartoon "Puss gets the Boot", 1940, the cat was named Jasper and the mouse had no name at all... even in the storyboards. I have no idea where Wikipedia got the name "Jinx" for Jerry. Since the cartoon did well a competition was held between studio personnel. "Hundreds of names, in all conceivable combinations, were submitted. The winning combination, 'Tom & Jerry,' was passed over at least 50 times before it was finally chosen."(quote from the book "50 Years of Cat and Mouse" by T.R. Adams). The contest winner (who received no prize) was fellow animator Jack Carr. Bill Hanna said "I don't honestly know how we settled on Tom and Jerry." I think the military stuff is 100% conjecture.. It should be noted that another "Tom and Jerry" cartoon series had been made by Van Beuren Studios from 1931-1933, but without a cat and mouse. It was 26 episodes of the silly antics of two guys, one tall and skinny and one short and fat. MGM personnel surely knew of this other cartoon name but whether that had any influence on why the names "Tom & Jerry" won the final round of voting will never be known.. I hope that helps a little. This info was pulled from the sources "Tom and Jerry - The Definitive Guide to their Animated Adventures" by Patrick Brion, "Of Mice and Magic - A History of Animated Cartoons" by Leonard Maltin, and the T.R. Adams book cited above.. By the way, in the Wikipedia I quickly saw an error. It states that Tom lip-syncs "Louis Jordan's "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby" in the 1946 short Solid Serenade. That is not Louis Jordan singing that song. That song version was sung by an unknown MGM studio musician.

I think, given this new information, we can safely put to bed the rumour that this was the naming scheme for the cat and mouse. Someone want to take on the other fixes and edits with this info? --Kickstart70·Talk 19:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC) modified 220.3.134.144 (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've often wondered about that, although my own feeling was that, if an American film company in 1940 did have WWII nicknames in mind, "Jerry" wouldn't have been the good guy! Daibhid C (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing lack of evidence doesn't put the rumor to rest... it just remains a rumor. You would have to ask the guys who picked the name, and why they did. In the period when they chose the name, the US was not involved in the war, except lend/lease to Britain. It was a battle of Tommies vs Jerries. Since the US was officially neutral, it would not have been out of line for the Jerry character to win, particularly since the Germans were winning at that point. It seems like too strange a coincidence that they get named the same as the contestants in the biggest conflict at that precise moment in history. It could have been. To be sure it wasn't a factor, you'd have to ask the guy who put the name in the hat - and the people who voted on it - while they're still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.60.131 (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could also consider the following coincidence: Tom (short for 'uncle tom') and Jerry were widely known nicknames for dumb/brutish and smart individuals, thus working on different levels in that period of time!--92.226.129.115 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tom &jerry

The page need comlite list of Tom and Jerry episodes.

public domain?

on public domain torrents.com i've seen public domain tom&jerry cartoon. how's that possible? --Running 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They may be Van Beuren's Tom and Jerry cartoons from the early 1930s, and not the M-G-M cat'n'mouse. --FuriousFreddy 02:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are true, they are. --Running 17:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mammy Two-Shoes

The article states that Mammy Two-Shoes was Tom's owner but then later says she was the maid who was recasted as a white lady. If I remeber correctly, Mammy Two-Shoes was always the maid and played a seperate character from the white lady who employed Mammy Two-Shoes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.209.92 (talk • contribs) .

Well, there's no evidence that suggests Mammy was a maid employed by a white lady, and not really much evidence that she was the owner of the house either. I would say the Mammy character was indeed replaced/recasted - the Supreme Court declared racisism unconstitutional, the studio stopped using her in 1952 and by 1954 the only humans present in the cartoons were a white yuppie-style couple, and by 1955/1956, their faces were visible. Any cartoons reissued that featured the Mammy character had her rotoscoped out and replaced with a slim, white female. --User:MartinP1983 09:27, 27 January 2005
Folks - is there any documented proof that "Mammy" is supposed to be anything other than Tom's owner and anything less than the owner of the house in which she, Tom and Jerry live? She never seems to have to answer to anyone else for her actions and seems to have "hire and fire" power within the home (Tom gets the boot by her several times, even replaced by a robot cat in "Push Button Kitty"). She goes out on the town wearing plenty of bling in "Saturday Night Cat" and her home seems well equipped with (apparently) no other owner. Despite her Southern accent, the home itself must be close to New York since Jerry visits Manhattan ("Mouse in Manhattan") and gets back again in a single night. I'm a Brit and don't know the subtleties of the lifestyles of the '40s around New York, but I'm sure it's far enough from the Deep South for a black lady to have a decent independent lifestyle at that time, surely? This is supposed to be an encylopedia - if she's to be called a "maid" we should show proof or state *some* reason for thinking that. I see no reason for thinking she's the maid. BTW: the white couple seen in the post 1952 cartoon seem to be disjoint from the earlier cartoons and there's no reason to think that "Mammy" has anything to do with them either.
Unfortunately I can't cite a source, but FWIW, I remember seeing one cartoon ("Saturday Night Cat" IIRC) in which Mammy Two-Shoes was visually replaced with a white woman, but the original voice remained on the soundtrack. Also, the cartoons were not all censored at the same time. I first saw the original MGM cartoons in New York during the late-1970s. When I moved to Texas in 1979 they still showed the Mammy Two-Shoes character (and then I figured out why some of the cartoons I'd seen in New York seemed to have been strangely edited). I guess the decision whether to edit the cartoons was left to the local broadcasters. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title Card

I like that title card from the 40s (the first image in the article), but I have never seen it before (and I've seen every T&J cartoon from '40 to '67). What cartoon(s) did it come from?

It's not used on reissue prints seen nowadays. It was originally used during the mid-1940s. --FuriousFreddy 06:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However if you happen to have the VCRor Boxed Set you'll see that the have that title card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.165.122 (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry in foreign countries

Perhaps this section could use a less U.S.-centric title? 217.155.20.163 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship rubbish

i cant belive that some idiot complained about the smoking in tom and jerry and i cant further belive that boomerang are caving in to this moaning person.. i have watched tom and jerry since i kid, and i still do... and i am a non smoker. i think starlin has come back from the dead and come back as a moaning viewer, if he/she doesnt like the cartoons that was done in the 40's 50's which i think is importent message to children about the changing attitudes towards smoking.. then she doesnt have to watch it.

the world doesnt need another mary whitehouse

Thank you for your anon comment (!) However, the talk page section is designed to discuss improvements to the article or rectifications. Your comment could be cleaned up and put into the article, so long as it fits in with Wikipeida critera. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Disambiguation

i was wondering, if people look up tom and jerry, the majoirty would be looking for the cartoon, i was unware of the other terms that contained it.. (learn something new every day) if thats the case (dont know how to find out) when people put tom and jerry in search it comes up with this by defalut and within the article have "other uses Disambiguation"

Just to warn users

The article is 32KB long, if you have any plans to improve the article now would be the time. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Soundtrack

I came to Tom and Jerry's wikipedia page looking for some information on the musics that played in the episodes, but unfortunately I found nothing... I'm specially interested in some music style that was used for some time - some kind of rock music with electronic instruments. If someone has some information about the background musics I would appreciate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.27.137.144 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was looking for classical music in the various Tom and Jerry episodes but didn't find the answer here. However, there is a very good list at the informal Tom and Jerry website. I will try to refer to this and add a section on the music, but if someone else wants to do this in the meanwhile, please. Cribananda 05:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itchy & Scratchy

Should it be mentioned that the cartoon "Itchy & Scratchy" which is a cartoon within "The Simpsons" Is directly taken from "Tom & Jerry"

It is a parody, what's your name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.19.150 (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satire

A suggestion: maybe add to cultural influences about in an family guy episode they take the scene with Jerry and Gene Kelly and change it so it is Stewie instead. I do not know the specific episode, but it might be something worth mentioning. 76.223.251.152 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theory" T&J - Jewish by Iranian orator

See this post at The Times Comment central. An Iranian orator (?) claims that Walt Disney's (sic) Tom & Jerry were intended to "change" the image Westerners had on Jewish people. --Julián Ortega - drop me a message 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2]. Frankly I'm in two minds as to whether this sort of crap should even be included in the main Tom & Jerry article. Wikipedia is meant to be "encyclopaedic" in scope but there must be some limits! Csrster 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite him for a couple reasons. First, he cites Tom and Jerry to be a Disney Production...it's clearly MGM. Second, he says Disney is a Jewish company...though Walt Disney wouldn't hire Jews. It's a bunk claim with no basis in reality. --CheskiChips (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry's Original name

Cartoon Network said that Jerry's original name was Jinx. The duo was referred to as Jasper and Jinx, but they had no title card with that name. King Shadeed 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Cartoon?

I remember some years ago there was a new episode called The Housecat around 2001 or 2, that featured Tom with a male owner, it aired in Cartoon Network during a Marathon i couldt find information of that though.

The basic plot was that the owner of Tom went out for a night, Jerry was a domestic mouse but he escaped and tom chased him unleashing hell in the end destroying the whole house, one particular scene is when tom punctures the water bed and surfs on the water, there were som potraits that i heard has some significance (potrait of hanna barbera?)

mmm........

Oh dear

I seem to have missed this aspect of the show when I was a child "The plots of each short usually center on Tom's frustrated attempts to have sex with Jerry, and the mayhem and destruction that ensues. Since Tom rarely attempts to eat out Jerry and because the pair actually seem to get along in some cartoon shorts (at least in the first minute or so), it is unclear why Tom chases Jerry so much, and why Jerry doesn't just give up the poon, but some reasons given may include normal feline/mouse enmity, duty according to his owner, revenge, or competition with another cat, among other reasons." it seems as if someones having a bit of fun, Keep in mind that young children are most likely too read this article, please stop corrupting young children thx Gailim 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

remake cartoons?

do you think we should take out the plot sections to the remastered cartoons and simply offer a link to the original, but keep the images from the new cartoon, or should we merge the old and new cartoon pages, including details about the new version and the redone images? Andrewb1 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Were you referring to the CinemaScope remakes of the likes of The Little Orphan, Hatch Up Your Troubles and Love That Pup? Hmmm...you make a good case for it, but I think the CinemaScope remakes do stand up on their own, even if they are virtually the same cartoon with a few artistic differences. MartinP1983 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Me, Love My Mouse

I created an article about it but the plot is really un-encyclopedic. Can someone re-write it? TobytheTramEngine 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1980t&j.JPG

Image:1980t&j.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add YouTube links to Tom and Jerry cartoons. They breach copyright. If any of you don't understand, go here. TobytheTramEngine 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is possible that some of the Tom and Jerry cartoons have fallen into the public domain (the same way that some Bugs Bunny and other Warner Bros. cartoons are in the public domain. It's better to be safe than sorry though. TJ Spyke 06:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it. So only public domain cartoons can be linked. Correct me if I'm wrong. TobytheTramEngine 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, there are no public domain Tom and Jerry cartoons. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be confused, Van Beuren's black and white Tom and Jerry cartoons(with a fat and a tall human) are public domain, while Hanna-Barbera's colored Tom and Jerry cartoons(with a cat and a mouse) are NOT.123.193.12.44 (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find copyright indication only in Puss Gets the Boot, therefore I think that only this is in public domain. --Mikomaid (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Puss Gets The Boot doesn't really have any credits anyway. If I were Warner Bros., I would whoop the butts of all those low-lifes out there uploading copyrighted cartoons like Tom & Jerry, the copyrighted Popeye cartoons (especially the restored versions), etc. to YouTube. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first title card following the MGM lion-head studio logo (the one that reads "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer presents an MGM Cartoon") announces that Puss Gets the Boot is "Copyright MCMXL in USA by Loews Incorporated". Again, ALL MGM Tom & Jerry cartoons - every single last one - are still under copyright and owned by Warner Bros. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain??

I heard that some episodes are in public domain. Please mark here into the episode in public domain with the reason.220.3.134.144 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no MGM Tom and Jerry cartoons in the public domain. There are, however, Van Beuren Tom and Jerry cartoons in the public domain. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find copyright indication only in Puss Gets the Boot, therefore I think that only this is in public domain. --Mikomaid (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can search hereif copyright is renewed or not. Comfirmed that Blue Cat Blues is renewed in Jan.6,1984, but Puss Gets the Boot, The Midnight Snack and Part Time Pal are not found, probably in public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikomaid (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are no public domain MGM Tom and Jerry cartoons. If you still are sceptical, ask Warner Brothers. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all Tom and Jerry between 1940 and 1957 are now public domain, my reasoning is as page 9 here: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/11/07/101743P.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.59.241 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FlyingSorceress3.jpg

Image:FlyingSorceress3.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 05:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tomandjerrymovie.jpg

Image:Tomandjerrymovie.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Highsteaks.jpg

Image:Highsteaks.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) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please be careful how many images are used on this article. As few fair-use images should be used as possible. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pussgetsboot.jpg

Image:Pussgetsboot.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) 05:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's death.

I remember once seeing an episode where Tom is killed(by decapitation I think). I know this shouldn't be added without sufficient evidence, but, provided someone finds which episode this was in, should it be added? If this is already stated in the article and I missed it I apologize, but seeing as I did not see it I thought it was worth mentioning.--Pmddbzaotil (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that for 'Toons, decapitation is "only a flesh wound". No permanent harm. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The episode in question is The Two Mouseketeers, and yes, Tom was beheaded at the very end of the cartoon (albeit off-screen, of course). But, seeing as how there is little internal continuity between the original theatrical Tom and Jerry cartoons, I don't really think it truly warrants conclusion. After all, I can recall a short in which Tom and another cat were about to chop Jerry in two with an axe. Tom suddenly gets greedy and decides he should take the other cat out, so that he can have Jerry all to himself. So what does he do? He brings the head of the axe down directly on the other cat's head. What happens? Nothing but a giant red bump arises atop the cat's head. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tom and Jerry are best remembered as the inspiration for "Itchy and Scratchy". It's funny to see debates about whether Indiana Jones is "too violent". The murder and mayhem in cartoons (or for that matter, The Three Stooges) is way beyond Indy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it didn't play a major role in the show. I just wanted to make sure that if it should have been added, it was. Thanks for explaining why it shouldn't.--Pmddbzaotil (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw the end of an episode when he was hit by coal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.19.150 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember which short it was but I remember Tom floating up to heaven holding a flower and dressed in a white robe. So, Tom has actually "died". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.150.43 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment where Tom gets greedy and takes an axe to the other cat's head, If I am not mistaken, the only reason the other cat only gets a lump on the head is because the Axe blade slipped off the handle. So when it comes to Tom's death, we know of at least the Guillotine, and the one where he floats away to heaven. Also, I remember one cartoon, in which all of Tom's extra lives are almost sucked out of him and trail his movements for some time. Being a cat, one can assume then, by cartoon physics laws, that while Tom may have been "killed" in two cartoons, he would have had to have been killed 7 more times, to truly be dead.

I made a new article

This is a new article about T&J, anybody want to correct this if anyting wrong?Myoet (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with historical knowledge?

I know this is a talk page not a forum, but which of the two were we supposed to root for? Unlike Wile and RR where it's obvious Wile is the star, in T&J it appears Jerry is the star and we're meant to will him to beat Tom, which I certainly didn't. Does anyone know for sure which one it is? VonBlade (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure myself. I can't recall anything from Hanna or Barbara, so the rest of this response probably doesn't help much. I remember from an interview from Sylvester-and-Tweety father Friz Freleng in which he said he used Tweety because he was "adorably innocent", but that, in reality, he actually identified more with Sylvester the cat, because he never succeeds. The same goes for Chuck Jones with Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, as you pointed out. To be honest, I don't know for sure, but, based from what other creators have said of such "cat-and-mouse" cartoon teams, it's a pretty safe bet that we're probably supposed to identify with Tom. But don't quote me on that. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Nibblesfat.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry prototype?

There is an animated Tom and Jerry duo that precedes the cat/mouse duo. Are the cat/mouse named for them? Caoimhin Flann (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Caoimhin Flann[reply]


See Also section

I remember that once I saw the name Tom Injury at the section See Also, but it's not there anymore. Well, someone could say to me what that meant?Brazilian Man (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC) you suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.41.18 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you lost it man? If you don't know the answer, BE GONE!Brazilian Man (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoonnetwork

Tom and Jerry seems like the only classic cartoon seen currently on CN (by the time it was the greatest network in the universe and by now when it sucks).

Official Names

on this page they are called tomek and jeremy, a couple of paragraphes below tom is called thomas, and on their individual articles jerry is called gerald and tom, thomas aswell.. so what is the final answer on this one?? Wisefire (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Characters" isn't written well.

Under Tom it goes on to talk about him and Jerry, and under Jerry it's almost exclusively about Tom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.33.125 (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone who hasn't learned English think they're entitled to edit Wikipedia pages?

This person has wired their keyboard in such a way that reach orgasm whenever they use a comma.


"However, in local telecasts of the cartoons, and in the ones shown on Boomerang, Mammy, featured in the other shorts, could once again be seen, and more recently[year needed], with a new, less stereotypical black voice supplied, which is done by Thea Vidale[citation needed]."


DanTheShrew (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles. If you see a grammatical error, just fix it. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Loved Tom and Jerrywas said by Walt Disney! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.166.166 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The so called idot happens to be a famous movie star! And I did NOT and I repet NOT say that walt disney made it ! I said he loved it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.166.166 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Mama reference

In the movie Baby Mama, there is a brief conversation in which the two main characters disagree about the nature of the relationship between Tom and Jerry. The Tina Fey character maintains that Tom and Jerry are antagonists, but the Amy Poehler character, shocked, insists that they were the best of friends. I would have put this under "cultural influences" but that section seems reserved for more important items. Priceyeah (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be included in the article as it does not contribute. I would also contend that Baby Mama wasn't a widely received movie as to warrant a cultural reference. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cat concerto

didn't cat concerto win an award? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiai (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. An Acadamy Award. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 01:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

Editors please remember:

When writing technical (scientific, medical, legal, etc.) articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or terms of art and jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists. (WP:TTD)

Especially articles of this kind are also looked up by people who have no knowledge whatsoever of complex Film/TV technology. Please try to avoid the use of jargon, and do not revert edits or remove tags until the issues are addressed. This article is in a big enough mess already - try to help improve it. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but once again I've restored the link deleted in this edit. If there are complaints that the article doesn't explain "pan and scan" well enough—which may be valid—is it necessary to reinforce the point by removing the the link to the explanation? Indeed, it could be interpreted as repeated WP:DISRUPTPOINT, but I may have misunderstood. However, as my fix doesn't seem to be the complete answer, I have left the {{Clarify me}} for the time being. Building the web is good! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, See your talk page, Fact is, pan and scan is not explained at all and never was and probably never will be. Contributors need to write articles from a reader's aspect, and not just for themselves to show off their knowledge andleave everyone else totally baffled we both got it wrong, and I'm doing the fix for some other cartoon clown..--Kudpung (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text before User:Kudpung's edit: "Shorts produced in CinemaScope are presented in pan and scan...". The same text after his/her edit: "Shorts produced in CinemaScope are presented in pan and scan[clarification needed]. Here is the diff. Seems conclusive to me: there was a link to a page explaining the term, but it was deleted and replaced with a {{Clarify me}} tag. Not at all helpful, when looked at "from a reader's aspect". I don't see that a reference to pan and scan in this context, especially when linked to its article to avoid bafflement, as an example of jargon; it's a necessary part of the explanation. But: thanks for now removing the tag.
On one thing we can agree: it is true that too many articles are written with arcane terminology in a technical style and the conclusion that someone is showing off can be hard to escape.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Why the infoboxes were removed from this article?Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were being misused. The film infobox is for singular films, not a film series. --FuriousFreddy (talk)

No. But I think we need to have infobox to make things easier for readers, because I am sure the no.of people looking for information on the entire Tom and Jerry series is much higher than people actually looking for specific films. Also, considering the fact that there have been many films released under the name "Tom and Jerry" , there would be a very few number who actually remember the specific episode title. Also people do not need to read the entire article just to know the date when Tom and Jerry was released, who are the current distributors of the series, who have been the prime scriptwriters and any such very obvious information. I strongly recommend the inclusion of a infobox on this page.

-Shreyasm89 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies articles, which are about series of cartoon shorts and not just one particular short, show good use of {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}}. Perhaps we could use that infobox template in this article in such a manner. Regards, —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
No, the Hollywood cartoon infobox is also for individual cartoons, and this article is, to be honest, unsightly and lacking in quality/focus as it is. No need to add template abuse to its myriad of issues. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Pictures T & J 1931... What?

Hello All,

Recently while searching for videos & music for a band I had never heard of, I stumbled across something interesting! The band is "Explosions in the Sky". I Googled it & was sent to Youtube, as we often are. The results were positive. Since I didn't know where to start with their music, I noticed a playlist & chose it. The third song in provided this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkixXH94kfI&feature=BF&list=MLGxdCwVVULXc2FJuCXFATaG7TYJeJ2eVD&index=3

Upon viewing the credits at the beginning of the (music) video, I was stuck by the information. It read (from top to bottom): 'RADIO PICTURES presents TOM & JERRY - IN THE BAG'. The cartoon was a very basic black & white animation... I remember seeing this cartoon as a young child in the early sixties. The funny thing is, Tom & Jerry were not a cat & a mouse, but human figures... a tall shiny one & a short plump one. This all got me to wondering. I thought 1st to search here, but Googled "radio pictures tom & jerry' instead. The results were interesting & this is what I found out: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/tomjerry/titles.html ... How does this compare to what is posted here date wise?

Thanks in advance,

Motozappa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motozappa (talk • contribs) 04:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a cartoon series from the early 1930s, discussed at Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren). I have just clarified the hatnote at the top of this article. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV Y7 on Tom and Jerry Kids?

The orginal Tom and Jerry is rated TV Y and it was much more violent than Tom and Jerry Kids. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.115.63 (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems outdated

this sentence: "most violent cartoon gags ever devised in theatrical animation" seems very outdated to me. I feel I could get dozens of theatrical animations today that are (far?) more violent and more realistic than Tom&Jerry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.93.173 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say about this quote

Deitch states that, being a member of the UPA, he has always had a personal dislike of Tom and Jerry, citing them as the "primary bad example of senseless violence - humor based on pain - attack and revenge."

That quote does not make ANY sense to me. Was this guy talking about his version? Cause his version have much more violence, especially towards the cat Tom. Regards. 188.230.173.103 (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he was talking about the original version. by Hanna-Barbera. DoctorHver (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comic books

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, few people had tv, and the Tom & Jerry cartoons would only be seen between features at a movie theatre. They were much better known as comic book characters at that time. Therefore, the mention of comic books shouldn't be buried way down in the article under "Other formats", but should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! I missed that reference completely.
I have (somewhere) some of these comics as distributed in Australia in the 1960s. There's also a second mouse, Tuffy (but more often called "little one"), in some of them, and there's a parallel story line involving the three (Tom, Jerry and Tuffy) as Musketeers (and also the entire castle staff) of a character just known as The King.
And they are some of the best stories ever, comparable only to the best of Carl Barks, IMHO. EG Jerry: Sorry, Mr Bear, but we have to shoot you! Tom (aiming blunderbuss) Orders from the King, you know! (After some slapstick involving the bear getting his nose stuck in the gun, the bear twists the still unfired weapon into a spiral shape.) Tom: (Gulp) I'll never be able to fire that! Jerry: Perhaps you could learn to toot it! (Emphasis as in the original.)
Published for more than fifty years, according to our article. Well worthy of their own article. See also
and undoubtedly others. Andrewa (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Interesting links. Thanks.77Mike77 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence rewrite

I've removed the term "comic violence" and replaced it with "slapstick comedy". There's a few reasons for this. One was that the blue link was to the slapstick comedy article. The second was based on Aristophanes' play The Clouds from 423BC which illustrates that comedy is an ancient adage for humanity and as Trevor Griffiths captures so well in his play Comedians that comedy sometimes has its dark moments. Comic violence is a correct description but lacks depth - slapstick comedy isn't exactly much better but it has less force and offers wider scope for investigation. Better for readers IMO. Feel free to revert my edit if you disagree.

cheers

Sluffs (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry Talking

Another instance of Tom speaking not referenced here is documented in this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucho_Mouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephandrade (talk • contribs) 07:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-intentioned editor JerryMuzsik added content here indicating that the name Jerry had seen an increase in usage, peaking in 1941, a year after Tom and Jerry was publicized. Although the user means well, this is original research. Firstly, it's not clear where we're seeing this popularity jump, but I'm assuming in US boy names? Secondly, the source cited is http://www.babynamespedia.com/meaning/Jerry/m, which doesn't strike me as a reliable source. Lastly, if we're talking about popularity in American boy names, the Social Security Administration is usually the go-to for that. And in 1935 there were no Jerry's or Geralds, but suddenly in 1936 (do the search) Jerry and Gerald hit the #18 and #19 spots respectively. So some other social phenomenon was in place that boosted Jerrys before 1941. By 1939 Jerry was #16 and Gerald was #19. In 1940 Jerry lept to #14, and Gerald dropped off the map. In 1941 Jerry was #14 again, but in #1942 Jerry dropped again to #16. So what I think we have here is correlation with little evidence of causation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the United States

The section on Tom and Jerry in the UK smacks of nostalgia and original research. The BBC did not "invariably" show Tom and Jerry during programme interruptions. Many other types of material were shown at such times, and I don't personally recall Tom and Jerry having any sort of special default status. And while the show was certainly familiar to British viewers of that time, the BBC did not show "around two episodes every evening." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.87.114 (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90.203.87.114 Good notes. Although the article is somewhat protected, you should be able to make the changes pending community approval, but please include your rationale in your edit summary to better have your changes survive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom and Jerry. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I think trivia should be added to articles and I don't think it's unsourced. YoshiFan155 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_and_Jerry&oldid=730467185"