Talk:Jonny Quest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Article merged: See old talk-page here

A 1980s version, too[edit]

The 1998 version of Johnny Quest as not the second series, but indeed the third. On the 80ies, Johnny Quest had its second series. I think (if my memory doesn't fail) done by the same people that did cartoons like the Transformers, The Defenders of the Earth and Centurions. The cartoon looked very eighties, and used 80ies colour technics where you can clearly see the difference from the previous (60s/70s) version.

Yes! And there was a man made-of-stone that become a regular... Not so good series, but it existed. Osias, unregistred. --200.97.51.224 01:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jessie Bannon correction[edit]

Jessie Bannon did not appear at all in the 1986 revival program. There was a similar character who appeared in one episode of the program. Like Jessie Bannon she was a red-haired girl named Jessie who was about the same age as Jonny and Hadji. She had a different last name and her father was a scientist the Quests were helping rather than Race Bannon. The first appearance of the Jessie Bannon character was in Jonny's Golden Quest.

I went and looked it up (I forgot she had a last name). But Jessie Bradshaw and Jessie Bannon are essentially the same character (one is just a retcon of the other), and Jessie B. appeared more than once in Jonny Quest '86, so I edited the article accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. --FuriousFreddy 23:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could add who voiced Jessie as well? As far as I can tell, it appears to be Jennifer Hale. 202.156.14.10 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Villains[edit]

"most of the villains being of Eastern European or Chinese origin, and meant to depict Communists."

I don't think that this assertion is true. I think that (as in most of the post-Cold War James Bond films) most of the villains were presented as independently-operating megalomaniacs.

Anybody care to provide any support for this? (28 Sept 2005)

Are they ment to depict communists per-say or just represent more vagly the communist threat, in like these are the kind of people who are communist and they are EVIL?--Kat fletchers smug face 17:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Inspirations: Clutch Cargo?[edit]

5 years before Jonny Quest, Doug Wildey and Alex Toth worked on a animated (well, sort of) adventure series about a white-haired pilot and his little companion and dog called Clutch Cargo. Isn't it possible Clutch Cargo was one of the inspirations for Jonny Quest? Does anyone know if there's any basis to this, or is it just my imagination? Since I've found nothing that specifically mentions Clutch Cargo as an influence on Jonny Quest, I'll have to refrain from putting it in the article-- No original thought/research. Rizzleboffin 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A major difference that I see in comparing Clutch Cargo to Jonny Quest is the stories revolve around Clutch Cargo who is an adult while the young boy named Spinner is only a sidekick. Since Doug Wildey worked on both series, it is possible there may be a connection. However, unless direct evidence is found showing he used Clutch Cargo as a basis for Jonny Quest, any claim would be wild speculation. Since Wildey passed away in 1994, proving a connection seems very unlikely to happen.


Alan Smithee 02:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Alan. The shift in focus from the adult to the kid isn't all that great, I don't think, since the basic premise is very similar. But unless it's been noted elsewhere by people in the know, it's just wild speculation on my part-- I realize that. Seems like more than coincidence to me though, since Wildey did work at Cambria Studios. No need to put it into the article though, unless there's more justification. Rizzleboffin 05:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you that both have a similar theme. Also, it's not unusual for an artist's new creations to be influenced by his past work. In interviews with Doug Wildey, he only credited Jack Armstrong, Terry and the Pirates and his work on the Stretch Bannon and The Saint comic strips as the main inspirations for the premise and characters in Jonny Quest. He never attributed his work on Clutch Cargo as a source. Unfortunately, it appears there are enough differences between the two series that a direct inspiration can't be claimed by anyone except Wildey himself. Alan Smithee 06:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use galleries[edit]

Who says they are not allowed and why?FrankWilliams 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy: The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. (emphasis mine). --FuriousFreddy 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the first part complies as the images are low res. The second part is the word "adequately" which is left to interpetation. I don't think that one clip fits the purpose adequately and a montage of 4 clips does adequately depict what closing credits; as the paragraph talks to each of the 4 clips. Therefore the gallery IS within the rules.
Furthermore, rather than getting into a deletion and addition war you whould wait until the discussions have completed until you do a revision. Since I began this dialogue I am adding the gallery until a adequate resolution is in place. FrankWilliams 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You're horribly reaching. There is no edit war here, because you're still violating the policy: the paragraph doesn't "talk to" four pictures; it mentions one closing-credit sequence from this program. Only one still image is need to illustrate a closing credit sequence. You go and find another film or TV article with multiple images to illustrate literally adjacent shots (if you find one, it too is a bad article and needs to be fixed).
In addition, remember that Wikipedia is supposed to read as a professional encyclopedia, and not as an informal fan website. Encyclopedias do not interrupt the flow of prose to presnt boxes of screenshots from a TV show, such a presentationh is highly unprofessional. I reverted this (and will continue to revert it) because it goes against the guidelines. That policy isn't there for its health: the number of unfree images used in Wikipedia articles si to be kept to the barest minimum possible. Otherwise, you viloate the very rationale for fair use. --FuriousFreddy 16:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but encyclopedias do indeed have multiple screenshots when depicting a subject at hand. Your interpetation that something is going against any guidelines is your opinion and you should not try to force your viewpoint. I also thank you for your opinion on what is professional. FrankWilliams 19:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
...not multiple screenshots fro mthe same four adjacent shots of a film! That is, unless some sort of movement is trying to be conveyed, which it isn't; you only want those there for illustrative purposes. I'm not placing my opinion into any of this; you're actually projecting your protection of your opinion onto me. I've edited (sadly) hundreds of articles on TV shows and films, and the only other time I've seen an image gallery like this (which, make no mistake, is against fair use policy), is on a handful of cartoon articles. One image suffices.
Even if four images of the same exact scene were acceptable...why are you using 8-bit gifs instead of 24-bit jpegs? --FuriousFreddy 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to keep the pics as low res as possible per policy. If you think 24-bit jpegs are better I don't see an issue with this.FrankWilliams 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Resolution and color channel bit depth are not synonymous. --FuriousFreddy 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia is intended to be as freely-reusable as possible. The best test for whether one is following Wikipedia:Fair use criteria is that everyone is in agreement that the criteria are being followed. If even one person suggests that there is an overuse of unfree content in the article, that is enough reason to remove the material in question. Trying to debate the meaning of the word "adequate" is pointless; the spirit of the criteria is to keep our content as maixmally reusable as possible. Please do not approach this conversation as an argument that can be won or lost, but instead focus on ensuring consensus for even the slightest compromise on our mission of giving away a free encyclopedia. Other encyclopedias are often a terrible comparison; they are not aiming for reusability and they have specific licensing agreements with copyright holders. If you feel strongly that more screenshots would be a benefit to our readers, there is nothing wrong with listing the copyright-holders website in an external links question. Jkelly 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Besides the fair use reasoning, the image gallery distorts the infobox and breaks the page at lower (1024 x 768 and lower) resolutions. --FuriousFreddy 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tom Quest" novels[edit]

The 50's saw a series of archeology-oriented boys'-adventure books by Fran Striker (of The Lone Ranger), featuring a young hero named "Tom Quest". I am expert enough neither in Tom Quest nor in Jonny Quest to judge whether there is a connection, but there are some similarities, enough to warrant investigation. Even if, upon investigation, there should prove to be no connection, it would be worth saying so. --John W. Kennedy 18:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Kids in the Hall" reference[edit]

There is an episode of Kids in the Hall where Scott tells his parents he wants to become an Indian woman. After discussion, an Indian man appears at the door and Scott greets him as Hadji, and subsequently, Hadji greets him as Johnny. Here is a transcript of the episode, I don't know which episode this appears in or what season. http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/one/indian.html

Johnny? Jonny?[edit]

I'm not too familiar with this show, but are the apparent spellings differences supposed to be there? Did it just get officially changed at some point? I apologize if it's actually explained in the article somewhere, but I could only take the time to skim it. --Foot Dragoon 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it appears 68.12.73.3 decided to go through the article and change the spellings to an incorrect version, even though there's a large picture with the correct spelling at the start of the article. It's been corrected now though. Psychonaut3000 01:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


it is a major Mandela effect claim of it having original being Johnny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:841:4100:8319:1529:C420:E25A:A4C2 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bandit a Pug?[edit]

Do we know from some source in the show that Bandit is a pug? He doesn't look much like a pug to me. He looks a lot like a french bulldog. --24.84.120.89 19:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

he's not a pug, he IS a bulldog, see
http://www.tvacres.com/dogs_cartoons_bandit.htm
The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest and citations
even the [JQ faq] refers to him as a bulldog pup
therefore, I'm being bold and changing the pug references to bulldog Superbeecat 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think he's actually a French Bulldog. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If he were a French Bulldog he'd be 'Le Bandit'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jonny-quest-opening-title.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Jonny-quest-opening-title.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 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 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Taken care of; no worries. Don't see why you couldn't have just put one in; it would make things much easier.FrankWilliams 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It didn't put one in because that comment is from a robot. 71.62.54.243 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of Article[edit]

Something went wrong with the infobox. Is this appearing strange to anyone else? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:infobox television 2 was edited and apparently broken. Rather than revert it, since the template was only used by three other articles, and there was no obvious reason why it was needed, I switched those articles to Template:infobox television. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Venture Bros. references[edit]

Anybody else think this should be its own section? It's the largest part of the "Cultural Impact" section. Also, since TVB uses the actual characters of Jonny, Hadji, and Race, it sets TVB apart from other items of parody or satire. In a sense, it IS the continuing story of Jonny Quest in a twisted universe of misfortune. --63.25.96.92 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the bulk of the Venture Brothers material should be covered in the Venture Brothers article, with a short reference to it here. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging Sim sim sala bim[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to merge it with the article Hadji Singh? I would be in favour of that. 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a redirect to that. Yngvarr (c) 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonny's Golden Quest[edit]

How come there is nothing here about this movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.67.76 (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonny Quest Magic Ring[edit]

[1] The P.F. Flyer Magic Ring ("just like the one Jonny uses") was promoted on the original series.

From looking at images of the ring, it has the following cryptographic design:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ

WEARPFSLQMYBUHXVCZNDKIOTGJ

The inner dial can be rotated to provide 26 different simple substitution codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.177.137 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DVDs[edit]

The article contains two separate—and therefore somewhat redundant—mentions of the 2004 DVD release of the original 26 episodes. One mentions only "some minor editing to remove dialog that might be viewed as culturally or racially insensitive." The other, however, states that they "are edited both in content (to make them more politically correct) and in titles (the original opening and ending titles are not used due to their action[read: violent] content)." If the titles were not used due to their violence, wouldn't the violent story content also be edited? However, at the time of this DVD release there was a media report stating that, in keeping with the reputation of DVD issues, these were not censored at all. Can someone verify the content of these discs, then fix the article? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE (same person, too): Customers' reviews at Amazon.com—and there are a large number of them—are similarly split. Some assert nothing more than Race Bannon's "You ignorant savages" lines from "Pursuit of the Po-Ho" are cut, a few others add one line from one other episode, and others say that their set contains the emasculated versions first seen on Saturday morning TV in the mid 70s, later on The Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera series with the so-called New Adventures episodes, and finally on Cartoon Network. Many—and there is no consensus among these as to edits or lack thereof—also indicate that the end credits are not action/violence-less, but are all from one episode lacking Doug Wildey's creator credit (alleged to be the motivation). This last is what was seen on Boomerang the last time I had access to that channel. A growing mystery. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything concrete about what is and what isn't edited on the DVD's? I've been wanting to buy these forever and finally found out they sell them and then I checked on here and was so disappointed to find out they're edited.

If it's only a few eps edited, I may still consider buying them but if they're most/all edited, I will not be buying them.

I'm sorry ask on here but there are so few sites that even talk about this issue. Thanks, Vala M (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, check the Jonny Quest TV Series page for a link with more information. In short, though: The "ignorant savages" line is cut, as is Jonny joking "here comes the Oriental Express" just before a bad guy plummets to his death. All the episodes seem to be the original running length. On the second edit: Jonny caused the guy to slide to his death, could have saved him but didn't try, then made a clever remark. Also, the term "Oriental," used at the time to mean "from the East," is now considered offensive. A lot of people assume JQ was edited for content in syndication, but I haven't seen any evidence. When the show was on in the '80s, most of the cuts were the cutesy Bandit bits. About the end credits: Boomerang does the same thing for Flintstones end credits. I think it's a way to cut costs for remastering. ClassicCF (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Episodes Separated Into "List" Page?[edit]

Just throwing this out there. There is definitely enough episodes of this show to warrant its own "List of Episodes" page. Any objections? -- HitmanSam (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend including, albeit separated in some way, the so-called New Adventures... series' episodes on it, as that was referred to in its day as a "second season" of the original, was combined with it into a single package then, and has never been seen except that way (has it been seen since at all?), the title given here notwithstanding. I really don't know where that comes from. The fact that the DVD releases and Boomerang showings of the original don't include it doesn't change its own circumstances, but merely prove that H-B/Warner execs (finally) agree that it stinks and fans don't want to see it. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. With the "first season" of the 1980's series being nothing more than heavily- edited 1060's episodes, I would say that the 13 new episodes would be considered a "second season," if that makes sense. I may go ahead and start on this project, unless anyone has a better idea? -- HitmanSam (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hadji article[edit]

Heads up! User:Dogwood123 has created a separate article for Hadji (Jonny Quest), despite the consensus to merge the previous attempt into here. It's thoroughly unsourced, too. Shall we open a new discussion there, or will somebody simply enforce the previous agreement? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it to this page. I've also edited the navigation template, to avoid "inviting" people to create unnecessary articles about the individual characters. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC: "Quest documentary" as source[edit]

There are several passages in the article that cite one or another part of a "Quest documentary" on Youtube as the source. This production asserts that the original network title for the series was The Adventures of Jonny Quest and it was subsequently "rebranded" for syndication. I have cited three sources that contradict the first part of the assertion, and the fact of the matter is that at least in the United States (and possibly the entire world) it has never borne that longer title. Furthermore, syndication airings have been few and far between, with most of its rerun life spent bouncing around on the various three networks' Saturday morning schedules, and more recently on cable's Cartoon Network and Boomerang channels. Consequently, that assertion leaves the documentary with minimal credibility, if any, and every passage that has that production for its reference source needs a new one. Let's start looking, shall we? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that one factual error in the documentary renders the entire thing with "minimal credibility, if any" is an overreaction at the very least. I challenge you to show me a single documentary which is entirely free of errors. (Wikipedia is riddled with them; does that mean it similarly lacks "any credibility"? I think not.) The video in question is clearly a well-researched source, including a wealth of information which is not common knowledge but which is already easily confirmed. The petty insinuation that it is worthless as a source (i.e. every factual statement from it is now suspect and needs additional verification) is unjustified and unfair, and seemingly biased. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Jason, but that one error is so fundamental and unforgivable that it does indeed leave the documentary with little or no credibility. If this production was at all "well-researched," there would have been no claim of The Adventures of Jonny Quest as an on-screen title made at all. "...including a wealth of information which is not common knowledge but which is already easily confirmed." I doubt that very much. Any documentary that gets such a fundamental fact totally wrong cannot be trusted about anything it says. Nothing "petty," nothing "insinuated," nothing "unjustified," and nothing "biased." Every factual statement from it IS now suspect and needs additional verification. To the contrary, your repeated insistence that this production is "well-researched" reeks of a bias on your part. Just what is your basis for that assertion? --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I watched it, without prejudice. The only further response I can make to your comments is to suggest the involvement of a neutral third party. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's perfectly all right for you to throw the words "petty," "insinuation," "unjustified," and "biased" at me but when I throw just one of them back at you (because your calling it "well-researched" after having that error documented and denying the obvious implications of it does indeed suggest a non-objective interest in keeping the production as a source for the article), you take offense and go running for a third party. BTW, claiming to have "watched it without prejudice" does not in any way, shape, or form explain why you flatly describe it as "well-researched" even after I documented one incredibly fundamental error, which I asked you to do. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The only further response I will make to your comments is to suggest the involvement of a neutral third party. Will you agree to that? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As the above discussion indicates, there is an difference of opinion about the credibility of a rather detailed documentary (published on YouTube and elsewhere) about the development of the Jonny Quest TV series. It states that the series originally aired as "The Adventures of Jonny Quest"; other sources say that it originally aired as simply "Jonny Quest". Assuming that the latter is correct, the question is whether this error in the documentary renders the rest of it unacceptable as a source. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note also that in connection to this, the documentary says the reduction of title to simply Jonny Quest was for syndication, but in fact the series has in fact spent very little time in syndication. It instead initially bounced around the then-three networks' Saturday morning children's schedules, then was rarely seen for many years, turning up in the first-run syndicated The Fun-tastic World of Hanna-Barbera with thirteen new episodes, and finally on various Turner cable channels. The error is doubly egregious, at least to anyone who has a familiarity with the actual history of Jonny Quest. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to excluded this documentary. First, as mentioned before, very few sources are 100% true, which is why our standards are verifiability, not truth. Secondly, just because the majority say something, does not mean it is correct. Thirdly, I suspect the truth of this particular issue is that it had different names when released in different formats/loctions/networks. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is trivially simple: being published on YouTube and Blogspot renders this wholly without credibility, and it can't be used as a reference.—Kww(talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That argument is trivial and simplistic. Sources are judged on their merits, not the methods used to access them. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The reputation of the author and the publisher is an important aspect of judging the merits of a source.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, and neither YouTube nor Blogspot is the author or publisher (they are hosting services). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So who do you consider to be the author and publisher? What reputation does he have for accuracy and reliability? How would I go about verifying that reputation?—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The person who made the documentary is the author. Watching the video would be a good place to start in assessing its credibility. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Who is that person? Even the person that posted it on YouTube doesn't seem to know. "Supposedly made for a one time screening at a private function" doesn't provide anything in the way of reference.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried contacting the publisher on his blog? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
First, it was the blogger that indicated he didn't know the source when he made the statement "Supposedly made for a one time screening at a private function". Second, it's part of WP:BURDEN: if you want to include the material, it's your obligation to demonstrate that it is reliable.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OrangeDog posted: I suspect the truth of this particular issue is that it had different names when released in different formats/loctions [sic]/networks. Which is irrelevant, even if it were true which it is not (with the possible exceptions of showings in foreign but English-speaking countries, which remain undocumented anywhere that I've found to check). The assertion is "the original network title for the series was The Adventures of Jonny Quest and it was subsequently 'rebranded' for syndication." I have posted three good reference works that flatly identify the series as simply Jonny Quest, and I ask you all to note that the article's infobox is headed by an image captioned "Original Jonny Quest title card from 1964" which does not bear the words "The Adventures of" at all. Understand that "original" and "1964" are in fact redundant. Any documentary, book or magazine article specifically about this program which flatly and unequivocally asserts that the ABC network aired it on its prime-time schedule in the 1964-1965 season under the title The Adventures of Jonny Quest (as this documentary does) hasn't done enough research to urinate on, since the on-screen title is a very fundamental and easily checkable (especially by professional researchers/writers) fact and calls into question any other claim said work makes that is not made anywhere else. Virtually everything here is irrelevant to the actual issue. Wikipedia's "verifiability versus truth" standard is irrelevant because we have contradictory "verifiable" sources, so the question is which to go with. The obvious answer is the majority of sources and the original 1964 title card. Since the wording of the original on-screen title is a simple and fundamental fact rather than something open to misinterpretation, anything this documentary says that is not also reported elsewhere has to be at the very least doubted, including the "Chip Baloo as the character's original name" assertion. The facts are facts, and the logic is irrefutable: this documentary is untrustworthy. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So is your objectivity. You've been on the warpath against this documentary since before you even looked at it. I can't speculate as to the motivation, but the prejudgment is clear. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No "prejudgement." This production's incorrect statement about the title was by itself absolutely fatal to its credibility and nothing more needed to be known; nothing could offset that indefensible error. You on the other hand not only refuse to see (or is it actually "admit to"?) the clear logic of that, but had obviously expected me to back down to your first posting (which was absolutely nothing but a long-winded assertion that I was wrong, and did not back up the position at all) and were offended that I didn't. If anybody has an ulterior motive here, it is you not me. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"The video in question is clearly a well-researched source..." Agreed. Of all the windmills one could tilt at on Wikipedia, this one seems particularly ill-considered. -- 71.62.54.243 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was "well-researched" it would not have even come close to claiming "the original network title for the series was The Adventures of Jonny Quest" (in fact, no specific instance of telecast or video release under that title has ever been documented), but it did just that. Note that the discussion above revealed that its "author" is unidentified. The only thing "ill-considered" here is any attempt to defend this thing. I can't help but wonder if this anonymous IP is Jason A. Quest himself, who can be seen above insisting on calling this documentary "well-researched" after the indefensible nature of the titling error was pointed out to him in no uncertain terms. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm relieved to see that this editor has "resigned" from Wikipedia. His baseless personal attacks were tiresome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What kills the documentary as a direct reference is that it was published anonymously. The authors do not want to be known, which means we don't know how much they can be trusted. As to the title: The series was not called "The Adventures of Jonny Quest" in promotional material [1] or in television guide listings [2] during its 1964-65 run on ABC but, in reruns/syndication, there were at least two voice-overs by Mike Road ("Race") that added "The Adventures Of" to the title, although the title card itself did not change. In the documentary's defense, the phrase "original network title" [cited above] may refer to documentation at ABC with the wrong title. -- ClassicCF (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Something getting republished without credit doesn't necessarily mean that "the authors do not want to be known". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The idea that the authors are intentionally anonymous comes either from the original YouTube post or from someone who sent me a copy of the documentary on DVD (not sourced from YouTube). My memory's a little hazy on the reason, but I think it was that they would have gotten into trouble at work, either for creating it on the clock or for misappropriating resources. Is anyone claiming authorship now? Regardless of whether you believe my story or think it's relevant, the authors are still anonymous/unknown at this time and have no credibility for assertions that aren't backed up with sources. I'm not saying they did a bad job, but that you shouldn't use "anonymous" as a source in an encyclopedia. If the documentary makes a statement and then shows a clip to prove it, that can be referenced. ClassicCF (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Devil's Tower episode question[edit]

Does anyone know why "The Devil's Tower" was not in the rotation of JQ episodes on Boomerang? I've been watching JQ every night for years and last night (03/21/10) was the first time they showed it. I very curious... Jackbox1971 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody had put up the following about it: "Due to its references to Nazi atrocities and World War II, this episode has not been shown on television since the 1960s." That has been removed as unsourced. The real problem is, it was shown under the umbrella title The Funtastic World of Hanna–Barbera along with the 13 new episodes that were not titled The New Adventures of Jonny Quest. Long-time series fan that I am, I remember not recognizing the story at all and needing to place the voices of Tim Matheson, Mike Road, etc., to realize that it was not one of the new 13. However, it seems implausible at best that its inclusion there would have been inadvertent, because all 26 were cut down to 22 minutes to match the running times of absolutely everything else there (not just the new 13 JQ segments). Surely somebody supervised these new edits from a creative perspective, and would have noticed this episode if it was not supposed to have been there? The fact that the general censorship edits aren't on Boomerang makes "The Devil's Tower"'s absence there even harder to figure. That's the best that I can do. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
As of today 05/15/10, they have no re-run the episode. It only takes them three weeks to go through the entire cycle. I doubt the Nazi references would have caused it to not be played, after all, Boomerang routinely plays suspect Tom and Jerry shorts with the "black mammy" housekeeper. The animation in "TDT" is pretty herky-jerky, but no worse than some other episodes. (Why is there such a difference in animation quality? "Shadow of the Condor" is excellent, but others, like "Turu" look almost amateurish.) Jackbox1971 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
As I watched JQ on Funtastic World, I found myself wondering if they had done more than the reported cutting down of the episodes to match the 22 minute running time of the new ones, as the animation, etc., didn't look noticeably better than that of the new episodes. This was another reason I had to identify the voice actors to realize that "Devil's Tower" was one of the "original 26." I would think that modern censors would have more trouble with the "set 'em up & knock 'em down anonymous soldiers" depiction of the South American natives of "Pursuit of the Po-Ho" than with a stereotypical old Nazi. The World War I flying ace in "Shadow of the Condor" was chronologically problematical in 1964, more than 45 years after the end of that war, given all the futuristic technology on view (portable videophones, personal flying jetpacks, the para-power ray in "The Robot Spy" and its titular device itself). Just how old was this guy? Each is really nothing more than a reclusive fugitive of a defeated Germany of an old war, with no real distinction drawn between the two men's long-past alliances to evil. Given the lack of any bits-&-pieces censoring of the other 25, completely banning this one is quite puzzling. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I recorded it in the '80s on Funtastic World and in the '90s from TNT, and in 2001 on Boomerang when they were showing four-episode blocks overnight. The only reason I can think of is that, at some point, Boomerang wanted to cut the series to 25 episodes for a 5-per-week, 5-week run so they pulled one episode arbitrarily and now no longer know/care that one is not programmed. If any other one-season series was treated the same way, that would be supporting evidence.ClassicCF (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Jack Armstrong test animation?[edit]

It says that was 2 minutes long -- I know that they used about 12 seconds of it in the end credits, I would be curious to see the rest of it. Anyone know where I could find it? Or has it been lost over the decades?

Thanks,
Vala M (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Who came first, Jet Jungle or Race Bannon?[edit]

Jonny Quest may have premiered four months before The Adventures of Jet Jungle, but pitching for the Springbok radio series began well in advance of the actual release. Jet and Race may well have been brothers. Both are black belt judo champions. Both have white hair. But Jet Jungle has a vertijet, a black panther. a girlfriend called Sam/Kit and the worlds best superhero theme tune. It is possible that Race Bannon may have also encountered the Star Master in the Jungle, who might have granted him a double life in Africa or vice versa. Ethnopunk (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonny Quest. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)