Talk:Wally Burr

Can I ask why Burr is so liked (it seems) by the fandom despite him appearing to be as erm, 'difficult to work with' as Michael Bay reputedly is? I don't think Bay has caused any strikes or forced the SAG to change the maximum recording section for actors, has he? --FFN 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Burr's work was done when most fans were very young. And even older fans of that day, in those years before the 'net, would not have been able to follow his work as closely--or hear from disgruntled "insiders" so intimately--as was available with Bay. --Thylacine 2000 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Burr is, by all accounts, very hard to work with. However, he is also by all accounts very good at his job, in the sense that he produces good recordings. People may not enjoy working with him, but they respect him. --Steve-o 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackpot's Pic

Uncomfortable Moments in BotCon History.

So, uh, this is fan-art and should probably go. Sorry to be a killjoy. --Monzo 00:25, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Technically yes, but dude, that art is awesome. Hooper_X 07:55, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps, but for those of us who don't attend BotCon, I have no idea what the "awkward moment" was or why he's crying in the picture. It would be nice to know why. --DrSpengler 12:23, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't think the fan-art rule should apply to drawings of real people. For characters, the art means more, since that's who they actually are in the world of the fiction. When we put art of Megatron on a page, we're saying, "This is how Megatron genuinely looks in some pocket of the multiverse." I don't think a caricature of a real person would be construed that way (except for special cases like Richard Branson, of course). As for the story: At a voice-actor panel at BC05, Hoop asked Wally Burr what it was like to work with Orson Wells. By the end of Burr's response, the man had brought himself to tears. Later in the con, I was taking art requests, and Hoop wanted me to draw a montage of his own adventures. The Burr portrait was part of that. - Jackpot 15:10, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

I think unofficial artwork of real people should be avoided, though if there are no photographs of that person they might be acceptable. For folks that have official artwork, I'd think we'd want both an example of them in-universe and out if possible. Andy Wildman, for instance, should probably have a photo up there too. --Jimsorenson 15:21, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

I do agree that photos are always preferable. If someone has a photo of Burr, I'd say we should use it for the mainpic and then put the drawing and the story of how he shed a tear at BC in Trivia. (If we keep the drawing at all; for the record, I didn't put it there, and I'm only defending its presence insofar as other people think it's worth including.) - Jackpot 15:43, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

IIRC, the Burr picture originally went up in the freewheeling early days of "#wiigii! decides to take over someone's abandoned wiki", and it's just sort of stayed there since. I don't think we had even conceived of the idea of image policy at the time; it's basically an artifact in that regard.

(Psst, Jack. Adding a picture of Burr is why I removed your art from his page...) --Monzo 15:53, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

[Actually looks at page] Heh. So it is. I just saw this discussion appear on Recent Changes, and the way you phrased it sounded like a proposal, not an explanation-after-the-fact. Anyway, yeah, at this point the only justification I see for keeping the drawing is if the Burr-crying story is worthy of a Trivia note. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Edit: Also, that photo needs its aspect ratio compressed vertically. - Jackpot 15:57, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

I don't understand the problem with the aspect ratio? I cropped it from a screengrab from a Shout! Factory featurette, which was presented in a "wider than it is tall" format, and my PowerDVD is set to grab from original video source size... --Monzo 16:11, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Best guess is that your pixel aspect ratio is was captured at 1.2:1 (pixel size for standard definition video) but is being displayed at 1:1 for computers. Probably bring it into an image editor (even paint may work) and stretch to 120% its current size horizontally. That may fix the error by adding interloped pixels. --Bluestreak7 16:25, 17 July 2009 (EDT)

Or better yet, scale the vertical down to 83%, and you won't lose any crispness because the editing program won't have to make up new pixels. (Not that it will probably matter which way you do it after it's shrunk down to mainpic size...) - Jackpot

So we add the story as an aside, keep the art with a caption like "Artist's Rendering." Hooper_X 10:20, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Mark Evanier on Wally Burr?

Why do I get the feeling that part of this article is about Burr? (Relevant bits C&Ped below...) --Monzo 01:51, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Doubling, tripling or even quadrupling-up one's workday became quite customary. A session may have technically been eight hours but everyone understood that it would actually run no longer than four...everyone, that is, but for a few directors who simply couldn't — or wouldn't — complete a single cartoon in eight hours.

One fellow in particular was notably unable to do it in less, partly due to incompetence, partly because he liked to play power games in his sessions. He would order actors around, forcing them to read one line 30 times, treating them like vassals. In fact, Hour Eight would sometimes come and go without him finishing and he'd try to keep the performers longer than that.

Such behavior complicated many lives. He directed for several studios and an actor engaged for a morning session never knew: Was it safe to presume he'd be out in four hours or less? Or should he turn down any afternoon jobs, just in case Captain Bligh was in command? One could easily halve ones income, playing it safe.

So when voice actors went on strike in 1986, this was a key issue, and they won on it. Thereafter, a session was four hours, and a rate was established for automatic overtime pay if actors were kept after. (There are a few exceptions. For instance, the session for the first episode of a new series can be eight hours, since everyone's getting acquainted and key decisions are being made.)

And yes, when the new rule came in, the directors who previously needed 8+ hours to direct a cartoon suddenly, miraculously, became able to do it in four. But just barely...