Derek Janssen wrote:
snip

To be fair, there's no reason for anyone to accept the opinions of "the
REAL experts" on what makes vintage cartoons funny. It's subjective to
every viewer.

I'd say John K's views on what made audiences love old cartoons is wrong
because it's often based on looking at individual drawings instead of
the cartoon as a moving film, ignoring the way audiences watched the
films. But that just makes his views irrelevant to explaining
popularity; his commentary is still interesting and illuminates specific
points, a good technical commentary, no more incomplete than hearing
commentary from a cinematographer, a makeup artist, or an actor. It's
just not enough to reproduce the things he observes in order to make a
good cartoon; there are self evidently things beyond drawings that make
cartoons good.