The Future of Looney Tunes [Archive]

Brandon Panther

10-22-2008, 12:41 PM

It'd be happy enough if they just came back to television.

Theatrical shorts on a regular basis. That'll never happen. I think the only way we'd ever see new LT shorts in theaters, is if MAYBE they were packaged together as a "film compilation", or if they were released independently to film festivals (which is how Little Go Beep was shown).

I would like to see a new Looney Tunes television series, like Tom & Jerry Tales. Mabye make a new version of the Bugs Bunny show with new segments starring all the LT characters. Who should be involved? Earl Kress is an obvious choice for a writer. I'd love to see John Riqua and Glen Ficara (who did uncredited script work on Back in Action) do more writing for LT, as they are both quite funny. Micah Wright could probably do some writing too.

As far as voice acting. If I were in charge, I'd limit Billy West to just Elmer Fudd, and MAYBE a few other miscellaneous characters if Billy can pull it off, but Elmer would be the only main LT character I'd allow him to voice. I would want Joe Alaskey for most of the other voices. Alaskey for Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester, Foghorn, Pepe. I'd use Bob Bergen for Tweety, Marvin the Martian, and if Maurice LaMarche is up for it, bring him in as Yosemite Sam. If not, then I'd ask Alaskey to do Sam. If Alaskey were to say no, I'd try to find Jeff Bergman.

WoodpeckerWoody

10-22-2008, 01:09 PM

Put every thing that has been done to DVD.

Mr. Semaj

10-22-2008, 01:28 PM

If they make new theatrical shorts, I'd prefer Chuck Jones' associate, Stephen Fossati to be in charge of production, and only animators with a complete understanding of the Looney Tunes universe to work on the shorts. And the shorts would be paired with potentially successful features, not just second-tier kids' stuff.

If they should make a Looney Tunes movie, though in all seriousness, they never needed a movie, I'd like for it to be something that can really sustain an 80-95 minute presentation. Something besides a compilation feature, and something where they are not playing secondaries to a celebrity. Again, something best handled by Looney Tunes artists and researchers.
And NO crappy attempts to copy Disney! :ysam:

If they should bring Looney Tunes back to television, it wouldn't hurt to have an occasional new special on network television. And all the classic shorts would air on a network devoted completely to classic animation.

Bradskey

10-22-2008, 02:35 PM

J. J. Hunsecker

10-22-2008, 03:55 PM

No more new revivals. They never come out right, and the studio doesn't want to spend the money to make new shorts the correct way.

I agree with others here that the classic shorts should be brought back to television. Preferably network television, where poor kids can see the cartoons for free, as opposed to some obscure cable station like Boomerang. That way, Warners would have a whole new generation that grew up with the cartoons.

Next, continue to release all the original cartoons to DVD, and eventually to Blu-Ray.

nickramer

10-22-2008, 06:50 PM

gdX

10-22-2008, 08:37 PM

They already tried new shorts and movies and they blow.On the nose-y.

If someone wants to do something noteworthy, make a completely new cartoon.

Looney Tunes were done – to perfection – decades ago, over a 30-yr period, under unique conditions, with impossibly unique people... those circumstances just don't exist anymore.

All re$ource$ should be directed at conserving, restoring and distributing the classic theatricals.

:ysam:

Marty26

10-22-2008, 09:50 PM

Personally, I won't mind WB to do an another revival if done right. I suggest looking at Jon and Matthew's blog for some rules. I also suggest people who truly studied the shorts very carfully to do them, not just some random person who's just simply a fan. Besides, it not like every attempt failed.

Also, I would like those suits to keep their noses out of this as much as 90-95% of the time. They also don't know what makes a rabbit work.

Heck, I wouldn't mind them to do some one-shots, even!

Here's the problem: Even if the cartoons DO follow the standard rules of Looney Tunes shorts and are by themselves pretty good, the whole spirit will still be lost. Most of our favorite voice actors are dead now, times have changed considerably (part of what makes classic cartoons so unique is how you can compare the way things were when they were made to the way things are today), and any attempt at producing a "strictly old-school" WB cartoon will probably just come off as forced because of the way popular humor is today. And anybody who's seen the Larry Doyle shorts should know what happens when you try to give the Looney Tunes "modern humor."

frizfrelengfan

10-22-2008, 10:21 PM

Three things:

All theatrical Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies released on DVD (including the Doyle shorts; as bad as some of them are, it wouldn't be complete without them).
The chance to see some of the old cartoons in a theater, the way they were meant to be seen. The collective audience laughing would enhance the cartoon-viewing experience.
A cable channel dedicated to classic cartoons 24/7. It would show cartoons from other studios in addition to WB.

ScrewBallDaffy

10-22-2008, 11:46 PM

Fibber Fox

10-23-2008, 12:53 AM

Which would you prefer for the future of Looney Tunes?

--New shorts to be released in theatres. Who should be involved with these?

--New feature-length movie - could be animated/live action, or just animated. Which would you prefer, and who should be involved?

--New "compilation" movies and TV specials. Similar to The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie, and the TV specials of the 70s and 80s.

--Some "other" idea. Please share!

Alas, Maury, the future of Looney Tunes is in the past. Even by 1960, the cartoons had taken a huge downturn. And today, even to try to duplicate the shorts of 1960 would be impractical. Full animation costs money. And trying to clear music rights is next to impossible without more money. Then there's today litigious society, where making fun of anyone in pop culture brings out settlement-sniffing, big-retainer-fee corporate lawyers. More more money.

Who would the potential audience be? Fans of the old cartoons? All they'd do is ***** and complain about how the new ones don't compare with the old ones. There were so many elements working together that made the old cartoons great. If one element is missing, they won't be as good.

I hated the TV specials of the 70s. Bugs Bunny saying hello to flowers? WTF?! The jokes were contrived, the music didn't fit and Mel Blanc sounded like he was 75 years old.

Animated/live action? Bite thy tongue! Even if it didn't mean CGI, I don't know how if someone could come up with a storyline that would work .. and naturally, you'd have to have so many commercial tie-ins, they'd get in the way of the plot.

New TV shows with old characters? You mean like Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries? ;)

It'd be nice if the cartoons just got an airing. But just as programmers won't air classic sitcoms because they're passe, they won't air classic cartoons for the same reason. New is better.

For me, I'd just be happy if all the Warners cartoons from 1930-on were available on DVD. Not that I'd buy the Daffy-Speedy DVD. But I figure by the time they're all released, DVD will be about as obsolete as my brick cell phone and 286.

F. Fox.

johnny645

10-23-2008, 12:58 AM

Just put 'em back on TV for cripes sakes. It blows my mind, they were on television all hours of the day all during the week my whole life and now its impossible to watch them without owning some really expensive DVDs (or cheap bootlegs if you prefer).

They already tried new shorts and movies and they blow. And I have absolutely NO faith in Hollywood to do anything right when they rehash old properties (which they do all the time, and consistently ruin). I'm sure more new shorts would just HAVE to be CG and be fully Nickelodeonized with plenty of barfing and farting "humor".

Agreed. As much as I'd like to see theatrical cartoons on a regular basis I realize it would be a bad idea considering what passes for humor in Hollywood nowadays.

So, I'm going to have to agree with putting them back on television. On a network station.

Jon Cooke

10-23-2008, 01:09 AM

What, you rather have them do another Speedy vs. Daffy cartoon instead?

Where's Chopper when I need him?

Geez, what's your problem tonight, Nick? You're coming off like a jerk...

:befuddled

nickramer

10-23-2008, 01:14 AM

Geez, what's your problem tonight, Nick? You're coming off like a jerk...

:befuddled
I'm just tired, sorry. I'm going to bed right now.

J Lee

10-23-2008, 02:20 AM

There are certainly enough people out there who know and could do pretty goodnew Looney Tunes ... at least the 1950s versions of the characters, where the cartoons are more plot driven. Jumping right in and trying to recreate the 40s cartoons, where the pose-to-pose images play a far more critical role in the humor because the animation budgets were higher, would probably be difficult, since it takes a lot of practice and a lot of skill to achieve that kind of level of funny drawing (not that it couldn't be done, just that if I were going to do it, I'd make sure the staff was up to the task before diving in head-first).

The biggest problem is the people above -- far more interfering than Leon, Henry, Ray or even Eddie ever were, and no doubt with their own crazed notions that the characters should be "edgy" and do hilarious things that the Hays Code never would have allowed, like fart, piss and poop jokes (and by that I mean visible poop jokes, not the subtle stuff like the end of "Drip-Along Daffy") -- and the feeling that if you revive the characters, you have to do something extra-special in terms of plot and/or number of characters in the script.

Want to do a good Warner Bros. cartoon? -- Pretend you're just making something like the ninth short of the 1956 release season or some other pre-60s year, and don't try to strain to make it more than it is.

larriva9/11

10-23-2008, 09:26 AM

So, no "Pubic Hare", then...

ebrand11

10-23-2008, 11:37 AM

New theatrcical shorts would be interesting but I think the first priority is to get the classics back on TV. Compilations would be nice too.

nickramer

10-23-2008, 11:54 AM

New theatrcical shorts would be interesting but I think the first priority is to get the classics back on TV. Compilations would be nice too.
Agreed. I think either Nick or TCM should air them. Of course, if Nick would air them again, that would mean alot of censorship, so it might not be a good choice.

Bradskey

10-23-2008, 01:19 PM

Agreed. I think either Nick or TCM should air them. Of course, if Nick would air them again, that would mean alot of censorship, so it might not be a good choice.

Yes, everyone knows we can't have kids exposed to history or the truth without revising it. They might learn something. Oh, oh, I know! They could censor them all AND have Whoopie Goldberg pontificate before each cartoon that she knows nothing about, apologizing because the cartoon isn't 3D or made with Flash, but some dumb old-head dudes thought they should show it. The cartoon will be about 3:30 long, with a whole new soundtrack featuring renowned voice-actors like Ben Stiller and Shia LaBeouf. Then introduce a hilarious new episode of Jimmy Neutron where he creates a nuclear-powered snot monster by accident. Brilliant!

Dirty Skunk

10-23-2008, 04:30 PM

So, no "Pubic Hare", then...

Cheers for that, your comment really made my day. :) I think the directors did every variation on the hair/hare pun other than that...

Brandon Panther

10-23-2008, 07:33 PM

I'm going to agree with the majority here and say put them back on T.V.
I don't understand why WB or whatever company is in controle of looney tunes won't allow them to show it. Is it for better DVD sales or what?
WB has been trying to get other network interested in running Looney Tunes since at least February. My guess is WB is just too freaking lazy to run them themselves.

zavkram

10-23-2008, 07:42 PM

I also don't think that any new theatrical shorts should be made...I've personally never liked any of the new shorts that have come out (with the exception of perhaps Daffy Duck for President). I don't think it's possible to place the classic characters in contemporary situations; for me it is somewhat unnerving to see Bugs talking on a cell phone or wearing a hip-hop outfit (as I've seen him doing on some T-shirts).

I would rather just see the classic cartoons of the 1930's through the end of the 1950's brought back to broadcast television and cable, complete and uncut.

I also don't think any features should be made for the reasons that have already been stated here. I agree that putting the characters ito a format longer than 8 minutes just doesn't work.

larriva9/11

10-23-2008, 08:04 PM

How about a CGI remake of Daffy Duck & Porky Pig Meet The Groovie Goolies?

Philo & Gunge

10-23-2008, 08:06 PM

My honest opinion...

First and foremost, the original Looney Tunes shorts NEED to be put back on TV. Period. And not on a niche channel like Boomerang or Nicktoons, a channel that actually has a steady amount of viewers daily and it's important that the cartoons fit in the the other programming and can be shown as uncut as possible (i.e. a network like The N can easily be thrown off the table, even though it's a way to get them to appeal to teen audiences again).

As for new shorts, yes. New shorts can be made and be good. The reason I think so many of the modern shorts failed was not because of their quality but rather the fact that WB never really gave them a chance to be up to standards with the classics. And it didn't help that the shorts that actually did get theatrical releases were shown with movies they knew would bomb otherwise (looking at WB's releases over the years, Chariots of Fur could have been easily released with Maverick or Interview with the Vampire and Carrotblanca with Batman Forever). What I'm saying is that the shorts shouldn't be the sole reason to woo people into seeing the movie. Plently of people went to see The Dark Knight over the summer, surely a new and well-done short with Bugs before it would have made people notice the Looney Tunes characters in a more positive light. My point is that if new shorts are made, they should be treated as part of the movie and not as an extra ticket boost.

And while we're at it, re-issuing the classics would also be a must. Disney got away with it long into the 90's with both shorts and features (kind of an OT question, but did the new early 90's Disney films like The Lion King and Aladdin even have older Disney shorts before them?), surely releasing the restored shorts from the GC sets in theaters would be anything but a problem. And again, don't just stick the re-issued shorts in front of kiddie films. To put this into perspective, when I saw Looney Tunes: Back in Action in theaters opening weekend it was an almost full house with mostly college-aged kids and adults (most of them with their kids, but a lot on their own). Surprising, I know... but If there's an audience for that movie, there's an audience more than willing to see the classics up on the big screen before blockbuster films.

As for a new movie, I'm more hesitant about. I'm all for it, don't get me wrong, but after WB made a mess with BIA, I'd hate to see what the honcos there now could muster up. I'd write more about this but I'll save it for a later time.

Brandon Panther

10-23-2008, 08:57 PM

Has there been an update about that alledged Marvin Martian Christmas movie that AOL was talking about months ago, or is that a no-go?

nickramer

10-23-2008, 09:09 PM

I hope that film is thankfully shelved. Not the type of comeback I like to see.

A. Flea

10-23-2008, 11:46 PM

IMO, Looney Tunes will not be coming back on to TV in a long time.You guys have to understand that TV studios don't care about old things that they can't make money on than new things, that are easier to make money on.

The people showing the cartoons are a real pain too, because they don't want to restore anything, because it would waste them too much money. Not as many people watch Looney Tunes now, beacuse there are more shows to watch, and as the viewere rate decreases, so does the company's interest in that show.

You guys may not really care about censorship as much as I do, but it just isn't fair. If you look at a show nowadays, most, if not all the swearing be either cut off or cut down (unless it's on showcase). The one thing that remains intact however, is violence. So it's okay to have a cop show where some one gets shot in the head, but not okay to HAVE BUGS BUNY POKE SOMEONE IN THE DAMN EYE!

The reason people censor stuff, is because they want to please everyone and offend no one. This does not make sense for 2 reasons. 1. Why are shows like South Park or Family guy still running? Because most of the people watching those shows enjoy the offensive nature of it. 2. They can't erase history. They try and try and try, but they just can't. People know racial descrimination is bad, but that doesn't mean that by censoring it, it never happened. All they have to do is put of one of those Golden Collection time cards, and that's it.

IMO, TV watchers are divided in to 2 groups. Those who know waht reality is and respect people, and those who don't. So beacuse 5 percent of the population can't figure out wether or not something isn't real, we have to suffer.

ANYWAY, I'd like to close with a little Dr. Suess. "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, thing aren't going to change, their not"

Fibber Fox

10-23-2008, 11:58 PM

So, no "Pubic Hare", then...

I can just hear the inane DVD commentary now (no names mentioned).

Oh, wait. I can't. I shut it off. Ah! As Elmer would say, "West and Wewaxation!"

F. Fox.

zavkram

10-24-2008, 10:28 AM

How about a CGI remake of Daffy Duck & Porky Pig Meet The Groovie Goolies?

Ugh, please tell me you're joking! :D

zavkram

10-24-2008, 10:38 AM

I can just hear the inane DVD commentary now (no names mentioned).

Oh, wait. I can't. I shut it off. Ah! As Elmer would say, "West and Wewaxation!"

F. Fox.

Didja ever notice that there are a few classic Bugs Bunny cartoons with very "punny" titles (like Hare-Do, for example) which have absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the cartoon at all; but seem to be there simply for the sake of the pun? Others, however, like Hare-Trigger and A Lad In His Lamp are more accurate in conveying what the cartoon that follows is about...

Then again, I just remembered that there are also a few feature film titles (like the Marx Bros. Duck Soup and The Coconuts) that fall into this category.

Mac

10-24-2008, 02:59 PM

I agree with just about everything Philo and Gunge said. I do think it would be great if WB showed a classic short (rather than a new one - although I agree good ones could be made) in front of some of their major blockbuster movies. There are a lot of genuine crowd pleasers to choose from. I can see why Warner Bros. don't do this. Looney Tunes are now considered to be aimed at a very different audience to something like 'The Dark Knight' and audiences would be very surprised to find a cartoon playing before it, even leading to some possible confusion ("are we in the right movie?"). However, this surprise could be a good thing – it would certainly get people talking about these characters again and make a lot of people remember how much they like them. I don't think it'd ever happen, but I think it'd be a very worthwhile experiment to rerelease a classic short with every WB release in cinemas for a year and see how people react. I think it could be very profitable to reintroduce these characters in a non-patronising way.

Brandon Panther

10-24-2008, 03:24 PM

Looney Tunes are now considered to be aimed at a very different audience to something like 'The Dark Knight' and audiences would be very surprised to find a cartoon playing before it, even leading to some possible confusion ("are we in the right movie?").
The audience wouldn't be confused if WB ran promos for it along with The Dark Knight, or whatever movie they're running it with.

That kinda bugged me when Disney didn't promote the new Goofy short along with national Treasure: Book of Secrets.

Mac

10-24-2008, 03:35 PM

That's true, Brandon. I'd imagine they'd wouldn't want to advertise the short with every promo (confusing the message by advertising two things of a very different tone at once), but there could be some in-cinema promotion. Also if the cartoon was attached to the feature, there could be a preceding card explaining "The Dark Knight" (or whatever) will follow.

larriva9/11

10-24-2008, 10:33 PM

Ugh, please tell me you're joking! :D

Though in a funny way, it might come across as less galling than most of these contemporized MM/LT ideas--perhaps because it'd mark some kind of high-concept step up from the original desecration...

Matthew Hunter

10-24-2008, 11:24 PM

I think new cartoons CAN be made, but only if they're done correctly from start to finish. There are ways to do them right, and I'll copy what Jon and I came up with on Misce-Looney-Ous:

RULE #1 --- Don't go cameo crazy. Keep the cartoons limited to 2 or 3 characters, you dont need EVERYBODY in EVERY cartoon

Rule # 2: ---There shouldn't be a mallet and/or anvil in every cartoon

Rule # 3---There are more Looney Tunes characters besides Tweety and Daffy Duck. USE them.

Rule #4 ---Don't try so hard to make the characters "hip" or "edgy" or spew out a bunch of lame pop-culture references that will be outdated in a week

# 5--Come up with new ideas not based on what Chuck Jones and Mike Maltese did 60 years ago.

#6 --- Keep the character designs of the original cartoons, dont make them look like animated 1990s clip art

#7--John Kricfalusi is not God...do not copy him

# 8---Elmer Fudd is an idiot, but he's not a worthless character

#9--- Sylvester can do more than just chase somebody

#10 --- Pay attention to TIMING, not every cartoon needs to feel like watching a Looney Tune in fast forward (ie Box office Bunny, Pullet Surprise)

# 11-- don't make Bugs Bunny gay.

# 12-- Daffy Duck doesn't have to be mean ALL the time

#13 -- Maybe experiment with different character combinations that have never been explored before like in the comics (ie - Foghorn and Taz; Pete and Sam; Beaky and the Snowman, etc)

# 14: Warner Bros. has the rights to lots of contemporary music. If you wanna be contemporary, use music! (like Carl Stalling did)

# 15: Tweety is a boy.

#16 - DON'T rely on Modern day reality TV/movie parodies as a crutch for plots (like the earliest webtoons)

# 17: Don't use 3-D "shading" (ala "space Jam" and "Back in Action") to excess, if at all. CGI, too, should be avoided at all costs.

# 18:---Don't just script some dialogue and send it to Korea. WRITE and DRAW the bastard, then give someone with talent in your own country a JOB

#19:--You can make fun of current celebrities, but don't do it every time, and when you do, make sure it's someone people will remember 10, 20, or 50 years from now

#20 --- Another important one - characters don't need to TALK nonstop, let them DO something too

# 21When casting someone as the voice of Yosemite Sam, try to keep in mind that Sam DOESNT NEED TO YELL ALL THE TIME.

That said, I think priority number one is getting the classics back on TV. New cartoons, movies and merchandise don't mean jack if nobody knows the cartoons and characters. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with family, friends and co-workers who vididly remember the classic Looney Tunes and miss them more than just about anything else that's been gone from television lately. They're really so much more than "just cartoons"...they are part of American culture. I think warner Bros. needs to get more aggressive in finding a home for them on TV, and when they do, use the remastered versions and really make a big deal about it. "Old" does not equal "bad"...growing up in the late 80's/early 90's the old Warner cartoons were REVERED. Everybody had favorite new stuff, there were always cheesy superhero cartoons and cheap-laughs Saturday morning schtick, but Bugs Bunny and co. were always there. They were sort of the gold-standard, the backbone of cartoons. It didn't make us like the new stuff any less, it just made us aware that there was a DIFFERENCE, and taught us the difference between cheap entertainment and timeless art. Both were allowed to co-exist, and both had their place.

I'd hate to be a ten-year-old kid now and have to live in a world with, literally, hundreds of channels, but all chock-full of worthless crap.

Love or hate "Tiny Toons", if you've never seen it, check out the episode entitled "Fields of Honey", with the young heroes discovering Bosko and Honey and lamenting their obscurity...the only thing that brings them back is public exhibition of the cartoons, because old cartoon characters don't die, the lack of laughter just makes them fade into obscurity (See: Woody Woodpecker.) I really hope Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote don't become as obscure as all the others, but they're dangerously close to the edge. Thank God for DVD!
-Matthew

Brandon Panther

10-24-2008, 11:49 PM

Matthew, you forgot the rule I suggested on your blog:

No matter how big of a tantrum Billy West throws, DO NOT let him voice Bugs, Tweety, or Porky!

That's essentially how West was allowed to voice Porky and Tweety in the Larry Doyle shorts.

nickramer

10-24-2008, 11:56 PM

Good list, Matthew, but what about doing one-shots? What's the rule on those?

Matt the Y

10-25-2008, 12:03 AM

No matter how big of a tantrum Billy West throws, DO NOT let him voice Bugs, Tweety, or Porky!

Or Elmer for that matter. Sorry, guys, I know West's Elmer voice seems to be popular but I've never liked it. Can't stand it, in fact. It makes my ears hurt.

J Lee

10-25-2008, 03:37 AM

Or Elmer for that matter. Sorry, guys, I know West's Elmer voice seems to be popular but I've never liked it. Can't stand it, in fact. It makes my ears hurt.

Elmer's probably the best WB voice West does, and it is better than Dave Barry's, Hal Smith's or Mel Blanc's work after Arthur Q. Bryant died.

On the other hand, I feel the way you do about West's Elmer when I hear him voice Bugs -- in fact to me, when I hear that lame attempt, it's not even Bugs Bunny, it's Stimpy Bunny, because that's what it sounds like, a John K. character trying to do a Warners imitation (hey, why not just go all the way and have Yosemite Sam sound like Ren?)

Vdubdavid

10-25-2008, 02:35 PM

Love or hate "Tiny Toons", if you've never seen it, check out the episode entitled "Fields of Honey", with the young heroes discovering Bosko and Honey and lamenting their obscurity...the only thing that brings them back is public exhibition of the cartoons, because old cartoon characters don't die, the lack of laughter just makes them fade into obscurity (See: Woody Woodpecker.) I really hope Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote don't become as obscure as all the others, but they're dangerously close to the edge. Thank God for DVD!
-Matthew

You said it, Matthew. I loved that episode. I won't speak for making new cartoons, but exhibition in honest-to-goodness movie theaters, using the restored versions, is what I'd like to see. With so many modern theaters changing to digital projection, it's getting easier to do.

You hear that, studios and multiplexes? You want me to go somewhere other than my base theater? Then get the classics on the screen, and I'll come ready and willing to spend my pay on them!

Daws Butler Jr.

10-25-2008, 07:27 PM

Jeffitarian

10-25-2008, 09:04 PM

If someone wants to do something noteworthy, make a completely new cartoon.

Looney Tunes were done – to perfection – decades ago, over a 30-yr period, under unique conditions, with impossibly unique people... those circumstances just don't exist anymore.

I agree. We seem to be looking at some sort of "Catch 22" situation here. New LT shorts would bring back interest in the characters but they will invariably be heavily tinged by whatever crap is currently being passed off as entertainment by the various media conglomerates that are running things nowadays.

Yeah, I liked watching Tiny Toons when I was in high school, but to someone whose only diet was 1930s-1950s/60s era Looney Tunes, they would probably view that series as rubbish, filled with early 90s era pop culture references, etc.

Classic cartoons were a product of their time and cannot be successfully transplanted to other eras. Studio execs are interested in "updating" things, not in faithfully recreating stuff from 60 or 70 years ago, assuming that's even possible with a "modern era" mindset.

This is also the reason why I don't see studios regularly airing shorts in front of their full length features. That practice basically died in the early 1970s and for the most part, (I know there have been some exceptions), I don't think it's coming back.

Bradskey

10-25-2008, 09:33 PM

Yeah, I liked watching Tiny Toons when I was in high school, but to someone whose only diet was 1930s-1950s/60s era Looney Tunes, they would probably view that series as rubbish, filled with early 90s era pop culture references, etc.

I actually think that was one of the more successful and creative ways of reviving classic Looney Toons. It paid reverant homage to classic WB characters, but didn't try to shoe-horn them into modern culture and situations, instead using the brilliant vehicle of younger proteges, with recognizable similarities to and differences from their mentors. You're right -- there was a lot of contemporary pop-culture references, but that was the case in virtually all of the classic 30s-50s material. The quality of the artwork, animation (Kennedy notwithstanding), the music, proper use of slapstick, witty dialogue, and the fair number of times something was actually funny, plus an overall LACK of gross-out humor, made it a surprisingly good effort in my book. It had weak spots/episodes, but Baby Looney Tunes it was NOT (thankfully).

Brandon Panther

10-26-2008, 12:58 PM

I'm sorry to be the lone voice in the woods, but I like Billy West's Bugs Bunny. The main problem is the people directing him don't know what the character is supposed to sound like, so you end up with what you guys have heard. I once had to loop a piece from "Hare Conditioned" for an internal WB presentation and was keeping some of the original Mel dialogue, so it was important for Billy to match that 1945 Bugs. He studied it and did it perfectly, with direction from me.

He can do the voice. I know he can. It's the people in the recording booth that are lame.
I guess my issue with West is if he can do the voice right, why does he need that much voice direction to get there? If he's such a great voice actor, why can't he do it on his own?

There will never be another Mel Blanc....

J Lee

10-26-2008, 01:22 PM

I'm sorry to be the lone voice in the woods, but I like Billy West's Bugs Bunny. The main problem is the people directing him don't know what the character is supposed to sound like, so you end up with what you guys have heard. I once had to loop a piece from "Hare Conditioned" for an internal WB presentation and was keeping some of the original Mel dialogue, so it was important for Billy to match that 1945 Bugs. He studied it and did it perfectly, with direction from me.

He can do the voice. I know he can. It's the people in the recording booth that are lame.

I'll take your word for it. I'm just going by what has been released, including the audio Jon posted several years ago of Billy as Bugs and Daffy trying to recreate the opening "This Is It!" number from The Bugs Bunny Show. It really is the musical version of "Porky Pig and Daffy Duck Meet the Groovie Ghoulies". :eek:

Daws Butler Jr.

10-26-2008, 04:20 PM

I guess my issue with West is if he can do the voice right, why does he need that much voice direction to get there? If he's such a great voice actor, why can't he do it on his own?

There will never be another Mel Blanc....

Ah, but guess what... Mel often had to be told that he was doing the wrong character voice, particularly in his later years. Like, on the "new" Jetsons that were done in the 80's, he's doing Yosemite Sam instead of Mr. Spacely. I blame the director for that. He should have known the difference.

Also, Mel used to record all of one character for a cartoon, then go back and record the next and the next and so forth. He couldn't switch back and forth the way Daws Butler could. Daws could change characters without even taking a breath. More like the way a ventriloquist has to work.

And I think, to actually answer your question about Billy, the reason he can't do it on his own is that you don't hear your voice the same way others hear it. It takes an objective "ear" to be able to get it just right. I know that from experience, too, as I've done some voice doubling myself.

Dave Mackey

10-26-2008, 04:44 PM

Ah, but guess what... Mel often had to be told that he was doing the wrong character voice, particularly in his later years. Like, on the "new" Jetsons that were done in the 80's, he's doing Yosemite Sam instead of Mr. Spacely. I blame the director for that. He should have known the difference.

There were a number of directors on those 80's Jetsons, including Art Davis, who was one of Friz Freleng's animators after his director's unit was shut down. You would think that he'd know the difference!

But you also have to factor in the fact that Mel wasn't anything near what he was in his younger days in those last few years of his career. His Daffy and Sylvester, voice speeding aside, sounded remarkably similar.

Fibber Fox

10-26-2008, 08:03 PM

I guess my issue with West is if he can do the voice right, why does he need that much voice direction to get there? If he's such a great voice actor, why can't he do it on his own?

Brandon, have you ever done voice work? I did radio commercials for a number of years, voicing and producing. Direction can help. Well, good direction. One time, a guy who I was voicing spots for was trying to give some advice about my inflections .. but he was a monotone. I had no idea what he wanted.

As to what DB is saying, perhaps it's a case of someone not wanting to tell a highly-paid and respected voice artist who originated the characters how to do his job.

F. Fox

Bugsy-Kun

10-26-2008, 08:28 PM

Sorry if i'm a bit late.
My honnest opinion about the Looney Tunes' future is bring back the classic cartoons in a cable channel, the most and uncut possible and by a historic content and not a nostalgic reason like in Teletoon Retro. (I already requested The Popeye Show for this channel) And about new cartoons, they should hired peoples who have knowledges about the Looney Tunes universe (Ex: Eric goldberg, Mark Kausler, Earl Kress) and not just fans and presented in theaters with a adult content movie and not a kids' movie like in the 90's and about the designs, bring back the model from the original cartoons a la Tom & Jerry Tales and not the Clip Art from the consummer products.

Daws Butler Jr.

10-26-2008, 09:53 PM

There were a number of directors on those 80's Jetsons, including Art Davis, who was one of Friz Freleng's animators after his director's unit was shut down. You would think that he'd know the difference!

Unfortunately, at this point in Hanna-Barbera land, the animation directors weren't directing (or even attending) the voice recording sessions. Gordon Hunt was the sole voice director for every show they were doing at the time.

Brandon Panther

10-26-2008, 10:06 PM

Brandon, have you ever done voice work? I did radio commercials for a number of years, voicing and producing. Direction can help. Well, good direction. One time, a guy who I was voicing spots for was trying to give some advice about my inflections .. but he was a monotone. I had no idea what he wanted.

I've never done professional voice acting. As a kid I wanted to be a voice actor, but the dream kinda died off as I grew older. I eventually came to hate the sound of my voice, and I really couldn't change the way I sounded. I also became more interested in writing, rather than acting.

Leviathan

10-27-2008, 11:57 AM

I'll take your word for it. I'm just going by what has been released, including the audio Jon posted several years ago of Billy as Bugs and Daffy trying to recreate the opening "This Is It!" number from The Bugs Bunny Show. It really is the musical version of "Porky Pig and Daffy Duck Meet the Groovie Ghoulies". :eek:

Is that still online anywhere? Does anyone still have this?

Jon Cooke

10-27-2008, 12:00 PM

Is that still online anywhere? Does anyone still have this?

Believe it or not, I still had this ancient RealAudio clip among my files after all these years... remember YOU asked for it :eek: :shame: :

http://www.goldenagecartoons.com/thisisitsa.ra

It's Billy West and Joe Alaskey from the Looney Tunes Sing Along VHS from the late 90s.

John Pannozzi

10-28-2008, 07:10 PM

Marty26

10-28-2008, 07:52 PM

Interestingly, the companies with the post-48 package typically have the 1930-1943 Looney Tunes package. While those with the pre-48 package don't. Why is this so?

J Lee

10-28-2008, 10:27 PM

Interestingly, the companies with the post-48 package typically have the 1930-1943 Looney Tunes package. While those with the pre-48 package don't. Why is this so?

To summarize as briefly as possible, Warner Bros. sold off most of its B&W cartoons, except for the Harman-Ising Merrie Melodies, to Sunset Productions in 1954, and two years later sold the remaining pre-48 color and H-I cartoons to Elliott Hyman's Associated Artists Production, along with the rest of the pre-48 WB film archives. Hyman in turn sold those films (and the Paramount Popeyes) two years later for a big chunk of change to United Artists, but remained in the second-line movie business in the early 1960s with a company called Seven Arts Productions. Seven Arts in 1966 acquired those B&W cartoons Warners sold off 12 years earlier, and given the rise of color TV, sent most of the ones featuring Poky Pig off to Korea to be colorized. But before they ever got back to the U.S., Hyman worked out a deal with Jack Warner to merge their two companies into Warner Bros.-Seven Arts productions, which then packaged the colorized Looney Tunes with the post-48 color cartoon package that was syndicated around the country. And that's how they ended up together again.

larriva9/11

10-28-2008, 10:51 PM

Seven Arts in 1966 acquired those B&W cartoons Warners sold off 12 years earlier, and given the rise of color TV, sent most of the ones featuring Poky Pig off to Korea to be colorized. But before they ever got back to the U.S., Hyman worked out a deal with Jack Warner to merge their two companies into Warner Bros.-Seven Arts productions, which then packaged the colorized Looney Tunes with the post-48 color cartoon package that was syndicated around the country. And that's how they ended up together again.

Which also explains why those early Korean recoloreds had the W7 pinwheel opening and closing--the first exposure to said opening by many a Generation Xer...

speedy fast

10-28-2008, 11:27 PM

Let's not forget that with WB owning the post-'48 cartoons, and with Turner (which is also owned by Time-Warner and yet somehow operates independent from WB) owning the pre-'48 films, it seems there's a bit of a rights struggle which is keeping the Looney Tunes off TV in the USA right. Eric B at Toon Zone said it would make sense to completly dissolve Turner into Warner Bros. to settle this issue, and I agree.

I wish I knew what that deal was. But at least it doesn't (to my nowledge) prevent pre- and post-1948 cartoons from appearing together on DVD.

But several months ago, I was wondering if Warner Bros. would still have the rights to the pre-1948 cartoons if Warner and Turner had a company "divorce".

frizfrelengfan

10-29-2008, 10:19 AM

To summarize as briefly as possible, Warner Bros. sold off most of its B&W cartoons, except for the Harman-Ising Merrie Melodies, to Sunset Productions in 1954, and two years later sold the remaining pre-48 color and H-I cartoons to Elliott Hyman's Associated Artists Production, along with the rest of the pre-48 WB film archives. Hyman in turn sold those films (and the Paramount Popeyes) two years later for a big chunk of change to United Artists, but remained in the second-line movie business in the early 1960s with a company called Seven Arts Productions. Seven Arts in 1966 acquired those B&W cartoons Warners sold off 12 years earlier, and given the rise of color TV, sent most of the ones featuring Poky Pig off to Korea to be colorized. But before they ever got back to the U.S., Hyman worked out a deal with Jack Warner to merge their two companies into Warner Bros.-Seven Arts productions, which then packaged the colorized Looney Tunes with the post-48 color cartoon package that was syndicated around the country. And that's how they ended up together again.To add to the history: MGM merged with United Artists, to become MGM/UA. Ted Turner bought the part of the MGM/UA film library that contained the a.a.p. cartoons (but not the DFE Pink Panthers, which remained with MGM, as they do today). So the pre-'48's except for the Sunset Productions cartoons, are with the Turner side of Time Warner.