New Looney Tunes TV series in the works?

[wiley207]

Found this on Jim Smith's blog:

http://jimsmithcartoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/wacky-melodies.html

Looks like Warner Bros. Animation is gonna try and do a new Looney Tunes TV series! With Sander Schwartz out of the picture, let's hope nothing goes wrong (unless you consider the fact that Jim Smith was a former Ren and Stimpy staff member)...

The question is... with Kids WB gone and Cartoon Network being a bunch of Looney Tunes-haters, what channel would air these?

Hopefully it'll be handled by most of the people that did "Tom & Jerry Tales," unlike the 2003-2004 shorts where it was handled mainly by the animation staff responsible for "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" and "Justice League Unlimited."

[cbrubaker]

If there is a new LT project in the works, I hope they'll follow Jeff's advice (http://awesomebydefault.com/2009/04/21/reinventing-the-looney-tunes/).

[Fibber Fox]

The question is... with Kids WB gone and Cartoon Network being a bunch of Looney Tunes-haters, what channel would air these?

The question is .. will it be a bunch of fart jokes and smug pop culture references?

I honestly don't know what else they can do with characters that started running out of gas in the late '50s.

F. Fox
http://yowpyowp.blogspot.com

[Matthew Hunter]

I wish people would develop their own drawing styles and stop copying John Kricfalusi.

[Thad]

Jim Smith is not a "John Kricfalusi imitator." He had his own style long before John's became what was 'in'. He is also a better artist all around than John (especially painter).

[wiley207]

I also hope they don't send the animation to DongWoo Animation, Lotto Animation, Sunburst Animation or Yearim Productions like most WB cartoons made since 2002 have been. Maybe they'll do it in-house, but then again, half of the 2003-2004 disasters were animated in-house (a few others were sent to Rough Draft Studios instead) and the animation still didn't look so great. Then again, Toon City Animation did some decent work on "Bah, Humduck" and on some of the made-for-video Disney movies they animated, and maybe Wang Film Productions/Cuckoo's Nest would be my second choice; sure, they aren't so great with "full" animation but they can do decent stuff when it comes to TV animation.

[Studio Toledo]

I also hope they don't send the animation to DongWoo Animation, Lotto Animation, Sunburst Animation or Yearim Productions like most WB cartoons made since 2002 have been. Maybe they'll do it in-house, but then again, half of the 2003-2004 disasters were animated in-house (a few others were sent to Rough Draft Studios instead) and the animation still didn't look so great. Then again, Toon City Animation did some decent work on "Bah, Humduck" and on some of the made-for-video Disney movies they animated, and maybe Wang Film Productions/Cuckoo's Nest would be my second choice; sure, they aren't so great with "full" animation but they can do decent stuff when it comes to TV animation.
There just isn't pleasing everyone! I'm more an advocate for keeping the key animation in-house personally but that's just me. As long as they can do decent layouts than simply send the storyboards over, I'm fine with it.

[Mr. Semaj]

The only thing I haven't really liked about modern Looney Tunes revivals are the musical scores.

Let's hope they can find something different this time.

[Brandon Panther]

Earl Kress, Greg Ford, Terry Lennon, Darrel Van Citters, Eric Goldberg, Mark Kausler, and Spike Brandt should be the people making these.

The voice casting should be this (unless the actors themselves decide otherwise):

Joe Alaskey- Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester, Foghorn Leghorn, Yosimete Sam, Marvin the Martian, Pepe Le Pew

Bob Bergen- Tweety, Porky Pig, Speedy Gonzales, Marvin the Martian

Maurice LaMarche- Yosemite Sam (you know... in case Alaskey doesn't want to)

Jeff Bennett- Foghorn Leghorn

Billy West- Elmer Fudd (sorry, Man but, that's how I feel)

Jeff Bergman- Yosemite Sam (because LaMarche might wuss out).

[Thad]

How about, don't make them at all?

[oceansoul]

Well, I hope this turns out to be good.

But please, don't use flash.
And don't use cameos. We don't need any more picture when Bugs meets Elmer, Daffy and Sam at the same time.
We don't need any more Rabbit Fire and A Wild Hare incarnations.

And well, learn from the failure Larry Doyle shorts. It's easy to see where they have been failed.

I agree with Brandon Panther, the guys he mentioned should be in charge. And I'm interested what a Craig McCracken, Genndy Tartakowski or John R. Dilworth could do with the looneys as well.

[nickramer]

I have the feeling that the drawing is for the new "Bugs Bunny Show" project that John K. mentioned several months ago, which will just have new wraparounds and just showcase the classic shorts.

[kaseykockroach]

How about, don't make them at all?
Because... THAT would be the smart thing to do! ;)

[Glowworm]

Earl Kress, Greg Ford, Terry Lennon, Darrel Van Citters, Eric Goldberg, Mark Kausler, and Spike Brandt should be the people making these.

The voice casting should be this (unless the actors themselves decide otherwise):

Joe Alaskey- Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester, Foghorn Leghorn, Yosimete Sam, Marvin the Martian, Pepe Le Pew

Bob Bergen- Tweety, Porky Pig, Speedy Gonzales, Marvin the Martian

Maurice LaMarche- Yosemite Sam (you know... in case Alaskey doesn't want to)

Jeff Bennett- Foghorn Leghorn

Billy West- Elmer Fudd (sorry, Man but, that's how I feel)

Jeff Bergman- Yosemite Sam (because LaMarche might wuss out).
I agree with you all the way on that. Greg Ford,Spike Brandt and Earl Kress especially have proven that they can write for Looney Tunes and make some very good shorts.

The huge no-no for me in Looney Tunes is scatological humor-you don't need toilet humor to be funny-although the one gag in "Blooper Bunny" where Daffy is delayed because he's using the bathroom is hillarious-mainly because the toilet flush is heard OFFSCREEN.

I will definately try to watch this if it comes into fruition

[LooneyFan]

There just isn't pleasing everyone! I'm more an advocate for keeping the key animation in-house personally but that's just me. As long as they can do decent layouts than simply send the storyboards over, I'm fine with it.


I'll be fine if they don't make the Looney Tunes into superheros like that other show....
I don't want to make a list of what WB should do to make me happy. If they follow what happened about 69 years ago (or pretty close to it) then that's all I want.

[cpdavison]

How about, don't make them at all?

From your lips to God's ear, Bubby!

Craig D.

[Brandon Panther]

The huge no-no for me in Looney Tunes is scatological humor-you don't need toilet humor to be funny-although the one gag in "Blooper Bunny" where Daffy is delayed because he's using the bathroom is hillarious-mainly because the toilet flush is heard OFFSCREEN.

Random fact: According to Greg Ford's commentary on Blooper Bunny, the toilet flush was added sometime when the cartoon was actually completed. In the original script/storyboard, there really was no good reason for why Daffy was late in making it to the stage. I guess they were parodying prima donnas who "aren't ready yet" and won't come out to perform until they are. The toilet flush was purely an afterthought.

Back on topic, anyone still have a copy of that list Jon Cooke made of what not to do with modern Looney Tunes projects.

[wiley207]

Yes I do, and I qoute...

- Don't go crazy with the cameo appearances; two or three characters per cartoon is enough. A Looney Tunes cartoon does not need to contain appearances from every Looney Tunes character ever made.
- Not every cartoon needs a mallet or an anvil.
- There are more characters besides Tweety and Daffy Duck whom you can center a story around.
- Don't try to make the characters "hip" or "edgy", and don't have them spout pop culture references that'll be dated in a week.
- Come up with new ideas; don't just recycle everything Chuck Jones and Mike Maltese ever did.
- Base the characters' designs on the classic cartoons, not their 1990s clip art.
- John Kricfalusi is not God. Do not copy him.
- Elmer Fudd is an idiot, but he's not worthless as a character.
- Sylvester can do more than just chase Tweety.
- Pay attention to timing. Not every Looney Tunes cartoon needs to rocket along like it's on fast-forward or something.
- Just because he dresses in drag, don't make Bugs Bunny gay.
- Daffy Duck isn't supposed to be a jerk all the time.
- Take a cue from the DC Looney Tunes comic book and try some new character team-ups, like Foghorn Leghorn and the Tasmanian Devil, or Yosemite Sam and Pete Puma. Something might just work.
- Warner Bros. has the rights to a lot of songs, so if you want to be contemporary, use Carl Stalling-esque samples in the score.
- Tweety is not a girl.
- Don't use reality TV or movie parodies as a crutch for a plot, i.e. the early looneytunes.com webtoons.
- Don't use 3-D shading. Full-blown CGI should also be avoided.
- Write and draw the thing in-house and create some employment for the talented folks who live in this country. Don't just write a script and ship it off to Korea.
- Feel free to lampoon current celebrities, but don't overdo it, and try to pick figures whom the public will still recognize 10 to 50 years from now.
- Characters don't need to talk non-stop; they can do things, too.
- And when casting a voice for Yosemite Sam, remember that he doesn't yell all the time.

[Gasmask Ted]

I'd like to hear Clancy Brown as Yosemite Sam and/or Elmer, and maybe Taz... OK, I'd like to hear him as Tweety, too, just to mess with expectations.

[Mr. Semaj]

I highlighted the most important aspects.

- Don't go crazy with the cameo appearances; two or three characters per cartoon is enough. A Looney Tunes cartoon does not need to contain appearances from every Looney Tunes character ever made.
- Not every cartoon needs a mallet or an anvil.
- There are more characters besides Tweety and Daffy Duck whom you can center a story around.
- Don't try to make the characters "hip" or "edgy", and don't have them spout pop culture references that'll be dated in a week.
- Come up with new ideas; don't just recycle everything Chuck Jones and Mike Maltese ever did.
- Base the characters' designs on the classic cartoons, not their 1990s clip art.
- John Kricfalusi is not God. Do not copy him.
- Elmer Fudd is an idiot, but he's not worthless as a character.
- Sylvester can do more than just chase Tweety.
- Pay attention to timing. Not every Looney Tunes cartoon needs to rocket along like it's on fast-forward or something.
- Just because he dresses in drag, don't make Bugs Bunny gay.
- Daffy Duck isn't supposed to be a jerk all the time.
- Take a cue from the DC Looney Tunes comic book and try some new character team-ups, like Foghorn Leghorn and the Tasmanian Devil, or Yosemite Sam and Pete Puma. Something might just work.
- Warner Bros. has the rights to a lot of songs, so if you want to be contemporary, use Carl Stalling-esque samples in the score.
- Tweety is not a girl.
- Don't use reality TV or movie parodies as a crutch for a plot, i.e. the early looneytunes.com webtoons.
- Don't use 3-D shading. Full-blown CGI should also be avoided.
- Write and draw the thing in-house and create some employment for the talented folks who live in this country. Don't just write a script and ship it off to Korea.
- Feel free to lampoon current celebrities, but don't overdo it, and try to pick figures whom the public will still recognize 10 to 50 years from now.
- Characters don't need to talk non-stop; they can do things, too.
- And when casting a voice for Yosemite Sam, remember that he doesn't yell all the time.

[PF9]

Found this on Jim Smith's blog:

http://jimsmithcartoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/wacky-melodies.html

Looks like Warner Bros. Animation is gonna try and do a new Looney Tunes TV series! With Sander Schwartz out of the picture, let's hope nothing goes wrong (unless you consider the fact that Jim Smith was a former Ren and Stimpy staff member)...

The question is... with Kids WB gone and Cartoon Network being a bunch of Looney Tunes-haters, what channel would air these?

Hopefully it'll be handled by most of the people that did "Tom & Jerry Tales," unlike the 2003-2004 shorts where it was handled mainly by the animation staff responsible for "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" and "Justice League Unlimited."

Cartoon Network probably would air the show. As part of the show, I'd like to see the new LT cartoons originally intended for theatrical release a few years back, but were shelved because Back in Action failed.

[wiley207]

- Write and draw the thing in-house and create some employment for the talented folks who live in this country. Don't just write a script and ship it off to Korea.

Yeah, that would make the results look more pleasing. But if Termite Terrace still wants the animation shipped to DongWoo Animation, then they could at least do the storyboards and layouts and maybe even the digital ink/paint process in-house, and let the Korean animators follow the storyboards and layouts. Or maybe if they had Wang Film Productions or Toon City Animation do it, they could get better results (it's a shame no American cartoon studio uses Tokyo Movie Shinsha anymore these days).

[Studio Toledo]

I'll be fine if they don't make the Looney Tunes into superheros like that other show....
I don't want to make a list of what WB should do to make me happy. If they follow what happened about 69 years ago (or pretty close to it) then that's all I want.
Me too. I personally kinda like to see a "Merrie Melody" for once if someone was up to it. For some years now I kinda had it in mind I like to see one done like the 30's MM's set to a song. The cartoon would involve choir boys changing the hymns in a church to the Prince tune "Let's Go Crazy", just to have the devil coming up from the floor boards in near the end, and an angry reverend punishing the kids!

[Studio Toledo]

Yeah, that would make the results look more pleasing. But if Termite Terrace still wants the animation shipped to DongWoo Animation, then they could at least do the storyboards and layouts and maybe even the digital ink/paint process in-house, and let the Korean animators follow the storyboards and layouts. Or maybe if they had Wang Film Productions or Toon City Animation do it, they could get better results (it's a shame no American cartoon studio uses Tokyo Movie Shinsha anymore these days).
Still, most of those rules should be fully abide to if one was to do it right.

[Bartman]

How about, don't make them at all?


HEAR HEAR!!

Enough is enough!!

Let the classics be, would you??

I don't want to see updates or remakes!

Just give me access to the original theatrical shorts in their original form - that's what the public wants to see, not drek like LOONATICS, DUCK DODGERS or BABY LOONEY TUNES!

Just make it stop..................................please??????

[Nelson]

OH GOD, not again....

Here we have WB trying to sell the idea of a new Looney Tunes series and you know that Cartoon Network would air it, but how about bringing the original shorts back to tv?

DUH! WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS:p

[nickramer]

Guys, I think we're jumping into conclusion. This might not actually happpen and how do we know this is going to be a full TV show? I still think this drawing is for a wrap-around segment for a new "Bugs Bunny Show" with the classic shorts.

[SatStorm]

It's nice to see a new generation of animators, voice actors, scenarists, gag men, etc, do some practice and try their luck with this great tradition. Maybe they gonna fail, maybe not. The point is that they gonna try it and so that tradition will carry on. I won't have a problem to see classic characters in 00s -or may I say 10s- situations. I have a problem to see them out of character.

[Bugsy-Kun]

I hope that they don't include lame and dated jokes like in the Doyle's reincarnations. And i hope they got their own style instead to use the clipart model from the mass products.

[Jack G.]

HEAR HEAR!!

Enough is enough!!

Let the classics be, would you??

I don't want to see updates or remakes!Why can't they just play the real thing on television?
The real thing will always be better - the enviroment just doesn't exist to create cartoons like they did in the Golden Age.

Myself, I like the idea of running the classics with new bumpers.
That would be acceptable to me.

[J. B. Warner]

Just give me access to the original theatrical shorts in their original form - that's what the public wants to see, not drek like LOONATICS, DUCK DODGERS or BABY LOONEY TUNES!

For the record, "Duck Dodgers" wasn't anywhere near as terrible as the other two shows. In fact, it was probably the best new Looney Tunes project of the last ten years.

I actually want to see where this goes. I'm not of the school of thought that the characters should never be touched again by people who didn't work with them in the golden age. But that probably has to do with the fact that I also don't subscribe to the "all cartoons made after 1957 suck" mentality that so many GACers seem to share. All we know about this is that it's a new project involving the Looney Tunes, and that alone is enough for people to start bashing it without any further information. It's sad how closed-minded some of us are getting.

[CueBallCat79]

For the record, "Duck Dodgers" wasn't anywhere near as terrible as the other two shows. In fact, it was probably the best new Looney Tunes project of the last ten years.

I actually want to see where this goes. I'm not of the school of thought that the characters should never be touched again by people who didn't work with them in the golden age. But that probably has to do with the fact that I also don't subscribe to the "all cartoons made after 1957 suck" mentality that so many GACers seem to share. All we know about this is that it's a new project involving the Looney Tunes, and that alone is enough for people to start bashing it without any further information. It's sad how closed-minded some of us are getting.

Agreed.

I'm all for it if it's at least as good as Duck Dodgers.

[The "Chase"]

I actually want to see where this goes. I'm not of the school of thought that the characters should never be touched again by people who didn't work with them in the golden age. But that probably has to do with the fact that I also don't subscribe to the "all cartoons made after 1957 suck" mentality that so many GACers seem to share. All we know about this is that it's a new project involving the Looney Tunes, and that alone is enough for people to start bashing it without any further information. It's sad how closed-minded some of us are getting.

Yeah, I know. I'm not REALLY excited about this either, but unlike most of us, if it's actually halfway decent, like the "Ford and Lennon" period, I'll be paying attention and, shocks and horrors, actually watch it regularly if it's not another "Doyle Tunes".

Now to wait on people who can't wait to bash people like us...

[dandu]

I couldn't stand Baby Looney Tunes either ugh. Anyway tell WB if they're making new Bosko cartoons, DANDU STUDIOS is on the job, since I can do inkblot/art deco drawing. :)

[Daws Butler Jr.]

This is a new show and it's being written by a bunch of Groundlings (you know, the improv group that gave us people like Pee Wee Herman, Elvira and Phil Hartman.) I'm not hopeful, but I hope I'm wrong.

[The "Chase"]

This is a new show and it's being written by a bunch of Groundlings (you know, the improv group that gave us people like Pee Wee Herman, Elvira and Phil Hartman.) I'm not hopeful, but I hope I'm wrong.

:confused:

Um, okay.

Should we start panicking/complaining now guys?

[nickramer]

Oh, boy. Here we go again with the complaining.

It like Boober Fraggle once sang: "They say 'Take it away!/ Throw the stuff out!'/ When there is will, there will always some doubt./ It may not be finished, but why mess about?... It's probably yuckey for sure."

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Jim Smith...is also a better artist all around than John (especially painter).
Amen.

[Mike]

:confused:

Um, okay.

Should we start panicking/complaining now guys?

I'm not going to do either. The Groundlings has churned out some pretty top-notch comedy over the years. I'd be intrigued to see how it turns out. One of the keys to having successful new shorts is to let the writers write it and the directors direct it with minimal studio interference. No need to "focus group" things to death.

And yes, I too am a little displeased by the "man, this is gonna SUCK!" mentality. It seems to crop up whenever the words "new" and "Looney Tunes" appear in the same sentence. How about giving something a chance? It might not be any good, but on the other hand, it just might.

Mike

[Tim Lones]

I'm not going to do either. The Groundlings has churned out some pretty top-notch comedy over the years. I'd be intrigued to see how it turns out. One of the keys to having successful new shorts is to let the writers write it and the directors direct it with minimal studio interference. No need to "focus group" things to death.

And yes, I too am a little displeased by the "man, this is gonna SUCK!" mentality. It seems to crop up whenever the words "new" and "Looney Tunes" appear in the same sentence. How about giving something a chance? It might not be any good, but on the other hand, it just might.

Mike
Agreed..I liked Duck Dodgers..It was something in the original Looney Tunes Spirit that actually lasted a couple years.Which isnt easy to do...Baby Looney Tunes at its worst was harmless fluff..I never saw one second of Loonatics and never missed a thing..Just wait till something actually gets on the air before slamming it is all I'm saying..

[Jack G.]

..Just wait till something actually gets on the air before slamming it is all I'm saying..I'm not gonna slam it.

But I'm pretty pessimistic that anything good can be done in todays corporate-managed world of entertainment.

It also takes time to build a studio that can do a creatively vibrant, entertaining work.
Just look at the history of Leon Schlesinger's period in cartoons.
It took him a while to build that studio's talent. It was also a while before he found his first lasting star.

[Brandon Panther]

I know some of the people from "Whose Line is it Anyway?" got their start at the Groundlings. Chip Esten for example.

But honestly, an group of stand-up comedians and improvisors are going to be writing all this? It's not that I doubt these people but.... when you consider the type of humor that most comedians nowadays go for, I'm not so sure it's right for the Looney Tunes.

[David Gerstein]

First sitcom writers (the Doyle shorts), now comedy improv people (this new series). Regardless of how the output looks—who knows, I may like it—Warner seems to be afflicted with a frankly juvenile "cool kid syndrome," where the suits' desire seems to be to associate themselves with some kind of minor celebrity rather than with anyone who has a history of working with/appreciating the art form and characters at hand.
Maybe they'd even rather expressly avoid that, because hanging with "nerds" is, you know, uncool. I seem to recollect someone in the Doyle group (Doyle himself?) expressing pride that his team lacked Looney Tunes experience.

Or I'm reminded of the rival studio exec in the other thread who publicly stated, with visible amazement, that kids "actually like" the classic-era Mickey Mouse. Way to show faith in your brand. Nobody doubted it but you.
But that says a lot about why execs struggle to be hip—they mistakenly assume their property isn't.

It shouldn't take a focus group to prove them wrong.

[Leviathan]

A significant portion of the Tiny Toons and Animaniacs writing staff came from the Groundlings, so I wouldn't write off the improv people just yet.

[CueBallCat79]

A significant portion of the Tiny Toons and Animaniacs writing staff came from the Groundlings, so I wouldn't write off the improv people just yet.

Well that depends on how you feel about those two shows doesn't it? Because we all know there is a handful of people out there who think that stuff is disgraceful.

[J. B. Warner]

Well that depends on how you feel about those two shows doesn't it? Because we all know there is a handful of people out there who think that stuff is disgraceful.

Yeah, but that "handful" of people seems to mostly just be the same "golden age good, everything else bad" crowd that I mentioned before.

[Leviathan]

You both have legit points, J.B. and CueBallCat. My main point is that we probably shouldn't say this cartoon is going to suck just because of improv people involvement, when Warner actually has employed Groundlings people as writers for Looney-style projects in the past.

Plus we can at least say that Tiny Toons and Animaniacs are head and shoulders above Doyle's shorts, can we?

[kaseykockroach]

I simply dislike Animaniacs and Tiny Toons because they're both very obnoxious cartoons. Has nothing to do with a comparison to the golden age, or the evil Doyle cartoons. I hate those two shows, but I happen to like Dexter, Rocko, etc (though obviously not on the same level. Just more of a fun time killer). I'm more of a "Golden age great, everything else ranges from wretched to decent", rather than the category mentioned by J.B Warner.

[CueBallCat79]

I simply dislike Animaniacs and Tiny Toons because they're both very obnoxious cartoons. Has nothing to do with a comparison to the golden age, or the evil Doyle cartoons. I hate those two shows, but I happen to like Dexter, Rocko, etc (though obviously not on the same level. Just more of a fun time killer). I'm more of a "Golden age great, everything else ranges from wretched to decent", rather than the category mentioned by J.B Warner.

So you've thought absolutely nothing from the past 40 or so years has been great in any way? Nothing at all?

[kaseykockroach]

I have yet to find anything great made in the last 40 years, no. That doesn't mean everything is in the same league and level of badness, I just haven't been "wowed" by anything modern, to say the least. All of the modern cartoons I find to be good (or just fun to watch)are:
Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat
My Life as a Teenage Robot
Ren & Stimpy
Rocko's Modern Life
Powerpuff Girls
Dexter's Lab
The Simpsons
Pixar's The Incredibles and Toy Story
All of these I find enjoyable, but wouldn't really label as great. Again, I don't mean to say everything made in the last 40 years is gut-wrenchingly wretched. Just decent at best.
Though, that's not to say "Give me a Pluto/Columbia Phantasy over a Rocko any day!!". :P

[PudgieDParrot]

I just hope they don't turn Bugs into "B-Rabbit" like they did on Robot Chicken. Hey, I know RC is a parody show, but I fear something like that is bound to happen when the new LT show is in the wrong hands.

[Philo & Gunge]

And here we go again...

Guys, listen, I know most of the current Looney Tunes projects are far from perfect. We just need to face the fact that due to this strange Turner/WB dispute, the classic shorts just can't be shown regularly on TV right now (New Year's marathon aside). I've been waiting for a show like this since Tom & Jerry Tales started a few years back and I don't have anything critical to say until the show premieres. But, for the first time since 2003, Warner Brothers is actually doing something worthwhile with the Looney Tunes characters. There not babies, they're not superheroes, just the Looney Tunes being the Looney Tunes. Even if it sucks, kids are still being aware of the characters.

[larriva9/11]

Even if it sucks, kids are still being aware of the characters.

Though might the point be moot in an age when kids are less beholden to TV-as-we've-known-it? And throw in parents who are more likely to be eternal classic toonheads than what we've known in our youth, and...

[J. B. Warner]

We just need to face the fact that due to this strange Turner/WB dispute, the classic shorts just can't be shown regularly on TV right now (New Year's marathon aside).

Yeah, see, that's the other thing that bugs me. People seem to be acting like Cartoon Network doesn't want to air the Looney Tunes, or that Warner Bros. is trying to bury them. It's the Turner/WB stalemate that's fouling everything up, and if it wasn't for that, I can guarantee that the classic cartoons would still be all over Cartoon Network, and that the Golden Collections would have sold better. Bugs Bunny has been one of the most profitable and universally recognizable cartoon characters in the world for almost 70 years; WB wouldn't intentionally stop using their biggest star character.

How did this get started, again? Didn't Turner want a share of the profits from Looney Tunes: Back in Action or something?

[Philo & Gunge]

How did this get started, again? Didn't Turner want a share of the profits from Looney Tunes: Back in Action or something?

From what I understand, WB and Turner made an arrangement around the time Looney Tunes: Back in Action came out for Cartoon Network to air a big Looney Tunes marathon to coincide with the movie. But Turner wanted more money to put toward the marathon and wanted money from the profits to help promote the movie than WB was willing to give, which lead to a falling out beween the two companies. This would make sense, Looney Tunes had pretty decent timeslots on CN until right a few months before Back in Action came out and slowly became less and less as the movie came and went. Turner is the main problem, they refuse to run Looney Tunes on Turner networks for the reason of that dispute... and Turner has the exclusive broadcast rights for a while. But at the same time, it really makes no sense: WB technically owns Turner, so couldn't the WB execs just be the bigger men and handle Turner?

[Matthew Hunter]

This is a new show and it's being written by a bunch of Groundlings (you know, the improv group that gave us people like Pee Wee Herman, Elvira and Phil Hartman.) I'm not hopeful, but I hope I'm wrong.

Damnit! Why didn't they just call YOU?!:ysam:

[J Lee]

One of the problems, no matter who writes it, is you're in all probably not going to have the animation budgets to do the visual gags that are associated with the Classic WB cartoons -- certainly not at the level of the 1940s shorts, MAYBE at the level of the late 50s, early 60s, if Warners is feeling generous to its animation division. That means the cartoons are more than likely going to fall into the trap that all non-RR cartoons with the classic characters have suffered from, which is too much talkiness, veering towards the "illustraded radio" promblem Chuck Jones complained about with the 60s and 70s TV cartoons.

If they pay attention to the writing and directing from the 50s WB shorts, use camera angles and cutting to save on the animation buget and keep the dialog short, to the point and not in love with itself, they might have a chance to do something better than the last attempt at reviving the characters. On the other hand, if they think the way to get kids' attention is lots of talking combined with more fart, piss and poop jokes, then we're just back in Larry Doyle territory.

[Studio Toledo]

One of the problems, no matter who writes it, is you're in all probably not going to have the animation budgets to do the visual gags that are associated with the Classic WB cartoons -- certainly not at the level of the 1940s shorts, MAYBE at the level of the late 50s, early 60s, if Warners is feeling generous to its animation division. That means the cartoons are more than likely going to fall into the trap that all non-RR cartoons with the classic characters have suffered from, which is too much talkiness, veering towards the "illustraded radio" promblem Chuck Jones complained about with the 60s and 70s TV cartoons.

If they pay attention to the writing and directing from the 50s WB shorts, use camera angles and cutting to save on the animation buget and keep the dialog short, to the point and not in love with itself, they might have a chance to do something better than the last attempt at reviving the characters. On the other hand, if they think the way to get kids' attention is lots of talking combined with more fart, piss and poop jokes, then we're just back in Larry Doyle territory.
I feel these guys should look to what made these cartoons work with what minimal techniques were employed.

[Thad]

This is a new show and it's being written by a bunch of Groundlings (you know, the improv group that gave us people like Pee Wee Herman, Elvira and Phil Hartman.) I'm not hopeful, but I hope I'm wrong.

The usual fates of those they're involved with isn't exactly something of comfort. Let's hope Daffy's got his public masturbation and spousal issues under control!

[Jack G.]

I wasn't aware that there was some kind of politics going on between Turner and Warner.One of the problems, no matter who writes it, is you're in all probably not going to have the animation budgets to do the visual gags that are associated with the Classic WB cartoons -- certainly not at the level of the 1940s shorts, MAYBE at the level of the late 50s, early 60s, if Warners is feeling generous to its animation division.If only they could get a budget like the Simpsons but channel that money into a proper traditional in house animation production
instead of spending all on writers (like the Simpsons) maybe something good could happen.
But production is so fractured now.

[Thad]

Here's a solid reason why no new Looney Tunes should be made:

Mel Blanc is dead. However hackneyed, unfunny, and queer-looking those 70s and 80s Looney Tunes projects were; they were still alive to a degree because Blanc was voicing them. The characters would have never been as popular had he not been voicing them to begin with. When he died, the characters died with him. There is NO bringing them back. Maybe you guys would like to see new movies with Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, Wayne, Monroe, etc. too.

Also, the classic Warner shorts were made in a different era, by people with a different outlook on life than us. They had a variety of cultural backgrounds too; most of them didn't even complete high school. That so many of them work today is a sign of great filmmaking.

That kind of grass roots art is what's missing from all animation today. Too much outsourcing, and too many cooks in the kitchen with useless positions on all sides. (For Chrissake's, look at the credits, most half hour TV shows have eight layout artists! Eight! Walt Disney didn't even use that many for his features!) And anyone praying for more cigar-chewing executives in the vein of Schlesinger/Selzer to come along in this Devry era is blind.

I'm not condemning this new series by improv people (which go with Looney Tunes like... well, improv people with Looney Tunes), because I'm glad talented people like Jim Smith are being given work, and it's not like they'll do any more harm to the characters than what things like the Daffy/Speedy shorts (pure solid SH*T that was and is actually mixed in with the good stuff forever) have already done. But will it probably suck and be pathetically unfunny? Well, take a look at the past twenty years of revivals' track records and take a guess.

[cbrubaker]

look at the credits, most half hour TV shows have eight layout artists! Eight!
You sure you don't mean zero? Most domestic studios don't bother with layouts anymore and just send storyboards overseas.

The only show still doing layouts is the "Simpsons". And I hear they're thinking of getting rid of that department, too ('though not confirmed).

[JPox]

Here's a solid reason why no new Looney Tunes should be made:

Mel Blanc is dead. However hackneyed, unfunny, and queer-looking those 70s and 80s Looney Tunes projects were; they were still alive to a degree because Blanc was voicing them. The characters would have never been as popular had he not been voicing them to begin with. When he died, the characters died with him. There is NO bringing them back. Maybe you guys would like to see new movies with Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, Wayne, Monroe, etc. too.

Also, the classic Warner shorts were made in a different era, by people with a different outlook on life than us. They had a variety of cultural backgrounds too; most of them didn't even complete high school. That so many of them work today is a sign of great filmmaking.

That kind of grass roots art is what's missing from all animation today. Too much outsourcing, and too many cooks in the kitchen with useless positions on all sides. (For Chrissake's, look at the credits, most half hour TV shows have eight layout artists! Eight! Walt Disney didn't even use that many for his features!) And anyone praying for more cigar-chewing executives in the vein of Schlesinger/Selzer to come along in this Devry era is blind.

I'm not condemning this new series by improv people (which go with Looney Tunes like... well, improv people with Looney Tunes), because I'm glad talented people like Jim Smith are being given work, and it's not like they'll do any more harm to the characters than what things like the Daffy/Speedy shorts (pure solid SH*T that was and is actually mixed in with the good stuff forever) have already done. But will it probably suck and be pathetically unfunny? Well, take a look at the past twenty years of revivals' track records and take a guess.
I'm glad to read a lengthy post from you Thad rather that a 4-5 word complaint. Very good points indeed.

I'm undecided on the whole idea of new Looney Tunes for TV. At least a few of the well-done modern shorts ("Little Go Beep", "Carrotblanca", "Chariots of Fur" IMO) took months to create while a tv series takes the same with lesser-quality.
Duck Dodgers was an alright show, but it was a bit too talkie and the "fantasy" was a bit too realistic to be taken as funny. I did enjoy Taz-Mania back in the day because it was a cartoon show that knew it was a cartoon show and that is where the humor came from. It was a lot like the classics because of all the third-wall gags.
Animation problems aside, it did have me in stitches at times due to action, gags and word-play.
If this proposed new series has those elements I just noted, it should be good for a laugh and hopefully will inspire people to create funny, traditional cartoons again.

[Gasmask Ted]

'70s and later LT things voiced by Mel Blanc would have been better off if he had been dead or otherwise retired from voice work...

Note that Mel Blanc was not required for the Looney Tunes. Coyote and Road Runner didn't need him, Porky got popular without him, Elmer was much better off without him, and then there were all the other characters not voiced by Blanc.

I think they might be better off evolving the voices more independently instead of having people trying to flat imitate Blanc, which usually doesn't work in the sound, and which I think tends to limit performances. But maybe that's been an outcome of the voice direction, not actors distracted by trying to sound like Mel Blanc. I'm not saying change the regional accents or mannerisms, I'm saying let the underlying voice change to something appropriate. It's not like Blanc's vocal characterizations didn't change over the years (and not always for the worse).

At the same time, Looney Tunes cartoons with new one shot characters might be the best idea if they were inserted mongst classic cartoons. But unfortunately I expect any new LTs are going to be mostly LT based on the characters involved as opposed ot replicating the style. In that scenario, I think they'd be best off trying to make new black and white Porky cartoons (if they can get someone to pull off an appropriate handling of black white and gray), with its simpler animation and iconic but less beloved look and sound. Black and white porky is much more of a blank slate that you can do anything with than the matured and locked in personalities of the later LTs which no one seems to be able to appropriately/successfully replicate or expand upon.

[JPox]

I wonder if in the vein of the one-shot cartoons from the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies library, would new characters be better for a new series?
What if there was 1 new cartoon featuring classic Looney Tunes characters every episode with 2 others featuring new characters? That would be interesting.
There are plenty of voice artists these days that have their own special talents and that could lead to a brand new line up of characters.
Just thinking out loud there...:)

[Brandon Panther]

I think they might be better off evolving the voices more independently instead of having people trying to flat imitate Blanc, which usually doesn't work in the sound, and which I think tends to limit performances. But maybe that's been an outcome of the voice direction, not actors distracted by trying to sound like Mel Blanc. I'm not saying change the regional accents or mannerisms, I'm saying let the underlying voice change to something appropriate. It's not like Blanc's vocal characterizations didn't change over the years (and not always for the worse).
Well, when I hear Joe Alaskey's Daffy, I don't hear Mel Blanc's, in fact it's not even that close. To casual viewers yes, but not to the fanatics like us. BUT, I think Alaskey's Daffy is just different enough, and still the same enough, that he has made the role his own. And even though I prefer it for them to find actors who can sound like Blanc as close as they can, I wouldn't be able to accept anyone else in the role of Daffy, as I have gotten so used to the sound of Alaskey's. It just fits.

The same can be said for Bob Bergen as Porky. His Porky really doesn't sound that much like Mel's, but for some reason it still works.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I agree with you. The voice actors today doing Looney Tunes don't have to sound like Mel Blanc exactly, or close, they just need to be a voice that simulates the sounds of the original, and sound GOOD, and fun to listen to, plus the actual acting, and personality has to be good as well. It would be totally unacceptable to just hire a voice actor and allow him to critically butcher a character (i.e. Jim Cummings as Yosemite Sam in "Tweety's High Flying Adventure").

[Mike]

The usual fates of those they're involved with isn't exactly something of comfort. Let's hope Daffy's got his public masturbation and spousal issues under control!

Was that really necessary, particularly the "spousal issues" crack? Bad taste.

Mike

[PudgieDParrot]

You sure you don't mean zero? Most domestic studios don't bother with layouts anymore and just send storyboards overseas.

The only show still doing layouts is the "Simpsons". And I hear they're thinking of getting rid of that department, too ('though not confirmed).

Agreed. Toon City is virtually the only overseas studio who "understands" full animation, and if there is no budget for domestically-produced layouts, it is probably in the best interest of the show that TC be used for the animation production.

[Studio Toledo]

Was that really necessary, particularly the "spousal issues" crack? Bad taste.

Mike
I was still laughing! :D

[Studio Toledo]

Agreed. Toon City is virtually the only overseas studio who "understands" full animation, and if there is no budget for domestically-produced layouts, it is probably in the best interest of the show that TC be used for the animation production.
Seems like the reasonable thing to do (especially if those people get mutually credited for their hard work alone).

[Matthew Hunter]

The problem with most of the "revival" projects of the last 20 years, especially those made for TV, is the adherence to a particular character or theme. "Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries" is a prime example. If they had used the same crew to just do a new Looney Tunes TV show, it might've been pretty good. Instead, they were saddled with half-hour (later 15-minute) "mystery" stories with Sylvester, Tweety, Granny and Hector, with way too many cameos from other characters who always had to be either a "villain" or a throwaway gag. The 15-minute episodes were far superior, and the few times they got away with having no "mystery" at all, they were a glimpse of what COULD have been.

"Taz Mania"? Same kind of thing...instead of a bunch of new shorts centered around Taz, they put him in lengthy, convoluted plot-lines with an annoying family and a cast of thousands who wouldn't shut up long enough for Taz to really DO anything.

"Duck Dodgers" was probably the best of the bunch, but the longer episodes tend to drag, and Daffy/Dodgers could be a little too obtuse sometimes. In a few of the early episodes, he comes off as more of an "Inspector Gadget" type of character. And the whole thing probably still would've been more entertaining as shorts, perhaps as a recurring "sub-series" of a larger Looney Tunes project.

Why can't they just hire writers and artists who know the characters, and follow the rules Jon and I devised? And for goodness sakes, no more half-hour shows or movies! The characters work better in 7-minute shorts! DUH!

[Jack G.]

Also, the classic Warner shorts were made in a different era, by people with a different outlook on life than us. They had a variety of cultural backgrounds too; most of them didn't even complete high school. That so many of them work today is a sign of great filmmaking.

That kind of grass roots art is what's missing from all animation today. Too much outsourcing, and too many cooks in the kitchen with useless positions on all sides.You articulated what I've felt about attempting anything new with the characters.
It's a near impossible task because we live in a totally different time period.I think they might be better off evolving the voices more independently instead of having people trying to flat imitate Blanc, which usually doesn't work in the sound, and which I think tends to limit performances.Just plain immitation doesn't bring the character alive.

I don't know, but I thought Mickey, Minnie, Donald, and Goofy (in the beginning)
were done pretty good by their respective voice actors.
Can't the same be done for the Warner characters?

I thought Blooper Bunny was the best of the contemporary revivals.
If they could of built on that making shorts regularly, maybe they could of gone somewhere good.

I thought Carrotblanca had good ideas but it was spoiled by bad timing.

[larriva9/11]

Was that really necessary, particularly the "spousal issues" crack? Bad taste.

Mike


Hocus, pocus, flippety flam, razamatazz and alakazam *byoo-woop*

[CueBallCat79]

What I've always though Warners should do is completely standardize the voice actors they use for the Looney Tunes characters. Allow them to make these characters their own, as Alasky has pretty much done for Daffy. Bug's voice (to cite one example) shouldn't flip flop between voice actors depending on the project. Disney employed Wayne Allwine and only Wayne Allwine as Mickey Mouse for over 30 years. Bill Farmer and Tony Anselmo have been the only voices of Goofy and Donald since the late 1980s.

Why can't Warners do something like this?

[Brandon Panther]

What I've always though Warners should do is completely standardize the voice actors they use for the Looney Tunes characters. Allow them to make these characters their own, as Alasky has pretty much done for Daffy. Bug's voice (to cite one example) shouldn't flip flop between voice actors depending on the project. Disney employed Wayne Allwine and only Wayne Allwine as Mickey Mouse for over 30 years. Bill Farmer and Tony Anselmo have been the only voices of Goofy and Donald since the late 1980s.

Why can't Warners do something like this?
This may not be an exact answer, but it could be because the current LT voice actors are more in-demand with several companies, while the Disney voice actors... well for the most part most of their work is with Disney (although Farmer's involvement in Space Jam was a rare instance), so Allwine, Farmer, and Anselmo were always there.

In the case of the Looney Tunes, either it's because Bob Bergen is unavailable for a project because he's signed on to something unrelated, and can't do Tweety or Marvin, so they bring in Joe Alaskey.

Or somebody has a falling out with WB, or gets their butt fired (*cough*jeffbergman*cough*), then they need to find a replacement.

Or, as Mark Evanier explained once, there are voice directors out there who aren't necessarily intending on recreating Mel Blanc exactly, they just want a voice that feels right to them. Something new-sounding, but still has the touches of the original. This is how Billy West and Dee Bradly Baker wound up as Bugs and Daffy in Space Jam.

[cbrubaker]

More details from the Animation Guild. The new series will be called "Laff Riot"

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/at-toon-factory-of-brothers-warner.html

[Speedy Boris]

More details from the Animation Guild. The new series will be called "Laff Riot"

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/at-toon-factory-of-brothers-warner.html I like the look of that Daffy model. It's kind of late '40s McKimson-esque.

[David Gerstein]

Until about 2000, the Looney Tunes franchise may have been formally branded Looney Tunes—but people perceived it as "Bugs Bunny," based on its longtime Saturday morning name.
I suspect "Bugs Bunny Laff Riot" would be an infinitely more saleable name than "Looney Tunes Laff Riot" (not that I like "Laff Riot" much itself, but it's better than numerous more childish alternatives...)

[Jon Cooke]

I like the look of that Daffy model. It's kind of late '40s McKimson-esque.

That's because it is a picture of a vintage '40s McKimson model sheet (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/daffy-megacollector.html). :p :daffy:

Looks like it was just chosen to illustrate the blog post and not actual art from the upcoming show.

[wiley207]

"Laff Riot?" Sounds like maybe it'll be shorts starring original characters, yet hosted by the Looney Tunes (whom would also make occasional cameos).

Hopefully this will be good enough to start a Looney Tunes renaissance :D

Anyways, I wonder if Warner Bros. Animation becoming a sleepy division all of a sudden has to do with Kids' WB ending and being replaced with the CW 4Kids? This could be likely.

[Speedy Boris]

That's because it is a picture of a vintage '40s McKimson model sheet (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/daffy-megacollector.html). :p :daffy:

Looks like it was just chosen to illustrate the blog post and not actual art from the upcoming show. ...Oh.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Turner is the main problem, they refuse to run Looney Tunes on Turner networks for the reason of that dispute... and Turner has the exclusive broadcast rights for a while. But at the same time, it really makes no sense: WB technically owns Turner, so couldn't the WB execs just be the bigger men and handle Turner?

When does this exclusive rights contract end? It's closing on 10 years since the Looney Tunes were shoved off ABC and Nick and put exclusively on CN.

[Acme]

When does this exclusive rights contract end? It's closing on 10 years since the Looney Tunes were shoved off ABC and Nick and put exclusively on CN.

I am sure that Disney XD would pick up the rights. ;) lol They already have Batman: The Animated Series, Static Shock, Superman, and Pinky & The Brain.

[Bugsy-Kun]

After reading all of your comments and due to my experience with this characters. I should make some points:

For me, the Looney Tunes characters exist in the classic cartoons made at the Schlesinger/Selzer era. It was made at a time where hip-hop fans and rabid American Idol teenagers can't know. Why bring back something that made in the 40's and 50's but you don't have enough knowledge for respect their universe?

It seems that today, for be funny, you should make just crude jokes in a much superficial way. They think they amusing peoples, but it seems the audience is boring to death. It's why i find the situation ridiculous and pathetic.

Look at Space Jam! Looney Tunes Back in Action! Lunatics Unleashed! Duck Dodgers! Baby Looney Tunes! Did you think that characters suffering enough like that? :confused:

[nickramer]

I thought "Back in Action" and "Duck Dodgers" were okay. But look, there are some good recent stuff that worked well with the character like "Little Go Beep".

In other words, let's wait until we see the final result before we jump into conclusion.

[The "Chase"]

I thought "Back in Action" and "Duck Dodgers" were okay. But look, there are some good recent stuff that worked well with the character like "Little Go Beep".

In other words, let's wait until we see the final result before we jump into conclusion.

What he said.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Do you suppose that the Pepe Le Pew ad that aired during Valentine's Day may have been animated in conjunction with this new TV series? To me it seems strange that a whole 30 second commercial that only aired for a month would be made unless they were planning something with the LT franchise. I don't know, maybe I'm just looking to far into this.

[cbrubaker]

Bump. Tom Ruegger chimed in at ToonZone (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=3402220#post3402220)

I don't know much about the new Looney Tunes project, except that one of the units is headed by Alfred Gimeno, who's among the very best comedy animation directors in the business. I hear he's working with Charley Visser on a bunch of shorts. Alfred, of course, was a key part of the original creative team that pulled together "Tiny Toons," and he directed a bunch of them, and a bunch of "Animaniacs" as well. I also heard that Dan McHugh is heading up the BG designs on the new project. If these guys are allowed to do their thing, it'll he great.

I have noticed lately that TV cartoons -- especially cartoons aimed directly at a kid audience -- are incredibly PC and safe. I've always loved the anarchy and edginess of the classic Warner Bros. Looney Tunes. But let's face it: Bugs and Daffy, in their heyday, were not incredibly PC. My hope is that the artists and crew members working on these new cartoons at Warner Bros. are given some creative freedom and allowed to bring that irreverence back to life.

[nickramer]

According to Mark Eviner at last week's Ohio Comic Con (Nice to see you, Chase, btw), Warners was going to make Witch Hazel African-American as an Afirican American actress was going to do the witch as she was the first to audition before June Foray for this show (how shockingly ironic)!

Needless to say, after some endless amount of complaints, Warners apoligized to her and I don't think we'll see this "hip" version of this witch.

[Brandon Panther]

According to Mark Eviner at last week's Ohio Comic Con (Nice to see you, Chase, btw), Warners was going to make Witch Hazel African-American as an Afirican American actress was going to do the witch as she was the first to audition before June Foray for this show (how shockingly ironic)!

Needless to say, after some endless amount of complaints, Warners apoligized to her and I don't think we'll see this "hip" version of this witch.
I can only imagine that the complaints that made WB change their mind were mostly from PC police, not June Foray fans.

[The "Chase"]

According to Mark Eviner at last week's Ohio Comic Con (Nice to see you, Chase, btw), Warners was going to make Witch Hazel African-American as an Afirican American actress was going to do the witch as she was the first to audition before June Foray for this show (how shockingly ironic)!


(Same here. Didn't know you wore glasses! I should've thought it was you when you mentioned Yearly Smith to someone next to you)

In fact, we got to listen to June about that on Mark's voicemail. I don't remember what she said, but I do remember her thanking Mark for something.

So, does anyone know what the African-American actress was going to be? I'm rather curious about that...

[larriva9/11]

A bit of an Eartha-Kitt-substituting-for-Julie-Newmar-as-Catwoman situation here?

[Tom Stathes]

A bit of an Eartha-Kitt-substituting-for-Julie-Newmar-as-Catwoman situation here?

But man...huh?

[Brandon Panther]

Jess harnell and Rob Paulsen announced they are voicing The Goofy Gophers.

I guess Stan Freberg won't be involved with this series.

[nickramer]

Jess harnell and Rob Paulsen announced they are voicing The Goofy Gophers.

I guess Stan Freberg won't be involved with this series.


Just hope they don't mess up those characters or make them female.

[Matthew Hunter]

Jess harnell and Rob Paulsen announced they are voicing The Goofy Gophers.

I guess Stan Freberg won't be involved with this series.

It sucks they won't be using Stan Freberg, but Harnell and Paulsen are BRILLIANT voice actors. They'll do great!

[larriva9/11]

But man...huh?


Just referring to a "white" playing a character replaced by an "African-American" playing the same character--classic example, 60s Catwoman...

[edit--to replace 70s with 60s; oops]

[J. B. Warner]

According to Mark Eviner at last week's Ohio Comic Con (Nice to see you, Chase, btw), Warners was going to make Witch Hazel African-American as an Afirican American actress was going to do the witch as she was the first to audition before June Foray for this show (how shockingly ironic)!

Oh jeez, you gotta love that logic.

So what, black voice actors can only play black characters now? Nobody complained when Cree Summer played Elmyra on "Tiny Toon Adventures", did they?

[wiley207]

Nobody complained when Cree Summer played Elmyra on "Tiny Toon Adventures", did they?

Or when she also voiced Penny on "Inspector Gadget?" And that was in the 80's!

[nickramer]

Oh jeez, you gotta love that logic.

So what, black voice actors can only play black characters now? Nobody complained when Cree Summer played Elmyra on "Tiny Toon Adventures", did they?


I think they were more upset about changing Witch Hazel.

[larriva9/11]

Then again, remember the whole "black Smithers" issue re the Simpsons...

[cbrubaker]

Then again, remember the whole "black Smithers" issue re the Simpsons...
I believe that was just a coloring error from an overseas studio's part.

[larriva9/11]

I know; just that it's "legendary" enough to merit citation here...

[Jon Cooke]

It sucks they won't be using Stan Freberg, but Harnell and Paulsen are BRILLIANT voice actors. They'll do great!

Paulsen and Harnell have previously done the Gophers on an episode of Duck Dodgers (while Freberg provided the voice of another character, the king of the gophers).

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

I believe that was just a coloring error from an overseas studio's part.

It was a coloring error, but the producers excuse was that he had a "really bad tan". It's similar to the error where Apu was mis-colored as Caucasian in "Bart's Comet" for a few frames.

[PF9]

OK, I have some story ideas that WB should turn into episodes:

*Bugs and Daffy starring in an update of the classics "Porky's Badtime Story" and "Tick Tock Tuckered".
*Speedy Gonzales goes to Canada, and Sylvester tries to stop him as usual
*A series of cartoons to develop the relationship of Bugs and Lola

more later

[The "Chase"]

OK, I have some story ideas that WB should turn into episodes:

*Bugs and Daffy starring in an update of the classics "Porky's Badtime Story" and "Tick Tock Tuckered".
*Speedy Gonzales goes to Canada, and Sylvester tries to stop him as usual
*A series of cartoons to develop the relationship of Bugs and Lola

more later

No.

Unless you're in the Writers Guild, don't bother. Just because it happened once on Tiny Toons, doesn't mean it's going to happen again.

[kaseykockroach]

*A series of cartoons to develop the relationship of Bugs and Lola

more later
I'd say something, but it'd only be censored! :shame:

[J. B. Warner]

I don't think Bugs and Lola's relationship needs to be developed, but I actually wouldn't object if they made a new Lola cartoon or two. (Don't shoot!) The Looney Tunes comic book has proven that she can indeed be funny if she's written right, and that she actually works better without Bugs.

[CartoonCrazy]

and that she actually works better without Bugs.
And vice versa.

I'd be okay with Lola stories, but I too hope that she'd be written better than she was in Space Jam.

[Bugsy-Kun]

I don't think Bugs and Lola's relationship needs to be developed, but I actually wouldn't object if they made a new Lola cartoon or two. (Don't shoot!) The Looney Tunes comic book has proven that she can indeed be funny if she's written right, and that she actually works better without Bugs.

I was a guilty pleasure fan of Lola when i was a pre-teen. I find her pretty but make 1 or 2 stories with her without turn to cliches was a great idea if it use correctly. I don't read the comics versions because it don't sold where i live.

[bj_wanlund]

Whoa...

And to think I had absolutely nothing better to do on the Friday morning before Halloween. I just read that ENTIRE thread (all 12+ pages worth).

I am going to withhold judgment until I actually see an episode. There's a bunch of hardcore game show nerds who bash a show before actually seeing it (in other words, that new Let's Make A Deal with Wayne Brady isn't half bad).

I liked Whizzard of Ow, if only because I'm a sucker for Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons. Thankfully, that's the only Doyletoon I've ever seen.

I really hope this new show isn't as bad as T&J Tales is (and yes, I've actually seen an episode, about 2 years ago, and it was dreadful).

BJ

[PF9]

I would also like to see some updates on the "Duck Amuck" story, with the following characters:

*Porky Pig as tormented, Sylvester as tormentor
**Motive: Porky didn't believe Sylvester when the latter saw scary things (in Scaredy Cat, Claws for Alarm, and Jumpin' Jupiter)

*Tweety as tormented, Sylvester as tormentor
**Motive: Pretty obvious what the motive is

*Road Runner as tormented, Wile E. Coyote as tormentor
**Motive: See above

*Pepe Le Pew as tormented, Penelope Pussycat as tormentor
**Motive: Penelope wants to get Pepe back for continuously stalking her

*Foghorn Leghorn as tormented, Barnyard Dawg as tormentor
**Motive: Barnyard has had enough of Foghorn's pranks

[J. B. Warner]

I would also like to see some updates on the "Duck Amuck" story, with the following characters:

*Porky Pig as tormented, Sylvester as tormentor
**Motive: Porky didn't believe Sylvester when the latter saw scary things (in Scaredy Cat, Claws for Alarm, and Jumpin' Jupiter)

*Tweety as tormented, Sylvester as tormentor
**Motive: Pretty obvious what the motive is

*Road Runner as tormented, Wile E. Coyote as tormentor
**Motive: See above

*Pepe Le Pew as tormented, Penelope Pussycat as tormentor
**Motive: Penelope wants to get Pepe back for continuously stalking her

*Foghorn Leghorn as tormented, Barnyard Dawg as tormentor
**Motive: Barnyard has had enough of Foghorn's pranks

I don't like those ideas at all. When you're turning the tables on classic Looney Tunes characters just for the sake of "Hey, what'd happen if the Coyote caught the Road Runner for once?", then you run the risk of alienating everyone who's familiar with these characters. The Looney Tunes have been screwed up enough in the past two decades - we don't need to go around making new cartoons where the formulas are deliberately inverted so the winners always lose. That's just pointless.

[kaseykockroach]

I must say, I am repulsed that some of you consider Slutty Bunny to be a Looney Tunes character, let alone want to see new things done with her. :fox: Too much flower sniffing, perhaps?

[quack-up]

I really hope we get cartoons much like the Looney Tunes stories in DC comics.

[Matthew Hunter]

Let's not attack each other over hypothetical ideas here. Save the insults for the show itself when it comes out, don't waste them on each other a year in advance!

[nickramer]

I really hope we get cartoons much like the Looney Tunes stories in DC comics.
Yeah, but I just hope we don't get that one writer who did that one pointless bank robbery story that Matthew post on his blog and another story where Sam, while filming a movie, hits his head and think he's a bandit (WTC?).

[larriva9/11]

I don't like those ideas at all. When you're turning the tables on classic Looney Tunes characters just for the sake of "Hey, what'd happen if the Coyote caught the Road Runner for once?", then you run the risk of alienating everyone who's familiar with these characters. The Looney Tunes have been screwed up enough in the past two decades - we don't need to go around making new cartoons where the formulas are deliberately inverted so the winners always lose. That's just pointless.


And re "Duck Amuck" variations, remember the mixed reviews "Rabbit Rampage" tends to get. Not that it's unenjoyable in its way with its clever moments; just remember the mixed reviews and take them as a warning...

[Bugsy-Kun]

I don't like those ideas at all. When you're turning the tables on classic Looney Tunes characters just for the sake of "Hey, what'd happen if the Coyote caught the Road Runner for once?", then you run the risk of alienating everyone who's familiar with these characters. The Looney Tunes have been screwed up enough in the past two decades - we don't need to go around making new cartoons where the formulas are deliberately inverted so the winners always lose. That's just pointless.

I just hope this new TV show can satisfying my appetite. The only newest cartoon i watch without bashing or anything is Lou because it's based from a Europpean comic-book. (For one time, it's don't look suck unlike we having in the 80's and 90's.)

[cbrubaker]

Production's been halted until January, according to the Animation Guild (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/layoffs-and-hirings.html). They're changing some things up, apparently.

I feel bad for the artists laid off. Not exactly a good time for this to happen.

[Brandon Panther]

The artists' work must have been really good, so WB had to fire them.

[CueBallCat79]

They're changing some things up, apparently

That worries me.

Tom Ruegger had this to say over at Toon Zoone (or toonzone, or whatever they're calling it now)...

That's the word from Warner Bros. Animation. A sad day in Looney Tunes Land.

On Friday, without warning, much of the staff and crew on "Laff Riot" was let go (with a severance package and vacation pay included). The show has ceased production and is being "retooled."

This 26 half hour re-imagining of the Looney Tunes franchise has been in production since May. The crews have finished storyboards and recordings of close to 12 half hours already. Some episodes are in animation, so to shut the series down at this point is a costly event.

No word as to who made the decision to close it down.

A skeleton crew of senior artists is being kept on to help "retool" the series along with the management team and the producers. If it gets back on track again, it would resume production some time early in 2010.

It's a very sad day for the talented artists who have worked tirelessly and enthusiastically on this for the past half year...

This setback follows recent news about the Tom and Jerry long-form on which Jon McClenahan was working for WB Animation. A month or so ago, that production was shut down in mid-stride as well.

So, uh, WBA -- wazzup?

[wiley207]

This is awful! Hopefully if they choose to "retool" it, it'll be for the best. And that it won't be like the disasters Sander Schwartz was responsible for (the 2003-2004 shorts) when he was in charge of Warner Bros. Animation (and in that case, only six of the shorts were completed, and the rest (mercifully?) got the axe.)

[cbrubaker]

According to Jerry Beck (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/looney-tunes-news.html), the reason for the retool is because the top brass didn't like the apparent UPA-inspired designs that were being used for the show.

Couldn't they have checked the storyboards first before waiting until the finished animation came back to make that decision?

(On another hand, I'm glad somebody on top is finally saying "enough" to the flat look that's been dominating lately)

[rrfan3267]

Whoa, according to that Jerry Beck link, WB is making 3-minute theatrical Looney Tunes...in CGI? That sounds like trouble.

[jlppr]

i just hope they do justice the characters, not like what they did with the new "tom and jerry" cartoons or "what's new scooby doo?" most cartoons have been watered down and modernized in ways that have ruined them instead of preserving them or improving them as well. i would just leave them alone, but who knows, they may surprise us

[Mac]

Anyone interested in the new Looney Tunes series should read the post on Cartoon Brew about it and check out the comments:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/looney-tunes-news.html#comments

[PF9]

According to Jerry Beck (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/tv/looney-tunes-news.html), the reason for the retool is because the top brass didn't like the apparent UPA-inspired designs that were being used for the show.

Couldn't they have checked the storyboards first before waiting until the finished animation came back to make that decision?

(On another hand, I'm glad somebody on top is finally saying "enough" to the flat look that's been dominating lately)

Ironically, it was Chuck Jones' work on a UPA film that got him fired from WB.

[WoodpeckerWoody]

Warner Dosent like UPA me thinks.:D

[Jack G.]

Couldn't they have checked the storyboards first before waiting until the finished animation came back to make that decision?This kind of thing happened on the original Ren & Stimpy show. An episode is about done, money is spent,
and the suits want to change things.
Why? you didn't want to change it when we showed you the boards.

[Bugsy-Kun]

A bad new for the artists and Looney Tunes fans because they seems to work really hard on this revival but in same time a good new because actually, i don't want to see Looney Tunes watered down to a UPA look.

This decade, the fake UPA/Hanna-Barbera style was a big trend especially in Europe and Canada when the producers and artists was take control to contracts. I think you should have a lot of courage to say enough of this flat looking style we have since 10 years now because it's don't make sense. When you hired peoples who seems much improvised in arts than did the work actually and especially having control to a universe made 60-70 years by a different mentality and wants to made a revival, (Like the recent Gaston Lagaffe TV cartoon announced few weeks ago.) it's often considered like a mess. Look at the pathetic revival of Tom and Jerry Tales! That's just takes 5 minutes to say it's a fail. I don't want new Looney Tunes stories anymore. The TV specials prevent me that this characters made their times and can't really connected to a SMS-GPS-cellphone-Ipod-Mp3-Internet world like now like from the Larry Doyle's shorts.

Feel free to don't be agreed with me but don't gonna told me that i hate Looney Tunes. I like them more than i can with MGM, Lantz or Disney but see a hard-work modernised today still worry me today.

[PF9]

I think Warner needs to hire lots and lots of people who want to remain true to the classics, for the most part.

And in addition to Laff Riot, I would like to see some more theatrical releases. And maybe a few TV spin-offs.

[Scuz Fink]

Was anyone here working on , or had any friends work on Laff Riot? If so please post some model sheets!, Ive only seen this funny picture drawn by Jim Smith on cartoonbrew.com

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-content/uploads/jimsmithdaffy.jpg

[Brandon Panther]

This kind of thing happened on the original Ren & Stimpy show. An episode is about done, money is spent,
and the suits want to change things.
Why? you didn't want to change it when we showed you the boards.
And Nickelodeon fired John K. for not delivering completed episodes on time. I think that showed you just how out of touch with reality Nick is (or was).

[cbrubaker]

And Nickelodeon fired John K. for not delivering completed episodes on time. I think that showed you just how out of touch with reality Nick is (or was).

It was more complicated than that, from what animation insiders told me. I won't go into it in public, though.

[Brandon Panther]

It was more complicated than that, from what animation insiders told me. I won't go into it in public, though.
Well, yeah, plus Nick complained about his work being too violent.

[Matt the Y]

Well, yeah, plus Nick complained about his work being too violent.

I think he means it had has much to do with John K. being difficult to work with as much as it did Nick being difficult to work with.