Are the Looney Tunes dead?

[J. B. Warner]

In a recent ToonZone thread about the forthcoming Speedy Gonzales movie, one member made this rather sobering comment:

Please. Looney Tunes are a dead property. People just need to accept it and move on.

And it got me to thinking - is he right? Let's look at the big picture...
- The classic cartoons are nowhere to be found on American TV, approaching a six-year absence from the airwaves, and a recent effort to bring them back ended after only a month
- The Golden Collection DVDs are cancelled, reduced to quiet single-disc releases
- Merchandising-wise, the characters are virtually invisible; the only Looney Tunes character who still has any marketing power is Tweety, and he's only on a handful of t-shirts in the girls' department
- "Laff Riot" has been plagued with production problems for several months now
- Warner Bros. is apparently so out of ideas for how to use these characters that they've now gone the dreaded route of turning them into CGI characters in live action movies (not once, but twice)

Is this basically the end of the line for the Looney Tunes? Is Warner Bros. content to just let them drift off into obscurity after more than 75 years of success?

[mulroz]

Nah, they've had their ups and downs before. It's a cyclic thing.

What hasn't been discussed, is that the dvd/blue ray thing might play a role as well. Why invest in a dvd-set that will be profitable only over a longer period (they don't have the peak sale of recent movies) if there is a risk that people don't buy dvd's anymore in a few years....

[raginggoodfella]

Has Warners Brothers ever ever ever really properly "pushed"/ mass-marketed LT/MM characters with the exception of Taz and Tweety? When the Warner Brothers retail stores existed, it seemed to me that WB only cared about was Scooby-Doo, Batman, any crap recent WB movie, Taz, Tweety.

[mulroz]

Has Warners Brothers ever ever ever really properly "pushed"/ mass-marketed LT/MM characters with the exception of Taz and Tweety? When the Warner Brothers retail stores existed, it seemed to me that WB only cared about was Scooby-Doo, Batman, any crap recent WB movie, Taz, Tweety.

Put it another way, do the Looney Tunes need marketing? It's like Casablanca, Citizen Kane or Death Wish V, just mention they are on dvd and they will sell.

[J. B. Warner]

Nah, they've had their ups and downs before. It's a cyclic thing.

Yeah, but I think this might be different. There may have been times in the past when the Looney Tunes weren't as huge as they were at other times, but at least they were always available on TV. How are they supposed to make a comeback if the current generation can't even find them in the first place?

If it gets bad enough, then yes, the cartoons will need to be advertised again, 'cause a new audience will have to be introduced to them. Imagine how many kids who were born in 2004 have no clue who Bugs Bunny is today.

[mulroz]

Yeah, but I think this might be different. There may have been times in the past when the Looney Tunes weren't as huge as they were at other times, but at least they were always available on TV. How are they supposed to make a comeback if the current generation can't even find them in the first place?

If it gets bad enough, then yes, the cartoons will need to be advertised again, 'cause a new audience will have to be introduced to them. Imagine how many kids who were born in 2004 have no clue who Bugs Bunny is today.

I see them every morning on Boomerang.
6.00 Looney Tunes
6.30 Tom & Jerry
7.00 Popeye

[nickramer]

No, it isn't. It just need some people with brains like Jerry and Earl to help guide them in a straight and narrow path. Not some money minded people.

Don't listen to that member. I hope he doesn't come here.

[David Gerstein]

When the Warner Brothers retail stores existed, it seemed to me that WB only cared about was Scooby-Doo, Batman, any crap recent WB movie, Taz, Tweety.Bugs and others were genuinely marketed like mad—both inside the Studio Stores and outside—until about the late 1990s. I saw it; I remember. As a reflection of this, SPACE JAM was genuinely successful (irrespective of its strengths or weaknesses), with Bugs right at the eye of the storm.

Then Tweety, Taz, and Scooby took over. From what I understand, an early 1990s market study had showed that kids thought Taz the "most exciting" Warner character. I'm not certain what study did it for Tweety.
Scooby, meanwhile, appears to have been emphasized simply because some Warner higher-ups wanted it that way. There was some genuine popularity there, but based almost entirely on nostalgia rather than quality. This doesn't make for a brand that can break out to new audiences easily unless other leading brands look worse; in 1971 they did, but in 2003 they didn't.

Overall, the Tweety/Taz/Scooby rush felt like a deliberate effort to put all of Warner's eggs in one basket; and once the three characters were played out, all others had been minimized so dramatically that there was no chance of reviving their fortunes. It was an incredibly damaging strategy in the long-term that probably did fine, in the short term, for a number of executives who cashed in and ran.

[Gasmask Ted]

The WB Store's Batman merchandise was more appropriate than their Looney Tunes merch.

On the art side, they had good production art in addition to ugly limited editions for the Timmverse stuff, as opposed to for the classic Looney Tunes, where they only had awful limited editions and a handful of wonky '80s production cels. They actually had a little more classic MGM production art.

In terms of non-wall art, they produced scads of embarassing LT stuff, which by and large did not have any classic style and was only appealing to people who had a vague idea that they had liked the LTs and thought having a tshirt with the characters was cool in some way. To be fair, that was probably a valid guess as to the likely customer base for the stuff, but on the other hand those unthinking masses would have accepted classic '40s styling just as easily as faddish early '90s attitude based stuff. The hero stuff was much more in line with various classic ideas (which is to say, it looked like an actual incarnation of the characters, not some merch only look).

[Bradskey]

I've never been particularly impressed with the discourse on toonzone. Just accept it and move on? Ugh, nice stupid cliche -- never heard that meaningless loaded phrase before. Just a round-about way of saying "shutup" -- brilliant. "Move on" to what exactly? Cartoons come and go. Many are cheap and not so great, especially now. Some we remember. Some we remember but we don't want to. A lot of them are forgotten. In spite of WB's bungling and mishandling, I think Looney Tunes have proven their staying power. Somebody somewhere is still going to be watching them for a long time. We just need to stay on WB's case to do justice by the cartoons, get them released, get them back on the air. I don't need any new take-off movies or new shorts or new series -- they're routinely craptastic and forgettable. Just give us the shorts please.

[kaseykockroach]

Don't listen to that member. I hope he doesn't come here.
Ohh boy, this is akward...:D

[gdX]

Please. Looney Tunes are a dead property. People just need to accept it and move onPlease, indeed. Just another online Joe Blow with a contrary proclamation, seeking attention.

Put it another way, do the Looney Tunes need marketing? It's like Casablanca, Citizen Kane or Death Wish V, just mention they are on dvd and they will sell.Exactly. The lack of daily screenings of Casablanca haven't diminished Bogart's standing in our collective consciousness. I know it's been a difficult year for toon fans with few major releases after the deluge of 07, but many factors (the economy, technology) influence product flow. Marketing – a guessing game at best – and advertising / promotions cost money.

Bugs and others were genuinely marketed like mad... Then Tweety, Taz, and Scooby took over... some Warner higher-ups wanted it that way... damaging strategy in the long-term that probably did fine, in the short term, for a number of executives who cashed in and ran.Rightly recalled. And somewhat of a separate topic. Any corporation in any industry is going to push the flavor of the month. Again, given the many considerations in the background that get the cartoons out there – time and cost of restoration, devising packaging that can be expected to sell, video formats, downloading / streaming – there isn't much for WHV to trumpet right now.

That's pretty much what forums like this are for.

We really don't need Daffy Duck t-shirts; we need classic films restored, archived and distributed. And for the time being, that's a slow, costly process.

:befuddled

[Glowworm]

Hmm, I actually have some really odd Looney Tunes merchandise from recent years.
I own a pair of Playboy Penguin pajamas--got them at JC Pennys 2 years ago. They say "Dressed to chill" on them. Pussyfoot can be seen from time to time on female t-shirts--I own one that says "Good Kitty" and on the back "Gone Bad" Also, two years ago my boyfriend managed to get me from Six Flags a Pussyfoot plushy--that's right--Pussyfoot-a nicely sized one too.

[Gasmask Ted]

"The lack of daily screenings of Casablanca haven't diminished Bogart's standing in our collective consciousness."

And yet I did not actually watch a Bogart movie (I'm discounting cartoon caricatures here, or any movie that may have washed over me with no impression as a little kid) until I was in my 30s (more or less; I might have been in my very late 20s when I saw Treasure of the Sierra Madre or the Big Sleep). I would expect this to be more acute for people who grew up with an even more fragmented tv feed than I did, where Bill Kennedy type mid day movies would have featured him and I and all my peers watched Looney Tunes that caricatured him.

Are there any long term Q score surveys to show how someone like Bogart has been dropping off? You can see some data like that but only over a 2 year period in a chart at
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=46256
11 of the listed dead celebrities had drops in their Q score over a 2 year period, 4 had rises, and 2 were new to the list (presumably the two knocked off the list fell, but that is unclear). Three of the four with rises had a significant syndicated tv presence at the time (Lucy, Jackie Gleason, Michael Landon), and the fourth was John Wayne, who may have had more movie showings than any of the others (possibly excepting Jimmy Stewart). Carroll O'Connor would have had lots of syndicated tv as well, but he was more freshly dead than the four increases, and may have been reaching his stable dead level.

[Speedy Boris]

Um, you guys know that the aforementioned quote came from DarthGonzo, aka Cueballcat79, a member here, don't you? I do agree he could've phrased that more eloquently, but it wasn't made by some old school hater. (and also, Bradsky, you can take any less-than-stellar quote and make an entire message board look bad. I could do the same for GAC. I don't really know what you're trying to prove here.)

Anyway, the LTs aren't dead but they're in something of a down phase. The main hurdle is, they absolutely need to be on TV regularly (and not just Boomerang) in order for the younger kids to grow up with them and become fans themselves.

Let me tell you a story. At Christmas, I had bought my mom the 7th Spotlight Collection. We were having my dad's side over to our house, and three younger kids (ranging from... I think 4-8) were coming over as well. My dad suggested I put on the Spotlight DVDs for them to watch so they wouldn't be bored. They raptly watched every cartoon on the 2 discs, laughed many times, and proclaimed they liked the shorts when they had to leave. Obviously not every child is alike, but if this is any indication, it's that these shorts are instantly accessible and if they'd just air where people can see them, the LTs won't die. DVDs help, but only by so much.

[Marty26]

Has Warners Brothers ever ever ever really properly "pushed"/ mass-marketed LT/MM characters with the exception of Taz and Tweety? When the Warner Brothers retail stores existed, it seemed to me that WB only cared about was Scooby-Doo, Batman, any crap recent WB movie, Taz, Tweety.

Clearly you're forgetting how, back in the mid-90's, the Looney Tunes (all of them) were mascots for the Chicago Bulls. Which is basically why Space Jam exists.

[Marty26]

Um, you guys know that the aforementioned quote came from DarthGonzo, aka Cueballcat79, a member here, don't you? I do agree he could've phrased that more eloquently, but it wasn't made by some old school hater. (and also, Bradsky, you can take any less-than-stellar quote and make an entire message board look bad. I could do the same for GAC. I don't really know what you're trying to prove here.)

Anyway, the LTs aren't dead but they're in something of a down phase. The main hurdle is, they absolutely need to be on TV regularly (and not just Boomerang) in order for the younger kids to grow up with them and become fans themselves.

Let me tell you a story. At Christmas, I had bought my mom the 7th Spotlight Collection. We were having my dad's side over to our house, and three younger kids (ranging from... I think 4-8) were coming over as well. My dad suggested I put on the Spotlight DVDs for them to watch so they wouldn't be bored. They raptly watched every cartoon on the 2 discs, and proclaimed they liked the shorts when they had to leave. Obviously not every child is alike, but if this is any indication, it's that these shorts are instantly accessible and if they'd just air where people can see them (or, as an alternative, if parents buy the DVDs and show them that way), the LTs won't die.

Speedy Boris hit the nail on the head. The main problem is that the Looney Tunes are often shown at the most inconvenient times, mainly so that "newer" cartoons can be presented to the kiddies. This is really only a recent problem as, even a decade ago, you could watch Looney Tunes or The Flintstones on syndicated after-school television. However, it seems that, because cartoons have become so much easier and cheaper to make thanks to ever-progressing computer technology, companies are pumping out more of them. And so the classics are being gradually phased out.

[Thad]

Ah the joys of a quote taken out of context. Just another reminder of why the Internet is only useful for jerking off to porn.

They ARE a dead property in the sense that nobody, nobody wants to see a new Looney Tune. Get over it. We've all seen that these things blow. People need to get over the fact that doing a new Bugs Bunny is as logical as doing a new Laurel & Hardy or Chaplin. Put the old ones out and on. If you have to, do a new film or TV show that captures the feel of those old cartoons while doing something unique and new.

[Leviathan]

DG's comment was in the context of the Speedy Gonzales movie, so Thad's explanation makes sense.

The main hurdle is, they absolutely need to be on TV regularly (and not just Boomerang) in order for the younger kids to grow up with them and become fans themselves.But not just that. In the 90's, practically every non-Disney network that showed animation had a dedicated Looney Tunes show. They were accessible everywhere.

Even if WB were to legally put up all 1000 cartoons on Youtube and promote the hell out of it, kids would have to actively seek them out. It's like the weird paradox with music videos online where they totally render MTV's original format obsolete, but the lack of random 24/7 content in one location negates it.

[FishBulb]

I prefer to think of them as resting. I hope they're just resting anyway.:(

[zenchan]

Looking at it from another angle, though, can you name any collections of media from as far back as the 1930s and 40s that are as ALIVE as the Looney Tunes?

There surely can't be anything other collected works, from the discographies of old jazz musicians to the works of early film directors, that old that are still so readily discussed and collected and still have semi-regular releases such as the Super Stars DVDs coming out soon.

Just food for thought . . .

[nickramer]

Looking at it from another angle, though, can you name any collections of media from as far back as the 1930s and 40s that are as ALIVE as the Looney Tunes?

There surely can't be anything other collected works, from the discographies of old jazz musicians to the works of early film directors, that old that are still so readily discussed and collected and still have semi-regular releases such as the Super Stars DVDs coming out soon.

Just food for thought . . .
There's Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and friends.

[Cartman]

There's Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and friends.
Not to mention Betty Boop. Although she is more of an icon for women's apparel than she is a cartoon character.

[Bugsy-Kun]

Please. Looney Tunes are a dead property. People just need to accept it and move on.

This is what can claimed any brats who never want to watch anything made before 1980.

Looney Tunes are a important part of our animation heritage. They are true classics because the artists lived the 30's Depression and the Wartime in the 40's and this films helped the world to stay happy. But why did they are replaced by Miley Cyrus and all of the Lady Gaga crap?

If i have kids, i will showed this cartoons like they really are and not the way it's aired on television.

And finally, i did also a mention about Lucky Luke and how since the Morris' death, some random companies try to take advantage of his characters for whatever the hell they want. It's the misery to lived today if you worked 50 years to something which was truly good in begins.

(It's not just a random comment i find something on the web or a newspaper, it's actually TRUE!)

[captchucky]

None of the classic era cartoons seem to be strong right now from a marketing perspective. If the cartoons are shown, after a while they become popular, if not, they fade into obscurity.

[Gasmask Ted]

Look, I know Lady Gaga is not traditionally attractive, but how many times do I have to tell you she's not a dude rabbit in drag...

[larriva9/11]

Maybe it isn't a matter of being "dead" so much as morphing into more of a "boutique" taste and enterprise--and hey, given the indignities performed in the name of mass-marketing Looney Tunes over the years, maybe it's better off that way. As I've suggested before, I'd rather have no MM/LTs at all on TV than a chopped-up Bugs Bunny & Tweety show...

[millsie]

Don't know how relevant this is but the Looney Tunes are not that dead but outside of North America. They are still seen regularly on Boomerang and Cartoon Network here in Australia and I believe that that Channel 9 our biggest FTA station also shows Looney Tunes on Saturday mornings.

In the last year the Looney Tunes have been used on more and more brands. Coles supermarkets, the biggest supermarket chain in Australia, have launch a range of Looney Tunes cereals as well as Looney Tunes milk flavouring. Cenovis Vitamins have also launched a range of children's vitamins featuring Bugs and Daffy on the packaging.

[DaffyDave]

Let me tell you a story. At Christmas, I had bought my mom the 7th Spotlight Collection. We were having my dad's side over to our house, and three younger kids (ranging from... I think 4-8) were coming over as well. My dad suggested I put on the Spotlight DVDs for them to watch so they wouldn't be bored. They raptly watched every cartoon on the 2 discs, laughed many times, and proclaimed they liked the shorts when they had to leave. Obviously not every child is alike, but if this is any indication, it's that these shorts are instantly accessible and if they'd just air where people can see them, the LTs won't die. DVDs help, but only by so much.

I can back this up. I watch LTGC disks with my 8 yr old & 5 yr old all the time. When they have friends over, the disks are in the player and get watched while the kids play. Sometimes the friends parents call & ask me what disk they were watching that was so funny, and they end up getting them as well.

When they were aired in November & December, these kids were having their parents DVR them. They had friends over for the New Years Day Marathon.

It's a shame CN took them off again. They were building a new audience, at least here in my little town.

[cartoonfan4ever]

They are not dead. The fact that they are still out on DVD, shown on TV (unfortunately not in the U.S. that I know of) and are used on merchandise proves it. Yet that doesn't mean that new ones should be made. The LTs are good because they are a product of their time. I don't think using the LT characters work well in today's time.

I agree with what Thad said, "...doing a new Bugs Bunny is as logical as doing a new Laurel & Hardy or Chaplin."

[Bugsy-Kun]

Look, I know Lady Gaga is not traditionally attractive, but how many times do I have to tell you she's not a dude rabbit in drag...

I apologise to my repulsive attitude. Which i confess, that was gratuitious but can explain what i trying to mean.

This is all of the cool and Tude madness was invanded since many years who annoys me and that peoples like too much at my taste. I know, i already acted like that before but now i stopped when some old friends told me to stop.

[Gasmask Ted]

Oh English as a second language, where is thy sting?

[nickramer]

I agree with what Thad said, "...doing a new Bugs Bunny is as logical as doing a new Laurel & Hardy or Chaplin."
Personally, I wouldn't mind a new cartoon one in a whille only if it's done right and only after the classic stuff have been shown on TV long enough. Course, I don't expect that to happen any time soon, but maybe...

[J. B. Warner]

Normally, I'd be against any new projects with the classic Looney Tunes characters, but Greg Ford and Terry Lennon proved that it could be done right. Unfortunately, in 20 years, nobody else has been able to pull it off, which does make me think that maybe the time for new Looney Tunes projects has passed after all.

In that respect, I can see how the Looney Tunes could be considered "dead". I just don't want them to die completely, which is what I thought DarthGonzo/Cueball was implying. My apologies for misinterpreting his post.

[Matthew Hunter]

I don't think they're dead, but they will be if nobody makes an effort to promote them.

I was a late 80's/early 90's kid, and back then, Looney Tunes were everywhere, just as much as then-current cartoons, if not more so. You could see the cartoons on multiple TV channels several times a day. You couldn't even go to the grocery store without seeing Bugs Bunny's face on some product or another. Malls had Warner Bros. stores filled to the brim with LT merchandise, long before the Tweety/Taz/Scooby Doo/Superhero era David mentions. Fast food places had Looney Tunes kids meal toys. Looney Tunes t-shirts were everywhere. New shorts, "Tiny Toons", "Taz Mania", and later "Space Jam" were huge successes. You could rent the classics on video. You could buy video games with the characters.

Now, you're lucky to find Taz on a pair of boxers at Wal-Mart, or a Tweety car air freshener.

If they're not in the public eye, and there is no merchandise, they won't make money or generate interest. Warner Bros. screwed up.

[mulroz]

Not to mention Betty Boop. Although she is more of an icon for women's apparel than she is a cartoon character.

I definetely prefer Betty above Lady Gaga.

Go back even further. Felix the Cat is not on tv anymore, but he's still an icon. And valuable enough for mr Oriolo to take good care of his rights.

[SatStorm]

Let me point out, that Television, as a media, has lost the spotlight on the new generation (and not only). The last couple of years, it is all about the internet and only the internet. And that grows daily.

Viewers common sense versus the ignorance and the stupidity of today's TV / Cinema industry. People choosed the internet! It is a great victory against the world stupidity. And also, all that mass access to the old material (movies, series, cartoons, etc) put daily on shame most of the current productions!

The classic cartoons are everywhere online. It's a click away, you don't have to wait a TV broadcast and you can watch them for free and uncut. And with the original voice cast! (this is a huge problem for us outside US/UK/AusQ we have translated cartoons only and that is awfull on so many levels!)

My 14 year old cousin and many of his friend at school, have Looney Toons on their cell phones / PMPs, and watch them through those tiny screens. This is how they exposed on them nowdays. No TV, just little Cell phones screens...

[Bugsy-Kun]

All of this discussion remember something similar about i forget to talking about.

At the 80's-early 90's, you can see Woody Woodpecker again on your local TV stations as well you can buy or rent their few videotapes and remember his laugh again. I remember was upsetting they pulled off in winter 1996 for no reasons. The character having a come-back in 1999 inspired of the 1940's Lundy look cartoons.

We can say whatever we want with the Lantz characters, but it stays some of the only classic characters who almost don't suffered to the hip trend that many others characters have at this time. The newest series don't have that if i reminds. Now, they aren't show on TV, even not on DVD anymore. Only by YouTube.

[LooneyFan]

Tweety's not the only one selling stuff. I've seen Marvin (but in a traditional clip art way) on a few shirts...maybe it's not the BEST way to advertise Looney Tunes, but at least the shirt says, "Hey! Look here, this guy is still alive, you know!"
There's also cards, keychains, comics, coloring books, and theres probably more. And who knows how well the new DVDs will sell in April.

This was a few years ago, but I had my cousins over for a holiday. To keep them busy, I usually put in a video for them to watch (something we can all stand). I just bought a few Spongebob VHS, so I thought naturally, they would like to watch Spongebob. But knowing I had a collection of Looney Tunes, they shouted "NO! Looney Tunes!" I responded back "Are you sure?" "Yeah! LOONEY TUNES!" I was touched.

[Marty26]

Tweety's not the only one selling stuff. I've seen Marvin (but in a traditional clip art way) on a few shirts...maybe it's not the BEST way to advertise Looney Tunes, but at least the shirt says, "Hey! Look here, this guy is still alive, you know!"
There's also cards, keychains, comics, coloring books, and theres probably more. And who knows how well the new DVDs will sell in April.

This was a few years ago, but I had my cousins over for a holiday. To keep them busy, I usually put in a video for them to watch (something we can all stand). I just bought a few Spongebob VHS, so I thought naturally, they would like to watch Spongebob. But knowing I had a collection of Looney Tunes, they shouted "NO! Looney Tunes!" I responded back "Are you sure?" "Yeah! LOONEY TUNES!" I was touched.

I think WB should be notified of this.

[captchucky]

Don't know how relevant this is but the Looney Tunes are not that dead but outside of North America. They are still seen regularly on Boomerang and Cartoon Network here in Australia and I believe that that Channel 9 our biggest FTA station also shows Looney Tunes on Saturday mornings.

In the last year the Looney Tunes have been used on more and more brands. Coles supermarkets, the biggest supermarket chain in Australia, have launch a range of Looney Tunes cereals as well as Looney Tunes milk flavouring. Cenovis Vitamins have also launched a range of children's vitamins featuring Bugs and Daffy on the packaging.

Yes, this is relevant! Here's another example: The U.S. doesn't get anywhere near the funny animal comics that all the other countries get either. Looney Tunes and Bugs Bunny comics used to sell in 500,000+ numbers in the 1950's and early 60's in the U.S., but now sales on these sorts of titles are well under 10,000 copies. We have no distribution for this kind of material. Apparently, the powers that be don't like the stuff that I like.

[raginggoodfella]

Clearly you're forgetting how, back in the mid-90's, the Looney Tunes (all of them) were mascots for the Chicago Bulls. Which is basically why Space Jam exists.
I always thought that SPACE JAM was marketing tool for the M. Jordan brand/image.

[Daffysleftfoot]

This brings to mind an incident that happened a bunch of years ago when WB announced that Michigan J Frog would no longer be used as a mascot for their TV shows. As I recall, they proudly said that "Michigan J is dead and buried". When the reporters seemed to object to that statement, the WB quickly retracted it and said "OK, I guess he's alive and living somewhere". I know this happened sometime after the turn of the century but I forget when exactly. Hopefully someone here could help me out.

One thing I do blame the decline of the Looney Tunes franchise on is Full House. Remember how big a runaway hit that was? Ever since then, WB has been trying to duplicate that success with a sickeningly family friendly image. The Looney Tunes, however, got started in the 1930's when WB was all about the gritty gangster films of James Cagney, George Raft, and later Humphrey Bogart. That gritty attitude is definitely a part of the LT dynamic. Bugs Bunny and many of the other characters with Brooklyn accents were speaking the language of the streets at the time. Such grit does not jibe well with the family entertainment the WB has wanted to produce since the 90's.

But, of course, the big fly in the ointment is the gross incompetence of the WB executives. Most of the people in charge of WB animation were either demoted from the live action division for gross incompetence or fired from Disney for (once again) gross incompetence. WB animation is some people's last stop before being flushed out of the industry to look for a minimum wage job. If we want the Looney Tunes to be anywhere close to successful, the first thing that needs to be done is for WB to hire BENEVOLENT and COMPETENT people who WANT to be there. After that, everything else should hopefully take care of itself.

[nickramer]

One thing I do blame the decline of the Looney Tunes franchise on is Full House. Remember how big a runaway hit that was? Ever since then, WB has been trying to duplicate that success with a sickeningly family friendly image. The Looney Tunes, however, got started in the 1930's when WB was all about the gritty gangster films of James Cagney, George Raft, and later Humphrey Bogart. That gritty attitude is definitely a part of the LT dynamic. Bugs Bunny and many of the other characters with Brooklyn accents were speaking the language of the streets at the time. Such grit does not jibe well with the family entertainment the WB has wanted to produce since the 90's.

I think that's theory is too much of a stretch.

[oceansoul]

Wow, 5 pages about a misunderstood quote. Classic.

[GarudaBoy!]

Dead? No. They've just hit a recent patch of unpopularity. Whether it persists or not depends on if and when anything Looney Tunes related comes out and sparks a revival of interest in any of the older stuff.

But the property will never be completely unmarketable/dead. At worst, it'l be relegated to strict classics/oldies status like Charlie Chaplin. But it may very well never again be as popular as it was in the 1990s. Just look at the Flintstones, for example.

[wiley207]

We REALLY needed a thread like this ;)


One thing I do blame the decline of the Looney Tunes franchise on is Full House.

If that's one reason, then Pixar and the overpopularity of CGI animation is another to blame. :rolleyes:

I do remember a friend of mine saying he heard someone comment that Looney Tunes would be better if it had animation like "Ratatouille." THAT sickens me. :mad: And "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" came out at a bad time, when CGI talking animal movies were beginning to take over the theatrical animation market. The public did not want to see the age-old technique of live-action blended with 2D animation (even if it is colored digitally). They wanted CGI animation, or worse, the kind of setup that is coming out with those Marvin and Speedy movies. :eek:

And the WB writing staff apparently thinks the Looney Tunes are cliched, judging by the script of "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" and almost any LT production made when Sander Schwartz was president of Warner Bros. Animation (especially the awful 2003-2004 shorts). The Looney Tunes ISN'T all about cliches. Now that they got back some pretty good staff members like Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone and Paul Dini, hopefully this will change. They made a pretty good Scooby-Doo movie together that wasn't like the worn-out movies from 2004-2009. Let's hope they can do the same for Looney Tunes!

[CueBallCat79]

Wait, what? Something I said on TZ resulted in a 5 page thread over here? Wow, I feel important.

I can't help but feel things aren't going to get better for the Looney Tunes. Like Thad said, it's ridiculous to try and create new cartoons featuring these characters. As long as animation is sent overseas and is done by committee any new LT project is going to suck by default. They're not even on TV in this country anymore. I never really see merchandise. The Golden Collections were canceled. The upcoming projects we ARE getting are going to be absolute crap that isn't going to make the characters look appealing to new generations. WB seems to be everything possible to kill these characters.

And I think it's working.

[nickramer]

Wait, what? Something I said on TZ resulted in a 5 page thread over here? Wow, I feel important.

I can't help but feel things aren't going to get better for the Looney Tunes. Like Thad said, it's ridiculous to try and create new cartoons featuring these characters. As long as animation is sent overseas and is done by committee any new LT project is going to suck by default. They're not even on TV in this country anymore. I never really see merchandise. The Golden Collections were canceled. The upcoming projects we ARE getting are going to be absolute crap that isn't going to make the characters look appealing to new generations. WB seems to be everything possible to kill these characters.

And I think it's working.
Boy you sure lifted our spirits up.:rolleyes:

Seriously, We STILL are getting Looney Tune DVDs, just not sets (I blame the eccoemy). Also, if you haven't noticed, Jerry's 100 Greatest Looney Tune book is coming out in the next few month.


And I believe we shouldn't say the new shows bad until we actually see it.

[kaseykockroach]

And I believe we shouldn't say the new shows bad until we actually see it.
Yes, let's give the CGI sitcom-style Looney Tunes shorts a chance...

[nickramer]

Yes, let's give the CGI sitcom-style Looney Tunes shorts a chance...
How do you know it's all going to be CGI? I only heard of just some Road Runner bits.

[Jack G.]

I don't have faith that a big corporation (Warner) will do anything new with these characters that's actually good.

As for the classics- they will continually be discovered by a new audience if given a chance.
I don't expect it to be as large as those who grew up with these characters on TV every day.

[larriva9/11]

Let me point out, that Television, as a media, has lost the spotlight on the new generation (and not only). The last couple of years, it is all about the internet and only the internet. And that grows daily.

Viewers common sense versus the ignorance and the stupidity of today's TV / Cinema industry. People choosed the internet! It is a great victory against the world stupidity. And also, all that mass access to the old material (movies, series, cartoons, etc) put daily on shame most of the current productions!

The classic cartoons are everywhere online. It's a click away, you don't have to wait a TV broadcast and you can watch them for free and uncut. And with the original voice cast! (this is a huge problem for us outside US/UK/AusQ we have translated cartoons only and that is awfull on so many levels!)

My 14 year old cousin and many of his friend at school, have Looney Toons on their cell phones / PMPs, and watch them through those tiny screens. This is how they exposed on them nowdays. No TV, just little Cell phones screens...


You know, this reflects my own thoughts on the matter all along--and I'm flabbergasted by how, in this thread, all too many posters haven't clued into the degree to which the media and media-consumption paradigm has changed in recent years. Even though it's, quite literally, right at your fingertips. Hey, folks, stop viewing the issue through the filter of your own MM/LT upbringing as if the Interweb was as much of a non-factor and a non-issue now as it was then...

[Thad]

As long as animation is sent overseas and is done by committee any new LT project is going to suck by default.

Emphasis added because this isn't said enough. And even those Warner cartoons made in the 90s that were animated in-house altogether weren't that well animated either. Golden Age level talent like Mark Kausler, Eric Goldberg, Bob Jaques, or Kelly Armstrong (the only animator alive who can animate like Rod Scribner) is hard to come by since actual animation training doesn't happen in America anymore.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Let me point out, that Television, as a media, has lost the spotlight on the new generation (and not only). The last couple of years, it is all about the internet and only the internet. And that grows daily.

Viewers common sense versus the ignorance and the stupidity of today's TV / Cinema industry. People choosed the internet! It is a great victory against the world stupidity. And also, all that mass access to the old material (movies, series, cartoons, etc) put daily on shame most of the current productions!

The classic cartoons are everywhere online. It's a click away, you don't have to wait a TV broadcast and you can watch them for free and uncut. And with the original voice cast! (this is a huge problem for us outside US/UK/AusQ we have translated cartoons only and that is awfull on so many levels!)

My 14 year old cousin and many of his friend at school, have Looney Toons on their cell phones / PMPs, and watch them through those tiny screens. This is how they exposed on them nowdays. No TV, just little Cell phones screens...

You know, this reflects my own thoughts on the matter all along--and I'm flabbergasted by how, in this thread, all too many posters haven't clued into the degree to which the media and media-consumption paradigm has changed in recent years. Even though it's, quite literally, right at your fingertips. Hey, folks, stop viewing the issue through the filter of your own MM/LT upbringing as if the Interweb was as much of a non-factor and a non-issue now as it was then...
While you're both right that the Looney Tunes are available on DVDs, the internet, and as downloads for iphones and other products, the fact remains that it costs money to see these cartoons now, while when I was a child we saw them for free on network TV. Also, the former options are still only available for those within a certain income range; poor people can't afford all this new technology. Decades ago, even most poor people had a TV set, and thus were exposed to the same programs as the middle and upper classes. Computer access to the internet is still only in a minority of U.S. homes. Kids would have to at least heard of the cartoons if they were going to search them out on the internet, or download them, or purchase the DVDs. If you don't know they exist, how can you find them?

If Warners really wants to make sure these cartoons have a future, it would put them on network TV, somewhere between 3 to 5 pm, so that older kids can see them after school. Even putting them on cable limits their availability, since a lot of poor families can't afford to pay $30 per month for a TV service.

[mulroz]

Yes, let's give the CGI sitcom-style Looney Tunes shorts a chance...

You're right. Just imagine that a talent stands up comparable with Tex Avery and just for once WB gives him free hand....

[larriva9/11]

While you're both right that the Looney Tunes are available on DVDs, the internet, and as downloads for iphones and other products, the fact remains that it costs money to see these cartoons now, while when I was a child we saw them for free on network TV. Also, the former options are still only available for those within a certain income range; poor people can't afford all this new technology. Decades ago, even most poor people had a TV set, and thus were exposed to the same programs as the middle and upper classes. Computer access to the internet is still only in a minority of U.S. homes. Kids would have to at least heard of the cartoons if they were going to search them out on the internet, or download them, or purchase the DVDs. If you don't know they exist, how can you find them?

If Warners really wants to make sure these cartoons have a future, it would put them on network TV, somewhere between 3 to 5 pm, so that older kids can see them after school. Even putting them on cable limits their availability, since a lot of poor families can't afford to pay $30 per month for a TV service.

Well, as I said earlier, maybe it's less a matter of MM/LTs "dying" than of their becoming more of a "boutique" taste--and, for that matter, of a certain entertainment-option class divide that once wasn't there; and if you *really* want to be sociological, the nature of parenting and family-rearing, too. It isn't just that poor people haven't the access to such technology (well, they might have done so on *harrumph* credit before the Great Recession hit); it's that the network TV you speak of is increasingly stigmatized as a "poor person's" realm. Or even the lounging-in-front-of-the-TV-between-3-and-5-PM ritual; maybe it was more the universal norm three or four decades ago, but in this age of "active" parenting, etc, it's practically a sign of backwoods neglect, down there with deep-fried obesity, etc.

I reckon there's deeper issues to address the poor about these days than to simply "make the toons available"--fix the foundation before you overencumber the superstructure, let alone with butchered Bugs Bunny & Tweety fare...

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Well, as I said earlier, maybe it's less a matter of MM/LTs "dying" than of their becoming more of a "boutique" taste--and, for that matter, of a certain entertainment-option class divide that once wasn't there; and if you *really* want to be sociological, the nature of parenting and family-rearing, too. It isn't just that poor people haven't the access to such technology (well, they might have done so on *harrumph* credit before the Great Recession hit); it's that the network TV you speak of is increasingly stigmatized as a "poor person's" realm. Or even the lounging-in-front-of-the-TV-between-3-and-5-PM ritual; maybe it was more the universal norm three or four decades ago, but in this age of "active" parenting, etc, it's practically a sign of backwoods neglect, down there with deep-fried obesity, etc.

I reckon there's deeper issues to address the poor about these days than to simply "make the toons available"--fix the foundation before you overencumber the superstructure, let alone with butchered Bugs Bunny & Tweety fare...
I didn't mean to imply the poor don't have bigger problems, just that it would be in Warner's interest to reach the widest possible audience with their product, thus insuring that future generations will want to purchase said product once it's released on the newest and greatest home video gadget.

Maybe I was too narrow to focus on the lower classes, since many middle class people are not purchasing DVDs or downloads nowadays either, thanks to the poor economy. Also, network television, despite the creative slump it's in, is still garnering the highest Nielson ratings. Cable shows don't don't reach as many people. Watching shows on the internet, and downloading them, is still the province of middle and upper class youth.

Kids today may have more activities that they attend to, but I still see children wasting many hours in front of the TV, usually playing violent video games.

[wiley207]

Emphasis added because this isn't said enough. And even those Warner cartoons made in the 90s that were animated in-house altogether weren't that well animated either. Golden Age level talent like Mark Kausler, Eric Goldberg, Bob Jaques, or Kelly Armstrong (the only animator alive who can animate like Rod Scribner) is hard to come by since actual animation training doesn't happen in America anymore.

Yeah, WB usually fails to realize that. It's always DongWoo Animation, DongWoo Animation and DongWoo Animation!

[GarudaBoy!]

If Warners really wants to make sure these cartoons have a future, it would put them on network TV, somewhere between 3 to 5 pm, so that older kids can see them after school. Even putting them on cable limits their availability, since a lot of poor families can't afford to pay $30 per month for a TV service.

That's not going to happen anytime soon. Most network stations don't even have 3 to 5 pm kids' blocks anymore; they show syndicated talk shows and sitcom reruns instead, because that's where the ratings are. The days of weekday afternoon kids' TV blocks as a standard element of TV programming are, for the most part, long gone.

And you may be surprised how man poor families have some sort of access to the internet, whether it's through public/school libraries or through phones or netbooks. Going forward, the Internet is really going to be the main venue of exposure for Looney Tunes and anything else of its vintage save Tom & Jerry.

[larriva9/11]

Kids today may have more activities that they attend to, but I still see children wasting many hours in front of the TV, usually playing violent video games.

"Violent video games" (and the means to obtain/access/use them) cost money, too. So to simply lay blame on the economy, income levels, etc isn't adequate--methinks that if they're so fatally hooked upon said games, they're lost to the subtleties of MM/LT anyway, and bringing them back won't help things one inch.

And besides, don't forget the parental element as well--something which is all too often forgotten in these judgments of kids and their consumption (entertainment and otherwise) habits. Look: what you're decrying re "violent video games" is but the continuation of an absentee hands-off parenting pattern that's been in effect ever since TV ingrained itself as an "electronic babysitter" some six decades ago--yeah, I know, if it weren't for said electronic babysitter most of us wouldn't be discussing toons on forums like this; but, still. You can't have kids taking responsibility without parents setting a palatable pattern for the same--and interestingly enough, a lot of today's palatable-pattern-setters (albeit, perhaps, heavily of the "Stuff White People Like" variety) happen to themselves be the prodigal-son'n'daughter offspring of the electronic babysitter...

[Matthew Hunter]

Yes, this is relevant! Here's another example: The U.S. doesn't get anywhere near the funny animal comics that all the other countries get either. Looney Tunes and Bugs Bunny comics used to sell in 500,000+ numbers in the 1950's and early 60's in the U.S., but now sales on these sorts of titles are well under 10,000 copies. We have no distribution for this kind of material. Apparently, the powers that be don't like the stuff that I like.

Count me as one of the 10,000! In my opinion, the DC comics are the only medium that has remained 100 percent true to the characters for the last 15 years straight. I have almost every issue, with a few gaps here and there. Some stories are better than others, and they've started mixing in reprints with new stories to save money, but I still buy them. I just bought # 183 yesterday, as a matter of fact. That's an impressive run!

They're more popular overseas, as I understand it, but SOMEBODY here is buying them, as they have outlasted every other cartoon-oriented comic DC has published...I think Scooby Doo is still going, but the other Hanna-Barbera series they used to publish are long gone, and they recently gave the Cartoon Network series the axe. The comic store people look at me like I'm on crack when I buy them, but they seem to sell well, because they keep stocking them and they disappear quickly. That leads me to believe that kids are buying them, and if so, they're kids with good taste.

The really sad thing is that superhero comics have such a strangle-hold on the comic readers and collectors that Looney Tunes, Disney, and other cartoon-based comics are considered all but worthless to them. I recently took my collection of LT comics, which includes most of the DC issues and a ton of Western stuff from the 1940's through the early 1980's, to a comic shop here in Austin that specializes in back issues and older comics. I just wanted to get it "appraised", and see if they were interested in buying anything I was willing to part with. They were impressed with the collection (actual quote: "wow!") and told me I was sitting on a fortune at face value, but that my chances of cashing in on any of it were slim to none, because collectors only go for the superhero stuff.

Damn superheroes! But at the same time, I'll hopefully be able to share them with my own children someday. After all, in the end great art is worth only as much as the enjoyment it gives to those who truly appreciate it.:bugs2:

[captchucky]

Count me as one of the 10,000! In my opinion, the DC comics are the only medium that has remained 100 percent true to the characters for the last 15 years straight. I have almost every issue, with a few gaps here and there. Some stories are better than others, and they've started mixing in reprints with new stories to save money, but I still buy them. I just bought # 183 yesterday, as a matter of fact. That's an impressive run!

They're more popular overseas, as I understand it, but SOMEBODY here is buying them, as they have outlasted every other cartoon-oriented comic DC has published...I think Scooby Doo is still going, but the other Hanna-Barbera series they used to publish are long gone, and they recently gave the Cartoon Network series the axe. The comic store people look at me like I'm on crack when I buy them, but they seem to sell well, because they keep stocking them and they disappear quickly. That leads me to believe that kids are buying them, and if so, they're kids with good taste.

The really sad thing is that superhero comics have such a strangle-hold on the comic readers and collectors that Looney Tunes, Disney, and other cartoon-based comics are considered all but worthless to them. I recently took my collection of LT comics, which includes most of the DC issues and a ton of Western stuff from the 1940's through the early 1980's, to a comic shop here in Austin that specializes in back issues and older comics. I just wanted to get it "appraised", and see if they were interested in buying anything I was willing to part with. They were impressed with the collection (actual quote: "wow!") and told me I was sitting on a fortune at face value, but that my chances of cashing in on any of it were slim to none, because collectors only go for the superhero stuff.

Damn superheroes! But at the same time, I'll hopefully be able to share them with my own children someday. After all, in the end great art is worth only as much as the enjoyment it gives to those who truly appreciate it.:bugs2:

Well, I'm glad you enjoy them. (I was one of the first artists on the DC series) The WB and Disney characters are all faves of mine, and I hope they continue for a long time!

[larriva9/11]

Bugs and others were genuinely marketed like mad—both inside the Studio Stores and outside—until about the late 1990s. I saw it; I remember. As a reflection of this, SPACE JAM was genuinely successful (irrespective of its strengths or weaknesses), with Bugs right at the eye of the storm.

Then Tweety, Taz, and Scooby took over. From what I understand, an early 1990s market study had showed that kids thought Taz the "most exciting" Warner character. I'm not certain what study did it for Tweety.
Scooby, meanwhile, appears to have been emphasized simply because some Warner higher-ups wanted it that way. There was some genuine popularity there, but based almost entirely on nostalgia rather than quality. This doesn't make for a brand that can break out to new audiences easily unless other leading brands look worse; in 1971 they did, but in 2003 they didn't.

Overall, the Tweety/Taz/Scooby rush felt like a deliberate effort to put all of Warner's eggs in one basket; and once the three characters were played out, all others had been minimized so dramatically that there was no chance of reviving their fortunes. It was an incredibly damaging strategy in the long-term that probably did fine, in the short term, for a number of executives who cashed in and ran.

I presume Taz was for the boys, Tweety was for the girls (kind of like how Disney's been pushing Tinker Bell to the hilt lately). And Scooby...for the Xers.

You know, returning to this Tweety/Taz/Scooby rush thing, I think something similar happened in the 1960s and 1970s...to the Road Runner. Probably because of some surveyed-or-not supposition that the RR was "most exciting" to the kids--and probably most easy for the really young ones to digest, too, because it lacked the "dialog" factor. Superficially, the premise was as reductivist-simple as Barbara Cameron had depicted it: the Road Runner running on the road all day, the crazy-clod coyote always trying to capture him and blowing himself up real good in the process. Can't you see the tots chuckling with excitement? And at the same time, esp. in the 60s milieu of Rat Fink and hot-rod culture (that which ultimately trickled down to kiddie toys like Hot Wheels), the RR likely registered as the "hippest" WB series, based as it was upon wide open roads and speed. So it had kiddie appeal *and* hipster appeal at once. Magic!

As a result, you got the Road Runner Show, complete with Barbara Cameron theme music and spanking new Larriva shorts (whose Lavaphillia carried over into the McKimson bridges); then, you had the Bugs Bunny Show morphing into the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show/Hour; and throw in Cameron's Road Runner song disfiguring classic Jones gags in the name of additional bridging segments. And so through this overkill you had, by the end of the 70s, the RR becoming perhaps the most loathed WB series, synonymous with "mindless cartoon violence", etc (er, excuse me, the mindlessness was in the packaging, not in the product). Ironically enough, the bad rep likely led to the RR being pulled on behalf of Tweety when it came to being second-billed to Bugs.

Fortunately, the RR overkill wasn't to the extent of damaging/diminishing the other brands as it'd be with Tweety/Taz/Scooby in the 90s...

[J. J. Hunsecker]

"Violent video games" (and the means to obtain/access/use them) cost money, too. So to simply lay blame on the economy, income levels, etc isn't adequate--methinks that if they're so fatally hooked upon said games, they're lost to the subtleties of MM/LT anyway, and bringing them back won't help things one inch.

And besides, don't forget the parental element as well--something which is all too often forgotten in these judgments of kids and their consumption (entertainment and otherwise) habits. Look: what you're decrying re "violent video games" is but the continuation of an absentee hands-off parenting pattern that's been in effect ever since TV ingrained itself as an "electronic babysitter" some six decades ago--yeah, I know, if it weren't for said electronic babysitter most of us wouldn't be discussing toons on forums like this; but, still. You can't have kids taking responsibility without parents setting a palatable pattern for the same--and interestingly enough, a lot of today's palatable-pattern-setters (albeit, perhaps, heavily of the "Stuff White People Like" variety) happen to themselves be the prodigal-son'n'daughter offspring of the electronic babysitter...
Well, it's the middle class kids I know that play the "violent video games" all day, so their parents have the money to buy them the games and consoles. These same parents also approve of those games and even play them with their kids, so it's not really "hands off parenting" that's the fault here. It would seem more like an addictiveness that some of the parents (mostly male) feel when playing these same games. Their kids also like Looney Tunes cartoons -- when they've had an opportunity to actually see them, that is. When these same middle class kids aren't playing video games, they seem to spend a lot of time watching Nickelodeon or Disney Channel for hours.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

And you may be surprised how man poor families have some sort of access to the internet, whether it's through public/school libraries or through phones or netbooks. Going forward, the Internet is really going to be the main venue of exposure for Looney Tunes and anything else of its vintage save Tom & Jerry.
Years ago, when my PC died, I used the public library's computers for awhile before purchasing a Mac. You only get an hour of access at the library for internet use, so I would assume most poor people, if their local libraries even have computers, wouldn't waste their time using them to watch entertainment, but rather use it to get important things done. I could be wrong, though, since I don't live in a poor neighborhood and haven't witnessed the habits of the lower classes.

[larriva9/11]

Well, it's the middle class kids I know that play the "violent video games" all day, so their parents have the money to buy them the games and consoles. These same parents also approve of those games and even play them with their kids, so it's not really "hands off parenting" that's the fault here. It would seem more like an addictiveness that some of the parents (mostly male) feel when playing these same games. Their kids also like Looney Tunes cartoons -- when they've had an opportunity to actually see them, that is. When these same middle class kids aren't playing video games, they seem to spend a lot of time watching Nickelodeon or Disney Channel for hours.

By the sound of things, such parents are the antithesis of what I'm getting at re Stuff White People Like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuff_White_People_Like) ; in fact they're more like banal suburban McMansion schlubs living out their eternal Don't Stop Believin'-era stadium-rock-drunken-puking-adolescent pathologies, so it's more like an irresponsible opposite-yet-complementary number to "hands off parenting". Or maybe they're the products of said parenting who haven't learned from the pitfalls of the model. They'll probably have the American Beauty-style hots for their daughters' friends once they come of age, too.

It's a deeper issue than simple superficial "middle classness", you know--in fact, by "Stuff White People Like" standards, simply living in an SUV-propelled exurban McMansion borders on culturally-and-otherwise irresponsible parenting, no matter what your class level...

[That 70s Mom]

Looney Tunes are a lot less "dead" than many other classic cartoons. No restored Terrytoons boxset or Little Audrey video game on my Target shelf. :(

[CueBallCat79]

This is scary:

http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3556747#post3556747

I can't believe people are trying to justify why Looney Tunes is only good enough to be scheduled in death slots or when no one is around to watch it. Believe me, it's only going to get worse. Kids today have officially moved past the need to care about these characters.

It won't be long before they're as good as dead. Especially if that thread is any indication of the "what's popular NOW?" generation thinks.

[nickramer]

These types of threads arn't helping, you know. I say we should do a petition to get them back on TV. Yes, I know this hardly works, but it wouldn't hurt to try.

[larriva9/11]

This is scary:

http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3556747#post3556747

I can't believe people are trying to justify why Looney Tunes is only good enough to be scheduled in death slots or when no one is around to watch it. Believe me, it's only going to get worse. Kids today have officially moved past the need to care about these characters.

It won't be long before they're as good as dead. Especially if that thread is any indication of the "what's popular NOW?" generation thinks.

Though actually, I can empathize with some of the sentiment in that thread--not the "banishment" logic per se, but the "classics being shoved in our face" logic--and don't blame the animation historians, blame the programmers, and the obsessively nostalgic boomers, etc for that.

It's a little like how "Brown-Eyed Girl" or "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay" were absolutely destroyed by oldies-radio overplay on behalf of dumb boomers who wanted a relief from that hip-hop crap, so to speak. Like, let's get a bit of air into this room, huh?

I don't think kids have moved past the need to care. More that they've moved past the need to be unilaterally tethered to the faulty artifice of old consumption models. Otherwise, they can still be quite inherently sensitive to--properly framed--the classic toons, much as they can still be quite inherently sensitive to Van or Otis...

[Daffysleftfoot]

The Looney Tunes should DEFINITELY be aired in prime time or any other highly visible time slot uncut and unaltered. But, they also should not be publicized into a big marketing blitz which is what I think those naysayers in that thread are afraid of.

We just want the classics to have a place in the culture. We don't need Bugs on every T-shirt or a Taz tattoo on every arm or whatever. All that's required is that these great works of art be displayed proudly for all generations to appreciate. Anyone in charge of TV (or any other medium) that is incapable of doing that should either step up their game or step down.

My 2 ¢

[GarudaBoy!]

Years ago, when my PC died, I used the public library's computers for awhile before purchasing a Mac. You only get an hour of access at the library for internet use, so I would assume most poor people, if their local libraries even have computers, wouldn't waste their time using them to watch entertainment, but rather use it to get important things done. I could be wrong, though, since I don't live in a poor neighborhood and haven't witnessed the habits of the lower classes.

Untrue assumption. Also, not all libraries have a one-hour restriction.

Also, that "habits of the lower classes" bit didn't come off quite right.

[raginggoodfella]

Untrue assumption. Also, not all libraries have a one-hour restriction.

Also, that "habits of the lower classes" bit didn't come off quite right.
What are the habits of the higher classes?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Though actually, I can empathize with some of the sentiment in that thread--not the "banishment" logic per se, but the "classics being shoved in our face" logic--and don't blame the animation historians, blame the programmers, and the obsessively nostalgic boomers, etc for that.

It's a little like how "Brown-Eyed Girl" or "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay" were absolutely destroyed by oldies-radio overplay on behalf of dumb boomers who wanted a relief from that hip-hop crap, so to speak. Like, let's get a bit of air into this room, huh?

I don't think kids have moved past the need to care. More that they've moved past the need to be unilaterally tethered to the faulty artifice of old consumption models. Otherwise, they can still be quite inherently sensitive to--properly framed--the classic toons, much as they can still be quite inherently sensitive to Van or Otis...

We don't need Bugs on every T-shirt or a Taz tattoo on every arm or whatever.
What Daffsleftfoot wrote reminds me that is was the generations who came after the Boomers who bought all that terrible merchandise of the Looney Tunes characters as hip hop gangstas. Unlike what Larriva911 wrote, the Baby Boom generation didn't shove that merchandise down the throat of the Gen-Xers or later generations.

Most children don't know that the Looney Tunes cartoons are old, or that they are classics. Every new generation who was exposed to those cartoons as children reacted to them as if seeing them for the first time. The only reason that is not happening today is because the cartoons are not readily available on network television anymore, or even on cable, based on some short sighted executive decisions.
Also, that "habits of the lower classes" bit didn't come off quite right.
As long as I don't have to rub shoulders with them, I have nothing against dirty, filthy poor people, unless they're Irish.

(JUST KIDDING!)

[captchucky]

We have to keep in mind that the main cartoons were produced from the late 30's to the early 60's. Television doesn't run that period's films anymore.
Sad, but true.

In the 1960s, they didn't run films from 1910, so nothing has really changed. TV almost never runs 50 year old films.

[Bugsy-Kun]

In the 1960s, they didn't run films from 1910, so nothing has really changed. TV almost never runs 50 year old films.

Some cable channels here in the 90's running silent films. I even have some copies of these old films again.

The problem where i live is in Canada, we're very limited into post-1948's WB cartoons only often aimed at nostalgic and baby-boomers more than from historians and real animations fans. Tough i wanna they show again Warner Bros. cartoons in air but it takes a lot of good motivation for showed them like they was originally made. The problem is the pre-1948's cartoons are unknown to the Canadian public which they want just shorts with Daffy, Bugs or Tweety. Except for some faded Public Domain copies and some later video releases.

[Gasmask Ted]

Television does show movies from that era; not everywhere, of course, but TCM shows primarily those movies (tho virtually no animation anymore for some reason), and several other stations also regularly show movies from that era at times. Television from that era is still shown (Lucy and the Honeymooners, most notable, plus things like Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents). And WB animation was shown form most of my lifetime on ABC, which virtually never showed anything else from the era, making a requirement that other things from the era be shown on a station to make it ok to be not traditional.

[Jon Cooke]

I've said this before, but I have always thought that Looney Tunes would be a good way to transition from "normal" Cartoon Network programming to when they switch over to Adult Swim.

I have a hard time believing the characters will ever completely die. Bugs, Daffy, Tweety, Road Runner, Porky, etc are too ingrained in our popular culture them to totally vanish.

As others have said, entertainment is heading in the direction of being on-demand and digital, not cookie-cutter cable channels that run the same CSI/Family Guy/Law & Order reruns non-stop.

(No comment on that ToonZone thread that Mike linked to. Wow. Just wow. I am speechless at some of those remarks. :shame:)

[CueBallCat79]

(No comment on that ToonZone thread that Mike linked to. Wow. Just wow. I am speechless at some of those remarks. :shame:)

While I'm also taking the poor time slot into account I think this is another reason why Looney Tunes didn't do too well when it came back last year. I really do think the current crop of kids watching the channel now really don't care about these cartoons, and it's evident in those posts. How could they like this stuff? They prefer flash animated, Canadian cartoons featuring teenage characters with 'tude.

Honestly, I find it out and out pathetic (and perhaps even ignorant) that there were people in that thread that insinuated that Looney Tunes are 6am or filler material.

And where's your avatar from Jon?

[larriva9/11]

What Daffsleftfoot wrote reminds me that is was the generations who came after the Boomers who bought all that terrible merchandise of the Looney Tunes characters as hip hop gangstas. Unlike what Larriva911 wrote, the Baby Boom generation didn't shove that merchandise down the throat of the Gen-Xers or later generations.

No, but to a certain degree they set an inadvertent foundation for it by, well, being obsessive-compulsive over LT/MM in the first place. And, terrible, schmerrible; if someone wants to depict the characters as "hip hop gangstas", so be it unless the copyright police protests.

But this does, perhaps, highlight a different kind of generation gap, if I can go back to that CN Forums link: an ingrained sentiment that animation historians are "shoving the classics" out of a quasi-reactionary/elitist resentment of anything post-classic, let alone today's "crappy, Flash-animated hackwork". Personally, I think that is absurd; a decent, reputable animation historian should be in the business of celebrating the old without going into silly shibboleths against the new...especially given how those young'uns consuming the new might have a different perspective, and not necessarily to the old's disfavour, either. Just like, when it comes to the aforementioned oldies, the best and most thoughtful pop/rock critics/historians are ones to hail Otis Redding as a great artist without going into middlebrow rants about how pop and rock and R&B have gone to pot on behalf of that "hip-hop crap" or whatever...

[Jon Cooke]

And where's your avatar from Jon?

It's from a bit of Bugs and Daffy presenting at the 1993 Academy Awards. Matthew posted it on Misce-Looney-ous (http://toolooney.blogspot.com/2010/03/bugs-and-daffy-presenting-at-academy.html) last night. I had never seen it before.

[Thad]

That TZ thread is amazing, and that chdr character really is a horse's ass. I think anyone who feels "forced" watching Looney Tunes, Citizen Kane, or listening to Mozart should be declared legally braindead. I can't wait until these guys have their own kids. That's why everything has hit the skids again. People who grew up in the 80s are having their own kids and forcing the garbage from their childhoods on their offspring ("Here, this was my favorite show/movie/music.") I can't wait for the 90s to return and kick the sh*t out of the 80s again.

But this was reasonably sane though. So see, there's hope.
"maybe 6pm-7pm instead giving a nice lead in to their primetime shows. I grew up watching these classic shorts and since CN is owned by Turner which in turn is owned by Warner I feel it only makes sense to air these shorts at least once a day or a couple times a week, paying homage is important in my opinion."

[Bugsy-Kun]

The insanity of deeper dumbs on TZ don't amazed me so much. Because it's not the first time i pointed out. Their obsession of fantasy schedules per examples bugs me a lot because they seems to want to aired only what they like. And the fact that they like only post-1980's cartoons thinkin they are classics irked me very much. That's the same about TV shows, movies and music. It's like they hate everything before 1980. The same goes for comic, but i think we're a small minority.

Recently, i reading a interesting report series from Cyberpresse about the main generation and our own culture (Because i lived in Quebec tough) and the recent surveys is alarming. The recent generation have tastes far away from my parent's times and even the ours. It should always be personal, more unique, that we're the only people like something and it's very true when we watch our centred. Those kids want subventions because the government cut to the education but are too ignorant to learn the Quebec's history. It seems they don't learn that anymore. I always said and i repeat, if you want to be respected from a other culture than the your's, you should showed some respects from your actual culture. That's it, that's all!

[Speedy Boris]

What's particularly odd about chdr's comment in particular is that only a few months ago he made this post (http://toonzone.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3461353&postcount=317), as well as others in that same thread which clearly shows he does enjoy/appreciate Looney Tunes. What brought about the change in attitude since then? Weird.

[larriva9/11]

What's particularly odd about chdr's comment in particular is that only a few months ago he made this post (http://toonzone.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3461353&postcount=317), as well as others in that same thread which clearly shows he does enjoy/appreciate Looney Tunes. What brought about the change in attitude since then? Weird.

Again: don't blame the toons, blame the messengers. Think of him as one on a crusade to save them from being "loved to death"...

[CueBallCat79]

I know it's our sister site, and there are some great members still there (you rock, Speedy) but Toon Zone is an absolute mess. I really can't believe there are so many members there who to this day continue to cry and moan about the loss of stuff like Toonami but at the same time there are others who think Looney Tunes (one of the most important and culturally significant animated works of all time) don't deserve a high profile spot on the channel.

Cartoon Network unfortunately is only catering to the "what's popular RIGHT NOW?" crowd of 13-year-olds with low attention spans and fickle loyalties. The stuff being said on TZ these days easily reflects this.