|
|
#1
02-16-2005, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Prepare to Vomit! Xtreme "Super-powered" Looney Tunes show on Kids WB this Fall
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/
"Warner Bros. has created angular, slightly menacing-looking versions of the classic Looney Tunes characters for its new series, dubbed 'Loonatics' and set in the year 2772. Names for the new characters haven't been finalized, but they are likely to be derived from the originals: Buzz Bunny, for example. 'The new series will have the same classic wit and wisdom, but we have to do it more in line with what kids are talking about today,'says Sander Schwartz, president of Warner Bros. Animation. The plots are action-oriented, filled with chases and fights. Each character possesses a special crime-fighting power."  As cool as this design is-- look, from a character design standpoint, it looks good, okay? It's a very slick curved angular figure, and well streamlined for animation and expression, compared to the usual WBA designs-- this is the dumbest series concept I've ever heard and the fact that it actually got greenlighted made me sad enough to come here and post about it, because I know you guys will loathe it even more. Go ahead and insult the design, I don't care (because I know that subjectivity aside it's a good design, it's just WRONG). Noone should support this abortion of a show; besides the fact that it WILL have Lola Bunny as a character (ugh), it will likely be storyboarded and directed by the same HACKS that board and direct Duck Dodgers. Hopefully the viewing public is smart enough to see the line attached to the hook. |
|
#2
02-16-2005, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Words cannot describe how shoddy (to put it politely) this news is.
This is right up there with Baby Looney Tunes in terms of pointlessness and overall crappiness. I do hope this show dies a quick and painful death. Speaking of Baby Looney Tunes, I did laugh at this statement: "But a 2002 effort, 'Baby Looney Tunes,'has been a dud for the Cartoon Network, where it ended the fourth quarter ranked No. 104 among kids programs." Funny, but the reruns still haunt CN. 
|
|
#4
02-16-2005, 01:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oh, darn! I was going to post this. Abominable, isn't it? In the words of our beloved Bugs, "OOOO!, I'm dyin'!"
Last edited by Ray Pointer; 02-18-2005 at 02:04 AM. Reason: Typo correction |
|
#5
02-16-2005, 02:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, April 1rst came early this year!
__________________
The Bugs Bunny Video Guide - www.dohtem.com/bugs All Things Yankovic - www.allthingsyank.com Make the Rock Hall "Weird" - www.dohtem.com/al www.dohtem.com |
|
#8
02-16-2005, 02:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"When I get back to Oith, ol' Elmer Fudd and the rest of dose hunters are gonna be in for a big surprise!"
Seriously, though...Chuck Jones is probably spinning in his grave enough to power all the lights in Las Vegas! The horror! The HORROR! Whoever had the idea of doing this is obviously a few carrots short of a victory garden. Why do these characters HAVE to look "modern" or "badass"? Why do they have to change to fit a futuristic setting, when the original cartoons played them straight in all kinds of time settings? Who can I write to? This means WAR! Oh, and if the concept makes it into the Looney Tunes DC comic books like Duck Dodgers has, I'll cancel my subscription faster than Superman can change his inside-out underwear!
__________________
"Wile E., you GENIUS! You've done it again!" http://toolooney.goldenagecartoons.com |
|
#9
02-16-2005, 04:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's sort of ironic, isn't it? Isn't this similar to what we usually jokingly say how WB will revive the characters?
If artists continue to draw Bugs like this, they're BOTH going to be out of work! -Thad Last edited by Thad Komorowski; 02-16-2005 at 05:54 PM. |
|
#10
02-16-2005, 04:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"I can act rough, but what's 'rough-fined'?" - Popeye in It's the Natural Thing to Do |
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
