Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 28, 2011, 2:44 PM
|
|
"The Looney Tunes Show" Site Is Up
|
|
|
In case anyone's interested, the site for Cartoon Network's upcoming new WB series The Looney Tunes Show, is up now. There are character bios, video clips, and other stuff. Check it out.
http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/looneytunesshow/index.html
The Looney Tunes Show premieres Tuesday, May 3rd at 8PM (EST) on Cartoon Network.
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
(This post was edited by Starburst on Mar 28, 2011, 2:47 PM)
|
|
Supervising Animator
Posted:
Mar 29, 2011, 8:55 PM
|
Why has this show been pushed further and further to its date? (I just want to know)!
-------------------------
Thank God for kids who love obscure things-Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 30, 2011, 3:59 PM
|
Back when it was first announced last year (under the title Laff Riot), It was pushed back for retooling, then they had to finish recording the voice tracks.
I have to say, though, I for one am liking what I'm seeing of The Looney Tunes Show. If the clips on the site are any indication of what to expect, then the production delays were worth it. I like the idea of the suburban setting and the new 'roles' of the characters, and the writers actually managed to make Lola Bunny humorous and interesting as opposed to the flat Mary Sue character she was in Space Jam. I find Kristen Wiig a tad overplayed, but I'll give credit where credit is due: she's breathing new life into Lola. I'm looking forward to this.
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
(This post was edited by Starburst on Mar 30, 2011, 4:04 PM)
|
|
Director / Moderator
Posted:
Mar 30, 2011, 8:33 PM
|
I'm looking forward to this.
I'm.................. not. Based on the clips I've seen, everything seems way too talky. It seems like they hired either ex-Family Guy writers or people who only WISH they were Family Guy writers.
It doesn't feel very Looney Tuney at all. The only positive thing I can say about this new show is that I hope it brings more people to the classics.
-------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi0dqcR-Otk
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 31, 2011, 4:07 PM
|
Family Guy? C'mon now, it's not that bad.
Yeah, The Looney Tunes Show appears to be a bit more talky than the standard LT fare, but keep in mind that we're in the era of Political Correctness; they writers probably had to curb some of the slapstick in order to get the series past the BS&P. To be fair, none of the clips on that site are more than a minute long; perhaps they're saving the more 'tooney action' stuff for when the show actually premieres.
IMHO, The worst thing about those clips is Fred Armisen's voicing of Speedy Gonzalez; that's gonna take some getting used to. He almost sounds like a parody of a Latino.
I'm just glad to see a new Looney Tunes show in which the characters are portrayed pretty much as they are, rather than de-aging them into babies or using them to shill Air Jordans for an hour and a half or turning them into color-coordinated action superheroes. I'm taking a "wait and see" approach to this, but for the most part I'm optimistic. Given the treatment that the Looney Tunes have received in recent years on TV, this could've been much, much worse.
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
(This post was edited by Starburst on Mar 31, 2011, 4:16 PM)
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Mar 31, 2011, 8:11 PM
|
Just wanted to add something regarding the "too talky" statement: I for one am not so much concerned with how I'm laughing at these clips as much as that I am laughing at them.
No, these aren't the Looney Tunes shorts of the 40's or the 50's, but it's not the 40's or the 50's anymore. The LTs of the 50's weren't the same as the ones from the 40's and they weren't the same as the ones from the 30's, so why is it a requirement that The Looney Tunes Show be a 100% reiteration of the theatrical shorts?
To rehash the point in my previous post, TLTS' producers are trying to produce a show for Looney Tunes fans. I take that to mean "We're not going to do something lame like Baby Looney Tunes or Loonatics Unleashed this time", which is a huge plus in my book.
One way to look at it is this: each LT director had a different style: Bob Clampett was wild and anarchic, Friz Freleng was heartfelt with a showman's sense, Robert McKimson was hammy and highly visual, Chuck Jones was more intellectual and down-to-earth. Is it too much to imagine that this show's directors just have a more verbal, Seinfeldian style?
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
|
|
Directing Animator
Posted:
Apr 1, 2011, 1:16 PM
|
I'm going to give this show a chance and watch a few of the episodes. I looked through the clips and some look good while others have completely missed the mark. For example, I don't like the voice of Speedy. It doesn't sound right. And Foggy is too much out of character. And I don't like how their making Daffy into a liar (at least that's what it seems like). But the other stuff I've seen isn't bad. Like I said, I'll give this show a chance and see how it really is.
|
|
Key Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 2, 2011, 12:49 AM
|
I've seen the clips from the new Looney Tunes Show, and overall, I'm liking them. Of course, they're different from the originals, but so are their audiences. It's a different take for a whole different era. 
Bugs Bunny retains his easy-going demeanor; crises don't fluster him. His redesign is odd, but that's to be expected. Bugs can't do 2011 humor in his 1946 form, just as OS X won't run on an Apple IIe.
Now, Daffy Duck is a lovely surprise. For so many years, he'd been the house parody of Leon Schlesinger first, then Eddie Selzer later. This effectively pigeonholed his character, and I thought he was beyond hope.
Well, color me dead wrong. The writers have given Daffy room to be daffy without losing his quirks: Daffy is now Bugs Bunny's resident houseguest. Ingenious. In fact, having most of the characters share a cul-de-sac makes character interplay so much easier.
And Speedy is back, rescued from PC limbo after ... forty years, is it? The voice is off, but more importantly, Speedy Gonzales is alive and doing fine. 
My one nitpick is with Lola Bunny. After showing us a competent and capable girl bunny in Space Jam, this new Lola comes across as a mindless Barbie doll. After the Grrl Power era that gave us Mia Hamm and Sheryl Swoopes, suddenly Lola's message is "be pretty and date boys." Perhaps this newest character, Tina Russo, will pick up the "girls are more than just a pretty face" torch that Lola has dropped.
As promised, the show seems character-driven, set in a no-rules neighborhood. It's not the same as the old Looney Tunes, but ... we're not in Kansas anymore. 
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Apr 2, 2011, 12:19 PM
|
His redesign is odd, but that's to be expected. Bugs can't do 2011 humor in his 1946 form
Why not?
And what's "2011 humor"? Other than topical jokes suitable for that year.
Dodsworth
|
|
Key Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 3, 2011, 1:55 AM
|
Why not?
Well, a spokesman for Warner Brothers spelled it out nicely in an article from The New York Times dated 20 May 2010:
“The minute you start drawing Bugs Bunny exactly as he was drawn in 1949, you expect the same animation and the voice to be exactly the same,” says Sam Register, the vice president of creative affairs. “That’s obviously not possible, so you pull the best stuff from the characters and do something slightly new with it.”
The old "Termite Terrace" animation studio doesn't exist any more, plus the labor-intensive hand-painted cel-by-cel animation is horrifically expensive and rarely used. Warner Brothers realizes that they're making a reboot of the characters, in modern times with modern methods. So, to Bugs Bunny and company: "You can't go home again."
And what's "2011 humor"?
Humor with less violence, for one. We've had the Columbine massacre, and Road Rage, and Tyler Clementi, and September 11th, and Brandon McClelland. Although they are mere cartoon characters, US audiences are less comfortable with physical humor; 2011 humor is, wisely, more cerebral.
- OUB
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Apr 3, 2011, 3:11 AM
|
Why not?
Well, a spokesman for Warner Brothers spelled it out nicely in an article from The New York Times dated 20 May 2010:
“The minute you start drawing Bugs Bunny exactly as he was drawn in 1949, you expect the same animation and the voice to be exactly the same,” says Sam Register, the vice president of creative affairs. “That’s obviously not possible, so you pull the best stuff from the characters and do something slightly new with it.”
The old "Termite Terrace" animation studio doesn't exist any more, plus the labor-intensive hand-painted cel-by-cel animation is horrifically expensive and rarely used. Warner Brothers realizes that they're making a reboot of the characters, in modern times with modern methods. So, to Bugs Bunny and company: "You can't go home again."
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 3, 2011, 8:23 AM
|
The 2 biggest complaints/criticisms that I've heard and read (so far) about The Looney tunes Show are fans not liking the character designs and the shows' suburban setting. I'll address each of them individually:
In regards to the character designs: No, Bugs, Daffy and company don't look the way that they did back in 1942, but one must keep in mind that the characters' appearances were/are constantly evolving and have done so each and every time that a different director has taken the helm. 1945 Bugs didn't look like 1942 Bugs, and 1960s Bugs didn't look like 1945's Bugs, and 1980's Bugs didn't look like 1950's Bugs, Chuck Jones' Bugs looked different from Friz Freleng's Bugs, who looked different from Bob Clampett's Bugs, who looked different from Robert McKimson's Bugs and so on. The Looney Tunes here are not being made by the same people who made them in the 40s and 50s, and they're not being aimed at the same audience who enjoyed them in that bygone era. This is new series aimed at a more contemporary audience and the face of humor has changed since then. Anyone expecting TLTS to be an exact re-creation of the classic shorts from 40/50 years ago is naturally going to be disappointed, but since TLTS is a series made in the 21st century which will be airing on a basic cable channel aimed largely at kids and young adults, there's no reason to believe that was going to happen anyway.
In regards to the suburban cul-de-sac setting: Honestly, I don't get why some fans are so vehemently against the Looney Tunes characters all sharing a housing complex in Suburbia. What is wrong with that? The fixed setting serves no other purpose than to bring all of the characters together so they can interact each one another instead of having them scattered all over the globe. It's no different than the Acme Acres setting was for Tiny Toon Adventures, yet no one complained about that. I don't understand it when fans say things like "Bugs Bunny can't be comically flawed" or "Daffy Duck can't live in a house" when the truth of the matter is that the Looney Tunes characters can do whatever their creators want them to do because their fictional characters.
I've been to the website. I've seen the clips, and I actually enjoyed some of them. I'm going to give The Looney Tunes Show a fair shake before I start passing judgment on it. Instead of finding fault with the new show before it's even aired, why aren't we celebrating the fact that Warner Brothers is at least trying to do something original with the LT/MM characters besides turn them into babysitters for an audience of preschoolers like some studios that I won't menton here (*cough-Disney-cough*)?
One thing does strike me as being somewhat interesting about the site, though: I noticed that among the list of character profiles, that 1 character was curiously absent from the roster, Elmer Fudd. I saw Witch Hazel, Gossamer, Marvin the Martian and even Mac & Tosh, but no Elmer Fudd. I know that he's going to be on the show, because there's a clip of him in Cartoon Network's "Coming Up Next" bumper for the show, so did the site just not add him to the roster yet, or was was he deliberately left out for some reason?
-------------------------
Visit mine and my twin brother's blog. It goes down smooth.
www.astralcity.blogspot.com
(This post was edited by SpaceDemon on Apr 3, 2011, 8:54 AM)
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 4, 2011, 3:31 PM
|
I re-visited the Looney Tunes Show website earlier today and I noticed some minor changes; there's a different drawing of Bugs standing next to Daffy on the front page. Witch Hazel (who previously was being called "Witch Lezah"--which is 'Hazel' spelled backwards) is now being called simply "The Witch". Also, the Road Runner's and Wile E. Coyote's portraits on the character profiles page are now in CGI, presumably because that's the way the Road Runner and Coyote shorts are going to be animated on TLTS.
-------------------------
Visit mine and my twin brother's blog. It goes down smooth.
www.astralcity.blogspot.com
|
|
Director / Moderator
Posted:
Apr 5, 2011, 10:09 AM
|
And what's "2011 humor"?
Humor with less violence, for one. We've had the Columbine massacre, and Road Rage, and Tyler Clementi, and September 11th, and Brandon McClelland. Although they are mere cartoon characters, US audiences are less comfortable with physical humor; 2011 humor is, wisely, more cerebral.
There was plenty of violence in the '30's, '40's and '50's when the originals were made. There was a little thing called World War II which centred around another bit of violence known as the Holocost. Plus, in the late '50's alone there were plenty of race riots as the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. Cartoon violence didn't seem to bother anyone back then.
Citing real life violence to decry entertainment violence is just an excuse irrational people use to try and bend things their own way.
"2011 humour" is hardly cerebral. If anything, it's more juvenile than it's ever been. There's certainly nothing wrong with juvenile humour if it's done well enough, but don't make the false assumption that the joke are more "intelligent" just because constant talking has more or less replaced slapstick. There can be just as much intelligence and subtlety in physical comedy. watch anything by Charlie Chaplain or Buster Keaton for proof of that.
All that being said, I still have little hope for this new show. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been made, I just think too many of the people involved have "fumbled the ball" on this one.
-------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi0dqcR-Otk
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 9, 2011, 10:16 AM
|
Just a quick update on The Looney Tunes Show:
As predicted, Elmer Fudd is indeed in the new series. This is the description of his role on TLTS:
Elmer Fudd
The resident TV newsman, Elmer's dry, sluggish delivery can make even bad news seem not so bad. And here's a picture of Fuddsy: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/...ypictures/27842L.jpg
-------------------------
Visit mine and my twin brother's blog. It goes down smooth.
www.astralcity.blogspot.com
(This post was edited by SpaceDemon on Apr 9, 2011, 10:55 AM)
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 16, 2011, 7:35 PM
|
Just an odd little update: although June Foray will be voicing Granny on the show, the character of Witch Hazel...er, um...The Witch will be voiced by Roz Ryan. (Younger CN viewers will probably know her best as the voice of Bubbie from The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack.)
Well, that's...unique. WB has already changed the character's name first to 'Lezah' ('Hazel' backwards), and then to 'The Witch'; perhaps because Disney also had a 'Witch Hazel' character in their short Trick or Treat, also voiced by Foray (in fact, Ms. Foray was initially reluctant to voice the witch character at WB for fear of getting sued by the Mouse House until the folks at Termite Terrace convinced her that it would be OK), but now the character is being voiced by a completely different actress. I guess Warner is really trying to establish 'The Witch' as a new character completely separate from Foray's 'Witch Hazel'.
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
|
|
Inbetweener
Posted:
Apr 17, 2011, 1:53 AM
|
Ms. Foray was initially reluctant to voice the witch character at WB for fear of getting sued by the Mouse House until the folks at Termite Terrace convinced her that it would be OK
Can you direct me to a reference for this?
Dodsworth
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 17, 2011, 8:24 AM
|
Ms. Foray was initially reluctant to voice the witch character at WB for fear of getting sued by the Mouse House until the folks at Termite Terrace convinced her that it would be OK
Can you direct me to a reference for this?
No direct literary one; I heard this from a friend who has worked in the animation industry.
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
|
|
Directing Animator / Moderator
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011, 5:53 AM
|
I'm looking forward to this. I'm.................. not. Based on the clips I've seen, everything seems way too talky. It seems like they hired either ex-Family Guy writers or people who only WISH they were Family Guy writers. It doesn't feel very Looney Tuney at all. The only positive thing I can say about this new show is that I hope it brings more people to the classics.
I agree with you, David. I just watched a clip with Bugs and Lola and I also think there's too much dialogue. I also looked at some of the stills of the characters and they have way too much of a "Spumco" feel to them (is John K. involved in this project?)
-------------------------
"I'd like to cover you with furs and automobiles!"
|
|
Directing Animator / Moderator
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011, 6:06 AM
|
Just an odd little update: although June Foray will be voicing Granny on the show, the character of Witch Hazel...er, um...The Witch will be voiced by Roz Ryan. (Younger CN viewers will probably know her best as the voice of Bubbie from The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack.)
Well, that's...unique. WB has already changed the character's name first to 'Lezah' ('Hazel' backwards), and then to 'The Witch'; perhaps because Disney also had a 'Witch Hazel' character in their short Trick or Treat, also voiced by Foray (in fact, Ms. Foray was initially reluctant to voice the witch character at WB for fear of getting sued by the Mouse House until the folks at Termite Terrace convinced her that it would be OK), but now the character is being voiced by a completely different actress. I guess Warner is really trying to establish 'The Witch' as a new character completely separate from Foray's 'Witch Hazel'.
She'll probably get dropped once complaints come in from Wiccans who say the character is a an ugly stereotype of real witches.
-------------------------
"I'd like to cover you with furs and automobiles!"
|
|
Member
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011, 9:01 PM
|
To Warner Bros./Cartoon Network:
(in homage to "Planet of the Apes")
YOU FOOLS!
YOU'VE DOOMED THE LOONEY TUNES' WAY OF LIFE AND HUMOR!
CURSE YOU...
CURSE YOU ALL TO HECK!
(and in homage to Invader Zim)
AND CURSE YOU TOO, 2011 HUMOR, CURRRRRRRRRSE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This post was edited by looneytunerian on Apr 20, 2011, 9:03 PM)
|
|
Apprentice / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011, 9:29 PM
|
To Warner Bros./Cartoon Network:
(in homage to "Planet of the Apes")
YOU FOOLS!
YOU'VE DOOMED THE LOONEY TUNES' WAY OF LIFE AND HUMOR!
CURSE YOU...
CURSE YOU ALL TO HECK!
(and in homage to Invader Zim)
AND CURSE YOU TOO, 2011 HUMOR, CURRRRRRRRRSE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's a memorable quote from the late Orson Wells as a narrator in Bugs Bunny: Superstar: "Termite Terrace. It is the place where the classic Warner Bros. style of cartoon humor really began. There will never be another place like it."
(This post was edited by blue-peregrine on Apr 20, 2011, 9:33 PM)
|
|
Member
Posted:
Apr 20, 2011, 9:48 PM
|
You tell 'em, Sterling! :D
People should learn about the true meaning of Classic Warner Bros. Style of Cartoon Humor!
Not the stuff we're getting now!
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 21, 2011, 6:53 AM
|
People should learn about the true meaning of Classic Warner Bros. Style of Cartoon Humor!
Not the stuff we're getting now!
Wow. I'm truly amazed by the amount of hate people are giving this show before they've even seen it. I could understand a statement like the above being said about Loonatics Unleashed or Baby Looney Tunes; those shows relied heavily on cheap gimmicks and neither did the original shorts any justice, but I really fail to see how The Looney Tunes Show is an "abomination" or how it's not "classic Warner Brothers style humor". I can only speak for myself, but I'm really not getting a Loonatics Unleashed vibe from this show from the clips that I've been seeing. TLTS may not be perfect, but neither was Cartoon Network's Duck Dodgers yet I don't hear anyone flaming that show into next year.
I've been watching the clips and previews of The Looney Tunes Show, and it looks pretty good to me. The problem here as I see it is that because it's Looney Tunes, fans have these impossibly high standards attached to any new LT/MM projects. What fans seem to want is a complete reiteration of the shorts, which would be impossible since Termite Terrace no longer exists and because all of the original directors have since passed on or are no longer working within the industry. What I find to be truly sad is how fans are apparently so disappointed in the past attempts at a LT/MM revival that they're not even willing to give this show a chance. WB is trying to introduce characters like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck to a new audience and a new generation of fans, and this is somehow a bad thing? No, there will never be another Termite Terrace, but does that mean that no one else should even try? That's like saying that there will never be another Michael Jordan, so no one else should ever play basketball ever again.
If everyone felt like this, late 80s/early 90s projects like Disney's DuckTales or Steven Spielberg's Tiny Toon Adventures would never made it out of the starting gate because fans would immediatley write them off as "trash" simply because they weren't the original theatrical shorts made half a century ago. I'm at least going to wait until I've seen some entire episodes of The Looney Tunes Show before I go off on a tangent about how bad it supposedly is.
-------------------------
Visit mine and my twin brother's blog. It goes down smooth.
www.astralcity.blogspot.com
(This post was edited by SpaceDemon on Apr 21, 2011, 7:17 AM)
|
|
Directing Animator / Contributor
Posted:
Apr 21, 2011, 7:02 AM
|
To Warner Bros./Cartoon Network:
(in homage to "Planet of the Apes")
YOU FOOLS!
YOU'VE DOOMED THE LOONEY TUNES' WAY OF LIFE AND HUMOR!
CURSE YOU...
CURSE YOU ALL TO HECK!
(and in homage to Invader Zim)
AND CURSE YOU TOO, 2011 HUMOR, CURRRRRRRRRSE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mature.
Yes, there's so much intelligence and validity to the practice of condemning an entire series before it even premieres just by viewing a few stills and some 30-second clips on a website.
Come on, was the above tantrum really necessary? The Looney Tunes Show hasn't even debuted yet, and people here are already accusing it of "dooming the Looney Tunes' way of life and the humor". How, exactly? By placing the characters in the suburbs? How is that "dooming the LTs way of life"? The suburban setting is just a way of getting the various characters together in a single setting, as opposed to having the cast stretched across various locations. It's no different from Acme Acres on Tiny Toon Adventures, yet no one complained about that. Why is it OK for Buster, Babs et al to live in a singular setting, but it's not OK for the Looney Tunes to do so?
Look, this series is being done by people who truly care about these characters; WB is making a genuine effort to bring the Looney Tunes back into the spotlight with this new show, and they're doing so without any unneeded gimmicks like making them babies, teenagers or superheroes or having them co-star with live-action NBA athletes. I've seen the clips and promos for the show, and I honestly don't think they're that bad. Certainly not the great Satan that some of you here are making it out to be. And this is coming from one of the biggest Looney Tunes fans out there. I don't think it's right to label the makers of The Looney Tunes Show "fools" just because just because this show isn't a frame-by-frame, character-for-character, line-by-line rehash of the 40's-60's shorts. They haven't "ruined" anything; they're merely taking a slightly different appraoch to the franchise.
No, The Looney Tunes Show is not a 100% reiteration of the original shorts, but again, it's not supposed to be. It's a new take on the franchise for a new audience. I understand that some people are so into Looney Tunes that they consider it sacrilegious to change anything about them even slightly, I get that, and I'd understand these hate posts if the project in question were something truly awful, like Loonatics, but I'm honestly not seeing what's so bad about the Looney Tunes Show. I know that this new show won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I really don't get the flat-out hate the show is receiving here. At all. Can we at least wait and see what The Looney Tunes Show has to offer before we start damning it to hell?!
And what exactly is "2011 humor"? Can somebody explain that to me? We're only 4 months into 2011, and there's already a set style of humor indicative of this year?? If by "2011 humor" you mean the type of humor used on shows which debuted by or around 2011 like Dan Vs., My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic or Regular Show, then I'd consider that a good thing, since I enjoy all of those shows.
-------------------------
An unemployed court jester is nobody's fool.
(This post was edited by Starburst on Apr 21, 2011, 7:34 AM)
|
|
|
|
1
Re: "The Looney Tunes Show" Site Is Up
[
