Kill. Me. Now.

[yendi]

No, on second thought, kill whichever crack-smoking, glue-sniffing, potato-molesting WB executive greenlit this motherfucking horrible idea. No, wait, even better, let the reanimated corpses of Mel Blanc and Chuck Jones (because you know they can't be enjoying the final rest with shit like this going on) kill that executive. Slowly.

OR maybe we should just be thankful that they're finally making those boring old Looney Tunes characters "edgy."

Comments

[tablesaw]

Warner Brothers no longer knows how to make the kind of Warner Brothers cartoons we grew up with. I have accepted this. So I approach attempts to make different kinds of cartoons with measured optimism. Warner Brothers does know how to make superhero shows, right now. This can't be worse than Baby Looney Toons (which defiles the corpses of Looney Toons and Muppet Babies), and it might be as surprising as Batman Beyond.

[yendi]

Defiling Muppet Babies, imho, is redundant.

The thing about Batman Beyond is that it didn't seem to arise out of cycicsm. This looks like it was straight from a board meeting in which six execs who never actually watched a cartoon came up with the idea.

That said, it truly can't be worse than BLT.

[tablesaw]

Muppet Babies was not the greatest animated show, and definately not the greatest Muppet show, but it did do a good job of showing children who are creative.

Also, I'm not on you with the cynicism. I think you're letting the WSJ reporting sway your opinion. They're not interested in getting quotes from the writers or artist who will be doing the actual footwork. They want to use this as beginning of a discussion of advertising and merchandising revenues for the kids market.

And even if WB heads came up with an concept out of desparation, trying to meld two moneymaking ideas to create animation that actually gets them a profit, I don't see why the result must be bad. I don't see why new artists can't redesign characters for a particular purpose when the original WB artists did so. I don't see why Bugs and Co. can't be superheroes when they've already been opera characters, space adventurers, and superheroes. And I don't see why doing all of this in a continuing series is bad when the focus of animation has shifted away from episodic shorts.

So I don't think it's an inherently bad or stupid idea, and I'm going to hold off on real judgement until I at least hear from the head writers and animators.

[digitaldevil.livejournal.com]

I actually look forward to seeing this cartoon. I don't think they're trying to squash the toons we grew up loving, in fact this may be what our beloved characters need to keep going. It's set way in the future, the characters are superheros in space, and they don't even have the same names just a few similar character traits. You could consider them descendents of our Looney Toons characters. I'll reserve judgement until I see an episode or two.

[crystalsage.livejournal.com]

That's my thinking as well. I hate to be judgemental of stuff before it comes out, although I wish they would have just come up with a NEW concept, instead of revamping something old. It seems like that's what everybody's doing anymore...remaking old series, reviving old characters, because they're too lazy to come up with something new.

So, I'll reserve judgement with a bit of caution. My kids will probably love it.

[digitaldevil.livejournal.com]

As Little Richard once said, "There's nothing new under the Sun. Everything's been done and we're just taking it and remaking it for our own." Same goes for Hollywood and even our beloved cartoons.

[thebaronofmspg.livejournal.com]

Just think it is evolution; signs of how things are so very, very, different now. Sad thing is, it will probably work well. Kids now-adays like the crap.

[unrepentant.livejournal.com]

Oh, FUCK that!

[malinaldarose.livejournal.com]

Ugh.

[gmslegion.livejournal.com]

Lady: We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in
your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"? Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.

Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?

Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous
paradigm.

[dreamsrundeep.livejournal.com]

I heard that they were renaming Bugs to Buzz Bunny.

I thought it would be fun to send a link to my wife at work so she could see the new cartoon characters (I've heard everyone had a makeover), so I innocently go to google and type in Buzz Bunny. Unfortunately WB didn't think about the new name for Bugs, obviously. I intended to find cartoon characters and got some sex education! Oh dear! Parents everywhere out to be frustrated. about that. It seems harmless enough to look up your favorite cartoon character... or it was, once upon a time.

[yendi]

Heh. Man, somone from the WB legal department's going to have a field day when they find out.

[auryn29a.livejournal.com]

I miss Animaniacs. I long for the WB cartoon continuity of the 90s.

What do you think of the upcoming Krypto cartoon? (Or did you post about that already?)

[yendi]

I haven't seen any actual previews of the Krypto toon, so I'll reserve judgement for now.

And I'm with you on Animaniacs.

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

ditto

Hello, nurse.

[creentmerveille.livejournal.com]

Oh, no no no no no no no no.

I don't THINK so.

[techempage.livejournal.com]

Part of all this is Saturday morning, just isn't special anymore.

When we were growing up, Saturday morning and right after school, that's when the cartoons/kids shows were on. Now, as they mentioned, between Cartoon Network, Nick, PBS Kids, 3 or 4 Disneys, etc. There's always kids programming on. I remember growing up, looking forward to Saturday morning, 'cuz then I had hours of my shows on, until noon and then there was absolutely nothing of any value on. All these channels have flooded the kids market and what was once a special event is now just another day. At least that's how I see it.

[unrepentant.livejournal.com]

Hmm - good point. Very true!

[techempage.livejournal.com]

And actually, in the long term, the death of the dominance of Saturday morning could be a good or bad thing. Back then, they could throw just about anything they wanted to on the air and you didn't have much option about it.

Now, this could go two ways, either they can create a better product to draw viewers in or they can create a more product that appeals to a the lowest common denominator to get a greater audience.

I hope for the former, but unfortunately, TV has shown time and time again, that the latter is more likely.

Maybe it will finally change when On-Demand programming becomes the domanant format. The only problem I see with that is how to deal with commercials in a totally on-demand format other than embedded in the programs themselves. Advertising has to come up with another mode of delivery as television changes. OTOH, maybe television will go to an I-Tunes-like model as it becomes more and more On-Demand based.

[yendi]

Go read the book I just posted a link to!

I also miss Saturday mornings. Although I do think there's more actual good stuff on now than ever, that time of the day no longer has the same meaning.

[techempage.livejournal.com]

~chuckles~ I'm need to keep a list of all the books you've suggested I read. I'm sure I'll enjoy them, we tend to have similar taste.

I'll be honest, I can't really attest to the quality of many shows anymore. I catch the occasional Duke game. (Although, last night I wish I didn't.) I'm finally getting around to seeing Firefly on DVD. With my workload and especially when I'm taking classes, I just don't have time for TV. So I'll take your word for it. And if I find the time tune in for a 'toon or two.

[digitaldevil.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more.

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

I've been keeping an eye on this project, and it really is a horrible mutant bastardization.

If I get to see the pilot versions they made I'll let you know.

[yendi]

Definitely keep me up to date!

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

I have to go bug sis to bring me to work.

[jeff-morris.livejournal.com]

For an interesting perspective on this from someone who's worked inside the animation industry, try Mark Evanier:

http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2005_02_16.html

JSM

On a different note...

[techempage.livejournal.com]

~grins~

How long before the first Duck Dodgers crossover fic occurs?

[dougals.livejournal.com]

I dunno, Yendi.

I see it more as Tiny Toons: The Next Generation. Same idea, different timeframe. It's not like they're saying "This is Bugs. The old Bugs doesn't exist any more."

But then, I've been on a pro-remake/"reimagination" kick lately. (Blame Battlestar Galactica.) I mean have all the films/shows based on Romeo & Juliet really diminished the original in any way? How about the different movie/cartoon adaptations of Batman (Schumacher's crack-smoking aside)? Personally, I applaud a new interpretation of old stories/characters as long as it's not complete crap (like the aforementioned crack-smoking).

[dadandgirl.livejournal.com]

I don't know what this news series will bring, but...

Bugs Bunny isn't edgy? Bugs Bunny defines the edge!

Last night I was playing Kingdom of Loathing, and my daughter is watching. "What's Moxie?" she asks. (It's one of the game's stats, for those who don't play.) I wasn't sure how to explain it, then - "You know Bugs Bunny? How he's always the coolest and the funniest, and his tricks always work and nobody ever tricks him? That's Moxie."

She smiled, and she knew exactly what I meant. She wandered around the house the rest of the night, reciting her favorite bit. "Duck season... Rabbit season... Rabbit Season... Duck season! Fire!"

[dougals.livejournal.com]

That reminds me of the description of the Chutzpah stat in the old Paranoia RPG.

"Killing both your parents and then begging for mercy because you're an orphan is Chutzpah."