Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    Looney Tunes Getting a re-haul... « previous next »
Author Topic: Looney Tunes Getting a re-haul...  (Read 1723 times)
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print
SlackJawedMoron

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #40 on: 02-18-2005 02:44 »

It was a joke, Raven. Cool it.
Venus

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #41 on: 02-18-2005 02:48 »

I think he'd rather people stopped bastardizing his work altogether. I know that's what i would want if it were my creation. And if the characters have the same names and personalities of the original characters, you could scream 'descendent' all you wanted but no one would be fooled. It would be like if someone a few years down the line resurrected Futurama anime-style with the crew's great grandkids who all coincidently look and act exactly like each relative but with extra superpowers. Nobody who ever saw the original Futurama would be pleased.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #42 on: 02-18-2005 02:49 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by SlackJawedMoron:
It was a joke, Raven. Cool it.
I'll get the anti-fanboy gun.

Venus

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #43 on: 02-18-2005 02:54 »

Is it all that surprising? He's a major fan of Teen Titans and this is basically the same style.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #44 on: 02-18-2005 03:21 »
« Last Edit on: 02-18-2005 03:21 »

More articles, another picture:

  http://www.azcentral.com/ent/tv/articles/0218looney.html 



   
Quote
From Animation Insider:
Loonatics, set seven hundred years into the future, introduces six descendants of some very famous figures from the past as they come together to form a brilliant ensemble of superheroes, each boasting special skills, unique abilities and gifted with a firm sense of justice. Alone they are formidable; together they are unstoppable. They're Loonatics.

   

Their beloved ancestors - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote, the Road Runner, Tasmanian Devil, Lola Bunny - hold a very special place in history. But that was then. This is now.

In the year 2772, this super-charged, high-flying action team of a new generation shares the same DNA and sharp-edged wit as their Looney Tunes forefathers... and that's where the similarities end.

Loonatics are one of a kind - and today's heroes from tomorrow! No matter how high the odds are stacked against them, they'll whirl in to save the world without a moment's hesitation. Want to keep the world safe... call in Loonatics! This over-the-top, high-octane action-comedy is produced by Warner Bros. Animation.

To surprise you all, I'm not gonna like this if it's too similar to TT. I love the old Looney Tunes, too. However, I'm just glad someone's risking a new direction for it. If it doesn't work out, fine. It won't work out. But don't go cry foul before it's even been shown.
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #45 on: 02-18-2005 03:25 »

While reading that, I had the image of a slick LA Marketing Type of guy speaking it to me.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #46 on: 02-18-2005 03:29 »
« Last Edit on: 02-18-2005 03:29 »

yeah, but c'mon - you know for a fact that all promotional departments do exactly the same thing. That's why they're called marketing...

EDIT: Crap, it's being produced in the same building as TT...Derrick (J. Wyatt, character designer for TT) says their crew moved in upstairs. That's gonna bug me...

No news if Dongwoo (overseas animation company, the guys that do most of TT) will be doing the animation for it yet...
Pikka Bird

Space Pope
****
« Reply #47 on: 02-18-2005 04:17 »

Why do they all have evil Evron eyes and sneering facial expressions with bared teeth?

The eyes seem to be the way to go these days, just like they did to my old heroes- the TMNT (the new storyline is an atrocity).
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #48 on: 02-18-2005 05:02 »

ugh...if it ends up like the new TMNT - ugh......
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #49 on: 02-18-2005 05:25 »

What's ironic is that the 87' TMNT 'toon was actually just a complete bastardization of the original TMNT comics from 1984. 

But shit, at least the guys that created that chose to sell out and bastardize their work on their own....this is worse because its just totally corporate thinking without any input from the original creators.  I know its really just a children's show, but geez, at least do something that doesn't bastardize someone else's art.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #50 on: 02-18-2005 05:53 »

You know, perhaps they actually asked the creators's families what they thought of it. But considering Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Robert McKimson, Mel Blanc,  and Carl Stalling  - the major main creators - are all dead -- kinda hard to ask their opinions on it.
Mr Fuzzywuvems

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #51 on: 02-18-2005 09:30 »

You left out the best ones, Bob Clampett and Tex Avery
Wooter

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #52 on: 02-18-2005 10:18 »

Holy shit. No. No. God no.
newhook_1

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #53 on: 02-18-2005 10:58 »
« Last Edit on: 02-18-2005 10:58 »

Ravnestar: The old Looney toons style would work fine nowdays, they just need writers that aren't shit. I know they'll never capture the magic of the old ones, but look at Tiny Toons in the early 1990s. It was good, and took the series in a new direction without ass raping it. New characters were brought into the spotlight, but it was still Loony Toons style writing and humor at its core. The trouble here is the fact that they've turned the Loony toons(well their grandkids or whatever) into goddamned superheroes. That's just not loony toons, they would have been better off just creating entirly new characters for this(these are not entirely new, from what I understand, they'll be based on the old character's personalities).

This applies to the Teen Titans argument as well. As far as I know, all those characters were previously super heros before being repackaged, the Loony Toons were not. As I said before, repackageing isn't a problem, I can understand the need to update characters and shows for the 21st centuary as I said in my previous post in this thread, but just isn't an update, this is just an attampt to cash in on the old Loony Toons, by using thier personalities as a launching point for a show which, quite frankly, seems to have no relation to Loony Toons besides the relations between the characters.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #54 on: 02-18-2005 11:24 »

I'm not saying I don't have my reservations about this show, too. But if this "repackaging" is playing to the strengths of the animators and writers of today, then it will work out in the end. And who knows? If it works, perhaps WB will consider trying again with another incarnation of the classic style. I'm just trying to say we shouldn't rush to judgement on this yet.
boingo2000

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #55 on: 02-18-2005 11:33 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by RavenStar:
I'm sure Chuck Jones was rolling in his grave when that travesty of a movie "Back in Action" came out.

Wait, wait wait wait wait wait WAIT!  The Back in Action movie you consider a travesty, but you're willing to give an open mind to this piece of junk?  At least the movie, flawed as it was, was done by someone who respected the original toons and was friends with the creators.  (Director Joe Dante gave Chuck Jones a cameo in the first Gremlins, and Chuck did the opening animation for Gremlins 2.)

And as for this whole "it's their decendants" argument?  3 words... "James Bond, Jr."  Didn't work there, won't work here.

Huh.  I thought Lola Bunny was an awful, poorly-concieved character designend to add a love story to Space Jam.  When did she become beloved?

OK Raven, I know I'm beeing unfairly harsh on you just because you're asking us to give this show a fair shake, and I apologize.  But I can't bring myself to have an open mind on this.  It's like Warner Brothers set out to kill a piece of my soul by befouling my childhood,  and they couldn't have been more succesful if they brought back the Care Bears as half-robot crime fighters in space.
Mr Fuzzywuvems

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #56 on: 02-18-2005 11:43 »

i don't get all this Warner Brothers killing my childhood bullshit. No matter how bad this new show is it's not gonna make the original Looney Tunes any worse and maybe it'll encourage kids to watch the classic stuff.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #57 on: 02-18-2005 13:24 »

what he said.
Nerd-o-rama

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #58 on: 02-18-2005 14:33 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by DotheBartman:
What's ironic is that the 87' TMNT 'toon was actually just a complete bastardization of the original TMNT comics from 1984.
I was sad when I learned that.  I liked how lame the cartoon was. The comics are pretty good, though.

Raven: People hate change.  This is a fact.  Most of the people I know here are generally willing to give an open mind to it, but in this case, there are a few mitigating circumstances:

1. Radical departure from the artistic style and tone of the original.  What does this show have to do with Looney Toons, exactly?  The only connections I can see are the superficial character similarities that seem like an advertising gimick, and they're both cartoons.
2. No input from the original creator.  Instead, all we see is an effort by a heartless corporation to cash in on a classic property by taking a lame, overplayed idea and vaguely attaching it to something almost everyone in America has been watching since childhood. (See "advertising gimick," above.)
3. The implicit use of the lame "X-TREME!!11!1one" angle.  I don't think I need to explain that.
4. 98% of superhero cartoons suck anyway.  (Note that TT is in the other 2% most of the time.)

I hope that explains the con position well.  Guys, if I got it wrong, feel free to correct me.

"Finally, I get to save the Earth with deadly lasers instead of deadly slide shows."

GP: 100 Nixorbucks
XP: 500
Next level: 1000
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #59 on: 02-18-2005 17:22 »
« Last Edit on: 02-18-2005 17:22 »

edit: stupid me...
DotheBartman

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #60 on: 02-18-2005 17:22 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by RavenStar:
You know, perhaps they actually asked the creators's families what they thought of it. But considering Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Robert McKimson, Mel Blanc,  and Carl Stalling  - the major main creators - are all dead -- kinda hard to ask their opinions on it.

Um, that's the problem.  They're only doing this because the original creators aren't around to say no anymore.  It would be one thing if it was being done as a loving tribute to the originals of course, but in this case its just cynical corporate thinking designed to sell happy meal toys.  Its not art, and it flat-out betrays the original visions of the creators.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #61 on: 02-18-2005 17:23 »

there's a clip up now, finally:  http://www.toonamiarsenal.com/misc/lf/LoonaticsPreview.mov

I can say for certain that after seeing that, Dongwoo IS doing the bulk of the animation... but that preview doesn't really do anything; it's almost all live action, and Buzz Bunny (yeah, the names are kinda stupid) definitely has a different voice...but there wasn't enough actual clips to sway me one way or another. I'm now a little more apprehensive about this than I was before, but I'm still gonna hold out hope for when the first episode actually airs.
leelaholic

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #62 on: 02-18-2005 18:43 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by homerjaysimpson:
What about baby looney tunes? That was a pretty shity too.
But at least it was still vaguely Looney Tunes. This is just... rape.

For anyone who cares, the characters are named:

Buzz (Bugs)
Duck (Daffy)
Spaz (Taz)
Slick (Wile E. Coyote)
Roadster (Road Runner)
Lexi (Lola)

Oh God.
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #63 on: 02-18-2005 19:19 »

According to ToonZone, design work on the series is by Christian and Yvon Tremblay, who did visual effects duties on Swat Kats.
Ranadok

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #64 on: 02-18-2005 21:38 »
« Last Edit on: 02-18-2005 21:38 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by leelaholic:
Duck (Daffy)

And you all say that it isn't original and creative! I bet none of you could have come up with "Duck".

Seriously, though, I'm not a fan of Looney Toons (never really was), but this new junk is junk.  It looks like bad fanart.
blackkatnorn

Bending Unit
***
« Reply #65 on: 02-18-2005 22:04 »


Yep,shoot the damn thing!!!!
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #66 on: 02-18-2005 23:05 »
« Last Edit on: 02-18-2005 23:05 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Ranadok:
  And you all say that it isn't original and creative! I bet none of you could have come up with "Duck".

I bow to this show's writers. I would never have thought of naming a duck "Duck." THat's some high-concept work right there.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks this, but this reeks of "Poochie-ism" to me. The AICN boards agree with me, and are united in tearing this to shreads.
bankrupt

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #67 on: 02-18-2005 23:22 »

I'm sorry I actually downloaded that clip and watched it.  The idea only gets worse when seen in full animated form.  The concept is so generic that I can see why they had to tack it onto an already existing franchise to get it into production.  It is for Kids WB though, so I'm sure the execs are hoping that the children will be too hoped up on their Count Chocula and Ritalin on Saturday mornings to care about the cheese in the plot.

It's nice that the most original name the writers could come up with was "Slick" for Wile E Coyote.  And who the hell is Lola Bunny?  I'm only familiar with the classic cartoons and I don't remember a Lola.  Is she some add on?
RavenStar

Professor
*
« Reply #68 on: 02-18-2005 23:28 »

She first appeared in "Space Jam."
DogDoo8

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #69 on: 02-18-2005 23:57 »

Garth: Hey, did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he dressed up as a Girl Bunny?

Wayne: No!

I think those lines pretty much sum up what I think about this "New" Loonatics.
Jade_Gryphon

Delivery Boy
**
« Reply #70 on: 02-19-2005 00:48 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by leelaholic:


For anyone who cares, the characters are named:

Buzz (Bugs)
Duck (Daffy)
Spaz (Taz)
Slick (Wile E. Coyote)
Roadster (Road Runner)
Lexi (Lola)

Oh God.

Good lord. -_- DUCK? Well, That's an original name.  roll eyes And the effing brat of a kid (think, like Cubert, but worse...and more snotty.) I babysit on Saturdays is named Lexi...and well, that *kinda* gives me bit of another reason to dislike Lola, actually.  laff

Seriously, the makers of Space Jam basically ignored the fact that Bugs had a girlfriend from the old comics, Honey Bunny...I never could understand why they needed Lola when they had her. Granted, she did look slightly too much like Bugs in drag in the beginning there, but they fixed her up in the 80s and made her more femininey. (is that even a word? o_o)

Anyhoo, the two other reasons I dislike the redesigns...

1.)Lack of facial mechanics. There's no pupils on their eyes, and other facial features that make for good facial expressions/Wild Takes...something the old looney tunes are famous for.

2.) lack of knee joints and/or hips. Seriously, most anthropomorphical/human cartoon characters are given knees and visible hips...but not these things. How the hell are these characters supposed to move?! o_o Thus, I'm somehow reminded of the VG Cats comic on the Ragnarok Online Sprites. xD
evan

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #71 on: 02-19-2005 01:02 »

Perhaps WB is just releasing its April Fool's Day joke two months early.

I especially like Bugs saying "What's up Doc?" in a menacing voice, or however menacing one can be when saying that.
Nerd-o-rama

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #72 on: 02-19-2005 02:10 »

I'm considering printing this article and framing it.

Remind me to delete this link on Monday.  Stupid artists not archiving their news posts...
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #73 on: 02-19-2005 21:15 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by evan:
  I bow to this show's writers. I would never have thought of naming a duck "Duck." That's some high-concept work right there.
Maybe young kids won't know what the hell those drawings are supposed to be, so they named it simpler for them?  tongue
Although that wouldn't explain the other names.

"A technicality!"
Venus

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #74 on: 02-19-2005 21:29 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by Nerd-o-rama:
I'm considering printing this article and framing it.

Remind me to delete this link on Monday.  Stupid artists not archiving their news posts...

That man deserves a nobel prize!
Bender_Waffles

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #75 on: 02-19-2005 23:44 »

 
Quote
Originally posted by RavenStar:
there's a clip up now, finally:  http://www.toonamiarsenal.com/misc/lf/LoonaticsPreview.mov

I almost shit myself when Bugs said "What's up doc?" in that totally xtr3m3 badass voice.
Grim

Professor
*
« Reply #76 on: 02-20-2005 01:19 »

Apparently the WB network has been starved of rating since first they revolved their Kids tv over pokemon after killing off Animanicas and all the likes of their early 90s Franchises. Now TeenTitans is their major successful item at the moment.

Its funny that people have brought up the TMNT remake in here because a few years before Fox Kids picked that up and remade it, WB was in preproduction of doing their own version of it, but the execs didnt like it and it was cancelled before animation ever started.
have a look see here-  http://www.ninjaturtles.com/warner/warner.html
davids

Starship Captain
****
« Reply #77 on: 02-20-2005 05:43 »

Holy crap!
What the hell is that!
Is this the WORST idea in entertainment history?
Is it the end of the world as we know it?

I think so....I think so....
Nurdbot

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #78 on: 02-20-2005 05:57 »

Yep, we're boned alright.

That was utter bollocks.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #79 on: 02-20-2005 06:04 »

Maaan what a pile of suckilicious crap. There's over 1000 Looney Tunes cartoons in the vaults, over 1000! That's enough for anyone, and most of these are actually good! Why would anyone possibly need to waste their time on this new crap? Just watch the old ones. The thing I don't understand is; when I watched these as a kid they were 30-40-50 years old, but I still enjoyed them. But now that they're another 10 years older or so, now the kids today can't enjoy them? So this new shit has to get made?  Huh? don't get it?...

It sounds more like to me that it doesn't need to get made, and that kids today would enjoy the classic Looney Tunes just like we did. It's just that there's more money to be made with a new series, and the execs have basically said to hell with the consequences. Corrupting a classic franchise...

Anyway, if they're going to fuck up something classic, they may as well fuck it properly. Why the hell does Buzz and Slick look almost the same? And they've left out such classic grandchildren as Sammy (Yosemite Sam) and Alien (Marvin the Martian)  tongue Seriously though, these names are piss poor just like this whole concept...

Do yourself a favor and pick up the Looney Tunes Golden Collection box sets on DVD. I've got the first set, they've done the old cartoon up really well, and they're all classics. AND they can still make money this way, why aren't they satisfied? Greedy bastards… But anyway, at least they've been treated with respect on the DVD box sets...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.155 seconds with 18 queries.