Wabbit: A NEW Looney Tunes Production

Hahaha! Continuity in the Looney Tunes universe! :D

Hey, TLTS had continuity, and to some degree, so did Animaniacs (you can say Dr. Scratchansniff became more tolerant of the Warners and gave up on 'curing' them over time, and arguably Pinky and Brain did have a major, status quo shaking development that stuck when they ended up with Elmyra).

I'm talking about continuity between shows.

New info on Wabbit taken form Tv insider

Each of the 26 episodes will be broken down into four stand-alone shorts, and Bugs—sporting a squatter, more pear-shaped physique—will appear in every one. Which is not to say that he’ll always play the hero: “He gets beat up a lot,” says Craig. “He’s no longer aloof and above it all.” His revolving roster of sidekicks includes Yosemite Sam, Porky Pig—now making a living doing odd jobs—and even longtime nemesis Elmer Fudd. “Instead of being a hunter, he’s a bit more innocuous,” Craig says. “The stakes are low. In one cartoon, he convinces Bugs to come to this spa, and it turns out to be a petting zoo.”

Bugs will also be joined by new pals, such as a kindly foil named Bigfoot and a squirrel named Squeaks, who speaks in—you guessed it—squeaks. “They’re best friends who come to each other’s rescue but sometimes play tricks on each other,” Craig says. “Squeaks is not as smart as Bugs, but he’s smart enough to manipulate him. His main function is pulling Bugs into situations.” Character designer Jennifer Hoffer calls the rodent’s aesthetic a throwback to 1920s and ’30s animation. “It’s that rubber-hose look with wiggly arms and legs,” she says. “It’s a fun style for slapstick comedy.” Let the gags begin!

This sounds a bit more promising. But I can tell Squeaks is going to get on my last nerve already. This may not be a lot like the original shorts, but at least it's going in the right direction as it seems so far.

Woah, wait.... Bugs Bunny, the Karmic Trickster... Is manipulated by a freakin' non-talking Squirrel?!

This ain't Bugs Bunny. If he's the one being manipulated, if he's falling for things like "I'm sending you to a Zo- I mean Spa!" from Elmer Fudd of all people, then it's not Bugs Bunny. As far as I'm concerned, this is Efrum the Retarded Rabbit.

I'm liking this news so far.

Talk about a contradiction. If the squirrel not as smart as Bugs, how the hell can he be smart enough to trick him? You have to be at a Joseph Joestar level of Manipulative Bastard to trick Bugs Motherfucking Bunny.

Anyway, kind of sucks that most of the shorts will star only Bugs. I expected that half of those shorts will be Bugs and the other be on the other Looney Tunes as a good balance to give all the characters a spotlight and not diminish the title characters status as the star. And the whole non-talking sidekick for Bugs, I am amazed they didn't went with that penguin; he, to me as a kid, seems like Bugs Bunny sidekick in his few appearances.

LOL! Peter's great great grandfather should of run with that idea. If Screwy Squirrel exist, so can that character.

edited 12th Aug '15 7:53:43 AM by BigK1337

People are complaining that Squeaks can't be able to beat Bugs because its' Bugs. People complained that so many Tunes work together in Space Jam whereas in the cartoons, they were all enemies. Hell Daffy, probably his closest co-star, is more of a foil or antagonist to him when surviving a given situation. ... this brings me to an interesting thought: .... does Bugs... even NEED friends? He HAS lived in his rabbit hole home by himself for most of his life, and when he was living with Daffy in the same house, he was never really happy. But the thought of Bugs being friendless is depressing.

It's out of Character for Bugs Bunny to be so easily manipulated, especially against someone who's dumber then him (Imagine if Elmer Fudd tricked Bugs into staring at his gun for 5 minutes, or if Daffy tricked Bugs in the "Rabbit Season/Duck Season" routine, for examples). Bugs is the Manipulator, not the other way around. Yes, sometimes Bugs will fall for things, but that's normally to people who don't look evil (Like the episode where he goes home with Dr. Jekyll, for example) or who don't outright state their goal (Which most of Bugs villains do).

This could possibly be a "Prequel" to before Bugs became the Rabbit we are use to today. Thay did say he's now squatter and pear-shaped,giving the mental image of him being younger and less mature.

Okay, a few things.

One, it didn't say that the squirrel "tricks" Bugs, but instead that the squirrel "manipulates" him. You can totally manipulate someone without tricking them.

Two, you don't need to be smarter than your mark to trick or manipulate them. All you need is to play off of one of their weaknesses. Heck, they probably will even realize you're doing it to them even as they do it.

And it's not like Bugs Bunny makes efforts to hide his flaws. He's mischievous. He's got No Sense of Direction (he always misses that turn at Albequerque). He likes standing up for the little guy. He's a bit smug. That right there are four points upon which someone can manipulate him.

Three, "not as smart as Bugs" isn't necessarily stupid.

I just want to say, considering I don't even think Bugs Bunny is smart (I'd say he's of Average Intellect and Stable mind in world of Insane idiots), I would say that you would have to be smarter then Bugs to be able to manipulate him (Like that Turtle, both from the Original Series and The Looney Tunes Show). Otherwise, you're either on Daffy's level or Elmer's level of Intelligence (IE, Either the same intellect but crazier or slightly dumber).

-head starts buzzing-

Eh, at least it doesn't sound as *bad* as the last Loony Tunes series. I'm willing to give it a shot. (Btw didn't they already have a Sasquatch character? The one with big tennis shoes?)

1. Trick and manipulate are the same thing in terms of definition and both being a synonym for maneuver.

2. Good point.

3. But it is less then the level of smart Bugs has based on his experience. I could believe based on the description of Squeks that he can influence Bugs to go on some wacky misadventure due to his child like innocence or something along the lines which is what I assume the character would most likely be a kid who doesn't know any better. But saying he is smart enough to fool Bugs mean that the character is pretending to not be smarter then Bugs just to get his way.

So what I'm wondering here is which is it: child like character who the protagonist has no choice but to go along with (like that kitty who that bulldog watch over) or the Fool who strings people along by using his supposed low level of intelligence to get his way. Cause honestly its hard for me to see somebody be not as smart as the other person yet at the same time smart enough to manipulate the guy who is known for manipulation.

. . . . . God, I hope nobody assume from these comments that I hate this show. I am just voicing minor concerns/nitpicks that I have, I still want to see it.

That's Gossameer her's a monster

As the person above me said, that Gossameer.

The snow monster you are thinking of is the Abomnible Snowman (yeah, that's his name) and he sounds like Lenny of the story Of Mice and Men.

@63 That line of thought has been the downfall of many. You don't need to know everything; you just need to know enough to be able to play on your mark's weaknesses. And that knowledge is frequently less than is initially assumed.

@66 The idea that "trick" and "manipulate" are synonyms is a common misconception.

Simple fact of the matter is, you need some level of deception to trick someone. The deception could be small, like one minor detail being left unmentioned. Or it could be large, like completely making up the entire premise for the action in question. Regardless, though, some level of intentional lie is required.

On the other hand, to manipulate someone is to get them to act in a manner you choose. You don't necessarily need to lie to do that. In fact, you'd be surprised how incredibly easy it is to manipulate someone while telling the complete and unvarnished truth. Yes, it also might involve some amount of action on your part which might seem otherwise unrelated... but you know, "Blackmail" Is Such an Ugly Word.

Now, it's of course easy to trick someone by manipulating them, and it's easy to manipulate someone by tricking them, but the two are not mutually inclusive. You can trick without manipulating, and you can manipulate without tricking. To understand this is to begin to understand the Magnificent Bastard.

Bringing this back to Bugs, it's pretty easy to see why one would conflate the two terms, as many of Bugs' most famous moments have resulted in combining trickery and manipulation (Duck Season, Rabbit Season, anyone?). But that doesn't mean the two cannot be separated.

Finally, as a side note, "maneuver" is an extremely broad term, and it is not a synonym for either "trick" or "manipulate." That would be roughly the same as saying cartoons are synonymous with Bugs Bunny. And as much as I like Bugs (and trust me, I do), that isn't even close to true.

Okay, I see what you are geting at.

@kyun That's probably the biggest difference between Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse does have friends, even his relationship with Donald Duck is more like a friendly rivarly. Bugs is a rival with anybody who has a problem with him, and Bugs doesn't even want to make peace with them.

Wow. The wise, reputable "star" of the franchise is anti-social! :D Why hadn't Back In Action taken advantage of this!? Instead of making him a supporting character in a story that has him giving Daffy a few bones to throw, why not make it an examination of his character??

Because writers are lazy? I really have no idea how we got to this point.

Pretty much.

... you do realize you're asking this of Looney Tunes, right?