The New Looney Tunes Show

^ Yes it does. It can't be Off-Model because those are their actual character designs. It could only be off model if they were trying to do the style of the old cartoons and failed. Since they're obviously not, it's not Off-Model.

"Being too pop art" and such doesn't make him Off-Model, it just makes his new style something you don't think encompasses the character well.

edited 9th May '10 10:18:59 AM by KnownUnknown

The show's designs aren't Off-Model, if it was Off-Model, Bugs would either be missing an arm, colored like Daffy, would have no whiskers for a few seconds, it's not Off-Model unless it's an accidental screw up, you can't do it on purpose unless you're lampshading these types of accidents. I have a distinct feeling that one of my Off-Model theories is inaccurate.

One of the guys who produced Duck Dodgers is apparently involved, so that might be good news. I found it repetitive, but it was received well, wasn't it?

Yosemite Sam looks as awesome as ever. I hope they get his voice right.

Where are these new character designs? I don't really have a clue why some people complaining about.

Unknown, I know what TV Tropes definition of Off-Model is. Are you going to link the definition to all the animators I've seen using the term to describe this redesign as well? I'm sure they'd like to know that basing their idea of on-model on the actual cartoons instead of the new executive style sheet is wrong.

Of course that Bugs is on-model, for the executive retool. It is off model for the iconic Bugs that everyone else in the world is familiar with, and you very well know that is what I mean. That includes everything from the 40's (when he evened out) to present day, even the awful merch bugs of the 90's. Even Bugs with the flesh-colored cheeks, yellow gloves and bent knees is recognizable by his basic body construction. Happy Rabbit was merely a proto-Bugs.

If this new Bugs was in silhouette, without being told, would you have known that was Bugs Bunny? You'd know it was a bunny, but probably not Bugs Bunny.

You wouldn't have that problem with, say, her Daffy, Pete, Sam or her Sylvester, because she stayed true to their basic construction while adding her own flair, and they look fantastic. Bugs looks out of place amongst the cast, like he stepped out from another cartoon entirely, because she doesn't follow his basic construction. It's a complete overhaul, Botox Bunny. Just because it's approved at corporate level and has a fancy hardcover binder with the new style sheets and turnarounds dictating the new design everyone has to adhere to, doesn't mean that fans don't have the right to be upset or see something very wrong about changing it so drastically. This was not "eased" into, and now there's backlash.

I am simply of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That new character design takes away most everything that appealed to me personally about Bug's character design. It's cute, but it's just not Bugs Bunny to me. I fully admit I'm being harsh on it, but I don't think I'm being as unreasonable as others have been. At least I'm capable of articulating my reasons for disliking it instead of bashing it for simply being different. I'm under the impression that this is what you think I'm doing, however, so I'm trying to clear that up. I'm not saying anything that hundreds of other people aren't saying, including some of the artist's own fanbase. The only good of it is that I discovered a new artist to follow, even if I find her redesign of Bugs unappealing.

I just find it odd that you can be disappointed in changes to a character's personality, yet I'm not allowed to have an opinion on drastic changes to a character's design. To me, it's the combination that makes the character. The redesign is the first part of taking away familiarity from me, and the second is the change of setting, making Bugs into a furry rather than a talking animal. Just consider the implications of Elmer Fudd hunting the wabbit who happens to be his next-door neighbor. The more I hear about this series, the more it sounds like it's going to be Family Guy for kids with LT characters. But if I'm wrong and the long format works for it, and it's great stuff, then I'm wrong. I won't be too proud to admit it. But that is yet to be seen, and hearsay from other animators and writers, and an underwhelming stillframe that WB thought would showcase the animation don't leave me with warm feelings about this.

Last of all, please let's not argue about this. We both have our opinions, and that's my opinion as an artist and a fan of animation in general. Note I said fan, not animation snob. I watch stuff from the '80s, I'm not exactly setting that bar too high...

Bugs has gone through at least three highly different designs over the course of his existence. A change in design, especially in this day and age, is neither unexpected nor unprecedented, nor is it grounds to prematurely hate something indiscriminately without actually seeing firsthand whether or not your claims have weight.

Disliking the art style is one thing: you're entirely and completely entitled to that, but making assumptions on quality based on whether or not you like the style they chose a horse of a different color.

edited 10th May '10 3:32:05 PM by KnownUnknown

Look, I know my posts are long-winded, but I'd appreciate that if you intend to respond to them, that you actually read what I said instead of making assumptions based on a glance-over. Don't even tell me you did, because your last post is repeating things I already said as if you think it's news to me.

I have officially wasted too much time researching, getting opinions, reading the reactions from animators who've seen story boards and scripts and so on, to have an actual conversation with you, because you are obviously not interested in that. You seem only interested in annoying me by taking what I say out of context. Stop doing that.

Not having faith in the ability for WB to bring back the magic that made Golden Age Looney Tunes so preeminent when it was a unique environment that produced them IS NOT the same as saying it will suck outright because the production still is underwhelming, and I refuse to watch it. Which, if you'll kindly read what I actually have said, I was suggesting the former, not the latter. I didn't say I "prematurely hate it indiscriminately" based on the redesign, I said they made me pessimistic and explained why. You have yet to explain why you are optimistic, you seem bent on arguing with me instead. Do you not have an opinion other than "cautiously optimistic"? Why not elaborate on it so I'm not talking to myself in here? Instead of putting words in my mouth, I'd like to hear what you have to say. I didn't form my opinion on a still, I found that picture of the artist and her stand-ups from RESEARCHING. I formed my pessimistic opinion from reading things from the artists and animators involved (and those formerly involved) and the animation community as well as some comments on previews. What have you seen that makes you optimistic other than swallowing whole the idea that "modern times" means major changes? Please, I am genuinely interested in a conversation, not an argument with a brick wall. I could use some positive reassurance.

As for quality? I only made one reference to that, and it wasn't solely targeted at the redesign but animation in general regarding Looney Tunes. From an artistic "quality" standpoint, there is a lot wrong with the production still that doesn't have as much to do with character design. Would you like me to link you to a site where other artists point out the flaws with it, or would you be better off leaving that alone? I would, to be honest. But I admit, their negativity rubbed off on me and perhaps I should have worded that better. (Perhaps I should word a lot of things better )

If they feel a redesign is necessary, they should be coming up with an original idea, not painting the corpses of icons and propping them up to make a quick buck. I find this new Bugs as unsettling as computer-generated Orville Redenbacher. But that doesn't mean I HATE the thing already, jeez!

Well, I did some digging on toonzone, and here's a quote from a radio interview with Craig Paulsen, whose working on the show:

"Question: So tell us about your current project right now, The Looney Tunes Show, that you’re editing. How’s that going?

Answer: Great! It’s long hours but it’s fun. I mean, the best thing about editing this show is… just it’s one of those characters that everybody sort of grew up with, whether you came home after school and they were on, or… So you sort of have an obligation to serve it justice. It’s got a bit of… it’s one of the Warner Brothers franchise shows and it’s got a bit of history behind it, and you want to just… this is one of those examples of you want to serve the characters right. You want to make it really as good as… and everybody on the show feels that way. You just want to make it a really great show because it’s been with everybody for years and years and years so you want to try to keep that bar as high as you can. And that’s why we’re all sort of working really hard to make it funny and make it good and make it something that people will then carry on to the next generation. This will be their Looney Tunes."

So we at least know that they do care about the characters, which is a good sign. But, I would like those links about those unfavorable impressions you found, and to decide my own opinion on them.

^^ You say that, but then you say stuff like this:

It absolutely affects my perception of what the show will be like ahead of time, because if the character looks off model who's to say the writers didn't take liberties as well?

And you make me wonder.

edited 11th May '10 11:23:52 AM by KnownUnknown

Oo, I'll be doing some digging but I'll try! One of 'ems in that very Toonzone thread, apparently Tom Minton (who's worked on Animaniacs, Freakazoid, Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries...) had something to say about it and it wasn't very positive. Tom Ruegger didn't sound particularly tickled with the re-tool either. Cartoon Brew was especially negative (a number of animators frequent the site) to the point of hostility, and the guy voicing Marvin the Martian threw a hissy over it (unfortunately they threw one right back. Oh, the drama!) Also, sympathies for the folks that lost their jobs over the holiday for the "re-tool" pop up as a common reason that other animators (especially those who were fired!) are feeling ambivalent at best. That's sort of where I'm sitting with it :) I'm gonna have to hunt down the GGI review I quoted a few pages back...

Unknown: you misunderstand me, yet again. Allow me to translate: When the studio chooses a still to present to the public for reaction, the public has a reaction. "Affecting perception" DOES NOT MEAN "condemned from the get-go because I didn't like the art on ONE character". Don't forget that this is a cartoon, not a radio play or novel. Visuals are important. You don't take Groucho Marx and shave his eyebrows, pop a little ciggy in his mouth and dress him up in contemporary clothing and get the same magic. No matter how great the writing is, it'll take some getting used to. THAT is what I'm saying.

They keep throwing the term "reimagined" around in all the press releases. You what happened the last time we heard that word? Loonatics Unleashed. Having a bad omen about something is NOT the same as me officially hating and discriminating on a show I have yet to see. It won't be out until Fall, so come Fall we will see what kind of show they produced. I said it makes me feel anxious about how the writing will turn out. Is that such a crime, to imagine that the changes don't stop at the redesigns? Now will you please attempt to converse civilly like Dreamer up there, or do you intend to pick out another phrase to mangle my intentions on?

edited 11th May '10 9:59:53 AM by Amy of Darkness

I like the character designs, actually. Bugs reminds me a bit of Buster Bunny, which isn't exactly a bad thing. And Petunia is very cute, probably the best visual take on her yet.

The writing is what worries me, because in this age of political correction and Moral Guardians, you just can't do the Looney Tunes justice; they always have to de-fang them. The Tiny Toons worked as a Lighter and Softer approach to the basic concept because they were different characters, and yet, they always worked better when the writers actually dared to be edgier.

The talk about the musical segments concerns me as well. Hopefully they'll be more like the 'Anvil Song' and less about friendship and teamwork (which are good notions to spread in other cartoons, but not in my Looney Tunes, please).

edited 11th May '10 10:46:39 AM by OverMaster?!

The talk about the musical segments concerns me as well. Hopefully they'll be more like the 'Anvil Song' and less about friendship and teamwork (which are good notions to spread in other cartoons, but not in my Looney Tunes, please).

I really don't recall any Looney Tunes related shows (i.e. Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, etc) having songs like that, so I doubt that it'll happen with this new iteration.

Duck Dodgers was pretty good, so I'm cautiously optimistic about this show. I hope I'll be able to see it online though.  ^*

^^^ I didn't say you were condemning the show, I said you were making preconceived judgements on quality, which you were.

"I really don't recall any Looney Tunes related shows (i.e. Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, etc) having songs like that, so I doubt that it'll happen with this new iteration."

Three words: Baby Looney Tunes (from what I remember of it). But, it doesn't seem like this show is going in the same direction, so I'm not to worried about the songs being happy little anvils.

edited 11th May '10 11:43:30 AM by Jumpingzombie

The fundamental question is "are these supposed to be the Looney Toons, or is this a remake?" If the first, they should be following established character models exactly. If the second, who cares?

No, I did not. I said that it has the possibility to be like Carrotblanca or Box Office Bunny, which I didn't say were complete crap but very formula with recycled jokes. People liked them, I didn't. I didn't say they were of poor quality. I implied they left me cold.

I am still going to watch it and reserve judgment until that time.

But anyway, by your logic, I shouldn't be negative about an Uwe Boll movie until I sit down and watch it? Those who don't learn from their mistakes...

But don't mistake my simple pessimism for "preconceived judgments", it's an informed opinion after wading through tons of commentary, press releases, and some super-negative internet drama from both sides of the fence. Judgment implies I've made up my mind, and if you read what I said, I haven't. I only made conjecture in my first post, not judgment. I never said "it looks like it's going to suck and it will suck!", I said by WB's track record, there's a possibility of it not being as good, until proven otherwise. I want, very badly, to be proven otherwise!

Though I don't care for the redesign and the premise makes me worry, that does not mean I said that it was going to suck or be poor quality. I never judged its quality, only the quality of its predecessors and my lukewarm feelings for the other shows that the writers work on. And yes, hearing that perfectly good animators got fired for this series gives me a negative impression as well. That's the funny thing about hearsay, when it's negative, you don't set your standards too high. Especially when it's coming from people who have heard more than you or me about it.

However, I have relented a bit on my pessimism since watching "Little Go Beep", which was by Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone, 2 of the new guys they got on the project and it was actually pretty good, so that has upped my confidence level a little.

So, can we please just drop this? I'm quite weary of having to explain every bit of my posts to you. I'd rather we move forward.

But anyway, by your logic, I shouldn't be negative about an Uwe Boll movie until I sit down and watch it? Those who don't learn from their mistakes...

In short, yes.

In long, if you've watched Uwe Boll movies before and know he's crap, then you should be able to make an educated guess as to whether another movie of his would suck (though even then you wouldn't know). But if you've never encountered anything relating to something before then you should at least try it before putting out an opinion on it (even if, with Boll, it will be painful... very, very painful).

And that reason is why the Uwe Boll situation, by the way, isn't really the same as this one, so the logic doesn't actually imply that conclusion in the first place, if only because you're basing your ire on character models and not really on whether not previous work of the shows comic style (which we don't know yet), the writers/producers/artists/etc's previous work (which you didn't often mention as your main reasoning, at least not in terms of whether or not those shows were good or not, and in fact, when you did, as in your last post, you praised their earlier work...), etc.

edited 11th May '10 3:01:41 PM by KnownUnknown

At this point, nobody cares about designs, let's just move on.

Good idea.

Sure, it's a good idea when someone else suggests moving on...*throws hands up in the air and rolls eyes*

The Uwe Boll comment was an attempt at lightening the mood. Even if you didn't find it silly you should have at least recognized it as an attempt at a joke,or dismissed it entirely.

And "praise" is a gross overstatement (disgusting, really!). I didn't praise Little Go Beep, I said it was pretty good. That is not the same as gushing over it. It still heavily rehashed jokes, like I feared this new series might, but there were 2 things that saved it from the scrap bin for me. But it's not that hard to disappoint with a Roadrunner cartoon, there's ONE JOKE. Just because it was better than Space Jam, Ben 10 or Back at the Barnyard doesn't make me completely confident yet until I see it.

As for the rest of what you said, I've already explained myself several times. If that's what you still want to believe, then I obviously can't change your mind. I wave my white flag here.

But I am a reasonable person who's capable of changing my perspective on something, if someone is willing to discuss. So, are you willing to discuss yet? Please?

I still haven't heard your opinion on the introduction of CGI 3D animation or the musical shorts. Or my inference that the fixed location sounds restricting and Bugs and Daffy have been bounced into the "furry" category with their new portrayal as suburbanites. There's just something weird about seeing Daffy eating Chinese food considering there's a lot of poultry in it, and that doesn't look like tofu to me...

^ Y'know, you're saying you're a reasonable person is kind of weighed down by by your saying we haven't been discussing this already, by implication dismissing all the points I've already made. Basically most of your responses to things I've said has been to mince words, say I don't understand, and keep on saying the same thing.

In fact, I believe at one point you accused me of "just trying to annoy you."

Really, the reason I want to move on is because, to be honest, having that kind of debate isn't very good for my patience. But just for the record, I've always understood what you were saying (if you meant something else, I didn't translate into words well), I just didn't agree.

Honestly though, I'm ready to just agree to disagree and move on.

edited 12th May '10 10:24:21 AM by KnownUnknown

Ah, I am so depressed this week, yes I want to move on, but I just want to say something before I leave this topic. (and please understand, I'm not writing in anger!)

Yes, I am reasonable, and I'm also capable of seeing that you and I are clearly not discussing the cartoon right now, so honestly I don't see how you can say we're discussing it and I'm unreasonable for pointing that clear fact out to you. I said I surrender, you don't care, you want to have the last word. You'll have it then. The responses you've posted to me have a distinctly derisive tone, about how I direct my ire at a show I've not seen over a single still frame, etcetera. I never said you didn't have a point or that I even disagree with you, but any and all good points you've made are hard to address when your responses are so condescending. I feel I have to defend myself before I can discuss anything of worth. And yeah, I get wordy when I'm frustrated.

I've called it off several times, brought up new topics. You ignored those topics (except for an offhand joke about Uwe Boll) and brought the argument up again with what I felt were personal attacks. Your responses, (complete with quotations taken bereft of their context,) certainly never indicated any understanding at all, just that you were entrenched in your opinion of me and not moving.

And yeah, I repeated myself, because you repeated your self too. Same goes for word mincing. Pots and kettles, bub. I just take longer to do it.

Our posts have devolved into basically: "No I wasn't" and "yes you were." And the worst part of it? I agree with you about not judging something you haven't seen, because it happens to my own works. Besides, so what if I had a knee-jerk reaction to my favorite franchise being overhauled. Is that really worth your disdain? Then I'd avoid the Last Airbender film thread...

I'll fully admit that my verbosity buries my meaning half the time, and I accept responsibility for this whole misunderstanding being a result of that. And I apologize, sincerely.

I'm truly sorry for the argument. Please,accept my apology, and move on. I'll come back in the Fall when I get to see the cartoon

bump because of this

two things that bug me

-Does Daffy really need a love interest?

-Taz and Gossamer having yellow eyes

Taz makes sense to me, Gossamer, not sure... Although the love interest part seems about right, but maybe they'll have good writers.

Don't care about love interests or nothing, cause by those character designs it looks like were finally getting a more old school-esque Daffy back. And that makes me smile.

edited 14th Jun '10 8:13:23 PM by KnownUnknown