General Looney Tunes / Assorted WB Animation (that isn't DC) Thread.

You act as if that wasn't always the case.

Studio execs if anything held even more tight-fisted control in the past.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Of course. Usually, what I know previously is that executives that approve of creative decisions come from just the network that airs the shows.

They don’t mind the changes and updates they give to the characters.

It has gotten more consolidated as of now. You can not update or use certain characters anymore if they decide they want to avoid using altogether even if the creators have a good idea for an update.

This is not the first time a company decided to tamper with beloved brands and characters. Looney Tunes, Hanna-Barbera/Scooby-Doo, Tom and Jerry, you name it. It is always the case that they have no clue what to do with the characters beyond just how well they do according to data. Cartoonists and people who really love these classic characters really know what to do with the characters. Everything now is being compromised and they just tow the line and except the new narrative.

The only way things would change is that if certain hierarchy steps down or is let go for reasons. That could allow new people to fix what broke the system.

Edited by rwinger24 on Apr 18th 2024 at 6:51:22 AM

Again, not anything new. Even the stuff you liked in the past had to go through executive meddling.

Edited by M84 on Apr 18th 2024 at 9:51:43 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

That’s exactly a fact. Right now, it is also the hiring of new talent who have no clue how to adapt the characters and they never read or watch the original material. It’s best to stay faithful rather than deviate and divide the fanbase.

Think of the countless Tom and Jerry direct to video movies that have nothing to do with the source material.

Space Jam: A New Legacy, the supposed retirement of Pepé Le Pew, making Buster and Babs twin siblings, the sudden focus on Tweety and Lola, changing gender and sexuality. It’s a hodge podge of short sighted decisions that contributes to the executive meddling damaging or tainting the integrity and identity of these brands but instead are essentials to fulfill certain checkboxes to appease corporate (or in this case, give new talent exactly what they want instead of listening to the audience).

Edited by rwinger24 on Apr 18th 2024 at 6:58:10 AM

The real problem with Space Jam: A New Legacy is that its live action stars didn't have the same kind of draw Michael Jordan did back in the day when Space Jam first aired. It cannot be understated how much that helped the movie achieve success.

Look at how badly Back in Action did when it tried to be a more faithful adaptation of classic Looney Tunes. It was even made by a huge fan of the original cartoons. It bombed anyway. It bombed much worse than A New Legacy would.

The problem isn't as simple as "new stuff isn't the same as old stuff".

And honestly, I don't think the gender and sexuality stuff has had any real detrimental impact.

It's also weird that you suddenly pivoted from saying the problem is executives trying to fill in boxes and not letting creatives do their job, to saying the problem is new talent getting everything they want.

The only way to actually get stuff exactly like the old material would be to go back in time and drag the WB of the past to the present day.

Edited by M84 on Apr 18th 2024 at 10:05:11 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

In some cases, it is a bit of both.

Velma and Tiny Toons Looniversity are huge deviations from their original iterations. Sometimes, a showrunner would have their own vision and it easily falls in line with what the executives want, not from creative but from corporate.

The decision to change the ethnicity of the characters in Velma didn’t help at anything but satisfy a corporate checkbox while it made room for unfunny and insensitive jokes on the creative side. Mindy Kaling is simply not funny in my eyes.

Tiny Toons made Buster and Babs related as a creative decision but I feel like the addition of Sweetie came from corporate. I see that the decision to make the females more capable likely came from Erin Gibson. Again, a writer confirmed they wanted to use Pepé Le Pew but retooled as a chef who respects boundaries but corporate wanted to avoid the character (likely out of fear that his presence would cause controversy).

Animaniacs 2020 and especially many of its modern humor and political jokes feel insulting and it leans very heavy on the cynical side of things. This is on the showrunner more than Hulu who green lights and decides what to censor.

It’s a double edged sword. Every project is bound to executive meddling but it should not be to an extent where the creators are heavily compromised from doing their job. Yet again, the talent pool and factors that can be approved for hire by powers that be either choose to deviate from the property or stay faithful to it. Good writing matters more than what is on the surface level.

Edited by rwinger24 on Apr 18th 2024 at 8:11:27 AM

It sounds like you're basically just assuming every single decision you didn't like came from corporate without any actual evidence to back it up.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

The ethnicity of the characters in Velma isn't the problem. The problem is that the characters are mean, there is no Scooby for lighthearted humor, and there is a lot of gratuitous gore, swearing, and sexual jokes in a property that definitely isn't known for those things.

see my completed Tangled (Varian) fanfic collection! https://archiveofourown.org/works/24467056/chapters/59049532

It is hard to know what is actually happening behind the scenes especially since everything is so tight-lipped. Not every bad decision came from corporate (like the Pepé Le Pew embargo). Sometimes, questionable decisions come from the creative side (like everything you see in Velma).

Edited by rwinger24 on Apr 18th 2024 at 10:16:33 AM

But easy to make things up about it, it seems.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Michael Jordan must have been HUGE back in the day, but it always seemed to me like in the years leading up to A New Legacy Lebron James was the only basketball player anyone talked about.

If I had a nickel for every film where Emma Stone falls off a balcony... I'd only have two nickels, but weird that there's two of them.

I think Steph curry and Kobe Bryant were also mentioned a lot, but even they did not have the massive appeal and renown Michael had. He was huge. I was a kid when space jam came out and everyone watched it. It was like Jurassic Park, a super popular film that entire families saw in theatres.

see my completed Tangled (Varian) fanfic collection! https://archiveofourown.org/works/24467056/chapters/59049532

Trying to remember what it like back in the 90's, I can see that point. Lebron and Kobe are very popular, but Michael was one of those people who galvanized the entire sport. Whether you supported his team or not, he was the one thing everyone knew about basketball, and for many he was the one reason they were interested in basketball in the first place. He's the Babe Ruth of basketball.

I'm trying to think of another modern athlete from a different sport that did the same thing, but Michael's huge pop culture presence coming into the film is difficult to match.

But, I don't think the problem with Space Jam 2 was the lack of Michael vs Lebron, exactly. I think... well...

Okay, to put it blunt, Looney Tunes and Michael Jordan teaming up to play basketball against a team of monsters is, on a basic level, an extremely stupid and gimmicky idea. It's a baffling celebrity vehicle, its chock full of product placement, and the crossover is tortured in the first place. Which isn't itself a bad thing, but...

When the first movie came out, it was dumb, yeah, but it was weird and new and different and unique and kind of charming, and Michael Jordan was attached with his huge fanbase - sure the idea was forced and full of product placement and Michael can't act, but that's what made Space Jam what it was - and it was such a goofball experience that it hit cult classic levels exactly because it was something weird and different and unique and kind of charming.

But then when you make a sequel to something like that, you basically file off the appeal people have for it being unique and different, and hinge your bets on people being interested in the concept itself. Which is fine for a lot of franchises, but with Space Jam, the more you push the same concept down people's throats, the more people start to realize how forced the concept is since they don't have that uniqueness to buffer it, and lose interest.

When people talk about it, it translates to discussion on whether Lebron was as good as Michael or whether the new jokes are as fun as the old jokes and so on, but ultimately it hashes out to the concept just not having an easy time captivating people twice. Making sequels to So Bad, It's Good movies that are loved because they're So Bad, It's Good is difficult.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Apr 18th 2024 at 11:25:53 AM

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Space Jam A New Legacy also promoted a lot of hype on the guest appearances but they ended up being mostly background cameos. That appears to have let down some as well.

If the alleged working premise of the Tunes versus an all star team of Warner affiliated bad guys had happened instead the movie might have done much better.

Why did it have to be two hours long though?

New theme music also a box

I will say that while I dislike Velma, I don't think it does the Scooby Doo franchise any lasting damage. If we hadn't had a Scooby project in the last 10-20 years or so, I think it could possibly do some damage, but given that we've gotten a new Scooby series and/or OVA every couple of years or so, I think Velma will simply run it's course and then go away. I think experimentation is better supported in a franchise that gets a lot of use.

It might do some damage to the idea of Velma as a lead, especially after the D&V movie.

I personally don't like the idea of spinning anyone in the gang off on their own. I think the weakest iterations of Scooby Doo so far (aside from Velma, which is just...repellant) are the ones that have Shaggy and Scooby without the rest of the gang (whether or not they're accompanied by Scrappy). The gang works best together.

let's spilt up and look for more clues!

New theme music also a box

Technically Velma has the gang together except Scooby.

Because either the writers had no clue what to do with Scooby or executives told the Velma writers they were not allowed to use him. Scooby-Doo is what made the brand marketable to kids.

As much as I am annoyed with decisions that result in clickbait, I just need to accept the fact that this is the direction the company wants to take these brands.

Edited by rwinger24 on Apr 18th 2024 at 1:17:27 AM

There's been so many different versions of Scooby Doo over the years, I never felt like "Velma" was supposed to be the new version going forward.

If I had a nickel for every film where Emma Stone falls off a balcony... I'd only have two nickels, but weird that there's two of them.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, too. The current approach seems to be to do one approach for a season or two, and then switch to another. Actually, this isn't noticeably different from the classic approach, where long-lasting properties would change something about the status quo (add new characters, send them on a world tour, etc) every couple of seasons. Scooby-Doo seems to do something in the classic vein, then do something experimental, and then shift back to more-or-less classic mode. Rinse and repeat.

Edited by Robbery on Apr 18th 2024 at 2:30:29 AM

IMHO the live action movies did more damage to the Scooby Doo brand. So much so that they've never tried live action Scooby Doo stuff again.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Didn't the Scooby franchise still thrive during the 2000s and onward with the animated stuff? The live action movies made no impact on that.