It sounds to me like you are judging Bugs by what he does not do in the show as opposed to what he does. The show may not be producing more "wabbit season! duck season!" or "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" moments, but to me, this is still the Bugs that giggles with false modesty and coquettish glee as he shows off his heroics, talks about his star-studded past, watches coolly as Daffy makes a fool of himself, and even walks off with the beautiful Hollywood caricature toon at the end. Even if he's not identical to the Bugs in, say, "Rabbit Fire" or "Rabbit of Seville", he's still many of the things I come to associate with Bugs Bunny. Speaking of...
And since Bugs was introduced, never once was he ever frustrated by Daffy, or Elmer, or Yosemite Sam. But, in this show, he is frustrated constantly. That is definitive evidence of Bugs' essential character being different.
What about his frustration with the Gremlin on the WWII fighter plane? His frustration when he hypnotized Elmer Fudd into thinking he was a rabbit only to have 'Rabbit Fudd' drive him nuts? His frustration when he was given the "Duck Amuck" role and turned out to be the victim of the unseen artist (who was revealed to be Elmer Fudd)? His frustration with the Easter Rabbit in "Easter Yeggs"? Having Bugs simply be frustrated or a victim of a crazier character is not a violation of his character. Because while Bugs' personality may stay the same, his role is changeable depending on the scenario. And again, if it gets laughs, it is acceptable. Besides, even in the most frustrated of episodes, Bugs will come out the winner in the end.
Daffy was always temperamental, self-absorbed, dishonest, and insecure in the cartoons. These traits translated into moments of manic stupidity. As sharp as Bugs was in the cartoons, you'd have to have some level of idiocy to have your moves against Bugs backfire because of "pronoun trouble". And while Daffy does not run into that kind of trouble in the new show, nearly all of his moments of idiocy come about because he lies, acts selfishly, can't control himself, and will step on anyone in the name of easy success. As I've said before, one trait most of the Looney Tunes have in common is that they're childish characters in an adult world. Daffy is probably the most extreme example of that, and his childishness continues to define him in the show as it did in the originals. The show just tries to explore these aspects of Daffy more closely, whereas the cartoons simply exploited those traits in the name of a gag, and brilliantly.
There has been an attempt to make Yosemite Sam nicer. Speedy has to be a pizza shop owner because apparently being the "fastest mouse in all Meh-he-co" is racist
Once again, Yosemite Sam is the same jerk he always was. In fact he was introduced in the new show as the most thoroughly unpleasant character in the cast. Once again, only his role changes. The show examines what having to be neighbors with such a notorious jerk would be like, and makes some pretty fair assertions. And as for your charges on Speedy, I'm sorry, but it's here that you leave subjective opinion and are factually wrong. Speedy has the same personality, same accent, and the pizza shop he owns is named "PizzArriba" after his allegedly 'racist' catch phrase. Plus, look at this clip:
http://youtu.be/ftXX8bzW9ao
Not only does Speedy do exactly what he did in the original cartoons, but the clip is a direct reference to his roots in the cartoons that featured him as a cheese-stealing Robin Hood-type bandido. While I wish the show would make more frequent and better use of Speedy, your charge of him being PC-ed for fear of racism is plainly, simply wrong.
And when Lola was introduced in Space Jam, she wasn't an idiot or an airhead, or even a boy-crazed stalker.
She also wasn't funny either, nor did she have much to do in the movie or serve much of any purpose except as a token female character and a love interest to Bugs. Here, she has her own brand of craziness and childishness (essential traits for Looney Tunes), is funny on her own terms, and gets funny scenes of her own. That's more than she ever got in Space Jam. In fact, I'm sure you'll agree that the old cartoons often featured even crazier female characters (some of whom also chased after a terrified Bugs Bunny). So in a way, by making Lola crazy and uncomfortable, the show does more credit to the original Looney Tunes characters than it does to Space Jam. I'll let you decide which of those two is more deserving.
But this show retains little to nothing of what made the Looney Tunes great in the first place.
I maintain that the show does retain the core elements of its characters. The Looney Tunes Show could never have gotten off the ground otherwise. The writers would not have been able to make a series out of putting The Looney Tunes characters in modern surroundings unless they retained even a few elements that make them Looney Tunes Characters.
A lot of things contributed to making the Looney Tunes great. You could write volumes about the individual factors that made them great (and you'd probably need to, or you'd never do the cartoons justice). But among these many things were the fact that the Looney Tunes had great characters, clever writing, and above all, they were funny and entertaining. I accept the Looney Tunes Show for what it is because it still has great characters, still has clever writing, and is still funny and entertaining. And no rants or passionate rhetoric from an angry purist is going to change that.
"The price of originality is going up faster in Hollywood than the price of oil." - Roger Ebert
reply
share
ccole-7
13 years ago
If you want to delude yourself into believing that these faux Looney Tunes are the same characters, I can't change your opinion. Maybe you want to believe it so badly that you can't see the show for what it really is. I will forever maintain that you can't just slap "Looney Tunes" on something and pretend that it is.
As for your assertions, Bugs is every bit of what he doesn't do as what he does do. Bugs was not a whiny character who would tolerate the antics of Daffy to the point where they would ever be roommates. Traveling companions, sure. But living together? NO! Perhaps you think that watered down material and uninspired content equals the same Bugs, but I and every other true Looney Tunes fan knows better.
Plus, I never said Bugs didn't get frustrated. The examples you cite are times that stand out because they are so much against the norm. If this show's abomination of Bugs was put back in those circumstances, those handful of examples wouldn't stand out. In fact there would be nothing that stands out about him.
And, you are wrong about classic Daffy as well. In the middle of an argument you have probably said something or been tripped up by something someone else said, but that doesn't make you an idiot. The examples you cite have more to do with Bugs' ability to control the flow of words than with Daffy being an idiot.
Speedy...well, the Speedy of the classics was not a business mouse. He was an ordinary mouse with an extraordinary gift, and he used it to the benefit of his mice bretheren, maybe kind of like a Robbin Hood type character. Now he's just a pc character. There's really nothing that special about him. And what is a Mexican mouse doing running a pizzeria anyway?
The beauty of Yosemite Sam was that he was angry, and that never changed. He would fake being nice but his true character always came through. Any attempt to change that violates his established character.
And maybe you think you would have to write volumes on what made the Looney Tunes great, but in reality every true Looney Tunes fan knows that they were great due to their irreverence drawn out in an amazing blend of vaudeville, slapstick, and wordplay that didn't exist then. Even after the Looney Tunes, few if any other studios could do what they were doing. They remained unique, and that's why they were great. The majority of the other studios followed the Disney model.
Now I don't mind if there's an attempt to update the characters, as long as their characteristics aren't butchered. I often think of how the classic Looney Tunes characters were re-purposed in "Tiny Toon Adventures" as teachers teaching their younger counterparts how to be funny.
But a generic, boring sitcom panders to an audience that craves the same generic crap they've been eating up. It's wrong that "Looney Tunes" appears in the name of this show.
By the way, how familiar are you with all the other classic comedy, such as the Marx Brothers? Bugs Bunny is in many ways the animated version of Groucho Marx. Replace the trademark cigar with a carrot, and the grease paint mustache with whiskers, and you get Bugs. Can you imagine Groucho being placed in a generic setting and toned down? That's what this show does.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
reply
share
andyp1986
13 years ago
OK, I'll try to keep this as simple as possible:
Maybe you want to believe it so badly that you can't see the show for what it really is.
See this is why I'm even bothering to argue with you in the first place. Not because I object to your opinion on the show or its characters, but because I object to your opinion of me. I don't want to change your mind about the new show. I totally understand the backlash against it, and don't begrudge the purists for their negative response one bit. But right from the start, you've been condescending me and implying that I'm a delusional faux fan of the classics just because I don't hate the new show like you do. And that I will not tolerate. No matter what assumptions you make about me or my feelings, I am a genuine lover of the classic Looney Tunes just like you are. And you will just need to accept that.
Anyway, just a few more minor points:
The examples you cite have more to do with Bugs' ability to control the flow of words than with Daffy being an idiot.
But Daffy's idiocy certainly contributes to their dynamic and makes him such an enjoyable target for Bugs' word play. You say it's one thing over the other. I say both are equally important.
Now Speedy's just a pc character. There's really nothing that special about him. And what is a Mexican mouse doing running a pizzeria anyway?
This sort of just goes back to my "role and scenario have changed, but not the character himself" belief. Speedy runs the place entirely by himself with lightning speed and great style. The idea of Speedy running a pizza place to begin with is certainly open to question, but the way he runs it is unmistakably Speedy. And anyway, your argument still doesn't address the "Queso Bandito" clip I cited. That segment is so clearly a loving homage to everything Speedy was in the old cartoons, that I just can't buy the whole "PC" label.
Yosemite Sam would fake being nice but his true character always came through.
That's exactly what he does in this show. He pretends to be nice to his neighbors, but is quite clearly and obviously trying to exploit them for his own gains. Lord knows, he's never genuinely nice to them and certainly doesn't care about them one bit.
And maybe you think you would have to write volumes on what made the Looney Tunes great, but in reality every true Looney Tunes fan knows that they were great due to their irreverence drawn out in an amazing blend of vaudeville, slapstick, and wordplay that didn't exist then.
Again, the whole "I'm a true Looney Tunes fan, grounded in reality, and you're not"...stop. Just stop. That crosses the line in having a different opinion, and is just mean-spirited. Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on the originals, but I see that as just a broad overview. To me, the greatness of the Looney Tunes falls into every single aspect of their production from the way each director infused their boldness, and distinctive personalities into the characters, to the way the writers brainstormed and constructed each verbal and visual gag, to the way the artists gave both the characters and the world around them such a unique, colorful visual aesthetic, even to the brilliant development of every voice, sound effect, and musical score. As wonderful as the boldness and irreverence of the cartoons are, they would not be the masterpieces we know them as were it not for every single bit of genius and craftsmanship that went into each one on every level of production. Hence my belief that true Looney Tunes fans can believe that you could write volumes about their greatness.
By the way, how familiar are you with all the other classic comedy, such as the Marx Brothers? Bugs Bunny is in many ways the animated version of Groucho Marx. Replace the trademark cigar with a carrot, and the grease paint mustache with whiskers, and you get Bugs. Can you imagine Groucho being placed in a generic setting and toned down? That's what this show does.
I am reminded of everything Groucho did after the heyday of the Marx Brothers (other film roles, one-man shows, "You Bet Your Life", and countless TV appearances and interviews). Nothing he did was ever quite as sublimely funny as the great Marx Brothers movies, and he was never quite on the same level as say Rufus T Firefly or Captain Spaulding, but he himself was still funny and entertaining. And even though the worlds around him were never as funny as the worlds created for him in the Marx Brothers movies, they were still that much funnier to have him be a part of them. That's more or less my attitude on the new show. Neither it nor its characters will ever be near the same level as the timeless gems we associate them with, but if I'm still laughing and if the world around them still benefits from their presence, then I will consider the Looney Tunes as invulnerable and bullet-proof as Groucho himself.
"The price of originality is going up faster in Hollywood than the price of oil." - Roger Ebert
reply
share
ccole-7
13 years ago
If you think I'm insulting you based on what I've said concerning your love for this show, then I'd hate to see what you'd do if I actually insulted you.
What I really have a problem with are those people who actually think this show puts a positive spin on the classic characters that have needed no facelifts or overhauls for seventy plus years. The way the characters were established, there is no way to put them in a fifth rate generic sitcom and have them be anything remotely related to the theatrical shorts. I might actually enjoy the show if characters not called Looney Tunes were involved in it. But what I see instead is a deliberate attempt to trash the characters and make them more palatable to people who would rather take the tired and boring dreck of Hollywood than greatness. That should anger the most adamant Looney Tunes fans. It's sacrilegious that unLooney Looney Tunes would ever be turned out by the same studio that took irreverence to its hilarious heights.
If something is promoted as Looney Tunes, I expect there to be humor in the same vein, even if not to the same extent, as the originals. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can be identified as Looney Tunes in this show. It's almost as though Warner Bros. is ashamed of its history where the Looney Tunes are concerned. We'd all be much better off had this show never been made, and it is my hope it doesn't get renewed for a second season.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
reply
share
andyp1986
13 years ago
I think I've made it perfectly clear to you what specifically it was about your remarks that I took offense to and why. You said repeatedly that you cannot understand how someone claiming to be a fan of the original Looney Tunes can possibly like this show, and I've tried my best to explain myself to you. If, after all that, you're still just going to sneer at me, distance me from the "true fans", and then accuse me of overreacting, then we have nothing more to say.
And since your responses have now been reduced to just restating the general beliefs you've already made perfectly clear to me in previous posts, then I'd say we've reached the end of this discussion. I understand completely why you hate The Looney Tunes show, and while I disagree with you, I can appreciate your position, and I have absolutely no doubt that you truly love the Looney Tunes. I only ask that you extend me the same courtesy.
"The price of originality is going up faster in Hollywood than the price of oil." - Roger Ebert
reply
share
Modern-Prometheus
13 years ago
I'm a fan of the old cartoons also, and I think the new show is great. Different, but great. NO ONE has any right to tell a fan of the classics that they're wrong for enjoying this show. If you don't like it? Fine. If you do? Fine.
If you don't think a fan of the original shorts should like this new show, that's your problem. You don't get to decide who should and shouldn't like anything. No one elected you to decide whose opinions are right or wrong.
...vampires don't sparkle...
reply
share
ccole-7
13 years ago
If someone wants to enjoy a fifth rate generic show and think that just because Looney Tunes appears in the title despite the lack of anything remotely looney it must be good, that says more about their tastes rather than it does my pointing out that this should not be even remotely considered quality among true Looney Tunes fans. It seems to me this is more about being placated by the substandard appearance of poorly drawn and poorly voiced faux Looney Tunes than seeing them for what they really are. I've read, even among fans of this show, that's its not really that funny, that it only has moments. When I think of the Looney Tunes, I don't think of moments of hilarity, I think of a solid 7-8 minutes of comic brilliance, no matter how many times I've seen them. Something that is hit and miss when it comes to comedy should never bear the Looney Tunes brand. And for people to say they love both is beyond my comprehension.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
reply
share
Modern-Prometheus
13 years ago
1. You don't get to decide who is and isn't a true Looney Tunes fan.
2. You don't get to decide what the quality of a program is since it's just a matter of opinion anyway.
3. You don't get to decide who can and can't enjoy this show, or the old cartoons.
4. You don't have to "comprehend" that people are capable of enjoying both.
5. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're wrong. You have every right not to like the show, but don't come in with a condescending attitude and insult the people who do just because you don't like it. You're not the King of the Internet, you're not Head of the Board of Opinion Regulators. No one is obligated to think the way you think. If they like it, they like it. If they don't, they don't. What's so hard to comprehend about people having their own opinions?
...vampires don't sparkle...
reply
share
ccole-7
13 years ago
Except:
The Looney Tunes' type of humor does not work in a sitcom setting, particularly a sitcom that is basically a rehash of The Odd Couple.
By placing the Looney Tunes in a confined setting, the comedy they can do is limited. Like the great comedy teams of the early 20th century, the Looney Tunes brand of comedy is character based, not plot based. But when you rob the Looney Tunes of their character they are no longer funny.
I make the claims I do because The Looney Tunes Show is the antithesis of what the Looney Tunes are. It has nothing to do with the people specifically, but everything to do with what cannot be denied. The Looney Tunes endure not because of great stories, but because of great characters. Rob them of their character, you get this show. That's why I don't see it as being possible for any true fan of the shorts being capable of being a fan of this show. If you are, the only way that can be is that they are either placated by the title alone and ignore that there is nothing "looney" in the show, or they have a lack of understanding when it comes to the characters.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
reply
share
Modern-Prometheus
13 years ago
You make the claims you do because you cannot separate the terms "fact" and "opinion" from your head. I'm going to say this one more time...
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYONE IS OBLIGATED TO AGREE WITH YOU.
You don't think it's possible. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but I and plenty of other people are living proof that it is. Suck it up, stop crying, and accept that your opinion is not gospel.
...vampires don't sparkle...
reply
share
ccole-7
13 years ago
I'm really enjoying the ad hominem attacks. You have yet to provide any explanation why someone should be a fan of both. Meanwhile I have seen no good defense of why this is a good show. It relies on the recognition of the characters yet it robs them of their characteristics. And as a sitcom it seems to combine elements of The Odd Couple with Seinfeld, neither of which are remotely close to the Looney Tunes I know and love. It's like someone who likes Little Jimmy Dickens deciding to see Metalica and claim that because there are only 8 notes in a scale it's really the same thing. I make objective appeals to back up what I have to say. If Warner Bros wanted to reintroduce the characters for a new audience they picked the worst way to do it. Even the producers and writers thought it did a disservice to the shorts, but being employed and attached to the show was more important to them.
Face it, I have the facts on my side. And despite what you may have been taught, not all opinions are equally valid. Of course someone could fool themselves into thinking they are fans of both, but I have a healthy bit of skepticism when it comes to that.
But, I do think you demonstrate a bit of hypocrisy, and I point to your signature as my evidence. I happen to agree with you that vampires don't sparkle, but you'd get a major argument from my cousin who's completely enamored by the Twilight series. Personally I think its absolutely ridiculous in its portrayal of vampires and other monsters, and that Bram Stoker cannot be improved on. But, let's suppose someone who thinks vampires do sparkle sees that and debates you on it. What is your response going to be? You might say something like "If you really like vampires you'd despise Twilight." I'm doing the exact same thing.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
reply
share
kitano0
13 years ago
I grew up watching the Looney Tunes. The first time I saw "What's Opera, Doc?" was a watershed moment for me, almost as much as seeing the opening scenes of "A New Hope"for the first time. I see Daffy Duck as an inspiration for some of our finest actors, whether they are even aware of it or not (Richard Dreyfuss in the "Goodbye Girl" comes to mind.)
That being said I think this new series is highly enjoyable. The writing is funny, and the animation is more than adequate. A very pleasant surprise. In this day and age, it gets very tiring seeing half-baked remakes of everything, and this new LT had disaster written all over it, but I like it a lot.
Now, nothing is ever going to be as good as the originals. The wit, artwork, music, in those gems will live forever. But, you have to give good work with good intentions their due, and this new show delivers the laughs.
reply
share