Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bugs Bunny gets an extreme makeover

This is topic Bugs Bunny gets an extreme makeover in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003904

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-19-2005, 02:53 PM:

Eh, I must be gettin' old. I'll stay with the old stuff...

WB seeks revitalized cartoon franchise with new look for Bugs Bunny and friends

quote:
Thursday, February 17, 2005
By Brooks Barnes, The Wall Street Journal

Talk about extreme makeovers. Take a look at what's happening to Daffy and Bugs.

Hoping to breathe new life into its animated Looney Tunes franchise and prop up the WB television network's slumping Kids' WB line-up, Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. is planning to launch a new cartoon series this fall based on "re-imagined" versions of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tasmanian Devil, Lola Bunny, Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote.

Warner Bros. has created angular, slightly menacing-looking versions of the classic Looney Tunes characters for its new series, dubbed "Loonatics" and set in the year 2772. Names for the new characters haven't been finalized, but they are likely to be derived from the originals: Buzz Bunny, for example. Each new character retains personality quirks of the original. The new Bugs, for example, will be the natural leader of the Loonatics' spaceship; the new Daffy will remain confident that he is the one who should be in charge.

Warner Bros. isn't sending the venerable original Looney Tunes cast into retirement. But it is trying to update the characters' appeal among modern kids. The classic characters were wisecrackers who rode their irreverent humor to stardom in the 1940s. The challenge now for Warner Bros. is to find a fresh way to tap the funny bone of an audience raised on Bart Simpson and SpongeBob SquarePants.

"The new series will have the same classic wit and wisdom, but we have to do it more in line with what kids are talking about today," says Sander Schwartz, president of Warner Bros. Animation. The plots are action-oriented, filled with chases and fights. Each character possesses a special crime-fighting power.

Sounds familiar? The format echoes a successful show Warner Bros. launched in 2003 on its WB network and Cartoon Network called "Teen Titans," about five teenage superheroes. The series, featuring dark, futuristic characters, based on such DC Comics personalities as Robin the Boy Wonder, quickly became a hit. It ranked No. 26 among kids programs for the fourth quarter last year.

With "Loonatics," Warner Bros. thinks it may have TV's next blockbuster cartoon on its hands. "The reaction by kids in test groups has been phenomenal," says Mr. Schwartz.

Given Warner's mixed track record over the past two decades with the Looney Tunes franchise, advertisers may be wary. Steven Spielberg sparked things up in the early 1990s with "Tiny Toons," a series in which new characters interacted with the originals. But a 2002 effort, "Baby Looney Tunes," has been a dud for the Cartoon Network, where it ended the fourth quarter ranked No. 104 among kids programs.

Efforts to juice up Looney Tunes on the big screen haven't fared much better. "Space Jam," starring Michael Jordan, turned a profit back in 1996. But "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" bombed last year: The movie, which cost $80 million to make, grossed just $21 million in the U.S., according to box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations. (It grossed an additional $48 million outside the U.S., Warner Bros. says.)

It's a risky time to launch an expensive Saturday-morning cartoon. Kraft Foods Inc., which spent about $90 million on children's advertising in 2004, said in January it would stop advertising junk food to kids under 12. The company's decision, coming as the food industry generally is shifting kids advertising dollars to the Internet and videogames, is expected to result in softer ad sales. The kids "upfront" market, when $700 million to $800 million in national kids-TV advertising is sold to deep-pocketed marketers, kicks off today.

"It doesn't take a genius to look at the trouble in the toy business and what's going on in the food business to see that the overall kids market is particularly weak," says Jon Mandel, co-chief executive of Grey Global Group Inc.'s MediaCom.

It's not as if the Kids' WB has much of a choice about whether to be so aggressive. At a time when the behemoths of kids TV -- cable TV's Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and the Disney Channel -- are gaining or stable, ratings on broadcast TV's Kids' WB have plunged.

So far this season, the network's Saturday-morning viewership is down 26 percent compared with a year ago among children from two to 11 years old, says Nielsen Media Research. Lisa Quan, an analyst for ad-buying firm Magna Global, a unit of Interpublic Group of Cos., says the network's average audience has shrunk about 40 percent compared with its peak two years ago, when cartoons such as "Pokemon" and "Yu-Gi-Oh" were white hot. "The WB has had a long, hard tumble from grace," Ms. Quan says.

David Janollari, president of entertainment for the WB, says he has no illusions about how much work the kids division has ahead of it. "We simply need a new crop of big hits," he says. "This audience is finicky and quickly gets itchy for something new." At the same time, however, the WB notes that it remains a strong No. 1 on Saturday morning among Saturday morning broadcasters -- Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is in second place -- and that ratings have improved recently.

Warner Bros. has been criticized for standing still during the late '80s and early '90s at a time when Disney was reaping huge profits from its cast of animated characters. But Warner has shown in recent years that it can launch new cartoons that rain profits: Warner released three "Pokemon" movies following the WB's successful 1999 launch of the cartoon series, along with an avalanche of toys and other licensed products.

"Loonatics" is part of a wider effort by Warner Bros. to boost classic franchises: A new Batman movie and a remake of "Superman" also are in the works. The potential revenue is massive: If "Loonatics" is a hit on Saturday morning, for example, it is likely to ripple through the company's merchandising, home-video and movie divisions. "That's the ultimate goal of all kids programming," says Mr. Janollari. "If we score, it's a gold mine."

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-19-2005, 03:28 PM:

I saw something about this on TV while sitting at an airport waiting for a flight last week.

These new characters look much too dark and villainous for the market they're trying to go after. If WB wants a cartoon that mimics the success of The Simpsons or SpongeBob SquarePants, they need to try again. After all, the original Looney Tunes cartoons and The Simpsons weren't even written for kids!

And who the hell is "Lola Bunny"?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-19-2005, 04:54 PM:

quote:
The challenge now for Warner Bros. is to find a fresh way to tap the funny bone of an audience raised on Bart Simpson and SpongeBob SquarePants.

English translation: Insert plenty of farts, toilet humor, veiled sexual jokes, etc.

And: "Super powers?" Since when did Bugs, Tweety or any of them need anything besides their wits (and a stick of dynamite or two) to get by?

[puke]

Give me "Knighty Knight Bugs" or "Fast and Furry-ous" any day. Chuck Jones, Bob McKimson, Tex Avery and Friz Freleng must be rolling over in their graves. [Roll Eyes]

Is it any wonder that they waited until the last of those four was in the ground before doing this?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-19-2005, 04:54 PM:

Looks to me like the answer is, "Simple"... Simple to DRAW, that is!

There are no more REAL artists left. They need characters that aren't so hard to draw that they have to find ACTUAL artists. (And PAY them ACTUAL wages!)

I bet the idea was to make them so simple they could be computer animated with minimal effort.

They shoulda' taken that left turn at Albequerquie, if you ask me!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-19-2005, 07:37 PM:

Albuquerque

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 02-19-2005, 08:57 PM:

it's like they did with the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"; the new ones look way too Japanese and 'evil' for me.....

Posted by Justin West (Member # 920) on 02-19-2005, 09:05 PM:

I suppose Buzz Bunny's catch phrase will be, "Ehhhhh, What up, Dog?" Keeping up with current trends? [puke]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-19-2005, 09:35 PM:

Justin, that's hilarious! I'm rolling! [thumbsup]

They look very Bakshi-esque.

quote: Randy Stankey
They need characters that aren't so hard to draw

I don't think that is a consideration. You draw according to model sheets, that way everyone draws consistently. It's the nature of the job to be able to draw anything in any position, so I don't think the economy of line is necessarily due to lack of artistic talent on staff.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-19-2005, 09:49 PM:

Hmmm, the model sheets look like they will be easy to convert to flash animation....give it an Anmi like look at five drawings a second .... PokeBugs and PikaDaffy and the gang [puke]

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 02-19-2005, 11:58 PM:

Lola came from the 'toon movie with Michael Jordan - "Space Jam"

Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 02-20-2005, 12:00 AM:

The only thing creepier than this is the rendering of classic Disney characters in CGI Ridiculously long link that breaks page formatting

and Popeye in cgi

[ 02-20-2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 02-20-2005, 03:10 AM:

Since about 70% of the people that have posted to this topic have mustaches, I'd have to assume that we're not the target audience. These decisions are based on focus groups. If the kids wanted something insanely complicated to draw, I'm sure WB would give that to them. Lets remember that the bugs we all know isn't the original either.

quote: Mike Blakesley
English translation: Insert plenty of farts, toilet humor, veiled sexual jokes, etc.

uh... is this a step down from racial epithets, and violence?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-20-2005, 10:55 AM:

That's a two-way street. One man's offense is another man's commentary. Who's making the racial slurs today? Dudes rapping about whitey and how "the man" keeps putting someone down. Racial epithets? You have to take the time period into consideration.

The country was also at war (if you're talking about the Jap references). Violence?! It's DRAWN. Otherwise, yes. The humor was on a noticeably higher intellectual level in most of those subjects. They were witty.

Today, it's just cheap shots and depictions of bodily functions passed off as jokes. It takes no talent to come up with something like that.

Happily an old fart, and proud of it.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-20-2005, 11:15 AM:

You can't bugger about with history: you can only try to understand its context. The recent DVD rerelease of Tom & Jerry classics made me mad, as it had been totally bowdlerised. For example in Puss Gets the Boot, Mammy's 'You is goin' out... O-U-W-T... OUT!', had the 'W' removed. And in A Mouse in the House, the music track had been totally remixed to eliminate all of the Shortnin' Bread motif, presumably with bits of other Scott Bradley music stuck in its place. Granted, Mammy is a racially stereotypical caricature who will be very problematic with some modern viewers. But IMHO the job of archivists and the people who prepare DVD editions should be to explain why these stereotypes weren't considered problematic in the '30s and '40s while allowing the viewer to see the original, not to try and make the camera lie and change that original into something it isn't.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2005, 01:47 PM:

quote: Adam Wilbert
Since about 70% of the people that have posted to this topic have mustaches, I'd have to assume that we're not the target audience.

Point A: I no longer have a mustache, so I guess I now am in the target audience.

Point B: The whole problem with Warner Bros. started when they decided they had to "make something the kids would enjoy." The classic Looney Tunes were never made for kids. That's why they are so enjoyable to most adults today.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-20-2005, 05:55 PM:

Focus groups are stupid. Companies only use them if they are out of touch with their product. I've seen focus groups ruin/cancel many a good videogame.

Focus groups are evil and should never be used.

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 02-20-2005, 07:11 PM:

Maybe they should be called "out-of-focus groups" for the blurry results that sometimes come from those organizations. [Smile]

Come to think of it, that retooling (bastardization?) of the classic Warner Brothers characters reminds me of New Coke in that it is another example of a misguided retooling of a classic product to fit "new tastes" and, like New Coke, is also facing criticism and is doomed to fail.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 02-20-2005, 07:20 PM:

... except that New Coke was targeted at the same market as classic coke. This is inherently different, in that it is targeting kids who watch saturday morning cartoons who generally and overwhelmingly enjoy pokemon and yu-gi-oh.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-20-2005, 09:33 PM:

Is it really much different than tiny toons and other variations? They are just trying to lure a new target audience. not a big deal.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-20-2005, 10:19 PM:

I don't like the "updated" look of the classic Looney Tunes characters in this "Loonatics" thing. The visual style just doesn't fit the material...

...in short, the new characters don't look funny.

These things look more menacing or look like they're trying to be cool or some shit like that. Actually, their intense look reminds me of people tweaked out on meth. The change doesn't make a damned bit of sense. Looney Tunes characters are supposed to be funny. They're not supposed to be cool or living in the 29th century or having any f**king superpowers!

The superpowers thing has to be something dreamed up by some coked up MBA type in a glass tower. Granted, the classic characters could be said to have superpowers of some sort. I mean, it does take something special to be able to fall off a 1000 foot cliff face first into a steel anvil -and acutally live through it with the only visible injury being an accordion-like body.

If those guys wanted to come up with some wierd, sleek looking cartoon characters they should have tried to come up with something new.

However, coming up with something new is not exactly the type of thing the corporate dummies in charge of the music, movie and television industries want to do. They expect to get away with vomiting out the same tired crap over and over again -and actually expect us to buy even more of it...just with some packaging changes and promises to shareholders that their moves will improve business next quarter.

These corporate assholes are basically ruining one of the main things that makes America great: our vivid popular culture. People around the world have loved our movies, music and TV shows for decades. New York and Los Angeles became the pop-culture centers of the world as a result. This corporate complacency is going to be the thing that shifts the center out of America to places like London, Sydney and even Beijing.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-20-2005, 11:22 PM:

Tiny Toons were new characters for all intents and purposes. These take old characters and redesign them and also remove their eyeballs (seriously, what the fuck?). But like Adam said, they are trying to target dipshit little kids (they ARE dipshits) who like Pokémon and whatnot. But as anyone with any marketing sense can see, they are making two mistakes. First of all, they are copying the similar look, design and "tude" of other shows. Secondly they are using characters that most of the li'l dipshits associate with ancient history instead of creating all new characters. Copying the style of others rarely works, and they aren't gonna be able to do it with cartoon characters that are already over 600 years old. It should also be obvious to everyone on the planet except your typical moron teenager (they ARE morons) that Warner Bros has next to no marketing sense in the first place. Why else would they call themselves The WB? The Warner Bros? That's so stupid that my rectum is producing twice the amount of excrement than it usually does. Also they term new episodes as "Fresh Episodes". Yeah, they are trying to cater to an audience with the IQ of 3 and in some respects it works, but "The WB" is not exactly a major contender in, well, anything.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2005, 11:47 PM:

Ya know Joe, in the 5 years I've known you...(Including the times we were friends, ex-friends... and our make-up sex times) that's the BEST and most HONEST post you have EVER made! [thumbsup]

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-21-2005, 12:18 AM:

quote:
Names for the new characters haven't been finalized, but they are likely to be derived from the originals: Buzz Bunny, for example.

How is this any different than tiny toons???? These are characters set in the future that are similar to the originals but with different names. Tiny toons were children versions of the original characters that acted the same but had slightly different names, like Buster bunny.

Please explain to me what the difference is.

To be honest, these new characters look much more like the Batman, superman and justice league cartoons than pokemon or yugioh.

Most importantly, it is just a cartoon.

Agree 100% on that stupid fresh episode catch phrase. It just sounds retarded.

[ 02-21-2005, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-21-2005, 12:37 AM:

Why do they need to give them super powers? They're TOONS! Toons already HAVE super powers!

They can get hit on the head with an anvil and crack into a million pieces then magically reassemble.
They can get run over by a steam roller then blow themselves back up again like a baloon.
Bugs Bunny, himself, said, "I know this defies the Law of Gravity but I never studied law!"

So, now they don't have to pay artists AND they don't have to pay writers!

This is nothing more than dumbing down the characters so an idiot teenager behind a computer can crank out episodes as fast as possible and feed them to kids who have no idea what the franchise is all about. It's a way to make the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time.

The only problem is that it will make hardly ANY money because it will fail in about two weeks! It will suck THAT bad!

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-21-2005, 06:11 PM:

Redesigning Bugs Bunny?
Seems to me like redesigning the Statue of Liberty to resemble one of these *BLEEP*ing Manga comic heroines with DD cups and *cute* big watery eyes that must have been invented by retarded child molesters. [Mad]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-21-2005, 06:29 PM:

quote:
The only problem is that it will make hardly ANY money because it will fail in about two weeks! It will suck THAT bad!

The show's going to suck because the characters don't look funny. Action super hero and funny only seems to work in a buddy cop movie (and even that shit doesn't work anymore). The show will suck to the second power because it doesn't have the slightest bit of originality or inspiration.

quote: Christian Appelt
Seems to me like redesigning the Statue of Liberty to resemble one of these *BLEEP*ing Manga comic heroines with DD cups and *cute* big watery eyes that must have been invented by retarded child molesters.

Retarded child molesters. Hmm. That observation kinda makes sense. There is that Japanese stereotype of the old, fat and bald banker with a hankering for little schoolgirls wearing pigtails and uniforms. Just look at that night club scene in "Blade." They might not be lying.

Still, Buzz Lightyear Bunny will suck donkey balls.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-21-2005, 07:01 PM:

Chris, I think the following quote reassures that these are the same characters, only redesigned and placed in a diferent time period:

quote:
Hoping to breathe new life into its animated Looney Tunes franchise and prop up the WB television network's slumping Kids' WB line-up, Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. is planning to launch a new cartoon series this fall based on "re-imagined" versions of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tasmanian Devil, Lola Bunny, Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote.

Warner Bros. has created angular, slightly menacing-looking versions of the classic Looney Tunes characters for its new series, dubbed "Loonatics" and set in the year 2772. Names for the new characters haven't been finalized, but they are likely to be derived from the originals: Buzz Bunny, for example. Each new character retains personality quirks of the original. The new Bugs, for example, will be the natural leader of the Loonatics' spaceship; the new Daffy will remain confident that he is the one who should be in charge.

They may change the names to stuff like "Buzz Bunny" since Bugs will always be "buzzed". Drugs kick ass.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 02-21-2005, 07:34 PM:

What a shame (and a sham, too). What would Chuck Jones (rest his sole)have thought about it? Perhaps it's fortunate that he did not live to see this [bs]

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-21-2005, 07:58 PM:

No doubt that they are the same characters, just like tiny toons are the same characters, just redesigned, renamed and shown as children. My question, that you dodged, is how is this any different than tiny toons?

As for originality, since when has that been necessary for something to be successful? Look at Smallville, there is nothing original about it, superman has been around for almost 80 years. It still gets good ratings and people like it. Almost every movie today is a remake of something else and people still like them and are willing to spend 8 bucks on a ticket.

Maybe this is the new idea. Please bear in mind that I am not the marketing expert that others on this site seem to think they are. Maybe they just want to make something as cheap as possible so they can save money on the marketing and if it bombs, oh well they arent out very much and they can move on to the next cheap knock-off. That is what it seems like to me and as long as the moron teenagers and adults still flock to see this stuff then they will keep doing it.

As far as the 36DDD cup cartoon girls, well newsflash; most anime is not made for children. Where did the idea come from that everything animated must be for kids?

Maybe this show will suck, maybe it won't. I can't make that call unless I watch it, which I have no interest in doing so.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-21-2005, 08:34 PM:

I didn't dodge the question, I just re-asserted that these are the same characters with different designs rather than new characters, which should completely answer your question. But since it doesn't, I'll try and dumb it down for you. Tiny Toons are NOT Bugs Bunny and whatnot, nor were they ever intended to be. However they were always intended to take place in the same "universe" as the rest of the existing characters, and those existing characters are even in the Tiny Toons show. Have you ever seen Tiny Toons? Obviously the characters are based on similarities of the originals, but they are not the same characters. Until I see otherwise, these are the orginals drawn differently and existing in a different time with super powers. Just like that one little bunny way back in the Looney Toons days is not Bugs Bunny. Just because he's a rabbit (and a grey one) does not make him Bugs. There are tons of different Superman, Batman, Spiderman comics and whathaveyou. Some take place in different or parallel worlds and all sorts of crap and they are drawn differently. But they are all still Superman/Batman/Spiderman. Batman is a great example. Look at his movies. He is played by a different actor almost each time. Batman Begins has nothing to do with the previously existing movies. Yet it is still Batman, and a different design of him at that. But still Batman. Not Batboy.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 02-21-2005, 09:15 PM:

If WB wanted to be successful they wouldn't have nuked Animaniacs.

Chris, You may be confusing Tiny Toons with the much more recent show, Baby Looney Toons.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-22-2005, 05:48 AM:

I know exactly which show I am talking about and so does Joe. He also knows that I am right. This argument and every other argument that Joe tries to start with me has to do with something else. It has nothing to do with cartoons.

Joe, I understand why you keep trying to argue with me and prove me wrong after every post I make. Trust me, you don't have to worry about it, I don't have to travel out of state just to get laid. Therefore, I am not a threat to you. Please, grow up, you are just wasting everyone's time.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 02-22-2005, 07:09 AM:

Why all the arguing? Doesnt everyone realize that I am always right? Even in arguments that I'm not involved in or ones that are none of my business, deep down in everyones mind, they know I'm right. This especially goes for Chris and Joe. [evil]

Back on topic: Bugs Bunny will never be as good as Tom and Jerry anyway, so again this a pointless argument.

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-24-2005, 10:00 PM:

So wait... this isn't an ABC special where I see Bugs going under the knife? And the aftermath of him suing... I might actually watch it if that was the case.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-10-2005, 07:10 PM:

Heh heh, an EXTREME reaction to the new extreme "Bugs":

WARNING! EXTREMELY NOT WORK SAFE!

http://www.film-tech.com/ubbpics/anewbunny.swf
1.7MB

[ 03-10-2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-10-2005, 07:30 PM:

Hilarious!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-10-2005, 08:14 PM:

Hey Prof, that is ***really*** funny! LUV'd it!

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-10-2005, 08:35 PM:

If the show will be anything like that I'd definitely watch it. [thumbsup]

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 03-12-2005, 10:27 AM:

Looks like WB may have problems with the name Buzz Bunny. Apparently some European animator has already been making Buzz Bunny cartoons, and worse, the Buzz Bunny appears to be the name of a sex toy. Can't wait for the kiddies to start google searching their new cartoon icon.

Seriously, google it and check the third entry

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-12-2005, 10:55 AM:

quote: Robb Johnston
...and worse, the Buzz Bunny appears to be the name of a sex toy.

HAHAHA! Sounds like a case of 'Buggered Bunny' then... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-30-2005, 10:20 AM:

Looks like WB is going to tone down the "darkness" of the new designs. Perhaps the target demographic (in this case, an 11-year-old) was not impressed during the test screenings??? [Smile]

http://www.saveourlooneytunes.com/index.htm