• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News New Looney Tunes from Warner Brothers animation

Tosk said:
Two, actually...but I had to look it up as I am terrible with the names of shorts. Steal Wool was in collection 3, and Don't Give Up the Sheep was in collection 1. Still a travesty at only two though.
Click to expand...
Ah, I stand corrected (I couldn't remember for certain and I was too lazy to look at my sets) but, as you said, it's still a travesty. I want my Sam Shepherd and Ralph Wolf shorts, damnit! :(

Tosk said:
The two that I am absolutely busting to have remastered in a new set are Charlie Dog in Italy ("No onions?"), and the one where Bugs ends up on a plane with Yosemite Sam, who has just robbed a bank and is trying to escape. I still to this day think of that cartoon when I am confronted by technology that seems hard to learn. I can't help but picture Bugs looking at that gigantic control panel in confusion. Oh, and the automatic pilot robot who immediately puts on one of the two parachutes and jumps out of the plane. Man, so good. :D
Click to expand...
Hm, I don't think I've ever seen either of those.

A damn shame they stopped doing the Golden Collections and went to smaller sets where they were repeating shorts that were already collected. :scream:
 
The Nth Doctor said:
Hm, I don't think I've ever seen either of those.
Click to expand...
In case you wanna check either of them out...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Oh, yes, of course. I've definitely seen the Bugs/Sam short before (grand stuff all around!), but I don't think I've seen the Charlie one before.
 
The whole Elmer Fudd will scythe thing is bizarre to me. Killing rabbits with guns is far more humane than hacking them to bits with blades.

Can't they just have Elmer Fudd talk about how dangerous guns are and to always use them safely and never point them at anything except a wabbit?

A blatant case of well meaning censorship totally missing the point. I'm worried now there's going to be a trend of young kids attacking animals with scythes made from knives and sticks.
 
We.. as in the ones that grew up with the old cartoons.. didn't turn in to shotgun blasting wabbits and ducks.. Its pandering to the lowest denominator.. and thinking kids can't think for themselves that.. its a cartoon duh..
 
JirinPanthosa said:
The whole Elmer Fudd will scythe thing is bizarre to me. Killing rabbits with guns is far more humane than hacking them to bits with blades.
Click to expand...

It's not about what goes on in the cartoon, it's about sensitivity to gun fears, dangers, and tragedies in real life. Blowing animals up with dynamite or dropping anvils on them or throwing them off of cliffs would also be extremely inhumane, but those are fanciful situations unlikely to relate to anything in the audience's personal experience. Unfortunately that's not true of guns.


A blatant case of well meaning censorship totally missing the point. I'm worried now there's going to be a trend of young kids attacking animals with scythes made from knives and sticks.
Click to expand...

Ummm... If you actually believe children would try to imitate cartoon violence, then isn't that a compelling argument in favor of not showing them gun use?

Though of course, it's ridiculous to think anything of the sort would happen; any kid who feels a compulsion to torture animals was already inclined to do so anyway and the cartoon would just be the excuse, not the cause. Most kids are better at understanding the difference between fantasy and reality than most adults, because too many adults are out of practice at using their imaginations. Like I said, it's massively missing the point to think that's what any of this is about.
 
Because hunting is a legitimate use of guns. I don't think it makes sense to censor legitimate uses of guns because there are also illegitimate uses. Take a kid to a shooting range, give him a proper gun safety training course, he's not going to hurt anything but little targets on pieces of paper.

Moreover, they didn't just censor the gun, they replaced it with something that makes no sense even by cartoon logic. If they had found some other gun replacement that made a little more sense it'd be different.

It's like if there was a damaging hurricane, and they showed people drinking vinegar because they didn't want to show water.

Animals killed by hunters suffer a whole lot less than most of the animals they eat that were killed in factories.
 
JirinPanthosa said:
Because hunting is a legitimate use of guns. I don't think it makes sense to censor legitimate uses of guns because there are also illegitimate uses.
Click to expand...

You're making the same mistake by thinking it's only about what's depicted in the story rather than about the audience's lives and experiences.


Moreover, they didn't just censor the gun, they replaced it with something that makes no sense even by cartoon logic.
Click to expand...

Right, because anvils and dynamite and giant cannons and rocket-powered roller skates make so much more sense as hunting methods...

Bottom line, they're allowed to make whatever creative choices they damn well want to make, because it's their show. It's backward to cry "censorship" to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to censor themselves. If they don't want to show guns, they have every right not to show guns. It's their own choice.
 
And if they replace it with scythes it's a bad choice. You really think their self censorship isn't a response to external pressure?

This kind of reactionary censorship does more harm than good. It sounds good on the surface, "Oh there's gun violence right now so don't show guns!" It just plain doesn't work that way. Just like abstinence only sex education increases unsafe sex and DARE increased drug abuse. The more you mystify something the more kids will do it, and without the education to do it safely. Just like the only thing that ever successfully made kids want to read Catcher in the Rye was banning it.

Of course they have the right. Just because you have the right do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's reactionary and doesn't accomplish its intended purpose.
 
I like the new cartoon and the use of classical music and no dialog is a great throwback.
I like the "feel" of the cartoons color and animation.
Looks very Bugs Bunny from the 40's-50's and that is a really good thing.

Not having Elmer or Yosemite use a gun is silly.
Stuff each other mouths full of dynamite, oh that's fine, but no guns?
 
I guess they'll stop showing that once there are enough cases of people being killed by mouthfuls of dynamite.
 
Tosk said:
I'm not going to judge this short too harshly, it's just promo-short and no context. And besides, I'm just overjoyed to see them doing what looks and feels like actual Looney Tunes stuff, and not that horrible stuff they've tried many times where they try to make the characters totally cool for NOW! Having them wear backwards clothes and strike hip hop stances and dress up like Pulp Fiction. Ugh.

So yeah, looking forward to this. But also still waiting on more remastered original shorts please, WB.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with updating the characters for the present day; all it takes is a willingness to accept the present day and not be so nostalgic for the past day(s) that people forget all of the pluses of being in the present day.


JirinPanthosa said:
If they are going to bring back Elmer Fudd but without guns, I look forward to seeing late night comedians reactions to Fox News complaining about it.

This would be particularly silly. Yes, gun violence in a kids cartoon doesn’t translate to modern culture much. But then, don’t use a character who makes no sense without a gun!

Is it somehow a BETTER message to kids to show a hunter trying to hack a rabbit to death with knives?
Click to expand...

People always forget when watching these cartoons, that they were never meant for children in the first place; they were shown before adult movies, usually when adults went to the movies (at night.) Over the years, because they were cartoons, they ended up in the viewing hours that kids watched TV (and were put on kids' programs), but these cartoons weren't really meant for kids to see, despite what this guy says when he shows cartoons at his house/theater here in Toronto.

Personally I don't think that they should've brought back these cartoons at all, considering how things are, and they should just produce things like The Looney Tunes Show show or Loonatics Unleashed, but WB did it, and we have to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
You'll have to forgive me if I don't agree with you. I don't care if the characters live in the modern world, I'm opposed to the way they are sometimes forced into pop culture positions that do not suit them.
 
Tosk said:
You'll have to forgive me if I don't agree with you. I don't care if the characters live in the modern world, I'm opposed to the way they are sometimes forced into pop culture positions that do not suit them.
Click to expand...

How the pop culture positions them and how you and others like you react to them when used are your own business; personally, I love the idea of Bugs & company in hip-hop inspired clothing on a T-shirt or in art generally and I wanted to buy one of those shirts when I saw it (expecting them to stay in the same 1930-1950's milieu culturally just to suit you and other whites who grew up on them 'just because' is shortsighted at best, and reactionary and retrogressive at worst.)


Kor said:
It's interesting that Looney Tunes started to be thought of specifically as children's entertainment in the television era. The Looney Tunes shorts were originally meant for more grown-up cinema audiences, and it shows in the amounts of violence and innuendo in the older cartoons (some of which ended up censored for TV).

Kor
Click to expand...

Exactly that, which is why any of the old cartoons should come with a parental guidance warning, with the new ones otherwise being truly restricted as in the past only to adults.
 
Last edited:
Shaka Zulu said:
How the pop culture positions them and how you and others like you react to them when used are your own business
Click to expand...
I know, that's why I said I don't like it. :)

Shaka Zulu said:
expecting them to stay in the same 1930-1950's milieu culturally just to suit you and other whites who grew up on them 'just because' is shortsighted at best, and reactionary and retrogressive at worst.
Click to expand...
What does race have to do with it? And once again, I never said they had to remain living in the '30s-'50s. You should stop taking my opinion so personally. We can disagree without being (mildly) insulting.
 
Last edited:
So.. Let me get this straight.. Since the 1930s... For almost 90 years! Kids have been watching these.. And NOT doing stupid stuff.. (Except for that 2% Darwin award winners..) Just like there used to be shot guns and long guns in trucks hanging on back windows at schools not hurting a thing..
Yet now we've become so helecoptor don't want to offend Anybody mentality with kids that a cartoon shotgun is now bad? And showing the old cartoons is also bad?
.... No wonder aliens want nothing to do with us..
 
Really replacing guns with knives is pointless...it’s still violence. I still remember Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur had Daffy fill a balloon duck with some sort of explosive gas, that exploded when the caveman plunged his knife into and killed himself, Daffy and the dinosaur, and then showed them on clouds in heaven and Daffy even made the crack that it wasn’t a good idea. But I don’t remember anyone ever filling a balloon with explosives and blowing up people! (Except for the Joker from the 89 Batman movie!)
 
They don't even think adults can watch Gone with the Wind without adding "context" first. (I really don't think there's any danger of kids watching Gone with the Wind unsupervised)

Maybe the whole concept of a hunter chasing a rabbit through the woods has passed on by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top