Scooby, WB's new Bugs?

[Vin]

Well, we all have heard about the new "Scooby" series, the new movie, etc. Personally, I feel that Warner Bros. has basically pushed Bugs and the gang aside for Scooby. Of course, there's "Looney Tunes Babies" coming next season, most likely, but I remember growing up and watching "Looney Tunes" cartoons. It seems today that "Scooby" is what "Looney Tunes" was to me a decade or so ago. You guys getting my drift? "LT" is almost forgotten in a sense.

[Killtacular]

Scooby is Kids WB's attempt to corner the kids market that once followed Pokemon but got tired of it..

I was wondering why, of all 4Kids shows, Pokemon was the one they chose to hold onto. (Or maybe they're holding on to Cubix and Yu-Gi-Oh too) I guess they want to at least finish it off.

I mean, if Scooby can win a freakin' "presidency" for CN, Kids WB can probably find millions of ways to promote the mongrel.

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Scooby is Kids WB's attempt to corner the kids market that once followed Pokemon but got tired of it..

I was wondering why, of all 4Kids shows, Pokemon was the one they chose to hold onto. (Or maybe they're holding on to Cubix and Yu-Gi-Oh too) I guess they want to at least finish it off.

I mean, if Scooby can win a freakin' "presidency" for CN, Kids WB can probably find millions of ways to promote the mongrel.

Hmmm, Scooby-Doo KWB promos....(sees the reaction to another prediction of what these things could be like). Nah....I'll spare the usual predictions-gone-hideously-and-eerily-accurate for once :-)

As for forgetting about LT's, perhaps WB considers them as "perennial" properties, i.e. something that'll always make a steady amount of money, but rarely has any signficant sales increases (unless it's tied to some event/property or such, like "Space Jam"). Vs. the high (though short-lived) sales figures in merchandising from whatever fad-of-the-moment show is popular (ex.: Pokemon)...hence, I suppose, the Scooby promotional effort (with the added sales advantage that it's not just kids who'll like Scooby, but also adults who grew up watching Scoob & co. [an advantage over Pokemon's generally-kids-only appeal, with parents/adults generally indifferent, bewildered or turned off by it]). Thus, I'm sure the movie coming out this summer will not only have the usual KWB promos (must...resist....making up...bogus...promo-predictions...), but also the actors themselves appearing on Jay Leno/Letterman/O'Brian to push it for adults.

Of course, overkill of *anything* isn't a good thing, but try telling marketers/corporate execs that...

-B.
-B.

[Keeper]

Just wait 'til next year, when WB announces a new project with help from Bill Cosby: "Fat Albert Babies"!

[JM2]

Originally posted by Keeper
Just wait 'til next year, when WB announces a new project with help from Bill Cosby: "Fat Albert Babies"!

You sure it wouldn't run on UPN if they tried a Saturday sked? Remember that CBS who is now a sister of UPN ran Fat Albert on its own Saturday Morning Sked from 1972-1984 and UPN did really well with that Fat Albert Christmas special and I do hear that they want more of the Fat Albert stuff. That's if they even want a Saturday Sked at all. Interesting how ABC and UPN are the most secretive about their plans.

[Doob]

The movie is the main reason (you know...raise the visibility). But, IMHO, Bugs carries a lot of "baggage" for the terminally PC AOL/Time Warner. Remember the hub-bub over Bugs marathon omissions last summer? Violence! Sexisim! Racism! All in living color and just under 10 minutes! Talk about subversive! Scoob is squeeky clean, violence free and, thanks to the twenty showings a day, as well known to most kids as their mom. Plus, most kids haven't seen the un-edited WB shorts in years. I remember em and not once did I drop an anvil on anyones head. Okay...maybe the ONE time. I didn't think anyone saw.

Don't get me wrong...I love Scoob & the Gang...but Bugs & co have gotten a bad rap. Baby versions of Bugs and the gang on the horizon? Yeeesh. Count me out.

[Matthew Hunter]

I don't think Looney Tunes are going to die. They are indeed perennials, and despite the controversy, the "June Bugs" marathon on Cartoon Network did get the channel's highest rating ever, and many of the viewers were adults. The problem is just how they are marketed. In recent years they have been shoved aside for 'fad' properties, because of their lasting popularity and humor. Scooby is a classic cartoon, but it can't touch the Looney Tunes, period.

The real problem is the censorship. Warner/AOL and, perhaps, the world in general, has fallen into a misconception that everything must make EVERYONE FEEL GOOD. Because of characters like Speedy Gonzales and cartoons like "Coal Black" and "All this and Rabbit Stew", many Bugs Bunny and other LT shorts haven't been seen in years. Being politically-correct means a broader audience, which equals more money. So they try to water everything down. The whole corporate thing with Warner Bros. is probably the anti-Constitution...there is no freedom of speech, religion, opinion. Older properties are being hidden away because some creative minds tried to make a generation laugh at themselves and the world, (believe it or not, people could laugh at THEMSELVES back then!) . Some were made at a time of war to rally us against aggressors, some were just meant as good clean fun that didn't talk down to or cater to children. That's why I didn't like them at the 3-5 age and really latched on to them later. They're not for children. Warner Bros., though there is a large and growing audience, does not seem to like catering to adults. They don't even let the cartoons TOUCH the film-buff crowd, and that's their biggest mistake of all. There have been no WB-released American DVD's of Looney Tunes, they never really took advantage of VHS, and have been aiming towward the wrong audience for at least ten years. That would hurt any franchise. Looney Tunes is not losing steam on its own, Warner Bros. itself is trying to snuff it out. But we know better, don't we? Those of you admins with contacts at WB and CN, let them know this. please.
-Matthew

[Sharklady]

> believe it or not, people could laugh at THEMSELVES back then! <

I've got doubts whether the targets of the truly racist stuff ever laughed at it.

I agree with the view that certain of those old toons shouldn't be shown in time slots where kids are likely to be watching. Even in the late-night slots, it would be appropriate to include some commentary about the times that produced 'em.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Sharklady
> believe it or not, people could laugh at THEMSELVES back then! <

I've got doubts whether the targets of the truly racist stuff ever laughed at it.
But the "truly racist stuff" doesn't make up the majority of what is being censored. Most of the banned cartoons are harmless things shown all the time just a few years ago.

Most of what CN doesnt show could be aired with no explanation at all in the regular rotation.


Jack :D

[Matthew Hunter]

Speedy Gonzales, a major character, is shown in only three cartoons regularly ("Cat Tails for two", "The Wild Chase" and "The Chocolate Chase"). Speedy Gonzales was almost overplayed back before 1999. And most of the 'censored' Bugs Bunny cartoons were played on TV often for years, except for "All this and Rabbit Stew", the others were completely harmless cartoons. Sure, nobody has shown the REALLY bad stuff in years, and it's available among collectors, but that's about it. I personally think "Tokio Jokio" is the most offensive cartoon ever made, and I'm not even Japanese... that one takes the WWII theme and goes too far. Still, it ought to be available if people want to see it. If not on broadcast TV, this stuff needs to be on video for those interested in it, with plenty of explanation, of course. Historical context is important for the war and black stuff, but SPEEDY? BUGS? Sufferin' succotash!
-Matthew

[Sharklady]

> Still, it ought to be available if people want to see it. If not on broadcast TV, this stuff needs to be on video for those interested in it, with plenty of explanation, of course. <

That would be my idea of a reasonable compromise. 'Birth of a Nation' has been given similar treatment; nowadays they show it with commentary included.

[Doob]

The censorship WB (& others) practices has always bothered me. A lot of cartoons, movies, etc from the WWII era were anti-Japanese and anti-Nazi/German. But, in historical context, we WERE fighting a war against them. I would be more shocked if the material from that time were complimentary. This is the same arguement for Song of the South. On the surface, it shows post Civil War America and slavery. Perhaps it's not terribly flattering. But the movie is really about the bond between a former slave & a little boy. In the correct historical context, it is as valid as Gone with the Wind (which is critically praised). It is that it is marketed to children that has PC Disney afraid to re-release it. What...no one at Disney can think up a proper disclaimer to put it into context?

I'm not saying I agree with the views portrayed in any of the "questionable" cartoons but ultimately we are being shown what someone thinks we should see. That is censorship. Not showing something or mentioning it does not make it go away. It's no different than burning books. Tomorrow, somone may decide Batman is too violent. Superman shows aliens in a bad light. Dragonball Z is unfair to short, bigheaded people. Once the censorship door is opened, more crackpots will use it to their own ends. You can't un-ring a bell.

So endeth the sermon.

[Sharklady]

> In the correct historical context, it is as valid as Gone with the Wind (which is critically praised). <

It may be critically praised, but it should *never* be mistaken for a history lesson. The depiction of the slave culture is so screamingly dishonest I can hardly watch it.

IMH, that's another movie which should have accompanying commentary.

[Doob]

Originally posted by Sharklady
> In the correct historical context, it is as valid as Gone with the Wind (which is critically praised). <

It may be critically praised, but it should *never* be mistaken for a history lesson. The depiction of the slave culture is so screamingly dishonest I can hardly watch it.

IMH, that's another movie which should have accompanying commentary.

Of course it's not a history lesson. It is fiction. The visualization of a classic novel. Above all, it is a movie not a documentary. The same can be said for Roots, Glory, the Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, etc. There is a factual basis for the story but beyond that dramatic license takes over. If you want a history lesson, go to a school not a theater. Also, the only thing accompanying commentary would provide is someone's opinion. Since the author of the book is dead, as are most of the principals involved in the film, what could be gained from the commentary? Answer: one person's skewed hypothesis on the cultural ramifications of a piece of fiction. Thank you. I'll pass.

[Jimmy Kustes]

Originally posted by Matthew Hunter

Those of you admins with contacts at WB and CN, let them know this. please.
-Matthew

They pay more attention to the reader's forums than they do to anyone's e-mails. CN knows they treat classics horribly but they don't care.

[Sharklady]

> Of course it's not a history lesson. It is fiction. <

Ditto for 'Birth of a Nation.'

But here's the problem; even works of fiction can shape attitudes, particularly among viewers who don't read much history.

Which is why I'd rather see such racially skewed works accompanied by "one person's skewed hypothesis on the cultural ramifications"- at least then it's possible the skewings will balance each other out.