Should moderen WBA toons do ad?

[Psycho Fox]

Think about it. They can bring WB money give WBA something to do (that is if they have nothing better to do anyway) plus promote the shows them selves. The possibilities are endless. Yes I would rather see new eps, A whole new show for the matter but hey I would be happy if they just milked what they got.

Babs and Harriet can do a commercial for air time. The Girls of WB can do countless feminine products.

Brain can do a print ad for American Express it can have the line You can't take over the world without it Or programable calculators The power you need to do just about anything including planning to take over the world

Minerva Mink could do a car commercial. Minerva parks her flashy convertable, a burly guy walks up while Minerva drools Announcer (Yakko's voice): Our car is a guaranteed to attract the opposite sex
The guy walks past Minerva and eyes the car while speaking car jargoon (obviously more interseted in the car) Minerva turns arround and sticks her nose up a bit frustrated only to see drooling fan boy which just keep starting at her Announcer: AAAAAAA your milage may very

Fifi could also do a car ad. Fifi chases a skunk hunk which is on foot while she is in the car which the commerical is tring to sell Announcer: Finnishing first is not always the first thing on your mind but in (insert car name here) you will always have the power to

Dizzy could do an ad for Five Star. Shot of Dizzy doing what he does best Announcer: Our stuff can take the abuse from any student and we mean any

Plucky could dp a Seven Up (or Sprite or any softdrink) commercial. Announcer: Our drink won't make you smart Shot of plucky slamming his head on his desk after getting a F- (with a can of (insert name of drink here) on his deak natch) or make you a good athlete Plucky: Goal!!!! Buster:Uhhh Plucky that's our net Announcer: Or make you famous Plucky: I don't see what KWB sees in you Camera pans to reveal Pikachu Pikachu: Pika? Announcer: But it is refreshing Plucky: Better be this cheap ad studio paid me in the stuff I gota fire my agent.

Slappy could do an commercial for a security company. A guy runs into a building and locks the doors behind him Security guard:What up? Guy:I told off some crazy old squirl and now she's chasing me you gota help me Slappy appears at on the other side of the glass doors yelling something but can't be heard on this side of the glass Guard:Don't worry this place is protected by (insert name here) it is impregnable. Slappy torches the car outside Guy: My CAR!!!! Guard: You should have parked it in side the building

There are far more ads that the could be done but for now thats all I can think of.

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The Girls of WB can do countless feminine products. What's that supposed to mean? :eek:

[DR. BELCH]

--there's the age-old connection between rabbits and pregnancy tests.... >8D

And welcome back once again, querida!

[Anthonynotes]

...the problem is, commercials for the products mentioned (credit cards, etc.) usually are based on appealing to the general public as broadly as possible in tone/characters used/etc....hence, it'd be highly unlikely that you'd ever see Plucky, Brain or Yakko in such an ad (since they aren't as recognizable to Joe Sixpack, who might've at best barely heard of them), and the reason that one finds Superman or a Looney Tunes character (cultural icons, established for decades, and recognizable to almost everyone due to constant exposure and cultural ingrainedness) would be used for American Express (in Supes' case) or car ads (such as the ads with Taz in them). The fact that Plucky, Brain, and Yakko hail from dead series (and ones produced for non-prime-time TV within the past 10 years, no less) is another knock against them (and in Plucky's case, admakers would sooner use the more-widely-recognizable Daffy way before the little green duck...). And the "why does KWB use you?" crack would be way too "inside joke"-ish (and too critical of their current cash cow) for it to be on a commercial that'd be airing during "Will and Grace"/"Big Brother"/pro football/etc. etc....

Sorry if I sound cynical, but that's the way I see it. Unless/until there's a 90's-based nostalgia craze (a la the current 70's one and the likely-coming-soon 80's one), we probably won't be seeing Pinky, Yakko, or Plucky again anytime soon in a "new" appearance (and even then, such a nostalgia-based-craze would probably be just repackaging old episodes and/or releasing new t-shirts to cash in on them, a la the "Superfriends" or "Fat Albert"). As far as AOL-Time Warner and the general public's concerned, A!/TTA were just a pretty-entertaining Saturday morning cartoon, and thus lumped in the same category as, well, the "Superfriends"/"Fat Albert"/Bullwinkle (or any cartoon that isn't in prime-time, i.e. the "Simpsons" or "South Park") in terms of thought put towards them.

Still, the thought of Brain or the Warners in a new ad that wasn't based on recycled stock footage would be nice :-)

-B.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
--there's the age-old connection between rabbits and pregnancy tests....


Unfortunaltely, the rabbit test has been obsolete since before most (almost all) of the people on this board were born.

No...

it looks like Psycho has stuck his foot in it this time - let's see him worm his way out...


d

Again: Men are idiots, Women are Borg

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by RockItShipper
What's that supposed to mean? :eek: Well bodywash, bath oils, shampoos and other products like that.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
...the problem is, commercials for the products mentioned (credit cards, etc.) usually are based on appealing to the general public as broadly as possible in tone/characters used/etc....hence, it'd be highly unlikely that you'd ever see Plucky, Brain or Yakko in such an ad (since they aren't as recognizable to Joe Sixpack, who might've at best barely heard of them),
<snip>

There are more known then most think when ever I drive my custom car with the pic of Fifi on the hood I always get people talking to me about TTA when I stop. Same when people hear me talking about one of the modern WB shows usally one person buds in and say they remeber it. Plus above all remeber the #1 rule in marketting tell the people what they want ie if you do 5 marketting blitz using these characters then people who remeber them might try and be fans again and those that are not might see what all the hype is about as for us fans well we probably just be happy and keep doing what we are doing.



And the "why does KWB use you?" crack would be way too "inside joke"-ish (and too critical of their current cash cow for it to be on a commercial that'd be airing during "Will and Grace"/"Big Brother"/pro football/etc. etc....

Look I took marketting in High School in I know of people that work in the ad studios in T.O and that thinking is classed as OLD SCHOOL. Now it is considered hip to poke fun at your self Hell Pokémons ratings will probably go up becouse of that. If the suits think other wize just act supprised say your one of those execs, well your too old establishment for anyone to help you make sure the investors are there though since investors don't like to invest in old establishments

[The Mad Hatter]

I've got to agree on Brainatra on this one... TTA and A! have plenty of fans, but there are plenty more people out there who haven't heard of them. Out of all my co-workers, many of whom are my age, only one or two of the scores know who Pinky and the Brain are.

Also, you need to think like an advertiser. Would you rather pay upwards of a million dollars to create a stupendous ad featuring a character that's recognized by, say, 20% of the populace (and here I'm being optimistic), or a character that's recognized by 95% of the populace, like Bugs or Supes.

As for commercials that "poke fun at themselves"... of course that's huge. The Weather Channel started that trend five years ago, and after that pretty much everyone else has. The problem is that "poking fun at yourself" is a lot different from an inside joke. Everyone can laugh at people being overzealous weather-watchers, while much, much fewer people would recognize inside jokes that require intimate knowledge of the show. Again, it all involves making the ads reach as wide an audience as possible.


If the suits think other wize just act supprised say your one of those execs, well your too old establishment for anyone to help you make sure the investors are there though since investors don't like to invest in old establishments

So instead of arguing an ad on its own merits, you'd rather belittle the exec's beliefs? Nice tactic, there.

And just because something isn't "old school" doesn't automatically make it successful. Thousands of internet companies thrived back in 98-99 mainly because they were new and exciting, and not because they offered a decent product (that kind of thinking was "old school"). Now these companies are dropping like flies. The moral? New is good, but only if you put some thought into it.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
I've got to agree on Brainatra on this one... TTA and A! have plenty of fans, but there are plenty more people out there who haven't heard of them. Out of all my co-workers, many of whom are my age, only one or two of the scores know who Pinky and the Brain are.

Also, you need to think like an advertiser. Would you rather pay upwards of a million dollars to create a stupendous ad featuring a character that's recognized by, say, 20% of the populace (and here I'm being optimistic), or a character that's recognized by 95% of the populace, like Bugs or Supes. Yhea but Bugs cost serious money while TTA,A! and the rest would be far cheaper plus it is safer. Say they want to try and do a condom commercial if they try it Lola then it has a higher chance of backfiring then with Minerva


As for commercials that "poke fun at themselves"... of course that's huge. The Weather Channel started that trend five years ago, and after that pretty much everyone else has. The problem is that "poking fun at yourself" is a lot different from an inside joke. Everyone can laugh at people being overzealous weather-watchers, while much, much fewer people would recognize inside jokes that require intimate knowledge of the show. Again, it all involves making the ads reach as wide an audience as possible.Still, anyone could see it is poking fun at Picachu you don't need to what is happening at KWB to understand most people know Pokémon and will kinda get it



So instead of arguing an ad on its own merits, you'd rather belittle the exec's beliefs? Nice tactic, there.Actully it is common to market your ad to execs by preasuring them. Most execs just don't get it thus ad studio last resort is to back them into a corner



And just because something isn't "old school" doesn't automatically make it successful. Thousands of internet companies thrived back in 98-99 mainly because they were new and exciting, and not because they offered a decent product (that kind of thinking was "old school"). Now these companies are dropping like flies. The moral? New is good, but only if you put some thought into it. Yhea but that kinda of thinking most investors aviod it like the pleage once they know that is how they think since it lead Commadore, Eatons, AT&T, Bell, IBM, Nortell and others into serious problems.

[Sharklady]

> Unfortunaltely, the rabbit test has been obsolete since before most (almost all) of the people on this board were born. <

It's not unfortunate for the rabbits.

> The Girls of WB can do countless feminine products.<

Ah, I wouldn't use that term in reference to "bodywash, bath oils, shampoos and other products like that." In common usage, 'feminine products' usually means items used during menstruation.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Sharklady
> Unfortunaltely, the rabbit test has been obsolete since before most (almost all) of the people on this board were born. <

It's not unfortunate for the rabbits.



mourning rabbits? Aren't they a little small for you?

d

p.s. - does anyone know how, exactly, the rabbit test worked?
i.e. what was extracted/injected and what caused the death?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sharklady
> The Girls of WB can do countless feminine products.<

Ah, I wouldn't use that term in reference to "bodywash, bath oils, shampoos and other products like that." In common usage, 'feminine products' usually means items used during menstruation. Well in marketting the term is used more loosely. Anyway yhea you could do that too and it makes my point clearer. Lets say they do a commercial for such products with one of the WB female characters from the moderen cartoons (after 1989). Lets say it makes some people upset due to the fact it is somewhat in bad tase so what does WB do??? Mostly the people that would be upset is us the fans big deal we are always upset with them and odds are their client will be happy with their ad so WB can sit on their ass can count their money. Now lets say WB do the same with a female from LT what does WB do?? Panic it will quickly snowball not only will fans be upset but regular people and the client too since they will get an ear full too.

[Jack]

p.s. - does anyone know how, exactly, the rabbit test worked?
i.e. what was extracted/injected and what caused the death?
The pregnancy section of Snopes' Urban Legend page explains it pretty well: Snopes (http://www.snopes2.com/)


Jack:D
the lazy one.

[Anthonynotes]

>>>Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
I've got to agree on Brainatra on this one... TTA and A! have plenty of fans, but there are plenty more people out there who haven't heard of them. Out of all my co-workers, many of whom are my age, only one or two of the scores know who Pinky and the Brain are.

Also, you need to think like an advertiser. Would you rather pay upwards of a million dollars to create a stupendous ad featuring a character that's recognized by, say, 20% of the populace (and here I'm being optimistic), or a character that's recognized by 95% of the populace, like Bugs or Supes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Yhea but Bugs cost serious money while TTA,A! and the rest would be far cheaper plus it is safer. Say they want to try and do a condom commercial if they try it Lola then it has a higher chance of backfiring then with Minerva
<<

Yes, but with more money comes, as Hatter notes, recognition by almost everyone over the age of three (through Looney Tunes airing on TV for 40 years most likely). Vs. the small number of adults that probably watched TTA (not being a prime-time cartoon, probably not a huge number, especially among anyone over the age of 25 who wasn't turned on by their kids/someone else/wasn't an animation buff---if not for me, I doubt my mother would've ever heard of Pinky and the Brain.) As Hatter noted, asking random adults if they've heard of PatB or A! is likely to yield a small number of responses (as I've discovered), vs. Bugs Bunny or Superman (cultural icons)...

And as for the notion of cartoon characters like the Looney Tunes pitching *condoms* of all things: aside from the seriousness of said product in question (birth control/reducing the risk of contracting STD's/HIV) making it rather inappropriate for someone like, say, Taz (let alone the *notion* of such an ad), I'm sure Warner Bros. would sooner order 500 all-new A! episodes than make such a commercial (plus, the number of parents/teachers-type-groups that would complain about such an ad using "cartoon [read: children's] characters that kids could see"...).


>>>As for commercials that "poke fun at themselves"... of course that's huge. The Weather Channel started that trend five years ago, and after that pretty much everyone else has. The problem is that "poking fun at yourself" is a lot different from an inside joke. Everyone can laugh at people being overzealous weather-watchers, while much, much fewer people would recognize inside jokes that require intimate knowledge of the show. Again, it all involves making the ads reach as wide an audience as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Still, anyone could see it is poking fun at Picachu you don't need to what is happening at KWB to understand most people know Pokémon and will kinda get it
<<

MY MOTHER: "Pikachu"? What's that?

ME: It's one of those Pokemon character-things...

MY MOTHER: (Sounding annoyed) Oh, *yeah*...the students I work with wanted to see that movie when we went on an outing, but I dropped them off and went to see something else instead...

That's assuming most people *do* know what Pokemon is (beyond being "some sort of kids, uh, thing with some sort of video game or creatures or, something"...as I've seen from some adults wondering what the heck it is) let alone that there's a TV cartoon based on it (older adults especially), or that the WB even *airs* cartoons for that matter ("Kid's W-what?")). When the WB is mentioned, most adults are likely to think of "Dawson's Creek" or "Buffy" (well, not anymore in that show's case, I guess)...

>>>And just because something isn't "old school" doesn't automatically make it successful. Thousands of internet companies thrived back in 98-99 mainly because they were new and exciting, and not because they offered a decent product (that kind of thinking was "old school"). Now these companies are dropping like flies. The moral? New is good, but only if you put some thought into it.
<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Yhea but that kinda of thinking most investors aviod it like the pleage once they know that is how they think since it lead Commadore, Eatons, AT&T, Bell, IBM, Nortell and others into serious problems.<<

I guess like I said before, for most people, cartoons are something for "kids" if it's not in prime-time (and also presume that it doesn't exist if *not* in primetime and/or isn't heavily marketed [see: "Rugrats", which has some adult recognition, moreso than A!/PatB does..and they've made "Rugrats" car commercials. Of course, its success came from strong network support and a strong timeslot....*cough*, *cough*]). Cartoons like A! are usually something they might come across by chance with the way those shows were marketed/advertised (esp. since most adults are working during the afternoon when they were airing). Meanwhile, Bugs Bunny (the "old school" toon) are what most adults find they're nostalgic *for*, having grown up watching them heavily (the LT's being rerun for decades)...same for Superman (who's been on TV since its infancy, and on radio before that). Hence, advertisers, who wish to go for the broadest audience, won't care that Supes and Bugs were created sixty years ago---they have recognition on a broad scale built-in, they're safe, family-friendly, popular choices, and they're cultural icons....what more could most advertisers want? And what would make them want to skip Supes or Bugs in favor of, say, the Flash or Plucky, especially if we take the creativity of a lot of advertisers into account... (Granted, Baby Ruth made a commercial with a Flash-like hero and Hawkman of all characters, but admittedly, this incidence of a minor character being used probably isn't nearly as common as someone more widely seen...and the average person watching would probably not know that Hawkman was a comic book character).

(Big breath) Um, OK, all done with my spiel now :-)

-B.
Who'd *like* to see the Flash in a commercial....sneakers? Um, high powered sports cars? Erm...uh....

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra

Yes, but with more money comes, as Hatter notes, recognition by almost everyone over the age of three (through Looney Tunes airing on TV for 40 years most likely). Vs. the small number of adults that probably watched TTA (not being a prime-time cartoon, probably not a huge number, especially among anyone over the age of 25 who wasn't turned on by their kids/someone else/wasn't an animation buff---if not for me, I doubt my mother would've ever heard of Pinky and the Brain.) As Hatter noted, asking random adults if they've heard of PatB or A! is likely to yield a small number of responses (as I've discovered), vs. Bugs Bunny or Superman (cultural icons)... Look you don't need people to recognize since I'm suggesting WB do this to promote both product and show but they do have the add benifit of the that TTA,A! and the rest are lest popular in the states? meaning in Europe in Japan you got a far heavier density of fans thus they can if they want to do commercials their they can do a huge killing they can use the US to test ads before they hit their primary markets.



And as for the notion of cartoon characters like the Looney Tunes pitching *condoms* of all things: aside from the seriousness of said product in question (birth control/reducing the risk of contracting STD's/HIV) making it rather inappropriate for someone like, say, Taz (let alone the *notion* of such an ad), I'm sure Warner Bros. would sooner order 500 all-new A! episodes than make such a commercial (plus, the number of parents/teachers-type-groups that would complain about such an ad using "cartoon [read: children's] characters that kids could see"...).


Exactly but it could be done with the other toons. If as I said if it fails no one would care but us. parents/teachers type groops wouldn't care since most wouldn't make the connection. Once you start limmiting your self like that you lose a lot of bussniess. Political complains both forin and domesitic, grass root orginaizations (Elmyra can do an ad showing what not to do when owning a pet), promotional shorts for unions. The list is endless.




That's assuming most people *do* know what Pokemon is (beyond being "some sort of kids, uh, thing with some sort of video game or creatures or, something"...as I've seen from some adults wondering what the heck it is) let alone that there's a TV cartoon based on it (older adults especially), or that the WB even *airs* cartoons for that matter ("Kid's W-what?")). When the WB is mentioned, most adults are likely to think of "Dawson's Creek" or "Buffy" (well, not anymore in that show's case, I guess)...
Ok you have a point but if it is aired on KWB your odds of people getting it go up dramaticly.



I guess like I said before, for most people, cartoons are something for "kids" if it's not in prime-time (and also presume that it doesn't exist if *not* in primetime and/or isn't heavily marketed [see: "Rugrats", which has some adult recognition, moreso than A!/PatB does..and they've made "Rugrats" car commercials. Of course, its success came from strong network support and a strong timeslot....*cough*, *cough*]). Cartoons like A! are usually something they might come across by chance with the way those shows were marketed/advertised (esp. since most adults are working during the afternoon when they were airing). Meanwhile, Bugs Bunny (the "old school" toon) are what most adults find they're nostalgic *for*, having grown up watching them heavily (the LT's being rerun for decades)...same for Superman (who's been on TV since its infancy, and on radio before that). Hence, advertisers, who wish to go for the broadest audience, won't care that Supes and Bugs were created sixty years ago---they have recognition on a broad scale built-in, they're safe, family-friendly, popular choices, and they're cultural icons....what more could most advertisers want? And what would make them want to skip Supes or Bugs in favor of, say, the Flash or Plucky, especially if we take the creativity of a lot of advertisers into account..becouse with LT if you screw up you screw up big even if it is something as simple as air travel of bank service if you make it stink other clients might lose confidence. With the other you really got nothing to lose you can experiment and do what ever the hell you want the only toes you'll be steeping on is fans.

[The Mad Hatter]

Psycho Fox, I think the problem we're seeing in your statements is that, unfortunately, you can't think like a cartoon fan in the world of advertising. Even "edgy" ads have been meticulously planned and tested to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Now, combine that with the average American's stereotype that cartoons are a "kid thing," and you see the problem. While I personally would love to see, say, the Brain in a commercial for energy bars ("they give me the energy to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!"), the average American's reaction to it would be "what, are they trying to market this to kids? Ech, I don't want to buy this." But when the product is hawked by an accepted cultural icon like Bugs Bunny or Superman, Americans would suppress their thoughts that cartoons are kiddie things because of the familiarity. Yes, animation fans would love it if WBA characters appeared in ads, but the average American wouldn't. I'm not saying that this view is right, or represents things as how they should be.

You say that advertisers would have nothing to lose if they made these ads. Of course they have a lot to lose, specifically, money. It takes money to make the ads, and money to get them aired. If they're only effective on 100 animation fans, their combined buying power is miniscule, and the company would have effectively lost a ton of money on the ads. Not to mention product reputations. Did you ever see the McDonald's commercial where Ronald McDonald was hanging around bars and doing adult things? Just about everyone was creeped out by it, and McDonald's attendence actually DROPPED a bit as a result. The same thing would happen if people saw a condom ad by Lola _or_ Minerva, because that would seriously disturb anyone who isn't a hard-core furry, and condom sales would be negatively affected. So the companies have plenty to lose, and explains why advertisers obscessively examine and test the ads they create.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
Psycho Fox, I think the problem we're seeing in your statements is that, unfortunately, you can't think like a cartoon fan in the world of advertising. Even "edgy" ads have been meticulously planned and tested to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Now, combine that with the average American's stereotype that cartoons are a "kid thing," and you see the problem. While I personally would love to see, say, the Brain in a commercial for energy bars ("they give me the energy to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!"), the average American's reaction to it would be "what, are they trying to market this to kids? Ech, I don't want to buy this." But when the product is hawked by an accepted cultural icon like Bugs Bunny or Superman, Americans would suppress their thoughts that cartoons are kiddie things because of the familiarity. Yes, animation fans would love it if WBA characters appeared in ads, but the average American wouldn't. I'm not saying that this view is right, or represents things as how they should be. Yhea but there are far more fans overseas since KWB is only a american thing (which costed viwers) second do you remeber Lupo the Butcher that was on MTV and other ads? Lupo was even less knowen the TTA or A! is now but hey for a while the ads were popular just do the same thing and treat each ad independantly like you just created the characters just for that ad.


. The same thing would happen if people saw a condom ad by Lola _or_ Minerva, because that would seriously disturb anyone who isn't a hard-core furry, and condom sales would be negatively affected. So the companies have plenty to lose, and explains why advertisers obscessively examine and test the ads they create.
OK I agree with the money but you got to think condom companies put ads on the back of busses and have slogons like Welcome to condum country even if they do the ad wrong so what it is another condum ad and even though a fraction of fans might get upset close to none would stop watching the show becouse of it and if done right it could do wonders for the product and the cartoon think about it that cartoon could get a flood of older viewers meaning they would then instantly have the same setup as european stations which has the choice of a wideer range of ads to air meaning more money.

[Anthonynotes]

>>Yhea but there are far more fans overseas since KWB is only a american thing (which costed viwers) second do you remeber Lupo the Butcher that was on MTV and other ads? Lupo was even less knowen the TTA or A! is now but hey for a while the ads were popular just do the same thing and treat each ad independantly like you just created the characters just for that ad.
<<

Perhaps there are more fans of, say, Yakko or Brain overseas...but it doesn't change the fact that Warner Bros. isn't likely to want to spend the money to advertise two characters that even overseas are less well-known on a global scale than, well, Bugs/Superman are (Superman I once read is supposedly recognizable on a scale on par with Sherlock Holmes and Mickey Mouse...that type of recognition is far more appealing to your average mega-conglomerate than someone who might not be recognizable to, say, the average joe in Brazil [where they print Portuguese Superman comics]...).

>>OK I agree with the money but you got to think condom companies put ads on the back of busses and have slogons like Welcome to condum country even if they do the ad wrong so what it is another condum ad and even though a fraction of fans might get upset close to none would stop watching the show becouse of it and if done right it could do wonders for the product and the cartoon think about it that cartoon could get a flood of older viewers meaning they would then instantly have the same setup as european stations which has the choice of a wideer range of ads to air meaning more money. <<

The other aspect might be that you're also not thinking like the average *American* (vs. Canadian/European) person...the U.S. being a more conservative country than Canada/Europe, one usually only finds such types of ads in larger cities (and ones on the East or West coasts at that), or on late-night TV (or occasionally radio). Seeing cartoon characters advertised (let alone ones that *might* be recognizable by someone who recalls seeing them while, say, watching A! with their 7-year-old/at 4 in the afternoon) isn't going to do much for sales I imagine (and quite frankly, the thought of Minerva/etc. being used for condom ads gives *me* the creeps...and I'm probably the biggest [in Belch-esque terms] "bleeding heart liberal" person on this forum....)---why would a manufacturer of something *blatantly* meant for adults (an all-ages-appeal sex-related product---vs. your cited example of an ad for MTV, a channel which for better or for worse doesn't hold much appeal to anyone past high-school or college age) want to use figures that connotate with *children* (AVERAGE GUY: "Eewww...they're pitching *that* with a *cartoon*?!"). Throw in the strong presence in the U.S. of various "family" groups that'd raise all kinds of heck over such an ad (the same guys who thought Mighty Mouse for instance was snorting cocaine would have a field day with even a vaguely recognizable character being used for such an ad campagin) and, well, the odds of such an ad coming about (at least in the U.S.) is *nil*. Less than *nil*. And as previously stated, it doesn't matter how many cartoon fans would get upset by such ads---the total number of animation fans is negligible compared to the size of the general public and *their* reactions...

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Perhaps there are more fans of, say, Yakko or Brain overseas...but it doesn't change the fact that Warner Bros. isn't likely to want to spend the money to advertise two characters that even overseas are less well-known on a global scale than, well, Bugs/Superman are (Superman I once read is supposedly recognizable on a scale on par with Sherlock Holmes and Mickey Mouse...that type of recognition is far more appealing to your average mega-conglomerate than someone who might not be recognizable to, say, the average joe in Brazil [where they print Portuguese Superman comics]...). yes but a) it most likely be cheaper, not everyone can afford Bugs this would be for people that don't have the time to create their own characters but don't have the money for the likes of Bugs. Second this is dual purpose it will also give promotion to the show so thus foreign station that run the show as well will be willing to charge less to air the ads. LT already has critical mass thus stations won't give discounts for it.



The other aspect might be that you're also not thinking like the average *American* (vs. Canadian/European) person...the U.S. being a more conservative country than Canada/Europe, one usually only finds such types of ads in larger cities (and ones on the East or West coasts at that), or on late-night TV (or occasionally radio). Seeing cartoon characters advertised (let alone ones that *might* be recognizable by someone who recalls seeing them while, say, watching A! with their 7-year-old/at 4 in the afternoon) isn't going to do much for sales I imagine (and quite frankly, the thought of Minerva/etc. being used for condom ads gives *me* the creeps...and I'm probably the biggest [in Belch-esque terms] "bleeding heart liberal" person on this forum....)---why would a manufacturer of something *blatantly* meant for adults (an all-ages-appeal sex-related product---vs. your cited example of an ad for MTV, a channel which for better or for worse doesn't hold much appeal to anyone past high-school or college age) want to use figures that connotate with *children* (AVERAGE GUY: "Eewww...they're pitching *that* with a *cartoon*?!"). Throw in the strong presence in the U.S. of various "family" groups that'd raise all kinds of heck over such an ad (the same guys who thought Mighty Mouse for instance was snorting cocaine would have a field day with even a vaguely recognizable character being used for such an ad campagin) and, well, the odds of such an ad coming about (at least in the U.S.) is *nil*. Less than *nil*. And as previously stated, it doesn't matter how many cartoon fans would get upset by such ads---the total number of animation fans is negligible compared to the size of the general public and *their* reactions...Well if it is that bad then just only run it outside the states some fan will evenully put it on the net for US fans.

[DR. BELCH]

True, the rabbit test hasn't been used since--what? the Depression?--but the expression "the rabbit died" is still with us, much like "he was hoisted by his own petard", though you seldom see people firing little cannons these days. So with this in mind, why not clap ol' Bugs on a box of pregnancy tests? ;D There's also the old joke about rabbits and their ability to breed rapidly, which I've seen used to full advantage in a credit card commercial ("Love is in the air....").

Yes, the word "feminine product" has a distinct connotation associatedwith a woman and her...well...naughty bits. Shampoos, deodorants, bath gels, and such are referred to in most catalogs as "personal care items".

Yes, I'd rather not see a Tiny Toon trying to sell me hemorrhoid cream or the Brain doing college recruitment ads for X University.

Babs, Lola, and Minerva may not be hawking prophalactics...but the voice of Elmyra, Cree Summer, is a Durmex Sheik spokeswoman. Make of that what you will....

[Anthonynotes]

>>yes but a) it most likely be cheaper, not everyone can afford Bugs this would be for people that don't have the time to create their own characters but don't have the money for the likes of Bugs. Second this is dual purpose it will also give promotion to the show so thus foreign station that run the show as well will be willing to charge less to air the ads. LT already has critical mass thus stations won't give discounts for it.
<<<

Why would someone (even in another country, say a French real estate company) want to pay even a discounted price for the rights to dead series' characters that don't have even a third (or even a tenth) of the recognition of Bugs/Superman there? It'd be easier/cheaper to creat their own characters altogether (and/or pay an advertising agency to make up an original ad campaign) rather than bother with buying rights to a show that only the TV station airing A!/PatB in that country would care about. Besides, LT having critical mass makes it all the more appealing....and if not LT, then there's always other characters from more recognizable American series (like the "Simpsons")...

>>>
Well if it is that bad then just only run it outside the states some fan will evenully put it on the net for US fans.<<<

Like I said, that's still holding a fan-minded attitude....the same groups would merely complain that Warner Bros. was using such ads *overseas* to try to make a buck (and then there's also my guess that even in Europe, there might be some protests/balking at the notion of a cartoon mink [vs. a cartoon *human*] pushing birth control...).

Though in your defense, I have seen in the pages of DC Comics about 5 years ago one-page ads that used the Flash for public service announcements that mentioned that "you can't get AIDS from sharing a cup". I believe they also carried more explicitly-worded ads for their mature-reader-oriented Vertigo line of books, using Vertigo-based characters (vs. the fairly-family-friendly Flash...try saying *that* three times fast...). Said Flash ad presumably passed muster since it A) didn't use graphically-worded language, B) used a minor DC character (vs. Supes/Bats/Wonder Woman), C) Used a *human* cartoon character that's realistically drawn, and D) Wasn't trying to sell a product (the ad was also sponsored by several groups that promote AIDS education). This is as close as I can see a Time-Warner comics/cartoon character with a family-friendly/mildly-broad-based recognition being used for anything vaguely related to sex...

-B.

[The Mad Hatter]

...not to mention that the Flash ad was run in a DC comic, which more or less guaranteed that the audience would be familiar with the character. Not to mention the fact that DC didn't have to pay a dime for it.

And I'll have to agree... implying that fuzzy cartoon animals are actively sexual beings with fully functioning sex organs and whatnot pretty much creeps out almost everyone of all cultures, considering that no other countries have produced widely-consumed ads of that nature.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Why would someone (even in another country, say a French real estate company) want to pay even a discounted price for the rights to dead series' characters that don't have even a third (or even a tenth) of the recognition of Bugs/Superman there?
It'd be easier/cheaper to creat their own characters altogether (and/or pay an advertising agency to make up an original ad campaign) rather than bother with buying rights to a show that only the TV station airing A!/PatB in that country would care about. Besides, LT having critical mass makes it all the more appealing....and if not LT, then there's always other characters from more recognizable American series (like the "Simpsons")...Well TTA/A! and the rest are not dead over seas. Foreign stations pump millions of dollars a year to try and keep ratings as they where when production stoped since unlike WB they find that they can sell anythings from Fords to Tonka toys during it. Plus stations would be greatful for help keeping these series going as they have announced their frustraion with WB as their cash cow is slowly dieing thus they will most defently get on the act and not charge as much thus the ad is more cost effective.

Second creating a new character takes time and money. If they want something that isn't cheesey it can take up to 2 to 3 months just in pre-production. Using the moderen WBA toons you could have it done in that time.



Like I said, that's still holding a fan-minded attitude....the same groups would merely complain that Warner Bros. was using such ads *overseas* to try to make a buck (and then there's also my guess that even in Europe, there might be some protests/balking at the notion of a cartoon mink [vs. a cartoon *human*] pushing birth control...).
not really I've seen UK,French and German ads it wouldn't be that edgy at all over there, as for the fans we would be divided thus worse case is we fight amongst our selfs.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
And I'll have to agree... implying that fuzzy cartoon animals are actively sexual beings with fully functioning sex organs and whatnot pretty much creeps out almost everyone of all cultures, considering that no other countries have produced widely-consumed ads of that nature. Uhhh you haven't seen the underbelly of the internet have ya :D

[Sharklady]

> mourning rabbits? Aren't they a little small for you? <

I am, in principal, against needless killing of anything (I don't even do in the spiders I find in my home; I just catch them and put them outdoors.)
To me, it's a positive thing that they've developed pregnancy tests which don't require* a creature's death. I'd like to see the "kill only as a last alternative" attitude become a lot more general in medical research.


* Actually, the rabbit's death was never absolutely required. But apparently, it was a rare doctor who was willing to take the trouble to remove the rabbit's ovaries in a live operation.

[Anthonynotes]

>>>Well TTA/A! and the rest are not dead over seas. Foreign stations pump millions of dollars a year to try and keep ratings as they where when production stoped since unlike WB they find that they can sell anythings from Fords to Tonka toys during it. Plus stations would be greatful for help keeping these series going as they have announced their frustraion with WB as their cash cow is slowly dieing thus they will most defently get on the act and not charge as much thus the ad is more cost effective.
<<<

They're dead enough for its corporate parent, and even if they have a better life overseas, it still probably wouldn't be worth the time for some French/German/etc. ad agency to license, say, Brain, when a much more recognizable American figure (Superman/Bugs/Homer Simpson) could be had (and given most ad budgets, if they're going to have enough of a budget to license an animated character belonging to a large conglomerate, they aren't going to bothr settling for anything less than a widely-recognized character [like Supes/Bugs/etc.]) ...and I'd imagine that television networks/stations in other countries would have other programming to fall back on if they tired of reruns of A!/PatB (like networks/stations here in the US/Canada), either another American program and/or something from their *own* country...

>>Second creating a new character takes time and money. If they want something that isn't cheesey it can take up to 2 to 3 months just in pre-production. Using the moderen WBA toons you could have it done in that time.<<

Animation's quite time-consuming, even for a thirty-second ad (and whether it's Bugs or Buster being used doesn't make a difference). And if they're that pressed for time, I guess there's always the "recycled stock footage" route ;-)

>>> not really I've seen UK,French and German ads it wouldn't be that edgy at all over there, as for the fans we would be divided thus worse case is we fight amongst our selfs. <<<

Still, I think there's a big difference between, say, live-action humans promoting such items, and an animated mink/rabbit/etc. pushing such items, a difference that even French/British/German people would probably balk at...

>>>Uhhh you haven't seen the underbelly of the internet have ya

An "underbelly" which likely isn't representative of even *1%* of the general public in the U.S./Canada/Europe...as stated before, the hundreds of millions of denizens of the US/Canada/UK/Europe (of which animation fans like us constitute a *very* minute percentage of) would treat such a proposed ad campaign with a level of respect/disgust that'd make the reaction to "New Coke" look tame by comparison...even if, as stated before, AOL-Time Warner/a condom manufacturer actually thought such a thing would be a viable idea (and ignoring FCC rules about "decency").

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
They're dead enough for its corporate parent, and even if they have a better life overseas, it still probably wouldn't be worth the time for some French/German/etc. ad agency to license, say, Brain, when a much more recognizable American figure (Superman/Bugs/Homer Simpson) could be had (and given most ad budgets, if they're going to have enough of a budget to license an animated character belonging to a large conglomerate, they aren't going to bothr settling for anything less than a widely-recognized character [like Supes/Bugs/etc.]) Yhea but if WB discounted them and I mean really discounted in the sence they are just selling them as premade characters (IR sold their characters the same way) and the fans and viewers are just a bouns. If WB made the characters cheap as IR made theirs they would have clients that otherwize would not even think of doing bussniess with WB.



...and I'd imagine that television networks/stations in other countries would have other programming to fall back on if they tired of reruns of A!/PatB (like networks/stations here in the US/Canada), either another American program and/or something from their *own* country... Yhea but it is hard to find a replacement that is wide as them remeber american studios don't try to get show with wide appeal say from 12 and up (and I mean to retired old foke) as for their own well yhea but still A! and them still has a higher rating then their domiestic stuff. Plus moderen WB cartoons are cheap since WB sell the shows next to nothing while domestic studios there actully want to make a buck so naturally the studios stick up for the shows which gives them the most money not the studios that sold it to them. Simply put for what it costs a station to air even Racoons (which is the cheapest of the lot) is still a huge investment compared to how much it costs to air A! and A! gives more ratings.



Animation's quite time-consuming, even for a thirty-second ad (and whether it's Bugs or Buster being used doesn't make a difference). And if they're that pressed for time, I guess there's always the "recycled stock footage" route ;-)
True but having a premade character speeds the proccess up plus over their they like to use Computers to speed the process up since even with a freeware animation program for the Amiga all you have to do is the key frames and it will fill in the rest by it self.



Still, I think there's a big difference between, say, live-action humans promoting such items, and an animated mink/rabbit/etc. pushing such items, a difference that even French/British/German people would probably balk at...

>>>Uhhh you haven't seen the underbelly of the internet have ya

An "underbelly" which likely isn't representative of even *1%* of the general public in the U.S./Canada/Europe...as stated before, the hundreds of millions of denizens of the US/Canada/UK/Europe (of which animation fans like us constitute a *very* minute percentage of) would treat such a proposed ad campaign with a level of respect/disgust that'd make the reaction to "New Coke" look tame by comparison...even if, as stated before, AOL-Time Warner/a condom manufacturer actually thought such a thing would be a viable idea (and ignoring FCC rules about "decency").


Ok you want me to prove you wrong now? I think you should take a lookie at this (Harl ok my censoring of this poster some time ago) Poster (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/armenia/1064/poster.html) This has been playing in Toronto for years, hell the Toronto tourism board even got into the act and put it on their web sight and put it on their info line. The best thing is this is tame compared to the fest in Vancouver or over seas. Oh yhea John.K (you know the guy that did Ren&Stimpy) use to go to these all the time while he was young plus have you seen John.K's recent internet cartoon Pussy Hunt? anyway if what you said was true, people in Toronto would have ran Reg Hartt out of town years ago but no one here cares (except for a few tourist but who care about them) hell sometime that place is so packed a mirror fest has to be set up to stop a riot from braking out. Things are a bit diffent on this side of the pond :cool: as well over seas

[Anthonynotes]

>>> Yhea but if WB discounted them and I mean really discounted in the sence they are just selling them as premade characters (IR sold their characters the same way) and the fans and viewers are just a bouns. If WB made the characters cheap as IR made theirs they would have clients that otherwize would not even think of doing bussniess with WB.<<<

Who or what is "IR"?

>> Yhea but it is hard to find a replacement that is wide as them remeber american studios don't try to get show with wide appeal say from 12 and up (and I mean to retired old foke) as for their own well yhea but still A! and them still has a higher rating then their domiestic stuff. Plus moderen WB cartoons are cheap since WB sell the shows next to nothing while domestic studios there actully want to make a buck so naturally the studios stick up for the shows which gives them the most money not the studios that sold it to them. Simply put for what it costs a station to air even Racoons (which is the cheapest of the lot) is still a huge investment compared to how much it costs to air A! and A! gives more ratings.
<<

Well, a lot of American shows (not just A!) often get higher ratings overseas than their native-produced counterparts (to a degree which I recall reading has some countries up in arms)...plus, other countries' animation studios get the shaft just so their own TV networks can air A! isn't necessarily a good thing from those studios' perspectives.

I don't know what "Raccoons" is, either....a Canadian TV program, I assume?

>>True but having a premade character speeds the proccess up plus over their they like to use Computers to speed the process up since even with a freeware animation program for the Amiga all you have to do is the key frames and it will fill in the rest by it self.
<<

So basically, "why bother producing the licensed-out-spots well or respectably, when we can just use recycled stock footage to make 'em?" Somehow, I'd hate to see KWB's promo-making philosophy exported on such a global scale ;-) More likely, any ad airing overseas that even had characters from A!/PatB would be something made for *American/Canadian* TV, only dubbed over...

(Amiga? Haven't seen one of those in ages...)

>>>Ok you want me to prove you wrong now? I think you should take a lookie at this (Harl ok my censoring of this poster some time ago) Poster (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/armenia/1064/poster.html) This has been playing in Toronto for years, hell the Toronto tourism board even got into the act and put it on their web sight and put it on their info line. The best thing is this is tame compared to the fest in Vancouver or over seas. Oh yhea John.K (you know the guy that did Ren&Stimpy) use to go to these all the time while he was young plus have you seen John.K's recent internet cartoon Pussy Hunt? anyway if what you said was true, people in Toronto would have ran Reg Hartt out of town years ago but no one here cares (except for a few tourist but who care about them) hell sometime that place is so packed a mirror fest has to be set up to stop a riot from braking out. Things are a bit diffent on this side of the pond :cool: as well over seas <<<

That poster's different: it's merely advertising uncensored/uncut old cartoons (and using an image of Bugs/Elmer from one of said cartoons)...that's completely different than using such characters to advertise sexually-related products as you suggested. Merely using the words "sex and violence" isn't going to get any negative attention (either in the U.S. or elsewhere), but using such characters associated with family friendly viewing/all-ages-appeal to advertise a product suitable for adults *and* directly tied into sex *would* (assuming that, as I said before that Warners would even entertain such a notion, and ignoring that almost the entire population here and elsewhere would probably find the notion of popular/vaguely recognizable animal cartoon characters being used for such an ad campaign as extremely distasteful, me included...). It'd be the equivalent of using the Care Bears to pitch Coors Light (as per a joke in "Bloom County" once), or the Ronald McDonald-at-the-bar ad that Hatter cited. And "a few animation fans not minding such ads" isn't representative of hundreds of millions of Americans/Canadians/Europeans that make up the general public (including other animation fans) at all IMO...

Haven't paid attention to John K. since I stopped watching "Ren and Stimpy"...

-B.

[The Mad Hatter]

(all that stuff about modern WBA toons in commercials)

I'm bowing out of that part of the argument, since the points that are being brought up are the same points that have already been effectively argued down, and that the discussion is getting pointlessly circular.

As for the sex and violence poster, Brainatra covered that. I imagine most of the fans who go there are animation fans who want to see things that have been cut out... heck, I wouldn't mind seeing that.

But I should point out that very few of the cartoons shown there would show fuzzy animals going at it. The "Granny going after the wolf" bit is, of course, a funny reversing of roles and not animals going at it just for the sake of going at it. And John K's cartoon is loaded with sex... among humans. Not to disparage the interests of furries, but pretty much everyone else, not to mention most animation fans, are seriously creeped out by sexual funny animals.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Who or what is "IR"?
International Rocketship they came up with the idea of selling their characters premade for commercials to promote their shorts.


Well, a lot of American shows (not just A!) often get higher ratings overseas than their native-produced counterparts (to a degree which I recall reading has some countries up in arms)...plus, other countries' animation studios get the shaft just so their own TV networks can air A! isn't necessarily a good thing from those studios' perspectives. Yes but to the networks it is like a drug since they give far more profit then they would normally get. Plus it does give them money which they can spend on shows like Watership Down


I don't know what "Raccoons" is, either....a Canadian TV program, I assume?Yes I mentioned it since it is the cheapest (except for WBA stuff) since alot of networks bootleged it when the studio when bankruped and when the studio after that went bankruped so now the new owners have made the price low becouse of the bootleg copies still it is more expensive then A!



So basically, "why bother producing the licensed-out-spots well or respectably, when we can just use recycled stock footage to make 'em?" Somehow, I'd hate to see KWB's promo-making philosophy exported on such a global scale ;-) More likely, any ad airing overseas that even had characters from A!/PatB would be something made for *American/Canadian* TV, only dubbed over...

you misunderstood, I was not talking about recycled stock footage. I ment that 2D animation software has made it so the process is quicker and cheaper. You still need someone to draw the art.



(The sex stuff}

I have been in Toronto most of my life and close to every animator I know has done TTBS fan animators/comics (there was a joke that if WB arested every animator that ever made TTBS anytime in their life there would be none left) or something like it with their own characters hell I even seen animators from the states do the same thing. Plus I've seen animation from France they don't seem to mind mixing sex with furries. Oh yes plus the fact that noone here even cares when tax dollers goes to fund porn flics


Posted by Mad Hatter And John K's cartoon is loaded with sex... among humans. so you didn't see Pussy Hunt he really made it clear that cat had a sex life


I'm bowing out of that part of the argument, since the points that are being brought up are the same points that have already been effectively argued down, and that the discussion is getting pointlessly circular. Ok, but I still stand by my statements and respect yours.

[Anthonynotes]

>>>
International Rocketship they came up with the idea of selling their characters premade for commercials to promote their shorts.
Yes but to the networks it is like a drug since they give far more profit then they would normally get. Plus it does give them money which they can spend on shows like Watership Down
<<

Very well, then(though I don't know what Watership Down is either...).

>>>you misunderstood, I was not talking about recycled stock footage. I ment that 2D animation software has made it so the process is quicker and cheaper. You still need someone to draw the art.
<<<

Very well then, as well...

>>>I have been in Toronto most of my life and close to every animator I know has done TTBS fan animators/comics (there was a joke that if WB arested every animator that ever made TTBS anytime in their life there would be none left) or something like it with their own characters hell I even seen animators from the states do the same thing. Plus I've seen animation from France they don't seem to mind mixing sex with furries. Oh yes plus the fact that noone here even cares when tax dollers goes to fund porn flics
<<<

1.Even such animators aren't representative of the general public at large---it's still a very small percentage of said public, and even most animation fans probably aren't into seeing someone like Babs and Buster's, ahem, "personal lives". And I think I'll stop my argument here since I feel like I'm repeating the same thing---that outside of a select few animation fans, almost nobody in the general public (my mother, my coworkers, etc. etc.) would want to see animal cartoon characters push the aforementioned certain "products" on TV...and that you're not thinking like the average person (whose usual animation interest doesnt' lie much past "South Park"/"The Simpsons" and watching Disney films or "Rugrats" with the kids) in terms of your suggestions/arguments re: advertising/etc...

2. "Tax dollars goes to fund porn flics"---seeing as how I've seen people raising a ruckus over/trying to claim certain films with gay themes, as being "blasphemous", or calling various films that use sex in a thoughtful manner as "porn" (vs. a self-gratifying manner without any depth, which is what "porn" is), I doubt that the Canadian Film Board's *really* giving money to the makers of the likes of something that Al Bundy would want to watch.... then again, I guess this second category would be going way off-topic/outside the bounds of a PG-ish rated forum, so maybe I'll stop here.

-B.
Who thought "Almost Famous" could've been PG-13 instead of "R", as Roger Ebert suggested....

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
1.Even such animators aren't representative of the general public at large---it's still a very small percentage of said public, and even most animation fans probably aren't into seeing someone like Babs and Buster's, ahem, "personal lives". And I think I'll stop my argument here since I feel like I'm repeating the same thing---that outside of a select few animation fans, almost nobody in the general public (my mother, my coworkers, etc. etc.) would want to see animal cartoon characters push the aforementioned certain "products" on TV...and that you're not thinking like the average person (whose usual animation interest doesnt' lie much past "South Park"/"The Simpsons" and watching Disney films or "Rugrats" with the kids) in terms of your suggestions/arguments re: advertising/etc...
Well I have yet to see a angry mob storming a studio over censorship hell the CBSC has turned down most complaints that they have got saing the network has the right to air it. I still think you can air anything in Toronto and will only get a small group complaing about it hell Sex TV airs every weekend and so does Queer TV and I have yet to see someone register a complaint with the CBSC aginst them thus my logic is if those who are not into that just igore it (as most people on the street said when they went out on Torontos streets asking people what they though of the show) then odds are they will ignore a simple ad with a furry.



2. "Tax dollars goes to fund porn flics"---seeing as how I've seen people raising a ruckus over/trying to claim certain films with gay themes, as being "blasphemous", or calling various films that use sex in a thoughtful manner as "porn" (vs. a self-gratifying manner without any depth, which is what "porn" is), I doubt that the Canadian Film Board's *really* giving money to the makers of the likes of something that Al Bundy would want to watch.... then again, I guess this second category would be going way off-topic/outside the bounds of a PG-ish rated forum, so maybe I'll stop here.Well they funded the first animated porn as a experiment (well at first they though it was something else but then the goverment was intrested in what people reaction would be at a goverment Subsidized animated porn)

[Nftnat]

I've kept out of this, because I didn't know what I thot of the whole thing, & I still don't; I'll just keep listening to all of y'all, & maybe I'll learn something. Two things tho: I'm surprised noone's mentioned Fritz the Cat. It had success on some level, altho would such be enough to translate into garnering ... I have no idea what I'm talking about, but does anyone else get the idea? And Watership Down was a famous book by Douglas Adams about realistic tho talking rabbits, made into an animated movie, currently a series in England I think. Very violent. I remember seeing it as a child, & that battle with Woolworth's army, & Hazel's death, oh, I'm surprised I didn't have nightmares. Or maybe I did & I'm just repressing them. I remember I cried. I'm also surprised Sharklady hasn't mentioned this; she talked about it earlier, I think. If I'm wrong, I apologize SL.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Nftnat
I've kept out of this, because I didn't know what I thot of the whole thing, & I still don't; I'll just keep listening to all of y'all, & maybe I'll learn something.Well that is normal and I admire your honesty.
I'm surprised noone's mentioned Fritz the Cat. It had success on some level, altho would such be enough to translate into garnering ... I have no idea what I'm talking about, but does anyone else get the idea? No but I can pretend I do:cool:


And Watership Down was a famous book by Douglas Adams about realistic tho talking rabbits, made into an animated movie, currently a series in England I think. Very violent. I remember seeing it as a child, & that battle with Woolworth's army, & Hazel's death, oh, I'm surprised I didn't have nightmares. Or maybe I did & I'm just repressing them. I remember I cried. I'm also surprised Sharklady hasn't mentioned this; she talked about it earlier, I think. If I'm wrong, I apologize SL. You are correct. Well it is a series in Europe and Canada (soon to be released into Africa and Asia as well). Anyways it really doesn't follow the book very closely in the series they kinda just borrowed the characters, the locations and loosly touch on stuff in the book from time to time.