Cartoon Editorial

[Nelson]

After reading Matthew's post about a new HECKLE & JECKLE series on MTV, :confused: (Go Figure on that one) on Jerry Beck's web-site, and I must say that this is making me sick to my stomach.
For starters, why do the studios make brand new series on classic cartoon stars for today's viewing audience when they SHOULD be bringing back the original cartoons from the 40s & 50s.They made a "new" cartoon show on WOODY WOODPECKER a couple of years ago, and that show sucked BIG TIME... and then they create a brand new CASPER animated series, which also was terrible.When are these people at the big companies going to use their brains? They figure that modern audiences don't want the classics but they want new material of famous cartoon characters.
Why don't they just release the original cartoons to the public, that many of us grew up with.Today's kids watch a program like new series starring WOODY WOODPECKER and it's a damn shame that they should be watching the true original Woody and not some wannabe Woodpecker that has been toned down by the t.v. censors, by not let Woody be crazy and pecking people in the head, this doesn't add up at all.
What they should do, is do the right thing and bring back the TRUE classic cartoons so that a new generation can watch these cartoons, and don't judge the new crap over the classics.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Patrick McCart]

I think the reason is because the older shorts look "old"

If the studios could just go out and upgrade the cartoons using the negatives (clean them too), they would look new.

I saw a restored version of The Band Concert on the Disney Channel and it looked like it was brand new!

Notice how Long-Haired Hare looks brand new and Gorrila My Dreams looks a lot older...even though the two were only released about 1 1/2 years apart!

Again, new prints make cartoons look new.
If WB made a new digital transfer of a cartoon...let's say, A Corny Concert...it wouldn't look nearly 60 years old!

This is why WB should spend the money to get a big chunk of cartoons restored instead of making NEW animation.

Alex Lovy was right about having the older cartoons re-released instead of making "pink panther" rip-offs. (Although we all know how THAT came out)

[Jack]

I agree with Patrick, when a print looks new, people really don't know a cartoon is old (Am I the only one who runs into people thinking Looney Tunes were ALL made in the 1960s, one person said all 1000 or so were made in 1963 specifically:rolleyes: ) And now that I think of it, how will these new cartoons look and act, are we looking at hideous redesigns, ugly flat backgrounds, horrid music and bad gross-out humor?

They could show the originals without paying any money, MTV is owned by Viacom, I believe, and Viacom owns all the Terrytoons. They could even have a show on Nickelodeon, a sort of "Looney Tunes On Nickelodeon" type show.



Jack:D

[happyheathen]

Times and tastes change, studio's adversion to risk doesn't.

the old 'toons have (relatively) dull characters - they don't morph, do not perform super-human feats, and there isn't a da-glow color to be seen.

So, maybe the studio thinks 'We know people love (insert character name here), and kids (the ones who get parents to shell out the bucks) like (Rangers, X-men, whatever). THEREFORE, if we make...'

the sad part is that some people who are old enough to know better still pay to see something they really *should* know is going be a, shall we say, disappointment.