Very depressing article

[Sam Hill]

This info is from The New York Observer and The Financial Observer:

"Could That Be All, Folks? Looney Tunes Whiff for Bros.
By Jake Brooks

'Bugs Bunny appeals to the rebel in all of us,' Mel Blanc, the
wisecracking wabbit's voice for 49 years, once said. 'Everybody
loves a winner, and Bugs Bunny always wins.' Seventy-five years can
take its toll, however, and as much as Bugs continues to outsmart
his many wily challengers, he may not be able to outwit his most
diligent competitor, his earlier self.

By the end of 2001, Warner Brothers had witnessed a sharp decline in
demand for the Looney Tunes brand, forcing it to close 140 company
stores - 70 in that year alone.

'While the Tunes have never been idle, they may not have been as
active as they could have been in the past few years,' said Brad
Pell, executive vice president of domestic marketing for Warner
Bros., in a recent press release entitled 'Looney Tunes Taking on
21st Century'. 'The time is right to reinvigorate the brand and
aggressively push it front and center'.

The recent release of Looney Tunes: Back in Action, a full-length
live-action film featuring some of the 60-year-old characters hauled
out of retirement in the Old Toon Actors' Home, however, is
suffering from the one thing Bugs never showed, a lack of guile. In
its opening weekend, the movie raked in a paltry $9.5 million. It
ranked fifth overall in box-office take, but more important, third
behind Disney's Brother Bear, in its third weekend, and New Line's
Elf, in its second. Last weekend, it had a per-screen average of
$1,452 - admirable perhaps for the fifth week of The Human Stain,
but not for a $100 million - plus 'tent-pole' release in its second
week.

'The only reason that this Bugs Bunny movie actually, finally got
made was because Bugs Bunny is dead. It's dead as a license,' Kyle
Baker, a cartoonist and uncredited writer on the film, said. 'My
kids don't care about Humphrey Bogart jokes. If Clark Gable walks
in...' Mr. Baker threw up hands and intoned 'Oooh!' mockingly. 'They
want Powerpuff Girls or Scooby-Doo or SpongeBob,' he
continued. 'They just don't care about Bugs Bunny.'

The film was supposed to refresh the brand name, much like its
predecessor, Space Jam, did in the mid-90's. But without leaders who
could match the late, great animators Friz Freleng, Bob Clampett,
Chuck Jones, Tex Avery, Robert McKimson or their much-mocked cartoon
patriarch, Leon Schlesinger (the boss of Warners' Termite Alley),
the film started a slow sink into the muck of the holiday box-office
competition. With references to Psycho (1960), Invasion of the Body
Snatchers (1956), James Bond and Marilyn Monroe, not to mention
director Joe Dante's own Gremlins (1984), the film played more like
a prequel to Airplane than a movie for the SpongeBob demographic.
Kids barely know who Barney is anymore, let alone Marilyn; they may
not even have known who Marilyn was back then. Looney Tunes: Back in
Action has left Warner Bros. in traction.

It's the Godfather III of Looney Tunes projects. It will make money,
but you can almost hear Bugs say: Just when I think I'm out, they
keep pulling me back in, Doc. Paradoxically, the old characters'
fates are now in the hands of one the most contemporary of trends in
movies - cross-brand marketing. By May of this year, Warner Bros.
had already secured ad tie-ins for the film with General Mills,
Wendy's, Sprint and Electronic Arts. Wendy's plastered the Looney
Tunes characters on kid's meals; Electronic Arts has released an
eponymous video game. And Sprint - whose burgeoning partnership with
the studio in part caused Warner Bros. to appoint a vice president
in its online department to oversee mobile content production,
licensing and marketing initiatives - has released polyphonic ring
tones, images and games based on the characters. On top of that, two
new Looney Tunes cartoon series were recently unveiled on Cartoon
Network; Mattel will release, by Christmas, 'a skill and action
game' featuring the Tazmanian Devil; and Scholastic and Dalmation
Press are publishing nine books in association with the movie.
Moreover, the film itself is filled with so much product placement
that it makes The Italian Job look like an art-house film.

This style of marketing is based on a precedent set by Space Jam,
which starred Michael Jordan in his cinematic debut and grossed
$230.5 million worldwide. But that film could have turned a profit
on its ancillary investments alone. Its soundtrack, fueled by R.
Kelly's anthem 'I Believe I Can Fly,' sold over 4.7 million copies.
Before the film was even released in 1996, Warner Bros. had secured
an estimated $50 million dollars in ad support from corporate
sponsors like McDonald's, General Mills and Kraft General Foods.
Moreover, Warner Bros. handled the manufacturing of the bulk of the
Space Jam toys, selling them through more than 100 domestic and 150
international merchandising partners.

The challenge that now faces Warner Bros. is to keep the awareness
of Bugs and Co. up while box-office receipts continue to slide.
Coincidentally, the answer to this problem presented itself two
years ago, when the film had yet to be pitched. When Larry Doyle,
the film's executive producer and only credited writer, first
learned of the studio's interest in refreshing the Looney Tunes
brand, he pitched an idea that involved resurrecting theatrical
shorts, the cartoon's original medium.

The Warner Bros. 'brand identity has fallen off the map,' Mr. Doyle
said on the phone. 'These shorts could more easily bring back their
brand identity, because it is easier to duplicate the success of the
shorts than it is to make a great movie with those characters.'

Mr. Doyle left the production in February 2003, after his contract
was not renewed. He left behind a stable of theatrical shorts
created in a program under his direction. The program, before it was
terminated toward the end of last year, produced eight completed
shorts, and 14 were in various stages of completion. Only one has
been released, 'Whizzard of Ow,' but only in three theaters
nationwide and in Wal-Mart stores as part of a large promotion.

'The fact of the matter is, it's an incredibly valuable creative
property for us,' said a Warner Bros. spokesperson. 'The Looney
Tunes is part of our heritage which we take very seriously. We
created a couple of interesting creative properties, and we needed
to do everything that intelligent people would do to make an
intelligent decision as to the best way to market, release and
distribute them.'

The rest of the shorts that have been chosen for release are slated
to bow next year. 'Museum Scream,' a Sylvester and Tweedy romp in a
museum, and 'Cock-a-Doodle Duel,' in which Foghorn Leghorn fights a
genetically mutated rooster for hen-house supremacy, are being
considered for the March 26 release of Scooby-Doo 2. 'My Generation
G-G-Gap,' in which Porky Pig freaks out when he learns that his
daughter is going backstage at a rock concert, is being considered
for the summer release of A Cinderella Story, a Hilary Duff vehicle.
And New York Minute, an Olsen twins special, and Shadows, an action-
adventure pic, will have toons in front of them as well. The
thinking, on the studio's end, is that the shorts will build upon
the momentum generated by the film and hopefully form a bridge
between Back in Action and its sequel.

The question, however, becomes: Will the shorts fall short of the
dizzy, topical brilliance that the times and the cartoons demand,
the kind once achieved by Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Tex Avery et
al.?

According to Mr. Doyle, the answer is likely yes.

'They tinkered with [the shorts] a lot after I left, and didn't make
anything that I would characterize as a good change,' Mr. Doyle
said. 'They made a bunch of changes [like] taking out some adult
humor, taking out or changing jokes that they thought people
wouldn't get - too smart or too weird. I think they just got really
conservative.'

The changes can be attributed to the fact that the writers had to
find a balance between being faithful to Looney Tunes' classic
mannerisms, while remaining faithful to their untethered spirit in
taking on contemporary culture. But the new features were made to be
marketed to kids supposedly indoctrinated to Bugs by Saturday-
morning cartoons, yet they are still making the same old references
that they were when they were being written for Eisenhower-era
moviegoers. The goal, therefore, was to update the cartoon for a new
generation of kids.

For as Back In Action, and even Space Jam, seemed to forget, Looney
Tunes were intrinsic political and artistic satires. The writers on
the film had to find a balance between being faithful to the spirit
of the old Looney Tunes cartoons, by copying some of the old classic
dialogue and mannerisms, while remaining faithful to their supremely
irreverent take on contemporary culture. And Bugs Bunny, with his
Brooklyn attitude and cool, represented the same idiosyncratic New
York grit that peaked during World War II, but has come to define
the city in the wake of Sept. 11.

This understanding is perhaps what prompted Mr. Baker to come up
with ideas for shorts like 'Afghanistan Sam,' with Yosemite Sam as
an Osama bin Laden - like terrorist and Bugs Bunny 'kicking his
ass,' or another short entitled 'Wile E. Coyote Suicide Bomber.'
These ideas were never fully realized. But they are, it seems, more
in the spirit of the old Bugs Bunny, who once told Hermann Goering
to 'Watch yer blood pressure, chubby!' in the cartoon 'Herr Meets
Hare.'

This kind of political banter - the staple of the Looney Tunes of
yore - does not bode well for securing a place in today's
marketplace. For all the falling anvils and Steve Martin's gyrations
trying to look like Rick Moranis, nothing of the old savvy anarchy
appears in Looney Tunes: Back in Action, and the box office sniffed
it out, proving that the moviegoing audience - which for decades
responded to Bugs' hipness and Daffy's insanity - knew the
difference and showed it with their wallets."

The sad news is that the new short that Larry Doyle has worked on
will be put infront of upcoming movies like "Scooby-Doo 2", "A
Cinderella Story" and "New York Minute". Regrettably, this will
alienate a huge portion of the male "Looney Tune" fanbase.

[Donuthole]

This is actually good news! I haven't seen the movie but I have a pretty good idea on the characterization and writing. Just because you can draw the characters, get the voices, and put them in a situation doesn't mean it's the "real deal." The problem is "taking out jokes that are too weird or too smart" for one thing. The producers try to make EVERY shot the MONEY shot. Bugs Bunny looking into camera saying something funny or Daffy going on a rant is what is showcased. Subtle wackiness is what any new project needs mixed with "creative" and "honest" people at the helm.

[boilerwash]

___________________
The thinking, on the studio's end, is that the shorts will build upon
the momentum generated by the film and hopefully form a bridge
between Back in Action and its sequel.
___________________

Sequel!!??? Can someone explain this one too me?

[Brandon Pierce]

Did anybody notice that they reffered Termite Terrace as "Termite Alley"?

[Woulfe]

___________________
The thinking, on the studio's end, is that the shorts will build upon
the momentum generated by the film and hopefully form a bridge
between Back in Action and its sequel.
___________________

Sequel!!??? Can someone explain this one too me?

The plan was this.....

New movie makes WB lotsa $$$$ they use the excess $$$$ from ticket sales to make, GASP ! A second film, cheaper then the first as now they can use a lot of the same animators as the first time & the same computer stuff to blend the live-action & animation together, and so forth & so on, thereby cutting costs....

Possibly w/ a different title, 'cuse no one would go see anything titled Looney Tunes 2, it's not smart marketing....

However due to poor box office returns the plan has been scrapped by this point in time i'm sure of it....

Unless it does better overseas & DVD sales recoup the cost of makeing it.....

$100 million is a lot of money to spend on an Live-Action / Animated film, it might take awhile before WB sees a return on that investment, hopefully it won't come too little, too late.....

Meanwhile DVD sales on the Shorts continue to give WB $$$$ hand over fist.....

Go fig ?

Woulfe
* Yes, I find this verry confuseing that folks are buying up the DVD shorts
like they're going out of style, yet not going to see the film that's out *

[guy incognito]

* Yes, I find this verry confuseing that folks are buying up the DVD shorts
like they're going out of style, yet not going to see the film that's out *

Well, it's not so hard to fathom if there's a major difference, quality- and entertainment-wise, between the classic shorts and BIA. If the latter stinks--and that seems to be the view of a great many people outside of this board, although Yours Truly is reserving judgment until he sees the darn thing--and word gets around, then you've got your answer right there.

[CookieS]

The problem with all cartoons to film transitions is that the characters are hard to set-up for a 2 hour feature. Obviously Warner Bros. has taken stake in the franchise and not back out due to some bad numbers. When I think they're banking on is that audiences will slowly re-examine Looney Tunes in short doses (like they were meant to be). You can have the best actors mixed with animation and 9 out of 10, you'll come up with a luke-warm film. Most comedic cartoons are best suited for the "gag" type humor that involves a funny prank or silly situation. When you try to open up a character's range to better suit a film, you find the new emotionally-evolved version of a character tends to lack the light-hearted feeling you've grown to love. Considering Looney Tunes properties is generations old, I don't think you can tinker too much and still get the same laughs.

In my opinion, shorts in front of films was always the way to go. That's the way it origially was in the early years. Expanding the ideas (a.k.a. DRAWING THEM OUT TOO LONG) makes them feel tired and abuses the funny elements of the cartoons. "Space Jam" for many was the revival of Looney Tunes into mainstream. "Back in Action" is a movie that has little hype and doesn't really bring the cartoons into something we haven't seen before. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this plot somewhat similar to what they did in the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie? Its all about pulling the characters out of their original context and tossing them into the modern world. You can't have timeless characters in a modern world and expect things to flow. Note their 1950s-1980s refrences. Obviously not slanted for kids, which is good on some levels. Despite how much we crave box office succes, we find one of the biggest finicial vechicles for pushing an animated film is the child audience. I'm not saying things should be dumbed down for children, but if you make it too adult-friendly, kids avoid it. The the generation gap (which prompts me to want to see that new Porky short) flexing its muscle and separating people from liking the Looney Tunes for what they were compared to what they "could" be.

[Pilmedium]

build upon the momentum generated by the film
The film could not have generated so much momentum based on the box office totals. Planning based on that could exclude the same people who disapproved of this year's movie, and that is a lot.



They tinkered with [the shorts] a lot after I left, and didn't make
anything that I would characterize as a good change,' Mr. Doyle
said. 'They made a bunch of changes [like] taking out some adult
humor, taking out or changing jokes that they thought people
wouldn't get - too smart or too weird. I think they just got really
conservative.

The changes can be attributed to the fact that the writers had to
find a balance between being faithful to Looney Tunes' classic
mannerisms, while remaining faithful to their untethered spirit in
taking on contemporary culture.
In other words, they weakened many aspects of the original cartoons and tried to insert modern culture. That is one way for characters to become out-of-character, and if the change is consistent and widespread, a second version of the characters could appear. With that approach, making no plans to finish the incomplete short cartoons is good.

[Andrew R]

This understanding is perhaps what prompted Mr. Baker to come up
with ideas for shorts like 'Afghanistan Sam,' with Yosemite Sam as
an Osama bin Laden - like terrorist and Bugs Bunny 'kicking his
ass,'

LOL...

However, I think the coyote suicide bomber joke is tasteless...the Coyote gets himself injured repeatedly from his relentless pursuit, but he's not about to willingly kill himself to get it.

Besides, I have a friend in Israel.

Have I mentioned how much I love Cowboy Wally?

[J. B. Warner]

Man, and here I was thinking that the Looney Tunes were immortal.

But it makes no sense - I was always under the impression that as long as kids can be exposed to the Warner classics on TV there would always be a strong fanbase. Yet here we have BIA being a complete disaster and the new shorts getting shelved and all this negative feedback.

I should have known something was up when ABC cancelled "The Bugs Bunny Show" in 1999 (this is why I don't like Disney).

[J Lee]

Man, and here I was thinking that the Looney Tunes were immortal.

But it makes no sense - I was always under the impression that as long as kids can be exposed to the Warner classics on TV there would always be a strong fanbase. Yet here we have BIA being a complete disaster and the new shorts getting shelved and all this negative feedback.

I should have known something was up when ABC cancelled "The Bugs Bunny Show" in 1999 (this is why I don't like Disney).

That wasn't Disney's fault, that was the big bunch of joiks at Time-Warner, who decided to end the deals with ABC and Nickelodeon in order to get all the WB cartoons under the Cartoon Network/Boomerang umbrella. While this might have been a solid idea under the people in charge at CN at the time, the group who have come in both at CN and above them in the corporate chain snice then have focused more on "original programming" to the extent that they have cut the air time for the Warner cartoons back to even less than it was just on Nick alone each week during the early 1990s.

Overexposure can be bad for anything, but given the chance to cross-promote both the LT-BIA movie and the Golden Collection DVDs over the past two months, the CN programmers have shown themselves to be totally clueless. Hopefully, that will change after the first of the year...

[Pilmedium]

Overexposure can be bad for anything, but given the chance to cross-promote both the LT-BIA movie and the Golden Collection DVDs over the past two months, the CN programmers have shown themselves to be totally clueless. Hopefully, that will change after the first of the year...

That might be one of the many reasons why the movie did poorly, but there were rumors that it was their plan to promote the DVDs - fewer opportunities to see the cartoons on television. I doubt it significantly hurt the DVD sales. Even "Tom and Jerry" might be suffering from overplaying. It did not make it on to the top telecasts list in October. About early next year, it is unlikely for Cartoon Network to make a decision that would probably not help their ratings. Looney Tunes do not get better ratings than many overplayed Cartoon Cartoons. Even if they thought of a way for it to work in their favor, a plan to increase classic cartoon showings would probably be rejected because of the general trend at Cartoon Network.

[Jack]

Man, and here I was thinking that the Looney Tunes were immortal.

But it makes no sense - I was always under the impression that as long as kids can be exposed to the Warner classics on TV there would always be a strong fanbase.
That's just it, though. Kids AREN'T being introduced to the classics on TV right now. Unless a kid gets up at 6am (Central time, where I live) on Saturday, they are more likely to only know the characters through Baby Looney Tunes, Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries, Duck Dodgers, or through the occational 1980's LT movies CN sometimes shows. With weak stuff like that being the primary way kids are seeing the characters, it's no wonder they aren't flocking to see an LT feature.

WB should take the success of the Golden Collection as an indication that the original cartoons need more attention and exposure, since they are the ones that really sell.


Jack :bosko:

[frogboxer]

WB should take the success of the Golden Collection as an indication that the original cartoons need more attention and exposure, since they are the ones that really sell.
My thoughts exactly, Jack.

[jeff_schiller]

In my opinion, shorts in front of films was always the way to go.

I agree with this. Putting the shorts in front of movies is another good idea to expose these characters to kids, but unfortunately sometimes that limits the adult's enjoyment. Some movies are able to be successful with both audiences (Toy Story, Shrek). It remains to be seen about the new shorts, but if they're put in front of strictly bad kids movies then most likely adults won't even really get a good chance to see the. Unless they're 20 times better than the feature that it's all the audience remembers...


Its all about pulling the characters out of their original context and tossing them into the modern world. You can't have timeless characters in a modern world and expect things to flow.

Timeless characters implies they can be inserted anywhere and it will work! The Looney Tunes WERE timeless characters (they're heyday lasted almost 25 years!). The problem is that, except for a couple exceptions, the characters haven't had modern exposure and it's begun to turn them into period pieces. i.e. not timeless. I think that's what WB is trying to prevent by their various efforts: Duck Dodgers, Sylvester/Tweety mysteries, Back in Action and even (shudder) Baby Looney Tunes.

Unfortunately, as other people have said, putting all the cartoons under one channel (Cartoon Network) limits their exposure. Even if CN did give the Looney Tunes characters as much exposure as they could allow, it's still only one cable channel. Pile onto that the fact that most classic cartoons have migrated to Boomerang (a very LIMITED cable channel), the fact that no kid gets up at 6 AM to watch cartoons these days (7-8 AM is the earliest I ever did) and the limited marketing that LT:BIA had (even on CN!!!) and you have the situation as it stands today: Kids just don't care too much about Looney Tunes: Back In Action.

Regards,
Jeff

[Boy Wonder]

The first one had no money made.

[Squidhead]

Isn't this the same situation for Mickey Mouse? I've read that Winnie the Pooh (which isn't even "real" Disney) merchandise outsells him by a pretty large margin.

The big issue here though is the Political Correctness of today. As much as I'd love to see Afghanistan Sam, I know the short would meet hordes of protesters the next day.

They neutered their own brand and now they dare to complain about it. I seriously doubt there's any going back so long as America thinks of cartoons as "kids stuff".

Yeah it's depressing but I think animation needs a good kick in the ass these days.

[Sogturtle]

This is kind of unusual and maybe I shouldn't bring this up... But I noticed Mr. Doyle come on yesterday and that he then read this particular thread or part of it... I waited for him to post something on it, but it appears that he just read it and left. Interesting and puzzling... :shrug:

[Jack]

This is kind of unusual and maybe I shouldn't bring this up... But I noticed Mr. Doyle come on yesterday and that he then read this particular thread or part of it... I waited for him to post something on it, but it appears that he just read it and left. Interesting and puzzling... :shrug:


He's been coming on a lot lately (making me think he never really left, he's probably just been lurking). Personally, I'd like to hear what he has to say. Maybe we could all let bygones be bygones and give him another chance. He seems like he can be a nice guy.

I don't think I've ever used the expression "let bygones be bygones" before :p I wonder if I said it right...


Jack :bosko:

[Sogturtle]

He's been coming on a lot lately (making me think he never really left, he's probably just been lurking). Personally, I'd like to hear what he has to say. Maybe we could all let bygones be bygones and give him another chance. He seems like he can be a nice guy.

I don't think I've ever used the expression "let bygones be bygones" before :p I wonder if I said it right...

Jack :bosko:


Jack~

Since you're the only one besides me noticing Mr. Doyle's coming and goings then I'll add this. He came here again a few minutes back annnnnnnd just as before and (apparently) read only this thread... and then took off again. From that it appears he is trying to find out what the REAL hardcore fans are thinking about his work (LTBIA)... (LARRY, like I said in the other thread, it turned out to be very, very good... No matter what the box-office!)

But Jack, like I've stated before, Mr. Doyle's whole career and future are hanging by a very narrow thread here... Even if he can't bear to admit his part in the shorts being panned by Warners and now the feature dying in the box-office, it ends up hard not to feel at least somewhat sorry for him.

Maybe he is a nice guy, I'd like to think so... Buuuuuut our experience with that other "gentleman" from that TV studio (which shall remain nameless) was uncomfortably much too much like this. Come on here, create a stir with "insider" knowledge, then react extremely angrily and petuantly when a number of people dislike "his" work or concepts. Then storm off in high dudgeon (sp?)... Final act: sneak back in and read the new posts only pertaining to "his" work, evidently hoping that the tide of opinion will swing in his favor...

And yes Jack, you used "let bygones be bygones" quite well... And if you hadn't, well then I'd have to allow it to slide and "let bygones be bygones" :D :p

[Daniel P]

I, too, have noticed Larry Doyles' frequent visits lately. I was initially looking forward to the shorts but these later reports have diminished this. However good or bad the shorts may be, I plan to see a few before passing judgement (that is, if they get released). Whatever my thoughts are on the shorts, I thought Back in Action was great nonetheless. It's sad to see a funny movie fail at the box office at a time when we get movies like "The Cat in the Hat" prospering.

[jeff_schiller]

I don't think I've ever used the expression "let bygones be bygones" before

You're turning into your father...:p

[Pilmedium]

Timeless characters implies they can be inserted anywhere and it will work! The Looney Tunes WERE timeless characters (they're heyday lasted almost 25 years!). The problem is that, except for a couple exceptions, the characters haven't had modern exposure and it's begun to turn them into period pieces. i.e. not timeless. I think that's what WB is trying to prevent by their various efforts: Duck Dodgers, Sylvester/Tweety mysteries, Back in Action and even (shudder) Baby Looney Tunes.

In that case, I do not want the Looney Tunes characters to be "timeless." They could become too different from their classic versions, which, to me, would be as their disappearing completely from the public eye.


However good or bad the shorts may be, I plan to see a few before passing judgement (that is, if they get released). Whatever my thoughts are on the shorts, I thought Back in Action was great nonetheless. It's sad to see a funny movie fail at the box office at a time when we get movies like "The Cat in the Hat" prospering.

Well, I would not see the short cartoons if they are placed in front of movies I would not want to watch, and I almost never want to watch movies. I think it takes more than just being funny for a movie to be "great," unlike with short cartoons.

[chuckamuck43]

It's sad to see a funny movie fail at the box office at a time when we get movies like "The Cat in the Hat" prospering.

Too true, Brother Dacp, but don't forget how heavily "Cat" is being promoted vs. the modest campaign WB ran for BIA...

[larrydoyle]

Okay, so you've lured me out of "lurking" (for the record, I was on these boards, and others on subjects that interest me, long before I had any personal stake in them).

Let me clear up a couple of things. The reason I left this board before was because one particular individual chose to attack my colleagues in what I felt was an unfair and deceitful manner. This same individual had a personal interest in the project that he chose not to indulge.

I'm happy to talk about these things for anybody who's interested in information, but don't see much point in arguing over facts in evidence with people who don't know them (It is one thing to contend that only animators can write shorts; it's quite another to attack the talent and credentials of anyone who does not fit the approved description)


The other day Cbrubaker sent me a polite note and I was happy to answer his questions. This covers some of the issues raised here:

"Thanks for your note. Hopefully, when you finally do see the shorts you'll agree that we stayed true to the classic cartoons while not simply repeating them. Our rule of thumb was to try to imagine what type of Looney Tunes would be made if they had never stopped making them. We returned to the old models and also tried to return the voice acting to the brassy swagger it once had; we were quite conscious of not making them like the Simpsons or South Park. But we also had to make judgement calls, some of which may be questioned by others. Nevertheless, many of the accusations made on the toonzone board are simply untrue; I've been reading the thread and have thus far resisted participating because there is little to be gained from arguing with these people. The shorts will have be judged for what they are."

"I hope you like the shorts. I have not "distanced" myself from them, nor did I say they weren't very good. I only said I did not like the changes that the WB made to them after I left in February. (These changes, by the way, were less about removing "objectionable" material and more about typical studio concerns: "When Daffy runs away, it makes him look cowardly" and "When Granny calls a museum exhibit boring, it makes her seem negative" and, most dangerously, "I get this joke, but some people may not.") And for what it is worth, I have not disowned the movie either. If I had, I could and would have removed my name. It is not the movie it could have been, but its heart was in the right place."

"Neither the NY Times nor the Observer piece were initiated by me; I was called at the last minute to respond to information already available to the reporter. I was not interested in that information getting out, but I was not going to deny it either. (A side clarification: I was not fired from the movie; I left over creative choices which I felt hurt the final movie. The contract which was not renewed refered to my work on the shorts; it was not renewed because WB didn't want to produce a second batch of shorts until seeing how the current batch does)."


"In response to your question: in the spring of 2001, I met with a WB executive who asked me if I wanted to write the next Looney Tunes movie (The studio at that point was littered with failed attempts.) I told them I wasn't interested in that, but would like to bring back theatrical shorts. I argued that WB had destroyed their brand with movies like "Space Jam," terrible cutesy designs and commercials, and those awful webtoons, and needed to demonstrate to the public that they were capable of producing quality cartoons with those characters. Eventually, WB agreed to the shorts program but only if I also wrote the movie. The plan was to release the shorts in advance of the movie as a way of reintroducing them to the movie-going public at large (on films for all ages, not just kiddy fare). I believe had WB done that, the movie would have done better. I also believe they are making a mistake now attaching them to only kid's movies. Oh, well. "


A few other things worth pointing out.

Nobody was fired for speaking out on the project. To my knowledge, during the entire project, only three people left because they were unhappy with how things were going.

We did not follow the "sitcom" formula for producing the shorts. Except for the use of horrible writers, the process was much as it was at Termite Terrace. (By the way, I actually knew Chuck Jones -- not well, but enough to have discussed with him at length exactly how they went about their work; the most interesting difference between the public version of TT and the real one: it wasn't that devil-may-care. They worked like dogs.)

This is how we did the shorts:

The writer (who was often also an artist; even that terrible Ron Hauge has published more of his artwork that anyone here complaining about him) presented a general idea, usually verbally, to a room full of writers, directors (all the directors were encouraged to come) and the storyboard artists who would be doing the board. Everybody would throw out ideas and the the writer and director would go off with the sb artists and come back with a rough board. (Some writers were better at working with artists than others; some sb artists were better at working with the writers).

The result of this was a rough board, which was either pitched to the room by the writer or director (e.g. Dan Povenmire, and Bill Kopp pitched their boards, Peter Shin allowed the writer to pitch his) These would be worked over and then the director was responsible for producing the storyboard which we had to show WB for approval. Once approved, and only then, did the writer actually dialogue the cartoon. This dialogue was punched up in the writer's room and recorded (I did many of the initial records for the first six shorts, but the directors did their own in the latter half of the project. This was because I was not only trying to establish quality in the individual cartoons but reintroduce the voices and characters in a consistent manner across the board). These records were incorporated in an animatic, which was again worked over to produce the layouts and key animation. Contrary to what you have been told, much more of the "animation" was done here than overseas. (Compared to "The Simpsons," for example, we did three to four times as many key drawings, and fully animated those sections that needed it. We also paid Korea the going rate for feature, rather than TV, animation, and held them to producing that quality.)

Yes, I had final say. That is because I was the boss. I stand behind the decisions I made, both in terms of what to include and what to keep out. I'll also add that on the second batch of shorts, much more of control had been ceded to the directors, who had also begun writing or co-writing their shorts. I think the shorts that we completed were good, better than anything done in quite a while, but the ones we had in the offing were great.

Also, and finally, the sad fact is that the failure of this Looney Tune movie will have little effect on my career. This is because in the film business the writer is rarely held accountable for the final movie (because they realize how powerless he is.) While it would have been great had LT:BIA been a success, it is probably better for my career to have written the initial screenplay for a big movie that bombed than to have written a screenplay that never got made.

Oh, and one more thing: I didn't go to an Ivy League school.

[Jack]

Thanks for your reply. :bosko:

If the first batch of shorts is successful and WB greenlights another one, will the same group of people pick up where they left off? Or will WB hire yet another group of people and have them start fresh? WB's inability to commit to anything is really quite annoying.

BTW, I didn't mean anything bad when I called you a "lurker." That's just what someone is called when they don't post very often.

[larrydoyle]

If they do produce more, which I think is unlikely in the near term, I doubt it will be the same team.

[Killtacular]

Larry, do you have any idea if these new shorts will be released to DVD or TV in any way? It seems like they're purposefully sabotaging them by putting them in front of movies they know adults would be embarassed to attend. I can't bring myself to watch a Hilary Duff movie just to watch a Looney Tune; not to mention it just shows that WB continues to slap fans in the face by assuming LTs should only be enjoyed by children.

If you read one of the earlier threads, you'll know I'm very supportive of these shorts and the direction they were headed, so I'm still quite anxious to see them. I find the credentials and talent of the staff mentioned to be quite high (though others don't, to my dismay). I'm just hoping they won't be swept under a rug. If they can release a DVD of their FLASH ANIMATION, I think there's still a decent possibility that the new shorts would be released to home viewers in some format.

[larrydoyle]

I haven't been in direct contact with WB since February, so I can't tell you their plans. Based on their behavior, it appears as if they have reverted back to their misguided belief that LT are for small children (Dave Kehr has something to say about this in the Sunday New York Times). And so while I expect that the new shorts will somewhere down the line be released on DVD in some collective fashion, more likely they will appear first on the DVDs of the children's movies they've paired them with. It is not automatic that they would go to CN, but they'll probably get there after they've run their course on DVD.

[mornin' sam]

I haven't been in direct contact with WB since February, so I can't tell you their plans. Based on their behavior, it appears as if they have reverted back to their misguided belief that LT are for small children (Dave Kehr has something to say about this in the Sunday New York Times). And so while I expect that the new shorts will somewhere down the line be released on DVD in some collective fashion, more likely they will appear first on the DVDs of the children's movies they've paired them with. It is not automatic that they would go to CN, but they'll probably get there after they've run their course on DVD.

Thanks for pointing out that article. Nice to see something written about the collection that laments the absence of Avery, Tashlin and (much) Clampett, instead of two certain mid-1950s Chuck Jones cartoons that everyone else seems obsessed upon (don't get me wrong; I think they're both masterful cartoons).

Could have used a TTTP regular as a fact-checker, however. I noticed several things that were misleading if not totally false.

http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2003/12/14/1130290.xml

[Sek]

I think BIA will surprise WB when it hits DVD, I'd wager there's a lot of people who didn't want to sit in a theater with kids who'll pick this one up.

WB should be ashamed how they handled the marketing of BIA...it's as if they don't want to be bothered with Looney Tunes anymore so they drop the movie with almost zero promotion so they can say "well we tried, but people just don't like LT anymore" and go back to making brainless Cartoon Cartoon type shows.

[Jack]

Thanks for pointing out that article. Nice to see something written about the collection that laments the absence of Avery, Tashlin and (much) Clampett, instead of two certain mid-1950s Chuck Jones cartoons that everyone else seems obsessed upon (don't get me wrong; I think they're both masterful cartoons).
I didn't notice much lamenting for Avery, Clampett, and Tashlin aside for one sentence in the last paragraph. The rest was the usual "Chuck Jones is the greatest" type stuff one comes to expect now.

[DarthGonzo]

I think BIA will surprise WB when it hits DVD, I'd wager there's a lot of people who didn't want to sit in a theater with kids who'll pick this one up.

WB should be ashamed how they handled the marketing of BIA...it's as if they don't want to be bothered with Looney Tunes anymore so they drop the movie with almost zero promotion so they can say "well we tried, but people just don't like LT anymore" and go back to making brainless Cartoon Cartoon type shows.

It didnt help that marketing concentrated solely on Taz and Tweety, two characters whose screen time was minimal. WB only used BIA as a sad excuse to push more Tweety and Taz product instead of giving us some merchandise with some substance to it.

Anyone scratching their head as to why the BIA action figure line consisted of just Bugs, Daffy, Taz and Tweety? Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt Elmer, Sam and Marvin have much more screen time? There's WB for ya, being completely narrow minded when it comes to marketing these characters. Methinks (having glanced at the story book and junior novelization) Taz was supposed to have a substantially bigger role in the movie, which accounts for how pointless his appearence in the finished film comes off. Probably a hasty re-right.

As long as I'm on the subject, has anyone actually taken a look at the storybook, novelization or the comic book adaption. Now we all know these things are prepared in advance and usually include lots of things that never made it into the finished film. One major scene (included in all three prouducts) stands out in my mind:

The Area 52 sequence doesnt not appear in either the storybook or the novelization. However, both of these adaptions, as well as the comic book, include a sequence in Paris where the heros meet Pepe LePew before entering the Louvre. It is HE who gives DJ the spy gear and mentions "the window behind her smile". Interesting, but I like the Area 52 scene much better.

Hopefully all this stuff will appear on the DVD in some form or another.

Peace out.

[Jack]

It didnt help that marketing concentrated solely on Taz and Tweety, two characters whose screen time was minimal. WB only used BIA as a sad excuse to push more Tweety and Taz product instead of giving us some merchandise with some substance to it.
What I find funny is that WB is supposedly having trouble interesting kids in characters other than Taz and Tweety. Considering they don't do anything with the other characters, it's no wonder kids aren't interested in them.

[mornin' sam]

I didn't notice much lamenting for Avery, Clampett, and Tashlin aside for one sentence in the last paragraph. The rest was the usual "Chuck Jones is the greatest" type stuff one comes to expect now.

Well, obviously the writer vastly prefers Jones to McKimson & Freleng, who he damns with faint praise. But he's reviewing what he's been given, which is a set that focuses on the work of those directors, especially between 1948-53. I think the fact that he doesn't ask for MORE Jones means he's at least got some perspective. Reading the piece from start to finish, it's clear from the beginning that the author doesn't think the set is the perfect collection of all the greatest LT/MM ever made. He considers it a good attempt at covering a specific corner of the WB toon output. It's true that it's not until the end that we discover exactly what corners he'd like covered next time, but for me it was refreshing to see that it was Avery/Tashlin/Clampett, and not "One Froggy Evening" and "What's Opera Doc" like every single other 'mainstream' review I've come across.

[Sek]

Wasn't there a thread here about how Cartoon Network was doing nothing to promote BIA?

I know I didn't see any ads for the movie itself, just the LT characters in a commercial for cell phones and Brandon Fraser's appearance on the Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he seemed more knowledgeable about LT history than anyone involved in making the movie!

I seriously wouldn't have known there was a LT movie coming out if I didn't lurk on cartoon forums.

[Jack]

Well, obviously the writer vastly prefers Jones to McKimson & Freleng, who he damns with faint praise. But he's reviewing what he's been given, which is a set that focuses on the work of those directors, especially between 1948-53. I think the fact that he doesn't ask for MORE Jones means he's at least got some perspective. Reading the piece from start to finish, it's clear from the beginning that the author doesn't think the set is the perfect collection of all the greatest LT/MM ever made. He considers it a good attempt at covering a specific corner of the WB toon output. It's true that it's not until the end that we discover exactly what corners he'd like covered next time, but for me it was refreshing to see that it was Avery/Tashlin/Clampett, and not "One Froggy Evening" and "What's Opera Doc" like every single other 'mainstream' review I've come across.
Maybe I was too harsh on the critic. You do bring up some good points. I guess what flustered me was the usual rambling about how Jones had added oh-so-much depth to the characters, as if they were one dimentional or somehow lacking before 1950. I'd really like to see a professional write something about the brasher Bugs Bunny of Robert McKimson and Friz Freleng, and the wild and free Daffy of Clampett and Tashlin that examines the depth and richness those interpretations posses. Maybe it'll happen if the next Gold Collection is less Jones-centered, but I doubt it.


Jack :bosko:

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Let me clear up a couple of things. The reason I left this board before was because one particular individual chose to attack my colleagues in what I felt was an unfair and deceitful manner. This same individual had a personal interest in the project that he chose not to indulge.
Well that's just dastardly! I don't like unfair and deceitful individuals and I hope that liar gets what's coming to him. I know you couldn't be talking about me, Mr. Doyle, because I've tried to be truthful and fair about what I saw of the new Looney Tunes shorts. Granted, what I said wasn't pleasant for anyone who might have worked on them, but it was my honest opinion of them. (And I did state that a lot could change in the final stages of the cartoons, so one would have to wait for the finished product in order to judge them. It's just that I have very little hope that much will be improved on the shorts before they are ever released.)


I'm happy to talk about these things for anybody who's interested in information, but don't see much point in arguing over facts in evidence with people who don't know them (It is one thing to contend that only animators can write shorts; it's quite another to attack the talent and credentials of anyone who does not fit the approved description)
Whoever "attacked" the talent who worked on these shorts must be a real jerk! I know I never attacked anyone involved with them. I do feel that many of the artists who worked on the shorts were not up to the level of draftsmanship of a Rod Scribner, Robert McKimson, Chuck Jones, I. Ellis, Manny Gould, etc. but that's just my honest opinion. I've shown many of the top animators throughout the industry the new Looney Tunes model sheets to get their assessment of them, and the word "crude" came up frequently. So many of the high level professionals in the animation business have a pretty negative opinion of your pre-production artwork, Mr. Doyle.


The other day Cbrubaker sent me a polite note and I was happy to answer his questions. This covers some of the issues raised here:

"Thanks for your note. Hopefully, when you finally do see the shorts you'll agree that we stayed true to the classic cartoons while not simply repeating them. Our rule of thumb was to try to imagine what type of Looney Tunes would be made if they had never stopped making them. We returned to the old models... (emphasis added)
Except that the original model designs were redrawn by Bill Schwab! Sure, Schwab's drawings were based on McKimson's original model sheets but, in all honesty, they were rather poorly copied. (I'm not attacking Mr. Schwab, just stating fact.)

...and also tried to return the voice acting to the brassy swagger it once had;...
West's version of Bugs Bunny was recorded at too high a speed. So much so that Bugs sounded like a chipmonk.


A few other things worth pointing out.

Nobody was fired for speaking out on the project. To my knowledge, during the entire project, only three people left because they were unhappy with how things were going.
Well, that's not the way I heard it. I know a little more than three people who left the project.


We did not follow the "sitcom" formula for producing the shorts. Except for the use of horrible writers, the process was much as it was at Termite Terrace...

This is how we did the shorts:

The writer (who was often also an artist; even that terrible Ron Hauge has published more of his artwork that anyone here complaining about him) presented a general idea, usually verbally, to a room full of writers, directors (all the directors were encouraged to come) and the storyboard artists who would be doing the board. Everybody would throw out ideas and the the writer and director would go off with the sb artists and come back with a rough board. (Some writers were better at working with artists than others; some sb artists were better at working with the writers).

The result of this was a rough board, which was either pitched to the room by the writer or director (e.g. Dan Povenmire, and Bill Kopp pitched their boards, Peter Shin allowed the writer to pitch his) These would be worked over and then the director was responsible for producing the storyboard which we had to show WB for approval. Once approved, and only then, did the writer actually dialogue the cartoon. This dialogue was punched up in the writer's room and recorded (I did many of the initial records for the first six shorts, but the directors did their own in the latter half of the project. This was because I was not only trying to establish quality in the individual cartoons but reintroduce the voices and characters in a consistent manner across the board). These records were incorporated in an animatic, which was again worked over to produce the layouts and key animation. Contrary to what you have been told, much more of the "animation" was done here than overseas. (Compared to "The Simpsons," for example, we did three to four times as many key drawings, and fully animated those sections that needed it. We also paid Korea the going rate for feature, rather than TV, animation, and held them to producing that quality.)
Mr. Doyle claims that the production of the new shorts was run in the same mode as those of old, then goes on to contradict this several times.

1. The storyboard artists at the Leon Schlesinger studio were the writers! They didn't work in tandem with screenwriters on the shorts. They wrote the story and dialog in the board stage. (Actually, this was true of all the animation studios of the time.) Mr. Doyle also claims most of the writers he hired were also artists. This is not true: "consultant" David X.Cohen, Jon Vitti, and Page Hurwitz were not artists. Of the ones that were Ron Hauge drew rather crudely and Kyle Baker was a comic book artist. That leaves Doug Lawrence as the only writer on the project who actually had experience drawing storyboards! This is all irrelevant, though, since even if they were all artists it wouldn't matter because most of them didn't draw the storyboards!! (The exceptions being Lawrence and Baker who did do some boards.) *EDIT* I forgot to mention Eric Kaplan, another writer without artistic skills.

2. There was no rewriting once the layout stage of production was completed in the classic cartoons. Rewriting was done after the boards were completed and pitched for the first time, and that's it.

3. The directors of the old Looney Tunes always directed the voice artists themselves, not the producer! When a producer handles this chore it takes control away from the directors. Also, different directors with different ideas on the character's personalities would not have been inconsistant with the old Termite Terrace days, since Jones, Clampett, Freleng, et. al. all had their own different takes on the main characters.

4. It was originally planned that the new shorts would only have the layouts done in the States with the animation to be finished in Korea. Some people who were hired as layout artists did do some animation (I think Mr. Doyle means "extremes" not "key" drawings) with some breakdowns, inbetweening and all the clean up to be done in Korea. If anyone wishes to see the "quality" of feature length "full animation" from Korea then check out WB's "Quest for Camelot".


Yes, I had final say. That is because I was the boss. I stand behind the decisions I made, both in terms of what to include and what to keep out. I'll also add that on the second batch of shorts, much more of control had been ceded to the directors, who had also begun writing or co-writing their shorts. I think the shorts that we completed were good, better than anything done in quite a while, but the ones we had in the offing were great.
Leon Schlesinger and Edward Selzer had very little to practically no final say on the cartoons of Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Bob McKimson or Frank Tashlin.

Ceding control to the directors is what should have happened in the first place.


Oh, and one more thing: I didn't go to an Ivy League school.
You must be thinking of Amid Amidi's comment. He meant sitcom writers in general, many of whom are Ivy league educated. The point was that many of the original creators of the Looney Tunes were not college educated; some were even high school dropouts. So simply hiring someone who once wrote for the Harvard Lampoon does not guarantee success on an animated cartoon.

By the way, here's an interesting quote from an U Daily News (http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~23515~1763892,00.html) article: "'Looney Tunes: Back in Action' lacked one thing that Dante said it needed: a singular vision. In addition to the mind-boggling number of rewrites, sources say Dante feuded with Doyle, Doyle bickered with veteran animation director Eric Goldberg, and studio executives kibitzed with everyone involved. While such heated disagreements are typical when making a movie, the difference here was that each participant believed they were fighting not just for the film but for the future of the Looney Tunes franchise."

[jeff_schiller]

1) where did he say "un-funny"?

2) The pre-48 cartoons did not get as much exposure on TV and are less familiar to the audience. There is a big difference between the early 30s cartoons and the late 40s cartoons, that's all the critic is saying...Are you denying that they're different?

[mornin' sam]

Yeah, I think he's just speculating about the studio's decision, not expressing his own judgment on black-and-white 'toons.

The misleading bits I was referring to:

1. Implying that "Elmer's Candid Camera" was released AFTER "a Wild Hare".

2. Stating that "For Scent-imental Reasons" was the first Pepe le Pew cartoon, when it was the third or fourth.

3. Implying that "the Dot & the Line" was a Looney Tune, when it was produced for MGM.

Just nitpicky stuff like that, really. Nothing that would cause any lasting damage to a reader, but that might make a cartoon buff briefly wince. On the other hand, it would be easy enough to change. I guess it's just the nature of journalism, though.

[Jack]

Yeah, I think he's just speculating about the studio's decision, not expressing his own judgment on black-and-white 'toons.

The misleading bits I was referring to:

1. Implying that "Elmer's Candid Camera" was released AFTER "a Wild Hare".

2. Stating that "For Scent-imental Reasons" was the first Pepe le Pew cartoon, when it was the third or fourth.

3. Implying that "the Dot & the Line" was a Looney Tune, when it was produced for MGM.

Just nitpicky stuff like that, really. Nothing that would cause any lasting damage to a reader, but that might make a cartoon buff briefly wince. On the other hand, it would be easy enough to change. I guess it's just the nature of journalism, though.
I noticed those mistakes too (the mention of The Dot and Line was pretty strange, though it is more like a late WB cartoon than an MGM one).

Those little mistakes won't create lasting damage, though the favoritism Jones gets will. It's slowing getting to the point where casual fans are thinking Jones created the entire concept and all of the characters. In fact, I had to convince someone that Chuck Jones wasn't the sole guiding light behind Looney Tunes just a few days ago, and I remember my brother being a little surprised when he found out Chuck Jones didn't direct every WB cartoon.

I have nothing against Chuck Jones and love a lot of his cartoons, but when he's the only one who gets praise in the mainstream media, it sends a message to the public that he was the main, if not the only, creative force behind the WB cartoons. And even when other directors are mentioned, it is usually made to sound as though Jones was the one to add depth and personality to the characters. The writer's mention of "Elmer's Candid Camera" seemed like an attempt to steal the spotlight away from Avery and make it seem as though Jones' vision of Bugs was the one that clicked with audiences.


Jack :bosko:

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally said by me...


If anyone wishes to see the "quality" of feature length "full animation" from Korea then check out WB's "Quest for Camelot".

My mistake -- "Quest For Camelot" did have animation that was done overseas, but the country in question wasn't Korea. However, my point still remains that "full" Korean animation isn't very good, though. The only way to produce quality animation is for the director to have complete control over the entire process, not entrusting a large part of production to a foreign country -- especially a country that competes with others through quantity and low cost, not quality.

Even if only the "inbetweens" were done in Korea, it is still possible for them to ruin a well animated scene with poor inbetweens. See Richard Williams' book The Animator's Survival Kit, pages 47 to 56 for examples as to how this could happen. Also see pages 57 to 60 for the correct definition of what a "key" drawing is.

[Wabbit Wuv]

LT:BIA wasn't bad at all. I thought it was funny. The plot was defenitly better than Space Jam (But, Space Jam is still one of my favorite movies, right next to BIA. There's only one little reason why It doesn't beat Space Jam in my opinion. My friends that saw it with me agreed with me. You could probably figure it out by a thread I started a while ago). Anyways, I was shocked that there was only two families in the theater, and it was saturday the 15 of November. The opening weekend.

One of the reasons why is probably the advertising. There was way more "Cat in the Hat" comercials rather than "LT:BIA" comercials. I also blame the critics, they lured the fish away. The movie reviewer from NY1 gave the film 1 1/2 out of 4 'apples'. He said that the Animation/live action wasn't a new thing and that there was to much slapstick throughout the film. I was mad! :mad: I wanted to slap him! For real.

Looney Tunes have always been the 'bad boys' of animation. They gave us a break from the too cute Disney characters. Cartoons aren't only for kids. People need to get that through their heads (I thought WB would know that, tisk tisk tisk). But, the toons have to be viewable for the entire family, you can't just restrict Looney Tunes to just adults. A major style (or theme) of Looney Tunes was sattire. Then again, It wouldn't be right if a cartoon is aimed directly at Osama bin Laden. Jokes that work on different levels do just fine.

I can't really say if the new tunes haven't captured the true 'looneyness' of our favorite toons, for I have not seen them. The web tunes weren't that bad, some are funny. But, if WB can make even better ones, go for it dudes.