Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Bugs Bunny gets an extreme makeover (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Bugs Bunny gets an extreme makeover
Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 02-19-2005 02:53 PM      Profile for Paul Mayer   Author's Homepage   Email Paul Mayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Eh, I must be gettin' old. I'll stay with the old stuff...

WB seeks revitalized cartoon franchise with new look for Bugs Bunny and friends

 -

quote:
Thursday, February 17, 2005
By Brooks Barnes, The Wall Street Journal

Talk about extreme makeovers. Take a look at what's happening to Daffy and Bugs.

Hoping to breathe new life into its animated Looney Tunes franchise and prop up the WB television network's slumping Kids' WB line-up, Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. is planning to launch a new cartoon series this fall based on "re-imagined" versions of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tasmanian Devil, Lola Bunny, Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote.

Warner Bros. has created angular, slightly menacing-looking versions of the classic Looney Tunes characters for its new series, dubbed "Loonatics" and set in the year 2772. Names for the new characters haven't been finalized, but they are likely to be derived from the originals: Buzz Bunny, for example. Each new character retains personality quirks of the original. The new Bugs, for example, will be the natural leader of the Loonatics' spaceship; the new Daffy will remain confident that he is the one who should be in charge.

Warner Bros. isn't sending the venerable original Looney Tunes cast into retirement. But it is trying to update the characters' appeal among modern kids. The classic characters were wisecrackers who rode their irreverent humor to stardom in the 1940s. The challenge now for Warner Bros. is to find a fresh way to tap the funny bone of an audience raised on Bart Simpson and SpongeBob SquarePants.

"The new series will have the same classic wit and wisdom, but we have to do it more in line with what kids are talking about today," says Sander Schwartz, president of Warner Bros. Animation. The plots are action-oriented, filled with chases and fights. Each character possesses a special crime-fighting power.

Sounds familiar? The format echoes a successful show Warner Bros. launched in 2003 on its WB network and Cartoon Network called "Teen Titans," about five teenage superheroes. The series, featuring dark, futuristic characters, based on such DC Comics personalities as Robin the Boy Wonder, quickly became a hit. It ranked No. 26 among kids programs for the fourth quarter last year.

With "Loonatics," Warner Bros. thinks it may have TV's next blockbuster cartoon on its hands. "The reaction by kids in test groups has been phenomenal," says Mr. Schwartz.

Given Warner's mixed track record over the past two decades with the Looney Tunes franchise, advertisers may be wary. Steven Spielberg sparked things up in the early 1990s with "Tiny Toons," a series in which new characters interacted with the originals. But a 2002 effort, "Baby Looney Tunes," has been a dud for the Cartoon Network, where it ended the fourth quarter ranked No. 104 among kids programs.

Efforts to juice up Looney Tunes on the big screen haven't fared much better. "Space Jam," starring Michael Jordan, turned a profit back in 1996. But "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" bombed last year: The movie, which cost $80 million to make, grossed just $21 million in the U.S., according to box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations. (It grossed an additional $48 million outside the U.S., Warner Bros. says.)

It's a risky time to launch an expensive Saturday-morning cartoon. Kraft Foods Inc., which spent about $90 million on children's advertising in 2004, said in January it would stop advertising junk food to kids under 12. The company's decision, coming as the food industry generally is shifting kids advertising dollars to the Internet and videogames, is expected to result in softer ad sales. The kids "upfront" market, when $700 million to $800 million in national kids-TV advertising is sold to deep-pocketed marketers, kicks off today.

"It doesn't take a genius to look at the trouble in the toy business and what's going on in the food business to see that the overall kids market is particularly weak," says Jon Mandel, co-chief executive of Grey Global Group Inc.'s MediaCom.

It's not as if the Kids' WB has much of a choice about whether to be so aggressive. At a time when the behemoths of kids TV -- cable TV's Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and the Disney Channel -- are gaining or stable, ratings on broadcast TV's Kids' WB have plunged.

So far this season, the network's Saturday-morning viewership is down 26 percent compared with a year ago among children from two to 11 years old, says Nielsen Media Research. Lisa Quan, an analyst for ad-buying firm Magna Global, a unit of Interpublic Group of Cos., says the network's average audience has shrunk about 40 percent compared with its peak two years ago, when cartoons such as "Pokemon" and "Yu-Gi-Oh" were white hot. "The WB has had a long, hard tumble from grace," Ms. Quan says.

David Janollari, president of entertainment for the WB, says he has no illusions about how much work the kids division has ahead of it. "We simply need a new crop of big hits," he says. "This audience is finicky and quickly gets itchy for something new." At the same time, however, the WB notes that it remains a strong No. 1 on Saturday morning among Saturday morning broadcasters -- Walt Disney Co.'s ABC is in second place -- and that ratings have improved recently.

Warner Bros. has been criticized for standing still during the late '80s and early '90s at a time when Disney was reaping huge profits from its cast of animated characters. But Warner has shown in recent years that it can launch new cartoons that rain profits: Warner released three "Pokemon" movies following the WB's successful 1999 launch of the cartoon series, along with an avalanche of toys and other licensed products.

"Loonatics" is part of a wider effort by Warner Bros. to boost classic franchises: A new Batman movie and a remake of "Superman" also are in the works. The potential revenue is massive: If "Loonatics" is a hit on Saturday morning, for example, it is likely to ripple through the company's merchandising, home-video and movie divisions. "That's the ultimate goal of all kids programming," says Mr. Janollari. "If we score, it's a gold mine."


 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 02-19-2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw something about this on TV while sitting at an airport waiting for a flight last week.

These new characters look much too dark and villainous for the market they're trying to go after. If WB wants a cartoon that mimics the success of The Simpsons or SpongeBob SquarePants, they need to try again. After all, the original Looney Tunes cartoons and The Simpsons weren't even written for kids!

And who the hell is "Lola Bunny"?

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-19-2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The challenge now for Warner Bros. is to find a fresh way to tap the funny bone of an audience raised on Bart Simpson and SpongeBob SquarePants.
English translation: Insert plenty of farts, toilet humor, veiled sexual jokes, etc.

And: "Super powers?" Since when did Bugs, Tweety or any of them need anything besides their wits (and a stick of dynamite or two) to get by?

[puke] Give me "Knighty Knight Bugs" or "Fast and Furry-ous" any day. Chuck Jones, Bob McKimson, Tex Avery and Friz Freleng must be rolling over in their graves. [Roll Eyes] Is it any wonder that they waited until the last of those four was in the ground before doing this?

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-19-2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Looks to me like the answer is, "Simple"... Simple to DRAW, that is!

There are no more REAL artists left. They need characters that aren't so hard to draw that they have to find ACTUAL artists. (And PAY them ACTUAL wages!)

I bet the idea was to make them so simple they could be computer animated with minimal effort.

They shoulda' taken that left turn at Albequerquie, if you ask me!

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002


 - posted 02-19-2005 07:37 PM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Albuquerque

 |  IP: Logged

Dean Kollet
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 591
From: Florida State University
Registered: Jul 2003


 - posted 02-19-2005 08:57 PM      Profile for Dean Kollet   Email Dean Kollet   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
it's like they did with the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"; the new ones look way too Japanese and 'evil' for me.....

 |  IP: Logged

Justin West
Master Film Handler

Posts: 271
From: Peoria, IL, USA
Registered: Jul 2001


 - posted 02-19-2005 09:05 PM      Profile for Justin West   Email Justin West   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I suppose Buzz Bunny's catch phrase will be, "Ehhhhh, What up, Dog?" Keeping up with current trends? [puke]

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 02-19-2005 09:35 PM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Justin, that's hilarious! I'm rolling! [thumbsup]

They look very Bakshi-esque.
quote: Randy Stankey
They need characters that aren't so hard to draw
I don't think that is a consideration. You draw according to model sheets, that way everyone draws consistently. It's the nature of the job to be able to draw anything in any position, so I don't think the economy of line is necessarily due to lack of artistic talent on staff.

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001


 - posted 02-19-2005 09:49 PM      Profile for Richard Fowler   Email Richard Fowler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, the model sheets look like they will be easy to convert to flash animation....give it an Anmi like look at five drawings a second .... PokeBugs and PikaDaffy and the gang [puke]

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-19-2005 11:58 PM      Profile for Paul Konen   Email Paul Konen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lola came from the 'toon movie with Michael Jordan - "Space Jam"

 |  IP: Logged

Jeffrey Korns
Film Handler

Posts: 22
From: marion, ia, usa
Registered: Oct 2004


 - posted 02-20-2005 12:00 AM      Profile for Jeffrey Korns   Author's Homepage   Email Jeffrey Korns   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The only thing creepier than this is the rendering of classic Disney characters in CGI Ridiculously long link that breaks page formatting

and Popeye in cgi
 -

[ 02-20-2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002


 - posted 02-20-2005 03:10 AM      Profile for Adam Wilbert   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Wilbert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Since about 70% of the people that have posted to this topic have mustaches, I'd have to assume that we're not the target audience. These decisions are based on focus groups. If the kids wanted something insanely complicated to draw, I'm sure WB would give that to them. Lets remember that the bugs we all know isn't the original either.
quote: Mike Blakesley
English translation: Insert plenty of farts, toilet humor, veiled sexual jokes, etc.
uh... is this a step down from racial epithets, and violence?

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 02-20-2005 10:55 AM      Profile for Tim Reed   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's a two-way street. One man's offense is another man's commentary. Who's making the racial slurs today? Dudes rapping about whitey and how "the man" keeps putting someone down. Racial epithets? You have to take the time period into consideration.

The country was also at war (if you're talking about the Jap references). Violence?! It's DRAWN. Otherwise, yes. The humor was on a noticeably higher intellectual level in most of those subjects. They were witty.

Today, it's just cheap shots and depictions of bodily functions passed off as jokes. It takes no talent to come up with something like that.

Happily an old fart, and proud of it.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 02-20-2005 11:15 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You can't bugger about with history: you can only try to understand its context. The recent DVD rerelease of Tom & Jerry classics made me mad, as it had been totally bowdlerised. For example in Puss Gets the Boot, Mammy's 'You is goin' out... O-U-W-T... OUT!', had the 'W' removed. And in A Mouse in the House, the music track had been totally remixed to eliminate all of the Shortnin' Bread motif, presumably with bits of other Scott Bradley music stuck in its place. Granted, Mammy is a racially stereotypical caricature who will be very problematic with some modern viewers. But IMHO the job of archivists and the people who prepare DVD editions should be to explain why these stereotypes weren't considered problematic in the '30s and '40s while allowing the viewer to see the original, not to try and make the camera lie and change that original into something it isn't.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-20-2005 01:47 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Adam Wilbert
Since about 70% of the people that have posted to this topic have mustaches, I'd have to assume that we're not the target audience.
Point A: I no longer have a mustache, so I guess I now am in the target audience.

Point B: The whole problem with Warner Bros. started when they decided they had to "make something the kids would enjoy." The classic Looney Tunes were never made for kids. That's why they are so enjoyable to most adults today.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.