Kill the (New) Wabbit
A piece of me died when I read this:
The carrot-chomping smart aleck is making a comeback - as a futuristic, slimmed-down superhero. The extreme makeover also revamps Bugs' buddies Daffy Duck, Road Runner, Tasmanian Devil and Wile E. Coyote in an attempt to charm young audiences with old favorites
Why? For the love of holy cartoons, why? Like there aren't enough "extreme" cartoon characters running around the networks to satisfy the needs of the hardcore children of America? Do we really need another incarnation of Bugs and friends? I knew when Space Jam came out that we were riding the proverbial slippery slope to animated blasphemy.
This is just not right. Look at that face, that posture, that menancing stare.
Can you imagine that in a dress? Singing opera? Giving Daffy a good natured ribbing? Reading to Buster?
Sure, Bugs is mischevious. He is diabolically devious. But he is not...evil. He is not extreme. The old Bugs is the greatest practical joker. The new Bugs looks like a serial killer. A murderer. The kind of rabbit you would run from if you met up with him a dark alley. He doesn't eat carrots. He sharpens them and uses them as deadly weapons. He puts the lotion in the basket!
Ah, I'm getting carried away, I know. But we're talking about one of my childhood heroes (hell, one of my adulthood heroes) being turned into a creepy looking rabbit overlord, one who would just as soon scalp you than do your hair.
Do these people not feel even the slightest twinge of guilt over what they are doing to a great American icon?
"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.
What a maroon. Why make a new Looney Tunes at all? Just create new characters and then make another cookie cutter, cliched, boring, poorly animated cartoon superhero series. Because we just don't have enough of them as it is. Crap like this makes me long for the days of the Smurfs. And that's not a good thing.
Stop fucking with my childhood, please. Stop remaking my favorite movies and stop giving my favorite cartoon characters makeovers. Is the entertainment industry so bereft of new, creative ideas that they have to basterdize everything that was good about tv and movies? Eh, don't answer that. I know the answer.
This is a sad, sad day for Bugs Bunny fans.
Comments
I saw this yesterday ... and cried.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa | February 18, 2005 10:01 AM
Holy crap! This is almost as bad as the cancellation of the NHL season! What is WRONG with these people?
I really wish I hadn't seen this. I'm such a Looney Tunes freak, I literally WEPT the day Mel Blanc died. There will never be a finer short than the one where Bugs torments the opera singer.
I have a feeling this new incarnation will die a quick death.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | February 18, 2005 10:02 AM
How can you have BB without the smartass smirk? Why not just create absolutely new characters if they think young'uns would hate the old ones?
Posted by: Hubris | February 18, 2005 10:15 AM
What really sucks is that they haven't even given the old shorts a fighting chance. When was the last time you saw a BB cartoon show that actually showed some of the old, good shorts? It's all Tiny Toons where Bugs is a guest star, or the crappy 60's episodes, where the animation is half-assed.
This rabbit won an oscar. They should just let him show what he can do.
Posted by: Jado | February 18, 2005 10:42 AM
Of course, you realize, this means war.
Posted by: David | February 18, 2005 10:43 AM
I hope this new Looney incarnation dies a quick death. If it were to become successful, it would open a Pandora's Box.
Think about what they would do to Tom and Jerry. Instead of a cat chasing a mouse, they'd be members of rival gangs fighting a turf war or something.
Posted by: Shawn | February 18, 2005 10:47 AM
Just plain old lack of imagination. Like everything else in entertainment today just another rip-off.
Posted by: steve | February 18, 2005 10:50 AM
BEFORE: What's up, Doc?
AFTER: 'Sup, Dog?
Sorry, it doesn't work for me.
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph | February 18, 2005 10:55 AM
New Coke.
Posted by: Jim Treacher | February 18, 2005 11:04 AM
Exactly. Let's hope it meets the same fate.
Posted by: michele | February 18, 2005 11:07 AM
Judging from the responses (or the negative insinuations) from the folks on the network morning shows, and the audience Thursday morning on "Regis" to seeing images of the new characters, Warner Bros. may have just come up with the animation equivalent of New Coke: A product so despised by the general public because it's seen as trying to replace a long time -- but in the eyes of the corporation, declining -- favorite, that it's fate was sealed the moment it was announced.
Coke reformulated its soda 20 years ago to make it more appealing to today's kids and ended up with one of the greatest marketing disasters in history on its hands because almost everyone hated the product before they even tried it. Warners is in a little better position, because its target audience -- the under 12s -- don't have their brand loyalty (or in this case, character loyalty) as well established as older teens and adults. But any buzz about "Buzz" at all is probably going to be the Saturday morning version of what the critics did to "Heaven's Gate" or "Ishtar", and it's hard to see even elementary school-aged kids wanting to be associated with a thing like that.
Posted by: John | February 18, 2005 11:07 AM
Just don't call him Bugs Bunny, and we'll all be fine. Heck, call him Blogs Bunny and have him beat up journalists, for all I care.
Posted by: Crank | February 18, 2005 11:13 AM
Where is the earth shattering kaboom when you really need it?
Posted by: Ray | February 18, 2005 11:17 AM
He'll be around for about as long as that blue, electric Superman from a few years ago.
Then the marketroids will realize that merchandise with the classic Bugs brings in 15 times as much money as all the xTreme 'Toons put together, and they'll quietly fade away, until they're nothing but a pile of unbought video games and surplus T-shirts being worn by kids in Ghana.
Posted by: Eric | February 18, 2005 11:27 AM
What i think got me the most is the lack of ... um... quality in the new one. It's just a sucky drawing.
Posted by: pril | February 18, 2005 11:46 AM
......
Someone will pay for this? (I mean cash. I'm definitely hoping for other transactions from the ones responsible for this. Oh yessss....)
Posted by: Patrick Chester | February 18, 2005 11:50 AM
I immediately thought "New Coke" - before I read the comments. These hare-brained executives don't seem to grasp that the quality of the old Looney Tunes cartoons is what made them great. They ingeniously served a dual role of providing physical comedy for the little kids and delicious satire for all of us older ones.
I'd be willing to accept this atrocious new physical form for Bugs, IF the writing was as brilliant as the old shows. Unfortunately, that's about as likely as an ice storm in Hades...
Posted by: MikeR | February 18, 2005 11:55 AM
Anyone know who/where we can express our contempt, er, thoughtful opinions?
Posted by: JAB | February 18, 2005 12:18 PM
This isn't just Warner Brothers pissing on Chuck Jones' grave. It's routing a sewer pipe through his burial vault.
Posted by: Laurence Simon | February 18, 2005 12:19 PM
God... the new generation of Bugs Bunny?
With hands and ears that look like scitars ready to slash at small children? Ack - no thanks.
Posted by: Angel | February 18, 2005 12:21 PM
Where's an ACME Anvil™ when you need one?
Posted by: Angel | February 18, 2005 12:24 PM
There oughta be a law. If they want to charm young audiences then I'm thinking a demonic looking rabbit isn't the way to go.
Posted by: Busy Mom | February 18, 2005 12:51 PM
more Fat Albert than Fat Albert.
Posted by: mikey | February 18, 2005 01:14 PM
Shawn:
Yeah - you'd have Itchy & Scratchy.
Posted by: stacella | February 18, 2005 02:02 PM
Stop getting yourselves all worked up over this. Most of you will never watch it. It has no effect on the old cartoons you remember. Instead of bitching about how bad this is going to be, talk about how good the old stuff was.
Make the rest of your Friday enjoyable. Buy this. Pretend you never saw the "new Bugs."
And Michele, start a new poll: Favorite Looney Toons character.
Posted by: Mob | February 18, 2005 02:03 PM
Dude, you're harshing my outrage.
Posted by: Hubris | February 18, 2005 02:06 PM
File This under Yeah, That Figures...
Posted by: Jim Treacher | February 18, 2005 02:17 PM
True, stacella, plus it would have that hip urban feel to it. You know, for the kids.
Posted by: Shawn | February 18, 2005 02:18 PM
Sacrilegious! I feel so betrayed... :-(
Posted by: Amber | February 18, 2005 02:22 PM
Maybe they should just release this in the year 2772, then there'd be no real harm done.
Posted by: Hubris | February 18, 2005 02:25 PM
I kinda don't get the outrage either. It's not as if all the old toons are being collected and burned in a big pile... this is just yet another new version, right? A specific new flavor that can be ignored by those who wanna ignore it, since the originals are still around. Unlike with New Coke. This is like Tiny Toon Adventures. Was there an uproar against Tiny Toons?
Posted by: geoff | February 18, 2005 02:53 PM
I threw a shoe at Steven Spielberg at his 1990 press conference.
Posted by: Hubris | February 18, 2005 02:55 PM
I knew I should have made a left at Albu-quer-que... {hugh sigh of disappoinment}
Posted by: LoadTheMule | February 18, 2005 03:11 PM
There's an idea. 28th century Smurfs.
Posted by: Bill | February 18, 2005 03:14 PM
This is so very very wrong....
Posted by: BeckyJ | February 18, 2005 03:15 PM
You libertarians, with your "if you don't want to watch it, don't watch it" attitudes, are ruining all the fun of righteous outrage. When you invest part of your youth or childhood into something, you OWN it, in an emotional sense. I used to be like you, laughing at old hippies getting all upset about "Revolution" being used in a Nike commercial. I kind of understand a little better now.
Those are MY memories they are defiling. My outrage is as real as it is illogical. I apologize to no one.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | February 18, 2005 03:22 PM
Do a Google Search on the new character's name and you'll find this. Not particularly safe for work.
Posted by: Timmer | February 18, 2005 03:22 PM
Buzz Bunny, Ladies and Gents.
And stop belittling my outrate, man! It's un-American to try to stop me from being ridiculously bitter over cartoons!
No, because they were cute and cuddly. What kind of unAmerican person protests cute and cuddly? Yea, I'm looking at you, commie.
Posted by: michele | February 18, 2005 03:27 PM
Named after a vibrator, lovely.....what is the female rabbit named k-y ???? these people make me sick.
Posted by: cpl blondie | February 18, 2005 03:45 PM
the new slimmed down buzz just reinforces the skinny girl stereo type.
Posted by: cpl blondie | February 18, 2005 03:46 PM
i made a petition for those who wanna save Bugs..... to hell with this futuristic version, it is not the same, it looks very bad. Give me the old Bugs any time.....
http://www.petitiononline.com/150388/petition.html
Posted by: Stevan | February 18, 2005 04:13 PM
This reminds me of 'Poochie the dog'. Particularly the cultivated way they try to 'keep it real for the youth'.
Posted by: Dr_Funk | February 18, 2005 04:18 PM
WAHHHHHHH! That is no wascally wabbit, that's a monster!
Posted by: ReaderMom | February 18, 2005 04:38 PM
Great. It's "Poochie the Dog."
Posted by: Evil Otto | February 18, 2005 04:43 PM
Any word on who would do the voice(s)? Mel Blanc's kin really never did Bugs or any other character justice.
Posted by: Uncle Fester | February 18, 2005 05:19 PM
Why why why why why???????
Surely, they could occupy themselves with something that would upset me a little less, like another meg ryan and hanks movie. Maybe another meet the parents or something.
Why go after bugs?
WWWHHHHHHYYYYYY
Posted by: Mad House Madman | February 18, 2005 05:33 PM
Put me down for the new Bugs, on one condition: The Old Bugs gets to take on the New Bugs in a six minute short.
I figure that should fix things right up.
The WB still makes a killing off Bugs and co. there were the DVD sets of the classic cartoons that they've been releasing for the last year or so. You can't tell me that those haven't been a license to print money.
Posted by: BC Monkey | February 18, 2005 05:38 PM
Stop fucking with my childhood, please.
To quote Stan Lee:
"'Nuff Said"
Posted by: Muckraker | February 18, 2005 05:43 PM
Here you go, doc (via the Golden Age Cartoons website):
Posted by: John | February 18, 2005 06:20 PM
John, that is perfect!
sigh this absolutely breaks my heart. is nothing sacred?
Posted by: SharonO | February 18, 2005 07:19 PM
OMG.....it's BEELZEBUNNY!!!
Posted by: sam | February 18, 2005 08:30 PM
More proof again that way too many "modern animators" can't draw worth sh*t.
Those are hands? And what's with the yellow RayBan "eyeballs?"
Good lord, Bugs could twitch, smirk, be love struck, be mischievious, be elegant ..all with the fine drawing of his animators. Even, scared as his ears drooped, his eyes got big, with dialated pupils that would begin to water and a smalled voiced "mudder!"
And, hello, classic Bugs wasn't about just the kids. The genius was that they had to appeal to the adults in the theater during the 40's.
WB had better stop with this pimping (in the old definition) of Bugs' name.
It's as if some hacks had decided to rewrite "Taming of the Shrew" in pop/hip-hop in order to have Britany Spears be cast as Kate.
Posted by: Darleen | February 18, 2005 09:03 PM
Stop getting yourselves all worked up over this. Most of you will never watch it. It has no effect on the old cartoons you remember. Instead of bitching about how bad this is going to be, talk about how good the old stuff was.
We would, if we could FIND the old stuff, without the PC-minded butchering many of the cartoons have suffered.
cheshirecat
Posted by: cheshirecat | February 18, 2005 11:13 PM
i might watch it, but i doubt it. buzz bears a slight resemblance to the big green Jekyll-Bugs doesn't it.. p.s. I have a very old massmarket videotape of slowplay VERY un-p.c. cartoons from mid-40's & early 50s; this has several unedited WB cartoons that are just hysterical..
slightly OT but have you heard NHL just Might be back on? wish these f-kers would make up their minds, i want my Preds !!! ( as in Predators, yes we are a small franchise but that team introduced me to hockey & I love it.. )
Posted by: southernbelle | February 19, 2005 12:08 AM
Blasphemy!
Posted by: cleve | February 19, 2005 12:52 AM
Intoxicant of Choice
Bugs: Suds
Buzz: Meth
Nuff said.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | February 19, 2005 05:14 AM
Although I am a fan of Golden Age Looney Tunes, I am really not upset at all by this. The old, classic Looney Tunes are still around and will remain unaffected (on the excellent DVD sets)- there haven't been any good new LT short cartoons made for more than 30 years. These Warner animation guys keep trying to catch lightning in a bottle twice, and it just isn't going to happen. Their time has passed, and any attempt to recapture that kind of original magic/synergy is futile, always coming off forced - the end result being stuff like Space Jam.
Posted by: Kevin Parrott | February 19, 2005 04:13 PM
This is unbelievable. Aside from all the excellent points made above, there's also the fact that if this is actually successful to some degree, kids will grow up thinking THAT'S the real thing. It would be like growing up with Dippin' Dots and having never had real ice cream.
I'm a musician, and I experienced something similar (albeit on a smaller scale) with the STARZ movie channel commercials, which (ab)use the theme from the 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony. It really burned me up to think that today's kids aren't going to hear that joyous chorus and think, "Hey, that's Beethoven's 9th symphony!" Instead, they'll think "Hey, that's the STARZ channel song! 'Movies, movies, movies, movies, movies...' etc.
Posted by: John S. | February 19, 2005 09:28 PM
You know I was thinking about this today and wondered, why let a good name go to waste? They should call this new Bugs-based character "Efram, the retarded rabbit"
Posted by: PatrickH | February 20, 2005 02:56 AM
Eh...what's up with this doc? I don't think they're the loonatics, you are the atic...you psychos! @$$ hole
Posted by: Alzona Watson | February 20, 2005 10:06 AM
The new Bugs looks a lot like the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (ie the comic & the latest cartoon series).
Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge | February 20, 2005 01:20 PM
Pretty f*sking sad.
I'd rather that the cartoon be put back on ABC Sunday mornings as the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner show that is was in my childhood and be left alone. Bus doesn't need a revamp. The lessons apply regardless of the times. The idiots at WB simply need to understand that the audience they are targetting doesn't have to be the 15 year olds, but the 5 year olds.
How very, very sad.
Posted by: David Earney | February 20, 2005 02:13 PM
"Stop fucking with my childhood, please."
Amen sister.
Posted by: Garrett | February 22, 2005 04:33 PM
Okay. You guys are officially buying into the hype.
THIS IS NOT A REMAKE. It's all the characters' DECENDANTS in a future setting.
The spite and hate you are feeling are exactly what WB wants: interest, even if negative, in the show.
When I watch the new show, I'll be thinking: "Yakko, Wakko, Dot" not "Bugs, Taz, Daffy"
They're different characters. WB saying that they're "remakes" is a bunch of baloney. Bugs still exists. He's Buzz's great great great grandfather.
I am not a troll. I am asking for logic.
Posted by: Arthur J. Pearson | February 22, 2005 09:20 PM
I think now it is much better i am a guy who will really like the future we have to go on with life and make more interesting. We can not stick with the same thing forever. Well because people are voting against it you should make like a two show thing a show for the LOONATICS and the LOONEY TOONS. it would be a fair thing for everyone. i really love this new loonatics thing, good job guys i love it.HOT!!!!!!! Do not listen to bad comments from people do what you like sooner or later when the show loonatics goes on they will start liking it. You know it's just the begining of the show so they do not know what is packed for the future. follow your decisions and life stick with the loonatics
Posted by: Mathenge Wambugu | February 24, 2005 08:25 PM
"Was there an uproar against Tiny Toons?"
Dude - Bugs was still in it. So was Daffy and everyone else once in a while - they didn't turn Bugs into some wannabe vampire-hunter maroon!!
Argh! I feel like crying. This is like Disney turning Goofy into a suave, SHARP-WITTED detective. It's just not right! Evil evil evil! beats random person with a stick Wrong! So very WRONG!
...Wah.
Posted by: Loki | February 25, 2005 10:24 AM
i think this new 'makeover' is disgusting!
however, i have un-confirmed news that the re-designs have been re-designed in responce to the massive uproar. still looking for the evidence though...
Posted by: half-dark | June 7, 2005 07:59 PM