The worst Looney Tunes cartoons ever made

[P.C. Unfunny]

http://classicanimation.blogspot.com/2006/06/worst-looney-tunes-ever.html

On Thad K's Animation ID blog he has put up the most loathesome Looney Tunes shorts ever made, namely,the recent shorts directed by Larry Doyle. If there is a sign of the Looney Tunes no longer having any competent direction, this is it. These shorts are badly timed,written,drawn,animated,the music would make Carl Stalling roll in his grave, and the voices are annoyingly sped up.

[starlac]

You can see why Warner’s didn't want to release these shorts can't you (at least in the USA, see below)? Since they never got a theatrical release I can safety say that they aren’t likely to find themselves added to the site, because of lacking that certain criteria.

I do wonder what they (the production team) were thinking when they sped the voices up; especially when voice actors like Joe Alaskey are quite competent unaided; they even sped up Granny's voice, and that's done by June Foray, June Foray! :irked:

Mind you, you wonder what possesses someone to make shorts this bad in the first place; this however is easier to answer.

I also wonder what Doctor Zoidberg from Futurama was doing on the council on the Duck Dodger's one! Did whoever made that one spend the money on licensing?

Without the knowledge of comic timing that the originals enjoyed (by virtue of their directors, animators), anything of this nature is pretty much doomed to failure from the start. Add to that some rather dismal writing and abysmal setups anyway and you have recipe for acute disaster. Though, I’ll admit the French surrender gag did make me smile for a second as well.

Like some of those comments state, the shorts do take an overtly violent approach to their stories, especially poor Porky, what did he ever do, offend the director? Besides the whole of that short’s plot seems to have been stolen from A Goofy Movie, only without a Goofy to make it bearable.

This is what happens when you say bye-bye to good, old-fashioned storyboards that can be turned into say an animatic (for, I dunno, timing) and hello to standardised P.C. scripts.

I saw a DVD compilation of these so-called shorts in the high-street shops, but avoiding it like the plague, the words “Brand New” with “Looney Tunes” never ones that do well with me; that and the fact that I was able to watch them on the video screen anyhow (with audio). Both those factors played a part in making me look elsewhere on the shelves.

The old phrase: "You get what you paid for" springs to mind.

[P.C. Unfunny]

You can see why Warner’s didn't want to release these shorts can't you (at least in the USA, see below)? Since they never got a theatrical release I can safety say that they aren’t likely to find themselves added to the site, because of lacking that certain criteria.

With crap like this I am,unfortunetly,seeing why the Loonitics were made in the first place.



I do wonder what they (the production team) were thinking when they sped the voices up; especially when voice actors like Joe Alaskey are quite competent unaided; they even sped up Granny's voice, and that's done by June Foray, June Foray! :irked:

What can I say ? It's a mystery. They had legend in there cast and they managed to f*** up her voice.


Without the knowledge of comic timing that the originals enjoyed (by virtue of their directors, animators), anything of this nature is pretty much doomed to failure from the start. Add to that some rather dismal writing and abysmal setups anyway and you have recipe for acute disaster. Though, I’ll admit the French surrender gag did make me smile for a second as well.

Thad said these are the same people who wrote and directed for "The Simpsons" ,"Futurama", and *ugh* "Family Guy". You can't employ people that work on shows that focus far more on tiolet humor and dialogue then good animation and clean sight gags.

Like some of those comments state, the shorts do take an overtly violent approach to their stories, especially poor Porky, what did he ever do, offend the director?

I agree,every other minute in thes shorts someone gets hurt for pretty much for no reason. I know the old LT shorts had a ton of violence, but the old directors would hurt a character for a reason,not randomly. Also, what was with all those disgusting gags ? Like in "Muesuem Scream", Sylvester went through that simulation of the human digestive system or those chickens in "Cock-a-doodle duel" laying eggs in most distastful manner possible. Don't get me worng, I don't mind gross out gags but not in the Looney Tunes.

Besides the whole of that short’s plot seems to have been stolen from A Goofy Movie, only without a Goofy to make it bearable.

LOL ! I just noticed that ! Good observation !

This is what happens when you say bye-bye to good, old-fashioned storyboards that can be turned into say an animatic (for, I dunno, timing) and hello to standardised P.C. scripts.

Another problem, people using scripts to make these cartoons.Micheal Maltese and other classic LT "writers" barely wrote, they actually drew more.


I saw a DVD compilation of these so-called shorts in the high-street shops, but avoiding it like the plague, the words “Brand New” with “Looney Tunes” never ones that do well with me; that and the fact that I was able to watch them on the video screen anyhow (with audio). Both those factors played a part in making me look elsewhere on the shelves.

The old phrase: "You get what you paid for" springs to mind.


I am afraid they are ones even worse on this on DVD. There is a compilation of flash animated Looney Tunes entitled "Reality Check", I saw only about a few minutes of one of the cartoons on the net and then turned it off in disgust.

[Lucky_Bob]

The Porky one was awful. Both animation and story-wise.

Both the Tweety and Daffy ones had potential. The Daffy one was fairly decent, the Tweety one wasn't so much.

I'll watch the rest soon.

James

[starlac]

There is a compilation of flash animated Looney Tunes entitled "Reality Check",

That one was sitting right next door to the one with these on. I decided against both of them.

The real strange thing was, as far as I can remember, these were exclusive to that store chain (HMV), along with other Warner items. I wonder if they ever imagined that they'd have exclusive rights to sell stuff of such low quality, although given that shops have little interest in stuff as long as it's selling I wouldn't figure they did.

I did pick up the compete* DVD sets of chronological Tom & Jerry cartoons there though, even if I found six episodes were edited (luckily ones which I already had unedited on VHS and 6 out of 157 isn't a bad record). Cause that includes all 13 of those really terrible ones Gene Deitch made in Czechoslovakia in the early sixties (Deitch's T&J shorts make some of those Looney Tunes look professional). :yuck:

This caused me a bit of interest of late because of when I looked at Spotlight collections (in order to see what shorts I could add merchandise for when profiling) that were released in the US, which volumes seem to consist of cherry-picked episodes, rather than in order. I can understand doing this a bit more for the Looney Tunes, which thanks to the sheer number of shorts they made, would take forever to get to the later ones if released chronologically. But the Tom and Jerry’s shorts weren’t quite that high in numbers, mostly due to the fact that MGM made lesser demands for the annual shorts quotas.

*Minus Millionaire Cat for who only knows why. I can't remember that one having anything in the least bit objectionable in it.

The Porky one was awful. Both animation and story-wise.

That Porky short almost made me skip the others, I only continued watching on the basis of morbid curiosity.

[lupercal]

It's interesting. Both Simpsons/Futurama and vintage Warner are regarded as classic, but apparently the new animators can't do the old style. Is this because they have no comic timing or have lost the art of animating? Perhaps, and perhaps not. The comic timing in Simpsons and Futurama is heavily centered around cuts and editing, combined with dialog (i.e. Simpons and Futurama have a lot of cuts compared with old cartoons, and they are centered around punch-lines). In the old days it was centered around character animation. The timing of an expression on a character's face in response to something that happened, for example. To put it another way - is Futurama unfunny? Certainly not, IMO. But the humour comes from a different technique.

Also I'd argue that shows like Futurama have far more funny lines than classic Warner. It's no contest. The comedy is coming far more from the writing and editing than from the visuals.

Loop

[P.C. Unfunny]

It's interesting. Both Simpsons/Futurama and vintage Warner are regarded as classic, but apparently the new animators can't do the old style. Is this because they have no comic timing or have lost the art of animating? Perhaps, and perhaps not. The comic timing in Simpsons and Futurama is heavily centered around cuts and editing, combined with dialog (i.e. Simpons and Futurama have a lot of cuts compared with old cartoons, and they are centered around punch-lines). In the old days it was centered around character animation. The timing of an expression on a character's face in response to something that happened, for example. To put it another way - is Futurama unfunny? Certainly not, IMO. But the humour comes from a different technique.

I agree with what you have wrote, which is why it baffles me as to why the WB hired people who work on these shows. They should have hired someone like John Kricfalusi or made David Feiss in charge .

Also I'd argue that shows like Futurama have far more funny lines than classic Warner. It's no contest. The comedy is coming far more from the writing and editing than from the visuals.

Loop

Of course Futurama had more funny lines,Looney Tunes was far more about the animation and sight gags and far less about dialogue. I love Futurama but that type of humor dosen't fly for the Looney Tunes.