Ted Turner wants Cartoon Network back…

…but that ain’t gonna happen, though part of me wishes it could.

Turner made this statement in an interview today with Bloomberg News. Unfortunately Ted would remove Superman and run Captain Planet in prime time. But at least he’d return cartoons to the channel.

Watch the video of Turner’s statement here.


  • http://www.iheartdan.com Dan Pinto

    Remember though, this is the same guy who censored old cartoons. not only those depicting racial stereotypes but, also, smoking and intense violence. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

  • Mike Fontanelli

    Which one’s Ted? That’s the most expressive I’ve ever seen him.

  • Kyle Maloney Rap

    Pick your battles though, would you rather have censored looney tunes over no lunes? I know I would.

    Though I cant say I’d watch Captain Planet once the nastalgia wore off. it just wasn’t that good of a show, and now that Im an adult, I now know it was full of lies. Then again I didn’t like superman either.

  • Chris Sobieniak

    God I wanted to forget Captain Planet for the longest!

  • victoria

    CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!

  • stavner

    I thought there were still cartoons on CN.

  • http://yeldarb86.deviantart.com Mr. Semaj

    CAPTAIN PLANET!

  • Iritscen

    Am I the only one who isn’t finding any relevant information at the two links in this blog post? Both lead to a short article without a mention of Cartoon Network… what am I missing?

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com FP

    Remove Superman? I thought one of the Disney channels was running that now.

    Captain Planet is one of the few cartoons that’s as bad as the new CN “reality” shows.

  • http://invaderpetblog.blogspot.com Brandon

    Why doesn’t he just make a new 24 hour cartoon network?

    I still think Turner looks like Dick Van Dyke.

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    Hey Dan—I want uncensored cartoons on DVD for adult fans like myself.
    I don’t realistically expect, however, that they’re ever going to be shown unedited during kids’ daytime viewing hours on a national network, even under the most lax of circumstances. If that’s your crusade, expect to be disappointed.

  • Mesterius

    And let’s not forget all those fantastically COLORED versions of cartoon classics done in the 1990s! Because, as we all know, people will never bother watching a cartoon in black and white.

  • top cat james

    Oh good, maybe he could colorize some more Popeyes.

  • Mike Russo

    And yet…everybody on certain message boards are acting like this is something that’s actually possible.

    Sad.

  • zimbach

    @Mike Russo: When some people are terribly depressed by the current state of affairs, they sometimes see any suggested glimmer of hope for change as change for the better.

    Yes, it is sad, but a sadness bred by a deeper sadness.

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com FP

    Remember when Turner colorized the Fleischer Popeyes? 1988, maybe? The options were:
    â–ºHave captive Koreans laboriously hand-retrace each cartoon frame-by-frame, throwing out much of the original animation, destroying 3D photographic backgrounds, mis-registering panning backgrounds, and in general raping the cartoons up the poo area, cost $750 per minute?
    â–ºUse the then-new digital coloring process, which completely preserves the original inking and original animation backgrounds, cost $1500 per minute?
    Turner went cheap.

    Why is he qualified to run a cartoon channel again?

  • http://www.hunteachother.com Max W.

    There are a few good animated cartoons on CN right now, Chowder (although canceled) and Flapjack, two of which NEVER get written about on this site. Maybe write about the good things sometimes? Because apparently people don’t know they exist otherwise.

  • Marc Baker

    I have mixed feelings about the having Ted back in charge of Cartoon Network again. We all know that ‘Captain Planet’ was nothing more than environmentalist pap that doesn’t hold up well, (Nor is Captain Planet nearly as iconic as Superman.) but at least the network was more fun to watch with a great lineup of classic, guilty pleasures, and introduced us to great new characters, like Dexter, Johnny Bravo, and The Powerpuff Girls. While it’s highly doubtful that classic cartoons would ever be shown uncut on broadcast tv anytime soon, i would bet that Turner would get rid of the ‘reality’ crap that currently pollutes the network. Anyways, after seeing that image of Ted with Captain Planet, i can’t help but bring up this ‘Robot Chicken’ sketch.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZhvJ4jSO2g&feature=related

  • http://invaderpetblog.blogspot.com Brandon

    BTW, after finally knowing what Ted Turner’s voice sounds like, I am fully convinced that Ron Pearlman’s character in “Looney Tunes Back in Action” was meant to be a caricature of Turner.

  • http://www.onanimation.com Daniel Caylor

    LOL @ FP’s post

  • TBD

    Looney Tunes aren’t on CN anymore because they are ANCIENT. Jesus! We have this same discussion constantly here. Kids do not relate to these technicolor fossils, period. I don’t care how many old fogies on this board will respond that their great, great, great grandchildren love Bugs and Daffy and want to be Foghorn Leghorn for Halloween. First, I don’t believe those characters are as close to kids’ hearts as Ben 10 and Hannah Montana. Second, Looney Tunes will not save the network. There have to be huge decisions made to create new content, and the very best of it was mishandled even a few years ago in the good old days of CN. Shows like Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends were allowed to exist at the level of “soft hits” instead of being nurtured into Power Puff Girls mega hits through poor scheduling and clumsy promotion. CN’s problems start at the root level.

    I just cannot believe people think that bringing back sixty year old cartoons are the direction a children’s network needs to thrive. The lack of imagination of the average cartoon fan is breathtaking. Left to their own devices, most people in the animation industry couldn’t come up with a truly appealing original thought to save their lives- or their livelihoods.

  • David Breneman

    As a friend of mine used to say about dubious celebrities of the past who suddenly turn up in the press again:

    Ted Turner?! Isn’t he dead yet?

  • Joel Strewth

    “Protect the environment, or I’ll f**king kill you! CAPTAIN PLANET!!!!!!”

  • DanO

    I actually used to get hired wear that Captain Planet costume for various events when I lived in Atlanta. A hotter, smellier costume you will not find. And yet, I get misty seeing it’s creepy face again.

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    TBD: Glad to see you here, Mr. Kellner. Watch out for that tomato volley.

    IMHO—a well-chosen hour-long show of genuinely good Looney Tunes, marketed under the Bugs Bunny (not Looney Tunes) umbrella, would do just fine. It wouldn’t be CN’s biggest hit but it would be a reliable evergreen; just like Tom and Jerry, who continue to air there daily.

    What wouldn’t work is an hour of entirely random Looney Tunes picks, including 1930s sing-alongs and condescendingly dumb 1960s cartoons. Unfortunately, rooting that stuff out would require someone in a position of power to actually watch the shorts, which I can’t see happening.

  • http://invaderpetblog.blogspot.com Brandon

    TBD, how many kids do you think would presume Looney Tunes as old, if the parents don’t tell them it’s old?

  • Marbles

    TBD:

    “Looney Tunes aren’t on CN anymore because they are ANCIENT. Jesus! We have this same discussion constantly here. Kids do not relate to these technicolor fossils, period.”

    What?

    Then explain why the Warner Bros. cartoons remained consistently popular for the 57 years they were readily available on TV.
    Those “fossils” existed side by side with modern material right up until 2003 and they always held their own. Upon what evidence are you basing the assertion that kids don’t “relate” to them anymore?

  • Mesterius

    TBD:
    “Looney Tunes aren’t on CN anymore because they are ANCIENT. (…) Kids do not relate to these technicolor fossils, period.”

    Such a statement is wrong on so many levels. First of all, Looney Tunes has been a successful staple on kids’ television from the early 1960s. They were already old in the 80s and 90s. And they still aired to great ratings – until Cartoon Network gradually began phasing them out. From what I’ve heard, this was due to quarrelling between CN and Warner Brothers much more than it had to do with the Looney Tunes’ ratings. Around 2002, WB made a deal with CN to be the only channel to air Looney Tunes (which is why they stopped running in syndicated form on ABC etc.). Because of a money quarrel regarding some other property (think it was Scooby Doo or something), CN decided to get back on Warners by down-playing Looney Tunes. The really stupid side of all this is that Warner Brothers couldn’t sell Bugs Bunny to any other station, since they were still under a several-years-long contract with CN. And by the time that contract expired, Looney Tunes had been off regular TV screenings for so long that broadcasters assumed they were not popular with kids anymore.

    But you know what? Kids who actually get a chance to know these characters still love them. Kids loved watching these cartoons 50-60 years after they were originally created. In spite of details dating them (like details dating cartoons made ten years ago, for that matter), there is still so much about the Looney Tunes that is completely timeless. So don’t try and make me believe that kids – or audiences of today in general – can’t relate to them.

    Also:
    “I don’t believe those characters are as close to kids’ hearts as Ben 10 and Hannah Montana.”
    Well, for one thing that’s because Disney channel airs Hannah Montana all day, and Cartoon Network has aired less and less Looney Tunes for the past six to seven years. At the same time, CN has tried to rip off Disney Channel’s success, with disastrous results. Ben 10, incidentally, is one of the only hits they’ve got right now; and even that doesn’t feel particularly unique. Cartoon Network should get back to what they used to do best – cartoons. Just because kids like Hannah Montana, that doesn’t necessarily mean they want to watch Hannah Montana-styled shows on every channel. Looney Tunes is naturally a fresh alternative from that. Why shouldn’t they be able to like two different brands?

    And even if it doesn’t look like it these days, pure quality does have something to say in the long run. Looney Tunes was great fifty years ago and is great today. Hannah Montana is crap today and will be crap in fifty years.

  • TBD

    Marbles, Brandon, if these cartoons haven’t aged, would you care to explain the failure of every Bugs and Looney enterprise for the last twenty years? I think that kids might get the idea that Looney Tunes are old when jokes about meat rationing, Humphrey Bogart and Switchboard operators, murphy beds, telegrams, false shirt fronts, newsreels, Clark Gable and other dated references come up constantly. They were out of touch when I was a kid, and they’re not getting any fresher. I watched LT cartoons with a nine-year old recently, and she asked me questions about almost every object, event and character that showed up throughout the entirety of every cartoon. I explained what a fireplace bellows was and what it was for, explained who Mr. Christian was and what Mutiny on the Bounty was about. Running boards on cars, flagpole sitters, why Bugs wears a hat covered in fruit! Forget Peter Lorre- f*cking Ed Wynn has a walk-on in an old LT show. How can you say kids would be into these old things? I mean, I love them, but I’m an animation geek, and I’m no kid. There is very little to draw a child into watching them. Sorry, but it’s true. Remember, these cartoons were not created for kids in the first place.

    David: I’ll agree that a half hour Bugs titled show might prove to be modestly successful, but not much more than modestly successful, as it would appeal to the same crowd of adults that have seen them all dozens of times. I myself love these cartoons. The dvd boxes of Looney Tunes in my collection are with the animation disks, but could just as easily be set aside in with my Ken Burns documentaries or with old WB movies of their era. It’s a push.

    After the failure of LTBIA, Duck Dodgers, and the Warner Stores, to mention only a few Looney projects to tank in the last decade or so, saying that these properties- even just these characters and cartoons- are evergreen is delusional. Without major work on them as properties we’re going to watch Porky Pig go the way of the Dodo. None of us wants that, but we get caught up in arguing about something like the Loonatics show instead of discussing the real problem with the franchise. Lately the Looney Tunes place in the world seems more like an animation museum, not a living, cartoon enterprise.

    Mesterious, quality has got ZERO to do with what kids like. Scooby Doo is shit, utter shit, and has been incredibly popular for four decades now. Hannah Montana might be awful, but she’s speaking to kids on some level that only very savvy programmers can access. Notice I didn’t say “creative geniuses”. Seeing live action- well, seeing anything at all as being the enemy here instead of working to create cartoon entertainment for kids instead of forcing them to laugh at old radio characters animated as chickens in the forties- well, if seems counter-productive to me.

  • Paul Penna

    You know what? When I first started watching cartoons on TV in 1952, virtually all the cultural references in them were already dated THEN, and went completely past me. But they were FUNNY, just like the rest of their content. Occasionally, I’d ask my folks about someone or something, but that didn’t make them any funnier. Finding out that the Ed Wynn caricature was based on some guy who used to be on the radio didn’t make me laugh any harder; being silly-looking and sounding was enough. I didn’t know anything about WWII rationing, but it was enough to know that the devious gremlin came up with something to make Bugs’ (or that crazy Adolf guy’s) plane run out of gas and make for a good gag. Let’s give kids some credit for being able to recognize funny when they see it.

  • Chris Sobieniak

    > Marbles, Brandon, if these cartoons haven’t aged, would you care to explain the failure of every Bugs and Looney enterprise for the last twenty years? I think that kids might get the idea that Looney Tunes are old when jokes about meat rationing, Humphrey Bogart and Switchboard operators, murphy beds, telegrams, false shirt fronts, newsreels, Clark Gable and other dated references come up constantly. They were out of touch when I was a kid, and they’re not getting any fresher.

    Like milk deliveries? ^_^

    > I watched LT cartoons with a nine-year old recently, and she asked me questions about almost every object, event and character that showed up throughout the entirety of every cartoon. I explained what a fireplace bellows was and what it was for, explained who Mr. Christian was and what Mutiny on the Bounty was about. Running boards on cars, flagpole sitters, why Bugs wears a hat covered in fruit! Forget Peter Lorre- f*cking Ed Wynn has a walk-on in an old LT show. How can you say kids would be into these old things? I mean, I love them, but I’m an animation geek, and I’m no kid.

    But isn’t this why you’re a parent in the first place TBD? I know when I had a question to ask my mom, she’d tell me anyway, that’s is called doing your job. I’d rather your kids were getting the answers from you than the boob tube any day.

    > There is very little to draw a child into watching them. Sorry, but it’s true. Remember, these cartoons were not created for kids in the first place.

    Despite being shoved at us for the latter half of the 20th century.

    Oh, and thanks for making me feel OLD now.

  • http://invaderpetblog.blogspot.com Brandon

    TBA, there are many LT shorts out there that do not contain any dated references. Mostly from the 50s. Kids could easily watch those without having to ask their parents any questions.

    Besides, if there was a gag I didn’t get, and my dad had to explain it referred to something from years ago (like WWII, or a certain celebrity like Jack Benny), it didn’t make me think, “Wow these cartoons are old, I hate them!” All I did was, you know… keep watching them.

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    TBD: I’m not going to spend a lot of time arguing over here.

    “…failure of every Bugs and Looney enterprise for the last twenty years”? Twenty years? Twenty? Regardless of how I may dislike it, SPACE JAM was a moderate hit in its day ($230,418,342 worldwide gross from the first report I found), and Looney Tunes programs on ABC and Nick were ratings blockbusters until Warner forcibly took them away from them.

    The WB Studio Stores, it’s true, were in trouble by the end of the 1990s. But in 1996, they were unabashedly successful. Later, they were victims of non-Looney-specific self-inflicted wounds: the need to push Warners’ unsuccessful original features (THE KING AND I, QUEST FOR CAMELOT), and a bad decision to overmarket preschool Scooby-Doo and Tweety product for short-term profits—at the expense of the stores’ long-term appeal to older kids and adults.

    Now let’s look at the 2000s:

    BACK IN ACTION: regardless of its strengths or weaknesses, terribly advertised—with minimal cross-promotion on CN, which by this time was deep in its feud with WB and actively sidelining the brand.
    DUCK DODGERS: if this “tanked,” then how did it last three seasons? Wouldn’t one have been enough? Not saying it was a runaway success, but no failure either.
    The Looney Tunes DVD releases have done fine; more recent releases, less so—but it’s easy to see across-the-board diminishing returns for all major studio DVDs over the last couple of years.

    My final suggestion: look at Canada. Looney Tunes cartoons remain a kids’ TV staple there and the brand/characters are as popular as ever. At this point, they will always have the advantage of continuity there: they’ve never been off the air.
    But their success there scotches the idea that they simply don’t appeal to modern kids.

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    Damn, I guess I DID spend a lot of time arguing over here.

  • http://invaderpetblog.blogspot.com Brandon

    You still made valid points David. I had forgotten that Looney Tunes still air in Canada. Lucky Canadians.

  • TBD

    I give up. Okay, you guys are right. What kids want is to sit and be confused and ask questions throughout cartoons and have jokes explained to them.

    It’s amazing how any time anyone has a differing opinion here- even an opinion that is in agreement regarding the quality of the work being discussed, that that dissenting opinion must be shouted down lest a new foreign idea enter the dialog. OK- You’re right. Why don’t we make more cartoons about the flapper era? Kids could ask questions and learn about raccoon coats and dance marathons. It’s a great way to teach kids things they don’t need to know. We’ll bait and switch them! I see the error of my opinion now. I agree. I’m off to watch a cartoon about Eddie Cantor at the Brown Derby. Better call the kids around, they’ll be interested in seeing if Porky Pig can get his flivver in running order.

  • Mesterius

    Glad you did spend the time, David. You saved me some time writing much of the same replies;)

    TDB:
    “Quality has got ZERO to do with what kids like. Scooby Doo is shit, utter shit, and has been incredibly popular for four decades now.”

    So what?

    The Looney Tunes was an incredible ratings success with kids for about FIVE decades – all up until Warners forcibly removed them from syndication and got into the unfortunate solo deal with CN. If this (and David’s very good point about Canada, for instance) isn’t enough proof for you, how about I give you my childhood experiences of the Looney Tunes:

    When I was a kid (and this was BEFORE I became a serious animation geek), Scooby Doo and the like always seemed boring and unappealing compared to the Looney Tunes. Bugs and company had better characters, funnier slapstick, stories, animation, everything. Scooby Doo was a brain-dead, wimpy dog ending every episode with a shameless ad for his Scooby snacks. But whenever classic Looney Tunes from the 40s and the 50s were showing, I knew what channel to be on. I didn’t reflect much about “quality”, nor did I know much about how old they were, but I always had some feeling that these toons had something more to them than much of the newer stuff. I simply enjoyed watching them.

    You’re saying that quality has zero to do with what kids like. Yes, to some extent I can agree. But why on earth should that prevent them from liking something that’s actually good?

    You’re making it sound like since small kids don’t think too much about quality, they’re just bound to like the crappiest product the most. I’m willing to bet that many (not all, but many) would like Looney Tunes just as much as Scooby etc. (or more) if the toons were brought back in kids’ viewing hours. It would take a little time, seeing that they’ve been off the air for a while, but I still believe it would happen.

  • Brad Bird

    The “failure of every Bugs and Looney enterprise for the last twenty years” (only 20?) is caused by two very simple reasons–
    1) The original cartoons were created in an environment where NO ONE WAS PAYING ATTENTION. As long as Warner’s (or any competing studios) animation department created the cartoons within established parameters (on schedule, on budget, each at its correct length, within the code, etc), the division was LEFT ALONE… and hence were allowed to be funny, irreverent, surreal– all the things we revere about LOONEY TUNES.
    These same characters are now considered franchises, which means they (and the system that created them) are now micromanaged within an inch of their animated lives, systematically removing everything that made them great in much the same way that over-processing food removes everything nutritious.
    2) No one is encouraged to create NEW characters with the same sort of budgets and schedules that would allow new animation to made on the same level as the great Warners, MGM, or Disney shorts of the thirties, forties or fifties. It’s either the brutal schedules of television (necessitating overseas production) or the long story requirements of animated features, which demand a different aesthetic.
    Visual humor on the level of a great LOONEY TUNES needs more time than TV production demands allow, and would be suffocated by the demands of a feature.
    Until some studio figures out how to recreate a friendly environment for this very particular art form (and that it is in their financial interests to do so) comedic character animated shorts will have to come into being as they currently do; as infrequent, minor miracles.

  • http://ryuuseipro.deviantart.com John Paul Cassidy

    Superman? On Cartoon Network!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Try again, Ted…

    I’d try against Batman, not Superman. Batman gets far too much exposure, and there’s zero Superman-anything on CN.

  • Tom D

    What “Brad Bird” said.

  • http://www.theguysperspective.typepad.com THE GUYS

    Ted should just do what everyone else is doing and release a Vampire series. Animated would be even cooler!

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    TBD: “It’s amazing how any time anyone has a differing opinion here— even an opinion that is in agreement regarding the quality of the work being discussed, that that dissenting opinion must be shouted down lest a new foreign idea enter the dialog.”

    Foreign idea? The disproven canard that the Looney Tunes were unsuccessful as early as the 1990s, have been rejected by kids, and were rejected specifically for being full of dated cultural references, is hardly foreign or new to me.
    It’s been thrown at me (and others) by the suits who damaged the brand in the years following 1996, usually in a direct effort to protect their own backsides after the provably damaging decisions they made.

    I put down this canard, when the suits threw it, by bringing up the facts that I’ve brought up here. And I’ll do it again.

    Here’s another fact that I’ve mentioned at the Brew before: the fall 2007 poll by Kidscreen—the leading children’s TV industry journal—revealed that without any kind of prompting, both boys and girls 8-11 named Bugs Bunny among their top five favorite cartoon characters. Bugs was also a winner among boys 12-15.
    Tweety placed with girls 12-15 only. Tom and Jerry (as a unit) were top five with the same sectors that included Bugs. Scooby was in nobody’s top five.

  • stavner

    TBD: the weird thing is, the guys at Termite Terrace usually didn’t put topical references in their cartoons. The solution is, to not show the most dated cartoons.

    David: maybe the Internet would be the best place for old-style comedic shorts, like “Thomas Timberwolf” or “Happy Tree Friends”?

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com FP

    Re:
    –Thomas Timberwolf”–

    Gee, thanks for reminding me that exists.

  • Mandy

    TBD-

    We’re a result of our environment. I grew up on Looney Tunes in the early 90s. I kept watching them because they were funny. What’s great about them is there are a lot of jokes for kids in them, but there’s something for the adults to laugh about as well. By the early 90s, the stuff I was watching on Cartoon Network was 50 years old. If Cartoon Network starts airing Looney Tunes and Tex Avery cartoons on a regular basis again there is no doubt kids aren’t going to watch it.

    Wasn’t this post about Captain Planet?

  • http://ramapithblog.blogspot.com David Gerstein

    Mandy, given the rest of your argument, I think you mean “…there is no doubt kids ARE going to watch it.” (-:

    Stavner, interesting thing about “Thomas Timberwolf”: the moment Jones died was the moment Warner cancelled it, to the point where several completed, unaired episodes (including a two-parter titled MONEY TREE) were shelved.
    New Looney Tunes character content for the Web has also come and gone, regardless of quality.
    So while I might like to see Warner make new shorts for the web, it’s just not something they seem able to agree on.

  • Mesterius

    TBD: I’m glad you finally took a mature standpoint and realized who’s right;)

    Still… even if Warner can’t agree to make new Looney Tunes shorts for the web (which I always thought was beneath the Looney Tunes’ diginity at least in terms of pure animation quality, even though some had enjoyable moments), it does seem like they are lashing back into television. According to relatively reliable sources, the new Looney Tunes TV series “Laff Riot” is supposed to be out sometime next year. And, y’know, maybe – just MAYBE – if this show is good, and does well; it might help networks realize that there really is a TV market for the classic Bugs Bunny shorts.

    Anyone heard anything more specific about the new series?

  • Randy

    Hey I just want Toonami back With Great Anime

  • http://Youtube.com Shawn grove

    Ted Turner should get cartoon Network back again because guys you know what the Cartoon Network head president is doing he is ruining the channel he trying to remove all Classic and good cartoons from Cartoonnetwork and Boomerang and replacing them with boring reatliy shows that he gets cheap he also buying cheap cartoons that have bad words in them bad body parts in them showing our kids today heck we should all let Ted Turner get Cartoonnetwork back and fire the head priesdent and get someone that cares about the kids and cartoons not someone that only cares about money and life.

    old cartoonnetwork fan 1997-2006

  • http://Youtube.com Shawn grove

    Ted Turner should get cartoon Network back again because guys you know what the Cartoon Network head president is doing he is ruining the channel he trying to remove all Classic and good cartoons from Cartoonnetwork and Boomerang and replacing them with boring reatliy shows that he gets cheap he also buying cheap cartoons that have bad words in them bad body parts in them showing our kids today heck we should all let Ted Turner get Cartoonnetwork back and fire the head priesdent and get someone that cares about the kids and cartoons not someone that only cares about money and life.

  • Gregory Smith

    Ted Turner should buy Turner Broadcasting back from Time-Warner and everything related to Turner Broadcasting(TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Boomerang, Cartoon Network Studios, Williams Street, TCM), Castle Rock, New Line Cinema, Hanna-Barbera, Turner Entertainment(the pre-May 1986 MGM library, the 1994 film That’s Entertainment! III, the RKO library, the a.a.p. library(the pre-1950 Warner Bros. features, the pre-September 1948 WB shorts, the pre-August 1948 Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies color cartoons, the Fleischer/Famous Studios Popeye cartoons, and the Harman-Ising Merrie Melodies except Lady Play Your Mandolin), Gilligan’s Island, The New Adventures of Gilligan, Gilligan’s Planet, the 1975 documentary Bugs Bunny: Superstar, the Turner Pictures library including Gettysburg, Fallen, Tom and Jerry: The Movie, In Search of Dr. Seuss, Cats Don’t Dance, and the international rights to The Pagemaster, Captain Planet, and the Hanna-Barbera and pre-1991 Ruby-Spears cartoons except the Super Friends cartoons and spin-offs, The Dukes, Police Academy, and the 1988 Superman cartoons), The Powerpuff Girls Movie, and cartoons made by Warner Bros. Television Animation that are based on Tom and Jerry and Scooby-Doo, not included are live-action movies based on Tom and Jerry and various Hanna-Barbera characters.