Looney Tunes CG Fail Looney Tunes CG Fail

Looney Tunes CG Fail

The shape of things to come? Let’s hope not – an ad for McDonald’s from France:

(Thanks, Kurtis Findlay)

  • Ron

    The animation isn’t bad. Was it done by the Israeli studio that’s doing the CG segments of the new Looney Tunes show? The real problem with this commercial is the overall concept. Bugs just standing there is a major waste. Somehow, he should’ve been the star of the commercial who gets the best of daffy- and tie in happy meals some other way. Maybe Bugs shouldn’t have been in the commercial at all- and then come out of the Happy Meal box at the end. Just a thought.

  • I don’t know, that’s actually pretty well-animated and modeled. Much better than any of the 3D Road Runner/Coyote stuff, anyway.

  • Deaniac

    So exactly what was wrong with this? I thought the character animation was fine. Looney Tunes in CGI is no easy task.

    But really, this has GOT to be more visually pleasing than that live action/CG Bugs Bunny movie WB wants to make. I’ll give them that.

  • Toonio

    For a commercial is pretty fair. The only thing this proves is the design rules for 2D might not be 100% transferable to 3D. Guess we need to start re-inventing CGI characters as the Looney Tunes re-invented cartoons.

  • Why are we positioned so far away from the action? This is also a problem with what I’ve seen of the Looney Tunes Show segments, and enhances the “1990s video game cutscene” appearance of the material. I have no objection to CG in theory, but why shoddy CG with no breakout appeal? So an exec can tell us later that the characters don’t sell?

    That said, I’d never agree to a contract where my brand is upstaged by a humanized version of the sponsor’s product.

  • Jorge Garrido

    These look independent of the new CN show… they don’t look like Jess Borutski’s designs.

    • Deaniac

      That’s because it’s a commercial unafilliated with the upcoming LT show.

      • Jorge Garrido

        That’s because it’s independent of the new CN show.

  • The actions all happen at the same time in wide shots. Nothing reads clearly because it’s all happening at once all over the frame. If this is good, I’d hate to see what bad looks like.

  • Autumn

    At least this is done in their original style, and not the new designs.

    This wasn’t as horrid as I thought it would be.

  • David Breneman

    I can see why some find this poor animation and others don’t. This looks like something done by CG Guys trying to animate, rather than by Animators using GC. This is the same mindset that back in the 80s brought us titles flying through space until they hit an invisible wall, the bounced back totally unnaturally from the camera. I used to edit a TV show with a guy who didn’t see anything wrong with that. “It goes for a while in one direction then starts going in another direction. It’s moving through space.” “Yeah?” Sez I, “Describe to me something in the physical world that moves through space LIKE THAT.” OK, rant over…

  • Well, at least the Looney Tunes are back where they belong — playing basketball!

    • That’s what I thought, what’s with Looney Tunes and Basketball?? let’s leave that back in the 90s! please!.

      sorry, about the tecnical stuff I dont think this is a FAIL

  • Finally, ANOTHER French Looney Tunes character to join Pepé Le Pew. Hervé Happy Meal. I think this guy is gonna catch on like ’90s Taz.

  • Lucille

    Many tv directors think that everything shown in 16 X 9 widescreen should be staged in long shot mode. Time will tell if they are right or if this stuff will be laughable in a few short years.

    • David Breneman

      Makes sense if you’re watching it in Cinemascope on a giant screen. It’s totally silly for a tiny web video image.

      • Jorge Garrido

        This isn’t a web video image, it’s a tv commercial. Furthermore, if they had shot it in close-ups, people would have complained that they weren’t enough like Looney Tunes because they were always shot in far shots (or at least composed so you could see most of the body) because they were meant to be seen in theatres.

  • *Some* of the animation is good. Some of it isn’t, and some of the poses are off, and as discussed the wide shots aren’t great. I think where some of the animation is lacking was probably due to budget constraints and if that’s true, at least they picked the right points to prioritise.

    I think it’s the last shot that does it for me. Bugs is frozen, a no-no in CG, and most of the actions don’t read. Again though, time might have just ran out.

    Overall, this could be a LOT worse, and is a fair effort for a commercial. If the animation was improved just a notch, I’d be happy to watch this for 7 minutes.

  • holyduck

    I hoped those were not the original actors from the new show playing their characters here- they don’t match at all! … only until the end came did I realize it’s a French commercial!

  • Peter H

    At least the modelling was based on the traditional characters. Unfortunately the poses and the staging of the action were weak. You can see from the still that their anatomical posture is all wrong – they would never have been drawn standing like that.

  • Gummo

    The staging may be ugly, but I agree with Autumn, the modeling is a helluva lot better than the samples we’ve seen of the new Loony Tunes show.

  • Yeah, I don’t think it’s so bad for a commercial, at least. It kind of surprises me that this is written by Jerry instead of Amid. Don’t get me wrong, I also think LT should be done in traditional animation. And yeah the staging is poor. But some of the poses and face expressions are ok. If they are going to make them in CGI I’d take this kind of thing before anything that looks like the new Alvin and The Chipmunks movies any day.

  • Mike Luzzi

    I think it looked pretty good. It is an international commercial. I don’t think it is any indicator of direction that WB intends to take the characters in.

  • Scarabim


    Too stiff. And I’m not sure why…but cartoonish “takes” and slapstick don’t really seem to work well in CGI. Maybe because CGI demands more adherence to actual physics, instead of cartoon physics. CGI slapstick just doesn’t come off as funny to me.

    I didn’t like this AT ALL.

    • Bill

      CGI chracters dont deform like drawn ones, CGI slapstick is like throwing dolls around.

  • Marvin Acme

    Incidently a clip from the new Coyote and Road Runner short is up….


    • FP

      I guess they had to stick with in-scene volumetric clouds and dust to keep the 3D easy – but they sure pop a lot. Road Runner’s lookin’ great in the clip – although his textures are so flat he looks almost like 2D.

  • FP

    It’s not bad. Given TV commercial deadlines and an almost certain mandate to be “safe” in terms of character model, it’s very nice.

    I think the long shot is staged thusly because content producers are making progressively less concession to SD TV watchers. It bugs me because I’m not replacing my five CRT TVs until they break. All five of them together didn’t cost as much as one technically acceptable flatscreen big enough to actually see. Lower thirds are now packed with unreadable text and everything is a letterboxed long shot with little visual info in SD.

  • I’ll say the concept of the commercial is totally unfunny, though. And generally I would also find it a little too stiff for a tv series, I just think it’s ok for a commercial, especially the modeling.

    • David Breneman

      Europeans are very used, and apparently receptive, to unfunny short-format animation. If you’ve ever seen the “Mainzelmännchen” bumps in commercial breaks on ZDF in Germany you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

  • I have to weigh in and say that for what it is, the animation isn’t really that bad. Its nothing the movie-goers would expect to see on the big screen, but for a 20 second commercial aimed at getting French children to pester their parents into taking them into a McDs for some toys and fries, I’d say it worked.

  • The problem here is bad direction. It’s undirected looking. That has nothing to do with budget or schedule. It’s efficiently planning out your shots and creating timing that puts the action across. This is what animation supervised by non animators looks like.

  • Guz

    The character animation isn’t bad… Nor the render. It’s actually pretty acceptable for a TV Ad.

    It doesn’t even come close to this one (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/looney-tunes-exclusive-clip-coyote-falls.html) but still is pretty good.

  • love the design on that happy meal guy!

  • (Note: This comment was written on my Wii console.) This was actually pretty good. Not much dialogue, but it’s better looking than that “Looney Tunes Show” Cartoon Network’s trying to push, that’s for sure.

  • I don’t care for the happy meal guy. His design looks bland and uninspired. Why couldn’t they just used Ronald McDonald instead?

  • It’s not good. But it’s not bad either. It has potential in the hands of someone who understands the characters, cartoon animation, and comedy.

  • They could learn a lot from watching Gumby cartoons.

  • John A

    I don’t understand what people are praising here. The characters look like rigid plastic toys (in fact, I was kind of hoping that that was the payoff to the commercial, that these plastic guys were representing the toys in the happy meal, maybe playing basketball inside the box)CGI is great for rendering but all that shading doesn’t make your characters any more lifelike.

    I hate this commercial, I hate it for its lack of understanding of the characters and the medium.It illustrates one of the things that I hate the most about CG:its blatant attempt to make actual artists irrelevant.I’m not anti-computer, but I think it’s folly to think you can reduce the art of animation into a collection of stock poses and expressions that any novice can learn to morph from one pose to another.

    • I’ll take exception to this. In what way does CG animation blatantly attempt to make artists irrelevant? The only possible explanation is that you believe all art exists on paper.

      CG animation is HARD, that’s why there’s so much crap CG animation around. It’s made by artists (well, the good stuff is at least) just as much as traditional animation is, or for that matter Flash and stop-motion animation.

      Animation is animation – whether it’s good or bad doesn’t depend on what medium it was made in. All principles of animation are true in all forms of animation.

      Get off CGI’s back.

      And, for the record, I think it’s folly to reduce CG to something “any novice can do”. Have a go, be sure to show us how you get on.

      • John F A

        I have tried it , I don’t like it–it’s too restictive–Drawn animation is much more versitile, of course good drawing skills help too.(I find computers more useful for rendering props and backgrounds) As I’ve stated before, I’m not anti computer, the computer has proven to be a very useful tool,Its ability to spit out large quantities of slick looking images is unparalleled, but bad character animation is just bad character animation (and I’m refering to this commercial specifically)and no amount of slick rendering can improve it.

    • Chuck R.

      I agree, John.

  • NC

    Maybe someone should tell France that Space Jam hasn’t been in theaters since ’96.

  • Bill

    Thats one blank courtyard, theres not even a fence!

  • Connor Murphy

    I’m glad others didn’t find it so bad. Recreating anything old isn’t going to be the same as it was and as a comeback, this is fairly well animated and keeps the feel of the characters without trying to mimic their motion style exactly.

    Especially on a commercial, most of the way to Chuck Jones is pretty darn good, I think!

  • The Scarlet Pumpernickel

    I don’t expect anything from a commercial, but it actually makes Space Jam watchable.

    It should be noted though that this commercial is released in some French channels alongside a series of sketches promoting a healthy lifestyle aimed at kids, with footage of the Looney Tunes characters (taken from cartoons from the Golden Age) thrown in a live-action set and reduced to supporting characters, featuring attempts at verbal comedy.

  • So… in addition to bad CGI, we get Space Jam flashbacks. Wonderful.

    Have to say I’m surpriced that so many here finds the CGI ‘pretty good’. Even though it has nothing to do with WB’s current Looney Tunes direction, and even though it’s just a commercial, this ain’t good. Sure, they follow the basic character models, but without any character in the animation. Bugs in particular looks completely lifeless in the eyes. It’s a sad world when even such low-budgeted television projects feel a need to convert from hand-drawn animation to CGI. After all, cheap hand-drawn can be easier to get away with as long as you use creative stylization in movements and design. Cheap CGI, on the other hand, is often really VISIBLY cheap.

    Oh, and the laughing moment at the end is really freking me out.