warnerbooth warnerbooth

More Looney Tunes character designs

The photo above is one I snapped of the wall of the Warner Bros. booth at the Licensing Expo in Las Vegas last week. The hype for the new Looney Tunes Show was there in full force, with Jessica Borutski’s character designs taking front and center in the promotion. Several Brew readers sent in the following scans (below), which were apparently given out to licensees. The more I see of these, the more I like.

  • Shannon

    Despite what the flamers may think, I think these designs look pretty good, they still have the personality of the characters while they are going back to doing short like in WB’s hayday, I’m excited!

  • I can hear these characters now, even more self referential, talking talking, talking, about how funny what they are about to do is going to be. And then it’s not. The best was in the past and the future for these characters is a pale imitation. Thank goodness the originals are still available and immortal.

  • Jorge Garrido

    These are the coolest designs of this type I’ve ever seen. It’s SO refreshing to finally see Looney Tunes designs from a personal, specific cartoonist’s design sensibility and point of view!

  • Chris Sobieniak

    Needless to say I’m a bit turned off at seeing the rest of the gang.

  • Jorge Garrido

    “I can hear these characters now, even more self referential, talking talking, talking, about how funny what they are about to do is going to be. And then it’s not.”
    Joel, most of the poses look like action poses. What exactly about these designs screams “talky & self-referential” to you?

    “The best was in the past and the future for these characters is a pale imitation.”
    A pale imitation is exactly what Jess’s unique designs were criticized for NOT being. “OMG, why did they redesign the Looney Tunes? How dare they change the classics?”

    You just can’t win.

  • Joshua Bailey

    I believe that female duck next to Daffy in the bottom picture is named Marisol, according to some storyboards I found online a while back. I’m not too familiar with all of the old shorts, but I don’t recall her. Is she an original character for the series?

  • lampshade

    I’m okay with these.

  • It’s a new spin. I say good for Jessica.

  • Rick

    except for Bugs’ feet being way too large and clunky and Porky being too thin, these look pretty good. Looking forward to see how this plays out. Hopefully they’ve nailed the personalities.

  • Chuck Howell

    I can’t decide whether these work or not. I guess I’ll need to see the new designs in “action” for a final judgement. Though light years better than the bizarre “super hero” versions you’ve shown before, I think these takes on the characters seem to infantalize them. They look lighter and less substantial, thinner, with shorter torso lengths and much larger feet. Though the new Daffy has a Clampett-esque quality I like, Porky as seen in the second row has gone too far towards a Jack Nicholson as the Joker expression for my tastes.

  • They’re cute. The kids will like them. Nice job.

  • I like them. They look fun. And fun is something sadly missing on TV these days…Nothing wrong with change. Bugs, Mickey, Kermit, Popeye, Stallone… They all have changed their looks over the years… It’s OK…

  • Is that Penelope Pig? Haven’t seen her in ages.

    At least they didn’t make new characters so -every- one of the gang has a female counterpart.

    I don’t loooove the designs, but I do like them, I guess. they’ll do just fine. And hey, new animated work featuring legacy characters, why complain?

    • Lawrence Brian Schwartz

      I believe the name is “Petunia Pig,” as it has been referred to in the late 30s and early 40s classic Looney Tunes.

  • Robert Barker

    I loathe short legged Bugs Bunnys.

  • I like these.

  • calartskid

    chuck jones still pwns this~

    the design seems to hide a lack of basic drawing skill.

  • Having already said my thoughts on Jessica’s designs on her blog (GOOD ones, mind), one thing I am excited for this Looney Tunes series is that they’re finally getting Speedy (almost removed entirely several years back for fear of “racial insult”) and Lola (almost doomed to a lifetime of comic strip adventures after 3 animated outings – Space Jam, Tweety’s High-Flying Adventure and one Web toon) back in the picture. The latter, I presume, would be given the chance to be fully fleshed out as a “real” LT character?

    Also glad to see Daffy finally getting a decent-looking gal after being regulated to so many hen(duck?)pecked husband roles. The last decent “wife” he had was Daphne from Freleng’s “Stork Naked”. May I wish Marisol the best of luck here =)

    I’d like to point out the checker-board mark on Elmer’s hat – very nice touch. And Marvin doesn’t seem too farm from his original design either. But I do love how Witch Hazel and Gossamer look :D

  • I’m with you Jerry, the more I see these the more they grow on me. I feel this take on the Looney Tunes, artistically atleast, is similar in spirit to what John K did with the Hanna Barbera characters. Jessica has put in her sensibilities like John did in his HB redos. Heck, every Looney Tunes director ended up redesigning the characters for their on unit and in the end the charactes stared looking really different and sometimes really ugly.

    We all have our classic favorites that will never be replaced, but these aren’t trying to replace the classics, but offer a new take for a new audience. I hope these are a success and maybe other companies might follow suit and open up their dormant libraries to new takes – can anyone say Terrytoons???

  • Adam

    I like these. The designs look kind of Tashlin-esque.

  • @Joel – You’d have a great point if we weren’t shown just character designs. Like if they released footage or something and it wasn’t up to par. But they didn’t.

    I love ’em, it’s a step in the right direction. I’ve always wondered with such a big franchise why they weren’t making any new Looney Tunes cartoons nowadays, and this confirms that they’re handling this with the fresh look I’d expect with heavy respect for what’s come before and what’s made them so memorable.

  • calartskid

    as much as John K feels like Tangled is stock disney, these new designs for the WB characters feel stock John K!

  • skid

    They’re not bad…except the feet. Oh god the feet! Not a fan of those feet. So…large and puffy and flat. Bleh.

  • I love ’em a lot. Congrats to Miss Borutski for such an incredible undertaking! Daffy is still my favorite. I only hope he’s as zany in the cartoons as he is in these poses. I’ll take classic wacky Daffy over greedy, disgruntled Daffy any day!

  • Quintessential Jessica, cute with just a hint of manic. Good on Warner’s for picking one hell of a great character artist. Now, let’s see if they can get some great directors to bring ’em to life. This is something that the Warners guys always seem to slip on…it’s got to be the marriage of a great character with a great director. There’s got to be a personal connection between the material and the guy/gal calling the shots, or else it’ll fall flat and poor Jessica’s lovely designs will go to waste. Here’s hopin’.

  • Terry

    I like them too. Why do Porky, Daffy and Bugs all have female counterparts though? I guess girls buy toys.

  • Terry

    “calartskid says:
    as much as John K feels like Tangled is stock disney, these new designs for the WB characters feel stock John K!”

    Is John K still working, or is he just a professional complainer these days? The early 90s were a long time ago…

  • Nipplenuts McGurk

    I like most of them – but Porky is rubbing me the wrong way…maybe because his eyes are so far apart? His body/legs/feet are a bit strange….hmmm. I really like Sylvester – it’s a very cute/sinister look.

  • Half the characters don’t even look like their original designs. Granny looks nothing like Granny and the Porky design is pretty sad. If it weren’t for the outfit, I wouldn’t have recognized him as Porky, but some generic pig character. Daffy and Bugs are ok, but it’s disappointing. .

  • Hulk

    I like most of em. Sylvester is especially appealing. Porky’s not doing it for me though. Maybe it’s just that particular pose and drawing. I’ll give it a chance.

    What I’d love to see is something along the lines of what they did in the old days where each director had his own style. So these drawing are the style of one director and another director has the same characters in his own unique style: like you could always tell Chuck Jones from Bob Clampett. I look forward to seeing what they do with this.

  • JD

    How much re-branding can these characters get? Once again, the suits are greenlighting old established characters rather than creating new ones. I know, I know, keep following the money. Sigh…

    BTW, Bug’s tail looks like a pine cone, Daffy’s looks like a fro pick. The elongated pupil thing is just plain weird to me. Porky looks like he’s had one too many hits on the hash pipe.

    The re-re-re-re-re treads just keep comin’. Bleh!

  • Dutchie

    I think most of these work and look a lot of fun, but unfortunatly Bugs and Porky look horrible too me. Witch Hazel could also use some more meat

  • I’m no professional designer, but I do like these, as far as modern designs go. I have issues with the following:

    1) Bugs and Lola’s torsos, specifically Lola’s. Is she 6 years old? I get the whole ‘moving away from feminine design’ but that’s a bit over-the-top.

    2) Far right Daffy walk-cycle design. I bet he has that weird bounce-movement when he walks. Daffy by way of Mighty Bee.

    3) Tweety’s feet are always big, but that’s overly ridiculous.

    Other than that, yeah, I could get behind it, if it’s animated well and smoothly.

  • Sam

    Nobody can outdo Chuck Jones when it comes to designing these characters… I really wish they would create NEW and APPEALING characters than redoing what has been done before that is amazingly great.

    This is kind of an insult to Chuck Jones’ creation. Not that the art is bad, but the very idea of recreating what he has created. If he is still alive I doubt he would like this at all.

  • I’ve made no comment on the character designs. The best artwork has been ruined by bad writing.

  • Not feeling the designs at all. Especially now seeing Taz….it’s definitely more of a joke than trying to take him a bit serious that he’s a beast. The designs scream Danny Phantom to me, not being loose and gestural with the lines.

  • Haters gonna hate, these designs are awesome

  • Ben

    I like these more now that I see different poses. Some of the characters look VERY close to their originals (Foghorn, Marvin, Pepe, and Yosemite Same), but they all look fairly faithful. A lot better than either the “superhero” or “baby” versions. Also, that girl duck…I wonder if that’s the same one they introduced in the Baby Looney Tunes show…I think her name was Melissa there…and she was obnoxious. I hope they can keep this new girl, and Lola from being too contemporary, since…well, they are.

    I’m looking forward to seeing footage of these guys in action, and hopefully a return to classic crazy Looney Tunes!

  • Chuck Jones did a pretty good job of insulting his characters when he started painting them all with heavy mascara and weird flabby cheeks and all.
    Even Space Jam would have been 10X more fun to watch if they ramped up the designs like this.
    I welcome our new Looney Overlords.

  • Nelson

    Oh god, please tell me that they’re not going to include Lola Bunny.

  • Anthony C.

    Pepe le Pew looks great-it’s kind of weird that the O.G. “pioneer” chars (Bugs, Daffy, Porky) are the ones who have their designs changed the most.

    Sam, Chuck Jones didn’t design all of the WB characters, there’s only about six or so in this pic he’s actually responsible for…

    I like the female chars, my question is-are they gonna take a step in right direction like House of Mouse and actually have them in their own shorts, or will they be on the sparsely seen sidelines again?

    Time will tell, for now-I’m more optimistic after seeing these. :-)

  • Otaenaber Walsh

    The oversized feet theoretically help register weight with the characters in crappy overseas animation. But we’ll see.

  • lampshade

    It’s pretty ironic to see the complainers complaining about John K complaining.

  • I love Jessica’s work, these designs are great! I am a bit turned off by Bug’s feet and Porky’s eyes but over all I think they look rad! They could have done a lot worse (which Warner has done in the past with other revamps of these characters).

    To “calartskid” who said: “…the design seems to hide a lack of basic drawing skill…” Obviously you have never taken the time to see any of Jessica’s other work? She’s a fantastic artist and you’d do well to educate yourself with her and her work, as it seems you have a lot to learn (who uses “pwns” in the same sentence as Chuck Jones? This isn’t Newgrounds).

  • Mark

    One question…WHY? Why is there a want to redesign the characters?

  • Pretty good. The Bugs design bothers me a bit, but he is appealing. I like the new Daffy a lot. Porky, Tweety, and Sylvester are also very good. I will watch to see if the show is good.

  • These look very hopeful. The last time I’ve been this excited for a classic cartoon revival was with Disney’s Mickey MouseWorks/House of Mouse.

    “Is John K still working, or is he just a professional complainer these days? The early 90s were a long time ago…”

    Professional complainer. The time that could be better spent on his next big thing is instead making gross comparisons between Disney’s 90’s features and a long-irrelevant cartoon studio.

  • These look like a lot of fun.
    Jessica has balls as big as church bells. She took on the assignment of re-designing beloved and venerable characters knowing that she’d be savaged and second-guessed by everyone from mouth breathing wanna-bes, has been hacks, jealous never-weres and respected pros (I leave it to you all to figure out where you belong in that line-up).
    This took guts. Most of you would run screaming from such an assignment, claiming “artistic integrity” or some such horseshit.
    The rest of you just don’t have the drawing chops required to pull this off. I’ve been to your sites. You know who you are.
    They aren’t perfect, and there are a couple of things I would have done differently, but what the fuck do I know?
    She put her own spin on these guys and managed to maintain some of their spark and spirit at the same time. She is to be commended on a job well done.
    Good job, Jessica.
    The rest of you, go back to work.

  • Russell H

    I’m getting a good “vibe” from the Bugs and Daffy pics. The Bugs pics come off as likeable and cheerful, more late 1940s Freleng/McKimson than the effete, snarky Bugs of the late Jones period. There’s even a take on the classic McKimson Bugs model pose of Bugs leaning on one hand.

    Likewise, the Daffy pics come off as properly maniacal and “loony,” late-Clampett/early McKimson. I can definitely imagine him hoo-hooing all over the place and driving others crazy just for the fun of it–no sign of the “greedy slob” Daffy with the outsized ego.

  • troy j. reyes

    i dont know, they look a little too angular to me, a bit stretched. why have they sexed up the granny character? lool at her eyes, and the orange monster character now has a mouth-a smiley mouth.i guess it will appeal to kids but then again how do you appeal to a generation raised on video game violence? i’ll take a leap here and say it probably wont work not from lack of trying-several of my friends have kids and ive got lotsa neices and nephews and the warner characters dont appeal to them-they like anime-video game stuff.unless porky is a 10th level sayan warrior pitted against bugs whose chi is ever expanding, kids wont be interested.good luck though, i’ll be watching.

  • Drew G.

    What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that these are designs, and the true measure between the past Looney Tunes and a current adaptation is going to be a finished product.

    For the time being, these designs do exactly the job they were meant to do and that is to mesh the, already adored, original designs that a few generations of people grew up with to the new design trends seen in television with regards to 2D animation. Eliminating the hard black outlines, keeping the edges of the characters very sleek by taking the jagged edges of fur and hair to a minimum, etc…

    It’s a fine edge between taking something that is considered classic and loved by so many already the way it is, and trying to bring it to the current generation of children growing up today that may not be interested in the classic we all care about. It won’t be the same thing at all, and we shouldn’t expect it to be; but as long as the people involved can create a character to the property all its own, it too may become a classic.

    In the end though, no matter what they do to Looney Tunes, it’ll never change the way I already feel about these animate works of art and will never lessen the impact that they’ve already had.

  • FP

    Nice. Works for me.

  • Appealing designs for sure. I’m a bit worried about how much “squatch & stretch” they will take, though —whether WB is more focused on having cute characters for merchandising, or functional characters for good 2D animation.

  • Kevan

    I actually like these a lot. When the first shots that everyone blasted came out, I was open to them particularly given the poses. I’m glad to see that I was right and that these are cute and fresh feeling. I particularly like that in certain poses, Bugs reminds me a lot of his earlier curvy designs from the 30’s and 40’s, which I’ve always preferred. Sylvester is very appealing to me, and given how much play he and Tweety have received in the 90s and 00’s, I felt he was quite tired. It’s also nice to see Taz return to his more feral look from his old shorts. Growing up with the Taz show as a kid, going back and seeing how differently he was portrayed originally was a bit of a shock, I like this development and hope it plays out in more than just the design.

  • I agree with Jerry too. The more I see it the more I like it.

    I have a few nitpicking to do:

    -I still feel Bugs’ body is too short
    -I think they should remove Lola Bunny and giving Daffy a permanent girlfriend is maybe not the best idea either.
    -I find distracting that some characters look like teenagers and others seem to have their usual age
    -Not a fan of the way Porky looks, although I love the look of Petunia. Porky needs to be chubby to look like himself, Petunia doesn’t
    -Elmer having red spots in his hat doesn’t look right to me

    Other than that there’s a lot of good things too:

    -That Bugs in the bottom left of the Bugs/Daffy model sheet is perfect, he seems to have a bigger body there and it looks very old fashioned Tex Avery/Bob Clampett/Tashlin style. And the one in the middle with the giant smile is also very cool. Still I would like his body to be bigger, but the face is perfect. It’s a expression he used to do in the older cartoons and that they haven’t used in the recent LT movies.
    -All Daffy’s drawings are fantastic
    -A lot of the poses are very expressive
    -While I’m not very interested in the other girlfriends I do love Petunia and I like the way Jessica draws her a lot
    -Sylvester, Tweety, Granny, Gossamer, Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, Marvin, Witch Hazel and Foghorn Leghorn look supercool

    Looking forward to see them in action!

  • Artisticulated

    As a group I like what she did with them. But those feet are something. I can’t imagine the characters walking without hearing a suction cuppish tSHHHHLLLiCK pup… tSHHHHLLLiCK pup…tSHHHHLLLiCK pup… with every step. I’ll watch at least one episode just to get that out of my head.

  • Artisticulated

    Just realized… Porky looks like Al Roker after gastro bypass. LOL

  • VinceP

    “She put her own spin on these guys and managed to maintain some of their spark and spirit at the same time. She is to be commended on a job well done.”

    @John S: I agree with you completely, thank you for putting that out there.

    Personally, I think Daffy looks awesome. I’m usually an advocate of “new is better than rehashing old stuff” but this has seriously got me curious now.

    I just hope that they go all the way with the new female characters and they have their own personalities and they contribute in a meaningful way. I’m too burned from the 80s and 90s “add a female character just to have one in there.” and I’m really itching to see some great female leads.

  • Tedzey

    OMG!!! I love these character designs! I hate how people expect the characters to look a certain way. I recall seeing bugs drawn differently from avery to clampett to jones. If you flat out copy the older designs, then your not taking a risk which is what i think they’re trying to do! IF you don’t want to watch this show, then watch the old shorts, they won’t go away

  • Austin Papageorge

    I see Lola Bunny is in there.

    That makes me skeptical of the quality of the show.

  • Roberto Severino

    As with several other readers, I also feel like these new redesigns have grown on me quite a lot. They’re all really appealing, caricatured versions of what the Looney Tunes were about. Let’s hope this new show is just about as good as the designs.

    One thing though. I just hate how there’s always someone trying to bring John K. into stuff like this as if they were trying to start a huge, dumb argument or something or just trolling for laughs. He has almost nothing to do with these drawings, besides his influence on them. Otherwise, Jessica has a completely different style and ideas from John. Just goes to show you that there are always going to be unintelligible hecklers, even on a reputable website like Cartoon Brew.

    Ok, enough ranting from me. I can’t wait to see this new show!

  • They are nice designs, but they are redesigns of characters that are dead to me. IMO If you weren’t a part of Termite Terrace you have no business directing and animating these guys. The writing and the timing will never be the same but they will try their best to mimic it I’m sure. Why is Daffy taller than Bugs? And Gossamer should be much bigger than Witch Hazel and… bah forget it.

  • Keith

    I don’t like Porky’s look in the row with Marvin, Taz, Speedy, and Pepe… but he looks just fine in the lineup next to Petunia.

    Mark says: “One question…WHY? Why is there a want to redesign the characters?”

    One answer, that’s been posted in every one of these New Looney Tunes posts on the Brew: Because the characters were ALWAYS redesigned.

    Every old WB director had a different look for the characters. They changed through the decades. They often changed from short to short, year to year! It’s only because you’re so used to seeing A) the oft-played Freleng/Jones/McKimsons from the 40s/50s/60s via “The Bugs Bunny & Tweety Show” and the like over the years, and B) the ’90s/’00s “corporate” Looney Tunes designs ala Space Jam/Back In Action/etc that you think they DON’T change all that much.

    Someone else asked about the female characters; may not so much toys, though that’ll probably be a part of it, but yeah it’s probably for a bit more ‘girl appeal’. Going back to the original Looney Tunes, you only really had Witch Hazel, Miss Prissy, Granny, and Penelope the Cat for recurring female characters. Everyone else was a guy (or a guy in drag). Even Pussyfoot the Kitten was supposed to be a boy cat, I think!

    Someone also wondered about Gossamer having a smiley mouth… he’s had a mouth before! Not sure which short(s), but it’s not a new development.

    Overall lots of fun designs here. Can’t wait to see ’em in action!

  • These designs look so cool! I can’t wait to see the show!

  • Sherrie

    Love the designs – except Bugs and Porky. Bugs feels a bit squat, and Porky’s torso feels off. I’m really loving Daffy though. He’s probably my favorite design out of the bunch. The real test is how they move. Let’s hope its great animation!

  • Chris

    It’s amazing how double-minded people can be. Few months ago, hate mails were sent to the character designer for changing the, well, character designs and now we’re all kissing their feet!

    I, for one, had no problem with it from the beginning.

  • I think these are great! I’m getting more and more excited when I see new images of Jessica’s designs for the Looney Tunes. Great set of poses!

    Daffy looks like a lot of fun. I’m glad it seems like he’s going back to his looney roots a bit and not being a complete bastard. And I’m glad to see more poses of Bugs, especially the one with his head tilted down. I can’t wait to see more!

  • Honestly, much of these new designs look very very good. I REALLY Like the glimpses of tweety we have been given. An dthe new Wile E. Coyote looks goody, like he did in his very early cartoons :) I only have slight complaints on Bugs, nothing serious. But Porky, Witch Hazel(Hazle?) and Gossamer (i think his name?) are a little tooo different for my fair judgement right now.

  • I like this Bugs design more now, mostly when he’s got his eyes wide open. The perspective on his head in the bottom-left pose is nice, too.
    I still don’t like how he looks with the smug grin, eyes-half-closed expressions. I guess the goal was to streamline the characters, but he and Taz just don’t look right without those tufts of fur on their cheeks. Nitpicking, I know…

    The ‘tiny-body, big-head-and-feet’ look still doesn’t seem to fit with most of these characters, but it’s not a big deal.

    Lola and Marisol don’t exactly fill me with anticipation. If they’re trying to make Minnie Mouse-style “generic girlfriend” characters for Bugs and Daffy, it’s obviously a bad idea. If they’re trying to create new female Looney Tunes characters who are interesting in their own right, why make them the same animals as the two long-established main ones? The designs themselves are fine though.

    On the other hand, it makes more sense for Porky to have a consistent love interest, since he’s more of a calm, mature character in the first place. And Petunia looks great, better than her original design (aka Porky with a wig) in my opinion.

    I really don’t like the Granny design. Of course, Granny was always just a generic old lady, and she’s hardly a major character, so I can live with it.

    Daffy still looks great (very Tashlin/Clampett-y), as do Pepe le Pew, Sylvester, Marvin the Martian, Yosemite Sam, Witch Hazel and Foghorn Leghorn.

    Porky and Elmer look too thin and youthful to me, but obviously ‘youth’ is the whole point of this project, so I guess it can’t be helped.

    I’m looking forward to seeing more of this.

  • Sprat

    Sad and boring. All of these characters died a long time ago, with Chuck, Bob, and Friz.

    Parading the corpses around as though there’s still anything remotely remarkable to them is a hollow cash grab. All of you are arguing about a marketing gimmick.

    Maybe someday someone will have some new ideas.

  • these designs are miles- no, leagues- ahead of the last incarnation- the justly-reviled Loonatics Unleashed. These are off-the-chain cool!

  • These look fine… apart from Porky’s head, I just feel it should be a little larger. Other than that no problem. The first image that caused a great hoo har was good too. jessica is top notch at drawing. the writing and general ‘trying to appeal’ will sink the whole vessel further in a purists eyes but these are not made for animation historians and anal retentive fans they are made to jump around in scripts about ‘team work’, ‘morals’ and ‘being a tween’ (I really hope I am wrong)… all that no fun nonsense that is the real killer of cartoons… the art work is actually so far above what could have been that there should be a collective sigh of relief.

  • Andy

    It’s nice to see Speedy in there. But where’s Slowpoke Rodriguez? Porky and Petunia need to lay off the Lap Band.

  • I love Daffy’s new design.

    But I honestly think most of the characters have too big of pupils in their eyes…. making them look like 30s characters with an iris.

    Speedy looks like a dork.

  • I dig them. I am surprised to dig them but I do.

    The only things i wish would go away are lola bunny and whoever the female duck is. Petunia isnt some last minute add on so she’s good.

    Also happy to see speedy gonzales in the mix,

    cant wait to check this out

  • Craig

    Roberto Severino says: I just hate how there’s always someone trying to bring John K. into stuff like this as if they were trying to start a huge, dumb argument or something or just trolling for laughs.

    I happen to be a huge fan of John’s and agree with many of his opinions on modern cartoons. Is it really that awful to want to know his opinion on something regarding many of the greatest cartoon characters ever?

  • calartskid

    “Otherwise, Jessica has a completely different style and ideas from John. ”

    As much as there is a “calarts” style in design, there is definately a “John K” design.

  • Warhead

    Nicely done. The characters look a bit different, but still recognizable.

  • Ben Williams

    Jessica has done a great job with these. I am particularly fond of her Daffy, that drawing of him walking is awesome!

  • Craig

    And as for my opinion of the designs I find them all dull and boring.

  • Screw the haters. These look good. I was skeptical at first like many other commentators but seeing the entire cast (particularly the action poses of Bugs and Daffy) is encouraging. Ha–I’d kinda like to draw in that style!

  • Chris S

    I think they look nice, but I have mixed feelings on about the recycling of classic characters. On the one side it is interesting to see a contemporary interpretation of a classic when it is given thought and is handled by talented people. But on the other side, I feel like it waters down the original world to the general audience by competing with reinterpretations.

    And how are the stories going to be handled? Are all of these characters given reinterpreted personalities also? I mean why not just create a whole new cast that would likely fit in well to the world they are trying to imitate, like the way Animaniacs or even Tiny Toons did?

  • Akbar Shahzad

    My misgivings begin to melt away. Still no clue as to what the actual show will be like, but I have little to no quibbles with the designs. To everybody complaining about redesigns: it’s called vitality. The old cartoons had it. No matter how solid the execution was, any new series that simply aped slavishly the classic cartoons would be utterly lifeless. The artists that work on these things need to be enjoying themselves too, you know–hardly possible if all you’re doing is adhering to ancient rules made by people who didn’t think they were writing rulebooks.

    Daffy is definitely the standout; I love the Tashlinesque look of the whole cast, but it works particularly well with him. Bugs … will do, for now. The two poses we’d seen before certainly didn’t do him any favors, but these are better. Lola is not a real person and should not be here–also, she looks about three. But who’s this hot duck? I’m just happy for Daffy.

    Porky and Elmer–a little too thin and young, as others have mentioned. The Coyote, on the other hand, is not thin enough. I’ll withhold judgement until I see all of him, but I’ll remain suspicious until I can see his body. The torso shrinkage must reduce his scrawniness–he simply doesn’t look hungry enough, in my opinion. No one could do scraggly and scrawny like Chuck Jones …

    Speaking of Jones. HE DID NOT CREATE ALL THE CHARACTERS. I do like his VERSIONS of the characters best, but he didn’t invent all of them. If anything, we should be complaining about the desecration of Bob McKimson’s sacred designs.

    Except we shouldn’t. Risks are good things, people, even if we’re risking established stars rather than new characters. Good luck to Jessica Borutski, say I!

  • Roberto Severino

    “I happen to be a huge fan of John’s and agree with many of his opinions on modern cartoons. Is it really that awful to want to know his opinion on something regarding many of the greatest cartoon characters ever?”

    Good point Craig, but I was just wondering why a lot of these discussions devolve into pointless John K. bashing that usually has nothing to do with the drawings in the first place. I’m a big fan of John’s myself by the way, and I always find his opinions on animation to be interesting and insightful. Whining from people who don’t even know what they’re talking about in the first place is part of the reason why we can’t even have cartoons that look this fun anymore.

    “As much as there is a “calarts” style in design, there is definately a “John K” design.”

    I think that what you’re talking about is way more than “John K. design” when you think about it. What about other artists like Vincent Waller, Bob Camp, Chris Reccardi, Lynne Naylor, Katie Rice, and many others? Would you call their drawing styles John K. design too?

    This is really becoming interesting.

  • Aaron long, I tohught it was Melissa.. I hate if Speedy is in there, since Daffy will be his anti-Speedy and anti-the World [i.e., born loser] self.

    I say for one——to the old franchise, to quote the Beatles:
    Let them be.

  • cliffclaven

    Granny looks a bit weird — like a caricature of somebody dressed as Granny. And I just can’t match this Porky with any of his animated personalities (low key Daffy straightman, flustered little suburbanite, preteen boy). But to my amateur eyes the rest look like fun.

    As others said, it’ll come down to the actual execution. Over the years I’ve seen a lot of impressive promo art for mediocre cartoons, along with exciting trailers for dull movies.

  • Whatever many peoples will said here, i really like it. Those re-designs keeps me attention to watch the new show, hopefully that they don’t falling as a faux-Family Guy sitcom.

    I like Daffy the best. Muchly a crossover between early Avery and Clampett style. Bugs looks very badass tough and tough i admit, i like how Granny and Sylvester is designed. At least Jessica trying something different than replicate a old dated formula like in the 1990’s clip arts.

  • I think Spongebob Squarepants or The Migthy B are TOTALLY the ‘John K style’ or ‘Spumco style’. That’s not bad on itself and of course it’s only logical when some Spumco creators work on that series, but they maybe could look a little different.

    Jessica’s designs, however, look pretty different to me. Like John she seems to be influenced by Clampett but that’s about the only similarity.

    And I believe John K’s criticism about the CalArts style is not that much that there is imitation in it but that he find it flawed to begin with. He does criticize repetition, but mostly when it’s a repetition of mistakes.

  • John A

    Aside from Bug’s peanut sized torso, everything else here looks perfectly acceptable. I hope the scripts are better than the usual WB stuff from the past 20 years.

    While I sort of agree with some of the comments here that the characters should be retired now that their original creators are gone, sometimes a character is just too good to die with its creator, and in these rare cases they develop a life of their own. Popeye is certainly a good example of this, I remember seeing him first in the’60s in those mediocre (but well remembered) King Features TV cartoons, then in the comic strips, and then finally in the ’70s seeing Max Fleischer’s classic B&W cartoons. Each one was a new experience that made me appreciate the origial source material even more. If this new stuff creates an interest in the old stuff like it did with me,(and if WB doesn’t try to bury the old stuff) then I wish them well.

  • Terry

    When I see what people refer to as “John K design” elements, I think they’re really seeing Bob Clampett design.

  • Professor Widebottom

    There’s so much ambiance that goes beyond the character design of WB original shorts. Everything from the use of Technicolor film stock, cels, voice actors, writing, live orchestra acoustics are all ingredients that can never really happen or be replicated again. No digital filter can do that!

    So, as long as Warner Bros wants to knock off more films for the current market, they might as well do a departure (admittedly said with a heavy heart), rather than attempt to imitate the originals… because they couldn’t do it anyway. It would be embarrassing.

    I agree with others that some of these aren’t bad, but the feet on Bugs is clearly not working. Generally, they all seem like stubbier versions of the originals, like plastic models you’d put on the dashboard of your car.

  • Doug Drown

    Bugs, Porky and especially Daffy remind me of Bob Clampett’s versions thereof.

  • chipper

    How come the girls have to wear clothes but the guys are allowed to parade around naked?

  • Sam, Chuck Jones didn’t CREATE all of these characters. In fact, he isn’t even responsible for what I would argue are the big 3 (Daffy, Porky, Bugs). And frankly, I agree with Scotty A on the heavy eyelid thing.

    But that’s just the point: to each his own. You can say you dislike the designs or that – in your opinion – they don’t measure up to the originals (which varied significantly from director to director), but to try assume what a dead man would or wouldn’t like is a little ridiculous.

    I’m not crazy about the idea of new Looney Tunes cartoons, because I think any attempt to recreate the success and fan-devotion the originals continue to enjoy is misguided. But if they’re going to do it, I don’t think these designs are a bad start. I think they’re really sharp, and considering the unenviable task of trying to please an impossible audience Ms. Borutski did extremely well.

  • udx

    Oh my. Did they just Lolify Lola?

    Also, I’d like to see this team work on Tiny Toon characters.

  • I love those Daffys! That’s the best he’s looked in years. I hope this show is great.

  • Manny


  • erlab

    Well I’m glad they got Gossomer and Witch Hazel in there and they LOOK a lot like themselves, at least.

    Okay, I’m a bit more relieved now. I had no idea these characters were designed by Jessica (and no idea what she thinks of the hype backlash produced here a month ago!) I don’t care watcha’ all say- I am warming up to these.

  • What problem do these new designs solve?

    Was there a meeting at WB where an executive said “I figured out the problem we’re having with our classic characters… it’s not the dumb projects we put them in, it’s not the bad scripts we write for them… it’s the way they look! We need to change the way they look to something different than the way they looked when they were successful and iconic.”

  • calartskid

    “I think that what you’re talking about is way more than “John K. design” when you think about it. What about other artists like Vincent Waller, Bob Camp, Chris Reccardi, Lynne Naylor, Katie Rice, and many others? Would you call their drawing styles John K. design too?

    I can say the same thing about calarts. What about other artists like Tim Burton, Glen Keane, Tony Fucile, Genndy Tartakovsky, Stephen Hillenburg, Lou Romano and many others? Would you call their drawing styles calarts design too?

    As broad and loosely as John K seems to use “calarts” as a style, Jessica Borutski definately feels “John K”.

  • Christopher Smigliano

    My feelingd are kinda mixed, but i can guess why they slimmed down Porky..Can’t have a chubby character, not a good example for the kiddies, in this day and age of PC. Unless of course, the character is a villian, hence Witch Hazel is still a little chunky..

  • @ Chipper- to piss off male furries.

  • victoria

    who cares if these are good designs or its a great show, I’m just sick of these characters altogether in any form.

    Loony Tunes themselves should go the way of Bosco. So should Superman, Batman and Mickey Mouse.

  • hmm, I commented earlier. But it’s killing me not to have explained myself. The one complaint I have about bugs is, he has that “tude” look to him in a couple pictures. He deserves better, and as much as I love Chuck Jones, he is partially responsible for people reusing that tudey humor he gave him in the first place. Only Chuck should eb allowed to it people. Bugs has baby proportions, which i think they are doing just to make him more cutesy. Overall, I still think he looks great :).

  • Scarabim

    The designs look like a cross between Tiny Toons and Casper the Friendly Ghost. I’m not saying they’re incompetent. They’re slick and lively. They just don’t look much like the Loonies. They look like escapees from the darker alleys of Deviant Art.


    Porky looks wall-eyed.

    Sylvester? Is that you? May I suggest Invisalign?

    That’s a terrible pose for Yosemite.

    Daffy, again, looks the best from the bunch. And I have to add that, while most of the designs are jarring, at least they look better than the frightening mutants infesting the Muppet show comics. Anybody seen those? BLEAHH!!!! Ugggggg-leeee!!!! Miss Piggy should sue. And maybe karate chop the writers while she’s at it.

  • Scarabim

    **What problem do these new designs solve? Was there a meeting at WB where an executive said “I figured out the problem we’re having with our classic characters… it’s not the dumb projects we put them in, it’s not the bad scripts we write for them… it’s the way they look! We need to change the way they look to something different than the way they looked when they were successful and iconic.”**

    ^This. Mr. Robcat2075, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

  • Toast

    I hope they’ll look that good in the show. The characters look a bit softer in this lineup which is nice, but I’m still a little upset about the messy frame grab post (the background coloring gets to me). I really hope the bad parts would eventually be weeded out as the show goes on.

    On a side note, Witch HAZEL!!! HOLY MOLY! It’s Witch Hazel!!!! Will she still leave her hairpins when she swooshes off screen or will it be something completely different? Plus, I kind of like Sylvester’s design in this one.

  • Leirin

    They’re… not half bad, actually! It’s kind of cool seeing Looney Tunes characters in a different style. I think it presents an interesting new spin on the old designs without deviating too much from the originals. I especially like the looks of Lola Rabbit.

  • erlab

    Scarabim- You dare insult Dave Alvarez?!

    There. When you don’t consider that a PERSON is behind all this hard work, you come off as not having done the research.

  • Autumn

    I’m sorry haters, but I’m SUPER happy Lola will be there. If anything, it’ll get more girls to watch it. LT was always such a sausage fest, to put it bluntly.

    And the Bugs designs are FINALLY growing on me. I think seeing him in other poses and with those expressions really helped ease my mind. Still hate his chunky feet and shortness but…I’ll deal.

    I’m excited now.

  • Roberto Severino

    “I can say the same thing about calarts. What about other artists like Tim Burton, Glen Keane, Tony Fucile, Genndy Tartakovsky, Stephen Hillenburg, Lou Romano and many others? Would you call their drawing styles calarts design too? As broad and loosely as John K seems to use “calarts” as a style, Jessica Borutski definately feels “John K”.”

    When John talks about the Cal Arts style, he’s not specifically referring to the students at Cal Arts or anybody that graduated from that school. He’s really talking about all the familiar, common cliches that are prevalent in modern animation today that are often hard to break out of compared to the drawing principles he’s trying to emphasize and teach young animation students. All of those names that you mentioned are very talented in their own right. I’m not trying to knock those in any way. John even hired Cal Arts grads for some of his own cartoons, including Aaron Springer and Mike Kim, though he had to retrain a lot of them to break blind habits.

    What I’m saying is that you can’t classify someone like Bob Camp or Jessica Borutski as having the “John K.” style or the Spumco style just because they actually have their cartoon fundamentals down, like solid construction, clear posing, silhouettes, etc, and on top of it tons of influences from different places besides other cartoons. Principles and style are definitely not the same thing. These artists have a lot of other influences besides John himself, and likewise with John. Would you call Chuck Jones’s cartoons “John K.” design or Bob Clampett’s or Tex Avery’s? Those cartoons are some of his biggest influences, and he has a lot more where those came from.

  • Joel has had the most insightful comment to date. Character design is only one of the many elements that goes into making an enjoyable cartoon. Movement, timing, story, voice acting, music, and anyone reading this could name more.

    It really boils down to this .. can creative people be left alone to make funny cartoons? In today’s corporate climate, I’m not optimistic, and it’s not because of the creative people. But, as it was once said, anything’s possible in a cartoon.

    The designer explained her foot fetish to one of the Canadian newspaper chains. I still don’t like it, nor the rounded triangular jaws, nor the “I’m-really-high” eyes, but that’s just my personal aesthetic sense. I’m not a fan of Jones’ later dome-head designs or McKimson’s tiny-cranium, big-mouth characters, either.

    That said, some of the designs are really good. Erlab mentions a couple. I like Sam, too.

    Saying “Well, (insert name of favourite God/Warners director here) changed the designs” isn’t a justification for blanket change. They had to do it for a *reason*. Robcat raises a pertinent question.

    The term “haters” is not only a childish cliché, it’s ironic. People use it against others who are biased .. in the process, showing their own bias. Judging by posts I’ve seen, people on both sides of the equation have put some thought into outlining the reasons for their thinking.

  • Roberto Severino

    And by the way, you can tell that there’s a John K. influence in both Steve Hillenberg’s and Genddy’s cartoons. In fact, you even have people that worked on Ren and Stimpy on both of those shows. Vincent Waller, Richard Pursel, and Aaron Springer are currently working on SpongeBob right now. People like Don Shank and Carey Yost worked on Dexter’s Lab. Just something interesting that I thought would add to the discussion.

  • Jorge Garrido

    “*What problem do these new designs solve? Was there a meeting at WB where an executive said “I figured out the problem we’re having with our classic characters… it’s not the dumb projects we put them in, it’s not the bad scripts we write for them… it’s the way they look! We need to change the way they look to something different than the way they looked when they were successful and iconic.”

    You mean the prefab 90s Darrel Van Citters look that only some of the characters looked like in certain cartoons from the early 1950s and NONE of the characters (like the Tasmanian Devil) looked like in the original cartoons?

    Jess’ changes are no more different from the original cartoons than the Space Jam and Back in Action licensing-style designs were. The difference is Jess is designing them in her own style, and it’s strong enough to look both classic (especially in some of Daffy’s design choices, like the spiky tail) and personal.

  • Abu

    Only 2 I don’t care for are Bugs and Porky. Weird face on Porky, there’s just something not right about him. I DO like the one Bugs… the lower left hand pic of him leaning against something. Kinda reminds me of the old, dopey Bugs Bunny. All the rest look okay.

    The last modern day Looney Toon thing that I actually enjoyed was the Duck Dogers series, THAT was how it should be done! Hopefully this one is good as well.

  • Brendan Spillane

    Having now seen more of the characters involved, I’m off the “this may be crazy enough to work!” school of thought. The Bob Clampett-esque Daffy Duck is a BIG plus! As long as the show retains the spirit of the classics (& NOT resort to any fart jokes out of “Family Guy”), I’m cool with it.

  • Here are a examples of what got lost in translation: http://www.cartoondepot.com/pages/img/wb/le/WB1053%20Gossamer%20Model%20Sheet.jpg
    http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/newsletters/images/1943_McKimson_ModelSheet.JPG -The one’s I like are the ones that have remnants of these characters.

  • Craig

    Jorge Garrido says: Jess’ changes are no more different from the original cartoons than the Space Jam and Back in Action licensing-style designs were.

    That has got to be the dumbest comment made yet.

  • They still are using Lola? That’s sad. And what’s with that new female duck? When there’s talk about going back to the Looney Tune’s roots, these females are not what I have in mind.

  • Scarabim

    Despite my doubts, I’ll tune into this show, just to see how the characters are handled by the writers. I’m hoping we’ll see more than Looney Tunes Lite. It’d be nice to see Sylvester, for instance, do something besides chase that bird. In fact, it’d be fun to see all of the characters do something outside of formula (by which I DON’T mean “out of character”). “Carrotblanca” was a lot of fun because the Loonies got to do something a little different. And apparently that’s not easy to do; check out the Daffy Duck Christmas Carol that aired a few years back. A total botch of an interesting idea IMO. One of my favorite Looney Tunes is the one where the characters act out The Scarlet Pimpernel (or in Loonspeak, Pumpernickel). That was soooo great. Anyway, I’ll definitely check this show out, and will try not to focus on Bug’s Elephant Man feet and Porky’s new Marty Feldman look and Sylvester’s jowl lift and…

  • these are alot more appealing to my eyes than the promo image 2 months ago. It’s nice to see Daffy “DAFFY” again! I’m looking forward to seeing what this is all about!

  • OK i figured it out…

    As I look at these some more, the most obvious change i see from the “classic” designs is simpler feet. Aside from the avian characters, most of their feet are about the shape of half a hard-boiled egg.

    That’s why the old designs were such poison on the market. Their feet did not look like lumps with toe lines painted on. I bet the market research that discovered this was expensive, but I’m sure it was worth it.

  • OUCH… tangents are everywhere

  • udx

    Another thing I wanna point out. Next month is Comic-Con and I plan on attending the Looney Tunes panel if it shows up. I hope Kath Soucie is there just as an excuse to call her Lola character “Doll!” XP

  • Animator

    Everyone is entitled to their opinions but the fact remains that these are bad designs, you can like them but they don’t make these good drawings. We have a large history in animation and it seems most people seem to be missing the point… If the designs were in fact structured no matter how different they would be from the past designs, they would still be strucutured designs. These aren’t, they are flat peices of cartboard with no underlying structure and no real depth. They have shape and form but they aren’t well founded with an actual finished coating to give these characters life, they are merely tossed left to right for a hint of possible exaggeration. Many of these expressions are bland and have no story, the past looney was an eye opener for this and if the designer had in fact studied the past looney tunes for referance she should have noticed a great deal effort by the animators to introduce unique personalities, the image that at the bottom showing the full cast shows us a bunch of stocked happy expressions that have no edge and no appeal. Artistry is based on observation and the more I study these poses the more I find they are missing the basic elements of the principles applied to animation. I don’t want people to think that I am trying to discourage Jessica and I do want to encourage her. Artists are allowed to make mistakes but these lack the fundamentals of basic drawing, I’m sorry if sound like a jerk, but this is from warner bros. and they should be able to offer the best quality to an audience, even if it is for kids. Style isn’t simply based on feeling, it’s also based on excellence. And past or current animation that is bad is no excuse for this.

  • Mitch Kennedy

    These are all kinds of fun! Look at those poses!

  • Jen

    I have to give this girl props. Jessica had a very difficult job here, as evidenced by the critiques. I happen to really enjoy Jessica’s work and this stuff is just as appealing as her usual.

    There’s probably no way to please everybody in this situation. The Loony Tunes are a very beloved and, at this point, classic set of characters. Everyone has their favorite incarnation, but to my recollection each director drew the characters their own way. I don’t think this new show could be any exception.

    What I like most about these designs is that you can tell the artist’s hand in them. They look like her other work, not like they were critiqued and pushed to the point of staleness by the property’s holders. That in of itself is pretty true to the classic ways and it will be interesting to see if the rest of the production holds to that standard as well.

  • killskerry

    Speaking as somebody who builds flash character libraries all day I can say this.

    They look fine as stills but unless they have created a massive library with lots of body-parts and individual pieces the characters will NOT animate well. Not only that the characters are so complicated they will have lots of “seaming” issues. You’ll see that alot with characters that are human in shape or wear lots of complicated clothing.

    All of the characters need to hide they “seams” of their arms legs and thighs…basically their joint behind something in order for the characters to actually function without looking terrible from the start.
    Take Taz for example, Instead of his legs actually being a part of his body they sit behind it to hide where his thighs hook onto his hips. This handicap leads to so many limitations and causes a still look that works for some flash cartoons but NOT for something as smooth and lovely as a traditional Looney Toons.

    I could be wrong …they could be animating all these characters frame by frame but they designs themselves all look to be something created specifically with library swapping in mind. I do not have high hopes. If you do have serious complaints about the design part of it was the limitations of the studios chosen animation program.

  • Anna

    Porky, what have they done to you?!?!

  • Cartoon Cave Hermit

    @killskerry, I don’t know why people seem to think this is done in flash. I know for a fact it isn’t a flash show, and is being animated overseas. These designs have clean hard bold lines, like an illustrator or flash drawing, but it is not a flash cartoon. I’m sure it will be digitally cleaned up, but what isn’t these days?

    Besides all that, I’m glad to see people calming down now that a little more imagery has made it out. It isn’t classic looney tunes, but it never was meant to be. At least we all know it will look good.

  • Joshua Bailey

    “Speaking as somebody who builds flash character libraries all day I can say this.”

    With respect, I’m not sure your advice is necessary as I don’t believe it’s animated in flash. I could be mistaken, but I’m inclined to believe that those claims were made as an insult to the series by bitter fans. It has never been stated that flash is being used and yet, looking back at comments in all of Cartoon Brew’s articles, flash has been used as an insult against the series time and time again.

    I know that perception trumps reality, but it’s getting ridiculous.

  • They look awesome!!

  • Alissa

    They look like characters from the Kingdom Hearts videogame series. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it’s going to take some getting used to I guess.

    Like Yosemite Sam, really dislike Granny, pretty neutral on the rest. I just hope that the finished product looks good.

  • Sam

    Thanks for clarifying, Anthony C. I really like Jessica’s work in it’s style, don’t get me wrong. But I am saying the very idea of redesigning the CLASSIC characters is a gigantic insult to me.

    To some artist, they hate having their own treasure totally being redone by someone else. Come on, do you think Pixar would like people doing new designs of Toy Story? Not now, but most likely not in the future too. Unless somehow someone in there in the future who is in charge suddenly just want to redo every movie into 4D or 5D (think Disney) or whatever D technology in the future, and think they can replay the entire history success they used to have.

    That’s how it’s like to me it’s all. I don’t understand why they can’t make more new original characters that are actually fun and appealing to watch.

  • calartskid

    My point is that it’s a double standard. It’s ok for John K and others to associate calarts and disney as cliche and stock, but when something is clearly a John K cliche and has John K stock expressions, and drawn poorly (I have to disagree with your ideas of “cartoon” fundamentals and “principles”), its taboo.

    but the real root of the problem is not that it’s stock John K, but that there is a lack of basic fundamental drawing problems in the designs. Anyone that draws well would understand that.

  • I’ll reserve judgement until I see the cartoons, but a lot of these look “off” to me. Like in the lineup picture…why is Sylvester so tiny? What’s with Taz having elephant tusks? And why do they all have big feet, big heads and tiny bodies? What’s wrong with drawing them the way they were created in the first place?

  • Craig

    Joshua Bailey says: With respect, I’m not sure your advice is necessary as I don’t believe it’s animated in flash. I could be mistaken, but I’m inclined to believe that those claims were made as an insult to the series by bitter fans.

    It’s not being animated in flash and thats the point. These designs looks like they were specifically made to be flash animated. Every damn thing is smoothed and flattened to be as stupidly simple as possible. Every small detail that whoever decided was unnecessary gone. Like, oh I don’t know, HAVING TOES.

    Side note: with the exception of Marvin (who has no mouth to begin with) every single character is smiling.

  • I’m calling it now. This will be the greatest Daffy since Daffy was first introduced. That design is just awesome.

  • *edit*
    I can’t help but comment on the reply above mine. Sam: which redesign of the “classic” characters are you insulted by? Because Bugs and the gang have been through more changes in the past hundred years than I can count.

    No, what would be insulting is if they decided one day to try to preserve these great characters in some vault and never let anyone touch them again. These characters deserve to run loose like the Animaniacs on speed, satirizing whatever culture they’re currently being drawn in. To lock them away into some dry historical context and relegating them to *sigh* the children’s programming they’ve been trapped inside for the past 25 years or so… THAT’s what’s insulting, doc.

  • Akbar Shahzad

    I just hope these guys don’t move like everything else on Cartoon Network. The designs look nice as designs, but the sleek, modern look, while still bearing a resemblance to Clampett or, less flatteringly, John K, doesn’t suggest the same plasticity to me that those directors use. I would hate to see these characters darting from pose to library pose. Any of you animators think these designs would be good at squashing, stretching and general outrageous distortion? Maybe it’s just the “flat” look that’s misleading me, but they appear rather stiff. In other words, now that Jessica has created nice models, will the show be willing to go wildly off-model?

  • ”If you can list three things wrong with the image above, then you aren’t trying hard enough. Frankly, it looks worse than your average fan art, and not the caliber of work one expects from “professional” artists who draw for a living.” said Amid in an older post featuring one of these desings.
    And everyone was mocking the desings.

    ”The more I see of these, the more I like.” says Jerry.
    And everyone is liking them…

  • Mixed emotions for sure. From a character design (or re-design) stand point, there’s some nice work here. But it’s easy to kill a good design with bad animation or bad voice work etc, so I’m waiting to see the final product. I like that they’re retained the heart of the classic characters but the designs themselves are still pretty stylized. Kind of wish the transformations were less severe. And I’m not at all crazy about the idea of all the characters living together in a suburban setting. They’re creating an entire new Looney Tunes universe when the world was clearly defined by 3 decades of animation.

  • Roberto Severino

    “My point is that it’s a double standard. It’s ok for John K and others to associate calarts and disney as cliche and stock, but when something is clearly a John K cliche and has John K stock expressions, and drawn poorly (I have to disagree with your ideas of “cartoon” fundamentals and “principles”), its taboo. but the real root of the problem is not that it’s stock John K, but that there is a lack of basic fundamental drawing problems in the designs. Anyone that draws well would understand that.”

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. There are a lot of fake Spumco copycats there, who turn every single thing on The Ren and Stimpy Show, even the mistakes, into a styles. I think that’s more “John K. design,” only it’s a basic misunderstanding about what John was trying to achieve. I still think these designs are great, in terms of style and such, though there are things I would have done differently as well if I had the responsibility of redesigning classic LT characters. I agree wholeheartedly with what John S said about these drawings. It takes a lot of drawing skill and talent to pull something like this off. At first when I saw these, I didn’t like them either, but I started getting used to them and saw that they were actually really well drawn. It’s how Milt Gross’ cartoons may seem uncontrolled and unprincipled when you first look at them, when in reality those drawings are nothing of the kind.

    Just wondering. If you really think these drawings are so poorly done, why don’t you post some of your own attempts at redesigning the characters? How would you fix these because in all of your comments, you have not mentioned a single thing you would fix specifically? Could you do any better?

  • I may sound completely silly but who is that pale female duck? Is she new to add more girls to the cast? P.S. I like the designs by the way.

  • JD

    “No, what would be insulting is if they decided one day to try to preserve these great characters in some vault and never let anyone touch them again. These characters deserve to run loose like the Animaniacs on speed, satirizing whatever culture they’re currently being drawn in. To lock them away into some dry historical context and relegating them to *sigh* the children’s programming they’ve been trapped inside for the past 25 years or so… THAT’s what’s insulting, doc.”

    You’re so right! All art should be this way. Like William Shatner doing “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds”. Run loose John Lennon like Animaniacs on speed! Be released from the vault of classic rock radio!

  • Brokenshell44

    Huh, not as bad looking as I thought they would. Bugs still looks like crap, and the fact that they’re bringing in Lola annoys me, but I’ll still wait and see how the show works out.

  • It’s amusing how people can’t simply say “i dont like the style these characters are drawn in ” but instead try to claim that there’s no ‘construction’ or ‘basic drawing skills’ involved with the designs. Two terms that are so vague and meaningless and practically only exist these days as buzzwords for people who want to grump about something but have nothing to say.

  • Bubba McNugget

    Aslong as this isn’t done in flash…!
    Flash is low budget, and for the interwebs, not TV.

    Really love the Tweetie design. They stayed true enough to the original, added some clean lines, and I don’t hate it. =D

  • I was almost sure but I needed to chek it out, now I’m sure. The biggest drawing of Daffy has the same pose he shows in the Nasty Quacks credit card. That’s my fave Daffy cartoon! Well done, Jessica!

  • Steve Gattuso

    I like what I see. If the stories turn out to be well done, then this will be a worthy compliment to the past.

  • Ah. Now that I can see more of the poses, I’m liking these redesigns a lot more (the initially released still with the Chinese take-out may not have been the best choice for a first glance). The new Daffy especially looks great – though Chuck Jones handled the snarky, greedy Daffy well, I’d always preferred the insane, bouncy one.

    I just hope the design style holds up in the actual animation.

    Just though of something: who’s doing the music for the series, and what kind of music are they using? Are they going to emulate Carl Stalling and Milt Franklyn, or are they going to try something new (no rapping or auto-tuned rabbits, please)?

  • Roberto Severino

    “It’s amusing how people can’t simply say “i dont like the style these characters are drawn in ” but instead try to claim that there’s no ‘construction’ or ‘basic drawing skills’ involved with the designs. Two terms that are so vague and meaningless and practically only exist these days as buzzwords for people who want to grump about something but have nothing to say.”

    Exactly. It’s okay to not like the style. There were plenty of artists who hated the style that the UPA cartoons had, including Walt Disney and Joe Barbera. No one’s forcing you to like any of these drawings, but I think that “no construction” and “basic drawing skills” takes that bias too far. Sure some of the characters look a little bit flattened out (probably due to the inking), like Porky, but that still shouldn’t justify such outright claims, especially if you don’t have any drawing skills and talent yourself. Seems very hypocritical to me.

  • J Hobart B

    I’m not sold on Bugs, Porky, Petunia, Pepe, Marvin, or Elmer. But all the other characters look awesome, if you ask me.

    Now, I’m still not holding out much hope for the show itself, only because I don’t really believe that anybody knows what to do with these characters anymore. But the designs I got no beef with.

  • I actually kind of like these. Some work better than others- the Tazmanian Devil looks too cuddly & clean cut, Porky’s face looks weird, and Bugs still has the smarmy attitude… the best pic of him is the one where he’s leaning against something. Bugs, Tweety, Taz & a couple others have that stylized flat-foot look that isn’t really working.

    The other characters look pretty good to me, though. Daffy seems to have reverted to his original insane personality, which is a plus. And there is actual drawing skill and an attempt to give them personality. I’ll give this show a chance.

    This doesn’t change the fact that I think the old cartoons need to be aired on TV more. If they’re gonna make new, updated versions, at least give them equal time with the classic shorts. There are certainly enough channels on TV to find some time for them.

  • I don’t like are the super elongated pupils – I really don’t like that. Also not a big fan of bugs’s shrunk down body and scaled up the feet. Lankier proportions would probably lend itself to his cheeky personality and sneakyness. If they are going to bring this back shouldn’t they update some of the wardrob to current styles?

  • The only thing that still bugs me is this “we all live in the same neighborhood” concept. I wish they’d stick with the old format where there was a different continuity/premise in every cartoon (much like the 3 Stooges). It was more fun that way and the writers had more freedom to do whatever they wanted- “this week, let’s put Bugs in medieval times!”

    To all those complaining of a lack of “basic drawing skills”: give me a break. These are redesigned and maybe not what you’re used to, but the artists can obviously draw.

  • Ariel

    Wow.. why can’t they keep “classics” the way they are. These remind me of Muppet Babies (*short heights, Big feet!)

    No dis-respect to Warners or Jessica, but the classic designs from the 30’s and 40’s will never be replicated. But I guess for today’s kid audience, design doesn’t really matter. Look at Phebius and Ferb!

    Again, no dis-respect to all involved but “I” just won’t be watching this. Thanks.

  • I agree with those that appreciate the “Clampett-esque” (more correctly the “McKimson-esque”) qualities of these designs.

    That said, I think that Bugs’ feet and head need to be refined a little.

    His feet look best when they are a little longer horizontally and don’t seem as though they need to be that tall vertically.

    The bottom of his face could be a little wider, his ears a little taller.

    But overall, I’m on board and eager to see what happens when these designs are finally animated.

  • calartskid

    “just wondering. If you really think these drawings are so poorly done, why don’t you post some of your own attempts at redesigning the characters? How would you fix these because in all of your comments, you have not mentioned a single thing you would fix specifically? Could you do any better?”

    I love how this always resorts to, “can you do any better?” or .. “let’s see you make a film..” .. or .. “you don’t know crap because you don’t know the people I just name dropped” Will that justify my point better if I’m a professional character designer and say it’s poorly drawn or constructed? or if I’m not? Do I need to show you my blog to justify my opinions? Do I need to do a “John K” style side by side comparison on my blog in order to prove anything? I love how you automatically assume I “don’t have any drawing skills and talent” but you haven’t seen anything except that I wrote.. these drawings lack basic drawing skills.

    the fact you don’t agree with me is enough to let me know more about you then if I saw your “blog”.

  • Roberto Severino

    “I love how this always resorts to, “can you do any better?” or .. “let’s see you make a film..” .. or .. “you don’t know crap because you don’t know the people I just name dropped” Will that justify my point better if I’m a professional character designer and say it’s poorly drawn or constructed? or if I’m not? Do I need to show you my blog to justify my opinions? Do I need to do a “John K” style side by side comparison on my blog in order to prove anything? I love how you automatically assume I “don’t have any drawing skills and talent” but you haven’t seen anything except that I wrote.. these drawings lack basic drawing skills.”

    I’m not saying you need a blog to have your opinion justified. You still haven’t provided any reason as to why you think these drawings are lacking basic drawing skills. You haven’t said anything like “this character lacks asymmetry” or this other character looks “too unappealing because.” The terms you’re using are very vague. What drawing skills are you referring to?

    At least I’m posting under my real name, rather than some made-up pseudonym like “calartskid” spewing out vague statements and not backing them up with anything.

  • Not to hurt feelings, but these designs are really awful. I said elsewhere that far worse officially sanctioned renderings of the characters exist (just look at just about any drawing in the 1970s or 1980s or anything Chuck Jones drew past 1980), but saying that they aren’t the worst ever isn’t a compliment.

    The classics were designed by seasoned professionals who had a grasp on what the animators could handle and use to the funniest effect. (Not to mention knowledge of perspective and anatomy, something lacking completely in these new designs.) This kind of stuff should be kept at Deviantart, and the constant discussion of it is only enabling another of a corporate giant’s cynical marketing campaigns. End of story.

  • Greg Ehrbar

    I’m looking forward to the new series. The domestic format is one of the few things that the original Looney Tunes shorts rarely explored, though there was quite a bit of the “neighborhood” setting in the comics.

    As far as the designs go, I’d also like to see what they look like when they’re moving around in cartoons on my TV screen. Spongebob looks little more than ludicrous as a still piece of art (albeit very funny), but with the addition of sharp writing, savvy acting and skillful direction, he completely becomes whole (or is it “hole?”). And that cool, goofball old stock library music is the cherry on top (which Spumco also used as a great comedy device).

    Speaking of John K and company, one of my favorite treasures is John K’s lovingly crafted laserdisc set of The Flintstones. It helped me appreciate the contributions of the HB artists because attention was directed to their specific styles — and how they often tweaked the design models in their own various ways. Hey, I know how to spot a Carlo Vinci Fred! The inconsistency was part of the charm that existed for a vrief time before HB grew and required tighter structure to sustain its size. “The Flintstones” laserdisc was a celebration of the early freedom to alter the look from cartoon to cartoon, sometimes within the same episode. It wasn’t sacrilege, it was kind of neat.

    My favorite part of the LD set is about character merchandise and how it veered even more off model. (Remember “Fred, Wilma and Strange Woman in Car?” Hah!) And next time you watch “Bye Bye Birdie,” take a look at that Huckleberry Hound toy on the little chair in Ann-Margret’s bedroom — or is it Cindy Bear?

    My point, if I can ever get to it, is that the very reinterpretation of these classic characters is one way of validating their importance and immortality, the same way you can listen to great music under different conductors’ batons and see revivals of legendary stage shows. Of course, not every new interpretation works. But more often than not, more than one “definitive” rendition can emerge and thrive.

  • Greg Ehrbar

    Typed “vrief,” but meant “brief.”

  • “just wondering. If you really think these drawings are so poorly done, why don’t you …”
    That was the point of my links up there. My mantra is if you’re not maintaining or improving on the base design/character, then you shouldn’t go forward with it. Everyone who has had their hands on those characters or Mickey Mouse for that matter, has shaped the character. Chuck Jones’ vs. Bob Clampett’s vs Tex Avery’s iterations are good examples of how you can maintain quality while diverging in style. And, from there people will prefer one over the others’ version. Those links I posted above represent what I think those characters personalities are, and I was showing what nuances were lost in these new designs that I lament. The hardest part of drawing is capturing the essence of a character-more so than solid construction. Though, if you want any sort of consistency, that construction needs to be there. I think she did a decent job, but it falls short for me.

  • calartskid

    1. look at almost every hand in the design. Most of them lack believable anatomy or construction. Especially Taz’s hands, Bug’s hands with his arms crossed, and Marvin the Martian. Is it believable that these characters have bones with muscles? even if they were stylized? The one with Bugs with his arm raised, how many joints are in that thumb? it looks broken.. or nonexistant

    2. Why is Porky bending his right leg? Try to do that pose. Most of his body weight is on his left leg yet he’s bending his right leg that far? Is he lifting it up? If you drew a ground plane in there.. would that make it more clear? look at the angle of the leg and how it relates to his body.. There’s tension pull coming from his knee to the bottom of his stomach that creates that straight.. but does it makes sense to do that? She drew that siloutte line from porky’s ass and overlaps that with the leg… unless porky has fat that rolls on top of his right leg comming from his back torso.. that would not happen!

    3. In the upper right hand corner of bugs holding the carrot.. look at that arm.. his upper arm is clearly longer then his lower half.. and if his upper arm was that long.. you wouldn’t be able to hide that other arm behind his back that way.. I understand what the drawing is trying to emulate in the pose.. but it just looks off to me!

    4. Taz’s hand that’s hiding behind left foot isn’t the same size as his other hand.. if you account for the perspective of the floor by looking at his feet and the angle and structure of the arm.. either his hand is melding with that foot, going through the floor, or is just smaller..

    5. If you look at tweety’s siloutte.. And you colored it in black.. What is his shape telling you? It just looks like a three round shapes to me.. Is it happy? sad? angry?

    Do I need to go on? Most of the UPA and Hanna Barbera artists used to be ex-disney artists or artists that drew solidly. These drawings are not solid.

  • Well calartskid – Show. Us. The. Money. Evidence will help.

    If these are lacking “basic drawing skills” then I will take these “lack of drawing skills” compared to 98.5% of all the current cartoons out there. (Never mind how bad some of the “beloved toons” of yesteryear were).

    These look like they will fit most of Mr. K’s complaints: Easy to animate, consistency (though he tends to like allowing for off model and I think these designs leave a lot of room for that), achieving cuteness. The only thing to me is weight or volume – but that could be, with these designs, really subtle – with Taz, i really dig it. Especially in the group shot.

    Good work maintaining likenesses, and adapting for a new generation. Congrats to Ms. Borutski.

  • My mistake if the animation is being done overseas. I just assumed because when I look at these they have all the hallmarks of a flash designed character. For instance Lola and bugs or the female duck and daffy. They look like they are all made out of the same parts recolored(especially the feet). All of the characters have the very same hands….this would be a flash trick because you build hands for one character recolor them and use them for another. Also like I said before these characters lack the smoothness you would find in a hand drawn character..they have abrupt points where you can see seaming being considered.

    Now that I know they weren’t designed with flash in mind I think the designs are actually LESS appealing. I really wish they would have avoided the thick lined look. It feels unnecessary.

  • calartskid

    that fact that you gloss over those details and say it has “solid construction” makes me skeptical about your tastes and skills..

  • Roberto Severino

    Very interesting points and explanations. Sorry I put you through so much trouble. I just wanted to know why you would believe that these lacked basic drawing skills. I really don’t want to continue this argument any further. You definitely have a valid opinion, and I respect that, even though my opinion still begs to differ.

    I still can’t wait to see how these designs are going to move around on the actual show, which won’t be for several more months.


    I’d love to have seen the original pencil roughs: so much vitality is lost in the ‘cleanup’ stage later, despite ‘cool’ color, fine linework, etc.

  • Stephan

    These are fantastic, and they adress the biggest problem of so many of the Looney Tunes reboots, that while the original ones had screaming artistic hand in them, the latter came through the meat grinders. These designs, hate em or love em (and only haters will really hate these), have a human stamp to them. And its fantastic. Technical skill is only third most important in art. First is if its fun/looks good. First is if people like it. I’m going with those two latter ones if the first don’t do it for yah.

  • Stephan

    Also, all those brimming and overflowing with hate at that one image posted a month or two back, may your words be deliciously eaten!

  • It’s true that there are some strange perspectives, hands and legs positions. And the big feet are definitely awkward in most characters, Marvin’s are even weirder than Bugs’ since it has this HUGE sneakers and yet extremely thin legs. However, even though that kind of thing makes everything better constructed they’re still details to me. What I see first are appealing faces and expressive poses, something I don’t find in the usual LT merchandising designs, even though they are sometimes perfectly “constructed” and they’re hands, legs and arms are anatomically correct.

  • fishmorgjp

    Eh… they don’t look like the real thing.

  • Tonma

    Mr calartskid :
    I honestly think your looking too deep into these drawings, and many of you complains are a bit off.

    Porky’s issue is a mere line overlap problem could be fixed in two seconds without altering the pose or the silhouette. and it would look just right.

    I give you that the hands in Taz have a problem but I feel is more a matter of the overlap with the feel rather than the size of the hand on the back, if any I think the arm is too close to the body to show the hand volume clearly.

    I don’t understand how can you complain about tweety’s silhouette, pushing his proportions to the top has always been the whole point of his design. His tiny face features and arms quite never show in a silhouette, yet you can still tell his leaning forward in his cute and damn cynical way. He could flow better with his action line maybe. (looks a bit zig-zaggy), but that’s not improper.

    As for the disjointed thumb on bugs, this is something that’s been going on for ever, and going strong ever since the toons became more stylized, an I have seen this in UPA, Late MGM, HB and even Disney now and then. The thumb moves forward and slumps out the hand in a weird place. we might as well get over it, (besides I like it because my thumbs bend in a weird way that looks a lot like that).

    I’m seeing these images as a whole, showing the direction of the design and characterization, not as the huge printed promotional images they will probably end up being (in that sense your claims are more fair); And as tv animation stills these problems would hardly stand up. To me this looks good enough to knock down the initial hostility towards the project, and that’s not a small feat.

    Long life oldschool Daffy. hope he’ll be less greedy and egocentric, and he says “dethpicable” a lot less. hope…….

  • Chris J.

    Amazing how opinions turn when people have to consider the actual feelings of the person their savaging. A lot of “Now that I look at these again” and “on second veiwing” comments here.


  • I’m actually very impressed with Jessica Borutski’s designs (having enjoyed her short I LOVE PANDAS)! Very dynamic and appealing. It really looks like her style, too! (That was very apparent when I saw Sylvester.) I would love to see these in action.

    And Speedy Gonzales is in it!!! I had feared that he wouldn’t be.

  • Chris J. You make a good point. And, I considered that before saying anything. But, hopefully, there is some constructive criticism in there. My angst is that standards have dropped and people aren’t critical enough as they seemed to have been in the “golden eras”, when competition and scrutiny elevated things. It’s pretty depressing that we aren’t building on a foundation of artistry rather than eroding it. I think those designs are fine. But, compared to the original characters, are we moving forward in any way? I think she’s in her early 20’s, and that is amazing to have that opportunity and confidence to tackle this-hopefully, she has a thick skin. Ironically, I’ll bet there wasn’t much time to do the designs to boot!

  • I bet anyone here would have jumped at the chance to do them and probably done a much worse job at it too.

    It’s a dream job, I can’t imagine anyone turning it down nor anyone meeting the challenge with such skill and appeal.

    To criticize Jessica for a corporate studio process she has no control over is ridiculous.

  • adriana

    I think these look great!!! I think people would be surprised if they actually watched the older cartoons and saw how the designs changed over the years and how different artists/directors did different things. Sometimes what you think is the “original” look isn’t. Get over it.

    You know what? Kids don’t care about what came before, they care about what looks nice and is funny. I think these guys look cool and much more aesthetically pleasing to a modern eye than previous versions. I think they have very cute features, I love the very “bright” looking eyes, I love the softened, rounded look! I wouldn’t buy anything with the most recent character designs, but I would definitely buy something that looks like this! I cannot wait to see the new series. I instantly knew who everyone was and thought they all looked approachable for today’s kid.

    I enjoyed the Tiny Toons series a great deal (Bugs didn’t look like the “original” Bugs in that show either in his appearances)! And I know a lot of people have very fond memories of that show. That was a new design, that was successful! There’s no reason that any new design is intrinsically wrong! Its wrong if you set a kid in front of it and they think it’s not funny and can’t relate to it. that’s your barometer. On basis of design alone, I think these guys are a very refreshingly updated look while still retaining familiarity!

  • badjoojoo

    These are nice reworkings of the original characters–I especially like Daffy. The real test is how these will work in motion, though.

  • warnervet

    They are atrocious. This is the ultimate managerial insult to some of the greatest character designs ever created.

  • pappy d

    The new designs are cuter (head-to-body ratio) & funnier (big feet, LOL). Who doesn’t like cute & funny?

    @ WB execs:
    I smell a winner here. Kudos to the whole crew who came up with the amazing idea to make these characters fresh & relevant for a whole new generation of kids! I’d love to sit in on meetings like those!

  • OK, this actually gives me a bit of hope. These are sweet character designs. Both Bugs and Daffy seem to hearken back to the Clampett Unit. I suspect that Porky was designed the way he was designed because they want to encourage kids to stop eating sweets and work out…a politically correct piggy if ever I saw one. I guess he’s the Other White Meat now.

    What bugs me about the show still is the High Concept: The Looneys all live in a cul-de-sac in the ‘burbs. Friends and enemies are now all cheek-to-jowl with each other. And yeah, Bugs and Lola are a couple, as is Porky and Petunia, and Daffy and….MARISOL? Daffy’s got a Latin Spitfire wife?

    Which brings me to the character that made my eyebrows arch…Speedy is back. How are they going to neuter his character to make him a “positive Latino role model?” Or is that why La Pata Marisol is on the crew now…to balance the Speedy Gonzalez political incorrectness? All I know is that I’ve seen lowrider cars with really awesome murals of Speedy on them. Speedy, for at least some Chicanos, is a symbol of pride. So who knows? The fastest mouse in all Mexico might be a breakout character again. Then again, having him aboard might make this show get banned in Arizona. ^_^

  • Kay

    Gosh, I really can not wait until the old crotchety people of the world who can’t let go of ‘the way things were in their day’ go away. You all just sound like bitter old people who don’t know how to let anything go.

    I just don’t understand the whole old generation of hate towards anything new. I don’t know how to break it to you guys but that old stuff you old people love so much looks BAD to most young people.

    These new designs are wonderful! They’ve got tons of personality and more importantly, they’re freaking cute! I’d buy toys of these in a heartbeat. They’re totally recognizable as who they are. The change is nowhere near as drastic as you people are pretending. I hope the designer doesn’t lose heart at these crotchety old people complaining. I think the designs are amazing and I bet most people under 30, and most importantly kids, do too.

  • Brad Constantine

    great for t shirts maybe…but not fer animation. They are all the shape of the road runner now. Feet are too big and the bodies are too small.Just my two cents…If it aint broke…..

  • Greg Ehrbar

    Oh, Kay…

    Please do not assume that everyone who picked on the designs was “old.” You’d lost that bet.

    A lot of people make this mistake, though, in your defense. Even though I have the tanned, buff body of a 27-year-old, I did not leave negative comments.

    Just sayin’.

  • Kel

    Oh no! Not Lola Bunny!!!!!!

  • warnervet

    Try animating these things. They don’t even maintain their proportion from pose to pose.
    They look like fanart versions of the characters, suitable only for Flash projects that don’t require much movement.

  • Kay

    Greg E:
    I’m not assuming they ALL are, but I bet a large bunch of the hate is from old people who don’t like change (and yes young people are guilty of this too so perhaps a more appropriate term would be ‘change-haters’ rather then ‘old people’- excuse my age-cism). I’m not speaking out of nowhere space, I’m speaking as someone in the industry who gets to listen to old guys complain about everything made after 1960 all day long. So consider me jaded by people who can’t accept something not like the way they first saw it. It’s like seeing DC comic fans who do nothing but complain because no other version will ever be their horrible golden age DC. Nothing’s allowed to evolve with these change-haters.

    I’m not saying everyone has to love these designs, I’m saying the people calling disaster on them are mostly stagnant people that probably haven’t liked a cartoon in general in the last 30 years and just don’t like change. Even the ‘these can’t be animated’ comments are insane. Of course they can be! There’s a zillion cartoons out there with way more complexity or angles, or whatever their imagined problem is, that animate just fine. I know I’m lumping the masses into some huge stereotypes here, but all you have to do is read the comments in this entry to feel the range of general change-hate. It’s not that the designs look the way that they do. It’s that the designs aren’t exactly the same as old designs. That’s not a valid critic.

    Legitimately disliking a design and hating a design because it’s different then some super old design you like because you grew up with it and feel a personal identity crisis with it are two entirely different things, and most comments here are the latter rather then the former. Legit criticism is lacking in general in most of these hate comments.

  • Isn’t “Marisol” just Melissa from THE SCARLET PUMPERNICKEL? The color is right. They’d be silly to rename her now.

  • badjoojoo

    The only thing that gives me pause about this is the setup that Daffy and Bugs are odd couple roommates living in the ‘burbs. That doesn’t seem to spell FUN to me as much as when they were more like stock actors– where the settings could change from outer space in the future to a Wagner opera, or whatever seemed funniest (satire and current events played a bit part in LT’s appeal, I think). But I have my fingers crossed that they’ll pull something worthwhile off.

  • Dr. Toon

    A note for the traditionalists: Everyone who worked on the original LTs is dead. In order for the LTs to continue, they must be reinterpreted, and IMHO, reinterpretation is preferable to the endless replication of yellowing model sheets and the animated sensibilities of decades gone by. More power to the new LTs and all those carrying on a great tradition. You have my rapt attention.

  • JR

    @ Michelle

    I don’t think Speedy was really a negative stereotype (other than his design in the original short). The offensive characters in the Speedy shorts were Slowpoke and all the other mice that embodied the lazy stereotypes. While we might think the dialogue is mocking of Mexicans, I’m not sure it’s any goofier than any other character, no matter his or her supposed country of origin (really, Fudd and Porky’s speech impediments are just as bad, if not worse).

  • JR

    *Dialect, not dialogue… there may be some dialogue that folks find offensive, I suppose. Pretty easy to avoid that in the 21st century.

  • Ange

    @Terry LOL Do girls buy toys? Is… is that a joke? I was totally crazy for Lola when she first came out! I’m so excited she, and the other girls, are here!

    Allllllso, LOVING THE PEPE I wish I could get that drawing on a shirt! I don’t care what you guys say about the feet. They’re cute.

  • Dave S.

    Bugs… kinda reminds me of his early appearances. The proportions are almost the same.

  • Jorge Garrido

    Stephan, I couldn’t have said it better myself (and I tried and failed to do so, too!)

  • Julius Gryphon

    Awww man! What’s Lola doing in there? I was really hoping we could finally rid ourselves of her for good. I’d rather see the return of Honey.

    Speaking of female counterparts, I also can’t help notice the inclusion of both Petunia and a lady duck. You want to add in some new characte or elevate the status of some minor female character for no better reason than political correctness, fine. (Although I’d appreciate it if the characters were given an actual personality or were at least amusing…unlike Lola.) But in the first release of a group shot of all the classic characters? Really?

    • Radiator

      I’d prefer Honey Bunny instead of Lola Bunny, too. With Lola Bunny, at least in The Looney Tunes Show, Bugs Bunny looks for me like a tired man with past. Honey Bunny at least provided a perfect counterbalance for his crazy nature. I’d love to see Honey Bunny in Looney Tunes animation in some future, though she would maybe need to be redesigned to look less than Bugs Bunny’s twin sister ;-)

      Warner Bros. artists are so creative, they have the opportunity to bring Honey Bunny back and change her visual appearance and/or personality in a way she perfectly fits Looney Tunes in present shape. They may even change her role from girlfriend to, I don’t know, Bugs Bunny’s cousin / sister / neighbor / relative, etc.

      They may do the same with Melissa Duck who was originally planned to appear in this series. Not to mention Petunia Pig whom they seem to forget about… and Cicero Pig…

    • Lucas

      I’d also like to see Honey Bunny rather than Lola Bunny. She was just more classic and fitted Looney Tunes more than Lola does. And Honey Bunny wasn’t so annoying as today’s Lola is…

  • Greg Ehrbar

    Hello Kay…

    Seriously, I hear where you’re coming from and, as someone who is also “legit” — resume and references available on request — in the industry a long time (but not long enough to necessarily make me “old,” mind you), I understand that, if you find yourself among groups of people who get you down, there’s a very human tendency to assume that all people of that age/race/gender/corporation/rank/religion/politics/planet/dimension/shoe size are “like that.” But they’re not.

    I also agree that, in the words of Sybil Fawlty, “There’s no excuse for rudeness, Basil.” And I must repeat, not everyone on this remarkably long thread who criticize the designs, whether rudely or not, are all like those old people you have to deal with. And not all old people are, either. Many embrace change and innovate right up until they’re buried.

    This is just my little way to prevent hasty generalizations and stereotyping because that sort of thinking can not only hurt people personally, it can cost them their livelihood and can cost organizations the resources of great people who bring them great work and perhaps big profit shares, too.

    People of all ages can be resistant to change. Here’s some more recent examples: how many people thought “Monk” jumped the shark since Sharona left the show? How about Ellen joining “American Idol?” Or Simon Cowell leaving? Are the complainers all old people?

    It’s clear that you really don’t like folks to be cruel and hurtful. I appreciate your revision to the phrase “change haters,” however it was pretty much followed by a “but” and a reiteration of pretty much the same generalization.

    Trust me — annoying people of all ages will cross your path throughout your life and career, especially as you continue and widen your experience in the industry. (My theory has always been that there’s a Annoying People Factory somewhere that continually replaces them as they proceed on their annoying way.)

    But at that point, you might become old, so what then? You may still continue to appreciate new ideas and embrace change.

  • Sam


    I’m well aware Bugs Bunny have been through a lot of redesigning, but they are being managed by MASTERS in the past. And they are just going through evolution. Right now these? They look like a desperate attempt to get the audience’s attention back. They aren’t sincere, they just are like:” Well.. You know, kids today aren’t liking our stuff as much as the kids in the past used to, they like the classic stuff, so instead of coming up with NEW stuff that is great, why not we just keep redoing what has been done before? This formula must work! We can’t come up with new great stuff, so we must keep redoing what has been done before! ”

    Putting them back into the history shelf? Not quite. All my little nephew and niece loves watching the CLASSIC Looney Tunes rather than the new ones. There are new modern made Tom and Jerry series on TV and they just aren’t as great as the Classic ones. Even kids can tell the differences. Just replay the classic for the kids, and keep coming up with new fresh stuff is what I would say a wiser choice to be. It’s been a while since something as impacting as Power Puff Girls and Dexter gets made that creates new generation of kid’s favorite shows on TV now.

  • Cripes. If a GEICO commercial can get it right, why can’t Warner’s TV division?

  • Rooniman

    These look really nice. Although I find Bugs’s body alittle too small, Porky looks odd to me, and the feet don’t look right, but thats just me. I’ll watch one episode, if it impresses me, I’ll be quite suprised.


    Well… Daffy is interesting…Yosemite Sam looks okay. But by and large – meh. I still maintain that anybody that draws Gossam… I mean Rudolph – with a mouth when he doesn’t need one misses the boat.

  • To quote Fats Waller: “Your Feets Too Big”…otherwise, they look all right…

  • Mike Matei

    These look awful. I didn’t expect them to look good either. But this just confirms it. This flash style is garbage. If you’re going to revive classic golden age characters, I would have hoped they’d at least attempt full animation, instead of limited made for TV animation. This is putting Looney Tunes on the level with Dora the Explorer. Which is no surprise since we’ve been looking at junk rehashes of Looney Tunes for years such as Baby Looney Tunes and the like.
    The problem is, doing real animation is too costly and no studio wants to put out the money or effort. So why bother? This is going to fail just like every other attempt to revive Looney Tunes. Just let these characters rest in piece already.

  • I don’t like this!

  • Graham

    Is that who I think it is?

    Lola Bunny is back? That unfunny, one-shot character in Space Jam who wasn’t seen again afterward?

  • Brighton Roar

    “who cares if these are good designs or its a great show, I’m just sick of these characters altogether in any form. Loony Tunes themselves should go the way of Bosco. So should Superman, Batman and Mickey Mouse.”

    Agreed, they all should be public domain, or on the way to being public domain. Show us something new and fresh! A cynic might argue that this new show is just a way for WB to perpetuate the copyrights on characters made by a bunch of ridiculously talented people back in the 30s and 40s (which is a mean-spirited, lawyerly interpretation of copyright law. Copyright law should allow the creator of something beloved to be able to make money off it for his lifetime, but in practice it doesn’t work that way; so Superman, Mickey and all the rest of them will never die now.). Rather than replicate the conditions which created those 30s and 40s cartoons, WB are just taking those characters and plopping them in a sitcom. It’s gonna be like Animaniacs. Which, yeah, was pretty good in parts, and at least had new characters.

    I mean no disrespect to the artist who made these designs, not at all. In fact I am sure she was very pleased to have had this opportunity and this work, and she did good work. However, I’d rather just watch her original ideas. Imagine if they forgot about ‘new designs’, and just said to each episode’s director, “Do whatever you want as long as it’s funny and the characters are recognizable. Use these old model sheets from the 40s if you get stuck.” Wouldn’t that be a cool show?

    I reckon the only reason they need new character designs is so the overseas studios who draw the cartoons will need them, because that’s how they operate.

  • Stephan

    That Taz design is the best I’ve ever seen that character drawn. The McKimson designs were fun, but somehow this is just as attractive, if not more so. That may just be me though.

    Also, man a lot of people on this site are smug.

  • Autumn

    I understand people not wanting Lola in the line-up because she’s not one of the originals. But not wanting her for HONEY BUNNY, or because she’s “un-funny” and “hasn’t been seen since Space Jam” clearly shows that some people haven’t read Lola’s comics. She can be quite funny and Bugs-like.

    The fact that Space Jam was so disorganized and half-assed with her character development doesn’t mean she’s devoid of potential.

    And Honey Bunny? BLEHHH!!! Talk about adding on a GF just for the hell of it. What WAS Honey other than a Minnie Mouse character to attach to Bugs’ arm for no real reason. Lola at least has the potential to stand on her own and have actual personality.

    She’s gonna have to have SOME personality to over-come that 6 year old looking body she’s been slapped into. Eugh.

    • Now you proved that you haven’t read anything with Honey Bunny. She has more personality than most ‘Looney Tunes fans’ think.

  • I’m sssooo excited for the new show, I’m a lil skeptical of the new designs but it’s not too bad. Is Lola gonna be sporty and cool in this show too? Its rare to see her in a dress

  • I’m a big fan of old and new toons, and I love these designs. I look forward to the new cartoons.

  • Greg Duffell

    “Cool” drawings and designs do not a success make. What made the Warner cartoons interesting for me was the variety of stories and the surprises that were offered in every outing. There was an unpredictable nature to even who would star in a particular cartoon. Even if it was a familiar “star” character, the locale and the theme changed. Bugs Bunny could be in space as much as he could be in a forest, and then the surprise would be if he was up against Elmer, Yosemite Sam, or even Pete Puma or the Tasmanian Devil. I understand this new version is themed in the “suburbs”. How dull. Sounds like another version of “Tazmania”, a franchise that ruined the Tasmanian Devil character for eternity.

    I feel it necessary to comment on the Porky drawing. It seems no one over the past thirty or forty years knows how to deal with him graphically. Here again, look how huge his eyes are and how they extend almost to the top of his head. Porky’s features are very delicate, with his nose, mouth and eyes all fitting well below the half way mark of this head. That’s how to keep him cute and pleasant looking and not an ugly monstrosity as presented in these new drawings.

    Well, as long as some artists are paying their bills…other than that, there’s nothing to get really excited about here.

  • Boomape

    I don’t care for the design but I hope they don’t mess up the story and comedy again for dumb kids.

  • Hey, now..and sicnerely…some of those designs at least MAY inspire some hope, but that’s about it. Well, the domestic life thing is one I wanted, but a lot of OTHER things, much less than some naysayers are saying, need to be changed.

    I hope Speedy isn’t in there unless he’s going to be pursued by Syvletser and NOT Daffy, though thankfully THAT rivalry has ended. I’d just as soon can the Daffy and Bugs one as well or at least mix it up [a la “Rabbit Fire” and those others, and not just that trilogy of characters in a C.Jones hunting trilogy, where Bugs and Daffy are friends but have a rivalry–great confidental dialogue throughout those three hunters shorts–“Rabbit Fire”,”Rabbit Seasoning” and “Duck Rabbit Duck”, between Bugs and Daffy, not just the bickering..

    I really hate Lola and Melissa or Marisol or whoever she’s supposed to be now being here; Petunia Granny, etc. were from the older days..did you know Petunia from the ORIGINAL Depression era Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies era??:) [Okay, most did.]

    WHat I’d REALLY love are Bsoko and Honey or — Buddy and Cookie p[runs from thrown carrots offstage.:)]

    As a horse in Gumby shorts, I knwo what it is like [see any 80s Gumby]

  • Zartok-35

    Those don’t look too bad, I must admit.
    But there is too much ‘immitation’ on display here, all over this whole project. I think I’ll have to sit this one out.

  • thisSucks

    I think I puked a bit inside my mouth….

    ok, screw the desighns. noone cares. All modern cartoon art looks like shit anyways.
    The main issue is – will they be funny? Obviously they won’t be witty and funny to all audiences, since Looney Tunes back then was a cartoon for everyone with little censure.
    So these new ones will be childish. And they’ll probably talk 9/10 of the show and do something 1/10.

    Next – how will they sound? Mel Blanc is not around anymore. Who is the brave person to ruin Bugs, Pepe’s etc. voices?

  • Maggie Simpson

    I’m lovin’ Sylvester’s new look…but, c’mon! All this really is is that Cartoon Network just wants more money, that’s what they all want! Why don’t people wise up, and make a new Bugs Bunny show, instead of something else entirely!

  • Merrill

    Oh here we go with the Raped my childhood crowd. Why couldn’t they do all new characters you ask? Any rabbit they come up with will be compared to Bugs and any Duck Daffy. Any evil hunter and any bandit to Elmer and Yosemite Sam. There really isn’t a whole lot of leeway in the archetypes that WB had. Yes Tiny Toon Adventures brought a whole new slew of characters who were able to pull of being rabbits and ducks and pigs, but that’s also because the writing on that show was brilliant and on a different level than most cartoon writing is today. If the writing on this show is anything close to what it was on Tiny Toons or the Animaniacs then the show will be good, but, and here’s the big but, remember how layered and innuendo laden that writing was. The censors are sharper now and you can’t get away with the “I found Prince.” “No Fingerprints!!” Joke that you could back in the 90’s.

  • joe flint kjellgren

    This is great looking-each character! I’ve seen 3 episodes so far and i’ll continue on until the end of ALL seasons, if the show gets that far! It’s my most desired show since the sonic-x series on 4kids tv. As well as the amazing world of gumball on cn which has presented 4 episodes so far. I’m sad to know though that not many like these designs, in fact hate them! But that’s their dumb opinion and it won’t stop me! And why is everyone against lola?

  • I love these designs-each character! This is certainly (in my opinion) VERY impressive. It’s my most favorite show since sonic-x on 4kids tv as well as the amazing world of gumball. BUT, i do understand that some people think these designs are useless and dumb. Yet i’m smart enough to know thier opinions aren’t the truth. And why is most others specifically against lola?

  • hello admin is so good information.. dont forget to check my blogs its also provide information about eyelid lift without surgery ;)

  • bkninj

    I don’t care what any of the haters say. This show is the funniest cartoon on TV today. Being a die hard Looney Tunes fan I’ll take them any way I can get them. These character designs aren’t so far away from the original as to be off-putting. At least they weren’t turned into Super Heros!

  • ava

    petunia looks so……. modern.

    • Apparently Petunia won’t appear even in 2nd season :(