DaffyRhapsody480 DaffyRhapsody480

Warner Bros. Announces New Looney Tunes 3D Theatrical Shorts

Warner Bros. Animation today publicly announced three new 3D theatrical cartoon shorts to be released within the next year. Two of the films feature voice recordings by Mel Blanc from songs recorded for Capitol Records in the 1950s. The new shorts, according to the press release, are:

Daffy’s Rhapsody: In the first of the new shorts, a persistent Elmer Fudd chases Daffy Duck (Blanc) on stage during a musical performance. The short features Blanc performing the song “Daffy Duck’s Rhapsody.” Daffy’s Rhapsody is scheduled to debut in theaters on November 18, 2011, in conjunction with Warner Bros. Pictures’ release of Happy Feet 2.

I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat: A classic game of cat and bird transpires in Granny’s apartment as Tweety Bird goes to great lengths to avoid the clutches of his arch-nemesis Sylvester the Cat. The short also features the hit song of the same name, which was performed by Blanc, and sold over three million copies worldwide.

Untitled Coyote & Road Runner: Wile E. Coyote’s epic quest to capture the Road Runner continues in this all-new short. Will the Coyote finally get his paws on his elusive prize?

The three new shorts are all directed by Matthew O’Callaghan and executive produced by WBA’s Sam Register. The producers are Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone. Click the photo above to view larger version.

  • FriendToAll

    Can’t Warner Bros. just restore the damn cartoons and get them on DVD instead of throwing millions of dollars on this tomfoolery?

    That bad economy excuse is getting old. What about Dr. Who and it’s fabulous restorations that continue unabated.

    • snip2354

      Remakes are the rage today. It brings in the money, but also makes the executives confident because these already have an audience. Even if said audiences are 60 years old. Today is not the time to play it safe.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        With that note, I wonder if they’ll re-do the “Mel-O-Toons” next? :-)

      • Funkybat

        Funny, I’ve always considered remakes/reboots/reimaginings of existing popular franchises as “playing it safe.”

        Some of the “reboots” we’ve seen over the past decade or so have been worthwhile, some even risky, such as Abrams’ Star Trek and Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica. But all too often we get reanimated corpses that desecrate beloved old films and TV series.

        I would say that if the execs want to avoid “playing it safe” they should at the very least pursue projects like “Super 8” which strongly echo elements of older and recent popular films and TV shows, but with at least a somewhat original storyline and characters.

    • They’re not just throwing millions of dollars at it, they’re also employing animators. The classics may always look better, and have the nostalgia factor, but they don’t keep artists employed.

      • wundermild

        Film preservation is not an art – well, that’s debatable. But who is now going to keep the preservationists employed?

      • Gavin I agree, but I am sure that the Animators would get employed anyways. The wheel is turning, but less fun as it is stuck in mudd.

        When that is said.
        The first WB made, was not as great as the once in the past. But I for one is looking forward to see what will come out of this Looney adventure.

    • Fantomex

      Doctor Who is aback as a new show, with the most handsome, sexy Doctor in years, and his very sexy assistants! Where have you been?

      I wish that they could make new cartoon similar to the old one, but parent’s groups would have a fit like they did in the past about the violence in them.

      • Funkybat

        I’m still hoping that by the time the generation raised on South Park and Family Guy is coming into prime parenting years that the pendulum will swing back the other way. The 80s/90s-era reactionism about “cartoon violence” is even less sensible or helpful to children than complaints about videogame violence.

  • I always said “Daffy Duck’s Rhapsody” should be animated, but not taxidermied.

    • tonma

      nice word for it :)

    • Yes, Heaven forbid studios expirement and do something DIFFERENT. They couldn’t POSSIBLY move foward, could they??

      • DNAndy

        The Loonatics were “something different.”

      • hitler was “something different.”

        ergo, everything different is bad

      • DNAndy

        Goodwin’s Law strikes again!

        Besides, the point I was trying to make is that trying something different isn’t always a good idea. But I’m not implying that trying something different is always a bad idea. It’s pretty neutral unless the execution is great.

      • well i mean this doesn’t look that bad from the one screenshot

        lets not worry about whether it sucks or not until it’s out/we get some more screenshots

  • Rufus

    They’d be better off if the new shorts were traditionally animated in plain ole’ 2D.

    • And maybe we should paint them on cels while were at it! Gotta capture that “ole” Looney Tunes spirit right?!

      • Actually, that doesn’t sound like a bad idea :)

        (Full disclosure: I’m working on a short cartoon with the intent of using cels)

      • Well, when you do I’ll check it out!

        A comment like the one before I have the feeling like he’s going to ignore a possibly good short because it’s going to be computer animated…REALLY? I don’t know about you, but if your judging a film based on it’s technique; then I’d have to question the way you view movies! It’s like saying “I’m not going to watch Raging Bull cause it’s -gasp- in BLACK AND WHITE!!”

      • they should bring back black and white too!

      • Chris Sobieniak

        Wouldn’t be a bad idea if one wanted to replicate at least how cartoons were done (the camera part could still be digital if they don’t want to mess with 35mm film a lot).

    • Jorge Garrido

      Yeah, because all the 2D Looney Tunes revivals have been SO good, right?

  • Nice try, but you aren’t foolin’ me into watching Happy Feet 2, Warner Bros.

  • ShouldBeWorkin’

    Yes, I’d prefer it drawn (how about in the style of the Bob Mckimson illustrations that accompanied those recordings?Fool me that this is an old cartoon! :) ) but this is a good idea. I’m sure I am not the first one upon hearing those old kiddie records that thought someone should animate to them. Everyone is very passionate and has a sense of relationship with these charcaters but let’s wait and see. The 3d theatrical Roadrunner did make me laugh. They undeniably nailed it.

  • Dave

    This is great news!

    It’s not going to get me to see Happy Feet 2 though.

  • Anthony D.

    Eh, I’m gamed for this.

  • BananaMontana

    Ohhhhh, This makes me want to go swimming in a babbling brook.

    • FruiitTaiils

      my teeth are chattering in anticipation!

  • snip2354

    I’m game too!

    And you thought Back In Action completely killed any chance of theatrical cartoons. P’fah.

    I think they’re trying to warm us up to that upcoming CG Bugs Bunny movie, but I won’t be easily swayed.

  • Brandon Pierce

    Here’s to hoping Daffy’s Rhapsody gets nominated for an Oscar.

    Would be interesting that it took Daffy 75 years to get NOMINATED!

    • Chris Sobieniak

      The very nature of using those recordings Mel made back then is also quite nice (though I probably would’ve wanted to draw out “I Tawt I Taw a Putty Tat” myself). Have that 78 in my collection!

  • Hey, I guess those Road Runner cartoons from last year proved to be pretty popular.

    It’s nice to have the Looney Tunes back on the big screen, where they belong.

  • Ridd

    Hope these look as good as that last roadrunner short. Really enjoyed that.

    • 2011 Adult

      I just hate how they attach these shorts to films I never want to see. Happy Feet 2? Forget it.

      However, they just say “family films”.

      …. how is it I never want to see their family films, outside of Harry Potter? They should totally attach one of these to the last Harry Potter film!

      • Vzk

        They should attach one of those to Green Lantern; it already looks like a family film.

  • ferp

    Well they look pretty good in 3D at least. Although I’m still unclear as to WHY they chose 3D over handdrawn. It seems like they go through an absurd amount of effort to get a “2D feel” when it would be much easier to get the authentic feel by making it directly in- surprise! 2D!

  • Well, at least the CGI characters look better than Tintin.

  • They seem potentially interesting.
    When they can be seen without paying money, I will watch them.

  • I’m not sure what some of you guys are moaning about, I think this is a great idea. At first when I read this I thought, “THEY RESSURECTED MEL BLANC FROM THE DEAD???”, but if they’re simply using songs he recorded several years ago, that’s okay, too.

    Considering the CGI Roadrunner shorts turned out extrodinarily well, I expect these shorts to be no different. And hey, it’s just another step to reintroduce the Looney Tunes to a new generation (The Looney Tunes Show aside) AND put them back into theatrical shorts, so you can’t argue with that.

    • surprisingly, that’s my impression as well! As bad as “Space Jam” was, as a kid it got me hooked into getting my mom to buy me VHSes of the old shorts! Surprisingly, this could do the same, and at the same token make animated shorts attached to features popular again (now this might be wishful thinking, but who knows)!

  • Jesse Pindus

    Sounds kinda interesting. I don’t get why they have to do these in 3D at all though. On the other hand I have to admit, Daffy and Elmer really don’t look that bad

  • Autumn

    If they’re as good as the 3D Roadrunner short, then I’m all for it. And it’ll be nice to have Mel coming out of them again, even if it is in 3D.

    From that still alone, it looks pretty good.

    I’ll watch it.

  • I’m glad Spike and Tony are involved, at least.

    Here’s my favorite version of the Rhapsody to date: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSv2uf4o_tA

  • I stinkin’ love that pic of elmer and daffy, especially Elmer’s hands and expression! Cant wait to see a clip!

  • Pedro Nakama

    The bad thing about the new Road Runner shorts is they will never be as violent as the old Chuck Jones ones.

  • Clint H

    I’ll admit that the photo looks pretty damn good, and the other two shorts sound intriguing, but it’s still no reason to go see HF2.

  • Christopher Smigliano

    My God! They’re actually showing a GUN in a cartoon?
    They think they’re in the 1940’s or something?
    Just watch! the complaints (besides the ones about the animation) are gonna be rolling in!

    • Parent watch groups/soccer moms can piss off.

      • 2011 Adult

        ….and yet, also, take control over what actually gets produced! O . O

    • KD4351

      Well, the Daffy’s Rhapsody short finally came out, and no one is complaining about the violence nor the animation at all.

  • With sitcommy TV series and 3D CGI versions for theaters I don’t think they’ll make Looney Tunes come back. But I guess those are the modern days. At least these ideas seem to make a little more sense than Loonatics. And who knows? The CGI theatrical shorts could have an audience. After all, Scrat from Ice Age was a great success, so people like some cartoony cartoons in CGI.

    I must say I’m pretty interested in the Daffy Duck rhapsody one, though I’d be even more interested if it was in 2D.

    I thought the theatrical Road Runner shorts so far were ok, not extremely funny, but visually decent and they kept the spirit of the characters.

    I hope they never do a CGI life action thingy…or at least if they do, I hope the CGI characters don’t look ‘realistic’, ugh!

  • Eric Drobile

    Hmmm…I guuuueeeessss I’ll give it a go.

  • Clutch

    yeah but…doesn’t that SHADING on the characters just automatically make it AWESOME??? It’s like they’re REAL characters!!

  • TStevens

    This is one of those times when WB could have really stacked the deck and had their pick of the best 2D animators around. I have heard however, that Dan Haskett is over at Warner Brothers, though I have no idea if he is connected to this.

    As far as cels go, if you ever had to work with them, you understand why digital ink and paint is really the way to go. Does anyone remember the smell of Vermillion Cartoon Color? Stay away from that Golden Yellow 20: it always covered like crap.

    • Jacob

      (Full disclosure: I’ve never had to work with cels).

      That being said, I personally think that it would be worth the messiness and smell to create a cel-animated cartoon. Though I do understand that digital ink and paint is much faster and more convienent, something that is obvious is that it is just an IMITATION of traditional ink and paint, which was used up on major productions until 2004.

      Traditional ink and paint has an authenticity that is really appealing. Along with that, the thought that it took so much effort to do it makes the product even more impressive, especially when special effects (smearing, airbrushing, etc.) are used on cels to enhance its look; or when elaborate color palettes are used that would give today’s films a run for their money.

      Case in point: The 1940’s Superman cartoons. Whenever I watched them, I always found it hard to believe that everything that I was watching (the amazing camera moves, the cels and the things done with them, the brillant perspectives, the layers of scenery moving at different speeds) was all photographed on a camera stand, and that it was all done by hand. With me, that awe came (and still comes) much more with traditional ink and paint than with the digital way.

      In fact, it is these very cartoons of the Golden Age that drew me so much into animation as it has. It hardly ever has been through the cartoons of today, and I think that’s worth mentioning.

  • tgentry

    Wow, can you actually have a gun in a modern cartoon? Consider me shocked.

    • AJ

      Movie censoring and Saturday morning censoring is differant. I geuss by the time kids get back from the cinema they would of worn out the urge to grab daddy’s hand gun from the bed-side drawer and shoot themselves in the mouth.

      • 2011 Adult

        It’s one of the reasons they were able to have guns in the old shorts. 1.) They were made to be seen in theaters, and 2.) they were not made solely for kids.

      • AJ

        that and they were shown before a movie so a lot of what happens in the short would of been forgotten in place of the movie.

  • Ron

    Looks OK to me. As long as someone’s actively keeping the spirit of the originals alive, I don’t care if it’s 3D. The Stories and personalities are what matter.

  • Keegan






  • Dats All Folks

    Looks great! If its as good as the previous 3D Looney’s from ReelFx, I’m sure this will be awesome as well.

    CANT get me to sit through Happy Shite 2 though. I’ll do the same as I did for Yogi Bear…..Pay for the ticket, watch the Looney trailer, and then sneak into a DECENT movie.

    Shame on WB for putting awesome shorts on the front of CRAP.

  • Jim Engel

    They now have irises. That’s the important thing. All these old characters will not be acceptable, even in their now-a-go-go CG incarnations without giving them irises. It’s a sure-fire gaurentee of success. Just ask Yogi, BooBoo, Alvin, the Smurfs, Garfield, Horton the Elephant…

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I knew the iris thing was bound to happen. You cannot have your eyes be standard dots for long!

  • Christopher Cook

    1992’s “Blooper Bunny” was the “A Wild Hare” of the last 20 years of the Warner renaissance of cartoons. That’s because it became an instant classic and since then nobody at W-B seems to remember what made it funny to start with and how to duplicate or surpass it.

  • The new Road Runner shorts were fun and did a great job at keeping the cartoony 2D animation in CG. I can’t wait to see these shorts.
    I just wish they weren’t attached to movies I don’t want to see.

  • Alissa

    Sorry W-B. You didn’t sucker me into seeing Yogi Bear, and nothing short of holding Elmer’s shotgun to my head will get me to see Happy Feet.

    I’m hoping they’ll eventually package the new shorts into a dvd/blu ray collection like Pixar did. That way they still get my money and I still get Looney Tunes. Everybody wins?

  • Wow, the WB execs must be regular readers of Cartoon Brew!

  • I liked the CGI Road Runner cartoons, so who’s to say these won’t be good? The classic Mel Blanc records should’ve been animated ages ago! I even set “Daffy Duck’s Rhapsody” to footage of a classics a few years ago:


  • Warner Bros. has had a history of cluelessly rejuvinating the looney-tunes for the sheer bottom line and most of them have been disasterous. That said, I think the new Looney Tunes are excellent and clearly produced by people who grew up and were influenced by the originals. Being a devoted fan of a hungry and scraggly character and is an aspiring 3D animator, I can only praise the current batch of 3D rendered looney tunes. They are expertly and loosely animated as if they were drawn back at termite terrace! So hooey to the naysayers and Keep on Chuckin!

  • I quite confident because Coyote Falls was actually great. Don’t know why Warner Bros has to lumber them with such awful movies though.

  • Steven M.

    How about they traditionally animate it instead of using CGI.

  • Michael

    I really enjoyed the previous Roadrunner CGI shorts and I think that this is great news. The new Looney Tunes Show is not really doing it for me and this is a great way to show the world, a better version of the characters in a new way plus Mel Blanc’s voice. A win-win except for Happy Feet 2.


    Warner Brother is pushing forward with Yogi Bear 2. The screenwriters of Rio are aboarding for the script this time around. http://movies.ign.com/articles/117/1171280p1.html

  • Metallicfire

    Say what you want about the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie, but I really liked how they did the CGI with a cartoon style instead of rendering everything.
    The original characters weren’t designed with simplicity just for convenience. Well… Yes they were…
    But it looked good too is my point.

  • I love love love this.Im excited.

  • Charlie

    For CGI, that’s not bad.
    For animation all together, that’s horrible.

    • snip2354

      How do you know the animation will suck?

      Oh… “in general.” Yes, if this trend keeps up, execs will just think 2D is completely out, because CG can just do this.

      • Charlie

        What I mean is that is not bad CGI animation (judging by the picture)
        And by “animation all together” well, Looney Tunes in general because they should be just 2D animation.

  • Now, THIS is more like it! It may not be traditionally animated (as many of these commentors would’ve liked), but at least the Looney Tunes look like they did in the 1950’s and the clip art of the 1990’s. What? One of the shorts is playing in front of “Happy Feet 2”? I never even watched (nor wanted to watch) the first “Happy Feet”. So, WB, great job keeping the LTs looking good in 3-D CG, but bad idea putting the shorts with movies most people (such as myself) might not be interested in. Think I’ll wait ’til the shorts come out on a compilation DVD. …or hit YouTube, which ever comes first.

  • Paulie J. Waddle

    I can’t wait to see the Daffy Duck one! That’s one of my favorite classical pieces! (It’s based off Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 by Liszt) Sadly, I’ll have to then afterward sit through a crappy sequel to a crappy movie I liked in 3rd grade. (It’s only crappy because the penguins have ugly designs…)

  • Paulie J. Waddle

    Then again, I believe that CGI is only here to ruin a perfectly good drawing’s full (cartoony) potential…)

  • DNAndy

    Am I the only one wondering why they’re producing The Looney Tunes Show to relaunch the characters in a new light, while they’re still using the characters in things similar to the old shorts?

    Anyways, I’m looking forward to these, but I’m probably not going to see the movies attached to them.

    • I hope they do a proper DVD collection of these shorts when they get enough of them produced – complete with extensive and insightful behind-the-scenes-special features. That could actually make me spend money on them (which I kinda doubt Happy Feet 2 will).

    • I was also wondering that. Maybe CG is considered ‘new’ enough so they don’t have to change the concept. Maybe they think sitcoms work better in tv animation and CG works better in theaters. I guess those are the trends.

      Still it’s curious that one is traditional in their contents but not in their visuals and the other is traditional in their visuals (redesigned, but traditionally animated) but different in the stories.

      If you ask me, I’d like to see Jessica Borutski’s designs traditionally animated in the big screen, with stories more similar to the classics, but what I’d know about trends.

  • I’ve always loved both those records. They were written by Billy May and Alan Livingston when Capitol had a thriving children’s division.

    In the postwar baby boom era, Columbia, RCA, Decca and Capitol all had kid’s records that actually charted. Many of them festured large orchestras and some of the best musicians in the industry.

    TV and pop music changed things for the children’s record business, but many of these great recordings have stood the test of time — and you can download both of these classic songs on iTunes and amazon.

  • DonaldC

    But why?
    Why do they need to be animated in 3D? I already know they can look as smooth as traditional animation, but what’s the point in doing so?

  • So….I have to ask the question:

    Will the CGI version be using the “new” Looney Toons (Cartoon Network) models or will they use the traditional ones?

    • Maybe you could answer that question yourself, by looking at the above still.

  • Meg

    Guys just because something’s traditionally animated doesn’t mean it’ll automatically be good. CG can be just as good as long as the story is good and th– oh why do I bother. this is Cartoon Brew I’m talking to here…

    Well I’m looking forward to this. I enjoyed Coyote Falls immensely and I hope these will be equal to or surpass it.

    • To be fair, that’s true. The stereotypical Looney Tunes design they have been using in T-Shirts and some shorts is usually well drawn, but sometimes a little boring. So a well designed CGI version can be somewhat better than an average designed 2D.

      The problem is that the industry now thinks CG is always better than traditional while traditional with good stories could work just as well…at least in artistic terms, maybe CG gives better economic results now or that’s what they think when they use it.

      I still think the best thing for Looney Tunes is 2D. For cartoony cartoons well done traditional animation works better than well done CGI animation. If the traditional animation is lousy then of course good CG is better.

      This seems to be good CGI that keeps some of the cartoony quality, like the Wile E. Coyote shorts did. It could be done better, with less fur or iris-es (Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs) and worse (Shrek-like or ‘realistic’ like Alvin and The Chipmunks). So for what it’s ‘in’ now I guess it’s ok.

  • Jpox

    Looking forward to seeing these! (not by seeing the films their attached too though) They did a good job with the Roadrunner shorts. I wonder if the lip-sync animation will be as good as the acting? Glad they’re keeping the classic character designs.

    • Caresse


  • CJ

    I don’t see why people are complaining, this honestly looks good and I hope it’s just as good as the Roadrunner one, the one where Wiley gets knocked around by trucks. :)

    People don’t understand that although some new ideas are horrible, there are a lot of good ones that can come out if you keep trying new angles. Otherwise we would still be looking at comics and cartoons styled to those from the early 1800’s. Wouldn’t be much variety would it?

    Stop bitching about the bad aspects almost all of the time and promote the good of something if you see it. Promoting the good aspects of something promote people to use them more.
    Back to this though… I think the rendering of the characters is good, and as long as it captures the fluid movement of the original as well as humor, then what’s wrong with the CGI?

  • David Breneman

    “A classic game of cat and bird transpires in Granny’s apartment as Tweety Bird goes to great lengths to avoid the clutches of his arch-nemesis Sylvester the Cat”

    Tweety BIRD?!? Where did this Tweety BIRD BS come from? If they’re using the original version of “I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat”, both Tweety and Sylvester refer to the bird (with their characteristic lisps) as SWEETIE PIE. Are they going to loop in “Bird”?

  • udx

    Finally. Warner Bros giving Daffy more stardom against Elmer Fudd than that stupid Mama’s Boy of a rabbit.

  • it looks fine good god people

    just because it’s in a different medium doesn’t mean it’s going to suck. claymation didnt kill 2d animation and neither will cgi

  • Keegan

    Am I the only one who thinks Elmer translates weirdly into 3D?

    Scares the shit outta me.

    • Kyle Maloney

      I think they need to work on his skin more. and I would have went with fat Elmer personally, but its not bad either.

  • Kyle Maloney

    Looks great to me, cant wait to see them. Yes, we still have ways to go in CGI, but how else are we supposed to get there without projects like these to push the medium forward? Their doing a fantastic job so far capturing the feeling of hand drawn animation. Easily the best CGI version of looney tunes to date.

  • Pez

    Great! but stop with the pixar eyes on cgi characters

    • Kyle Maloney

      Pixar eyes? whats what supposed to mean? how else do you suggest doing eyes in CG?

  • Shunka Shuutou

    Surprising they’re using Daffy instead of Bugs against Elmer this time…I wonder why? (not that I’m complaining though, I like the Daffy and Elmer pairing as well).

  • I like Bugs more than udx seems to do, but I voted like in his/her comment, cause the fact that they’re using Daffy and Elmer without Bugs is interesting and I definitely approve it. I like him having more stardom once in a while. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if Bugs makes a cameo. After all Daffy mentions rabbits at some point of his rhapsody.

  • I don’t think Wile E. Coyote will never catch the Road Runner and besides it will never happen.

  • Although it is pretty clear the Warner Brothers can’t allow that ya know.

  • they did the date wrong because in happy feet 2 they put i tat i taw a puddy tat insted of daffys raphsody