crappytunes_b crappytunes_b

Embarrassing Promo Art for CN’s Looney Tunes Show

Looney Tunes
(Click to enlarge this image if you hate your eyes.)

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.

PS – The Looney Tunes characters now live in houses next to each other in a suburban neighborhood (and they eat Chinese take-out).

UPDATE: Marvin the Martian responds to your opinions of the artwork.

  • kris.w

    it’s like a page from those activity books! “circle all the issues with this piece and flip the page to see if you find ’em all!”

  • Captain_M

    Eh, I coulda bet money it was gonna end up looking like this. Even with Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone from “Duck Dodgers” working on this, people in animation these days just aren’t talented enough to draw the characters on-model anymore. They gotta make the characters flat and angle-y and short in order to make sure there are enough people who can draw them.

  • Grant Beaudette

    That Daffy Duck might be passable, provided he’s in the middle of an accent right there and isn’t always stretched out like that, but that Bugs Bunny is terrible. He looks like an arts and craft project where they give you the head and the feet and you make the rest out of pipe cleaners.

    Plus he’s purple.

  • Keith

    I take it you haven’t looked at much fan-art, then…

    And dissing the professionalism of the artist(s) involved? Pretty low, and definitely unwarranted.

  • Eh…ain’t that bad. It doesn’t really look like the original Bugs Bunny, but I’ve seen worse. As a drawing, it’s pretty good.

  • I really grow tired of them ripping apart great classic cartoons, and putting them into a blender for quick profit. It really is tiring.

    Bugs look really horrible in that shot.

  • Todd O.

    You are way off, they are not neighbors. Bugs and Daffy live in the same house in a suburban neighborhood and eat Chinese food. Look at the way Bugs is looking at Daffy. It is just a more modern and sexier version of the looney toons you grew up with.

  • Oh…I just realized that this is actually a screen cap — and not a promotional image.

    Welp…I don’t really watch television anyway. :P

  • cmd+C

    I thought this was Looney Tunes? I don’t see Bugs or Daffy anywhere… !

  • There’s no need to call out the ‘professionalism’ of the artists. They are perfectly competent drawings. If they were original characters drawn in this style you would be absolutely lapping it up.

    The problem is once again, the unnecessary ‘re-imagining’ of their designs. It looks like they’ve gone through the same machine The Pink Panther went through to make them look vaguely teenage.

    The idea of them living on the same street is rubbish too.

  • Chris Sobieniak

    DeviantART Strikes Back!

  • Frank

    man…give it a chance…none of you can deny that this is a step up from “Loonatics”

  • amid

    The Flea: You’re entitled to your opinion of liking the artwork, but you are wrong when you say, “As a drawing, it’s pretty good.” There are objective standards by which one can critique a representational drawing, and this piece lacks precision and is filled with shoddy craftsmanship.

  • Gobo

    Well, lessee. Bugs is macrocephalic, has feet larger than his head that twist sideways somehow, and is now a lovely lavender hue. Daffy’s beak is only half-formed, his tail is a bizarre trident, and he’s either stretched like taffy or he’s about to launch himself downward at his dim sum. Nope, nothing out of the ordinary here!

  • Katella Gate

    I think it’s touching, really, the way Daffy is helping Bugs through the first stages of Elephant-man disease. You know, just before the bloating of the scull and feet become really grotesque.

  • My guess is that some poor character designer was given the impossible job of “updating” the original design–you know, “make it look fresh and funky and modern, but make sure it still looks like the classic Bugs and Daffy”. Every once in a while I get contradictory requests like that from clients and it’s a no-win situation.

    With such profitable and established characters it wouldn’t surprise me if the designs were further tweaked by a committee of suits who don’t really understand art.

    Any attempt to update such classic characters would be doomed from the start. So in that sense I think the artist(s) did a decent job.

  • How can Bugs’ body support a head that big?

  • Marc Baker

    I don’t know. At least Bugs, and Daffy are supposedly back to their old selves. Not sure about Bugs’s cheek lacking any hair points, or him having big wide feet. (Maybe it’s a perspective thing) Daffy looks decent enough. I’m also not sure if this ‘sitcom’ motif will work out. I’ll wait, and see how this pans out.

  • Glad to see Bugs back up and around after the massive reconstructive surgery he underwent. Shame about those prosthetic robot feet, though.

  • Cartoon Cave Hermit

    WOW. One of my favorite things about the internet is “the comment section” its always so predicable and yet, it never ceases to amaze.

    We can all agree that the premise sounds bad, and most likely is terrible. We can all agree that “re-imaginings” never go to well, especially when dealing with something this nostalgic. But seriously, you are all going to lay down all this hate an criticisms based on a single image. A single “screen grab” that some marketing department toolbag picked out. Really?

    I’m not going to be the guy that says “this cartoons gonna be great, wait and see!”, but honestly, wait till its actually on the air before you spit all this poison. I’m sure WB hired some very professional hard working people to make this. You at least own it to them, for all their hard work, to wait until its completed to make your judgement. I wouldn’t tell some one they made a terrible song based on one note.

  • “How can Bugs’ body support a head that big?”…. Umm… Because he’s a cartoon… :)
    In case anyone missed the past century of toons here’s a newsflash: Cartoons Can Do Anything, And It’s AWESOME!…
    That said, why didn’t they just use the old designs? They weren’t broken we they?!?! If they were I have some hot glue to fix them!

  • I can’t tell if this is more ‘modern and sexy’ than anything I’ve seen. I hope that comment was a joke.

  • Levi

    I got one question for you Amid…..can you do better?

  • Todd O.

    The animation industry just can’t come up with new material that sells toys so they are back to trying to bleed another classic for money. In the defense of these designs I personally don’t hate them for any aesthetic reason, I am sure Bugs will take off the moon boots when his feet warm up.

  • Bugs looks too clean, Where is the fur on the side of his cheek? Also, Bugs looks smaller for some reason.//

  • Would you all rather have the Extreme Looney Tunes we got five or six years ago?

  • Effed Up

    hey I heard there’s a twitter feed about how much this show sucks! i’ll keep you posted…

  • Keith

    Cedric’s probably on the right track.

    There’s little ‘wrong’ with the drawing of Daffy. It looks like an inbetween favoring an extreme pose. The whole setup of the piece feels like it’s meant to be a screencap, though why Daffy would be in mid-sentence/action and Bugs’ mouth would be open like he’s saying “Nyeahhh…”, I couldn’t say.

    The Bugs drawing is awkward at that foot, and the arm stretching a bit too much perhaps to look decent while resting on the back of the chair. If not a screencap, if a promo-art-by-committee drawing, it feels like someone said “Make sure you make one of Bugs’ feet visible, so people get a bit more of a sense at how he’s ‘modernized’ from the original”. That’s about it, maybe the pink on his left ear being a bit out of place… everything else is subjective based on his new design. Same with Daffy.

    There are possibly more ‘drawing problems’ in the background & props, notably the tops of the chairs not matching the seats (or BG) perspective-wise, and the take-out on the table doesn’t quite seem right.

    So there are some problems, objectively, but I think most of the issues with the characters in this piece are subjective. And even with the objective problems, it’s hardly “unprofessional” by any TV standards, probably even by classic Looney Tunes standards. If you kept the same poses–awkwardly-posed foot & all–but put them on model to, say, Rabbit Seasoning, they’d probably look better than PLENTY of inbetweens you could take straight out of Rabbit Seasoning, and maybe even better than some breakdowns & keys (and if not Rabbit Seasoning, than any number of other classic Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies)

    I’m not crazy about Purple Big-head Bugs, or Angular Daffy, but this is just one image. I’d like to see more, though the concept doesn’t thrill me at all; I’d rather have an unstructured Looney Tunes show with fun new shorts featuring any characters, not suburbia with ‘side characters’ being cartoons-in-cartoons in musical segments.

    But it could wind up being fun despite my misgivings! I hope it is. One thing I feel pretty sure about, this will be better than Loonatics Unleashed and Baby Looney Tunes :D

  • Look…I’m not a seasoned artist… Is there any reason to be rude? It’s not an absolutely horrendous drawing. People have already been saying that there are a lot worse things on Deviant Art than on CN. In that case, I’m not wrong and I stand by my views. I’m sorry.

  • Thomas Dee

    Amid- show ’em how it’s done! Draw it. John K. does this all the time. Just recreate the artwork and improve it. That way The Flea will know who’s boss.

    Seriously. It will shut up the naysayers who claim you don’t know what you’re talking about. That way I won’t have to be on here with the other supporters defending you all the time.

  • I think it’s better than anything John K. could have given us.

  • DavidH

    I think you guys are getting worked up over minutiae. People that visit this site regularly will pick out all of the crap in a drawing like this, but the average viewer will accept it all without complaint.

    The real problem here is that nobody wants anyone touching “their” favorite characters and ruining them. Not that I can argue when you can clearly see the clumsy, overbearing hand of several network execs and their fingerprints all over this image and the idea behind it.

    Living in the ‘burbs? Jeez.

  • In my experience the marketing teams “in charge” of this type of stuff usually know very little about the classic characters. Sure, they know of Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, they’ve SEEN them, maybe they’ve even SEEN a cartoon or two. But they don’t KNOW them. Therefore, its COOL to have Bugs and the gang ride motorcycles and wear baseball caps backwards while sporting over sized gold chains etc. Wow, how amazingly RAD! Kids will LOVE it. These characters were designed and perfected over DECADES by a very talented group of artists, why must they insist on messing with them?

  • Smithy

    Ooh, that looks great — I’ll watch it if it’s funny.

  • I wish that for once when people try to revive the Looney Tunes characters, that they wouldn’t have to change anything about the original designs (or better yet, just leave the Looney Tunes alone and put the cartoons back on TV on a regular basis). The new Pink Panther cartoons had that same problem unfortunately. Instead, whoever tried to design this went for outright cold and flat, just like most other TV cartoons these days.

    I admit though. Daffy doesn’t look as bad as I thought. Bugs looks completely unappealing and cold though.

  • I kinda like it. At least they are going for some kind of style, instead of just drawing the characters exactly the same they appear in every merchandising art. Well, Bugs is definitely a little weird, I miss some fur in his cheeks and a bigger size body, and a slightly different coloring (though I do like the different color eyelids) , but Daffy looks great IMO, very expressive and it captures the essence of the character.

    Let’s hope the stories are ok-ish. They really, really need to do something decent with the characters after Loonatics, Baby Looney Tunes, Space Jam or Back In Action.

  • Gummo

    Okay, I’m not an animation professional, just a fan. My two cents:

    As others have pointed out, the Daffy design is okay; the Bugs is a little off but not enough to make me put on mourning clothes.

    What dismays me is the idea of them living in the suburbs and having sitcom adventures. That was done already, 40-50 years ago, in the comic books. So they’re not only recycling the characters, they’re recycling a second-hand version of the characters from another medium altogether.

    Doesn’t bode well, in my opinion.

  • Brendan Spillane

    I think I’d have to see these characters in action to fully appreciate it. At least they’re going with more of a loonier Bob Clampett-style Daffy here- & that’s always a big plus with me! Unlike “Loonatics Unleashed”, I’ll reserve any & all judgment until the show airs.

  • what if

    What if it’s NOT promotional art? What IF that is actually a still frame of the new series (done in Flash)?

  • Tim Schuit

    Well, despite the fact that I can agree that the image is very disappointing, amid’s talking out of his ass when he says “you are wrong about [it being a good drawing]”. “Good” is a value judgment. There are no objective standards by which one can determine aesthetic goodness because goodness is a subjective quality. If someone thinks the drawing is good, you can’t tell them they are wrong, lol. That doesn’t even make sense. All you can say is that you disagree.

    However, regarding the original question of the post (find 3 things bad about it), the following stand out to me the most:

    -Bugs is totally disproportionate
    -The background is way too busy
    -The fact that they’re in a house eating chinese food is way out of character for both of them

  • Yeah, Gummo is right. I also think the idea of them living in the suburbs is the worst part of it all. I mean, Daffy living there…it’s a bit of a stretch…but I’d accept that. But Bugs not living in his rabbit hole? That’s sacrilege.

  • You know, if you actually complained to a WB executive about “changing” the models of the characters, they could easily use the excuse, “The original LT directors changed the models for their characters throughout the 40s and 50s! This is no different!”

  • The artwork itself isn’t _terrible_ (at least in comparison to what else is in current production for television today); the characters appear less “off-model” than retooled in a new style for this new show.

    That being said, the character staging is off (Daffy’s arm disappearing into his torso as opposed to being posed so that you can make out the pose in silhouette) and there’s quite a few line tangents…but it’s not quite at “embarrassing” in my opinion, just mediocre. Some of those late-60s Looney Tunes were legitimately “embarrassing” to me.

    Once again, this is just my opinion.

  • joecab

    What’s wrong? Well, for starters, Daffy is eating an order of Crispy Duck Balls, obviously.

    And the drawing is “not so bad” in the sense that it could have been much worse.

  • Mark

    Wow. The artwork is worse than the show description.

    But the artwork is better than that Ulrich Schroder Disney fashion spread—by far.

  • I’ve seen the storyboards that they threw away when they decided to redo the show…I’m surprised the execs thought that this was better, since those old boards were hilarious.

  • Zach Cole

    Personally, I think this is a case where whoever was in charge wanted the characters to have overgrown features and make them look awkward, because they aren’t artists and don’t think in terms of the character design overall. They just thought, “big feet look good,” and went way overboard.

    And the artists had to comply. These artists might be good, but they still had to follow orders. I mean, in this economy, a job is a job. John K had to work on The Smurfs, for example.

    Overall, though, I’m more mad about the premise. I could see it working as one animated short, but a whole series?

  • mrscriblam

    why is his foot bigger than his head

  • Mark

    Shuit— flea didn’t say “As a drawing, I think it’s pretty good.” Flea said “As a drawing, it’s pretty good.”

    Amid is correct (and Amid did not use the word “good” or “bad.”). The drawing lacks basic solidity and clarity. I think the composition could be greatly improved, but the drawing is sloppy and uninformed. As weak as it is, I think the worst thing is the lack of an “idea” or any “character” in this image. What is this scene about? What is Daffy doing? And how is Bug’s reacting? NONE of those things are clear.

    WB better get their act together or this’ll be gone faster than you can say “cancelled.”

  • amid

    Tim: When an artist cannot accurately stage two characters in a layout and botches the perspective of a character sitting in a chair, that isn’t a strong drawing. There may be no objective standards to determine aesthetic value, but there are most definitely objective principles by which to judge solid drawing.

  • Not nearly as bas as “Loonatics Unleashed”. Not nearly as good as old school Looney Tunes.

  • >>I’ve seen the storyboards that they threw away when they decided to redo the show…I’m surprised the execs thought that this was better, since those old boards were hilarious.>>

    Executives changing something for worse? Sadly, I’m not surprised.

    Just another critic: the more I watch it the less I like the coloring, it’s cool when you watch it once but it’s a little too much if the show is going to look like that all the time.

    And I agree with Zach, the suburb premise could be ok for ONE short. But in a whole series it seems that this will diminish the variety of characters and situations in these cartoons.

  • There’s too much analysis over a show that’s bound to be canceled in only a few months. No one will remember it. No sense in everyone getting so angry over a show that isn’t even going to last. Why do we give a crap? All we’re doing is promoting it. Half of its viewers will be pissed off animators analyzing the show instead of its target audience. Don’t like it? Don’t watch it. Go outside and enjoy this beautiful weather. :)

  • Somebody should have buried these characters in the 50s.

  • Chris

    I don’t know what to say. Do I rip it a new one for giving the tunes a 30 minute show, or do I applaud them for their design (not so much for Bugs)?

  • Even if they have the talent to produce the same quality that we all associate with the classics, there’s no way to achieve the same result on a television show budget.

  • Nafan

    This makes me very happy I am not a cartoonist or a kid who might watch such a monstrosity. I remember watching Saturday morning cartoons in the 80’s, and getting all excited to see the shows but never being satisfied by them. They had lots of noise, but the characters didn’t move right. This reminds me of that. The only new cartoon I remember living up to what I expected was Ren and Stimpy. Now that I have my own children, I refuse to own a TV partly because of this sort of trash some executive thinks my kids would enjoy. The suburbs? Are you kidding? Bugs is from Brooklyn!

  • Hal

    If its funny, witty and the animation itself is exaggerated and fun, I’ll let all the design elements slide. Really, there hasn’t been Looney Tunes worth watching since the Golden Age, so why is anyone surprised/why does anyone care? If this packaged the original Tunes in there as well, and was a “hip, young, buzzword” vehicle to rebroadcast those, I say great! Better for a new generation to at least be exposed to the good ones. Otherwise its just more sweatshirt design fodder for Target to sell.
    I TOTALLY love the splatters for shading – that’s so CONTEMPTorary design hip! Even the clouds are splatters! Maybe the world will drip and remold itself and is the product of a “Duck Amok” God wreaking havoc and forcing them, TRUMAN SHOW style to live in Southland Suburban hell. We could be looking at THE PRISONER of Looney Tunes!

  • FP

    Are these the secret identities of the LOONATICS?

    The suburban setting could work. It could be just as wild as the woodland setting of the classic cartoons, if it takes place in a half-abandoned development devastated by foreclosure. Elmer could be a copper wiring thief. “Mesquite Sam” could be a constant threat, in his converted rental packed with five hundred drug-dealing/consuming (insert amusing minority) thugs.

  • Chowderfan


    Please post some of your own work for consideration. Oh, how easy to be the great critic and be immune from people like yourself.

    You are beyond unprofessional and it is amazing that anyone in this industry takes you seriously.

  • there goes amid once again alienating his readership. i mean, how can this single image hold up to the craftsmanship of george of the jungle?

  • Hulk

    Just for fun I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. I have no objection to the characters designs changing. Need I remind you all that the characters went through several design changes during the “classic” years? Bugs Bunny was originally a white rabbit that didn’t talk. Daffy had a longer neck, wall eyes and hopped around like a maniac before Chuck Jones changed him in to his cranky, anti-social form he currently takes. I just wish everyone would get over being so anal about the characters being “on model”. Who’s model are you going by? Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Friz Freeleng? Pick one if you’re gonna whine about it.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the designs and even the personalities of the characters changing. BUT what could be bad about it is the fact that changes are made to suit corporate whims rather than artistic choices- which they were in the first years. I’m willing to give this show a chance. I don’t have the highest expectations but I hope to be proven wrong.

  • keez

    Daffy looks good but Bugs looks like plastic.

  • Nestor Contreras

    I bet that all of the negative comments are from people who doesnt know anything about animation and less about the great artist who drew this… I think its great, you people are just jealous n_n

  • Jay Taylor

    “There are objective standards by which one can critique a representational drawing, and this piece lacks precision and is filled with shoddy craftsmanship.”

    By these standards, could you explain why the Ottawa 2009 poster passes the test? Looks shoddy and lacking precision to me…

  • Gummo

    Yes, we should never criticize unless we can do something better.

    So you don’t get to ever complain about your local sports team unless you can play better than everyone on the team.

    And no criticizing politicians until you can prove you have better ideas and can put them in action.

    In fact, no criticism of anybody until you’ve actually worked their job and proved you’re better at it.

    I mean, come on.

    “Please post some of your own work for consideration. Oh, how easy to be the great critic and be immune from people like yourself.”

    That’s just stupid.

  • I see how it differs from Golden-Age LooneyTunes, but I don’t see why it looks horribly bad.
    I want to see it animated, and hope it’s funny.

  • McCool

    When the Looney Tunes were created back in 1996, we were given a lush variety of colorful characters the likes of which the world had never seen. And at the heart of it all was a man who couldn’t decide between baseball or basketball, Number 23, Michael Jordan. How do the keepers of this franchise expect to have a hit again without real live athletes making choices that MATTER.

  • >>There’s too much analysis over a show that’s bound to be canceled in only a few months. No one will remember it. No sense in everyone getting so angry over a show that isn’t even going to last. Why do we give a crap? All we’re doing is promoting it. Half of its viewers will be pissed off animators analyzing the show instead of its target audience. Don’t like it? Don’t watch it. Go outside and enjoy this beautiful weather. :)>>

    I will definitely watch it.

    First, I’m not completely opposed to do new cartoons with classic characters. I know they normally screw it up, but I believe there’s a chance they do something rigth when given the chance.

    Tom and Jerry tales is not a great series, but the episodes directed by Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone, as well as A Nutcracker Tale, are absolutely wonderful. Very good animation for tv standards, pretty good gags, a lot of respect for the characters personalities and their universe, they even did a episode with Tom and Jerry doing X-Treme skating and it didn’t look like an embarrasing attempt at adding tude to them, just the characters doing another activity.

    Duck Dodgers series, also with Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone involved, was mediocre, but fairly respectful with the characters. Same thing can be said about their RoadRunner short “Little Go Beep”.

    I watched the first episode of Panther and Pals- Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone not involved- and I found the panther cartoons boring and the redesign fairly unnecessary. But the Ant and the Aardvark cartoon was very entertaining, well drawn and the new designs work as well as the old designs.

    I don’t watch House Of Mouse very often but there is nothing too sacrilege about it. I watched the direct-to-dvd movie The Three Musketeers with Mickey, Donald and Goofy, and I found it fairly decent.

    Thing is, the idea of resurrecting classic characters is not very good per se. But it can be done right, as some of those examples show.

    Looney Tunes in particular don’t really get a fair treatment in a long time. Maybe it’s because they are too famous and executives try to control everything they do with them. Or maybe the originals were too good to replicate them. But I think someone could do something fairly decent if given the chance.

  • There are a million ways a modernized Looney Tunes could’ve gone much, much, worse. (Here’s looking at you, Loonatics). All things considered, I’d say it looks perfectly serviceable, especially if it’s a still and not promo art.

  • skid

    I wish they would have left this alone.

  • Kristjan

    When did Filmation start producing Looney Tunes.?

  • Steve Menke

    Ho-kay, starting the countdown for the cannibalism gag when Bugs slips Daffy some Peking Duck…

  • ben colbourn

    oh god it burns

  • Cyber Fox

    For the love of christ people, Don’t act like the Sonic fanboys
    At least they look mostly like the characters we know and love
    Your baseing your opinion on a show (that’s not airing yet) soely on 1 publicity picture and that’s pathetic like the Sonic fanboys’ opinion of Sonic 4 by basing it on a trailer.


    Hey old timers and fanatics, do you think that maybe kids will like it? That’s probably a good question considering people under the age of 12 are the ones that this stuff is aimed at. You have your old Looney Tunes dvds, go watch them, let the kids decide if this is actually worth while.

  • Kyle B

    On its own I actually really like the background, but it just doesn’t work in context with the characters or premise at all. Maybe for something like Grim and Mandy but not for a show whose premise is “Its Looney Tunes meets Quack Pack IN VECTORS!”

  • We actually quite like the designs, admittedly Bugs does look a little weird but you can’t comment on the poses because it could be a strange in-between for all we know!

    It’s so easy to condemn a piece of art when you’re not creative, could be jealousy me thinks! We’ll wait til we see the show in its entirety before we judge! It’s gotta be better than Loonatics Unleashed at least!

  • Scarabim

    Good god, poor Bugs! His ears aren’t placed right, his cheek ruffs are too small, and his feet look like they belong on the bottom of those Imperial Walkers from Star Wars! Plus his torso is Smurf-sized. And those teeth…what the…he looks more like a squirrel than a rabbit. What’s off, Doc? EVERYTHING.

  • Scarabim

    As for the suburb idea…hmmm…kinda interesting, I guess…but one thing for sure, I’d really like to see Sylvester do something besides chase that canary. Sylvester always struck me as having…layers. I’d like to see him, and ALL the characters, do something new and not make yet another futile try at imitating the past.

  • Chowderfan


    Aside from the obvious perspective mistake on Bugs’ foot, what other glaring technical flaws are so unforgivable in this illustration. Please, tell us all, aside from character model, what is so technically flawed about this image?

  • Klyph
  • david



  • I kind of like the Daffy, but his legs seem to be attached in front of and behind each other rather than side-by-side.

    Perhaps some of the off-modelness of Bugs can be attributed to the possibility that today’s artists grew up thinking the image stamped on a Bugs Bunny Vitamin was THE definitive version.

  • To be honest….I think it looks fine. Animation and all the art within animation takes a long time and a lot of talent to produce. I certainly don’t agree with the assessment of the promo being embarrassing. To be honest, as someone who works in the field and has always been a fan, I will never deem any artwork as embarrassing. If I don’t like something, I simply don’t watch it. If I have a problem with how art looks, I try and draw it myself. Simple. Everyone has an opinion in art and all opinions are valued…but to be honest, pure hate with very little legitimacy just shows poor tact. I, for one, am glad that WB is trying to keep loonie toons going especially in a more classical format with very few studios following that path these days. So kudos to them for sticking their foot out there. Production can be a nasty road with many people throwing in their opinions on how it should look and much of it has so little to do with the talent of the artist. It’s super easy to criticize…but I think that in this case, it’s just not doing any good at the end of the day. If it’s no good to you…then just show it no love…don’t toss up meaningless hate. I think that the show could be just different enough to turn some heads. Certainly a different look than most of broadcast these days so I’ll tip my hat to them and hopefully for the sake of animation, it does very well. Good on ya, Looney Toons and nice artwork as well. I think the characters and the bg are both nicely done and I’m sure there’s a lot of good stuff in this show. Looking forward to seeing it. Mad support and love for animation.

  • Manny

    Wanna see Skunk&Cat action too, no?

  • Deaniac

    You people are ridiculous. The designs are NOT that bad. As long as the humor is up to par with the original shorts, then that’s all that matters.
    And besides, if you guys really don’t like it, why are you complaining about it? It’s not like somebody is holding you up at gunpoint, forcing you to post your hate-filled two cents about it.

    But let’s face it, I think I speak for everyone when I say that I’d rather take this than Loonatics ANY day. Period.

  • “DeviantART Strikes Back!”

    I’m at 5% the members who constantly hated everything who looks modern and trendish and i agree with you. At first, i thinkin enjoy this website for show my works and meet new friends but now they are just willing for “money, money, money…”! And their last April fool’s thing was terrible and pointless!

    As long i enjoyed to have fan-arts from my characters in the past (and still do today), i feeling to lost faith of this website. It’s now 5 years i being a active member for the first time next week.

    About the Bugs/Daffy pic thing… Sheesh! I hate those flat and angular cartoons anyway.

  • Looney Lover

    I like how Amid’s post title even has negativity in it. I don’t think a brewmaster should be so quick to trash WB’s return to nice hand drawn animated comedy. Amid, You Know There were a lot of really talented people that worked on this show. I’m pretty sure you may have even worked with a few of them. I have seen the character layout drawings and an early version of a final episode. The drawing done by the US artists and then the quality of the animation completed over seas was by far the best work I have ever seen from Warner Brothers TV. What I saw had laugh-out-loud drawings and gags. The characters looked like Clampett meets Spumco. Amid would you rather the series look like “Box Office Bunny”??!! …using the 1990’s consumer product designs!?!? I’m sure that the artist tried their best to get as many funny gags and cool designs in as possible. I would bet when dealing with a property as valuable as Looney Tunes there are A LOT of COOKS in the KITCHEN.

  • Ugh. Wont be watching this.

  • Looney Lover, what you saw already used this “all character living in a suburb” dynamic? How did that work?

  • I wouldn’t mind this project so much if the original Looney Tunes were available on TV. In Canada here they’re on Teletoon Retro (albeit in editted form). I’ve heard that Brewmaster Jerry Beck is working on getting the original cartoons onto TV Land. If Jerry succeeds in doing that, let CN make any Looney Tunes show they want, maybe turn Beaky Buzzard and Count Bloodcount into aging porn stars even. Just so long as the Looney Tunes don’t disappear like they almost did during the 00’s.

  • Sarah

    It’s meant to be different, people! It’s not meant to be the classic Looney Tunes you grew up watching…if they wanted that, they’d just air old episodes. Complaining about Bugs and Daffy missing certain features you knew as a kid doesn’t make the characters bad…it just makes them different. I know that some people cringe at just the word CHANGE, but how about giving it a CHANCE?

    I’m not an animator, so maybe my view on the technicalities of the image aren’t as honed as some of yours, but I’m pretty sure that the majority of the people who will end up watching the show also won’t be animators, and as far as I know, it’s the numbers that matter. It’s those people who ultimately decide whether or not the show stays on the air.

    I asked my nieces and nephews (aged 12 and under) what they thought of the image and they LOVED it! They told me they think the new Bugs and Daffy look “cool” and they can’t wait to see the show. One of the boys even said “it looks waaaay better than the old ones”, and he loves watching the old ones! You have to keep in mind that these kids grew up on shows with better graphics than most of us grew up with. Old cartoons don’t really appeal to them the way they appeal to the older generations who feel nostalgic for them. The target audience for this show is primarily kids/youth…not adults…since typically, kids watch more animated shows than adults. If the kids like it, that’s good! If the adults like it, that’s a bonus!

    I think this image is AMAZING! I don’t think it’s fair to judge a book by its cover and say the whole show will be crap because this one shot isn’t perfect in the eyes of some. Obviously I can’t say the show will be great just from this one shot either. But I can tell you that if I had even an ounce of the talent that this animator has, I’d be one happy camper! And to say that this “looks worse than your average fan art” is pretty silly. The cartoon fans I know are not below average, but they could NEVER reproduce something like this. I think it’s wonderful.

    Embrace the change people!

  • It’s not a great drawing but neither is it horrendous. I’m not sure about moving the Looney Tunes to Suburbia but who knows–it could work. I’m sure there were those who felt Tiny Toon Adventures was a bad idea when it debuted and history has proved them (mostly) wrong. Let’s just wait and see where this goes.

    Frankly, I’m happy to hear that CN is taking a “general audience Adult Swim” approach to their primetime line up.

  • Brokenshell

    Do we REALLY NEED another Looneytunes reboot? I mean, Tiny Toons was awesome, but what did we get after that?

    Space Jam: *facepalm*
    Back in action: *another facepalm*
    Baby Looneytunes *meh, OK I guess.*

    This just reeks of more “Let’s put the looney tunes in something and make money.

  • I agree with Gummo: that whole “well, let’s see your work, let’s see if you can do better” argument just has to go. It’s incredibly stupid. Just doesn’t hold up. What? We’re not allowed to have a negative opinion on a movie until we make one ourselves? Same thing here. If we have eyes, and an opinion, then it’s fair game.

    I’ve had the great opportunity to animate Bugs & Daffy before and I have to say that it’s incredibly nerve-racking and very intimidating, knowing that there’s so much history there (not to mention loads of fans). I used original designs and model sheets from the classic era – I wanted to make sure that I was drawing these iconic characters perfectly, with no margin for error. I’d like to think that I did okay.

  • Bradley De La Cloche

    I honestly don’t know what the fuss is about. It looks okay to me.

  • Thomas Dee

    Gummo: I think it’s valid when a non artist argues with artists on the merit of a piece of art. For all I know, Amid is a brilliant artist. I’m pointing out that John K, for all of his faults, is an excellent artists and knows art. When he tells me something is shit, (about as often as Amid tells me the same) he states his case against it. Too often on CB we’re left with Amid’s shrugs and eyerolls. If you have such amazing abilities, why not move into the creation of good works, instead of the bored teenager school of criticism we most often get here: It sucks!

  • purin

    I’m going to agree that Daffy doesn’t look to bad, but bugs is a little funky. I suppose they’re also not standing out against the background enough.

    … But aren’t Bugs and Daffy (or at least Bugs) very urban personalities?

  • Wes

    Speaking as a professional illustrator and Looney Tunes fan I have to say that art is absolutely atrocious and I can’t believe the amount of people here defending it. The artist who drew it (assuming it’s one artist) is a mediocre talent at best. Besides the character design, the colors and textures are horrible. Maybe Amid can’t draw (I don’t know), but I bet he can art-direct better than this. It’s typical, mainstream, corporate garbage.

  • Thomas Dee, where did Amid ever say that he has “amazing abilities”? Why can’t Amid say it’s crap, if he thinks so? This is a blog, you know. People are known to speak out on what they think is frustrating and ugly. Same goes for you. If we all have to defend our opinions then nothing would ever get done in this industry.

  • Chocotoast

    Why is bugs purple?
    Why is daffy pointy all over?
    How come my eyes jump all over the place?
    How come their design doesn’t look like it’s made for something expressively funny?
    How come the backgrounds are from billy and mandy?
    How come the 50’s angular bugs and daffy looks right compared to this?
    How come McKimson’s bugs bunny looks more appealing than this?
    Why does it have all those unnecessary colors in the background?
    Why won’t my eyes travel to the center of interest which is the chopstick?

    I’m an amateur after all, and these are just my opinions. Oh well, it’s just a harmless cartoon right? At least the lines are slick, and they used colored lines. Maybe they’ll improve overtime…. like… er…uhmm er…..

    Seriously, my eyes are still jumping all over the place.

  • @ Tim AND Amid.
    There are most definitely objective standards for aesthetic value.
    You should both know this.
    Look into it.

    Meanwhile, my favorite part is where the building on the left seems to follow the line of the window, like it’s a texture map.

  • Fred Thompson

    The LT characters were not all living on one block in the ‘burbs before the corporate reboot. The series will look slick but will it be funny?

  • Rooniman

    Daffys passable, but Bugs look horrendous.

  • Oh God. No. No, no, no. There is no excuse for this! Give this show back to Jim Smith and the crew you fired last September! And at least, get that pilot episode online somewhere. I have a feeling that episode which got the executives all sceptic is far better than anything done in the recent months and, if people get to see it, who knows… maybe WB will get so many good reviews of it that they turn this show around and give the tools to the right creative hands.

    I just have to hope. The Looney Tunes could seriously use a good revival to get back into the spotlight, and it ain’t gonna be this one.

    One thing I don’t get AT ALL: Shows like Duck Dodgers and Tom and Jerry Tales, while having their faults, actually made an attempt to retain the tone and spirit of their original sources. Why can’t this show be allowed to do the same thing?

  • I forgot to mentionned that when i was a kid i thinkin Bugs was a sort of blue and purple than a gray fur rabbit because the quality prints of the cartoons was inferior than what i seen now.

    I think the artists who drawed Bugs’ like that seems to watched this inferior quality cartoons films! It’s hard to find it appealing these days! I have just 5 years of experience as a drawing artist and i scare yet for the future!

  • That reminds me. I’m still am very mad at how they laid off most of the original artists for the show, and it definitely shows in this promo pic. I bet this show would have been radically different if the corporate execs at WB hadn’t made such a dumb decision in the first place. I’ve heard a lot of good things about the very first episode that was produced.

  • Look. Everyone here has the ability to share their opinion on this. For me, I think that the art works. Wes, to be honest, not to get into a war of words or something, but to say that it is atrocious is a very ignorant comment. I’m sure the artist worked very hard on these characters and everyone that was involved. Sometimes it’s easy to look at a still frame and think of it as an illustration, when in reality it is one frame of many in the film/show. Some people don’t have the extra hours to spice up their artwork and have to really get things to look good right from the get-go. Also…maybe the textures don’t work or whatever you feel, but it is a show for kids and not 35 + year old men that know far too much about looney toons. Trust me…I’m a fan and have been working in animation for a long time…it’s not worth it to take broadcast tv stills so seriously. Step back and show a little more tact, perhaps. Look at the art from all levels of understanding. This artist is surely very talented and so is the team that is working on it for sure. Like I said though, you are entitled to your opinion…just advising a little more class. On another note…good to see that there’s a lot of support of animation in here in all forms. Glad to see that even if people don’t necessarily like some things…that they’ll still show support and drop the catty attitudes. Just childish at the end of the day. This is production, not short films..if you want to see super awesome artwork in a still – look outside of the business like in people’s short films or other forms where there’s more time to put into every still or look into concept art where there are fantastic illustrators that take the time to put together some really amazing artwork…don’t look for it in an inbetween of a show pitch. However, well done still.

  • Hmmm…. reading over the comments here, I think I’ll have to give this show at least a chance. Maybe I could be miraculously surpriced. But I still see no reason to change the characters’ personalities that much, and I kinda have a feeling that working with that Bugs design must have been sorta painful for supervising producers Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone. I wish they could just allow talented fans/artists like that some freedom with the characters.

  • @ Mesterius

    We don’t know yet if this new show is or isn’t in the same tone or spirit of traditional Looney Tunes. All we’ve seen so far is a promotional image.

  • Wes

    Bradley, good point about the show not being aimed at 35 year-olds. As far as “the artists probably worked really hard on it” argument… well that’s no excuse. Especially since they were most likely well compensated for the work. As a professional artist, you’re expected to turn in a good piece of art regardless of how tough it was for you. I’ll admit the character design is the real problem and the executives in charge probably merit most of the blame. I think what’s really bothering me is that there’s such a flood of amazing art/artists since the dawning of the internet, that there’s no reason to celebrate such mediocre work. I would love the opportunity to do my own OFFICIAL versions of these characters!

  • Shmorky

    Forget for a moment that they look “different.” Daffy’s arms are short and he’s missing a thumb on one hand! Also their body parts are arranged in a way you’d expect for a cheap flash cartoon. Daffy’s legs are BEHIND his bean body. Bugs’ body parts are… well just look at them. His ears are behind his head. Nothing looks connected. It all just looks like it is set up to be flash puppet animation.

    I’m not shocked at so many people saying this looks bad. I’m shocked that anyone would play devil’s advocate for this.

  • Really? It’s so bad that professional needs quotes around it?

  • Baron Lego

    Bugs’ “boot feet” disturb me.

  • Rob M.

    I made the mistake of watching recently created Looney Tunes. They clearly looked like they were created in Flash by amateurs and the jokes/writing were deplorable. I really hope that those shorts aren’t telling of what we can expect with this new series.

    It’s clear they’re trying to update a timeless subject and it really doesn’t need to be done. It’s lazy animation, pure and simple. Just like most of the animation on television lately. The idea of hand-drawing frame by frame animation like Looney Tunes were originally created seems archaic and “daunting” to most animation studios. It’s about speed of manufacture and the shows truly hurt for it.

    Admittedly, I did see a “recent” Looney Tune short starring Foghorn leghorn which truly made me laugh like the old cartoons. It was aired before “Cat’s Don’t Dance” on Cartoon Network. I don’t know if it’s apart of the film or what, but if this revival series were like that, I’d watch it without hesitation. But a half-hour segment where they live together sounds like a cheap, cop-out solution.

    The only way I want to see my cartoon characters living in the same neighborhood is Roger Rabbit’s ToonTown style.

  • Leirin

    Better than anything I could draw.

  • I love it.
    Lighten up.

  • Keith Paynter

    They make Crocs for rabbits now?

  • TheGunheart

    I’m going to wait and see. Batman: The Brave and the Bold’s promo art was also a turnoff, but that one turned out great (and the designs looked nothing like the early promo).

  • The original shorts were animated for $ 60000 in the 50’s that’s 10000 a minute! Nevermind inflation, you can’t get that for TV nowadays, broadcasters don’t have the revenue!
    In a perfect world cartoons would be shown in the louvre, but they ain’t.
    In a such world, some texan oil tycoon who also happens to be a looney toons fan would give 40 millon dollars to Eric Goldberg, Greg Duffell, John K and Bob Jaques to set up thier own units and do 10 cartoons a piece, at a million bucks a pop. but such a world does not exist.
    Ward, you were doing a licensed commercial, so your job was to reproduce the classic as faithfully as you could, it was targeted at people who were familiar with the shorts, and you did a great job.

    The artist who designed this was told to “Reinvent” and “reimagine” which is what goes on with properties now.
    It is a clean vector version. It is animated in flash. It is what it is, I know the artist did what they were told by the execs, and you can bitch at them being a sell out, but as Brad said, where is the love for animation?I doubt anyone taking that job would of came out of the process with something that pleases everyone.
    Things change, for the better or worse, they change. if you want the old looney toons, go watch ’em. I can see bugs and daffy’s personality in there. At least this is in the spirit of the originals, it isn’t EXTREEEEME!!I think of this as RUFF and READY bugs and daffy.
    and I refuse to judge a whole show by one still. I can find you some fugly inbetweens in the golden age too.

  • Stone

    This cartoon has no point of view.

    that alone is why no one will care in 3 years.

  • this cartoon looks Really weird… what happen whit their heads? …
    They live on houses?? and their nevers? it looks like a cartoon of Desperates housewifes

  • I’m still holding out for the series where Bugs and Daffy sit in a room motionless, staring at each other for a half hour.

  • Magnusson

    It’s been pre-ruined for animating in Flash, rather than making the interns the studio will give the animation responsibility to ruin it on their own. They’re just thinking about those interns.

  • Mike Myhre

    The plot sounds stupid, and the content of this drawing looks a little odd, but the art is FAR above “fan art”. That is a beautiful drawing, and frankly, I’m REALLY sick of Cartoon Brew complaining about new cartoons like a grumpy old man would about “kids these days”.

    Seriously, curb the vitriol, because that is a great drawing, even if the show will suck. I hated Avatar’s design, but I have to admit that it’s the best mo-cap I’ve ever seen. If I can do it, so can you. So grow up. Just because you dislike what they’re doing to classic characters, at least appreciate good design.

  • ron

    there’s really no need to bash the poor artist involved in producing this image.. it’s quite uncalled for. after all just look at what he/she has to deal with… you can totally see the cut backs in designs planned for a budget production all over the image! i don’t think they even have a 16 pose turn-table model sheets drawn out for these characters! there’s just no budget now days to produce a fully animated shows at the quality they did 50yrs ago. even if the artists involved had the talent they’ll still be restrained by tight deadlines.. so ya it’s just what it is and we’ll just have to accept that there’s not much we can do to prevent things like this from recurring in this industry. i only hope that some execs holding on to these old IPs can somehow come to their senses and realize that people are still watching those wonderful old animations done eons ago, today but not those badly animated TV shows done in the 70’s and 80’s!

  • The Ghost of Warner Bros. Past

    To quote Bugs Bunny:
    “Ehh, what’s up…with my giant fuggin’ head, doc?”

    This is clear proof that whoever has final approval of publicity art at Warner Bros. Animation does not have an artistic eye.

  • Adrian

    This cartoon will be good for people who don’t know about the classic cartoons and don’t care. Sadly, there are a lot of people who straight up wouldn’t care and watch this even if they did see the amazing golden era cartoons!

    I’m not one of them. To put it in perspective, the classic Warner Brothers cartoons have been CONSISTENTLY watched for about 50-60 years now…. Because they are skillfully crafted and made with integrity. They are timeless. I would put money on the fact that these new cartoons will be a flash in the pan and will probably not be widely viewed much past, oh, let’s say 3 years from the time they first air…

    If the artisans (and producers) of the show really took the time and cared about the product that could be a different story…

    I for one wish John K. was brought on, if nothing else, as at least a creative consultant.

    My opinion,

  • Matt Sullivan

    I just think they should let the WB characters DIE and make something new and relevant to THIS generation

  • Adrian

    If I was to do a new Looney Tunes show I would do it as 3 7minute cartoons an episode and I wouldn’t have one model sheet. I would use a variety of models from the various directors. It would keep the show fresh and fun and it would allow the artists making it to have as much fun as those who made the original.

    Plus I hope they hire BRILLIANT voice artists because half of the original shows was Mel.

    My second opinion,

  • Thomas Hatch

    Looks terrible!

  • Cyber Fox

    Before criticizing the show, Why not wait for clips of the show or better yet the show itself before this turns more rediculous like the Sonic 4 outcry (e.g. petition for the old-school Sonic design, buying Sonic 1 to boycott Sonic 4)?

    Angelina Ballerina fans cried foul when “The Next Steps” was announced and premiered but I enjoyed it much more than the original mostly due to the characters’ personalities

    It depends if the staff behind “The Looney Tunes Show” keep the characters’ personalities and if the comedic material is either watchable, tollerable or badly one note

  • Amidst a Meeny

    Amid… Since you’re such a highly skilled professional, why don’t you show us how you could improve this image? Give us a quick draw-over. Show us your Magic.

  • Designs aside, what I’m not understanding is why these characters need to have a permanent setting, urban or otherwise.

    I remember these characters being able to be put into any setting and be highly entertaining. Why force them into just one?

  • I’m just glad I got to work on a couple of Sylvester spots in the 70’s with Corny Cole and Duane Crowther.

    I’d like to see how they handle the Looney Tunes today.

  • John R. Puff

    Yet another reason that animators need to stop using Flash.

  • Looks like Jessica Burotski designs! She rules!

  • DaVon M. Walker

    So, we finally see how the upcoming, latest Looney Tunes-based series is coming along so far again. Well, first of all, I’m on the fence about it. Unfortunately, I didn’t even think about the possibility of the characters getting an animation redesign and wish I had. Daffy looks better than Bugs, as several others on here already mentioned. I didn’t even notice Bugs looked purple when I first saw the pic above. But I’m still not feeling the animation style of both of them all that much. True, Bugs and Daffy went through a few appearance changes in the early years of Warners’ animation, but in that case, the animators were still searching for the perfect identities and personalities of the twosome before finally settling on the official, final products.

    Secondly, I know their new animation style has been done to appeal to the latest, young generation, but on the other hand, I disagree with switching up their original looks just to appeal to the new youth crowd. I think that their original designs shouldn’t matter and that today’s kids still could appreciate them the way they were, and should’ve been left well enough alone, they were fine as they were. I agree, if they weren’t broke, why try to fix them? It’s a dumb idea and move. I hate when characters that many have known so well suddenly aren’t in their long familiar forms too. Speaking of those web-based, flash-style Looney Tunes featurettes, I haven’t seen any of them, but after reading reviews about them when they were brought to DVD on other sites, now I’m kind of afraid to do so. But since the show still hasn’t premiered yet, who knows for sure if it’ll be just like those. Maybe this show is more of the same: Just cheap, commercial pandering, maybe not. But before jumping too far to conclusions, I’m willing to give this show a chance (even if I agree that a half-hour of new animated shorts would be more interesting or a show that’s similar to House of Mouse, as someone from another site queried, would’ve been a much better idea). If I don’t catch this on Cartoon Network, then maybe I’ll catch it on Youtube. And if I’m still not feeling this modified approach, and/or read reviews that are more bad than good about it, then I’ll skip it and pass altogether. My stance on this is very ambivalent, I’m not too sure what to make of this exactly. Are the character designs going to be re-designed every generation and must each generation have their favorite characters in an animation style that will appeal to them? I mean, what’s the point, other than the aforementioned reason I stated above? I don’t care for the flat look all that much either, but I might have a few exceptions, just not sure which ones they are. They keep switching up and things are going to get out of hand. At least the show won’t be animated as CGI, well, save for the new Wile E. Coyote/ & Road Runner segments. Here’s to hoping everything about this new Looney Tunes show doesn’t end up getting too jacked up for anyone to care anymore.

  • Kyle Maloney

    I’m really disappointed. I was excited about this reboot. des I started to worry once we heard the original designs that were different, but still very close to the golden age ones that had even made it into animation were tossed, but I stayed optimistic. Seeing this today, ughh. Now more than ever Im Really curious to see what these fabled designs looked like.

    Its a shame, there are many talented people on this project, but thanks to studio interference we end up with this crap.

    That said, I’m still going to give it a chance. Maybe by some miracle it wont be so bad in motion. At the very least maybe it could be one of the only watchable cartoons on tv these days. The bar has definitely been lowered though.

    And don’t blame flash people, we should be past that by now. There are plenty of examples of flash done right out there.

  • Cyle

    Look I’m not a professional artist, but drawing and making art have always been hobbies of mine. Personally, I think this shot looks rather bland. Telling Amid to prove he can do better is silly and childish. He expressed an opinion and given his reasons for feeling that way, and the rest of us are free to agree or disagree.

    This picture definitely reminds me of a coloring book. Bugs’ ears do look like they’re attached in the back for easier flash-like animation, and his smooth face looks pretty strange. The inconsistent perspectives of the tops of the chairs, the chair seats, and the table make the shot look awkward. The premise sounds limiting, but obviously I won’t judge the comedy or story content before seeing anything.

    Why are so many people opposed to criticizing mediocrity these days? I’m tired of hearing “as long as the kids/audience likes it…” or “as long as it’s making money” etc. It’d be nice if more people who aren’t professional artists, filmmakers or musicians would learn more about what goes into making their entertainment instead of defending what they like regardless of valid criticism against it. That’s not to say we should throw out the baby with the bath water. If the show is clever and funny, I’ll probably watch it, but my opinions on the design probably won’t change much.

  • Any Looney Tunes show could be called “The Looney Tunes Show.” At least the name “Laff Riot” made clear it was something unlike what we’d seen before. By contrast, the casual fan who hears, peripherally, about “The Looney Tunes Show” may have no idea that it contains anything new.

    The urge to watch will thus be less strong—and the ratings lower.

    [conspiracy theory] Thus, the point. If it outrates Scooby and CN live action, it might publicly reveal that some suit isn’t right about Looney Tunes being unpopular. And we can’t have that. Ego before profit, people. [/conspiracy theory]

    I’m not going to touch the promo art. It’s not final.

  • Rather D.

    Isn’t Amid telling someone that they are flat out “WRONG” for calling the picture good also somewhat childish? Yeah the picture looks terrible and the premise sounds like some kind of Looney Toons rehash into a family sitcom but some people honestly like this stuff. Calling them “opposed to criticizing mediocrity” or “misinformed because they don’t know any better”is just unhelpful.

  • captainmurphy

    I think some of the common complaints (flat design, limbs seemingly not joining torso naturally) can be blamed on the production being designed for animation in Adobe Flash.

    I could be wrong. But I bet I’m right.

  • Hah… judging by the comments, it looks like the people involved in making this series read Cartoon Brew and have a thin skin for criticism.

    Obviously, if Amid just shuts up about it, it will stop sucking – or at least it’ll take longer to reach the ears of the people with money who don’t understand the first thing about quality themselves and rely on hearsay for judgment calls.

    (the Daffy ain’t bad, though)

  • tedzey71

    jokes asside, I think the daffy character isn’t that bad! It could be worse and look like purple bugs (Avery, Clampett, and Jones are rolling in their graves!) At least daffy looks like a combination of clampett and jones styles. Clampett always stretched the character out with a pin-head, and jones tended to give him that modern-cubey look. Maybe its the fact that Cervone worked on him on Duck Dodgers that he looks better than the wrong wabbit. Might need to see a “doc.”

    The premise of the show sounds unbelievably stupid! Having the characters living in suburbia is dumb! This is the friggin looney tunes, not Ed, Edd, and Eddy! Besides Granny, tweety, and Slyvester, there not supposed to live in the suburbs! So like, are they supposed to be in some sort of retirement from trickery, backstabbing others, and dropping anvils?!

    If there’s going to be anything good about this, its the roadrunner-coyote shorts there claiming to put in this show. I’ld like to see the transistion to CG, it might work!

  • Gummo

    1. I have no objection to Flash animation — some of my favorite cartoon shows of recent years are minimally animated Flash shows — Home Movies, Dr. Katz. But those shows were wonderfully written, and showcased original characters, so there was no older, fully-animated versions to compare them unfavorably to. (As an English major, that last sentence makes my head hurt, but you get the idea.)

    2. The concept is at least 50 years out of date — it made sense in the 1950s and even 60s to put characters in the suburbs, all of America seemed to be moving to the suburbs, so it was current and relevant. Now the idea is appallingly stale and has a whiff of desperation about it. It also suggests that the executives in charge of this reboot were not young hip kids but out-of-touch old farts like myself.

    3. Despite repeated tries to shoehorn these characters into new formats, they have always worked best in the short length of 6-7 minutes. So why try to force them into a half-hour slot again, when there are numerous examples of successful cartoon shows based on the 2-episode-per-half-hour length of 11 minutes, like SpongeBob? Seems to me that would be the perfect way to update the format for these characters, yet stay true to their origins.

    Well, obviously, what I think doesn’t matter since I can’t draw. From what I glean from the comments, only professionals are allowed to have an opinion. I hope you all keep that in mind the next time your favorite sports team is losing.

  • Tim Schuit

    Tony mines: you have no idea what you’re talking about. I doubt you know what aesthetics even are, based on your assertion up there.

    As Amid later stated, there are objective standards by which one can determine if a drawing is “solid” (which I interpret to mean, “technically accurate or competent”)…and I’d agree. If a perspective is wrong, it is wrong. If a line isn’t straight, it isn’t straight, etc.

    But to say that *aesthetics* have an objective basis is hogwash, and it shows your ignorance on the matter. I bet you could find 100 kids who’d light up with excitement when they see images like this, depicting their favorite cartoon characters. Are you going to tell them that they’re wrong when they say they like it?

    Aesthetics is related to the emotional response an individual has to something. You can’t say someone else’s emotions are “wrong” simply because you don’t happen to have the same response yourself. It’s all just a matter of opinion.

  • Torsten Adair

    Comment #1) Yeah, I hate it when Warners reinvents cartoons. JLU, Batman Beyond, Tiny Toons, Brave and the Bold… WHEN WILL THEY LEARN? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    Comment #2) If it’s a screen capture, then I’m sure we could also find lots of screencaps from the classic cartoons which are just as bizarre. (Start with “The Great Piggy Bank Robbery”). Sure, Warners can be criticized for not releasing a better image. But why not wait for the actual ANIMATED CARTOON before critiquing the show?

    Oh, sorry, I forgot I was posting to the internet. Continue paintballing Guernica.

  • Dave O.

    I imagine somewhere out there is at least one CN memo out there that reads something like:

    “Time to dig out our cherished stock characters and update them to look pointy and streamlined… you know, the kids love that crap. You guys know the routine… churn these things so fast, no one involved will have to worry about composition or color sense. These things aren’t for the ages… they’re for short-term profit! Um… synergy! We’ll run this crap on and off for 5 or so years, then put ’em all on DVD so that the kids that grow up with this can call it retro once they’re in college. We’ve sold crap like this to each generation: Tiny Toons, Lunatics. If they want timelessness or art or vision they should go to a friggin’ museum!”

  • Scarabim

    I gotta disagree with those here who’d like John K. to be part of this Looney revival. Look what he did to his own Ren and Stimpy. I’m not even crazy about what he did with Mighty Mouse. I don’t want him anywhere near Bugs and Daffy.

    Gotta also disagree with the guy who liked that Foghorn Leghorn cartoon shown before Cats Don’t Dance. It looked like a pale imitation of the glories of yesteryear. And helps illustrate my misgivings about any attempt by anyone to bring back the Loonies in their original format. I have no real objection to this suburb idea. I’m interested to see what’s done with it. I mean come on, we should once again see Bugs in the woods with Elmer chasing him for the umpteenth time? That well’s gone dry. Maybe inspiration can be found elsewhere. Let’s hope so.

  • Wow, people. Seriously? You really think it’s THAT bad??? They obviously scaled down the bodies and exaggerated some features, but liking that is pretty much an issue of taste and not an issue of “shoddy craftsmanship.” Yeah, the background is busy… but what regular viewer is really gonna care about that if the story, the voices, and the motion are great?

    I understand if you want the Looney Tunes to look EXACTLY like they did back in the day, but you also half to realize that most of that was over half a century ago. I know it goes without saying for just about everyone commenting here but I feel like it’s being forgotten right now — both production techniques and popular taste in character design have changed. What’s so bad about updating the proportions and the look a bit?

  • John

    They love! They share!
    They share and love and share!
    Love, love, love!
    Share, share, share!
    The Itchy Bugs and Scratchy Daffy Show!

  • Amid – it’s a shame you felt the need to single out the few folks who didn’t happen to think this was as important as you do.

  • Mac

    In some ways this is a natural extension of Chuck Jones’ interpretation of Daffy in the Rabbit Season era and the sad 1960s last cartoons when Daffy grew those toothpick legs. Both characters looked much more like their respective animals in their beginnings and evolved in a few years to a classic balance of human/animal looks. Time should have stopped there. These are sad interpretations of Looney Tunes. To compare that they aren’t as bad as Loonatics is absurd;like imagining Palin following Cheney;idiocy replacing evil. And you know if they are screwing around with the visuals this much,what comes out of their mouths’ will be just as lame. These scripts WILL be horrid. At least Hanna-Barbera,in their best work, spent money where it needed to be spent. They replaced the limited animation with scripts worthy of the top comedy writing available for TV. Suburbs,Chinese food,big feet and spiky feathers-just how I would imagine Bugs & Daffy in 2010. And let’s hope there isn’t a serving of Peking Duck in the bag. Pandering to the Cannibal audience is not beneficial to cartoons.

  • Chuck Jones was also involved but I really enjoyed this cartoon, directed by Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone:

    One of the few “modern” Looney Tunes I really liked, even though is more educational than hilarious, it still looks great and the little humor that is there is nice and subtle.

    And Scarabim has a point about the two things he says…but still, I don’t think characters living in the suburbs is going to add something that exciting to the concept. I’m not saying they should redo “Rabbit Season” over and over again, but having Bugs living in his rabbit hole and other staples of the characters would probably work better than the suburb idea.

  • startstop


    Okay look.

    No adaptation of the Looney Tunes will ever be exactly the same as the original. You guys are annoyed by the fact that they now live like normal people in a suburban neighborhood? Yes, the designs aren’t QUITE like how we know them, but it’s different and interesting.

    On the other hand, I heard they had to scrap a lot of work and start over because the network didn’t like “the more edgy, UPA style”! Is this any different? I don’t see any.

    Tom Ruegger is involved in this.

  • Keith

    captainmurphy wrote:
    “I think some of the common complaints (flat design, limbs seemingly not joining torso naturally) can be blamed on the production being designed for animation in Adobe Flash.

    I could be wrong. But I bet I’m right.”

    If you’re right, just don’t make the mistake of blaming its Flash production status. Daffy’s legs are the only limbs that don’t join a torso naturally in that image, and that has nothing to do with the program used. Most studios using Flash would have his left leg overlapping his torso, not stuck behind it. Maybe it’s a layer issue, and it really IS supposed to be overlapping… then again, we don’t really know what this image is, promo or still, or how it’s assembled. There’s “cel shadow” on Daffy, which you wouldn’t get in a Flash setup unless they intentionally added it.

    Another thing most studios would’ve tried to do is design them to be better-suited for Flash. Stuff like this, still so close to ‘corporate’ Bugs & Daffy in complexity, would be just as time-consuming as pencil-n-paper animation.

  • David H

    The biggest drawing problem with this still is the background. What’s outside the window, the window and the interior are all in separate perspectives. There’s nothing wrong with a little creativity with perspective but this just seems to be without thought.

    This is not meant to disrespect whoever made the background but more a surprise that no one thought this background looked odd from the beginning.

    Sure, no one is going to care who watches it if it’s funny. But where are the people that care to make all aspects of the cartoons funny or well made. Because there are plenty of talented people who can.

    Who knows how the show will be though. It’s only one still.

  • I can’t believe there are people who are defending this against Amid. As if he just has no idea what he’s talking about.

    This does not look very good. I’m willing to say it objectively is just not terribly thoughtful in design, at the very least. I understand we all have limitations. I don’t doubt that there are talented artists at work on this show. It’s the studio system and ignorant executive decisions that leave us with product like this.

  • Autumn

    This looks stupid.

    Firstly, I don’t like that kids are the main focus with these characters. They weren’t originally intended for little kids. Teens yes, adults definitely. It’s insulting to dumb them down like this.

    I know they’re never going to give me LT the way I want them, but changing their style? Why? Duck Dodgers was fine, why not have that style, so they could AT LEAST be recognizable? This looks like Bugs and Daffy do Grim and Mandy.

    It looks cheap.

    And Tony Cervone worked on this? FOR SHAME Tony. FOR SHAME. Why didn’t you hurt someone when you saw these designs?

    If this were a fanart drawing, it wouldn’t be so horrible. But as a SHOW? @#$%&!!

    I can’t believe people are upset over them eating chinese. Who cares about that? They eat pizza! What’s the difference?! It’s a common food these days. You think Bugs only eats carrots, and Daffy only eats fish? COME ON. It’s like in Duck Dodgers, Daffy eats anything, even pork. IN FRONT of Porky.

    Them living in the suburbs doesn’t bother me as much as the designs do. Bugs has been in cartoons living in houses. He’s been all over the place. The desert, NY, California, and various misc. forests. He was even trying to BUY a house in one cartoon. And with Bugs and Daffy especially, they already behave like they’re neighbors. They go over to each others places, borrowing food and what-not. That is not a stretch, by any means.

    I’ll judge the humor and writing when I watch it. If it looks this horrible, but the writing and humor is great, this might be salvageable. I’m not holding my breath, but….the personalities of these characters are really all that matters.

    Still…God…I keep looking at it and all I can hear in my head is Bugs saying, “continue to draw me like this and we’ll BOTH be outta work”

  • I’m also going to throw it out there that this is very likely to bomb. No one wants to see these characters “reimagined.” Most people who love them find it sacrilege, many non-cartoonist folk I know are just plain overexposed to the characters.

    Gummo’s right; the “let’s decontextualize these characters and send them to the suburbs! How wacky!” idea is completely culturally irrelevant at this point.

  • Autumn


    How can one be overexposed to characters that aren’t even ON THE AIR?

    Looney Tunes, Loonatics Unleashed, Duck Dodgers, Tiny Toons, Baby Looney Tunes, NONE of it is on the air.

  • By the way, where does this image from the show come from? I’d like to see the weblink.

  • I wonder if they will talk about Facebook and Twitter? Maybe they will log on to Cartoonbrew and be snarky :P

  • Captain Der

    bug’s ear is in the middle of his head.

    nuff said.

    i just rhymed

  • I’m not offended by the art as much as I am by the premise of the show. People are getting upset over ONE PROMO PIECE. What if they released another one that made people happy? Would there be complaining then? (well, yes because nobody can be pleased all the time.)

    There is prejudice because it’s Looney Tunes. I think that’s why everyone is getting so upset, not necessarily because it’s a “bad” drawing. It’s okay and yes there are some flaws, but if this were an upcoming show that had nothing to do with Lo
    oney Tunes I doubt that there would be as much whiplash. So guys, calm down. There is little doubt this show will not last anyway, and the drawing itself isn’t terrible. It’s just a revamped style of Looney Tunes that happens to be different from what’s been plastered over and over again.

    Maybe I’m just relieved that Bugs doesn’t look nearly as assholish as he normally does.

  • G. Melissa Graziano

    I didn’t know Bugs and Daffy moved to Dimmesdale…

    I loved this design sense when it was fresh, and used on characters where it made sense. But slapping it on classic, beloved characters, pushing out their souls in the meantime? I didn’t even like it when Chuck Jones inadvertently “redesigned” these guys, and I LOVE him.

    This show might be animated well, who knows. But the visual appeal of the characters (or lack thereof) might make some not want to watch it. I guess we’ll have to see and find out.

    In the meantime, at least someone over at Warner’s had the sense to bring the old characters back. That seems to be happening quite often as of late, and sometimes to the franchise’s great advantage. Look at the Muppets, for instance. Disney didn’t ask for a character redesign.

    Of course, for every so-called “good” comebacks, we can think of a bajillion “bad” ones.

  • Hasn’t this already been canceled?

  • Bob

    I don’t know. There’s something a little squeamish about the new-look purplish-looking Bugs Bunny with the somewhat off-positioned ears. He looks like he’s a potentially serious attitude problem.

  • Bob

    I don’t know. There’s something a little squeamish about the new-look purplish-looking Bugs Bunny with the somewhat off-positioned ears and oversized feet. He looks like he’s a potentially serious attitude problem.

  • Supergun

    Looks pretty professional to me. May not be faithful to the original designs, and may rub some people the wrong way. But if this was fan art, I would say that looks pretty professional…and I somehow was not familiar with the Looney icons I would be somewhat interested.

  • Daffy isn’t all that terrible, I belive, i actually like his face.
    As for bugs…well, I dislike it quite sufficently :(
    He is a weird colour too! But i do think everyone is being to harsh. He is simply different, they tried something new. When Chuck Jones drew things his way, did most people pitch a b*tch? No, and what about UPA? THey tried something differemnt, and I dislike most of their work. Even though most people like it’s “Modern” feel. :P

  • (NOTE: This comment is written on my Wii game consule.) Bugs and Daffy look really out of perportion (Did I spell that right?) here. Other than that, the pic got the concept right. I can easily see Daffy living in a house like us. Bugs, on the other hand, could live in one if he wanted to, but prefers to live in a hole. (He is a “wabbit”, after all.) I can also envision the Looney Tunes living normal lives and their antics in the past cartoons are a part of those lives. The concept could work if Warner Bros. could work in the LTs’ past comidic doings and keep their various personalities. And fix the character art already! I like how they looked on the clip art of the late 90’s-early 2000’s.

  • Mat

    That Bugs is freaking me out. He just looks so… odd. Daffy doesn’t look too bad.

  • ItsJoseph

    Bugs’s head is way too big.

  • YamiMario

    I honestly don’t see what’s wrong with that.

    You guys are just overreacting.

  • haha, a lot of people in this thread upset and defensive at having to face the fact that they simply don’t know how to look at things.

  • Wasn’t Loonatics bad enough? I give it one season.

  • Steve Gattuso

    Amid, you keep trying to be the Gary Groth of animation, yet you keep looking like The Comic Book Guy. Let it go.

  • The characters were designed by Jessica Borutski. You may remember her “I Love Pandas” short film from a few years back, or the “Superstar Tap” iPhone game that was mentioned here.

    While the promo pic doesn’t do anything too flattering for the character designs, the pic on her blog shows them looking pretty nice.

  • “PS – The Looney Tunes characters now live in houses next to each other in a suburban neighborhood (and they eat Chinese take-out).”

    Great! They can ransack all those old Dell & Gold Key comic books for storylines!

    Note to Mr. Bauza: I’m 50, happily married with four children, have written two books… and that artwork SUCKS!

  • Tommy T

    Wow, unbelievable comments… mom always use to say if you have nothing nice to say dont say anything at all. Last time I checked we are in the business of cartoons.. I didn’t realize there were so many rules.

  • Wow guys, you need to relax. It’s just a cartoon. This is clearly a still from an episode, so you can’t really make any judgements based on this frame. Show premise aside, these character designs look really good, and the artist has clearly taken into account the needs of the animators when she redesigned them. They look excellent, and I personally can’t wait to see them animated. Hopefully the animators will be able to do a good job with the designs they have been provided. But seriously, it’s just a cartoon. Relax folks. That’s all.

  • Thanks for the additional pic, Floyd – Bugs will take some convincing, (gone through the same unnecessary shortening as Pink Panther just has on first look) but the rest (especially Pete Puma) look nifty! Some lovely work there, Jess.

  • Brad

    Man, you’d think they were depicting the prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.

  • John Hill

    I had typed a whole bunch of stuff as a reply, because the way the animation industry is divided by people just doing work and being happy they have some and people just doing work, being happy they have some, but wishing they were working on something more worthwhile, and then people who are just petty nostalgic pathetic crybabies who will **** all over anybody who does anything that they don’t like in any way really brings me down on the whole lot of you.

    Check this out:
    It pretty much sums it up for ya.

    In summation. I think the majority of you would be better served, and better serving of the community to MAKE SOME CARTOONS YOURSELF.

    • Ryoku

      Whys Daffy so excited about Chinese food? And I don’t think I’ve ever seen a suburb set-up like the one in the background.

      That and the characters faces\bodies are facing in odd directions, shouldn’t they be facing each other if they’re eating together?

  • I think they look pretty swell in that other picture, though I find it odd that some of them look like teenagers and others don’t. Same thing with Pink Panther and Pals, really, the panther is a teenager but the guy with the moustache isn’t, and I don’t really know if the Aardvark and the ant are supossed to have their original age or not.

    I mean, Petunia really looks like a teenager, and I think she looks great, but I find it strange at the same time, cause Yosemite Sam seems to keep his age. I don’t know if that’s the artists or the executive idea. It’s a little odd concept-wise, but design-wise they look pretty cool.

  • Tom Ruegger

    startstop says:
    Tom Ruegger is involved in this.

    Tom Ruegger says:
    No I’m not.
    I haven’t worked at Warner Bros. Animation since the year 2000!

  • matt

    No Levi, he can’t….

  • This might look like the end of the old Looney Tunes days. :( Cartoon Network really screwed up big time!

  • Guy

    Floyd Bishop: While those are better than that drawing, they’re still screwed up, flat, and geometric. (For example, Yosemite Sam’s feet.) And it seems it didn’t occur to the artist that she should draw Looney Tunes differently from how she draws chipmunks. And that’s the best they’ll ever look.

    I mean, sure, by modern TV cartoon standards that’s really really good. But we shouldn’t care about what things look like from the absolute rock bottom.

    John Hill: Well, excuse us for liking Looney Tunes and caring about animation.

    Really, I think you guys are just upset because you either can’t see anything wrong with these drawings or you’re an artist and you feel that if these drawings are terrible, your own drawings must be unimaginably bad!

    So you just kind of say whatever as long as it gets rid of your insecurity.

  • dr.Blair

    I love the internet hate machine. It’s so well-rounded.

    I think the Classic Characters are what they are. Classics. Let Warner bros revamp them for a newer generation. The old cartoons aren’t going anywhere.

    All the people in this thread screaming about OH GOD BLAH BLAH IT SUCKS probably are the same type of people who refuse to use a debit cards.

    You people CLOG THE LINES at supermarkets with your need to put everything on paper. Guess what? You get a Receipt! It’s paper!

  • John Dorian

    Oh Lord. Is one image all it takes nowadays to get people flipped out for nothing just because they can’t accept a little image and premise change in their favorite characters and settings?

    Sapathetic (sad and pathetic).

    Oh right, it IS the Internet, A.K.A the “Complainin’ Haven for People Who Need To Get Away From The Screen

    With the exception of Bugs (a little reconstructing is needed), every character looks great (Daffy in mind, looks like a mix of Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones, and that’s awesome). Keep in mind this isn’t OUR Looney Tunes, but a simple way to get the new generation to know Bugs Bunny and not just Taz and Tweety. You guys didn’t complain about Mickey Mouse and friends being confined to a pre-school show (and Donald Duck not being angry). And didn’t some of the original Looney Tunes shorts feature Bugs living in the Suburbs, along with a short with Elmer Fudd having a nice sized mansion?

    Also, be happy this isn’t the Sander Schwartz era of Warner Bros. Animation anymore, unless you’d want stuff like Loonatics Unleashed disrespecting what the Looney Tunes are. Face it, we’re not in the 1940s or 1950s anymore and although I heartfully agree that more than half of the post 2000s Looney Tunes reboots (Loonatics, Baby Looney Tunes, the post Back In Action shorts) were pathetic, I have a lot of faith in the new series (the premise sounds like a mix between Tiny Toons and Animaniacs when they used to do some of the cartoons within a cartoon schtick and occasional music videos.

    And saying that’s not professional artwork is like looking at Adventure Time’s design of characters and criticizing it for looking like it’s something that a middle or high school student made believe me, some had blast the show entirely because of that).

    Seriously Amid, I like you and your reactions to certain things and stuff, but blasting one image is kinda low for you, man.

    And that ends my friendly rant.

  • Guy: Really, I think you guys are just upset because you either can’t see anything wrong with these drawings or you’re an artist and you feel that if these drawings are terrible, your own drawings must be unimaginably bad! So you just kind of say whatever as long as it gets rid of your insecurity.

    You nailed it! I don’t see anything wrong with these drawings in so far as I don’t see what is wrong with a character designer doing their job and giving a new artistic interpretation of a property that is most likely older than anyone posting or reading this site. I’m also nowhere near as good with character design as Jessica. So what? The old cartoons have not been destroyed.

    Get over yourselves, people.

  • FreezingIceKirby

    I’m a bit weary on the whole subject matter, but I’ll still give the show a chance regardless. I can’t see it going very far though, so I expect it only lasting a season or two (since most of the stuff we found so funny about the original Looney Tunes isn’t considered “PC” anymore [Pepe Le’Pew being one example], so I have a feeling it’ll be severely watered down).

  • Mort

    Wow…uhhhh…Most of you guys need to get over yourselves. It’s not that serious. I know we all don’t like change, but it happens, right? It’s part of life, so let’s move on shall we…….

  • None of this is worth the effort, guys. I’m talking to everyone. Including me.

  • Huston

    I wonder if the show’s set in West Hollywood and concerns Bugs getting bad plastic surgery… And why is Daffy holding a testicle on chopsticks

  • Pat

    I hate the ideology of limited means drawings that are less appealing. It simply means being more efficient in the production process, so yea filmed on 2’s, not as many moving holds and mostly fast paced animation. If your show is such on a low budget maybe you shouldn’t have one in the first place. Flash and Harmony is clearly ruining a beautiful artform. We’ve had a history of great animators tell us not to do this sort of thing. I don’t understand people who shrug this sort of thing off, that’s the industry they say, yea I’m sure this is what Walt Disney and Chuck Jones had in mind. Anybody who understands animation and is a looney tunes fan would be feeling low ruining some of the most well designed characters in animation history. Change isn’t bad but this frame or drawing or whatever is just depressing. People need to up the standards quite a bit, crap doesn’t mean good and you don’t get points for effort. IF they had found some way to improve, and do say improve, the design of bugs, the posts would be much different and there is always room for improvement. This isn’t it. And shame to anyone thinks these “drawings” are good.

  • June

    I love how the girl who designed them is all cocky on her little blog about this site tearing apart her designs (and everyone else who has an opinion on it agreeing.)

    “I knew I’d piss people off by making Bugs mauve and giving Daffy purple outlines. But I like color and like to try new things. A purple rabbit……why not.”

    Why not? Um…cause these are classic characters someone was dumb enough to toss to you maybe? If someone redesigned batman in a pink suit or made Minnie Mouse have boobs and little ears…people will not take it well! You were given timeless art here and you pretty much took a dump on what many people cherish.

  • Mark

    To Mr. Bauza, I’m a 19 year old with a girlfriend, yet act like I’m 40.

    Everyone that hates change should just chill out. Darn, it’s like “every other old property doesn’t get a backlash, but if it’s with Looney Tunes it HAS to be like the shorts, and it has to be the same ol’ designs by Critters drawn years ago, be perfect, have outdated jokes, orchestrated music, be like Chuck Jones, Bob Clampett, Friz Freleng, Robert McKimson, etc.

    I don’t like Bugs’ big head or feet at all (and being Purple for that matter), but I’m not gonna dismiss it over a image. Let’s see if you douchebags (yeah, it’s juvenile, but I’m young) can make new Looney Tunes designs with your OWN influence not from Bob Clampett or Chuck Jones and use 1940-1950s outdated references like Family Guy does the 1980s.

    If you all can’t, it just shows me how much deeply you oldies are in Nostalgia and old cartoons. Be glad the Looneys aren’t action heroes, or babies.

  • FreezingIceKirby

    “Be glad the Looneys aren’t action heroes, or babies.”

    Except they have been Action heroes, babies, and a bunch of other things. Instead of the company learning from past mistakes, they keep trying to “Re-Imagine and modernize” and we end up getting more failures. Why fix something if it isn’t broken… and it’ll happen again… and again… and again, until they learn just to leave well enough alone.

    Again, I still plan on giving the show a chance, and I’ll look at it with an unbiased opinion, but I still say it won’t last long.

  • Great stuff…I like it

  • Elle D.

    I’m really disappointed in your reaction, Mr. Amidi. I loved Cartoon Modern and I’ve been following this blog for a while, so I know you’re quite capable of writing more thoughtful responses. You’re not obligated to like the re-design, but I was expecting more than a infantile knee-jerk reaction.

    I’m also really astonished you didn’t even bother to research who was behind the redesigns – which a few clued-in commentators have mentioned – a young and very talented person who was personally mentored and championed by John K. (who is the subject of your next book.) I wonder what he would think of your nuanced “critique”.

    Really, really disappointed.

  • Roberto Severino

    Looking back on this post, I think you were really too hard and harsh on these character designs, Amid. Try looking at these again with a fresh eye, and you can see that there’s a lot of good drawing skill behind these. Very fun proportions, contrasts, and appeal. I was too very harsh when I first saw these, because I’m one of those people who really just want to see the original cartoons on television again.

    Jessica Borutski is quite a talent, nonetheless, and I think she deserves more respect from you. Just my two cents.

  • xRTGx

    She’s just an artist in the trenches with the rest of us. She provided a service for a client, and the client was happy. Take it up with Warner Bros. if you have a problem.

    I’m tired of this site spreading nothing but hate through the industry. I wish Cartoon Brew would just shut down. I don’t think I’ll be coming back to this site anymore.

  • Wagner

    Dude, they’re just cartoons. They don’t need to be realistic!

  • T

    Articles and comments like this remind me of why I hate coming here….spreading hate and stabbing artists and creators in the back any time they dare to do anything you don’t like.

  • Ok Captain M’s comment was just flat out wrong. The reason they make simplified models now is not because of the quality of the workmanship of animators in the US…. it’s because in order to save a dollar they want to outsource half the episodes to other countries at the last minute. Maybe if they kept all work in house the style would be of better quality.

  • Rodrigo Araya

    Well, there are good and bad news. The good ones are that children will see ”Looney Tunes” characters other than Bugs, Daffy and Elmer like in ”The Pink Panther and Pals” which introduced the Ant and the Aardvark to a new generation which have never heard of them. The bad news are that for most of us, the thing will not be the same; Who of us would want that Bugs and Daffy live in the suburbs, or Tom and Jerry trying to build their own mansions*?

    * they did it on ”Tom and Jerry Tales”

  • John Dorian:
    A LOT of us hate equally BOTH when Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies and Mickey Mouse get reduced to this or other.

    I also hate the prewschool Mickey Mouse’s clubhouse.:-)

  • Christopher

    Meh. Even the some of the early Warner Bros. animations had some shoddy artwork to some degree. Tiny Toons was my favorite shtick (gimmicky as it was in it’s representation of the classic characters) and only a handful of episodes had animators who knew what they were doing. Yet, it was still a pretty decent series.

    I stick by the “it aint Loonatics” camp… but I do raise an eyebrow with the gang living next to each other like in college dorms.

    It’s the concept that bugs me, not the artwork.

  • The models look “anime-like”.

    Which seems to be the legacy of hand-drawn animation these days.

    Bugs and Daffy look more like “iconographic” versions of themselves… (the signature of anime-style. Oversized heads and feet) Maybe it’s to pull in younger kids who are being weaned on Pokemon and anime as their introduction to animation these past generations.

    I agree with what someone said about today’s artists are probably not up to snuff to draw things on model like the old timers at Termite Terrace. THAT said, isn’t it’s way past time to raise the bar in terms of draftsmanship and talent????

    It’s sad.

    Someone noted before that “gone are the whiskers on Bugs’ cheeks”. Those whiskers was part of Bugs’ charm that made him a living drawing. Not a 2D drawing that’s just moving around. Bring back good ‘ol American draftsmanship.

    That said…does anyone know where the animation for this was done?? My instincts say this smells of an overseas Asia outsourced production.

    All that said, my biggest fear still hangs overhead. THE WRITING. If these stories just aren’t up to snuff…..if Looney Toons will be reduced to a “Cartoon Sit-Com” like CN classics like: “I Am Weasel” or “Two Stupid Dogs”….. then my friends, the bar on producing good hand-drawn animation has been truly lowered.

    Well…most likely we’ll have to endure a season of this, it will get cancelled. And all us complainers can just pretend like the whole thing never happened.

    All us artists, writers, and animators with a modicum of talent NEED to band together and make our own cartoons and show these profit-bound hacks how it’s done.

  • Jay Jay Jr.

    I always knew I wanted to work in animation. I was a fan of Chuck Jones before I was old enough to read his name in the opening credits. Now that I’m grown and working on my own artwork, I think my feelings for the field are deepening. But the way we (as fans) are handling this is all wrong.

    I’m happy to see this new envisioning BECAUSE it’s new. I’m glad to see life in a franchise that hasn’t been doing much in decades. I say, “bring it to me.” If it’s good, it’s good. If it’s bad, it’s bad. But let it BE whatever it is. It’s not as though we have a popular show they are threatening to derail. Nothing is happening with the Looney Tunes right now. Why not see what the potential could be? The worst that can happen is: they make something bad, it gets canceled, planet continues to turn. Fairly low casualties.

    That said, sure there are things about this that could be improved. I think Bugs’s head is too wide/blocky and Daffy’s tail looks… “exploded”, but that does not equal “nuke it from orbit!” Why are we using the internet to keep Bugs Bunny dead when we could be constructively bringing him to life? Odds are, they’re going to air something anyway, lets find what is truly wrong and fix that. As bad as “Loonatics Unleashed” may have been otherwise, I’m certain the blogging-induced watering-down didn’t help.

    Let’s face it, the “classic” style of the Tunes is not going to come back in anything more than novelties, 6 Flags parks, and other “family” aimed venues. They used it in the movies, didn’t do so hot. For episodic, aimed-at-kids television? Forget it. That’s just bad marketing. Kids have ADD (and/or ADHD) and are just way too overstimulated for anything that isn’t loud, streamlined, bright, and flashy. (see: Johnny Test)

    The issue is going to be the writing. I, for one, would love to see something similar to the Animaniacs/Tiny Toons formating. It was fast, funny, and smart. No, I’m not optimistic, but I’m willing to give it a shot.

  • Stephen Rhodes Treadwell

    It says in a message above that Tom & Jerry Tales isn’t a great series. I disagree! I think all series of T&J are great except the Gene Deitch one & the T&J Comedy Show. I also disagree about T&J Nutcracker being wonderful. It’s not all that good.

  • Maggie Simpson

    I wish I had the brains to hate myself for saying this, but I like them, I like them a lot. Even though I disagree with the fact of the remarketing, (Turner’s a cash-cow) I kind of like it!

  • Maggie Simpson

    What a disgrace! Bob Clampett, wherever you are, advery your eyes!

  • Anonymous

    Seeing this made me very sad. These “toons” look nothing like Bugs and Daffy. [I’m watching Looney Tunes
    right now :) ]

    But yes this “promo art” looks terrible.

    Personally, I would Rank the various Looney Tunes spin-offs from best to worst as follows:

    1. The Original Looney Tunes
    Love it, watching it right now!

    2. Loonatics Unleashed (canceled, but never forgotten)
    I loved every episode of this show, in fact, I recently re-watched all the episodes online and it brought back a lot of wonderful memories. I truly wish there had been a 3rd, 4th, and maybe even a 5th season of this show.

    3. Any spin-offs I left out probably go here.

    4. Tiny Toons

    5. Baby Loony Toons

    6. The New Loony Toons Show (based on this “art”)
    This “Promo Art” leads me to believe this show will be downright horrible. As a result it makes the bottom of the list at #6…nuff said.

  • Seth

    I can’t stand the new Looney Tunes Show, it is terrible!! I haven’t laughed once, a few lols a coup times, but never a huge BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! They lost the decentcy, don’t fix something if it’s not broken, if you do….You get this!!