looneytunesshow-icon looneytunesshow-icon

“The Looney Tunes Show” Clips

Your thoughts? I’ll comment at a later date…after I’ve stopped vomiting.

  • Not as funny as Thundercats.

  • At least the animation isn’t 100% tweened… although the characters have lost much detail.

  • Erin Siegel

    I dunno, I got a chuckle. Especially in that second clip.

  • John

    I like it so far.

  • The worst you can say is that these clips are lame and nonspecific. There’s nothing to suggest these characters are Bugs and Daffy other than the fact that they look and sound like them (debatable). I’d rather have something like “CSI Toontown”, “One Froggy Evening: The Animated Series”, “Looney Toonin’ Rectum Rangers”, or whatever, just to have something laughably over-the-top rotten. These are just a boring kind of horrible, and that makes me sad. The only funny thing about this new show is that we predicted this years ago!

    • Hulk

      I actually like your fake CN style better than this.

      • Just a FYI that Jon Cooke drew that fake image, not Thad.

      • Martin Juneau

        It sad me more that draw flat, angular and ultra sharped is the standard of modern animation. I’M not sure Bruce Timm and Gendy Tartakosvky will appreciate that statement everyone copy their individual style sueprficially.

    • Brandon Pierce

      I actually like the idea “CSI: Looney Tunes”.

      Paging Jerry Bruckheimer…

  • Hulk

    The designs are pretty good but it’s a shame to see them wasted on the characters standing around and talking.

    Seeing this confirms what my suspicions were all along. I had a feeling that the execs at WB saw the success of ‘Family Guy’ and asked each other “What do we have that’s like that?” and then went about reinventing their classic characters is a more Seth McFarlane-ish style.

    Oh well. I’m disappointed but it’s not the end of the world. The DVD’s of the classics are still around. I’ll just keep watching those.

    • Yeah, the standing around and talking reminds me of Seinfeld.

      It’s the verbal, script driven humor that is so common in TV production. It’s cost effective, and can be very funny, but it’s a poor representation of animation. Bugs and Daffy deserve much more.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        That’s how I felt. While it is nice to see Bugs and Daffy in this, the clips OTOH made me think I was watching Regular Show instead.

      • THE REGULAR SHOW was the first thing I thought of, too, right down to the “liar” discussion.

      • Not to mention it’s awful influence on webcomics.

    • DaveShine

      Yeah. I was about to mention the similarities to Family Guy.
      But I did laugh at the clips. I think the if the writing stays clever it may develop a fan base.
      I guess it’s just Family Guy Kids. ya know?

    • Dave K

      It’s just poor direction. The script is ok, but could be made funnier. Too many unimaginative shots of characters just standing or unnecessary playing out of non-funny business. Mine that comedy potential man! Don’t do a long shot of the guy running away from cam to dunk ball. Do it reverse angle with guy slamming it home in the FG, with Daffy in the BG doing his trademark face-fall expression. And while we’re talking expressions, how about getting the body into the acting? Has anyone on this show heard of a line of action? Why does every character have to stand stock still and upright??? Have Daffy zip in and out of frame and get in other character’s personal space–he’s manic! C’mon! This could be waaay better if it were just given more effort and comedic staging.

      • Yeah, I’d also like to see faster pacing.

        To me the worst pacing is in the last joke. It’s an ok gag but when this guy appears looking for Batman I think the other two repeating “Batman?” and the line “Wait, are you saying this man, the president of Mexico is Batman?” seems over-explained. What if he just said “Wait, are you saying the president of Mexico is Batman?” while pointing at Daffy.

  • um.. I really like the backgrounds! Although slightly overtextured and could distract from the characters, I like the pretty colors and shapes.

  • Patrick

    that looks about as good as last years Tom and Jerry Meet Sherlock Holmes!

  • Stephen M. Levinson

    Flash? I don’t think so.

    This is just out sourced assembly-line animation.

  • Its interesting that there seems to be a slight drop shadow under the figures making them look like old school cels.

    • I noticed that too. It’s kind of a nice touch, all things considered.

    • What in the cel?

      I’m hoping we get to see some fake Newton rings

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I actually really didn’t care for that at all, since that wasn’t something I like to see in hand-drawn animation anyway, but I guess it has it’s fans, but I feel it re-emphasizes the flatness of it all.

  • at least theres one guy there who’s thinking – “lets deceive them with a cels look” – “great idea bob, whats a cel?”

    • These fake shadows make it look as if the drawings are on cels a quarter-inch thick. THE SIMPSONS’ fake cel shadows don’t scream as loud.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        The average thickness of a cel used in animation is about .005″ I believe, and yes, it does seem like they took it quite a bit here. If done effectively, you wouldn’t quite notice it unless there was excessive layering or close-ups where used for a specific shot.

    • I put intentional cel flares in my films but have never noticed a professional cartoon doing it! Sorta exciting, really.

  • Blehhh. Nothing horrible about the animation, but nothing to do with the Looney Tunes either. What’s the point of using Bugs and Daffy if you’re just going to insert them into a banal sitcom and give them some vapid banter? I’m bored.

  • Wait… why is there a generic drop shadow over everything? They do realize this was an unavoidable issue on the originals right? Its like creating a lens flair only to make it look like you have a camera instead of after effects to shoot something.

    • Donald C

      It really messes with the perspective too.
      Kinda distracting.

  • Scarabim

    Bugs still doesn’t look like Bugs! He looks like a generic bunny from a Hallmark card!

    Where are his cheek ruffs? Why did the person who re-designed him leave those off? As if the shortened body and basketball feet weren’t bad enough. Awful, just awful.

    Daffy looks fine, at least. But what the hell’s with the scripting? Bugs and Daffy are acting like the Odd Couple without the funny.

    Now, to be clear, I don’t expect (or want) Bugs and Daffy to go back to being chased around by Elmer Fudd. Been there, done that, and nobody can top it. I have no problem with them being room-mates/buddies and having them do something a little different. But those snippets are poorly written and not funny. And not only does Bugs not look right, he doesn’t act right. He shouldn’t be just a straight man to Daffy. He’s funny in his own right. Whoever wrote the scripts just doesn’t get Bugs. And if you don’t get Bugs, you’ve got no business writing for him.

    What a disappointment.

    • AngryAnimation fan

      Its funny you should say that seeing how bugs original design was taken straight from a refernce book to create cartoon characters for big studios.


      As for the rest of you, take off your nostalgia goggles this is good.

      All this elitism is sickening.

      • You mean the book that was published several years after Bugs’ first cartoon?

      • Michael

        Elitism. You and many others keep using this word. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

  • Ricky B

    I never knew that Daffy was Jon Lovitz.

    Lovin that drop shadow though, this show’s just caught up to mid 90’s photoshop web design. Just missing some bevel/emboss to finish it off.

    • Yeah, and the title cards should all be in Comic Sans font.

  • Like Chuck Jones used to say, “radio” animation.

    Where’s character animation these days?? Oh right, when tv began..

    • Eli

      I wouldn’t say that, Ariel. When it comes to early tv animation (the 1960’s especially), the creators could put in a few visual gags even with the reduced budgets. For example, with the Flintstones, you can find a chockful of visual gags with the epsiodes “The Flintsone Flyer”, “The Prowler”, and “The Swimming Pool”. With “Flintstone Flyer” in particular, you can see them in the golf sequence and just before Fred goes to the opera (wildly rolling eyes, anyone?). I personally think that, with all due respect to you, it would be an insult to quality televison animation to be lumped with those of lesser quality.

      That being said, this effort is definitely not of high quality. The show just seems to be devoid of energy; in the original shorts, you could just feel the energy when Bugs and Daffy were interacting with each other. Here, it’s just “blah”. Also, I agree with Ariel that there are so many missed opportunities for visual gags in the show. On another note, the character designs seem very blocky and angular, especially at 0:29 of the first video, which doesn’t look very appealing. In short, I don’t like it very much, and I wouldn’t be suprised if its ratings plummet a few minutes into the first episode. This will prove to be just one of several Cartoon Network Waterloos

      • I never liked The Flinstones for their “animation”. For a few gags and killing saturday morning time before I went to play outside, for sure!

        But you can’t compare this to most theatrical shorts of the golden era. There’s maybe a handful of well “animated” shows tv shows between the 60s and now, but they’re mostly of the hand drawn variety, not of the Flash-time-saving type.

  • Definitely a “modern” vibe to it, which kinda suits Daffy but is all wrong for Bugs. I don’t mind too much talking (Jones did a lot of verbal humor too) but they definitely need to up the wackier and physical elements. Otherwise, why bother animating it, and why bother using the Looney Tunes characters?

    • Why would “modernity” suit Daffy and not Bugs? They’re both drawn in the same angular style aren’t they?

      Chuck Jones verbal humor was TEN times better than this clip. Plus, they did incorporate more physical gags in the ‘toons of old.

      This, is like I said before… radio animation.

      *It’s ok, you can say it too. It’s not a dirty word ;)

  • pspector

    it’s a brave new world. no?

  • Adam

    Neither myself nor my children (who are squarely in the target demo) will be watching this.
    That’s not the Bugs and Daffy we know from the Golden Collections.

    • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

      Instead of deciding what your kids watch for practical reasons like violence or content, you choose to dictate because something isn’t NOSTALGIC.

      I hate the show too, but come on, man.

      • Julius Gryphon

        You’re jumping to a bit of a conclusion there. He didn’t say that he was going to prevent his kids from watching it. He said his kids won’t be watching it. Maybe your interpretation is correct but I’m thinking he meant neither him nor his kids like it because they all prefer the ‘classic’ Bugs and Daffy they saw on the Golden Collection DVDs.

      • Chris B

        So what they prefer the older characterizations then these turds. Just because its called hamburger doesnt mean it’s hamburger!

      • Adam

        I reserve the right to decide what my children watch, for whatever reason I decide, Doc.

  • Scarabim

    Also, it’d be nice if the rabbit and the duck were recognized by the other characters as a rabbit and a duck, and not just blend in with the humans. That’s uninspired and boring.

    • Funkybat

      Agreed. There is waaaay too much of that going on in today’s cartoons. Family Guy has occasionally had fun with the fact the Brian is a dog, and likes to make references to his mortality and dog-sized anticipated lifespan, but overall even there is it treated as a non-issue with most characters he interacts with.

      I kind of wish that, if they were living and working in the “human world” that they were THE “Looney Tunes” and were famous for it. But not in the “Bugs sitting by his Olympic-sized pool drinking carrot martinis” way. They don’t have to be RICH and famous, they could just be media personalities, but have their own ups and downs like anyone else. Turning the Looney Tunes into stock suburbanite characters is “different” but I am not sure if it’s “good.” I will watch the show and give it a chance.

      By the by, Bugs sounds like Bugs, but Daffy’s voice is really not working for me. If he didn’t have the lisp, I wouldn’t know who it was supposed to be.

  • For a new show I guess it wouldn’t look so bad.

    For the Looney Tunes is definitely disapointing. I especially dislike the design of the human characters, and I’m not sure about the sitcommy aspect of the second clip. It seems more about situation stories rather than pure cartoony, but Looney Tunes are not Seinfeld.

    I still think the second clip is better than the first one, though. I don’t like the basketball thing, it seems like they are trying to make them “hip” and the human characters don’t help.

    In the second one I seem to recognize Daffy’s personality a little more.It looks like an episode that could be half-entertaining.

    Daffy is kinda well drawn in the clips, but I was expecting something more cartoony based on the original model sheets. Bugs in the second clip is kinda lousy drawn.

    I’m not mad about Daffy’s voice either, though it gets better in the second clip.

    I don’t think it’ll be totally unwatchable but so far it looks worse than Duck Dodgers and I think Jessica Borutski’s talent is wasted with the lack of cartooniness and over-abundance on dialogue and sitcommy gags. I knew it wouldn’t be Bob Clampett but I would expect something at least as cartoony as Spongebob.

    • Funkybat

      I don’t know if the stock “human” look was done by Jessica, but I suspect not. They are rather reminiscent of 90’s era WB “toon humans.” It is actually kind of jarring seeing the very modern-looking Looney Tunes interacting with humans who look like they belong in Pinky & The Brain. I like both looks, but not necessarily together in the same shot.

      • Yes, you’re right. They don’t seem to fit with the redesigned Bugs and Daffy. Even though I am not a fan of that kind of character I must admit the design of the basketball guys fit better than the other humans. And here I’m just nitpicking but the colors in the clothes and eyes of those human in the “reunion” clip are a little too shocking.

        I don’t know which look would be adequate but maybe they should have tried something closer to Chuck Jones’ human characters in “Deduce, You Say”. Brad Bird’s “Family Dog” used that kind of designs and they were great.

  • Ahaha oh god they’re playing basketball again.

    Actually, even though what others are saying is true and that these clips could of been of just about any character and had still worked seeing as they are mainly just talking, the clips did make me laugh, if not so much in the same way the classics did.

    Eh, still looks like a big step up from many previous attempts at bringing the Looney Tunes back, just hope they are as visually funny as they are witty. So far i’m not so sure, but still interesting.

  • Scarabim

    There’s nothing wrong with comparing the present with the past if the present doesn’t improve upon it. Whatever happened to progress?

  • Oh I remember..watching Looney Tunes as a kid on TV and just howling and rolling on the floor laughing at the hilarious …scripts.

  • Karl Hungus

    My EYES!
    Those compositions are terrible. They storyboarded it dramatically, like it was an episode of The Avengers. What a catastrophe. What the hell is with all of those over the shoulder shots?!? Have you ever seen an over the shoulder shot in the Bob Newhart Show? In Seinfeld? In The Honeymooners? Those shots suck the life out of the comedy because they needlessly suggest an intimacy and drama.

  • Killskerry

    Does anyone else find it kinda disconcerting that Bugs and Daffy are tiny animals surrounded by humans? I mean yeah there were humans in the original cartoons but they didn’t go to high school with them or …play basketball with them.

    I don’t want to see Daffy and Bugs doing things you would find characters do on a sitcom. Its like they just took an episode of Friends and replaced Chandlers name with bugs and Ross with Daffy…why? It makes them feel so mundane and boring. Looney Toons live in a world with their own rules and seeing them forced to live in ours is just…….sad. Even if its nice enough to look at.

    In the next Clip bugs and Daffy will be working in a dead end office job and going to the bar afterward. Shedding a tear in their drinks and wondering if this is all life has to offer. Not one falling anvil or pie to the face in sight.

    • Chris Webb

      Last time I checked, the Looney Tunes weren’t sitcom characters.

      I can’t wait to see the episode where Bugs has two dates to the prom.

      Or the one where Daffy agrees to take care of Bugs’ house plant/pet dog/wedding ring and then loses it and has to come up with a cheap replacement.

      Or the one where Bugs’ boss comes over for dinner and Daffy burns the roast.

      Bugs with a boss? Yikes!

      • Peter

        Wow, all of those joke ideas you just listed were way more inspired than the actual clips!

  • Kevin Hill

    I’d like to be able to give this show a chance but after seeing the clips I feel my worst fears have been proved right…Sad that no one can seem to get the classic Looney Tunes right nowadays (except maybe Earl Kress with “Little go Beep”, I thought this felt like a new LT without much tinkering, just my 0.02 cents)

  • Roman

    the animation style looks like Histeria! meets Clerks The Animated Series. And the voices don’t sound at all like the original characters… I assume this is a choice being made to go with people who don’t sound like the originals, as opposed to being close, but no cigar – I don’t think there’s any room for subjectivity on this one.

    • snip2345

      That’s Jeff Bergman. The original successor to Mel Blanc.

  • Writer of Wrongs

    Maybe CN is better off sticking with live action after all…

  • A.C.

    I’ll be honest and say I’m pleasantly surprised with the animation and Daffy’s voice.

    But owch…they’re trying a Family Guy thing here and it’s very “quiet” feeling…

    Is it THAT hard to at least bring back the Tiny Toons style days of two shorts in a 30 min TV format? They seem to put a lot of money on other things…

    • Funkybat

      Tiny Toons may have been “talky” compared to some of the classic Looney Tunes, but it was still a lot more “toony” than anything I’ve seen so far for this new show.

      It’s all probably a conscious decision. I understand that this project went through 2-3 iterations that were thrown out before finally arriving at this sitcom-esque setup. I think it’s better than trying to re-create the original Looney Tunes shorts, but I still have my doubts about stuff like Daffy going to a high school reunion.

  • Russell H

    What seemed most “off” about the character designs is that both Bugs and Daffy looked scrawny–their limbs looked like bent sticks and their torsos seemed too small, somehow. Daffy was marginally better, in that he looked appropriately frantic, although too much of the “neurotic, proto-Jack-Lemmon” 1950s Daffy type. Bugs looked really strange; in the basketball clip his face was too flat and he looked stoned.

    As for “high school reunion,” if it was a *real* reunion there’d be Beans and Goopy Geer and Gabby Goat and Egghead.

  • Well the big shift here is really just a change in emphasis from body language telling the story, to dialog driving the story. What made Chuck Jones’ ‘toons so freakin awesome was his animator’s ability to tell the story through CRAZY acting, crazy exaggeration, without relying on voice too much. You could argue this was really what made these characters so memorable– it really was their essence. Now it’s just any other two characters.

  • Sherrie

    The voice acting is what kills this for me. It’s just not RIGHT. Its like scaled back versions of what it should be. I miss the sound of self-righteous fury in Daffy’s voice.

  • Josh

    Where is the music? Looney TUNES have always been scored throughout!

    • Agreed. The music was a key element in the Warner Bros. cartoons. It functioned like a Greek Chorus, commenting on the action/jokes – teasing the characters.
      I can’t believe they left that key (and inexpensive) element out. Music is 50% of any production. Even re-edited music cues would have been a huge improvement over the dry tracks shown here.

  • Charles

    Theyre so out of place in the environment and situations. they would have been better off making up a different rabbit and duck.

  • Based on these clips, the new LOONEYS are boring. They place two of the most appealing, funny, antic, time-tested cartoon personalities in extremely dull, earthbound situations, and appear to have “evened out” the wacky with pharmaceuticals. Zero humor or entertainment is promised.

    DUCK DODGERS was unbelievably great, and it was produced only a few years ago. Why doesn’t Cartoon Network re-assemble all or part of that production crew?

    • Chumba

      Agreed! Duck Dodgers was pretty damn good.

  • Liz

    It’s hard to look at Bugs and Daffy and not have high expectations for the animation, especially given their history. It’s an awkward position. The animations don’t feel as fluid or exaggerated as you know they should be. It’s just so sterile. I could be more lenient on the quality of the animation, but given the fact that these are Looney Tunes characters I feel like these characters deserve more attention to detail as a respect to the animators who have animated them before. It must be such a daunting yet honorable task to have someone ask you to animate Bugs or Daffy. I would be nervous as hell.

  • Portaxx

    They certainly could have created all-new characters if this was the type of show they were going for. It’s kind of weird that they chose Bugs and Daffy since now that means Adventure Time, Flapjack, and Chowder are more cartoony than the current Looney Tunes. But vomiting? Really? It’s just some forgettable show. There are way more forgettable shows than there are memorable ones. If you vomit at every single one, you’ll dehydrate yourself!

    Also that is clearly not Flash.

  • Nillin

    Well, that was dull.

  • Marc Baker

    I gotta say those clips didn’t make me laugh at all. They just didn’t seem all that ‘funny’ to me. I still might look at this when it premieres, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

  • The writers and producers of this show need to be tried for crimes against cartoon animation. Please KYS.

  • Still better then Loonatics.

  • Justin Delbert

    It’s not as horrifying as some people seem to be saying; this is a different kind of comedy. If you’ve seen the Regular Show, this is the same kind of comedy. I’ve heard complaints about the new series being TV-PG. A reminder to the fans: the Looney Tunes were never specifically made for children. You will see adult humor as you did with the old theatricals. I have never seen a Looney Tune cartoon that I ever hated. I do urge the fans to support this project because that could help us fans for possible new DVD collections because now kids will know who Bugs Bunny is, and Warner Home Video’s problem with Looney Tunes is that kids don’t know who these characters are. Let’s hope for a brighter future for the Looney Tunes characters, and thank you Cartoon Brew for posting the two clips.

    • Ryoku90

      “this is a different kind of comedy. If you’ve seen the Regular Show, this is the same kind of comedy”

      I didn’t think yacking about random topics was considered comedy.

  • Doug Abramson

    The only thing that we can tell from these clips is how the show will look. You’ll either like it or won’t. Purely subjective. As for the writing and acting, two short clips aren’t enough to judge by. For all we know, the person that chose the clips doesn’t know what they’re doing. We won’t find out how good or bad the show is until May.

  • Andrew

    Man, I wanted to like these just to be contrary, but I can’t.

    The idea of Bugs & Daffy in a world of regular pink-skinned humans dealing with sitcom ‘adult’ problems like basketball fouls and high school reunions is a serious bummer. It could be funny if you pulled a Roger Rabbit and got humor out of how exaggerated the toons are compared to the humans, but instead they’ve made the toons less cartoony than they’ve ever been. Add on top of that really bad timing and you’ve got yourself an embarrassing mess. The show was destined to have an identity crises from the get-go (redeveloping any beloved property is a nightmare) but the decision to replace the gleeful love of mayhem in the Looney Toons shorts with a sarcastic 3-camera sitcom storytelling is a swing-and-a-miss.

  • Joe

    So it’s an animated Seinfeld? Nothing really LOONEY about it, so I guess if Cartoon network is light on cartoons, fitting that Looney Tunes is light on Looney

    • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

      I knew it- Regular Show was an omen of things to come.

      • Trevor

        Don’t you be hatin on Regular Show!

      • Ryoku90

        Whats there to hate? Its just 30 minutes of yacking!

      • Really? We’re going to be bashing not this show, but the Regular Show as well? God you guys… All I can say is: Regular-ass sitcom formula + Looney Tunes = Not a very pleasant mix.

  • tgentry

    Wow, that is terrible. :( Where to begin? Bugs and Daffy have practically the same voice. And Bug’s voice is horrible! Why change a classic? The movement is stiff, the timing seems slow and stilted. Ugh. What happened to the Golden years of animation? Shouldn’t animation -improve- over time? Not that I expect anything better from CN, but c’mon.

  • Lazarus Lupin
  • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

    “Leisurely Tunes.”

  • Chris

    Pardon my french, but what’s with all the bitching??? Were you really expecting it to be better than the originals? If so, then it’s your own damn fault. It’s done and it’s coming. Just deal with it.

    • Ryoku90

      Its not that its not as good as the originals, its that its not good AT ALL.

    • joakim

      Shut up. We’re not “bitching”. We are giving out our first thoughts on the show. I hate the people who treat this show as some sort of god. And I absolutely DESPISE the people who call us “Nostalgiatards” because of it, mainly on Youtube. How mature. We have the right to say it isn’t that good, okay? My main problem is, if you’re going to create a sitcom cartoon, why use characters that we’ve known and loved for years? Why? That will just spoil it all! Speaking of the people bashing us on our opinions of this show, there is a user named PuffyZilliman4 (Or something like that) on Youtube. Even though he watched a few episodes and decided he didn’t like the show, fans of TLTS started flaming him like hell. Seriously? If you fans of the show are too butthurt to accept criticism on something you like, than keep your mouth SHUT. So what if we don’t like the show? So what if we think the designs on the characters are far too angular and are clearly observable against a bright background, the plot seems bland, the jokes are disgustingly unfunny, the characters are not themselves anymore, and the so called, “Merrie Melodies” are not even REAL MUSIC anymore? THat’s OUR opinion. Grow up…

  • James Mason

    Bugs seems to have traded in his confident, wise-guy persona for being a very generic straight man.

    This looks like something designed to give Daffy all of the laughs with every one else feeding him the set-ups for the jokes.

    Daffy at least seems Daffy-ish (1950s Jones Daffy), but has almost no chemistry with Bugs, which isn’t surprising, since Bugs seems designed to deliver little more than “I told you so”‘s and deliver the occasional quip

  • Lucky Looney Tunes characters – they get to be icons of American film AND star in their own poorly written, cheaply produced sitcom whose rotting carcass will help populate the hellish landscapes of my nightmares.

  • Chris

    I have mixed feelings. I wish the designs hadn’t been simplified as much. I wish the cartoons didn’t feel so much like Family Guy. I wish there was more emphasis on visual gags and slapstick and less Seinfeld-esqe interplay.

    But here’s the deal: nobody has ever produced made-for-TV Looney Toon cartoons that could touch what was done in the original theatrical shorts. So if we’re given an option of getting brand new Looney Toon cartoons on the condition that they’ve been “modernized” to sell them to current executives and current audiences and current marketers, they could have done much worse (and have, repeatedly).

    I smiled when Daffy bumped his ass against the other basketball player. And I am intrigued to see where a Bugs and Daffy as Jerry and George premise might lead. As much as these cartoons aren’t Robin Hood Daffy, I would pick one of these over Tiny Toons or that recent Batman Beyond-esque disaster any day.

    • Re:
      –nobody has ever produced made-for-TV Looney Toon cartoons that could touch what was done in the original theatrical shorts-

      I dunno. DUCK DODGERS was as close to an updated LOONEY sensibility as was practical, and back in the 90s, TINY TOONS, TAZMANIA, SYLVESTER AND TWEETY, and a few other such shows occasionally got within poking distance of the classics. It can be done!

  • Michel Van

    verbal, script based humor with lame and nonspecific. animation With LOONEY TOONS ?!
    the artist of Golden Age of Warner brod. animatiors
    Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Robert McKimson, Tex Avery, Robert Clampett, and Frank Tashlin.
    turn in there grave

    this new show end up like last looney toons cruelty “Loonatics Unleashed”
    and that’s was Not funny as (orginal) Thundercats junk…

  • tgentry

    “Were you really expecting it to be better than the originals? If so, then it’s your own damn fault.” Speaking for myself, no. I wasn’t expecting it to be better than the original, I was expecting it to carry on a tradition and be done well on it’s own terms. I don’t think it lives up to that.

  • Zach Bellissimo

    I feel like throwing up too. Did they put shadows behind the characters to make it look like they’re cells? The voices are the awful, the situations seem cliche, bugs and daffy don’t seem like bugs and daffy, the only good thing is that the animation is somewhat decent and the designs are enjoyable.

  • Sat

    I’m sure it would be okay if it wasn’t the Looney Tunes recycled into this formula but something else… like new characters. There’s something wrong with the fact that we have Bugs and Daffy there, but other than that…

  • Some of the animation looks nice by the standards of contemporary tv cartoons. But yeah, it’s pretty much a mess and doesn’t have much to do with what made Warner Bros. cartoons great. At least “Tiny Toons” had some of that anarchic energy.

  • What in the cel?

    and Bugs sounds like he’s mimicking Quagmire :26 in the first clip.

  • Ugh. Those were awful! NOT funny, not appealing, not even interesting. And way too much ‘tude. I’m out.

  • Steven M.

    I see problems already, Bugs’s and Daffy’s voice sound really off, jokes aren’t funny, stiff animation, Bugs’s design is bloody awful, and whats up with the shadow behind the characters?

  • Cyber Fox

    Oh here we go again, Even if WB tried to stay true to the original characters the fans are still unsatisfied

    Look, The show can be great
    I found out that Speedy Gonzales is in it and Lola is in there too

    From what i read here, All it screams is “I saw the clips and i conclude that the show sucks w/o waiting for it to air and see it”

    Heed i remind you the somewhat negative reaction to Regular Show when the montage of clips from Comic Con 2 years ago was posted on YouTube, You people are like “Oh my god, This show sucks” or “I bet this show will gonna blow!” and a year after it’s premiere, It became a hit for CN.. mostly everyone liked it including Retro Gamers
    article: http://www.destructoid.com/regular-show-representing-the-retro-gamer-194369.phtml
    and It gets a plethora of fanart and image macros

    Same goes for your reaction towards “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic”, You people mindless agreeing with an article here on this very site criticizing The Hub last year prior to it’s launch on 10/10/10, and look what happened in a turn of events.. The show is a hit with boys and girls (seriously, it is!) and Image macros up the wazoo

    Fans are often too protective of their favorite brands

    Sonic fans for one example had a 2 yr. long gripefest over Sonic 4 over a few seconds of gameplay on a trailer while fans of the original Angelina Ballerina mostly doing th same crud you people are doing when “Angelina Ballerina: The Next Steps” aired, they only saw the clips and brushed off the show completely (with a closed mind)

    • chipper

      I’m all for Speedy. Lola, on the other hand…well, if the writers manage to make her fun, rather than the crap attempt at a “strong female character” that that Space Jam disaster had, then this show might have something.

    • Chris Webb

      I would love to be wrong about this version of the Looney Tunes.

    • Brody

      You seem to be confusing this blog with a place for discussing brand marketing or focus group results — this is a blog about the art of animation.

      • Cyber Fox

        I’m saying that nitpicking of this calibur makes Animation Buffs look pathetic and on the same level as the Sonic fanboys

      • I really can’t stand the hostility (more like blitz bombing, truthfully) that characterizes a lot of the commentary here, either. It’s relentlessly negative and depressing. But I’ve got to be honest and say that these clips indicate that this show is going to be even more of a letdown than I feared it would be.

        Since I’m watching this on a computer whose sound isn’t working, I’m limited to observing the visuals. And I just can’t pretend I’m not sad about them. They exhibit many of the traits that bother me about the way TV animation has developed over the last decade.

        First, the stiff movement. WHY is it that better animation was affordable in the 90s but not now? Especially since now the expensive step of inking/painting cels has been eliminated? The medium developed backwards in the 60s and 70s, stepped forward again in the 80s and 90s, but has now stepped backwards again. It’s so frustrating. Sure, the 90s stuff wasn’t Rod Scribner in 1942, but it was fluid enough to feel alive. It’s amazing to me how we seem to have to keep reinventing the wheel, that we keep forgetting how to roll the thing on the ground. I know that’s not the case, but to obseve the pendelum over the decades, it sure appears so.

        Second, the sterile colors. I don’t want to insult color designers, especially since they have training that I don’t, but the truth is, this is an aspect that I’m particularly passionate about. So many TV cartoons, over the last decade or so, have had color schemes that I just find spectacularly dull. Lifeless. They have no mood, no presence—-they’re not making any kind of statement about tone or feeling or anything.
        For just one example, the sky is ALWAYS that same neutral blue—-it never looks hot or cold, summery or wintery, like morning or early evening—–it doesn’t look like anything at all. Skies alone can be very evocative—different blues and different kinds of clouds and lighting effects can make an enormous amount of difference in how a scene feels, and add value to the viewing experience in that it sticks in the viewer’s mind not just as a setting, but as one that speaks to a viewer’s sensory memories. Older cartoons do this to varying degrees, even if unintentionally. Most things on TV now don’t at ALL.

        Tied into this is are the trends in background design that have been prevalent in recent years. Again, I emphasize that I respect the designers’ training and skill, but I just cannot understand why anyone finds these settings appealing or fun, even to render. Whether it’s this show, Ben 10, Kim Possible, They have no physicality. They don’t FEEL like anything. (One exception is Regular Show—-those settings have some MEAT on their bones and actually evoke sensory feelings of a particular kind of place. Another is Chowder, which had a convincingly self-contained world with a distinct atmosphere. And to a certain extent, Scooby-Doo, Mystery, Inc. Dramatic light and shadow, off-kilter color shots, eerie effects in some scenes.)
        In the 80s and 90s, even generic, cheap-jack backgrounds had more physicality than most backgrounds do now. I’d take a cookie-cutter background painting from a Japanese-produced DIC show from 1986 over one of these any day. At least it SORT of evokes something.
        And this isn’t a bias against flatter styles—-flat backgrounds done in the 50s are organic as hell, and in the hands of some people (like McCracken and Tartakovsky), so are modern ones. But these? I don’t get any sensation from them at all. No feeling of life.

        Overall, to describe the look of many modern shows, including this one, the same word just keeps coming to me: bloodless. Many people use “sterile,” and that works too, but to me “bloodless” really cuts to the heart of it. The human element just seems absent.

    • Ryoku90

      Judging by the pilot I though Regular Show was so-so and thats never changed.

  • Amid, cool down. You may think differently about the entertainment value better when this show airs. It may take the second episode, or the second season. You’ll think differently about “The Looney Tunes Show” sometime when it’s already on. Everyone who watched Fox Kids tried to recite Yakko’s World when the second “Animaniacs” aired in 1993. And it got bigger in the summer of 1994, and tremendously popular when it was on Kids WB.

    Kids will want to watch the Looney Tunes. The most consumed by new entertainment will think the old Looney Tunes are lame, but then there will be some that have that “animation historian” within them. I thank Jerry Beck, Cartoon Network, and public domain video companies.

  • Hey, I missed this other clip.


    I think this looks quite better. The segment of Bugs and Daffy in the tv show looks more cartoony. Speedy Gonzales’ one is pretty close to Jessica’s designs and Tweety and Sylvester seem to be acting in character.

    The last scene with Bugs and Daffy in the car looks similar to these other clips, sitcommy and a little dull, but I’m kinda liking the look of those other scenes.

  • Mario NC

    I’ll give it points though, at least Bugs isn’t a douche like in the WB shorts. Just sayin…

  • Vomit inducing? C’mon now… it’s bland and stiff, but not OFFENSIVE.

    I still the character designs look nice, though.

  • Spencer

    F*@#&^#$ HOW COULD THEY **&@#$&* I MEAN THE #(E$&#*[email protected]#(*& AND THE (*#@&$(*&#$ ANIMATION AND THE @(*&@(#$*(& DESIGNS DONT DO ANY (&*@#(*$& JUSTICE AND (*@#$*&@(#$&**&@#^$(*&^@#($*&^

  • Spencer

    and WHY IS THERE A @#*&($& DROP SHADOW ON THE CHARACTERS?!!! @#(*$&@#$^&

  • It’s a sitcom… It’s “Friends” with Daffy.


  • J.M

    Somehow the “All right” at the end feels like family guy …and that’s not so Looney.

  • Marc Baker

    It’s A shame they can’t use the same approach used in ‘Tiny Toons’, and Animaniacs’ because those shows literally nailed the ‘Termite Terrace’ style, and sensibilities far better than what I saw in these few clips. These characters should not be in A ‘Family Guy’, or ‘Regular Show’ motif, It just doesn’t work for ‘Looney Tunes’. Is it any wonder why the animation world is now less cartoony than it was in years past.

  • SJ

    Why don’t they just save the production money on this train wreck and put the Golden Collection Looney Tunes back on??

    Oh I guess the same reason there are no music videos on MTV, no Scifi shows on SyFy or any classic Disney on the Disney Channel.

  • Cayse Cheatham

    I’ll give it a chance based on the cilps.
    “I hope-a-hop-a-hope”.

  • Luke

    Meh, same old same old,I had slightly higher hopes for the show, the designs made by Jessica were great, but the over seas studios couldn’t quite catch everything,they should’ve used TMS, or better yet, not outsource the animation. There is a third clip where the models look much better, probably the other animation company.


    Unfortunately, the show lacks a view point,a cartoonist’s direction and personality, but what the heck, I’ll watch it, and it will be the only cartoon I will watch currently on television. I hope they add a orchestra track to the background when the show airs.

    • Nemalki

      Actually, TMS is only used for Japanese cartoons now. The clip you posted was by Toon City (one of the last studios that does full animation).

      And the animation that did the 2 clips posted are by Rough Draft.


      I actually laughed at the basketball clip. I also chuckled at the “President of Mexico is Batman” part.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        Technically, TMS has always done Japanese cartoons since the 60’s.

      • Nemalki

        Well, they resorted back to Japanese cartoons.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        Not so much resorted, more like the work just going to other places than to them, it’s hard explaining these decisions, but TMS had been steady during that time working on both domestic and foreign productions anyway so it didn’t quite affected much of their home efforts, though I assume the extra subcontracted work brought in some extra change in their pockets.

  • Jessica Borutski’s’ designs look pretty nice. I think it’s silly to judge a show off two clips, but there’s some really appealing drawings on screen for certain.

  • Keegan

    Why the hell does this need to be Looney Tunes? Couldn’t they have made original characters for this?

    That’s what pisses me off the most. They’re just cashing in on the Looney Tunes franchise. Why? Oh yeah, it’s that thing they talked about in the 80’s, when execs thought if they made a show with characters no one has heard of before (AKA original) no one would watch it.

    “Marquee Value” is what they called it.

    Shows based on older franchises?
    Shows based on toys?
    Shows based on Movies?

    Yup. There you have it guys. We’re entering the new era of 80’s cartoons. UNORIGINALITY FOR EVERYONE!!!

  • Characters could be … anyone, really. Is Bugs Daffy? Is Daffy Bugs? Are they pretending to be each other? We’ll never know. Though the second clip did make me laugh. Still though, its not really Daffy being Daffy … he’s being a *leetle* bit Daffy. Reminds me of Seinfeld. Hey, is this Seinfeld? This progress – its all backwards! Hey, is this Johnny Bravo? Where am I? I guess its the jokes themselves that made me laugh, not so much the characters. That’s what I’m trying’ ta geddat. Also, from the first clip, it could be my memory but that’s the first time I’ve seen Bugs Bunny scowl like that. Normally he’s as cool as a cucumber. Or when he does scowl, its not in that sarcastic way. Hey, why isn’t Bugs Bunny cool anymore? Marvin the Martian, is that you?

  • Jay

    The design of the mullet is pretty sweet… The handband, the way it flows… Really nice.

  • I dunno. I found it pretty funny, but it’s not Looney Tunes funny. I’ll still watch it though, and maybe it’ll improve, and I’d love to see the other Looney Tunes characters appear as well.

    When someone here mentioned Animaniacs and Tiny Toons, I remembered how they handled verbal and visual humor better than what we saw here.

  • I love the drop shadow they added behind the characters as if pretending it was traced and painted on cells and shot on film!..What fools!

  • uncle wayne

    Again I ask (plea!): WHY (oh-why) is there NO where on tv can one find the WB toons (from the 30s-50s)….like when WE were kids. That is (again I say) a downright SIN that these films are not part of every child’s upbringing!!! Can someone pleez answer this!? Omg!!!!

  • tedzey

    Are we really going to tear this show apart before it comes out… AGAIN? Haven’t we done this for the past ten posts on this show? Saying this show’s going to blow is beating a dead dog by now! I guess I’m going to be the guy who says that it looks better than half the other shows on cartoon network! Seriously, looking back at these comics makes me wonder when did cartoon brew turn into Youtube?

    • Ryoku90

      I’ve yet to see any “First”, “Thumb me for this…”, or any of those comments here. Truthfully this show looks slightly better then whats on CN but thats like saying a rusted battery with a cherry on top looks better then a rusted battery, still looks bad.

  • Apart from that other clip I posted I must say I quite liked the gag and the animation of that part of the second clip where Daffy invents a totally absurd name and when they ask him to spell it he says “Bob Jones”. Daffy’s and Bugs’ acting in that scene is quite good.

  • Was My Face Red

    Well, I was expecting all kinds of thing but …dull? I know there’s not much to see yet but the overall mood of these is plodding, slow and over explained so the kids will know what’s going on. They actually made me miss ‘Tiny Toons’, which won’t make me popular I guess, but at least had a little of the right energy and attitude behind it.

    Designs aside ( I don’t mind ’em ) and voices aside ( could do better ) the artistic decision to turn Bugs and Daffy into a talky, dull suburban odd couple is bizarre and possibly series sinking. Honestly, would your kids rather watch this or Spongebob?

  • Jorge Garrido

    Look, folks, I’m the first to defend Jess’s character designs, but they were wasted on this outsourced TMS/Korean animation crap. They don’t look angular and stylized, they just look sloppy and flat. If Jess’s designs had been treated like volumetric paper cutouts, meaning, they had her angles but ones that were kept consistent on 3/4 views, profiles, and turns, it would have been cool. Hell, doing it in CGI/Cel shading in 24 fps would have been cool, it would have looked like angular, sculpted versions of those rare 1940s Korean animation clips The Brew posted a few months ago.

    But this isn’t sculpted, it looks like super watered down versions of her drastic designs.

    The show would have actually been BETTER if it had been in Flash, especially if it had been done like Jess’ films. Pretty incredible that her independent films look better than this multi-million dollar network series for the biggest media company in the world.

    But that’s only the visuals, the WRITING is like the worst fake-comedy, modern broadcast network single camera humour that’s come down the pike since Outsourced.

    I’d rather watch real cartoons, like The Good Little Bunny With The Big Bad Teeth. You know what, I think I’ll do just that right now.

  • Joseph

    My biggest problem with this is they aren’t fucking looney.

  • Austen Davis

    The humor is more like some kind of half baked animated sitcom then a Looney Tunes cartoon.

  • Alissa

    Well, there goes my last shred of interest in this show.

    I guess there’s little to no chance of CN airing Studio Gainax’s new show huh?

    • Alfonso

      If you’re talking about panty and stocking, there’s no way CN would ever air that… probably not even AS.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        I was amused someone even BOTHERED to ask about that here. (and yes, we know why that would be)

      • Alissa

        I’d rather watch raunchy angels fight giant poo monsters and try to kill each other than high school reunion snore fests.

  • Second clip was alot better than the first one and actually got me to snort rather loudly. Knowing Cartoon Network, they probably picked the worst clips they could and won’t even bother advertising the show so it dies and they can pretend it was the show’s fault.
    Just like that did with Chowder and Robotomy. Especially Robotomy.

    • Robotomy is gone? I loved that show! It was a gore extravaganze hiding behind “robots” so it could masquerade as kids’ entertainment. It hasn’t been on for a while, now that you mention it…

  • La Pulga

    It’s classic all right. That reunion gag is as old as Clampett’s mother.

  • Toast

    I wanted to give this show a chance D: But, it’s HARD! Maybe I could pretend that someone without common sense picked the clips, or the crew wanted to stir up something on CB and prove the people against it wrong….. I really got nothing until the show makes it’s debut.

    I’m really starving for some good laughs right now.

  • 2011 Teenager

    *sees headline*

    Oh good. CB finally covers this. I’ll read on…

    *sees last sentence*

    Wait. WHO wrote the entr– aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh…

    *sees # of posts*

    Oooooooookay. Welp, time for a comment no one will ever notice…

  • Im excited to watch a full show. Judgement held until then.

  • chipper

    The characters are cute, but what’s with the shadows? It makes them look like a sticker album.

  • Mike

    The title of this article is misleading. I saw no Looney Tunes characters in those clips.

  • Jeez guys, you people are STILL complaining about this? Give me a flipping break here. There are times when a fanbase can get out of hand, and this complaining really brings it out of hand. I’m am probably one of the few people who may be willing to give this show a shot, without complaining about it whatsoever. And all of your complaining has made me do a video that defends this show. Your complaining is about as bad as the fanboys of Sonic the hedgehog series and the Final fantasy series.


    So far the footage looks great. Its suspected that this could have its flaws. Perhaps later episodes of this will have music in the backgrounds? If you guys are just going to complain about this show, there is a solution to that. Go find the Looney Tunes DVD collection of cartoons from the golden age, pop them into your DVD, watch em and enjoy them.

    • craig

      shut up. you are just being butthurt. we don’t like the show, fine. We prefer the classics. YOU stop complaining just because we don’t like something you like. you are just acting like a little baby now…

  • Dr.Truth

    Call me crazy, but I actually liked it!!!!!!

    It’s a bit weird to see bugs and daffy in “modern” humor. but then again, 1940 was a long time ago. Cartoons can have an actual narrative with a comedic beat instead of the pointless drivel of bugs trying to outwit (insert villian) for 5 minutes.
    I did laugh at the “foul” line. This just might kinda sorta work. I’m a sucker for snappy writting, so I might be a bit biased here.

    • OtherDan


    • Justin


  • Christopher Cook

    Nothing to make me vomit, but the clips came off with pizzazz of taking a bath. I’ll wait till the show starts before making a final say.

  • Clint

    I dunno, this doesn’t look bad. At least it looks better than Loonatics.

    I think we should wait until the show airs on TV, then we can judge it fully instead of judging 2 minute clips.

  • Mike Russo

    Crap crap crapity crap crap crap.

  • eeteed

    i’ve seen worse.

    much worse.

    loonatics, for example.

    • La Pulga

      I’m also betting you’ve seen better. MUCH better.

  • Kyle

    You got these videos from the Onion News Network, right? Right?!

  • Chris B

    Ewwww a Looney Tunes sitcom …Great. What’s the point of this? They should have just brought Tiny Toons back wouldn’t have been as bad. the Bugs and Daffy Dialogue was atrocious, as well as listening to the poor voice imitations Mel Blanc must be rolling over in his grave …Bleeeeecccccch!

  • the foreign office

    Is this for the Chinese Network? CN means Chinese Network, ah?

  • Manny

    I’m underwhelmed. Completely underwhelmed.

    • Manny

      Isn’t Looney Tunes all about being overwhelmed by they being underwhelmed, like, you know, REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY?!

      We simply need a psychologist in Nu Terrace.

  • Okay, I chuckled at the last clip.

    …but even as it WAS sorta funny, I miss a bigger sense of the characters of Bugs and Daffy – their original dynamic, which was a mix between outwitting and co-operating with each other. “Looney Tunes: Back In Action” captured this rather well. I have to say I hope “The Looney Tunes Show” as a whole will be more of a mix between sitcom and unpredictable, genuine Looney slapstick; and not only sitcom, as seen here. The dialogue between Bugs and Daffy in the basket ball clip felt way too TV-sitcom-cliched, especially on Bugs’part.

  • Purin

    It’s… so… slow!

    Why does it just feel so sluggish? Why are these slow, dull scenes the teaser previews?

    The second one almost got funny when the guy screaming for Batman came in, though.

    I have to say, the way I could see this working is if we just got rid of Bugs and made the whole thing about Daffy’s life… oh, and by making it a little more snappy. I’m not demanding fast, music video editing or anything.

    Maybe it’s just because there’s no music?

  • Wow. Talk about over analyzing one TV Show and furthermore just a few clips. I, for one, love animation and I’m sure the artists on this project did as well as many of you who actually do animation for a living do as well. Take it easy. Just enjoy it. Might not be for everyone, but it certainly shouldn’t induce someone to vomit. I can’t imagine if a simple cartoon would make someone vomit, then the simplest of motion or deep breaths must cause certain death. Being a critic is easy…just hit up a forum and bash art without offering any knowledge through experience on what makes a good piece of art. There are holes in these particular clips, but I found the animation to be pretty decent. Show me a better cartoon that anyone here has directed or created. It’s hard to make a really great cartoon these days that will appease adults, bloggers and dwelling webmasters alike. These guys did an alright job. In most cases, if you want to find some really great storytelling and animation, look to short films that took people five years to make. I really despise hearing so much unneccessary backlash over something so incredibly meaningless as how a few jokes didn’t turn out well on a cartoon for kids. I’m just happy that there are people that care enough to keep something that we all loved going even though many of the greats that gave that to us have passed on long ago. Perhaps if you are all do adequate at knowing what should be presented on screen, maybe you should all go and work on it yourselves to prove your worth. Easy to talk, harder to walk. I don’t understand the hate on that Amid has for this project. It’s his opinion though and only he will know why he has chosen to attack it so frivolously. Personally, I don’t find it all that bad. I hope they keep doing Looney Toons.

    • Keegan

      I think it’s pretty impossible to like it from a cartoonist’s point of view.

      They’re taking the Looney Tunes and making it everything it’s not.

      Sitcom humor.

      Weird angular design.

      Lack of anything LOONEY.

      Living in a city (which removes the ability to place the characters in any situation).

      Terrible voice acting.


      “Omg don’t judge it by it’s content!” makes no sense at all.

    • La Pulga

      People are showing passion regarding this. It is not ‘bash without knowledge’. What has knowledge got to do with viewing something and finding it unappealing?

      You are right. it is an ‘alright’ job. But maybe some people just like to hope, and strive, for more.

  • Mister Twister


    Chuck Jones reportedly disliked Tiny Toons. That’s fine, not everybody has to like everything. Buy NOW he is spinning in his grave.

    • Autumn

      I’m having a hard time finding something Chuck DID like that he didn’t make.

    • Paul N

      This is better animated than any episode of Family Guy ever…

      • Richie

        “It’s a woooonderful daaaay for piiieee” would like to have a word with you, Mr. N.

  • JD

    Bugs has all the personality of a Call Of Duty zombie. Except the zombies are more lively. Oh well, time to watch some “Hillbilly Hare”.

  • The Gee

    One problem having the characters interacting with “normal” cartoon people is that the characters appear small.

    These two characters in particular stood heads and shoulders against characters like Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd, while they showed they could also get the best of occasional larger characters, like the big tuffs that Bugs dealt with often.

    As it goes, I should just remind folks of just what a Franchise is…. something which is used to make money. It ain’t about art. It unfortunately is entertainment but not always great entertainment. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don’t.

    I’d say look to something else if you don’t like this and stop trying to be wittier than the dang show is. It isn’t very becoming.

    It is Time Warner’s property. Let ’em do what they want to do with it. If it fails… so be it. In the meantime, keep people working.

  • OtherDan

    Is it even worth commenting about? These aren’t the same Bugs and Daffy that I know and enjoy watching. Blah!

  • DB


    The animation and character design has a 2nd rate “Disney” look to it – just does not seem WB-esque at all. I’ll bet someone with Disney training is involved in this – like one (or more) of the people who have worked on their straight to video movies or their kids TV shows.

    Direction is flat and ham-fisted with no dynamic quality to it at all.


  • Jay Sherman


    • “Yes Mr. Sherman, everything stinks..”

      Those clips arn’t bad imo, gave me a laugh.
      But those drop shadows really distracting.

  • Autumn

    All I saw in the comments: Bitch bitch bitch whine whine whine

    Cry me a river…sheesh

    Sorry guys, but the classic LT way of doing things is not coming back. Buy the DVDs. What did you expect to see here? Elmer hunting them AGAIN? Classic cel animation? Give me a break.

    This is the kinda crap kids want to see, and it’s pretty much the only way this generation will know about the LT and relate to them. They have to compete with shows like Adventure Time, just yucking it up the classic way isn’t going to cut it anymore. We all think it’s stupid, but it’s what kids today are used to. And if anything, this will open the doors to the classics for them.

    I think putting them in a setting which is NOT traditional for them is the most creative thing they could do with the characters without making them do the same crap they’ve already done the past 70+ years. Yes, it’s like Seinfeld, yes it’s like Friends, who the hell CARES? Those shows were successful. Kids today recognize the setup.

    I didn’t think the clips were boring, I actually laughed at them. Particularly at Bugs. Bugs WAS the straight man around Daffy in the classics. He all but STOOD THERE while Daffy got shot. HELLO? He does it in a modern setting and still you people bitch. We haven’t seen Bugs in a clip without Daffy yet, calm yer t*ts til you actually SEE THE SHOW.

    The thing that pissed me off the most were the designs. Sometimes they were cute, sometimes they were hideous. They were inconsistent. Though the people looked really good.

    I’m hoping they add music, since they are Looney TUNES. Though music montages were mentioned (which quite frankly terrifies me), I would ASSUME there would be music played throughout also.

    The voices were pretty much on point, save for Daffy. He sounds a bit off. Recognizable, but off. Why didn’t they stick with Alaskey, I’ll never know. I think Bergman did a great job as Bugs, but then that’s a personal opinion. No one will ever be Mel, and it’s rather pathetic watching a bunch of “grown ups” bitch and complain about how things aren’t as good as the originals. NOTHING WILL EVER BE. But as far as attempts go, IT COULD BE A LOT WORSE.

    • You’re right I guess, but you’re also making a generalization. Just because some people got passionate, it doesn’t mean we’re all trying to commit suicide because of this. Some of us are just explaining what we don’t like about the clips -and also what we liked- cause yes, it could be much worse-like you just did. And I won’t say you’re “bitching”.

      • Autumn, what you miss is the key to these characters. I could get over the change in design. But, the personalities are lost. It’s like watching a bad impersonator. Who would willingly sit through a bad impersonation?-Not my kids.

      • Autumn

        I suppose I need more than a few seconds to determine how “lost” their personalities are. It seems to me that their personalities were lost long ago. I’m having a hard time finding a LT cartoon from the 60’s I can honestly say I enjoy.

    • “This is the kinda crap kids want to see”: Bullshit. Since when do kids want to see crap?

      • Autumn

        Have you seen half the crap kids watch these days? I’ve seen worse.

      • Roberto

        I don’t know. Maybe teenagers watch Family Guy for its gross humor. But since when kids like sitcoms? Most sitcoms , animated or not, are directed to adults.

        Even though it’s pretty weird maybe this sitcom thing could work with audiences, but maybe more with teenagers and not nostalgic adults. Kids watch Spongebob, which is not especially sitcommy (though it has some elements of it every now and then).

        I’m not totally against introducing some sitcom nature in this show. I mean, even John K’s George Liquor is a sitcom of some sort. But Bugs and Daffy as some sort of “best buddies” in a human world feels a little odd to me. I guess they should not be always discussing but I find it weird when I see Bugs giving advice to Daffy. Like other comment had said it would probably work better with Daffy living his life on his own. But we haven’t seen much yet.

        Personally I used to love Bugs/Daffy interactions in the Chuk Jones shorts but the more Looney Tunes shorts I watched from other directors the more I got convinced Bugs and Daffy work better alone than together. Daffy works better with Porky in my opinion.

        We’ll see. There’s a large cast in this new show, even Gossamer is going to appear, so we haven’t seen much yet.

      • Actually…in regards to sitcoms that kids like, the Disney Channel among others is all about kids sitcoms. Spongebob is quite a sitcom kinda kids show, as are the Simpsons and Family Guy to an extent. You could go as far back as the Flintstones if you really want. These are all some of the top of the line shows that have lasted really long and done very well over the years. Some of them are more of a reflection of their time period if you really want to get into it, but the sitcom idea has been around for quite some time. I think the show will be fine. Also…most kids shows in live action are sitcom based as well. I don’t think it’s a bad decision to try it this way, it’s just different. So good for them for trying something new. If it fails then it fails and they can always

        At the end of the day, I can only speak on what happens in broadcast tv now. It appears as though there’s a lot of funnelling going on. In particular with this show, it likely has more pressure than most initial tv shows for kids as it has a lot to live up to. What I meant before about people speaking without knowledge also was not at all a knock against passion. It’s great to see passion about animation and art and I hope that never fades, but it’s just different when you hear people critiquing from a mature standpoint with experience. There’s insight there. It’s easy to be a fan in the stands just trashing what they see…and in many ways it’s right to feel like the performance wasn’t so good as expected. All entertainment is like this. However, just plainly bashing in many cases can show a lack of knowledge as what is articulated never goes beyond blanket statements regarding how awful something is in their eyes. I know my argument will fall on deaf ears. Trollers will troll, angry people will be angry. Just trying to show some insight is all. It’s not that bad at all. Just stop thinking that you’re going to see vintage chuck jones and open your eyes to what possibilities this show can have. The more you as fans restrict the artistic integrity of these artists, the less likely these artists will be allowed to become the next chuck jones or such.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        It’s sure they’re trying to make sitcoms catered to that demographic. Nothing like the days when it seemed like I was trying to get a laugh out of Gilligan’s Island as a 5 year old. At least that show had some physical humor.

      • Brad, you’re right about the sitcoms thing. I wasn’t taking Disney Channel into account. However those are usually sitcoms about teenagers and high schoolers with love problems and such.

        This looks more like a sitcom about thirty years old with conflicts in their jobs. Do kids like that?

        I don’t know anything about kids today and maybe this is what they find cool now, but it’d seem a lot more normal to me if they’d like something fun and surreal like the classic Looney Tunes more than Seinfeld or How I Met Your Mother (to name two sitcoms that I actually like).

    • Ryoku90

      So the only way this generation will relate to the Looney Tunes is if they have all their life zapped out and are terribly re-designed?

      We’re not expecting this to be as good as the originals, we’re just hoping for something vaguely as entertaining as the originals.

    • Purin

      Kids recognize Seinfeld’s setup?

      Seinfeld was also before the kids’ time.

      • Autumn

        Seeing as how most kid shows have the same setup as Seinfeld/Friends, I would say kids would indeed recognize it.

    • tgentry

      I think you’re off on a few of points. First off look at Tiny Toons and Animaniacs. They completely modernized Looney Tunes in a way that was accessible and popular with the kids of the time while staying true to the spirit of the original. To say that kids today won’t get Looney Tunes so they have to adapt to whatever schlock is being put out by a cheap, uncreative network is way off base. My kid finds original LT hilarious. He enjoys Tiny Tunes and Animaniacs. He rolls on the floor to Tom and Jerry and the Road Runner. Those cartoons are -universal-. They will be funny in another 100 years. I haven’t shown him these clips, but I doubt he would find it very amusing. They seem to be targeting hipsters or something with the references and all the talk, but I can’t see them enjoying it much either as it’s not far enough out there for them to ironically enjoy it. I get what they wanted to do here, but I think they missed the mark (solely based off these clips alone). It doesn’t seem to have the spirit of the originals to appeal to kids, nor does it seem to have the “far out there” meta appeal to appeal to the adults they are probably aiming for. I’ll give it a chance beyond these clips, but they are not promising. And you think that sounds like Bugs?!?

      • Autumn

        Whoa whoa whoa, where did I say kids wouldn’t like LT today? You put classic LT on TV, kids would eat it up. I’m talking about them making NEW LT cartoons. Doing the same gags that the classics did would accomplish nothing. You can’t just make a new show where Elmer is hunting Bugs and Daffy with the same recycled gags. They work in the classics, they’re funny in the classics. Trying to do that all over again would fail big time and has.

        “Hare and Loathing in Los Vegas” Crap.
        “Attack of the Drones” Crap.

        Doing sitcom-y stuff seems to be what’s in these days. It’s everywhere. Kids will relate to that setup because it’s what’s “in”. I’m not saying I LIKE it, just that I understand why they’re doing it.

        If it were up to me, this show wouldn’t exist and the classics would be on TV where they belong. Tiny Toons, Duck Dodgers, Animaniacs, THAT was doing it right (for the most part), and it makes no sense for them NOT to do it that way, however what’s done is done. I think as far as what I was expecting, it wasn’t as bad as I had feared. Yeah, they’re watered down, but I can’t think of numerous classic LT cartoons that were just as bland if not more so.

        And yes, I LIKED Bugs’ voice. Matter of personal taste I suppose, though I can understand others feeling differently.

  • Dear Warner Bros,

    If you’re going to bring back Looney Tunes, why water them down like this? At least come up with some totally new characters if this is the kind of boring, forgettable “entertainment” you’re interested in making these days.

    • snip2345

      They already did. It’s a Regular Show.

  • Amid is still vomiting?!

    • Ryoku90

      He shouldn’t have eaten so much fast food.

  • Steffers

    Looney? Not at all.
    Tunes? Didn’t hear any.

    Yeah, this isn’t Looney Tunes.

  • Nicola lemay

    To put it simply: it’s just not funny! so what’s the point then?

  • Did anyone else notice Bugs and Daffy sounded a bit off?

    I looked it up on Wikipedia and it said that Jeff Bergman is doing both of the characters, but Joe Alasky and Billy West are still doing other voices in the show. What’s with that?

  • JPilot

    Now that this is done, how about a “Clutch Cargo” Looney Tunes app for the iPhone, for that “fool and his money are soon parted” demographics? AAAAAnd…… GO!

  • It feels a lot like what Universal did to Woody Woodpecker in the 2000´s (except that the new Woody STILL has some sort of slapstick cartoon humor in it):


  • Great.

    I always wondered what it would be like to see the classic Warner Bros. characters perform a discarded “According to Jim” script”.

    I have lost all faith in humanity and am now actively rooting for the Mayan calendar.

    Stuart Snyder strikes gain.

  • John

    I try screaming but when I open my mouth no words come out.

    Animated radio indeed.

  • The CHip

    And you wonder why us Animators get a bad rap for being difficult to work with. Instead of critiquing with good and bad observations…the negativity and self righteousness on this post wants to make me vomit myself.

    At least the crew that worked on this brought back Loony Toons, while the animation inst stellar its not terrible and the direction feels ok. Lets wait to pass judgment until they release a few full episodes so they can tweak their craft.

    Everyone knows almost all creatives do the best work they can given their situation..time,budget,misc resources and worst of all the studios execs.

    • Ryoku90

      I’d rather let the Looney Tunes stay as merchandise than to be brought back as poorly designed and poorly written ink blobs.

  • Silence Dogood

    Oh gee. These can’t touch the originals (nothing new there) but they didn’t make me vomit.
    Seeing Bugs kind of made me queazy, though. I really hope his character doesn’t suffer.

  • The Scarlet Pumpernickel

    Personally, I think that the lack of a musical background for these clips is actually a better choice than a Stalling ersatz or an unfitting modern score.

    • Funkybat

      Agreed. Given what this show is shaping up to be, it’s a smart move to avoid pointless ongoing background music. It’s not Animaniacs or DuckTales, it’s a more adult-themed kind of comedy and pacing. A musical score would be really odd in that circumstance. There will probably be “incidental” themes at scene changes and returns from commercial, similar to (sigh) sitcoms…

      • Kyle Maloney

        Its actually been confirmed that the final show will have fully orchestration. Not sure if it’ll be added to these scenes specifically, but it Will have bg music. And I think this show could absolutely be like Animaniacs. Which I love.

        These clips, while not amazing were alright. I’m still willing to give the show a chance.

        Don’t like the fake cel shadows. Don’t care for them in the real thing, why would we want to emulate that? I wish we could remove it from a lot of older Disney stuff, like Bambi.

      • Xgeeme

        If they had full intention to include orchestrated tracks playing, why did they release these clips this early to begin with? It’s not like they have all the time in the world to promote this- the show’s been delayed HOW many times?! All studios leak material out to the audience before it’s finished. But why? Wouldn’t waiting until it’s finished make the most sense?

  • Ok I laffed when he said he was Vlade Divacs…other than that nothing special. The days of Chuck Jones (and the others) are gone, it’s up to us to forge the brave new world of animation with the sensibilities of today…meaning luke warm? Bugs was never zany but here he is pretty lifeless…can’t they do the classic “wronged man” scenario with Bugs now?…Like he pisses off a rap star and then he can say “of course you know this means war”…

  • jake tashjian

    i’m willing to give it a shot. i’ve been so looking forward to these and i’m also kinda curious about what they’re gonna do for sound effects.

  • Brandon Pierce

    Did Jeff Bergman have a seizure or something, that’s preventing from voicing Bugs and Daffy properly vocally? He used to be so good…

  • Tadpole

    Well, that sucked. And I was one of the people defending this show, too. For shame.

  • Dario

    BGs are horrible in comparison to the old ones from WB. Character designs are easy to come up with (at least this is what I feel) and the character of Bugs (as a winner, clever guy) and Duffy (as the loser, liar, etc.) reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld and George Costanza, but unfortunately this cartoon doesn’t even get close to be cleverly funny.

  • Ryoku90

    Had the designs been better I’d consider this better then Baby Looney Tunes, thats not saying much but thats how much inexperienced designs can effect in a cartoon.

    Had they thrown in 2 new characters this cartoon would probably have better reception, though it’d still be very boring.

  • Courage, A Cowardly Dog

    Why aren’t these made in the 1940’s? Why am I not seven? I don’t understand…

    • plastic bottle

      Why is this show unfunny? Why is it incompetently made? I don’t understand…

      • Courage, A Cowardly Dog

        Worst children’s show ever!- An Adult

      • plastic bottle

        Worst show ever! – a human

  • eyevan

    Not as bothered by the animation or the character designs… but the voices suck. Couldn’t they get the guys who filled in for Space Jam and Back in Action? It would add a little more legitimacy to the show.

    • snip2345

      They are voiced by Jeff Bergman, who, you must know, was the INITIAL successor to Mel Blanc. And I agree with you… the voices from the movies did them better. Makes you wonder.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        The reason behind that is also a rather long story but the short end of it, it often depends on what voice director’s hired and how they audition these voices from time to time on these productions and those that are picked to do the voices can vary all over the map.

      • Galen

        I’m disappointed in the voices too, but I do feel like some of it must be due to the direction. Bergman’s Daffy in “Box Office Bunny” was brilliant, virtually indistinguishable from Blanc’s, and worlds better than any of his successors.

      • Jeffrey Gray

        Keep in mind that Jeff Bergman is 20 years older than when he was voicing the characters in the early 90s…

  • …and why are they playing full court 2 on 2…

  • These incarnations of Bugs and Daffy are anything but “looney”. NEUROTIC TUNES, anyone?

  • I LAUGHED, get over yourselves, that was funny. Good timing, well written gags.

    Reminded me of Clerks: The Animated Series right off the bat.

  • Heather

    Everything appears to be flat here. The separation between foreground and background looks terrible!

  • Jav

    great, another show which they blew money on that I won’t watch……sigh….

  • Yeah wanna see more before final judgement! There were a few gags that made us giggle for sure!

  • Ruben Estrada

    I laughed! I thought Daffy’s lines was hilarious!
    I’d like to see more before trashing it… like some people have.
    Obviously, it’s not like the originals. Don’t hold your breath for that.

  • Funkybat

    Overall, from what I have seen so far I’d give the art an A-, the voice acting a B, and the writing a C.

    I understand why a lot of people don’t like the character designs. I will always prefer Chuck Jones or Bob Clampett’s designs to anything “new” but I think they are fresh-looking without being sacreligous like the “Loonatics” designs (even the toned-down redesigns were bad IMHO.) I like the overall art style and actually was excited about the show when I saw the early art.

    What *would* be nice is if these new, “toony” designs were put to use having the characters actually do “cartoony” things instead of just exchanging pithy dialogue. I’m not going to make too many presumptions about the writing because I’ve only seen a couple of short clips. Still, I’m hoping it is not as “Seinfeld-y” as it seems. I reserve judgment until after seeing a couple of full episodes.

    I notice no one is really talking about the 3D Roadrunner segments in all these discussions of the new Looney Tunes Show. I’d be interested to see what the range of views is there. I’m frankly rather turned off by it; to me half the fun of the Road Runner cartoons was the line art and the exaggerated, abstract backgrounds. 3D modeled versions disturb me on a “3D Yogi” level…

  • Martin Juneau

    I already said it but it’s perhaps one of the worst executed tentatives from a timeless franchise as was the Warner Bros. cartoons characters the Looney Tunes. The designs are ugly, monotonous and looks say to the audience “Hey! We’re hip, edgy and all of that stuff!”. Personally, i’m tired of the way Television Exec. who control the animation medium these days in depends of the artists who do all of the job without a little recommandation of their part. And say that this kind of modern animation is so popular in Canada is a real reason why i can’t even watch a cartoon show anymore. Neither read those kids’ comics neither since everyone is trendy, hip and edgy.

    For someone who work even not for a dime in comics and have the love of this mediums, i’m upsetting that they give the green fire to this pseudo-abstraction.

  • johnnn

    awww, its so sad to see the once great wither and die.

  • John Kirk DeRitis

    writing sucks. the backgrounds are animaniacs meet batman bright blue. when the ext. characters are more interesting than the stars its badddddddd.

  • TURDtoon

    Eh, I just don’t think the character dynamics are going to work well in a sitcom fomular. Unless thet find a way to mix it up abit. Then again, I said the same thing about Loonatics….

    And what’s with the Regular Show bashing?

    • Ryoku90

      What bashing? I was just saying that like the Regular Show the characters talk a lot in these new LTs.

  • Ive gotta say it: I crack up every time Daffy says “SERENA WILLIAMS GOT GAME!”

    If you keep saying it over and over, you’ll laugh too. Just try it:



    Cmon, youre not even doing it!


    For real, we can all see what happens in may. Its definitely making me chuckle now but its true that they are definitely tweeking with style here. It may or may not work….


    • mara

      she does…:)

      that was the only part i chuckled at (and the slapstick at the end). i wont totally crap on this before i see an episode or two.

  • Luke

    I’m a cartoonist, I love the origional Looney Tunes, among countles other cartoons (especially Ub Iwerks Comic Colors) I’m a musician…I liked it

    It’s kind of sad to see over 200 coments of complaints from snooty artists.

    Look, these clips are dull, that’s the extent of it, they aren’t atrocious as you all make it out to be. In fact, It may be the ONLY cartoon I watch on television as of now, the last time I continuouslly watched a cartoon on television was three years ago, and looking back the show was awful.

    Oh and that “wierd angular design” has serious artistic skill that Rough Draft did not capture at all.

  • Luke

    Ok, you are correct that execs came to an artist abd said “Hey, give these characters an edge.”. However, what you miss, and I alude this to the awkwardness of Rough Draft animation, is the careful construction and hierarchy, not present in these clips but in the designs Jessica drew. Do not even dare to compare this style to that tacky canadian format like Johnny Test, or Total Drama Island.

    • Ryoku90

      Jesses style is certainly a step up from that flat Canadian rubbish, but still not that good.

    • Martin Juneau

      True. But her drawing style is nowhere as was the result of THAT Looney Tunes Show.

  • William

    Just looks like the usual boring animation that’s so common now, except that the characters are disguised as the Looney Tunes.

    Oh well, I just hope this increases the viability of the original cartoons and gets more of them restored and released on DVD!

  • Roberto

    Regarding the “animated radio” thing I definitely agree with the people who said Chuck Jones also used a lot of verbal humor. There were visual gags as well but I think half of the humor was in the dialogues.

    I already said it but the “Bob Jones” gag in the reunion clip does ring me as a verbal gag that could have been included in a Chuck Jones’ short. Maybe the rest of the enviroment and situation looks odd for these characters but this little bit of dialogue got Daffy’s personality right.

    Just to say something possitive.

  • I laughed at both clips.

  • Vomit? I’ll have to wake myself up first…

  • Dave O.

    The toons of loon are no more
    but the CN version is a bore.
    The version, newfangled:
    Garishly colored and angled,
    with designs overall quite poor.

    • Even though I may disagree, I LOVE how you said that. Nice Poetry :)

  • Man, do I really need to add like the 240th comment about this being a dull daytime sitcom with functional animation and bad staging?

    Well, so long as there’s so much as one apologist, or worse still a ‘lets reserve our judgement’ guy still posting – then YES! YES I DO! For the sake of democracy.

    Keep hating, haters. We can Tahrir Square this shit off the schedules with our disgust, if we all just hate together.

  • Jay

    You people make me sick! “I don’t like the designs.” “They’re nothing like the originals.” Shut up! That’s the problem with everybody. Just because the clips don’t show that much doesn’t mean that they’re not going to be good. What? You want the best scenes in a clip so you won’t watch it? And it doesn’t have music because it’s still a prototype! When the show comes out it will have music!
    You just can’t please people.
    What you’re all animation experts?! It’s easy to say it’s crap then to do it ain’t it?

    Watch and like it idiots!

    • RF

      It’s your world, Jay. Revel in your mediocre time!

    • plastic bottle

      “It’s easy (sic) to say it’s crap then to do it ain’t it”

      It’s easier to throw out that old chestnut than to say something intelligent in defense of this steaming pile of crap, ain’t it?

    • Ryoku90

      The designs are close to the originals but Bugs’s color is a bit off.

      But maybe we should “Watch and like it”, maybe we should enjoy WB hiring an inexperienced hack to re-design great characters, maybe we should enjoy a sitcom that happens to have the Looney Tunes in it.

  • Billy Bob

    Heh, whatever. I guess it’s nice that Warners still believes the characters are worth using.

    As for the voices? Hmmmmm, odd. Jeff Bergman does my favorite Bugs of all the modern ones but it still doesn’t sound quite as good as his turn in the 90s.

    His Daffy is ok, but really Joe Alaskey is the only modern Daffy for me.

  • Grayson Ponti

    Wow it’s one thing to make bad cartoons like Home on the Range, Family Guy, and Happy Feet but to exploit the Looney Tunes in epic proportions is another matter. Filmation would have had a better understanding of Bugs and Daffys character plus they would have done better designs and actually hird people who can sound like the characters. also this is NOT funny at All and I bet you not a singled person on the crew knows who Chuck Jones, Friz Frelegn, or Bob Clampett even are.

  • stavner

    I’m buying the DVD. They didn’t make ’em this good in the 1640s!

  • spencer brandt

    Wow, I didn’t know that people would be loosing sleep over this (= Hehe…I know that I’m not…

  • Oren

    It was done, in 1972. WB took one look at it and never let Filmation touch the LT characters again.


  • cvb

    I liked them a lot. People need to stop hating on cartoons simply because they aren’t like they used to be.

    I grew up as an animation snob. I am extremely picky about how cartoons should and shouldn’t be. This is fine. Much like the originals, they are keeping the humor with whatever is current at the time.

    There’s not a lot of music which kind of bothers me. I like the writing. I like that there’s still some slapstick going on but I’d hope there is more. I dunno, it’s a bit more slice of lifish which is like Tiny Toons, and that’s not the best thing (it worked well for TTA but I don’t know about this), but that’s still ok. I’d rather they go the more cartoon network route and do some more surreal and odd situational humor that kinda almost reminds me of something andy kaufman would come up with.

    Character designs are damn good. Definitely not ruined like you expect them to do.

    The one thing I really want to see not only here but in any cartoon show, is that whole “if you watch it silent you can still understand it” idea. This is moving away from that and while that’s kinda sad, at least they got some good lines here.

    • Ryoku90

      “if you watch it silent you can still understand it” Is an interesting way to judge animation, but not everyone’s bashing this new show because it’s not true to the originals.

  • Jimmyboy

    Why are Mordecai and Rigby dressed up like Bugs and Daffy?

  • Alissa

    Okay, I performed a very short, unofficial experiment. Between my younger sister and cousins there are: one twelve year-old, two nine year-olds, and a seven year-old. I’ve gotten all of them to watch both clips and…

    They were all bored out of their skulls halfway through the first clip.

    It wasn’t just the lack of physical humor, (though the youngest wanted to know what happened to the anvils). They were just bored. I really don’t think this new show was written with kids in mind.

  • Bob

    Oh God, help us!

  • Joe Heffernan

    Terrible character design, terrible scripting, terrible voices, terrible garish coloring….HEY!!!!!! It’s terrible!

  • Joe Heffernan

    Terrible character design, terrible scripting, terrible voices, terrible garish coloring….hey…it’s terrible!

  • Joe Heffernan

    Terrible character design, horrible scripting, not funny at all – even for little kids, miserable voice characterization , garish coloring….hey…it’s just bad!

  • What Joe Herrernan said 3 times.

    • also Joe Heffernan…stutterers rool!

  • Eric

    I think these clips would have been funnier if they were live-action with actors in Bugs and Daffy costumes. It seems like that is what they were going for, so why not just go all the way?

  • Nuck

    Is this written by Canadians?

  • Nick Name



    I liked them :D

    Gotta make sure to set my Tivo!

    • VGREER

      I should probably clarify. I like the that the dialogue is clever and ‘understated’ It’s like the jokes are there, but they aren’t loud and obvious. It’s being funny and ‘normal’ at the same time.

  • Not only do the new designs reach new heights of ugly when animated, the voices sound bad too! Rumor has it that’s Jeff Bergman doing them, but it sounds like they took a play from the Larry Doyle book and sped them up too much!

    Granted, I only have 3 clips to go on, but…the incidental human characters and backgrounds have no life to them at all, and feel like an early 90’s after-school PSA special.

    Plus, where’s the music, and why are there so many “taking head” close-up shots?

    I was kind of hoping the nay-sayers would be wrong and this would be a good show…but these 3 clips are lifeless, cheap-looking crap. CN’s current audience is going to LOVE this, but I’m not.

  • Is the show going to be funny? Those clips looked like awesome artwork but I didn’t get that personality and gut busting funny I expect from an Oscar winning wabbit.

    It’s going to be funny Jerry?

  • Kellie

    Who is this show made for? The designs are extremely modernized and pretty cute (all thanks to the wonderful Jessica Borutski) for the sake of appealing to kids, but the humor is by no means cartoony and the choice of casting Jeff Bergman as Bugs and Daffy must have been made specifically for the adult, hardcore Looney Tunes fanbase. It seems to suffer from a massive identity crisis.

    The nature of the these clips is kind of unsettling for how… calm and talky it is. No kid is going to pick this show over Family Guy, and that’s pretty bad.

    What’s most saddening is how Jessica Borutski’s character designs are forced to go through this. It seems like she understands cartoons much better than the creators of this show did and it’s a shame she doesn’t have more creative input in this show. I may not like some of her designs, but I still think her work doesn’t quite deserve to be treated like this.

    I have very little hope for this show, but I’m going to be watching it because I love these characters too much to let them go and I wanna see how it turns out.

  • I already linked this but in poor quality. This is the best promo they’ve done yet. If I had only watched this one I would have high expectations.


  • Jeffrey Gray

    I have no idea what to make of this. I’m certainly not going to watch it.

    But devil’s advocate question: what will happen if people DON’T watch it? I have this nagging fear that the CN/WB execs will again place the blame on the Looney Tunes franchise itself, and go back to treating it like a red-headed stepchild…

    • Kellie

      It’s kind of scary, really. No matter how much we hate modern incarnations of the Looney Tunes, we’re pretty much forced to watch them unless we want to let the Looney Tunes franchise fade away into obscurity because WB isn’t getting their delicious dollars from it. I was extremely disappointed when I found out that a planned series of Looney Tunes shorts were dropped because Back in Action bombed.

  • dbenson

    These feel more like an imitation of 1980s shows (Tiny Toons, Disney Afternoon, etc) than Looney Tunes or anything else. And while there was some decent work being done back then, there’s no real purpose to recreating their weaknesses (uninteresting human characters, sitcom formats, etc).

    • Xgeeme

      Tiny Toons was created in the 90’s.

  • TURDtoon

    Also, are these redesigns only for this show, or will Looney Tunes projects have this style from here out?

  • Matt

    Looking at stills of Jessica Borutskis re-designs of the iconic Looney Toons characters, I think that they could actually work quite well, IF due time and diligence were actually put into the shows production.

    The obvious PROBLEM is that the animation in the show itself has about as much the pazzaz as that of a wet paper bag.

    I know that Borutski herself could animate them better than what’s currently up on the screen here.

    I guess the American TV Animation / production model is really what is to blame for this Chumminess.

  • Yonker

    This is Seinfeld but with redesigned characters. So if you like recycled 90’s sitcom humor. Then you will like this show.

  • Miguel R. Cardoso

    Pure shit.

  • Michelle

    Got the “Foghorn Leghorn & Friends” DVD the other day in the mail and just watched a few of the classics on this lazy Sunday morning.

    Seeing the old cartoons caused me to pop in here to CB to see what was going on.

    Then I was “treated” to these two teaser clips.

    Need to get back to the Foggy cartoons. The new stuff is just painful..

  • Unless Elmer Fudd shows up in act 2 to blow Daffy’s head off at point blank range, it’s a waste of air time.

    And where’s the music?

  • SJ

    Amid, when do we get your take? The Larry Doyle shorts seem a little more watchable now, don’t they?

  • Maggie Simpson

    Oh, please, bland as heck! Warner’s just trying to turn them into another shameless 21st century cash cow. Sell them to Disney while you’re at it… you know what? If they’re airing that useless crap, ignorant kids would be entertained enough not to watch the real Looney Tunes I know, then they can uncut, dynamite and all! Hooray for logical thinking!

  • Maggie Simpson

    Did we really need this? I’m 12, going on 13 and I know that’s morally wrong. Censor that crap instead of the original…not that I’m a prick…I just hate censorship… unless in this case…when you can…ruining the Looney Tunes…and the FCC is worried about stupid “adult language”?! I just saw this Roadrunner cartoon on CN the other day and it was two minutes long they censored so much good stuff out of it. Gags getting ruined…I can’t stand it! We ought to petition… isn’t that what they did with Loonatics Unleashed? People just have way to much time on their hands…


  • snipw2t3

    Well Amid, Cartoon Network has now officially launched their Looney Tunes Show webpage on their site, and with it, about 12 new clips from the show, including 2 complete coyote/road runner toons. I believe they’re all better than these 3 posted here, but as always, we shall be the judges.


  • Stephen Rhodes Treadwell

    Looney Tunes never have very good looking animation. That’s why I’m not much of a LT fan.