2015 Looney Tunes Calendar Is One For The Ages

Click for larger version.

Click for larger version.

Some people say Bugs and gang ain’t kewl no more, but Warner Bros. got its bizness figured with this hella wicked 2015 Looney Tunes wall calendar. Bruh, the interiors are the shiznit, ya bish:

looneytunes2015calendar

And don’t be all booty tickled ’cause the calendar maker Day Dream jacked some licensee drawings, like the ones below. Chillin’ out that work with splatters takes mad skillz, yo.

looneytunes2015calendar-sources


  • Silvia L.

    Here in Italy we used to have a Looney tunes calendar that was THOUSANDS times better than the thing you show!

    It came out on the first days of november and It was like a tradition to get it: every year it had a different theme, my favorite one (and still I got that copy) was with all the charachters re-doing classic fairy tales (Bugs Bunny and Speedy Gonzales doing the Pied Piper of Hamelin; Daffy as the Ugly duckling, Sylvester as Pinocchio and such…). To my point of view, It was very well done: the illustrators used to follow classic stock images of the charachters (in the last ones that came out, WB was very strict with the poses and the drawing style) but with a nice storytelling! Pity we don’t have it anymore, but the guys who worked at the 2015 one surely can take inspiration from it: it won’t hurt!

  • Erik Butter

    Wow! It’s like they became art now! 0_0

  • Uli Meyer

    Desperation.

  • popyea

    I think Foghorn might be safe. Well, it’s not a rip of the one you posted anyway. I like how Taz and Daffy look on the front cover.

  • Anonymous

    I just want an entire calendar that looks like the Daffy stock image.

  • Marie

    MY EYES, MY EYES!

  • http://tresportfolio.tumblr.com/ Tres Swygert

    I just wished they had better artwork for the calendar.

  • Googamp32

    Well… At least it’s still not as bad as Loonatics.

  • Fried

    This art isn’t that great, but what’s with the perceived notion that Looney Tunes is somehow sacred animation?

    As in, people can’t do anything with it without upsetting animators? It’s the same for Hannah Barbara as well, and I think both LT and HB were very boring. Only a handful of shorts out of the hundreds of things made were entertaining.

    I think the shows we’ve had in the past 30 years (Old and current CN, Nick, and Disney as well as a bit of The Hub) are much better than the “classics” we’re constantly told to marvel at from the previous 70 years.

    Just wondering if there’s anything other than nostalgia/pretty art holding this interest for old work intact for animators.

    • Vincent Alexander

      I have to say I’m a little bit baffled by your comment. Of course you’re right that interest in the Hanna-Barbera studio exists largely out of nostalgia. The early HB shows have their perks – appealing character designs by Ed Benedict, nice backgrounds, a certain likability – but the mechanical animation and repetitive stories can make for somewhat dull viewing.

      However, Looney Tunes are an entirely different matter. Those films are fast-paced, brilliantly animated and outrageously funny. I’m surprised that even people who don’t like them can consider them boring. There has been plenty of good stuff on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel over the years, but saying that any of these TV cartoons are better than the classic Warner Bros. cartoons is a little bit like saying Lady Gaga and Katy Perry are better than the Beatles and Bob Dylan. The people who make those shows on Nick and Disney would agree with me on this.

      I’m wondering how many Looney Tunes you’ve actually seen…? If you check out DUCK AMUCK, RABBIT OF SEVILLE or THE GREAT PIGGY BANK ROBBERY, you might change your mind.

      By the way – I’m 22 years old, and most of my animation student friends of the same age and younger consider the Looney Tunes to be the holy grail of cartoons. I’ve also been to theatrical screenings of those films where young children were screaming with laughter. I don’t think it’s just nostalgia… those cartoons are timeless.

      • Fried

        And of course the “handful of good shorts” are the classic ones that everyone knows, such as DOVER BOYS and FROGGY EVENING, but there’s also an immense amount of boring ones.

        Many of Clampett’s black and white Porky shorts are not as solid as his Daffy shorts. Many of the “one-joke gag” shorts like GOOFY GROCERIES, FARM FROLICS, and BOOK REVUE (Which at least had Daffy but took a long time to get to him) I find dull, relying on puns for several minutes can only get you so far.

        Robert McKimson’s shorts felt very safe and formulaic for LT. He had just far too many shorts of Bugs Bunny winning against dim-witted foes for it to feel fresh. Clampett was much better at surprising us who the winner would be and Jones didn’t even use the LT cast half the time, he made original stories (Which I consider much better than when he felt the need to remake Duck Rabbit Duck four times).

        Then there’s the problem of many directors using the same, or similar, jokes that we now know to expect from Looney Tunes.

        • Dynamtie instead of a candle/cigar/etc trick.
        • Somebody’s tail on fire, they sniff, look down, then react.
        • Falling from a great height and being a pancake/accordion.
        • “Which way did he go?! Which way did he go?!” “He went that way!” (Foe runs into wall)
        • Gun firing rapidly then stopping to pant.
        • Lightning match in pitch black only to see it’s a room full of dynamite (In fact, dynamite and anvils have become overplayed now because of Roadrunner and Bugs).

        Just because it’s a “classic” doesn’t mean I’m going to find it funny, especially if in my late 20′s, I know exactly what is going to happen. If someone made a short film using all the above jokes, it’d come off as a boring homage rather than a fresh take on cartooning.

        Which is why I enjoyed Chowder and Flapjack when they came out, they did many slapstick/cartoony gags I hadn’t seem before (Or seen often).

        Sure children may find LT hilarious, but they also laugh at the live-action Smurfs and Yogi Bear and enjoy toilet humor much more than I do, so I don’t know if they should be the gauge of whether or not _I_ should like something.

        Once you’ve seen enough Looney Tunes, you won’t find Bugs Bunny as funny because any quick witted behavior will be using almost the same jokes as 80 other shorts you’ve already seen with him easily tricking his foes. That’s why I can only find a few dozen of the hundreds made funny. First time is the charm, 12th time is dullsville.

        • GW

          I feel similarly to you to a degree. I agree that Bugs Bunny cartoons get too cliched and that McKimson didn’t make very good cartoons. For those who are sick of Looney Tunes I’d recommend Boris Dezhkin’s cartoons like An Unusual Match and Shaybu! Shaybu!. Some of the older Bolek and Lolek cartoons are pretty good too.

        • Vincent Alexander

          I find your statement that there are only a handful of great Looney Tunes to be a bit bizarre. There are certainly weak entries (many of those spot gag cartoons, like FARM FROLICS, are admittedly uninspired), but in the ‘40s and ‘50s at least, the Warner Bros. crew turned out a larger amount of masterpieces than any animation studio / TV cartoon I can think of. Random examples like HOMELESS HARE and BUGS BUNNY RIDES AGAIN would be revered as the masterpieces of any other studio, but at Warner Bros., this level of humor and craftsmanship was par for the course.

          I also find that your definition of what qualifies as a dull, formulaic cartoon is a bit skewed. Certainly creativity should be measured not just by the diversity of plot setups / subject matter, but also by the level of inventiveness achieved within those formulas. Dismissing the Looney Tunes on these terms is like giving a bad review to THE DARK KNIGHT because it follows the superhero “formula” of a caped hero who fights bad guys.

          In the Hunting Trilogy, for instance (since you mentioned it), Bugs repeatedly tricks Elmer into shooting Daffy in the face. But it’s never tiresome because the humor comes from the interaction of the characters, and Daffy’s increasing exasperation, and the endlessly creative variations on Daffy’s beak getting blown off that Chuck Jones comes up with. Obviously, the shot in the face is the punchline, but there’s a lot going on to lead up to that joke that makes it more than just violence = humor (it’s the difference between the brilliant pratfalls of Buster Keaton vs. somebody getting hit in the crotch on AMERICA’S FUNNIEST HOME MOVIES).

          If those cartoons were more unpredictable, with Daffy getting shot sometimes and Bugs getting shot other times, there would be no discipline to the humor and it wouldn’t be funny. Similarly, if Wile E. Coyote succeeded in catching the Road Runner occasionally, or enlisted help, or took breaks, it would make those films less formulaic, but it would also destroy their comedic genius, which is defined by limitations. The comedy doesn’t come from our surprise that Wile E. fails, it comes from seeing how he fails. In shows like UNCLE GRANDPA and FLAPJACK, the humor is more random and unpredictable, but that does not make it funnier.

          I’m a big fan of CHOWDER, but behind the veneer of weirdness, isn’t the show about as formulaic as any Looney Tune? Panini is always trying and failing to win over Chowder (he even has a catchphrase, “I’m not your boyfriend”), all of the foods are mildly altered names of real food (thrice cream, grapples), Shnitzel says the word “radda” instead of real words, etc. Of course, there’s a lot of creativity surrounding those formulas, but that’s true of the Looney Tunes as well. And how often do CHOWDER and FLAPJACK repurpose Aaron Springer-style expressions of goofy excitement? Even something as offbeat as ADVENTURE TIME relies on formula. How many times do they get a laugh out of awkward slang (“what the blubins, man?”) or an out-of-place musical number or an inconclusive ending? Plus, all of those shows rely on bathroom humor, which is every bit as typical as slapstick comedy was in the Looney Tunes (plus a lot more tiresome, in my opinion). That’s not to knock those shows, which I also love, but to point out that they fall into the same patterns you claim to dislike.

          Plus – it has to be pointed out – every frame of a Bob Clampett cartoon from the mid-‘40s has an original, unique and funny expression. Even long after you’ve memorized the jokes, Clampett cartoons are fun to watch because of the explosive style of acting. There’s nothing approaching that level of visual creativity in any TV cartoon.

          It certainly isn’t dullsville, anyway.

      • Ben Aron

        Looney Tunes IS the holy grail of cartoons.

  • Roman S.

    I don’t hate the Gossamer / Bugs one…

  • Chicken McPhee

    Is this one of Mr. Brainwash’s brain washings?

  • Inkan1969

    I can’t tell if Amid is being sarcastic or not.

    • AnimationGuy

      Think you need to send in your Sarcometer™ in for repairs.

      • MRCKid

        That’s what you get when you purchase it from ACME.

  • April

    But it’s so hard to draaaw…

  • jhalpernkitcat

    Undead Yosemite Sam is pretty badass looking!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/JourneyTraveler NoahClue

    Extra subtle bashing of a commercial product banking in on the success of animation’s most beloved characters, or thinly veiled promotion that probably just gained more buyers than detractors. You decide.
    Unlicensed or not, the drawings just don’t *fit* with any of the Looney Tunes incarnations (no not even Loonatics Unleashed, of which I am unashamed to call my greatest guilty pleasure). This style could have been applied to ANY cartoon gallery and been just as distasteful, so of course piggy backing off of instantly iconic characters just nails this coffin of creative bankruptcy.

    • Ant G

      I’ve been wondering this myself. The ol saying “there’s no such thing a bad publicity” comes to mind. Negative articles on CB or any news/blog site are usually the most sensationalist and garner the most views, both for the site and for the subject of the article. Whether it’s a conscious promotion or just happenstance can’t be proven, but we can see nothing at all has changed when Pixar was caught suppressing their employees. We’ve gone right back to the same habits as if that never happened while the memory of their name became that much more ingrained in our heads.

  • Silvia L.

    In this case, it just takes them to google for “calendario Looney tunes sorrisi e canzoni TV”! Though at the moment there is not a great number of pictures, and many are from the last issues (drawn “on model”), anyway it can give the idea!

    (“Sorrisi e canzoni TV ” is the name of the magazine which came out with)!

  • Marvin Da’ Jazzman

    McKimson directed, in my opinion, some of the funniest Looney Tunes ever made. When Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng were so busy evolving screwball Daffy into a greedy, selfish egomaniac. McKimson kept Daffy’s wacky spirit and “daffy” nature even after Avery and Clampett had gone. A good example is the 1950 short “Boobs In The Woods”. Yeah, a lot of his cartoons may be formulaic, but a substantial amount of them are very fun to watch. McKimson is very underrated.