My TV Show Review/Rant on The Looney Tunes Show · 9:16pm Feb 27th, 2019
Uh, one quick question:
What kind of installment to the Looney Tunes franchise is this?!
For that matter, what kind of sitcom is this?!
Okay, that’s actually two questions. Still though, these questions are ones that I will happily answer in this review of this 2011-2014 waste of time “The Looney Tunes Show”.
Here’s what it’s about:
The series revolves around roommates Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck (both played by Jeff Bergman), who live in a Californian suburban neighborhood that is also home to other Looney Tunes stars, such as Porky Pig (played by Bob Bergen), Yosemite Sam (played by Maurice LaMarche), and Speedy Gonzales (played by Fred Armisen). At the most, it depicts the misadventures of Bugs and Daffy, the latter in particular as he tries to earn some quick bucks while trying to resume a recklessly jobless lifestyle.
Before I get fully into what I think of this show, especially after honestly only seeing two full episodes and some clips, I’d like to give some clarification on what this series is.
At the most, this show is a sitcom. If programs like “Mork & Mindy” and “Home Improvement” happen to ring a bell for you, then you’re on the right track. It’s barely anything like the classic Looney Tunes from the old days, including that there are few visual gags. The comedy is mostly dialogue-driven with some slight adult orientation.
The intention of the show runners, as well as Warner Bros. & Cartoon Network, was to make something to introduce the Looney Tunes to a new generation of audiences, including changing the designs, personalities, and roles of each character, such as making Daffy Duck a bum, Yosemite Sam a petty thief and con artist, and Bugs Bunny a smart-alec without charm.
Now, onto my thoughts:
What do you call a situational comedy that barely has situation and comedy?
A Stinkcom!
Get it? Because it’s a comedy that stinks.
Anyway, I certainly won’t lie that the hand-drawn animation wasn’t bad, especially when combined with computerized water and light. Although, it didn’t make up for the show being a disaster, particularly because of how cheap it looked and the lack of dedication it seemed to show.
The voice-acting for the characters definitely didn’t make things any better, that’s for sure. The performances were awful! I mean, I can tell that the cast at least tried to make their portrayals close to that of the late Mel Blanc’s, but they didn’t do a good job either because their performances lacked energy and commitment. They sounded as if they were so bored with the scripts given to them they wanted to be somewhere else.
The designs for the characters were acceptable, but the personality changes...not so much, because they didn’t fit the characters well, and because the changes made them rather unlikable and gave them little charm. To boot, there was little to no character development. Daffy in particular was just so annoying and one-dimensional I could barely stand seeing him on the screen.
The humor that the series had was a lot more pesky than funny, especially because there wasn’t anything to laugh about whatsoever, and because it lacked innocent quality. Even the dialogue-driven jokes did little to earn a chuckle. In addition, it seemed like whenever a gag was thrown in, there was this pause or moment where a laugh track was needed. In the end, though, it was like even a laugh track barely found a reason to laugh.
As for the stories...well, there isn’t really much to note about them, other than that they lacked heart and morals. Even if there was one, nobody learned from it at all. Not even audiences could learn what the moral of each story would be since the execution and concept was ridiculously terrible.
In the end, “The Looney Tunes Show” not only dishonors the source material, but earns the term of “stinkcom” because it’s a disgrace to the genre.
So, I rate this underwhelming tragedy 1 out of 5 stars. I might as well refer to it as “The Looney Tunes Sham” from this moment on.
Yeah, I've seen it in passing, but I don't think I've been able to actually sit through one whole episode.
I honestly really liked the show and still do.
Well, I probably won’t watch this, if only because I don’t have time to, and I’m not a big fan of sitcoms in general, so if it’s this bad, it would probably be a waste of time. Some of them can be pretty good, for what they are, but this doesn’t seem like one of them.
I think the only episode of this that I ever saw was the last one, which was a spoof of the 1978 Superman movie.
On a side note, I was wondering when you were going to get to something that you rated at below the 3 out of 5 line. But just remember: there's worse things out there than this...much worse.
Huh. I saw an episode and thought it wasn't all that bad. But I guess you're right in that it can be bland.
I agree wholly about everything you said! A total insult to the classic cartoons!
The biggest problem that this show had, in my honest opinion; was they were trying to take children cartoon characters and re-write them for a more mature or contemporary audience.
Of course the people most curious about it were people who grew up on the classics.
That's basically where it falls apart for most people. If you grew up on the old ones, and then literally grew up; you're pretty much slated to not like this at the gate.
5021048
Truthfully, I am a fan of the classic Looney Tunes. But, I wanted to take a look at it for what it is: a sitcom made to be something new.
Sadly, for me, it just failed as a sitcom.
I don't exactly watch today's Looney Tunes Show, just the old time cartoons and some of the movies.
Personally I enjoyed it although its been maybe a few years since I last saw it.
I certainly wasn't a fan of what they did with Lola Bunny. In all honesty, I liked how she was portrayed in 'Space Jam' despite the fact she was animated as one of those sex icons like Jessica Rabbit (Which is ironic because she's not even a 'rabbit', which is pretty funny actually).
5020950
Honestly, he's literally exaggerating. The show is good, or at least, as someone said, there are worse things out there.
5021048
Then why I liked it so much? I've seen pretty much every one of the old Looney Tunes, and found This iteration just as enjoyable.
5527699
Because your tastes and expectations reflected your age and maturity, instead of going into it figuring that nothing would be different from how things used to be.
You simply either didn’t have Nostalgia Glasses on or were ok with taking them off.
5021075
That's... not a sitcom
Edit: nvm just realized. I usually hear the term describing those live action comedies with the laugh audience like Jessie or Fresh Prince of Bel Air
5527701
Or the program was actually good, and the reviewer just have his or her Nostalgia Glasses both out of prescription and welded on his or her face
5527719
Whether or not this is good or bad is subjective, and something I have not actually weighed in on.
Two things I disagree with is
Character Development
Sound close to Mel Blanc era as possible
5527719
I didn’t watch this show for nostalgia purposes nor did I wear nostalgia glasses as I watched it.
I knew what I was going to be in for and was hoping to be impressed with what it provided, but in the end...I wasn’t.
5527730
How so?
5527754
1. Like I said when we argued on Space Jam there are exceptions to this CD rule (Space Jam being one of those exceptions for obvious reasons) From what I remember there doesn’t seem to be any room for character development. Only way I counteract this is because there wasn’t a moment where one or two characters have to go up against a foe or the fact we don’t get character development because there’s nothing else that characters like Bugs would think about for what they want or if they have to overcome a very very serious hardship.
2. The part where you said the cast doesn’t sound close to the original Mel Branc is not gonna help half of the problem. Now I agree the actors aren’t like Mel Branc of course but it’s an unfair thing to judge on because these are two different voice acting performances so of course they’re not gonna have the same feel Mel gave. The point is to let these voice actors put in their own chemistry or feel and not think of them trying too hard to match an original performance everyone knows is unlikely.
5527758
That honestly wasn’t what I said about the performances at all.
I said that I thought the performers did a great job at making their portrayals sound like Blanc’s overall interpretations of the characters, but...the portrayals sounded relatively bored and unenthusiastic. They sounded like the cast members were hardly wanting to be there.
5527761
I meant this
Sorry I had to quote it I was trying to point it out.
5527763
Still, I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying about the voice acting.
5527767
Nope
You said they tried but you never said they did a good job on trying to get close to Blanc chemistry only that they didn’t because of them being unenthusiastic and lacking commitment
5527770
Exactly.
They didn’t sound like they were having any fun at all despite whatever efforts they made to be serviceable replacements.
5527772
Yeah
Trying to push one performance to be identical with the acclaimed original really and I mean REALLY comes off as forced