>Disney’s always been good at keeping Mickey Mouse front and center with the young generation, that is why they have their preschool show and those different tiers of Mickey shows. Warner Brothers didn’t do that with Looney Tunes. And I think it’s been a mistake because, in my opinion, the Looney Tunes are much better characters.https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/how-the-looney-tunes-film-defied-the-odds-1236075465/
>>152072572How are the chances of Disney hiring him to make the new incarnation of Mickey Mouse since the Rudish shorts are done?
>>152072572This used to appear in some films.
>>152072572He's right to a point. Post-90s, WB just stuffed Looney Tunes into whatever was popular. Were they DuckTales? Muppet Babies? Pokemon? Sneakerheads? It didn't matter as long as it was a trend and WB could capitalize on it. But there were really only two big Mickey shows: Clubhouse and Rudish Mickey, plus the Disney Afternoon spin-offs (DuckTales, Goof Troop, Chip n' Dale). The key difference is that Disney ran those shows for several seasons and got top-brass staff to animate them. They gave Mickey the red carpet treatment- Disney Australia, Mercury Filmworks, Mikros Image, the list goes on.Looney Tunes never got that, and I think people caught onto that. No parks, no fanfare, no brandwank. But it wasn't for lack of trying, I think it was partially lack of resources. They did the best they could but struggled to adapt the characters to modern audiences. Every single attempt was misguided and confused, while Disney effortlessly translated their cast over with no issue. Disney gets Mickey Mouse, but WB never understood Bugs Bunny.(Personally, I think the safest option would've been a show done by then-current Nick/CN alums. Something with the edge of Rudish Mickey would've killed back in the late-90s/early-00s.)
>>152072572>Manolo Cabeza de NuevoGod I wanna punch him so badly
>>152072572didn't they have Baby Looney Tunes and Tiny Toons?
>>152072855You forgot Mouseworks/House of Mouse
>>152073056I didn't include them in the post because I assumed it didn't have reinvent/impact the Mickey brand as any of the above listed shows. Although I guess it was a creative enough way to repackage and contextualize both old and new cartoons for modern audiences. Looney Tunes had plenty of package shows, but none that were as involved as HOM.
>>152072855>but WB never understood Bugs Bunny.That's pretty much what it boils down too
>>152072855>>Personally, I think the safest option would've been a show done by then-current Nick/CN alums. Something with the edge of Rudish Mickey would've killed back in the late-90s/early-00sI think Jones would have hated it anyways, he despised Tiny Toons and Space Jam
>>152072572They made new Looney Tunes shorts, but they were exclusive to HBO Max
>>152075261He's the showrunner of that show.
Who's "he"
>>152075354Did you not read the two posts above yours
>>152072572Did they not try that before with Mickey?
>>152072572The main issue with Warner Bros is there is no Disney Parks to continue promoting their characters. They have Six Flags to keep people knowing the IP exists, but they are seen as the cheap regional parks without the international recognition.Looney Tunes actually has had more projects the past 25 years compared to Mickey, they do get a lot of films (which Mickey never gets) and more tv shows. But for Mickey, they do not even need to do much, because they are part of the theme park image and culture. All they have to do is a few projects every couple of decades to keep interest, but otherwise just have them plastered in the park and you can sell a shit ton of Mickey ears and other merch. Looney Tunes does not have that luxury and has to stay relevant on its own accord
>>152072572>You don’t redesign Looney Tunes. You just keep making them. They’ve tried to redesign them in the past and it’s a fool’s errand. Something like Looney Tunes, that works so perfectly, these character archetypes, the style, and everything is like winning the lotto. You don’t mess with it. You stick with it and just refine, refine, refine.>None of us, or hardly any of us, had worked in features before. We approached it just like we were making an 11-minute cartoon for Cartoon Network. We worked very quickly, very fast and cheaply. It’s our generation’s style of humor.Explains both the best and the worst of the film. >We made an indie Looney Tunes movie through Warner Bros. — how surreal is that?Seems indie is now equally cool as making products for WB. >>152075841They’re trying a new Bugs Bunny Land to deal with that. It feels like short form video to reach kids online is a missed opportunity as well. Thinking of when Donald Duck went on that hot sauce show and how the Looney Tunes are great gag characters for short comedic placements like that.
>>152072572>Is he right?WELL HE AIN'T WRONG
>>152077597HE AIN'T WENDELL WILLKIE
>>152072753What appears now?
>>152072572Kids don't give a shit about mickey mouse. And bugs bunny spends way too much time cross dressing and being a passive agressive fag, and an ACTUAL fag to be likeable by them.
>>152075841i mean universal was close to doin' it with that cartoon land of theirs, but the guy in charge of the company was a huge stuck-up so
>>152079406as of recent, this:
>>152072753This made me want to eat carrots as a kid
