Categories
American Culture

Wascally wascals

Copyright 2005 Ben S. Pollock

Thursday, Feb. 17, 2005: From Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal (while these quotes are complete, they are excerpts):

“Hoping to breathe new life into its animated Looney Tunes franchise and prop up the WB television network’s slumping Kids’ WB line-up, Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros. is planning to launch a new cartoon series this fall based on “re-imagined” versions of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tasmanian Devil, Lola Bunny, Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote.

“Warner Bros. has created angular, slightly menacing-looking versions of the classic Looney Tunes characters for its new series, dubbed “Loonatics” and set in the year 2772.

“The classic characters were wisecrackers who rode their irreverent humor to stardom in the 1940s. The challenge now for Warner Bros. is to find a fresh way to tap the funny bone of an audience raised on Bart Simpson and SpongeBob SquarePants.

“The new series will have the same classic wit and wisdom, but we have to do it more in line with what kids are talking about today,” says Sander Schwartz, president of Warner Bros. Animation. The plots are action-oriented, filled with chases and fights. Each character possesses a special crime-fighting power.”

This link has a photo of the new versions. The news in text is pathetic, but seeing the rabbit, duck, coyote etc. as redrawn — not updated — shows savagery.

There are many angles this opiner/whiner can take. There’s plenty so everyone can share.

I’ll put this one up (I wrote out another but it grew unmanageably complex): Humor scares the Suits more than ever, except the Fox Folks who have brought us The Simpsons for an incredible number of years.

It’s not so much “dumbing down,” either. First must be a fear that wiseacres might give offense, and the prospects must seem to be worse than letting wardrobes malfunction. The problem with wit is its unpredictability. Flash a breast and the various reactions can be predicted. Crack a joke and it might work, flop or raise pickets standing outside the corporate door.

The second is that what replaces multilevel humor (for both children and adults) is yet another set of basic superhero good vs. evil plotting and characters. Who needs contemporary mythology, and wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

Third is the presumption that all story lines for children must be parables. The real — not merely the original — Looney Tunes rarely concluded with morals. Nor do The Simpsons. Their tools have been parody and farce, which can be seen as providing lessons, though you have to think to find them.

SpongeBob concludes with a bit of education, as does the Rugrats series, favored by some parents I know. Yet both use insufficient characterization and animation. They all teach lessons.

We give children sugar everywhere else, why not give them pointless entertainment (which when exceptional does have the time-bomb effect of insight)? God knows that moral values fill all remaining space in children’s culture and education. That leads to considering the difference between sport and play. See how this can get unwieldy?

Perhaps The Simpsons’ Itchy & Scratchy could tie together the tails and tales of this alleged Loonatic cast then go to town on them. -30-

Print Friendly, PDF & Email