Talk:Looney Tunes

"That's all folks" - I agree, it had to be done! :)

The Censored Eleven

Any chance of mentioning "The Censored Eleven" - those eleven LT cartoons that are withheld from distribution due to use of racist and sexist sterotypes

I beleive I have at least a few of them on a DVD of old WB cartoons, although WB isn't mentioned anywhere on the artwork, so maybe these have fallen into PD? There's more than a few containing "blackface" characters, and also The Ducktators about WWII which, undertandably given the time, isn't too kind to Japan, Germany or Italy. Boffy b 10:30, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

There's an already an article on the Censored Eleven - feel free to add links to it, or add to the article. --Modemac 16:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merrie Melodies v/s Looney Tunes

Re Merrie Melodies v/s Looney Tunes: For some years wasn't one series in color and the the other in b&w, or am I misremembering? -- Infrogmation 01:20 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

This is correct. Merrie Melodies went to color in 1934, but Looney Tunes remained in black and white until 1942. --b. Touch 20:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recurring characters

Looking for feedback on the decision to split the character list into "Major Recurring Characters" and "Minor Recurring Characters." I think it keeps the lists neater, since the "stars" are largely in the first list. However, it is tempting to use "Popular Recurring Characters" and "Not-So-Popular Recurring Characters" as the headings, since characters like Bosko and Buddy aren't popular today, but the Tasmanian Devil and Marvin the Martian are. Problem is, "Popular" and "Not-So-Popular" (or the equivalent) require more of a value judgment than I'm willing to make. Granted, Major/Minor requires such a judgment, but it's easier to make based on the number of films a character appeared in.

Opinions? Brian 20:00 UTC.

I see someone has switched some characters around again. This seems to be a matter of opinion for most cases, as I would not call "Witch Hazel" a major recurring character (she appeared in only 4 cartoons), while Buddy was the sole headlining star of over 20 cartoons between 1933 and 1935. I tend to agree with User:BrianSmithson that this is a tough one to call since the Looney Tunes filmography spans over 4 decades. I decided I'd break the character lists up into decades per when the character was introduced with no differentiation between Major/Minor just that the characters were recurring or became notorious: 1930s, 1940s, 1950s or 1960s?

I like the idea of bolding the characters that are recognizable except that it's a judgment call again. Oh well, I'm happy with it as you have truly captured the major ones, I guess we'll have to see if someone comes along and suddenly thinks Charlie Dog or Witch Hazel or Michigan J. Frog needs to be bolded ;) ... Jeff schiller 20:44, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Unfortunately, it was summarily deleted by an anonymous contributor who appears to not have agreed. Should we restore it, then? -- Kizor 23:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Combined article on Warner Bros cartoons?

Does anyone else think it would be worth combining the Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes articles into a combined article on WB cartoons generally, using this Looney Tunes article as the basis? It seems that the article could stand to be expanded into a more thorough history of the cartoon studio and the characters generally.--Cinephobia 21:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article on the studio is at Termite Terrace. That can be expanded there. As for the characters, each has its own article, but if you want to discuss their development, it would probably make sense to discuss them at Termite Terrace as well. As far as combining the articles, I'm not too sold on that. The two series were completely seperate from each other until Looney Tunes went to color in 1942. --FuriousFreddy 14:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And when Bugs converted. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that article. However, it obviously is not currently the studio history. While it's appropriate to have that entry, I don't think it's a good place for the main studio history to sit. Firstly, it's wouldn't a terribly encyclopeadic name for the article once it was expanded to have a much wider focus than the building and its significance. Secondly, it would entrench the incorrect perception that all the WB animation emerged from that building, when only limited number of the staff were there for a limited time. I think entries should stay for the LT & MM series that address the unique features of those series, with cross references to an article that was a comprehensive studio history. While unusual, I think "Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies" would be a good title to distinguish the larger article. (I wondered about "Warner Bros animation" or "Warner Bros cartoons" but that would throw in things like Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, and The Iron Giant that seem to belong in a different place again). Thoughts? --Cinephobia 09:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Termite Terrace article should, in that case, be moved to Warner Bros. Cartoons, Inc., which was the official name of that company after Leon Schlesinger sold it. The television cartoons (Tiny Toons, et al), should be discussed in an article called Warner Bros. Television Animation.

---

Reverted back to a previous version after some vandalism, but I forgot to label it as a revert. --Gangster Octopus 23:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed "Tweety Bird" back to "Tweety". The character name is always Tweety. "Tweety Bird" is occasionally used as a reference to Tweety's species (which is also just nominated as canary in some shorts).--Cinephobia 23:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --FuriousFreddy 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tortus v/s Hare

Eh...Bugs and Cecil were together in da first episode of Looney Tunes, right, doc? Than why are they listed to have aired in different decades? I think you've got your Looney Tunes history a little messed up, huh, doc? --Wack'd About Wiki 14:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Neither Bugs nor Cecil Turtle appeared in the first "episode" of Looney Tunes. Looney Tunes is not a TV show; it was a series of cartoons produced to be shown in movie theatres before the main feature from 1930 to 1969. The first Looney Tune was produced in 1930, Bugs first appeared in 1938, and Cecil first appeared in 1941. IF your information about Tortoise vs. Hare being the "first epidoes" of Looney Tunes derices from this link: [1], you should be informed that the TV.com listing is not in chronological order by the films' actual release. Tortoise Beats Hare is approximately the 330th Warner Bros. short, nowhere near the first. --FuriousFreddy 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

and the animators had a sense of humor...

Just a note of interest; a close friend of mine was studying graphic design in the late '80s, and somehow ended up working on the colorization of the B&W Warner Brothers cartoons. He told me that, even in the "non-controversial" shorts, the animators snuck a lot of offenses past all of us, inserting a single cel that showed something the censors (& parents) wouldn't have liked. The example he gave was of a cel he found in which Elmer Fudd suddenly had a huge erect penis sticking out of his fly.

I know Disney used to do that from time to time (Remember The Rescuers recall from a few years back), but I didn't know they were doing the same sick stuff at Termite Terrace. 205.244.107.166 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And you still don't. That comment was added on 11/24/05 by a short-lived redlink user. I'm guessing he just felt like saying it. Wahkeenah 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

30s

We should group the 30s characters by whether they co-stared with Porky, Bosko, or Buddy.

No Chuck Jones, Mel Blanc, etc?

Shouldn't the animators and voice actors appear in this article (as well as in the Merrie Melodies article)? Am I missing something? 138.88.239.35 16:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. Look at the umbrella article about the Warner cartoon studio, Termite Terrace. Steelbeard1 17:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ownership Section Incorrect

"WB was able to retain the rights to "Lady Play Your Mandolin" and the black-and-white Looney Tunes, even though they all fell into the public domain (WB holds the original film elements)--a majority of these public domain shorts has been released on many low-budget independent home video labels"

Can someone cite this? I don't think this is correct - only a relatively small portion of the Looney Tunes filmography is in the public domain, not "all". Jeff schiller 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Official site...

Should we remove it from the External Links section? It hasn't been working for a while, at least since yesterday when I first tried it. Abby724 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the greatest Loony Toon shows ever! --69.67.230.241 05:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Michigan J. Frog Multiple appearances

I recommend that MJF be footnoted as having only one appearance in Loony Toons (One Froggy Evening). I know he had that follow up cartoon in the '90s (not to mention the whole WB mascot thing), but so did a lot of the others regarded as one-timers on the list (I know I've seen Pete Puma make appearences). Agreed? --Happylobster 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubbed versions

The article doesn't seem to be clear enough about the dubbed versions. For example, it states, "These 'dubbed versions', which continue to be shown on cable and broadcast television to this day, are not representative of the original theatrical release versions of the 'Looney Tunes' and 'Merrie Melodies' shorts," but there is not enough information to understand what exactly makes these non-representative. I also don't think it's clear enough about what exactly is meant by "dubbed". - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I hate those dubbed versions. I wish they hadn't made those in the first place. I wish the cartoons went back to their original titles.

Website 404

http://www.bcdb.com/cartoons/Warner_Bros_/Looney_Tunes/index.html returns 404 to me. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Letterboxing?

Watching the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons on TV over the years, it always seemed the edges were cropped off a bit to fit the screen. Is that real or am I imagining it? If it's real, do the new DVD releases fix this with letterboxing, etc? --RevWaldo 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• They seem to be in about a 4:3 ratio, which I would think would be normal. I don't think these cartoons were made for Cinerama. Wahkeenah 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• If one looks closely, he can see that the image near the edges of some films has been cropped off. This may be due to the fact that the image of many Looney Tunes films has rounded corners, but I'm no professional and don't know the exact reason. For example, in the dubbed version of Wakiki Wabbit, when Bugs speaks in some kind of weird language, even though the image is made smaller so you can read the translation, part of the letters is cropped off. As for the ratio, it's standard 4:3 ratio - it's just that the image is a little too magnified.--Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you're onto it. They might have sliced the edges to make them look better on the DVD. I was capturing a few frames from Bugs Bunny: Superstar and realized that some of them indeed had rounded corners. Why that would be, I don't know, but it suggests that the 4:3 aspect ratio was standard. Speaking of Wackiki Wabbit, any idea what they are getting at with that bogus wording "ofa enu maua te ofe popaa"? I read that as a heavily accented way of saying "often your Ma tees off Papa", which makes no sense in this context, but it might have meant something to the scriptwriters, or maybe it was yet another now-obscure radio catchphrase. Wahkeenah 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no idea about what Bugs says in that film. Many films from the 20s and the 30s have rounded corners, though. I saw this on a Charlie Chaplin film. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. Mavrov 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

"More about the controversial process of re-tracing and colorizing classic black and white animations in South Korea can be found at the Wikipedia Popeye page." I don't know how to reword this. Saying, "...can be found at Popeye" would sound awkward and confuse some people as to whether the article or cartoon should be referred. A see also template would not explain why the article should be seen. --Gray Porpoise 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant information should probably be moved to colorization (or whatever other appropariate generic title) and this page (and Popeye) can link to that. — BrianSmithson 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia Section

I don't agree with this piece of trivia being in this section. Even though the Canadian coins sound similar, their names have nothing else to do with Looney Tunes. I don't think sounding the same is enough of a connection to put into this trivia section.

Adamantius 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Adamantius Jan. 19th 2007

• It's a play on words: The loon (bird) vs. "looney" meaning "crazy" (a 'coined' adjective form of "lunatic" or "lunacy"). What, you don't think the Canadians were calling the loon-adorned dollar coin "crazy"? Wahkeenah 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Looney Tunes, though. The real play on words is the toonie-

DVD releases?

Why is there no mention of DVD releases? Jbluez27 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look in the "Ownership" section of the article which mention the Looney Tunes Golden Collection box sets. Steelbeard1 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)