"Baby Looney Tunes" (2002) TV series 2002-????

User Rating:

5.1/10   

Directors:

Michael Hack
Scott Heming

Writers:

Roger Eschbacher (writer)
Libby Hinson (writer)

Seasons:

1 | 2

Release Date:

7 September 2002 (USA)

Genre:

Animation | Family

Plot Keywords:

Daffy Duck | Young Versions Of Characters | Bugs Bunny | Tasmanian Devil | Looney Tunes

Awards:

2 nominations

Cast

Ian James Corlett	...	Taz / ... (23 episodes, 2002-2005)
June Foray	...	Granny (23 episodes, 2002-2005)
Terry Klassen	...	Sylvester / ... (23 episodes, 2002-2005)
Britt McKillip	...	Lola / ... (23 episodes, 2002-2005)
Sam Vincent	...	Bugs, Daffy & Tweety / ... (23 episodes, 2002-2005)
Ellen Kennedy	...	Additional Voices (23 episodes, 2002-2005)
Chiara Zanni	...	Petunia (20 episodes, 2002-2005)
Janyse Jaud	...	Melissa (19 episodes, 2002-2005)
Brian Drummond	...	Floyd (13 episodes, 2005)
Kathleen Barr	...	Additional Voices (13 episodes, 2005)
Peter Kelamis	...	Additional Voices (13 episodes, 2005)
Colin Murdock	...	Additional Voices (13 episodes, 2005)
Nicole Oliver	...	Additional Voices (13 episodes, 2005)
Mariko Kage	...	Additional Voices (10 episodes, 2002)

Runtime:

Argentina:30 min | USA:30 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Sound Mix:

Stereo

Certification:

USA:TV-Y | Brazil:Livre | Argentina:Atp

Company:

Warner Bros. Animation

Movie Connections:

Referenced in "Bleach: Unquellable Hatred! The Shinigami That Kenpachi Cut Down (#4.77)" (2006)

Baby Looney Tunes: a cute (but bad) idea

Okay, people here we have "Baby Looney Tunes", which might seem cute, but is simply lame and uninspired.

I've seen more than 4 or 5 episodes and I can attest this show is nothing special for anybody. I will not get caught up in the "Muppet Babies" debate (hence, I anticipate that anybody who grew up watching "Muppet Babies" will mention it). All I'll say is that this show is not a mere "Muppet Babies" knock-off. That would be an understatement. (Plus, is it any coincidence that "Granny" rhymes with "Nanny"?)

The problems I have with this cartoon are many:

1. Choice of characters. For the most part, the only Looney Tunes (official Looney Tunes, I mean) who consistently appear are the same five characters we see on merchandise over and over again. I can understand the use of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety, but when others like Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd are given the shaft in favor of the Tazmanian Devil (he's only appeared in a maximum of FIVE Looney Tunes shorts-face it, he's just overexposed), something's wrong here. I already mentioned Porky and Elmer, but in addition to them, why not let us see more of the other characters, like Pepe Le Pew, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Speedy Gonzales, Wile E. Coyote and the RoadRunner more often? The guys at Warner Brothers can make a MUCH better assortment than the same five characters always bunched together.

2. Political correctness. The original Looney Tunes didn't need to be politically correct-their brand of humor was always a walk on the wild side, ranging from news headlines to making jabs at racial groups-here, they are SO PC they're not funny. Another idea is the fact that all the main Looney Tunes, disspite their androgynous designs, are considered 'male'. (As Babs Bunny once pointed out in the episode "Fields of Honey" on the far superior "Tiny Toon Adventures") The only major female Looney Tune character is Granny. So, to be politically correct, they must bring in some female characters. Big mistake. For one, we also get Lola Bunny. She was only a character introduced through "Space Jam", a new player for the "TuneSquad", but she fits just as well as making Michael Jordan a baby Looney Tune. Also, Lola shouldn't even be together with Bugs and the other Looney Tunes at this point-she met them for the first time in "Space Jam", as an adult. Similar to why the guys at Disney can't make a prequel to "Beauty and the Beast"-the two main protagonists had nothing to do with each other before the film's beginning. We also get Melissa, Daffy's girlfriend, and Petunia (but why not Porky?). They serve almost no purpose-they are just two additional "Hi, I'm nobody" characters there to increase the amount of political correctness.

3. Very modern world. If these are the Looney Tunes as babies, one would think their world would be seem extremely 1920s/1930s. But no-among the episodes I've seen, I saw a laptop, a very modern telephone, color TV, the kids once watched a very Japanese-like show, and at least one reference to children's shows like "Blue's Clues" and Cartoon Network's own "The Powerpuff Girls". (?) What the hell?? They shouldn't have this stuff, it would have been WAY ahead of their time!

If you can't tell by now, I wasn't exactly thrilled with "Baby Looney Tunes". The guys who write this show also wrote other Warner Brothers shows like "Taz-Mania", "The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries", "Pinky and the Brain", and the aforementioned "Tiny Toon Adventures". Whatever the cause, I doubt they'll put this diaper bag on the top of their resume list. While the show's budget is obviously higher than all the Cartoon Cartoons that run exclusively on Cartoon Network, it's not enough to save this show.

Another person claims this show was planned out in the late '80s and only now is being physically done. I doubt Friz Freleng, Rob McKimson, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones would be happy to see this happen to their classic characters. If you need me, I'll be watching "Tiny Toons". It's better for you.