MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Bunny Back

It’s nice to see WB trying yet again to revive Looney Tunes.
The only hole in Brooks Barnes’ story, as best I can tell, is that he didn’t know about the five (if it was a different number, please correct me, oh geeks of lore) shorts that WB commissioned and completed around the time of Osmosis Jones laying an egg in 2001. The shorts were tested… and universally disliked, apparently.
The really hard thing is that you can’t just role out the old characters. You need someone with a strong voice who can do what the guys who first did Looney Tunes did… bring their own thing to the party. Just as Chuck Jones and Robert McKimson and Friz Freleng and Tex Avery each did something different with some of the same characters.
The greatest classic revival I’ve seen is John K’s Mighty Mouse. But even if you just look at what Matt Groenig and company have done with the sitcom… and then, look at where Seth MacFarlane took it. It’s not that the foundation is so unique… it’s the perspective (combined with a great deal of talent).
Shouldn’t Todd Graff, writer/director of Camp, get a check for every episode of Glee that airs? And while we’re at it, send a few bucks to Michael Meyer, who directed Spring Awakening and not only made musical theater cool for teens again, but splayed Lea Michele out on the stage naked to hit those high notes with Jonathan Groff (not Graff). Or do we just award the prize to Kenny Ortega and Peter Barsocchini for doing High School Musical.
And every one of those shows… different voices because different, completely committed people did the work. They weren’t just looking to revive something. (Broadway’s biggest kink in recent years was revivals directed by the original director… like you were seeing it in the 50s. Bad idea. Meanwhile, the greatest successes in revivals have, for the most part, been about finding new voices… usually with a British accent.)
So I wish them luck, I would love my son to watch as many hours of Looney Tunes as I did growing up. And he will… even if this revival fails utterly. The oldies are still pretty sensational.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “Bunny Back”

  1. Cadavra says:

    Joe Dante nailed it with LOONEY TUNES: BACK IN ACTION, but Warners botched the release so completely that the film itself now has the thoroughly unwarranted rep of being a stinker.

  2. Sam says:

    Cadavra: Agreed. I avoided seeing Back In Action for a long time because of its reputation (and because of how Space Jam botched the characters). When I finally caught up with it earlier this year, I was pleasantly surprised. While no masterpiece, that movie completely *got* the characters and did some pretty funny stuff with them.
    But the message from the box office was that doing the Looney Tunes right doesn’t make money. So we’re presumably going to continue to get weird, painful corruptions of them indefinitely.
    Fortunately, Warner is still respecting the classic cartoons. Four more DVDs of newly restored shorts coming later this year.

  3. jeffmcm says:

    It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the problems LT:BIA had weren’t to do with the animated characters, but the live-action ones.
    “…look at what Matt Groenig and company have done with the sitcom… and then, look at where Seth MacFarlane took it”
    What, backwards away from smart, emotional storytelling and into pure, meaningless post-modern referentiality?

  4. Chucky in Jersey says:

    This ain’t about artistry. It’s all about Breathless Hype! Corporate Synergy! Hard Sell! Product Tie-Ins!
    Sure as hell beats trying to film anything original that people will want to see.

  5. The Big Perm says:

    Ironic that Chucky is complaining about originality.

  6. Sam says:

    Chucky, I agree it’s not about artistry, but come on, do you honestly think this is a case of breathless hype? Clearly this is a classic case of product flow.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon