Now THIS will offend every one (warner bros)

[Lugaru]

Not that Im trying to make people angry but Im pretty ticked of myself...

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/281771p-241321c.html

Turns out they are updating Bugs bunny and his friends to make them you know.. X-treme!

Feeling kinda Ill, I'll be in the bathroom if any one needs me.

 

[kitchenelf]

Now THAT is offensive!!!! :twisted:

 

[middie]

That's a sin !!!!!!!!!!

 

[luvs]

sellouts!

 

[buckytom]

it'll never fly. the older looney tunes were classics (for a reason), and will endure. the new sleek and vicious looking ones will pass as a fad, imo.

 

[Brooksy]

Yep. I'm old school as well.

Problem is Bucky, the Bumblebee can fly.

Hopefully these things could be 'Spruce Gooses'.

Started, f*rted, slipped & fell. We can only hope.

 

[-DEADLY SUSHI-]

*ripping shirt* ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! :x

 

[ronjohn55]

*ripping shirt* ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! :x

Oh great, first superhero Looney Toons, and now DS has turned into the Hulk!!!

Fight!
Fight!

John

 

[-DEADLY SUSHI-]

Hey Ronjon did you check out Futurama meets Star Trek???? Bender is in it! :P

 

[ronjohn55]

Not yet - there's a bug with our media players at work, and the home PC is currently offline till the weekend.

John

 

[irishtravel1]

I must be showing my age, but the new Bugs Bunny can never compete with one one we grew up to love.

 

[Lugaru]

it'll never fly. the older looney tunes were classics (for a reason), and will endure. the new sleek and vicious looking ones will pass as a fad, imo.

About it being a "fad" that's the funniest part... I dont know but all this sounds REALLY 90's to me where everything was "extreme" and all that. Of course I havent watched cartoons really for the last few years (been too busy since I moved to the us) but I doubt people are still making stuff as dumb as this regularly.

And the drawings... gawd... Im just going to say they are bad and primitive at best... it really make's me wonder about "back in the day". I mean where they spending HUGE ammounts on the cartoons or what because those old time cartoons where PERFECT and perfectly animated.

 

[Raine]

Silly Rabbit

 

[Magia]

And the drawings... gawd... Im just going to say they are bad and primitive at best... it really make's me wonder about "back in the day". I mean where they spending HUGE ammounts on the cartoons or what because those old time cartoons where PERFECT and perfectly animated.

They where drawn and animated by hand!
Computers may speed up the production process but it is not the same quality, IMO. Just like the Disney movies. Pinocchio, Bamby, Peter Pan... don't you guys find those classics to be so much more "alive" than the ones recently made? Like Mulan, Nemo, Lilo & Stich, Aladdin... sure they are all great stories, but quality of the movies is certainly different.

Nothing made like hand-made.

 

[keen kook]

I thought I would put this to the test. Us "old-timers" have had our say in here.

I showed the new-look pics to my 11 year old daughter & my 8 year old son and their emphatic and unanimous reaction was "YEUCH"!

This from two "modern" kids who see all the latest kids' cartoons and movies.

Just goes to show you - you can't beat a classic!

 

[kitchenelf]

Silly Rabbit

Oh now that's just wild - took be a second to realize I had control of it!!! lol - poor thing hangs at the upper right when you "x" out!!!!

 

[buckytom]

And the drawings... gawd... Im just going to say they are bad and primitive at best... it really make's me wonder about "back in the day". I mean where they spending HUGE ammounts on the cartoons or what because those old time cartoons where PERFECT and perfectly animated.

They where drawn and animated by hand!
Computers may speed up the production process but it is not the same quality, IMO. Just like the Disney movies. Pinocchio, Bamby, Peter Pan... don't you guys find those classics to be so much more "alive" than the ones recently made? Like Mulan, Nemo, Lilo & Stich, Aladdin... sure they are all great stories, but quality of the movies is certainly different.

Nothing made like hand-made.

i have a particular interest in this since one of my specialties at work is fixing higher end animation computers (not used at the same level of rendering as movies, but for sports and news). i think what magia says is interesting. that the "life" has been removed from animations, because of digital rendering, rather than hand painted frames. it's the same debate as audiophiles had with "cd quality" audio v.s. the "warm" sound of analog recordings. in an abstract way, it's also the same as the "colorizing" of old b&w movies. some classic things are truely better left alone.

however, as far as the digital generation goes; it has and will eventually be "better" than the originals (see shrek), only because of the physical limitations of humans, and the manipulation of electrons and photons. (i am a geek ). we can't hear and see better than we are physically able to. but then you get into the part of the arguement of the limitations (or lack thereof?) of the brain. can some of us really hear or see the differences in digital levels of audio and video v.s. the infinite changes of analog recordings, much like a supertaster can detect minute flavors in a dish? it remains to be seen.
phew, thanks for reading this far down. i need a beer...

p.s. with all of my quotation marks, i miss lifter.

 

[luvs]

can some of us really hear or see the differences in digital levels of audio and video v.s. the infinite changes of analog recordings, much like a supertaster can detect minute flavors in a dish?

yep. it's called hyperacuity. i have hyperacute senses. it's none too pleasant.

 

[lyndalou]

Disgusting!!! :x

 

[buckytom]

oh, hyeracuity not's that bad lyndalou. it just sounds bad...