Baby Looney Tunes

I get it, Warner Bros. just needed something new to paste the Looney Tunes on to make a profit and while the intentions of the program are fine and all...It just doesn't really fit these characters at all. The Looney Tunes were not exactly designed as pure hearted characters who were particularly aspirational moral gurus for audience to connect with, they were a stark contrast to Disney's animation and made to be more wild, over the top, and edgier(hence why so many of the classic animated shorts happened to show right before gangster films and action serials). When it ran on television reception was pretty mixed, I recall the general mindset being that it was well intended and the lessons being taught were just fine but it was all pretty out of character for those familiar with the franchise. Okay for a toddler.

It's supposed to be a children's show so get over it. I understand that there are many mistakes but none of the children I know are going to sit down, watch this, and try to analyze this show. Even if the characters were introduced in the 20's and 30's, no child in their right mind is going to sit there and say "hmmmm, isn't Granny supposed to be younger?" or "Lola isn't supposed to be here. She showed up in Space Jam." So what if it's a rip-off of Muppet Babies or Rugrats. Every show is a ripoff of something. Here in Detroit, Baby Looney Tunes is shown from 9:30 am - 10:30 am. Therefore, little kids ages 1-4 are watching around this time. Bottom line, Baby Looney Tunes is made to entertain young children. Let them do that.

I think that one should think of these shows (the old-timey Looney Tunes and Baby Looney Tunes) as two different shows.

The latter is a cutesy, gentle kind of cartoon that gives good messages to tots--but, also, to kids of all ages, because we never outgrow our need for learning lessons.

It's what you would call a sweet cartoon--and I would rather have kids exposed to sweet cartoons like this that also happens to have wonderful animation than that same tired stuff that they also show on the Cartoon Network that is woodenly-animated and sparse in meaningful plot.

The Looney Tunes I grew up with (I'm 51 years old) are the traditional ones, and they're full of slapstick, current event comedy that adults can appreciate on their own level (make that historical events for most of us), and amazing animation.

They're very fun and looney as the name implies, but they also exercise your mind as you keep on your toes for getting the double meanings.

Looney Tunes and others of their ilk also were music appreciation mini-courses, as they used a lot of classical, jazz, and other musical genres as background music at times and as part of the actual plot at other times.

Sadly, I see very little of those cartoons in the calibre of Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, Popeye, Rocky & Bullwinkle, etc. shown on The Cartoon Network.

And Baby Looney Tunes--while given a somewhat bigger piece of the pie--only represents a small portion of what's on there.

There are other really cute and funny cartoons on this network, but it seems as if most of it is made up of those very woodenly-animated, same old plot kind of cartoons.

They're of the animae type--which people tout as being something really special--but it's the most primitive of this type of cartooning to the place that all the different cartoons kinda go together.

This is one of the worst cartoon shows to ever be thought up. It features the Looney Tunes gang as babies whose characters are not at all identical to their grownup counterparts (with the exception of Daffy). To make matters worse, there is not an ounce of creativity put into this show. The episodes are ripped off from plots of other shows such as "Rugrats" and "Muppet Babies." For example, there was an episode where the babies experienced their first snowfall. Wasn't there a "Rugrats" episode like that? There was also an episode where the babies go out to play in the puddles and Daffy is afraid to get into the water (ironic isn't it?). There was a "Muppet Babies" episode just like this where Fozzie was afraid to swim.

Not only do they rip off other episodes, they make the mistake of adding Lola Bunny from SPACE JAM. I feel that Lola was very unnecessary. She is not even an actual Looney Tune. They also added Melissa the duck who appeared in such classic WB shorts as THE SCARLET PUMPERNICKLE and MUSSEL TUSSEL.

Overall, I feel that this show is a total disgrace to the classic cartoons that WB produced from the 30's through 60's. I bet that Chuck Jones, Michael Maltese, and Bob Clampett (to name a few) have made thousands of revolutions in their graves when this godawful show came out. It will be a blessing when this show goes off the air after the creators run out of "Rugrats" and "Muppet Babies" episodes from which to copy.

I was born in the good times - the Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Show ran from 9:00AM until 10:30AM every Saturday morning. Life was good.

Now, all I've got is some brat named Caliou and other assorted Disney characters to offer my 3 year old. Thanks to Baby Looney Tunes, I can introduce her to the characters I love so much. Since she got into Baby Looney Tunes (which wasn't hard), she loves to watch the true animated shorts with me.

Bottom line: Taken on its own, it's pretty bad. In the Looney Universe, it's a great introduction to all our favorites.