I don’t really get the point of sanitizing cartoon violence like this. Explosives, scythes and knives, and blunt force trauma from anvils and boulders or bats and fists aren’t as deadly in the real world? Of course in the old cartoons Fudd and Sam’s guns were as anemic as these blasts of dynamite or pianos falling on characters.
Slapstick violence has a long history in comedy and I don’t think its existence has been detrimental to society.
That said, it is nice to see new Looney Tunes Cartoons.
Wow, you guys are gonna fucking hate Itchy & Scratchy.
What about Yosemite Sam?
Ever see Happy Tree Friends? That was one show that I eventually was like… eh… that’s too much for me.
Not even focusing on all of the blatantly racist examples out there in some of those cartoons, I feel like in general the whole series of those cartoons celebrates being a bully (the hero often just sneaking up and assaulting the other character for their own amusement), and the world has been slightly better off since they went out of style. I might be wrong, but I’ve always seen slapstick as humor for people who like seeing people get hurt, and I don’t think children need to be fed that stuff. Plus it just kind of sucks, nobody is watching that stuff anymore. The only reason this is being made now is that warner bros has a huge investment in it, not because anybody was asking for it.
Let’s see what the audience thinks…
Yeah, “New Looney Toons” is red flag enough. When have ANY of the modern takes on these characters ever been worth watching? The classics frequently have me in stitches, but I can’t think of single laugh I’ve gotten from any of WB’s attempts over the last five decades to revisit them.
IMHO, the problem is that in cartoons, guns never harm anyone, they are effectively toys. In real life, they are the furthest there can be from a toy.
And there are children too young to understand the difference that would try to reenact the cartoon if they get their hands on a gun, expecting to shoot and put blackface on somebody but instead putting a bloody hole in them.
Of course this also applies to dynamite, TNT, scythes, swords, clubs, etc.
But unlike all those, guns both saturate the US and are utterly unforgiving of any mistake.
So yes, I think that there is a greater risk to gun cartoon violence than any other violence.
Graphic violence may be beneficial:
‘Our estimates suggest that in the short run, violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend.’
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4725587_Does_Movie_Violence_Increase_Violent_Crime
I can state with 100% confidence that after this change, there will be zero real-life deaths due to cartoon violence.
What is that from?
I’m pretty sure the gun was in it from the beginning. He’s a hunter, after all. So at best this is selective “grandfathering”.
In thinking back on it, one of the key things I took away from the Looney Tunes cartoons was how even though the “bad guys” had guns, they didn’t win because of it. They were made into fools in spite of being strapped. Their weapons were even used against them by having barrels plugged, or by being tied into bows.
I’m not sure how seeing Elmer Fudd running around with a scythe is going to be any better. Unless they want to get the youngsters familiar with mobile, muscle powered guillotines.
Well, “only fired his pistols in the air” is not true. “Dance, you varmint!” was his catch phrase…
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a cartoon is a good guy with a cartoon.
Or something.
Random Googling gave it me.
OK, I’ll grant your “Dance, you varmint”. I had misremembered that.
Still, Sam never actually shot at someone; he shot up in the air, or at the floor. Fudd was just a poor shot; he aimed to hit, when he shot, but almost always missed. (Except for the occasional hit that blew Daffy’s bill apart, with about the same effectiveness as Bug’s TNT).
Anyway, no actual people or animals were hurt in any way (except, the psyche of modern children) by the fictional, exagerated, often satirical “violence”. And, that’s history.
I guess that producers still like that fictional, exagerated violence, but are trying to be a bit more, shall we say, “selective” about the violence they show. And, that’s today. If the level of violence that WB espouses now (and other “cartoons” espouse) is acceptable to the viewers, the cartoon will survive and thrive.
(Edited to recognize the times that Elmer actually hit someone)
All of this will undermine Itchy and Scratchy’s satire.
Precisely.
Even with the problematic sexist and racist elements present in much of the classic Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies cartoons, I still prefer them to any modern versions.
Cool, but what’d be even better is if ACTUAL people - that is, non-cartoon ones - stopped KILLING ANIMALS FOR FUN
ETA:
Username checks out ;-).
