Jump to content

Talk:Looney Tunes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.203.11.231 (talk) at 05:55, 8 June 2020 (→‎Time Warner caves to far-left extremist anti-gun nuts.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Relationship between Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies

The Merrie Melodies article (opening section) refers to Looney Tunes as a parent series, while the Looney Tunes article (opening section) refers to Merrie Melodies as a sister series. Which is more accurate? In the absence of such thing as some sort of series incest, these relationships apparently contradict.

2warped@gmail.com 71.238.46.250 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains no useful info and it was just a reruns of the original series/ JDDJS (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

good idea 13jospin (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of The Martian Queen content

In these sets of edits [1][2] user Zjec added content about a Martian Queen character. I feel this content is clunky and distracts from the scope of the paragraph, which is to present a quick prose list of various Looney Tunes series. I also don't think the parentheticals that indicate who "stars" in the series is useful and it invites more additions like the Martian Queen. For this reason (which I explained in my original edit summary I am removing the content again. If the paragraph were specifically about Duck Dodgers, it would make more sense to mention the Martian Queen, but that is not what the paragraph intends to cover. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is. She's another looney tunes character and thought it'd be nice to give her some recognition - 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) user Zjec
We don't give "recognition" to characters; information shouldn't be gratuitously included. If there is a logical reason for writing about a character in a paragraph that is focused on the different series, you haven't yet explained it. The focus of the paragraph isn't "characters in Looney Tunes shows" or "new characters introduced in Looney Tunes shows". Thus, I find it an unnecessary inclusion, especially when stuffed into a parenthetical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rabbit an epic?

Does Who Framed Roger Rabbit qualify as an epic film? While I enjoyed the film I don't think it has particularly "large scale, sweeping scope and spectacle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptographicallyInsecure (talkcontribs) 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CryptographicallyInsecure Hi, I don't think it's the correct way to describe the film. I changed epic to film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Looney Tunes article

Why was it reverted back to the previous one? The Merrie Melodies article still mentions the one-off 1988 revival, so why can't this article mention the 1987 to present revival? 24.180.56.157 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the last pre-revival Looney Tunes short ended in 1969, not 1970. 24.180.56.157 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Looney Tunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Looney Tunes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Shorts

The new shorts which are said to be released in 2019 could possibly be the third and final season of Wabbit/New Looney Tunes. Doesn't make sense they would start a new series before finishing the current series. YouDontKnowSponge (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be. Bergman isn't voicing Bugs, Eric Bauza is. Peter Browngardt isn't on Wabbit staff. Wabbit cartoons are longer than these shorts--Harmony944 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The third season could be retooled like how the second season was retooled from the first season. Perhaps different people also worked on the third season. They could have changed the voice of Bugs for Season 3. Daffy is also in his New Looney Tunes design in a teaser image. Time will only tell. YouDontKnowSponge (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're really grasping at straws--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 15:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comics

dose anyone what to help with Draft:List of looney tunes comic books Fanoflionking

Taz

dose any want to help with Draft:List of Taz-Mania episodes Fanoflionking

TV

dose anyone want to help with List of Looney Tunes television series Fanoflionking

"Goonie Tunes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goonie Tunes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

In the third paragraph of the introduction it has been changed to say Bugs Bunny is a rapist and has died. (outlined in bold below) Page was then semi-protected so falsehoods cannot be changed. Rollback to previous true version is required

Looney Tunes has since become a worldwide media franchise, spawning several television series, feature films, comic books, music albums, video games, and amusement park rides, as well as serving as Warner Bros.' flagship franchise. Many of the characters have made and continue to make cameo appearances in various other television shows, films, and advertisements. The most famous Looney Tunes character is Bugs Bunny, a struggling rapist who left the world on the 22nd of March, 2020 to witness perfection.[4] Several Looney Tunes films are considered among the greatest animated cartoons of all time (e.g. Duck Amuck, One Froggy Evening and What's Opera, Doc?; All three Merrie Melodies), and five (three Merrie Melodies: Tweetie Pie, Speedy Gonzales and Birds Anonymous; and two Looney Tunes: Knighty Knight Bugs and For Scent-imental Reasons) have won Academy Awards.[5] Bhar7198Bhar (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Javathunderman and Trivialist have already removed the vandalism. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Time Warner caves to far-left extremist anti-gun nuts.

The anti-gun rights radical leftists in control of the corporation won't let the hunter Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam have guns because of "gun violence": [3] I see no reason why only criticism of the cartoon by leftists hysterically screaming "Racism!" over certain episodes created eighty years ago should be included in the article. If you truly are a neutral encyclopedia, you will include criticism by normal Americans over the show's recent radical leftist political agenda.