Aneesa Wardle
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
tommypezmaster
Sad, pathetic, charmless, and humourless. How can anyone possibly find any humour in this poorly made, unintelligent piece of S**T.I had very low hopes for this TV show after seeing the episode "Taz You Like It" on FoxBox before it was 4kids TV. Usually when the channel raves about something, they're desperate for viewers and try their best to over-hype it. They did the same thing with "The Buzz on Maggie", another pathetic animated show from 4kids entertament.I watched the first episode, and laughed once, during The Bus scene. I watched the episode I mented, and found it so dull that I couldn't watch it all.This show is so badly written, lacking in intelligence, charm, subtlety and basic humour that I can't possibly see how anyone could like it.Let me give you an example of how bad the jokes are: "Taz Broke Hairy-Gary"Does that mean you're ugly now?" Yes, the jokes, The Animation & Voice-Acting are seriously THAT bad.Do yourself a favour: avoid this & bring back Catscratch
tweiss1981
Okay, people here we have "Baby Looney Tunes", which might seem cute, but is simply lame and uninspired.I've seen more than 4 or 5 episodes and I can attest this show is nothing special for anybody. I will not get caught up in the "Muppet Babies" debate (hence, I anticipate that anybody who grew up watching "Muppet Babies" will mention it). All I'll say is that this show is not a mere "Muppet Babies" knock-off. That would be an understatement. (Plus, is it any coincidence that "Granny" rhymes with "Nanny"?)The problems I have with this cartoon are many:1. Choice of characters. For the most part, the only Looney Tunes (official Looney Tunes, I mean) who consistently appear are the same five characters we see on merchandise over and over again. I can understand the use of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety, but when others like Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd are given the shaft in favor of the Tazmanian Devil (he's only appeared in a maximum of FIVE Looney Tunes shorts-face it, he's just overexposed), something's wrong here. I already mentioned Porky and Elmer, but in addition to them, why not let us see more of the other characters, like Pepe Le Pew, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Speedy Gonzales, Wile E. Coyote and the RoadRunner more often? The guys at Warner Brothers can make a MUCH better assortment than the same five characters always bunched together.2. Political correctness. The original Looney Tunes didn't need to be politically correct-their brand of humor was always a walk on the wild side, ranging from news headlines to making jabs at racial groups-here, they are SO PC they're not funny. Another idea is the fact that all the main Looney Tunes, disspite their androgynous designs, are considered 'male'. (As Babs Bunny once pointed out in the episode "Fields of Honey" on the far superior "Tiny Toon Adventures") The only major female Looney Tune character is Granny. So, to be politically correct, they must bring in some female characters. Big mistake. For one, we also get Lola Bunny. She was only a character introduced through "Space Jam", a new player for the "TuneSquad", but she fits just as well as making Michael Jordan a baby Looney Tune. Also, Lola shouldn't even be together with Bugs and the other Looney Tunes at this point-she met them for the first time in "Space Jam", as an adult. Similar to why the guys at Disney can't make a prequel to "Beauty and the Beast"-the two main protagonists had nothing to do with each other before the film's beginning. We also get Melissa, Daffy's girlfriend, and Petunia (but why not Porky?). They serve almost no purpose-they are just two additional "Hi, I'm nobody" characters there to increase the amount of political correctness.3. Very modern world. If these are the Looney Tunes as babies, one would think their world would be seem extremely 1920s/1930s. But no-among the episodes I've seen, I saw a laptop, a very modern telephone, color TV, the kids once watched a very Japanese-like show, and at least one reference to children's shows like "Blue's Clues" and Cartoon Network's own "The Powerpuff Girls". (?) What the hell?? They shouldn't have this stuff, it would have been WAY ahead of their time!If you can't tell by now, I wasn't exactly thrilled with "Baby Looney Tunes". The guys who write this show also wrote other Warner Brothers shows like "Taz-Mania", "The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries", "Pinky and the Brain", and the aforementioned "Tiny Toon Adventures". Whatever the cause, I doubt they'll put this diaper bag on the top of their resume list. While the show's budget is obviously higher than all the Cartoon Cartoons that run exclusively on Cartoon Network, it's not enough to save this show.
Another person claims this show was planned out in the late '80s and only now is being physically done. I doubt Friz Freleng, Rob McKimson, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones would be happy to see this happen to their classic characters. If you need me, I'll be watching "Tiny Toons". It's better for you.
overtheedge27
I'm sorry, it may seem like a cute idea, but there are a numerous amount of things that bother me about the show. First of all, I have to agree with one of the earlier comments that the show is just a lame a rip off of Jim Henson's "Muppet Babies" (without the funny fantasy segments). This especially goes for Granny, who I used to admire before this show. She had quite a personality in the old Looney Tunes cartoons, but here, they've turned her into a bland care-giver.If that isn't bothersome enough, all the characters are friends in this show. It really makes you wonder what caused them all to be enemies when they grew up, and it had to be more than just animal instinct. And above all...WHERE'S PORKY PIG?! I see Petunia on a few occasions, but no Porky. This show is just a crying shame.
