The Looney Tunes are one of the most important and innovative chapters, a ground breaking moment in the history of animated films. Each and every short of that golden era is filled with mind blowing inventions, both in matter of comedy (visual and spoken) and of animation. The Looney Tunes are ageless because they are archetypal. You can identify with the characters of the Looney Tunes not because they live in the same suburban house as you, but because they think and react in a way you think and react, or at least you wish you could react. Chuck Jones says in his autobiography: "Why do we love great comedians? Not for what they look like, but for what they do... They are mirrors of what we do, or, in the case of the comic hero, what we would like to be able to do." Setting them in a suburban house with a pool and bathrobes is limiting their universality. It takes away all their archetypal stature, deprives them of their metaphorical dimension and oversimplifies or even cancels their allegorical complexity.
Unlike today's animated pictures, in the Looney Tunes there were no moral lessons to be taught. There were no "good messages". They had no educative value whatsoever. Those films offered some moments of freedom from all this. Bugs and Daffy never were some docile, middle class sitcom characters. They were marginals with no values, making fun of everything, defying conventions. Those shows were pure comical anarchy, combining the great slapstick comedy of the 20s and the 30s and the dialectical wits of the Marx Brothers. They had no rules, no predetermined setups, no cuteness, no false kindness. The Looney Tunes consisted in the pure pleasure of a funny story told in movement, music, sound and color. Again, the great Chuck Jones talks about the stories an uncle used to tell him. He says: "the ending was all a small boy could hope for: there was never a hint of morality, no overt heavy-handed effort to make us better children, better adults, or better at anything except learning the love of listening."
"The Looney Tunes Show" is oblivious of everything accomplished by the creators of the Looney Tunes. These polished, spineless, spiritless, witless excuses of characters are not the ones we know. The only thing that makes this show relate with the Looney Tunes is the fact that they use the same model sheets for the characters. That is all. This show has castrated Bugs and Daffy and made them docile and harmless. Bugs is now living in a suburban house, has a pool cleaned by a pool boy. He has a wallet and a credit card and does jokes about Daffy being unable to make a coffee. The plots are predetermined by this horrible sitcom set, making it impossible of any original invention (in comedy or in animation). This show is just another sitcom. Only, instead of Chandler and Joey, you have a rabbit and a duck -who are as gutless as the Friends. In the original Looney Tunes, Daffy could be an inspector in space, a cowboy, a robin hood-like buffoon -he could be all of that and yet he never ceased being Daffy Duck; he was not delimited by the role he was given. The Looney Tunes were put in situations that they completely turned around by being characters. In this confrontation between character and role (which reflects the real life confrontation between the individual and the situations in which he is constantly subdued and who constantly tend to shape him, break him and make him comply) the character was always the winner. The personality of Daffy could not be restrained by a role. And that's comedy: it's all about character, about personality dismantling the situation. "(...)character is all that matters in the making of great comedians, in animation and in live action." says, again, Chuck Jones. In this show Daffy and Bugs are trapped in the situation (it is a situational comedy, after all, not a character comedy). Now their role IS their character, thus making them unable to bent it, deny it, destroy it and make fun of it. They are no longer free of it, or free to defy it. The obey it and live with it. They are trapped in it.
Concerning the animation part, this show is a disgrace. And I think that even those who find it funny will agree with this. This is not an animation; it is an animated version of a TV sitcom. I can not understand how someone who has the intention of using the Looney Tunes characters can ignore in such a blatant way the fact that the Looney Tunes set bases for the art of animation and completely transformed it. If you want to bring the Looney Tunes back, you have to at least try to do something like that. But, what we have here is an animation who simply tries to mimic the visual layout of a stereotypical television sitcom. Who directs these stuff? What happened to the art of animation? When did it lose its aesthetic autonomy? When was it stripped of its own codes and given those of TV sitcoms? This show is irrelevant. It does not have and will never have any impact whatsoever in the history of comedy and surely not in the history of animation. In its best moments it vaguely reminds the real Looney Tunes just by copying and rehashing the real inventions that took place back then. The characters have been reduced in playing the roles of their character. There are no characters in this show, just roles played by empty drawings trying to imitate something they once were. This is a pitiful animated sitcom wasting some of the most amazing and beautiful characters ever created in animation history. Looney Tunes made history. This show is unmaking it.