From: walkerjo@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: Are the Tiny Toonsters rip-offs? (was Re: Weekday Afternoon Live)
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:56:11 PST

In article <1eokaqINNpin@aludra.usc.edu>, rjung@aludra.usc.edu (Robert A. Jung) writes:
> (Rob reaches into the closet, and pulls out a sign reading "Toon Metaphysics
> discussion in progress". He plants it into the ground with a low THUD.)
> 

[introductory stuff deleted]

 
>>You have to admit, there is a young 'toon for every popular Classic
>>'toon, except in the case of Bugs Bunny, in which there are two.
> 
>   First flaw with this argument: Yes, every Looney has an equivalent
> character in the TINY TOONS cast, but it's not always a direct copy. Can you
> honestly say there is much of a relationship between Porky and Hamton, other
> than them being pigs? And while Buster and Babs may be bunnies to Bugs, their
> personalities are VASTLY different, IMO (Bugs is too unflappably perfect for
> my taste, sorta the WB equivalent of Superman. Buster and Babs, meanwhile,
> are flawed, screw up on occassion, and are therefore more identifiable to
> me). How about Furrball and Sylvester? And I won't even need to mention
> Sweetie and Tweety...  >wince<
> 
>   Now, granted, some of the characters DO seem like direct copies -- Plucky
> and Daffy, Li'l Beeper and the Road Runner, and Calamity and Wile E. come to
> mind.  But if you work out "Number of direct copies" vs. "Number of
> non-copies", the original Tiny Toons characters outnumber the "clones"
> easily.  Throw in the Tiny Toonsters who have NO equivalent in the Looney
> Tunes cast, and it becomes a chasm of difference. Arnold the pit bull?
> Shirley the Loon? Byron Bassett? Concord Condor? GOGO?  B-)

Concord Condor does have an equivalent in the classic LT; he is an almost exact
copy of a condor Bugs fought with at least once.  I'm sure some toonaholic out
there can supply the name of the 'toon; it's the one where the baby condor is
forced to chase Bugs by his mother.
As for the other characters you mention, Shirley the Loon and Arnold the pit 
bull are direct swipes from Shirley MacClaine(sp?) and Arnold you-know-who.
As for the Bassett, he's always seemed to me to be a direct rip from some of
the best aspects of Droopy.  They may not be based on classic 'toons, but
that doesn't make them original.
Tiny Toons has yet to come up with a single truly original character or
situation, IMHO.

> 
>>And the young
>>'toons often perform routines which were done originally by their classic
>>counterparts. I've seen Buster holding up a sign saying "Silly, isn't he?".
> 
>   Yes, but there's a difference between "often" and "always". Even a casual
> glance of TINY TOONS will indicate that the show is not out to copy verbatum
> the original Looney Tunes routines. And, as mentioned before, the character
> interactions between the Tiny Toonsters allow for MORE story ideas and scripts
> than the original Loonies could ever do. As with the characters themselves,
> there is some recycling of old ideas; but for the most part, there is more
> original material here, and certainly not enough (in my mind, anyway) to
> justify calling TINY TOONS a "ripoff".

Au contraire, mon frere.  The 'character interactions' between the Tiny ones
are, more often than not, one-dimensional and limiting.  IMHO, it was a *big*
mistake to set the show in a specific place, Acme Acres, and try to establish
a fairly tight continuity between shows.  One of the things that made the
classic 'toons great was their flexability; Daffy could go from Olde Englande
as Robin Hood to the far future as Duck Dodgers and nobody had to explain why
or how he did it.
Putting all the characters in school together makes the show more like an
Archie comic book than a great 'toon.
> 
>>So, we can enjoy the Tiny Toons for what they are, without trying to make
>>excuses for their origins. 
> 
>   I have nothing with calling a rip-off a rip-off, if there's justification
> for the label. I think (and I believe Synth agress with me here) that, in the
> case of TINY TOONS versus the original LOONEY TUNES, though, there's not much
> to support the call...
> 
To each his own opinion.  I started out as a fan of TINY TOONS, but reached the
saturation point very quickly.  I still tune in once in a while, I even try
to catch the episodes people rave about, but nothing seems to have changed.
The characters are pale shadows of other 'toons going through retreads of
gags that can *never* be as funny as when Chuck Jones or Tex Avery or any of 
the other Great Ones did them the first time.
Saddest of all is what the show does to the originals; the Bugs in TTA is an
insult to the work of those who once made him so alive and real, and that's
true of the rest of them as well.

Joe Walker
walkerjo@cgsvax.claremont.edu

Newsgroups: alt.tv.tiny-toon