It's incredibly easy to associate animation with certain major companies. Everyone has their own aura whether they'd know about it or not. It keeps things varied and helps give major studios their own identity. But don't get me wrong, it's not always a good identity they'd have.
Enter Warner Bros. Animation. Don't get me wrong, they have good shows... from their heyday. But overtime, it seems their passion for it had gradually waned. It started with their so-so movies back in the 90s, and this is coming from someone who doesn't hate Space Jam, Back in Action or Ozzy and Drix, and before you may think it, I love The Iron Giant.
But as they went on, Warner Bros' animated efforts began to feel more and more bland, well to me at the very least, I am a man of ludicrous to nonexistent standards after all. It's peculiar, many of Warner Bros' animated productions are bland, but I remember them for some reason. While many of their shows can be exempt from this principle, their movies cannot. It was around the late-90s that Warner Bros. dove into the barren abyss that is direct-to-video.
Let's not beat around the bush, Warner Bros. on an animation basis is all about milking their old properties however they could, with a good story to justify it being an afterthought. It can be a crossover with something as out of the blue as the WWE... or it could be an adaptation of an old tale known the world over.
Tom and Jerry is easily the worst offenders in regards to Warner Bros.' direct-to-video output, from forgettable movies that have the same feel no matter the plot, to insertions into preexisting movies. Side note, these are why I don't hate the 1995 Tom and Jerry movie, aside from the fact that I'm not scared of change, I don't give a shit about how Sonic looks, plays or sounds, I don't care that Luan Loud's going to high school, I'm not Nick fucking Sorenson, I just happen to talk about cartoons.
Self-Background
I never had a definitive network growing up. I always alternated between Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. My network nostalgia lies exclusively with TBS and Nicktoons Network, along with Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network since it's what got me interested in obscurities. If I had to ballpark it, I'd say I watched Cartoon Network the most often as a kid, mainly around 2004-5 to around 2008-9 (I based this on the fact that I remember seeing Camp Lazlo when it was new)
Around that time, Cartoon Network frequently aired movies from Warner Bros.' D2V catalog, and other movies, but frankly Casper's Scare School is looking more and more like heaven every time I go back. I saw the Scooby-Doo flicks, the Tom and Jerry flicks, I remember seeing one starring Tweety which I may revisit someday, if I could remember the title, and this.
And since all I could say is that I remember watching the movie on Cartoon Network, I'd like to take a second to rant. I don't think Cartoon Network ever had a golden age. People who stuck around for the mid-2000s had merely been desensitized, anything would look good after (insert show that is irrelevant due to it hardly being around to begin with.)
I don't know where my history with Looney Tunes began, though it certainly wasn't through this. Furthest I could go back is a lecture regarding the music score on Falling Hare, and seeing Bugs Bunny on the back of a Golden Books story cover.
Movie Background
Going into this, I expected the title to be something in relation to the "night before" formula. Ba Humduck sounds cheap.
The movie was produced in 2006 and was directed by Charles Visser. Visser is mainly a storyboard artist who had done work for various Warner Bros. cartoons including Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs and Pinky and the Brain. He would also do work on The 7D, which is a hive for animators that have mostly dropped off.
Funny thing, the guy's primairy work reminds me of the one (I'm slating their gender as indeterminate due to contrasting sides), who made The Christmas Tree, Flamarion Ferreira. They were also a storyboard artist who would do work on The 7D, though while Ferreira would never direct again, Visser would go on to direct a few episodes of Scooby Doo... Get a Clue. And The 7D.
Oh yeah and he even had involvement in one of many Tom and Jerry D2V stints.
The film used the initial crop of actors who've been associated with Looney Tunes at the time, Jeff Bergman, Joe Alaskey (rest in peace), Maurice LaMarche (wait does he count? He's in practically everything with a vibrant pulse). Plus Tara Strong... the fact that she plays a character made for the movie doesn't bode well with me.
Complaining
If the title didn't imply it already, this is a retelling of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Don't get me wrong, I'd consider it to be a Christmas classic, moreso than Frosty the Snowman, but as a public domain tale that's easy to replicate, it's ripe for exploitation. For every adaptation I've seen, they follow the original story beat for beat, it's typically a filler tale for when writers are unable to do anything with their characters for a Christmas special. I liked the one Mr Magoo did and the Muppets can bring even the most downtrodden tales to life, but the duds surface the most often.
Personally, I'd love to see more specials based around It's a Wonderful Life, not only is it more powerful but it could give life to characters in their respective shows and above all, it shows that everyone is important in life. They wouldn't even need to try to incorporate a moral.
If you've seen more than a few D2V Warner Bros. movies, you'd figure they play it straight and only stray in the worst possible places. Whatever the perception, this movie is... present.
The root concept is maintained, this time set in the present. Once more the title does us in by giving away who the Scrooge stand in is- Daffy Duck. The Looney Tunes characters are, for a lack of a better term, all over the place. Their motives, occupations, the like changes for every adaptation. In this, Daffy is the owner of a shopping mall, and apply aspects of Scrooge here. Bugs Bunny is around, but not as much as you'd expect, and honestly I'm cool with it, was never a fan of Bugs. He's the warning guy essentially, or the Fred if you want the detailed sum-up.
Porky Pig takes on the Bob Cratchit role, and... I'm confused. Up until now, and after while I'm at it, Porky had no children, they give him a daughter for one movie. I take it the writers were unfamiliar with the fact that Sylvester the Cat had a son, it would make more sense to use what they had rather than make a new character. Before you assume it's because it's a girl voiced by Tara Strong, when it comes to one-timers, the worst thing you can do is make them bland or a pawn in a known story. That'd be like throwing in new characters because you can't come up with new ideas.
To add insult to injury, Sylvester is present in this movie as the Jacob Marley stand-in, so people who incessantly know about Looney Tunes lore would be collectively smashing their keyboards right about now. But odd character choices isn't the movie's downfall, though I'll still bring them up.
The ghost of Christmas past is represented by both Granny and Tweety. Why have both? Granny is at the very least a logical choice since she's technically the oldest (by Earth years if anyone's gonna bring up technicalities), now sure Tweety's her pet, but both can operate on their own volition.
The emotional weight of the trip back to the past is ruined ten fold, even Mr. Magoo pulled it off. The way this special goes about it, they practically glance over it, and then we remember the Daffy principle, where everyone hates him. Just know that every viewing hereafter leads to a physical and verbal scolding.
The Ghost of Christmas Present is Yosemite Sam. Okay I couldn't think of anyone better and I doubt they could've either, and Daffy witnesses how his miserly attitude affects Porky and his daughter, who plays under the happy no matter the circumstances card. You'd be less human if you're always happy no matter what because then it implies that life isn't good enough for you to recognize what's wrong in the world.
The Ghost of Christmas Future is... Taz. I would've picked Marvin the Martian, but honestly it'd be as random as the other choices. Aside from the time period, they did change one major aspect of this movie. The Tiny Tim stand-in lives. Once more, Mr. Magoo, even Muppets, Tiny Tim bites the big one and it plays a part in Scrooge wanting to better himself.
I'm not mad they abandoned a key point to the original story, just the fact that they show Daffy had died. Just a point blank statement would've been fine. It's not even cutting edge, it's a sterilization that appeals to 30 year old men who shit themselves when it comes to gross-out.
The daughter visits Daffy's grave, and that's the drive needed to get Daffy to his senses. Something tells me everyone really favored Tara Strong during production. No wonder she became a bitch.
Anyway, upon reawakening, it's just the post slumber scene of the original story with jokes in relation to Looney Tunes.
Overall
I had seen this movie more than once on television, maybe that's why I was able to remember it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here right now. I can't call the framework here unfortunate, it's a bland story frame against a studio that gears out bland production after bland production. If animation studios were dogs, Warner Bros. had been neutered long ago, and overtime the area where a dick used to be had been sanded off.
All I got from this was a desire to see a standalone movie with Penelope Pussycat. I think they could get away with it nowadays.
No comments:
Post a Comment