New 'Looney Tunes' Episodes Will Feature 'Cartoony Violence,' But Not Guns
The Hollywood left has officially established a new gun-free zone: the wacky world of “Looney Tunes.”
Fans of the Warner Bros. cartoon classic received a treat late last month, as streaming service HBO Max premiered “Looney Toons Cartoons” as its latest platform exclusive.
A change of pace from modernized — and at times gimmicky — recent iterations of the series, “Looney Toons Cartoons” is a smooth return to the roots and aesthetic of golden-age slapstick.
Of course, with the series being a 21st century homage to good, old-fashioned 20th century fun, the corporate and creative overlords of progressive California were intent on making a few changes in order not to offend a weak-stomached modern audience.
So, no firearms allowed.
“Hunting wabbits” just got a whole lot harder for our favorite brown-clad, baby-faced misadventure Elmer Fudd.
That old double-barreled shotgun you likely cannot imagine him without? Gone.
And Yosemite Sam? Well, he better get to work changing his world-renowned catchphrase — because an honest cowboy ought not be claiming the mantle of “hootin’est, tootin’est, shootin’est bob-tail wildcat in the west” without two well-polished revolvers to prove it.
According to The New York Times, the Warner Bros. executives and cartoonists in charge of bringing the classic energy of “Looney Toons” back to life in the current day were sure to include more than enough cartoon violence to be on brand.
The removal of firearms from the cartoon landscape, however, was a conscious choice, executive producer and showrunner Peter Browngardt revealed.
“We’re not doing guns,” Browngardt told The Times.
“But we can do cartoony violence — TNT, the Acme stuff. All that was kind of grandfathered in.”
Why weapons as serious as explosives, or the sickle now carried by Elmer Fudd, were not removed from the lineup remains unclear — particularly considering Browngardt and others’ willingness to admit several shorts had “gone a little too far” in terms of subject matter, and would likely have to appear in an adult content viewing slight like “Adult Swim” on Cartoon Network.
Such considerations did nothing to stop former Warner Bros. animator and writer Michael Ruocco from defending the decision Sunday on Twitter, attacking those with complaints and suggesting the removal of firearms was an important step given the “context about what’s going on in the world” when it comes to gun violence.
“Do you guys SERIOUSLY care whether or not Elmer Fudd has a gun in our shorts? You know how many gags we can do with guns? Fairly few. And the best were already done by the old guys. It’s limiting. It was never about the gun, it was about Elmer’s flawed, challenged masculinity,” Ruocco wrote.
“Also, think about context about what’s going on in the world, and how long ago our show started production. Late 2017, early 2018. Right on the heels of a record number of mass shootings, particularly the horrific one in Las Vegas. NOBODY wanted to touch guns working in media.
Also, think about context about what’s going on in the world, and how long ago our show started production. Late 2017, early 2018. Right on the heels of a record number of mass shootings, particularly the horrific one in Las Vegas. NOBODY wanted to touch guns working in media.
— Michael Ruocco (@AGuyWhoDraws) June 7, 2020
Correction: I worked for nearly FIVE YEARS with these characters (3 on “Wabbit/New Looney Tunes”, 2 on “Looney Tunes Cartoons”). Still, did not care or miss the guns. We got a lot more out of wordplay, dynamite and the character’s own naivety/stupidity than we ever did with guns.
— Michael Ruocco (@AGuyWhoDraws) June 7, 2020
“I’m not here to put words in other people’s mouths or anything, but as someone who worked for 2 years with these characters, I personally did not care or miss Elmer’s rifle. We got a lot more out of his personality and his lack of wit than any implement in his hands. Move on,” he added.
Why should Americans simply “move on” as classic characters are arbitrarily altered and political messaging is slipped into everything from children’s cartoons to feature films by the Hollywood left, based solely upon the touchy political climate and social trends of the moment?
Don’t get me wrong, the artist has every right to their voice but, in a capitalist society, the consumer drives demand.
The result should, in turn, be a product that meets said demand.
So why is it that the left has spent decades in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, downstream of culture, forcing their sensibilities and political feelings on the consumer — a consumer that makes clear each and every time something like this happens that they are not interested in what the left is selling.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
