So why is it that Time Warner can somehow still sell Scooby-Doo and Tom and Jerry to the masses but can't handle most...

So why is it that Time Warner can somehow still sell Scooby-Doo and Tom and Jerry to the masses but can't handle most of their other cartoon properties properly?

Scooby Doo and Tom and Jerry have very simple formulas to follow. The same can't be said for Looney Tunes or even The Flintstones (they had an episode about miscarriages for instance).

Plus people just flat out don't want new Looney Tunes. Every revival failed except the 90s version with Space Jam.

You mean Duck Dodgers, right?

That doesn't really excuse how they won't run the original shorts on TV or put them on Netflix or something

Also, did any of the revivals do the originals justice? I liked what I saw of TLTS's Merrie Melodies segments at least

"There goes the Oriental Express"

Scooby Doo hasn't really ever disappeared from public consciousness entirely except for the early 90's I guess. I mean nobody gives a fuck about the current show but they still keep up with the weird WWE crossover movies or whatever for example.

Tom and Jerry is just so iconic that it'll never leave public consciousness. Same with Flintstones but honestly I get the impression there's an air of ironic love for that series these days not the least bit helped by shitty meme channels on youtube. Also, cereal.

The rest just kinda don't have that going for them. Maybe the Jetsons in a similar manner to Flintstones.

Cartoon Network is a Turner company so even after the merger with Warner Brothers, they've always done more to promote properties that Turner owns outright, like the Hanna-Barbera characters.

After the merger Warner Brothers stupidly gave CN exclusive rights to show its cartoon catalogue even though the network was never fully invested in promoting the WB characters.

The merger probably hurt the characters because when half the WB cartoons were owned by different studios, they had competing packages of cartoons going up against each other.

Scooby-Doo and Tom & Jerry maintained a presence on Cartoon Network throughout while the rest of their properties largely disappeared from public view beyond a few attempts to "reinvent" them from modern audiences. They didn't really bother to do that with Tom and Jerry or Scooby but kept the classic material around with newer stuff that more or less kept in the same vein.

The other shows moved to Boomerang and were eventually sentenced to late night airings even on that network, which further decreased their visibility.

So it was a combination of lack of neglect and a remarkable ability to avoid some idiotic executive's vision for what kids want in those characters.

>even though the network was never fully invested in promoting the WB characters.

Knowing the corporate mentality at Time Warner, it seems more likely that they had excessive restraints and demands on how those characters could be used when it came to advertising while they weren't faced with any such difficulties when it came to MGM and Hanna-Barbera material.

Old school Cartoon Network certainly had no issues with devoting large portions of their schedule over to Looney Tunes with June Bugs being a massive event for the entire network.

>episode about miscarriages
Really?

I wish the Time Warner/Turner merger had never happened. It would have been nice to see Fred Seibert's vision for Hanna-Barbera play out more.

As for the WB side of things, I don't know what happened, but it feels like the creation of The WB somehow permanently scarred WB, and that included them just deciding to mishandle Looney Tunes chronically.

>Plus people just flat out don't want new Looney Tunes.

Don't be retarded

People want new Looney Tunes, but with the same budget and pacing and comedy like the old looney tunes

Bam Bam's adopted because Barney and Betty couldn't have their own kid.

I think they're putting them on that Boomerang app.

Some characters are likable enough that the quality of the animation or writing doesn't necessarily matter so much.

The Looney Tunes characters aren't really like that. They're not cute and it's impossible to take them seriously when they're in peril. If their gags aren't absolutely top quality in writing and animation then they have nothing going for them.

So while Daffy Duck cartoons are generally funnier than Donald Duck cartoons Donald Duck is more versatile and he can be a comic book star or a corporate mascot or any number of things. Daffy is just a funny asshole (crazy asshole in the '40s, nasty asshole in the '50s) and people don't want to watch him if he's not funny enough.

The WB was definitely bad for the Turner Networks since Jamie Kellner was given control of the latter for several years while having a financial stake in the former.

This is not handling T&J it properly

I really want that to do well, but I don't know if that's something Joe or Jane Sixpack is into, like Netflix.

There can't possibly be any shortage of people who are up to the challenge.

Also, would it at least be possible to ape the look of the '50s shorts on a TV budget? Not too smooth, but not CHEAP either...

Poor Kath Soucie

>people just flat out don't want new Looney Tunes
I'd love some new shorts in the same vein as the originals. The problem is that for whatever reason WB refuse to do that.

>As for the WB side of things, I don't know what happened, but it feels like the creation of The WB somehow permanently scarred WB, and that included them just deciding to mishandle Looney Tunes chronically.

Jamie Kellner, high-up exec at Kids' WB and later at CN, personally disliked Looney Tunes.
He deliberately sidelined them (and similar modern cartoons, like Animaniacs) at Kids' WB in favor of Pokémon—not because Pokémon rated better but because he personally preferred Pokémon.
Then he moved to CN. He similarly initiated the decisions to sideline and minimize the airings of Looney Tunes there. This is why, when Looney Tunes Back in Action was released, it got almost no crosspromotion from CN.

Oh, well I knew that but I thought it was more about infertility/impotence rather than a miscarriage, that seems a bit much before All in the Family.

Scooby-Doo's continued existence makes sense. It hit on such a great combination of creative premise and enjoyable characters that it's still fascinating today, but esoteric enough that nobody else can copy it without it being an obvious ripoff.

Tom and Jerry I have no fucking clue. That shit should have died long ago. Looney Toons has several skits with the same premise that are way better, and with characters having some amount of complexity.

I personally love Tom & Jerry but it's never gonna be as good as it was under MGM because WB keeps cheaping out on it

She didn't have a miscarriage, you dumb fuck she just wasn't making babies.

they can sell looney tunes. But for the others like Flintstones and jetsons, they were produced for what was popular at the time. They started in the 40's and 50's back when I love lucy type sitcoms were popular. But, now that type of sitcom is dead. also, tom and jerry isn't relevant

Define "relevant"

My ass Daffy isn't versatile. He's the one Loony Toons character that can be easily switched between a protagonist and an antagonist at any time, and his personality is more one of narcissism than willful ill intent. He's the most developed character Looney Toons ever created along with Bugs who to a lesser extent could also switch roles in a few bits. WB just continually squanders the potential to use them.

Donald Duck is just a fucking empty face with simplistic characterization along with Mickey. Goofy is the only character that ever came out of the original Disney stuff that anyone could somewhat care about.