I saw this a couple of times on Cartoon Network, I wasn't too fascinated about it at first with the advert, but when I actually bothered to watch it Baby Looney Tunes is actually pretty good. Basically they've taken the same idea as Tiny Toon Adventures and Baby Muppets, and done it to the Looney Tunes. They are now babies being looked after by Granny in a large house of fun. Baby Bug Bunny is cute and main star, but I don't think he's as popular as the original adult. There's also babies Daffy, Porky, Sylvester, Tweety, Lola Bunny (from Space Jam), Taz and many others. The babies have many weird and wonderful stories, including doing chores to get money for ice cream, tidying the house and toy arguments. The kids will love it. Good!
32 Reviews
A disgrace to Looney Tunes? It is not bad at all!!
dolite9114 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Why do some people call this television series a disgrace to the Looney Tunes? I think this show is great and it is worth watching.
Other than that, some comments on this site state that Lola Bunny should not be in the show as she was introduced in the movie 'Space Jam'. Some comments also state that Granny should be younger when the Looney Tunes were toddlers.
But in my opinion, we should not think about these issues. Instead, we should consider if the plot and the quality of the show are good or not.
Other than that, I feel this show educational and taught young children about caring and sharing.
I had watched some episodes of the show. Well, my opinion is this: It was a great and meaningful show. I am willing to use the 30 minutes of my time to watch this show.
Such as a good show should not be criticized!
My Rating: 70/100
Other than that, some comments on this site state that Lola Bunny should not be in the show as she was introduced in the movie 'Space Jam'. Some comments also state that Granny should be younger when the Looney Tunes were toddlers.
But in my opinion, we should not think about these issues. Instead, we should consider if the plot and the quality of the show are good or not.
Other than that, I feel this show educational and taught young children about caring and sharing.
I had watched some episodes of the show. Well, my opinion is this: It was a great and meaningful show. I am willing to use the 30 minutes of my time to watch this show.
Such as a good show should not be criticized!
My Rating: 70/100
Pales in comparison to Muppet Babies....and Looney Tunes in general.
TOMNEL31 July 2008
It's hard to pinpoint what makes this a not so great cartoon. The Looney Tunes characters are all here, though they have some different character traits. Sylvester and Tweety seem to get along just fine. Daffy and Bugs are good pals. Tazmanian Devil must have gotten dumber as he got older. Though he's the least intelligent and least vocal of the group, he's not just dumb like he is in Looney Tunes. The plots could be the problem. Unlike Rugrats or Muppet Babies, imagination is not nearly used as much, or seen on screen, and Baby Looney Tunes is usually just several babies doing boring baby activities.
Bugs and Lola Bunny (First seen in Space Jam), Daffy Duck, Tweety Bird, Taz the Tazmanian Devil, Sylvester the Cat and two pointless new characters, Petunia the pig and Melissa Duck, all have adventures under the watchful eye of their babysitter Granny. They learn life lessons and by the end of each twelve minute segment, have more wisdom than before.
Little kids may enjoy this, but people over the age of ten will be bored. Rugrats and Muppet Babies are still enjoyable to me. They're clever and full of satire. This is just a dumb kiddie show full of lame lessons and annoying voices. Better lessons and more entertainment can be found in many other kid's shows.
This paragraph is not a criticism of the show, but thinking about it, the downward spiral these characters make is rather tragic. Sylvester and Tweety have parents, but they must've been abandoned because in the Looney Tunes, Granny is their owner. Also, Sylvester is now always trying to kill Tweety, and Granny, the sweet old lady depicted here, is always hitting him. She must have become senile in her old age. Domestic violence and homicidal tendencies...so sad. Bugs Bunny learned all kinds of lessons on this show, but later just became a huge smart Alec, and Bugs could care less if Daffy Duck is blown to pieces and vice versa. I guess Taz moved to the wilderness in his later life and must have been lobotomized in the process, because he seems dumber in his later life. Also, doesn't Lola meet all the Looney Tunes when they are all adults in Space Jam? Hmmm, she must have forgotten her joyous baby experiences with them all. In fact they must have all forgotten their baby experiences of learning and fun to end up in the adults conditions they are all in. And that's exactly what this show is....extremely forgettable!
My rating: ** out of ****. 30 mins. TVY
Bugs and Lola Bunny (First seen in Space Jam), Daffy Duck, Tweety Bird, Taz the Tazmanian Devil, Sylvester the Cat and two pointless new characters, Petunia the pig and Melissa Duck, all have adventures under the watchful eye of their babysitter Granny. They learn life lessons and by the end of each twelve minute segment, have more wisdom than before.
Little kids may enjoy this, but people over the age of ten will be bored. Rugrats and Muppet Babies are still enjoyable to me. They're clever and full of satire. This is just a dumb kiddie show full of lame lessons and annoying voices. Better lessons and more entertainment can be found in many other kid's shows.
This paragraph is not a criticism of the show, but thinking about it, the downward spiral these characters make is rather tragic. Sylvester and Tweety have parents, but they must've been abandoned because in the Looney Tunes, Granny is their owner. Also, Sylvester is now always trying to kill Tweety, and Granny, the sweet old lady depicted here, is always hitting him. She must have become senile in her old age. Domestic violence and homicidal tendencies...so sad. Bugs Bunny learned all kinds of lessons on this show, but later just became a huge smart Alec, and Bugs could care less if Daffy Duck is blown to pieces and vice versa. I guess Taz moved to the wilderness in his later life and must have been lobotomized in the process, because he seems dumber in his later life. Also, doesn't Lola meet all the Looney Tunes when they are all adults in Space Jam? Hmmm, she must have forgotten her joyous baby experiences with them all. In fact they must have all forgotten their baby experiences of learning and fun to end up in the adults conditions they are all in. And that's exactly what this show is....extremely forgettable!
My rating: ** out of ****. 30 mins. TVY
lighten up people..
eccentric1911 May 2005
Once again here we have another good show and yet people want to over analyze this show.. This show was never intended to be a spin-off to the space jam movie.. And it's very obvious that the creators didn't intend for it to be otherwise we would have lola on there.. I could see everyones complaint if this was a highly respected anime series where we're dealing with story lines but this is just a cartoon series.. I can't think of a warner bros cartoons series that had a storyline that followed the series through-out.. Last, this cartoon airs at 8am (central here) so it's kinda obvious that it's directed towards an audience that either didn't watch space jam or was too young to remember the movie to realize that something doesn't match up there..All in all I like the show.. I find it very funny and calming and to me that counts more..
I like it, it is very cute
TheLittleSongbird29 January 2010
I admit, it is not as good as the original Looney Tunes cartoons, not even close, but it isn't that bad. For one thing, the animation is very nice. Second, the theme tune is sweet and memorable. Third, the voice acting is great, especially June Foray as Granny. Fourth, I liked seeing the Looney Tunes as babies, and they are so cute. I loved seeing Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester and Tweety, however instead of seeing Porky, Elmer and Foghorn, we see Taz. And I confess, Taz isn't a favourite of mine as such, not like Porky and Elmer. I know there are some complaints about Granny not being the same, seeing as in the Sylvester and Tweety cartoons, she is seen hitting Sylvester whenever he picks on Tweety. But somehow, I liked her very much here, and I seriously cannot see her being mean to those babies. She is like a benevolent mother figure, I liked that side to her. And I loved the simple but effective messaging too. The stories are very predictable though, and the dry wit and manic mayhem, though I liked some of the cute and droll dialogue, that made the original Looney Tunes cartoons so brilliant is missed here. In conclusion, a good show but not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Cute, Fun, and Entertaining!
Jace_the_Peanuts_Fan29 April 2024
Unlike some other reviewers, I don't think this is a disgrace to Looney Tunes, but I agree that it's not as good as the original Looney Tunes and not entirely faithful to the source material. It's not without its flaws (more about that later), but it's better than The Looney Tunes Show (2011) and Wabbit. This is one of many prequel shows with the characters as babies or kids that I've come across, and it's not one of the best ones, but it's better than Yo Yogi and Thomas & Friends: All Engines Go (although I don't think the latter is supposed to be a prequel series to Thomas & Friends, but it's a non-canon reboot with the characters as kids).
It has a completely different premise in place of the old one, and the characters' personalities may not be as fleshed out as their adult counterparts, but some of them still have a little bit of their original personalities in them. Taz is still the dimwitted "tornado" who eats everything, grunts, and blows raspberries, Daffy Duck is still the short-tempered and hyperactive duck who has a tendency to get jealous of Bugs Bunny and yell "Woo hoo!", Lola Bunny is still the tomboy who is good at sports, etc. Sylvester doesn't try to eat Tweety Bird anymore, although a couple of the songs from the show mention him trying to catch birds and failing at every attempt, but maybe the show would be darker than necessary if he did. I don't know, I can't imagine babies or little kids doing such a thing to each other. In the original Looney Tunes, Granny smacks Sylvester whenever he picks on Tweety, but I find that so difficult to imagine happening here. Most of the characters' voices sound the same but slightly higher, but that makes perfect sense because that makes them sound like younger versions of themselves, and they are. To put more bread on the table, June Foray has returned as Granny.
The character designs and stories are cute. The babies get into all kinds of appealing childlike shenanigans and adventures, like playing school, making a Mother's Day card for Granny, Sylvester tripping over a towel that wraps around his head and makes everyone else think he's wearing a cool hat, and more. The plots are relatable and perfectly capture childhood innocence. I don't know what else to say about them.
The songs are catchy and sometimes funny. Most of them are parodies of children's songs, but some of them have their own original melodies. My favorite one might have to be either The Looney Riddle or Born to Sing, and both of them have entirely original tunes. The album version of the latter is a little bit longer and mentions some a few of the Looney Tunes who aren't mentioned in the version from the show, which makes the album version even better! Some of the music videos have nods to the original Looney Tunes that don't appear in the main story, like Wile Coyote chasing Roadrunner, Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny, Pepe Lepew being a lovesick skunk, and more.
If the five Looney Tunes who are most commonly seen on merchandise (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Taz, Tweety Bird, and Sylvester) plus Lola all lived with Granny when the animals were babies, I'm guessing Granny has Tweety and Sylvester since the two of them were babies (although Tweety is still a baby in the source material. Maybe he's slightly younger here, and birds age much slower in the Looney Tunes universe than in real life. I don't know how that works), and Bugs, Daffy, and Taz moved into the woods later. Granny still being old makes sense because she's the babies' guardian, and I think she's supposed to be much older than most of the other characters. That brings me to my next point.
The show is not without its flaws. Lola is one of the main characters, and she and Bugs have known each other since they were babies according to Baby Looney Tunes. However, Lola is not an original Looney Tune, and she and Bugs meet for the first time as adults in Space Jam. Computers, video games, a modern telephone, color TVs, and a Blue's Clues parody are present in various episodes. This is obviously set before the original Looney Tunes, and those things didn't even exist when the source material was being made. These items make me think maybe Baby Looney Tunes is non-canon. There are a number of characters who appear in post-episode music videos but never in the episodes themselves, like Yosemite Sam, Gossamer, Marc Anthony, Michigan J. Frog, and even important Looney Tunes like Porky Pig, Roadrunner, and Wile Coyote. Petunia Pig, a minor character in the source material, appears in both episodes and music videos from time to time, but why not Porky? Also, it's unclear to me as to how old this show is. This page says it ran from 2001-2005, and the episodes' end credits have the same dates in them, but my mother once told me she watched this as a kid. She wasn't a kid back during the aforementioned dates, and the modern technology we have today didn't exist when she was a kid. The show would be close to my age if they're right about the original airdates. Maybe this is a reboot of an older show. Anyway, this is still a good show regardless of these flaws.
It has a completely different premise in place of the old one, and the characters' personalities may not be as fleshed out as their adult counterparts, but some of them still have a little bit of their original personalities in them. Taz is still the dimwitted "tornado" who eats everything, grunts, and blows raspberries, Daffy Duck is still the short-tempered and hyperactive duck who has a tendency to get jealous of Bugs Bunny and yell "Woo hoo!", Lola Bunny is still the tomboy who is good at sports, etc. Sylvester doesn't try to eat Tweety Bird anymore, although a couple of the songs from the show mention him trying to catch birds and failing at every attempt, but maybe the show would be darker than necessary if he did. I don't know, I can't imagine babies or little kids doing such a thing to each other. In the original Looney Tunes, Granny smacks Sylvester whenever he picks on Tweety, but I find that so difficult to imagine happening here. Most of the characters' voices sound the same but slightly higher, but that makes perfect sense because that makes them sound like younger versions of themselves, and they are. To put more bread on the table, June Foray has returned as Granny.
The character designs and stories are cute. The babies get into all kinds of appealing childlike shenanigans and adventures, like playing school, making a Mother's Day card for Granny, Sylvester tripping over a towel that wraps around his head and makes everyone else think he's wearing a cool hat, and more. The plots are relatable and perfectly capture childhood innocence. I don't know what else to say about them.
The songs are catchy and sometimes funny. Most of them are parodies of children's songs, but some of them have their own original melodies. My favorite one might have to be either The Looney Riddle or Born to Sing, and both of them have entirely original tunes. The album version of the latter is a little bit longer and mentions some a few of the Looney Tunes who aren't mentioned in the version from the show, which makes the album version even better! Some of the music videos have nods to the original Looney Tunes that don't appear in the main story, like Wile Coyote chasing Roadrunner, Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny, Pepe Lepew being a lovesick skunk, and more.
If the five Looney Tunes who are most commonly seen on merchandise (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Taz, Tweety Bird, and Sylvester) plus Lola all lived with Granny when the animals were babies, I'm guessing Granny has Tweety and Sylvester since the two of them were babies (although Tweety is still a baby in the source material. Maybe he's slightly younger here, and birds age much slower in the Looney Tunes universe than in real life. I don't know how that works), and Bugs, Daffy, and Taz moved into the woods later. Granny still being old makes sense because she's the babies' guardian, and I think she's supposed to be much older than most of the other characters. That brings me to my next point.
The show is not without its flaws. Lola is one of the main characters, and she and Bugs have known each other since they were babies according to Baby Looney Tunes. However, Lola is not an original Looney Tune, and she and Bugs meet for the first time as adults in Space Jam. Computers, video games, a modern telephone, color TVs, and a Blue's Clues parody are present in various episodes. This is obviously set before the original Looney Tunes, and those things didn't even exist when the source material was being made. These items make me think maybe Baby Looney Tunes is non-canon. There are a number of characters who appear in post-episode music videos but never in the episodes themselves, like Yosemite Sam, Gossamer, Marc Anthony, Michigan J. Frog, and even important Looney Tunes like Porky Pig, Roadrunner, and Wile Coyote. Petunia Pig, a minor character in the source material, appears in both episodes and music videos from time to time, but why not Porky? Also, it's unclear to me as to how old this show is. This page says it ran from 2001-2005, and the episodes' end credits have the same dates in them, but my mother once told me she watched this as a kid. She wasn't a kid back during the aforementioned dates, and the modern technology we have today didn't exist when she was a kid. The show would be close to my age if they're right about the original airdates. Maybe this is a reboot of an older show. Anyway, this is still a good show regardless of these flaws.
Baby Looney Tunes: a cute (but bad) idea
tweiss198128 June 2003
Okay, people here we have "Baby Looney Tunes", which might seem cute, but is simply lame and uninspired.
I've seen more than 4 or 5 episodes and I can attest this show is nothing special for anybody. I will not get caught up in the "Muppet Babies" debate (hence, I anticipate that anybody who grew up watching "Muppet Babies" will mention it). All I'll say is that this show is not a mere "Muppet Babies" knock-off. That would be an understatement. (Plus, is it any coincidence that "Granny" rhymes with "Nanny"?)
The problems I have with this cartoon are many:
1. Choice of characters. For the most part, the only Looney Tunes (official Looney Tunes, I mean) who consistently appear are the same five characters we see on merchandise over and over again. I can understand the use of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety, but when others like Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd are given the shaft in favor of the Tazmanian Devil (he's only appeared in a maximum of FIVE Looney Tunes shorts-face it, he's just overexposed), something's wrong here. I already mentioned Porky and Elmer, but in addition to them, why not let us see more of the other characters, like Pepe Le Pew, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Speedy Gonzales, Wile E. Coyote and the RoadRunner more often? The guys at Warner Brothers can make a MUCH better assortment than the same five characters always bunched together.
2. Political correctness. The original Looney Tunes didn't need to be politically correct-their brand of humor was always a walk on the wild side, ranging from news headlines to making jabs at racial groups-here, they are SO PC they're not funny. Another idea is the fact that all the main Looney Tunes, disspite their androgynous designs, are considered 'male'. (As Babs Bunny once pointed out in the episode "Fields of Honey" on the far superior "Tiny Toon Adventures") The only major female Looney Tune character is Granny. So, to be politically correct, they must bring in some female characters. Big mistake. For one, we also get Lola Bunny. She was only a character introduced through "Space Jam", a new player for the "TuneSquad", but she fits just as well as making Michael Jordan a baby Looney Tune. Also, Lola shouldn't even be together with Bugs and the other Looney Tunes at this point-she met them for the first time in "Space Jam", as an adult. Similar to why the guys at Disney can't make a prequel to "Beauty and the Beast"-the two main protagonists had nothing to do with each other before the film's beginning. We also get Melissa, Daffy's girlfriend, and Petunia (but why not Porky?). They serve almost no purpose-they are just two additional "Hi, I'm nobody" characters there to increase the amount of political correctness.
3. Very modern world. If these are the Looney Tunes as babies, one would think their world would be seem extremely 1920s/1930s. But no-among the episodes I've seen, I saw a laptop, a very modern telephone, color TV, the kids once watched a very Japanese-like show, and at least one reference to children's shows like "Blue's Clues" and Cartoon Network's own "The Powerpuff Girls". (?) What the hell?? They shouldn't have this stuff, it would have been WAY ahead of their time!
If you can't tell by now, I wasn't exactly thrilled with "Baby Looney Tunes". The guys who write this show also wrote other Warner Brothers shows like "Taz-Mania", "The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries", "Pinky and the Brain", and the aforementioned "Tiny Toon Adventures". Whatever the cause, I doubt they'll put this diaper bag on the top of their resume list. While the show's budget is obviously higher than all the Cartoon Cartoons that run exclusively on Cartoon Network, it's not enough to save this show.
Another person claims this show was planned out in the late '80s and only now is being physically done. I doubt Friz Freleng, Rob McKimson, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones would be happy to see this happen to their classic characters. If you need me, I'll be watching "Tiny Toons". It's better for you.
I've seen more than 4 or 5 episodes and I can attest this show is nothing special for anybody. I will not get caught up in the "Muppet Babies" debate (hence, I anticipate that anybody who grew up watching "Muppet Babies" will mention it). All I'll say is that this show is not a mere "Muppet Babies" knock-off. That would be an understatement. (Plus, is it any coincidence that "Granny" rhymes with "Nanny"?)
The problems I have with this cartoon are many:
1. Choice of characters. For the most part, the only Looney Tunes (official Looney Tunes, I mean) who consistently appear are the same five characters we see on merchandise over and over again. I can understand the use of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety, but when others like Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd are given the shaft in favor of the Tazmanian Devil (he's only appeared in a maximum of FIVE Looney Tunes shorts-face it, he's just overexposed), something's wrong here. I already mentioned Porky and Elmer, but in addition to them, why not let us see more of the other characters, like Pepe Le Pew, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Speedy Gonzales, Wile E. Coyote and the RoadRunner more often? The guys at Warner Brothers can make a MUCH better assortment than the same five characters always bunched together.
2. Political correctness. The original Looney Tunes didn't need to be politically correct-their brand of humor was always a walk on the wild side, ranging from news headlines to making jabs at racial groups-here, they are SO PC they're not funny. Another idea is the fact that all the main Looney Tunes, disspite their androgynous designs, are considered 'male'. (As Babs Bunny once pointed out in the episode "Fields of Honey" on the far superior "Tiny Toon Adventures") The only major female Looney Tune character is Granny. So, to be politically correct, they must bring in some female characters. Big mistake. For one, we also get Lola Bunny. She was only a character introduced through "Space Jam", a new player for the "TuneSquad", but she fits just as well as making Michael Jordan a baby Looney Tune. Also, Lola shouldn't even be together with Bugs and the other Looney Tunes at this point-she met them for the first time in "Space Jam", as an adult. Similar to why the guys at Disney can't make a prequel to "Beauty and the Beast"-the two main protagonists had nothing to do with each other before the film's beginning. We also get Melissa, Daffy's girlfriend, and Petunia (but why not Porky?). They serve almost no purpose-they are just two additional "Hi, I'm nobody" characters there to increase the amount of political correctness.
3. Very modern world. If these are the Looney Tunes as babies, one would think their world would be seem extremely 1920s/1930s. But no-among the episodes I've seen, I saw a laptop, a very modern telephone, color TV, the kids once watched a very Japanese-like show, and at least one reference to children's shows like "Blue's Clues" and Cartoon Network's own "The Powerpuff Girls". (?) What the hell?? They shouldn't have this stuff, it would have been WAY ahead of their time!
If you can't tell by now, I wasn't exactly thrilled with "Baby Looney Tunes". The guys who write this show also wrote other Warner Brothers shows like "Taz-Mania", "The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries", "Pinky and the Brain", and the aforementioned "Tiny Toon Adventures". Whatever the cause, I doubt they'll put this diaper bag on the top of their resume list. While the show's budget is obviously higher than all the Cartoon Cartoons that run exclusively on Cartoon Network, it's not enough to save this show.
Another person claims this show was planned out in the late '80s and only now is being physically done. I doubt Friz Freleng, Rob McKimson, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones would be happy to see this happen to their classic characters. If you need me, I'll be watching "Tiny Toons". It's better for you.
Pint-Sized Looniness
zsofikam5 July 2016
Baby Looney Tunes is such a cute show. It's really sweet seeing the Looney Tunes as babies and I can't imagine Granny beating them like she does in the original cartoons. Plus, to all of you saying that this is a ripoff of Muppet Babies, they're only similar in that they both feature classic characters as toddlers. Just one thing bothers me and it doesn't affect my overall enjoyment of the show. While all the other characters are from the old cartoons, Lola first met the others in the movie Space Jam as an adult, so how she's a member of the group as an infant is anyone's guess. I also wish that we got to see other characters more often such as Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Pepe le Pew, etc. They appear in the songs and each get a day in the limelight episodes such as Elmer Fudd in A Bully For Bugs, Foghorn Leghorn in Cock-A-Doodle-Doo-It, Pepe le Pew in New Cat In Town, or Marvin the Martian in War Of The Weirds. But like I said, that doesn't bug me too much to watch because it's just so adorable and I still have a weakness for these types of shows in my 20s.
The Poor Man's Muppet Babies
overtheedge277 April 2003
I'm sorry, it may seem like a cute idea, but there are a numerous amount of things that bother me about the show. First of all, I have to agree with one of the earlier comments that the show is just a lame a rip off of Jim Henson's "Muppet Babies" (without the funny fantasy segments). This especially goes for Granny, who I used to admire before this show. She had quite a personality in the old Looney Tunes cartoons, but here, they've turned her into a bland care-giver.
If that isn't bothersome enough, all the characters are friends in this show. It really makes you wonder what caused them all to be enemies when they grew up, and it had to be more than just animal instinct. And above all...WHERE'S PORKY PIG?! I see Petunia on a few occasions, but no Porky. This show is just a crying shame.
If that isn't bothersome enough, all the characters are friends in this show. It really makes you wonder what caused them all to be enemies when they grew up, and it had to be more than just animal instinct. And above all...WHERE'S PORKY PIG?! I see Petunia on a few occasions, but no Porky. This show is just a crying shame.
Cute show!
mitsubishizero3 April 2018
I grew up watching it as a kid and I have to say it brings back good memories. It's cool to see the looney tunes as toddlers. The songs were cute and the voices weren't annoying at all. If anything they really sounded like what you'd expect the characters to sound like so young. The stories were nice and it had its funny moments. Most of the episodes were focused on the characters being under the care of Granny (June Foray) and having fun while also learning a life lesson such as not being jealous of someone or not giving up.
In conclusion it's a good show and I would recommend it to anyone.
In conclusion it's a good show and I would recommend it to anyone.
Good Intentions, But Bad Idea!
rich67423 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I will agree with the majority of the people on this comment database that this show is intended to guide children in young ages and teach them lessons and politeness and what and what is and isn't right. But, they could've selected another group of characters to use instead of the Looney Toons.
The Looney Toons are obviously an old cluster of cartoon shows dating back to the 1930's to the 1950's, or around that generation. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety and the Tazmanian Devil are some of the primary characters out of the Looney Toons. I know who Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn and Porky Pig are, but they are slightly less popular. But who in the world are these girl characters? The girl bunny, the girl pig and the girl duck? I have watched my share of Looney Toons shows even though I was born in 1993, and I know enough to know, that these feminine characters only appear once in a great while on the Looney Toons. Usually these girl characters were used as an attempt to trick or daze another character. Most of the time, the girl characters were actually male characters in disguise.
What makes me mad about this is, the generation today is filled too much with rules and regulations that aren't exactly and necessarily fair. While it is in good nature to include females in television shows and other activities such as votings and protests, it is getting a little ridiculous to include so many girls into the Looney Toons group. These female characters hardly existed, no-one knows who they are. Also notice how they are the same type of animal as the male characters. The female bunny is obviously the counterpart to Bugs Bunny. The female pig is the counterpart to Porky Pig and the female Duck is the counterpart to Daffy Duck. These female characters just completely ruin the show for me, completely turns me off. They are not humorous, they are not even special in any way shape or form. They are just THERE, and I wish they wouldn't be.
Also, as someone else stated, if this took place when the Looney Toons were babies, it would've been around the 1920's or 1930's at least. Laptops, modern phones and televisions would not have been thought of yet. More common sense was apparently needed before the airing of the show.
And lastly, it is annoying that "granny" gets the role of a lovable old woman in charge of these, claimed-to-be, adorable little baby animals. This "granny" character was originally a mean old witch who protected Tweety Bird and beat Sylvester when necessary. I cannot even think how many times "Granny" nearly killed Sylvester in the original Looney Toons. Talk about a change of attitude in these children's adolescence.
The Looney Toons are obviously an old cluster of cartoon shows dating back to the 1930's to the 1950's, or around that generation. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester and Tweety and the Tazmanian Devil are some of the primary characters out of the Looney Toons. I know who Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn and Porky Pig are, but they are slightly less popular. But who in the world are these girl characters? The girl bunny, the girl pig and the girl duck? I have watched my share of Looney Toons shows even though I was born in 1993, and I know enough to know, that these feminine characters only appear once in a great while on the Looney Toons. Usually these girl characters were used as an attempt to trick or daze another character. Most of the time, the girl characters were actually male characters in disguise.
What makes me mad about this is, the generation today is filled too much with rules and regulations that aren't exactly and necessarily fair. While it is in good nature to include females in television shows and other activities such as votings and protests, it is getting a little ridiculous to include so many girls into the Looney Toons group. These female characters hardly existed, no-one knows who they are. Also notice how they are the same type of animal as the male characters. The female bunny is obviously the counterpart to Bugs Bunny. The female pig is the counterpart to Porky Pig and the female Duck is the counterpart to Daffy Duck. These female characters just completely ruin the show for me, completely turns me off. They are not humorous, they are not even special in any way shape or form. They are just THERE, and I wish they wouldn't be.
Also, as someone else stated, if this took place when the Looney Toons were babies, it would've been around the 1920's or 1930's at least. Laptops, modern phones and televisions would not have been thought of yet. More common sense was apparently needed before the airing of the show.
And lastly, it is annoying that "granny" gets the role of a lovable old woman in charge of these, claimed-to-be, adorable little baby animals. This "granny" character was originally a mean old witch who protected Tweety Bird and beat Sylvester when necessary. I cannot even think how many times "Granny" nearly killed Sylvester in the original Looney Toons. Talk about a change of attitude in these children's adolescence.
A Cute Show
Ginger8729 August 2004
"Baby Looney Tunes" is a really cute show. I grew up watching "The Tiny Toons" and "The Looney Toons" so it is only natural that I should give this show a chance. One day I finally decided to watch it and I immediately fell in love with it. The characters are so cute and so was the plot. One episode I saw was about the babies having a yard sale with Granny. It was so cute.
Many people don't like this show since it isn't like the original "Looney Toons". But I disagree. This is a totally different show and you have to look at it differently. I give this show 8/10 stars and suggest everyone should give it a try or another chance.
Many people don't like this show since it isn't like the original "Looney Toons". But I disagree. This is a totally different show and you have to look at it differently. I give this show 8/10 stars and suggest everyone should give it a try or another chance.
It's My Party & I Can say What I Want To
tommypezmaster12 September 2007
Sad, pathetic, charmless, and humourless. How can anyone possibly find any humour in this poorly made, unintelligent piece of S**T.
I had very low hopes for this TV show after seeing the episode "Taz You Like It" on FoxBox before it was 4kids TV. Usually when the channel raves about something, they're desperate for viewers and try their best to over-hype it. They did the same thing with "The Buzz on Maggie", another pathetic animated show from 4kids entertament.
I watched the first episode, and laughed once, during The Bus scene. I watched the episode I mented, and found it so dull that I couldn't watch it all.
This show is so badly written, lacking in intelligence, charm, subtlety and basic humour that I can't possibly see how anyone could like it.
Let me give you an example of how bad the jokes are: "Taz Broke Hairy-Gary"Does that mean you're ugly now?" Yes, the jokes, The Animation & Voice-Acting are seriously THAT bad.
Do yourself a favour: avoid this & bring back Catscratch
I had very low hopes for this TV show after seeing the episode "Taz You Like It" on FoxBox before it was 4kids TV. Usually when the channel raves about something, they're desperate for viewers and try their best to over-hype it. They did the same thing with "The Buzz on Maggie", another pathetic animated show from 4kids entertament.
I watched the first episode, and laughed once, during The Bus scene. I watched the episode I mented, and found it so dull that I couldn't watch it all.
This show is so badly written, lacking in intelligence, charm, subtlety and basic humour that I can't possibly see how anyone could like it.
Let me give you an example of how bad the jokes are: "Taz Broke Hairy-Gary"Does that mean you're ugly now?" Yes, the jokes, The Animation & Voice-Acting are seriously THAT bad.
Do yourself a favour: avoid this & bring back Catscratch
Its a kid show my kids love
sabrinasabor9 August 2018
If your a child and like it that's all that matters it teaches kids about important things while keeping their attention. I don't care if it's a rip off it gives me a 30 minute break I'm so glad I found this for them because of it my 2 year old is starting to share and be nice. And for those of you old enough to remember Muppet baby shower or whatever If your not the supposed audience target why review it it's a great show that I don't hear fighting from my kids so I'm a happy mommy.
Worst Than People Claim Loonatics To Be
jeremycrimsonfox26 January 2022
Seriously, who in Warner Bros. Thought this was a good idea? Baby Looney Tunes is yet another in the company's line of milking the Looney Tunes spin-offs, and I have seen some episodes in the past, and I hate this show. Now only is it another example of a spin-off making classic cartoon characters younger, but it does not do a good job (and no, Tiny Toon Adventures does not count since that show new characters being mentored by Bugs and company).
But the main problem with this spin-off is not only does it turn Bugs and the gang into babies, but it is basically more non-looney than people claim Loonatics Unleashed, another Looney Tunes spin-off, to be. As this is aimed at preschoolers, the Looney Tunes are no longer looney, instead opting to be education to teach kids lessons like sharing. Well, the only thing I want to see Bugs share is a mallet to Elmer Fudd's head. People say Loonatics Unleashed is the worst spin-off to the point where Warner Bros, is ashamed of it, when in reality, the company should really be ashamed of this, as this is nothing more than forcing the Looney Tunes to give up what made them cartoon legends to be preschool fodder.
But the main problem with this spin-off is not only does it turn Bugs and the gang into babies, but it is basically more non-looney than people claim Loonatics Unleashed, another Looney Tunes spin-off, to be. As this is aimed at preschoolers, the Looney Tunes are no longer looney, instead opting to be education to teach kids lessons like sharing. Well, the only thing I want to see Bugs share is a mallet to Elmer Fudd's head. People say Loonatics Unleashed is the worst spin-off to the point where Warner Bros, is ashamed of it, when in reality, the company should really be ashamed of this, as this is nothing more than forcing the Looney Tunes to give up what made them cartoon legends to be preschool fodder.
Get over yourselves
hannahg320-44-2446233 July 2014
Holy crap people, this show was clearly never meant to be a true prequel to the original Looney Toons series. It's a lot like "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" in that it simply takes well- known characters, them turns them into children and puts them in a modern setting. I watched this show in middle school when I stayed home from school sick because it was relaxing. I think it's cute, the characters maintains many of their original traits but as toddlers/preschoolers. It's nice that some of them appear to be slightly older or younger. This show is no masterpiece, and it never claimed to be. But it's nicely done, entertaining, and teaches nice little moral lessons. The color palette is kinda soft which is nice for very young children or sick preteens. Not overly stimulating like many other cartoons. If you want to see the original Looney Toons, for God's sake watch the original! This show is a nice companion to the original by offering a change of setting. Really, it's pretty cute and perfectly harmless.
A great introduction
vancecheek29 October 2003
I was born in the good times - the Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner Show ran from 9:00AM until 10:30AM every Saturday morning. Life was good.
Now, all I've got is some brat named Caliou and other assorted Disney characters to offer my 3 year old. Thanks to Baby Looney Tunes, I can introduce her to the characters I love so much. Since she got into Baby Looney Tunes (which wasn't hard), she loves to watch the true animated shorts with me.
Bottom line: Taken on its own, it's pretty bad. In the Looney Universe, it's a great introduction to all our favorites.
Now, all I've got is some brat named Caliou and other assorted Disney characters to offer my 3 year old. Thanks to Baby Looney Tunes, I can introduce her to the characters I love so much. Since she got into Baby Looney Tunes (which wasn't hard), she loves to watch the true animated shorts with me.
Bottom line: Taken on its own, it's pretty bad. In the Looney Universe, it's a great introduction to all our favorites.
Curious
goddessoftheuniverse-7897525 June 2021
Just wandering why the all live together? Because are they some how all adopted from granny or are they just brothers and sisters or whats really going on here, where are there parents or are they just grannys pets? Very curious ...
It's a kid's show!!
chynababy_0312 February 2004
It's supposed to be a children's show so get over it. I understand that there are many mistakes but none of the children I know are going to sit down, watch this, and try to analyze this show. Even if the characters were introduced in the 20's and 30's, no child in their right mind is going to sit there and say "hmmmm, isn't Granny supposed to be younger?" or "Lola isn't supposed to be here. She showed up in Space Jam." So what if it's a rip-off of Muppet Babies or Rugrats. Every show is a ripoff of something. Here in Detroit, Baby Looney Tunes is shown from 9:30 am - 10:30 am. Therefore, little kids ages 1-4 are watching around this time. Bottom line, Baby Looney Tunes is made to entertain young children. Let them do that.
Good preschool show.
xanman-359336 September 2021
This show is great, awesome!!!
Dozermelon11 February 2005
This show is great... I watched this everyday with my family and I am also a big fan of this show!!! This show also teaches you moral and manners... There is some episodes that tells a story... A cute show for kids!!! This show has all the colorful pictures...
There are great characters like Bugs bunny, Lola bunny, Daffy duck, Tasmanian devil, Tweety bird, Sylvester the cat and the kind Granny...
This also teaches languages in some episodes... Also helps children to foster creative thinking... And this is a kid show... It bothers me when people is dissing this movie... I guess some clowns out there can't take this show entertaining and just shoot their mouth off anytime they like...
There are great characters like Bugs bunny, Lola bunny, Daffy duck, Tasmanian devil, Tweety bird, Sylvester the cat and the kind Granny...
This also teaches languages in some episodes... Also helps children to foster creative thinking... And this is a kid show... It bothers me when people is dissing this movie... I guess some clowns out there can't take this show entertaining and just shoot their mouth off anytime they like...
Very cute show.
dootuss16 December 2002
Frankly, I'm really mad at all of those who have bashed this show with bad reviews. "Baby Looney Tunes" is to me, a really good show. The show features our beloved "Looney Tunes" characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Taz, and Lola Bunny (from "Space Jam" for those who don't know) as babies. Each episode features one, or some of the little tykes getting into a situation, but in the end, their nanny (If you want to describe it that way) Granny (BRILLIANT!!!) helps solve the problem that the little tykes got into.
Overall, I like the show. I think it's cute, and I think it's great to see our "Looney Tunes" characters shown as babies. Sure some will say it rips off "Muppet Babies" (A GREAT show from my youth), but so what? This show's great!!
This gets a 10/10.
Overall, I like the show. I think it's cute, and I think it's great to see our "Looney Tunes" characters shown as babies. Sure some will say it rips off "Muppet Babies" (A GREAT show from my youth), but so what? This show's great!!
This gets a 10/10.
Two Different Treatments
Ainsley_Jo_Phillips14 June 2004
I think that one should think of these shows (the old-timey Looney Tunes and Baby Looney Tunes) as two different shows.
The latter is a cutesy, gentle kind of cartoon that gives good messages to tots--but, also, to kids of all ages, because we never outgrow our need for learning lessons.
It's what you would call a sweet cartoon--and I would rather have kids exposed to sweet cartoons like this that also happens to have wonderful animation than that same tired stuff that they also show on the Cartoon Network that is woodenly-animated and sparse in meaningful plot.
The Looney Tunes I grew up with (I'm 51 years old) are the traditional ones, and they're full of slapstick, current event comedy that adults can appreciate on their own level (make that historical events for most of us), and amazing animation.
They're very fun and looney as the name implies, but they also exercise your mind as you keep on your toes for getting the double meanings.
Looney Tunes and others of their ilk also were music appreciation mini-courses, as they used a lot of classical, jazz, and other musical genres as background music at times and as part of the actual plot at other times.
Sadly, I see very little of those cartoons in the calibre of Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, Popeye, Rocky & Bullwinkle, etc. shown on The Cartoon Network.
And Baby Looney Tunes--while given a somewhat bigger piece of the pie--only represents a small portion of what's on there.
There are other really cute and funny cartoons on this network, but it seems as if most of it is made up of those very woodenly-animated, same old plot kind of cartoons.
They're of the animae type--which people tout as being something really special--but it's the most primitive of this type of cartooning to the place that all the different cartoons kinda go together.
The latter is a cutesy, gentle kind of cartoon that gives good messages to tots--but, also, to kids of all ages, because we never outgrow our need for learning lessons.
It's what you would call a sweet cartoon--and I would rather have kids exposed to sweet cartoons like this that also happens to have wonderful animation than that same tired stuff that they also show on the Cartoon Network that is woodenly-animated and sparse in meaningful plot.
The Looney Tunes I grew up with (I'm 51 years old) are the traditional ones, and they're full of slapstick, current event comedy that adults can appreciate on their own level (make that historical events for most of us), and amazing animation.
They're very fun and looney as the name implies, but they also exercise your mind as you keep on your toes for getting the double meanings.
Looney Tunes and others of their ilk also were music appreciation mini-courses, as they used a lot of classical, jazz, and other musical genres as background music at times and as part of the actual plot at other times.
Sadly, I see very little of those cartoons in the calibre of Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry, Popeye, Rocky & Bullwinkle, etc. shown on The Cartoon Network.
And Baby Looney Tunes--while given a somewhat bigger piece of the pie--only represents a small portion of what's on there.
There are other really cute and funny cartoons on this network, but it seems as if most of it is made up of those very woodenly-animated, same old plot kind of cartoons.
They're of the animae type--which people tout as being something really special--but it's the most primitive of this type of cartooning to the place that all the different cartoons kinda go together.
A true disgrace to the classic WB cartoons
Coolguy-75 June 2003
This is one of the worst cartoon shows to ever be thought up. It features the Looney Tunes gang as babies whose characters are not at all identical to their grownup counterparts (with the exception of Daffy). To make matters worse, there is not an ounce of creativity put into this show. The episodes are ripped off from plots of other shows such as "Rugrats" and "Muppet Babies." For example, there was an episode where the babies experienced their first snowfall. Wasn't there a "Rugrats" episode like that? There was also an episode where the babies go out to play in the puddles and Daffy is afraid to get into the water (ironic isn't it?). There was a "Muppet Babies" episode just like this where Fozzie was afraid to swim.
Not only do they rip off other episodes, they make the mistake of adding Lola Bunny from SPACE JAM. I feel that Lola was very unnecessary. She is not even an actual Looney Tune. They also added Melissa the duck who appeared in such classic WB shorts as THE SCARLET PUMPERNICKLE and MUSSEL TUSSEL.
Overall, I feel that this show is a total disgrace to the classic cartoons that WB produced from the 30's through 60's. I bet that Chuck Jones, Michael Maltese, and Bob Clampett (to name a few) have made thousands of revolutions in their graves when this godawful show came out. It will be a blessing when this show goes off the air after the creators run out of "Rugrats" and "Muppet Babies" episodes from which to copy.
Not only do they rip off other episodes, they make the mistake of adding Lola Bunny from SPACE JAM. I feel that Lola was very unnecessary. She is not even an actual Looney Tune. They also added Melissa the duck who appeared in such classic WB shorts as THE SCARLET PUMPERNICKLE and MUSSEL TUSSEL.
Overall, I feel that this show is a total disgrace to the classic cartoons that WB produced from the 30's through 60's. I bet that Chuck Jones, Michael Maltese, and Bob Clampett (to name a few) have made thousands of revolutions in their graves when this godawful show came out. It will be a blessing when this show goes off the air after the creators run out of "Rugrats" and "Muppet Babies" episodes from which to copy.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
