Why is this awful while the new Mickey Mouse shorts are great?

>>85215607
Because it's not the looney toons show

>Wabbit
>Elmer Fudd isn't in it

CN cant afford Billy West anymore?

>>85215607
Because WB can't stop fucking up.

>>85215658
With Looney Tunes characters, actors aren't tied to their characters. If they couldn't afford an actor to play a certain Tune, they'd just flat out replace them

Bob Bergen mention he's been Porky for 26 years and has never signed a contract for it. He has re-audition for the role with every project and there's always the chance he might not get the part.

Someone tell me exactly why this is bad because I've actually found this show funny. And don't use "muh artstyle" as a reason.

WB can't do anything right.

>>85215690
The comedy is meh.

>>85215690
>And don't use "muh artstyle" as a reason.
That's a pretty big reason when Looney Tunes is known for -not- having a shitty art style.

>>85215607
because WB loves to ruin the things they own

see DCCU

>>85215658
They replaced every character that isn't Porky with Jeff Bergman in the Looney Tunes Run app

>>85215690
no likeable characters, not even bugs himself. Why was that fucking BIGFOOT a thing?!

>>85215690
Majority of the characters aren't there. This is bad because in order for Bugs to be funny, he needs to bounce off other characters. He can't just mess with one character for the majority of the time. They then added new characters to replace old ones when the old ones worked quite well
Also the animation isn't great. Part of what made looney tunes good was because of the animation and the movement. This also helps the gags and violence. The gags and violence were also creative as well

This cartoon basically threw out the majority of that

>>85215690
no daffy or elmer fudd, added a faggot squirrel

>>85215607
Because Mickey is ironically edgy and grossout for dank millennial keks

>>85215607
>new Mickey Mouse shorts

Which ones are these?

The newest ones I know of are the ones they showed on House of Mouse

>>85217128
Oh, anon. You are in for a good time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7O22GuSc58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4uRnxBoYP0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeRYuMEM_4k
RIP Alan

File: 5504469.png (114KB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 260x260px

>>85215800
>Why was that fucking BIGFOOT a thing?!

I feel like it would've been better if they brought Hugo back instead.

>>85217202
These are so bad
So fake

The originals kept me riveted, not because they were funny, but because they were so eccentric and strange that I couldnt help but gawk at them

>>85217968
he did not have a good time.

>>85215607
Because the Looney Tunes are dead. Their age is over.

>>85215607
Because critics are paid off to like disney.

>>85220361
>Paid off to like disney
>The new mickey mouse shorts are always dislike magnets when ever posted on youtube

>>85219577
Apparently so.
>>85217968
Sorry to hear that. Personally, I think they're one of the best cartoon series currently running, but you do you.

>>85215607
It's a budget issue. You can dump more money into a series of short animations. Not so with a full series. Plus, Disney's pockets are bottomless at this point.

>>85215690
>don't use "muh artstyle" as a reason
But artstyle is a reason. The old WB shorts were lavish in their attention to detail.

Cartoons are art. What you're enjoying when you appreciate art is the effort and skill of the artist(s). People only fall for a new labor-saving trick once, then they notice the sameness where it's applied elsewhere and they look past the things that have a superficial appearance of work done, and see only the work actually done.

File: Screen+Shot+2015-04-08+at+23.37.40.png (799KB, 763x574px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 763x574px

>>85215690
Artstyle and animation is important.

>>85215607
New Mickey shorts came out after at least a decade of there not being any other new Mickey cartoon besides the preschool one.

Wabbit was trying too hard to be like those shorts and got a good show cancelled in the process.

>>85221169
>Personally, I think they're one of the best cartoon series currently running
The pacing is terrible and the gags are all just lolrandum, like they're just throwing in every idea that came up in a brainstoming session, with no idea of what an audience member is going to respond to, so there's no time to anticipate or respond.

>>85217968
>so eccentric and strange that I couldnt help but gawk at them
If this doesn't tickle your fancy, I don't understand your definition of eccentric and strange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmTor-zQXxw

File: 1459952663624.gif (3MB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 267x199px

>>85221330
This. Is. A. Underrated. Post.
People today seem to take animation/art for granted just because its "been a thing before".

>>85219577
>>85221169
Although I'm not 100% in disapproval to >>85217202, I do feel the same in regard to >>85217968. I feel like this was the best "Flash Animation" I've ever seen out of American animation, it's how this shit SHOULD be in quality by standard based on that media. I know that's not something 100% possible with fundings being a factor and many companies aren't as stocked as Disney is, so I can contempt to the reasonings. But it doesn't make it excusable and as a reason, lackluster when the examples above is how I'd like it to be.

That being said, I agree with >>85217968 that the shorts doesn't really have any real form of uniqueness and honestly felt like shorthanded retellings of old Disney episodes long time ago. Even if it's a "trend" of the character, pic related, I just felt like it had no life to it and felt like a scripted scene rather than "cartoon's splice of life" kind of deal, like I got back in the House of Mouse era.

>>85221925
Eh, wrong pic. But it show an example of how the coriogophy worked then and how it is now in the shorts.

But basically, I didn't outright hate >>85217202, it was better in ways than most modern shows I see today and have "comedy", but it's really nowhere as "charming and sincere" than how it was in the past, using that gif I posted as a example.

>>85222002
That's because Disney went for John K./Spongebob kind of random quick humour and turpistic art style. They're not themselves anymore.

>>85215645
/Thread

>>85221077
it was a joke about marvel movies.

>>85222323
Always fun when the original starts to imitate the parody.

>>85219577
He had a bad time.

>>85215690
>don't complain about the visuals in a visual medium
Jesus Christ

>>85222323
I'll level with you

The old Mickey shorts are for faggots.
They aren't funny, they aren't entertaining and because Mickey and Friends are corporate icons they're bald as fuck. These new shorts are the first time Mickey Mouse has been entertaining.

>>85217411
>I will hug it and kiss it and call it my own

>>85221330
No one cares, John, and Ren and Stimpy wasn't even that good.