Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2012-01-15 04:09 pm
[ SECRET POST #1839 ]
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06. [repeat]
__________________________________________________
07.

__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

__________________________________________________
10.

__________________________________________________
11.

__________________________________________________
12.

__________________________________________________
13.

__________________________________________________
14.

__________________________________________________
15.

__________________________________________________
16.

__________________________________________________
17.

__________________________________________________
18.

__________________________________________________
19.

__________________________________________________
20.

__________________________________________________
21.

__________________________________________________
22.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 156 secrets from Secret Submission Post #263.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 09:25 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 09:29 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:00 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:10 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:10 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 04:09 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 13:52 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 10:21 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-17 10:15 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-22 09:23 (UTC) - Expandno subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-15 22:01 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-15 22:34 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 06:40 (UTC) - Expandno subject
no subject
You're right the new design is ugly as hell! :(
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 10:29 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 10:41 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
It's like Disney's Goofy in a way.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 15:55 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 23:08 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-17 00:06 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 23:09 (UTC) - Expandno subject
no subject
At first I wasn't feeling the new designs and the premise of the show either, but I was pleasantly surprised at how laugh out loud funny the new show is. I'm a huge fan of classic, Golden Age cartoons, and even though it would probably be ideal if we could go back to the way things were...let's face it, it ain't that easy. I'm glad the people behind The Looney Tunes Show are at least making an effort to turn out a decent product. It could have been another phoned in, ridiculous AU like Baby Looney Tunes or Loonatics Unleashed or whatever, but no, they're paying service to the most important aspect of Looney Tunes - the comedy. Are the characters different? Yes, but the characters were always changing in the classic cartoons depending on who was directing.
As for Lola...I have to say, even though I'm a 90s kid like a lot of people in this thread, I can't look at her with nostalgia goggles on anymore. C'mon. Take yourself back to the 90s for a second and look at why she was invented by the suits in charge. Were they trying to make a new, funny, interesting character who was zany and as flawed as the rest of the cast? A cast of characters that have been around for decades? No. She was invented to be the Token Girl with zomg girl power...and no flaws or quirks or personality traits whatsoever. Oh, but don't call her 'doll,' because she is Miss Independent. There is nothing about her that makes her a character in her own right, at least not by Looney Tunes standards. She's there to sell backpacks to little girls, end of story. She's not even much of a motivating factor for Bugs, which you can at least say about other female characters from classic series who also got the short end of the stick. Mickey goes on adventures to woo Minnie, Popeye goes on adventures to woo Olive, and it was that way for both characters since the very beginning of their respective cartoon series.
The new show, while you could argue are perpetuating stereotypes, took Lola and gave her a character the way the boys at Termite Terrace would have done. They gave her flaws, they based her off ridiculous things real people do and exaggerated them, THEY MADE HER FUNNY. For the first time I love this character and I can't get enough of her. She's hilarious to watch. Female characters on television aren't usually allowed to be this funny because people like fans of the original Lola won't let females BE characters - funny, flawed, engaging...and yes, messed up in her own fun way. It was that dynamic that made me LOVE Dot from Animaniacs and Babs Bunny from Tiny Toons growing up.
As for the shipping aspect, welp. I don't go to Looney Tunes when I'm in a romantic mood. I'm not sure why someone would. Mickey and Minnie are my favorite characters and they're who I go to when I want sugary, straight-up, sweet shippable romance. Bugs and Lola should be a comedy team with romance sprinkled in. The more out there the better.
Ha, sorry for the tl;dr. I think a little too hard about my cartoons.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-15 23:58 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 13:36 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-15 23:42 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:09 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 10:51 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)her eyelashes
wtf is wrong with her eyelashes
it's like
deadly weapons sprouting from her eyes
like her eyeballs are armed with daggers instead of eyelashes
wtf
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-15 11:57 pm (UTC)(link)BTW hate how they feel the need to pair up every Looney Tunes character as of late.
And they made Porky's mate a thin pig.
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:17 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:18 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:20 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 10:54 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-16 12:02 am (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 09:17 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 10:56 (UTC) - Expandno subject
(Anonymous) 2012-01-16 12:03 am (UTC)(link)It just...looks so weird. And that's Lola?
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:04 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:08 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:15 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:16 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 01:55 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:06 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 04:07 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 05:25 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:40 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 11:04 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:22 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:34 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 00:39 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 02:38 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 02:58 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 04:03 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-16 09:47 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2012-01-17 03:07 (UTC) - Expand