So the new “The Looney Tunes Show” show has been out for a while, but I’m not going to review it just yet. Instead I want to talk about 1 character in particular. Lola Bunny. She first appeared in Space Jam in 1996, then nothing but some one off appearances until Baby Looney Tunes in 2002. Then she appeared by proxy as Lexi Bunnie in Loonatics Unleashed in 2005. And she’s a recurring character on ‘The Looney Tunes Show,’ And she’s, she’s, just take a look.
Now admittedly, in her first appearance, she didn't have much of a personality as the movie didn't devote any time to character development whatsoever. This is partly because the other characters already had years of character under there proverbial belts at that point (or were Michael Jordan) and they didn't need any more development for the movie. But she still had the potential to be a good regular character. She loved sports and hated being called doll. They just needed to make it as over the top as the other guys. Like the other characters! Make it so she can never pass up a challenge. Show her playing everything whether she’s good at it or not. Willing to rough it up and get dirty. That could actually make her interesting.
So now The Looney Tunes Show comes out and what do they do? They turn her into a babbling ditzy valley girl who is bad at sports! WHO IS BAD AT SPORTS! The exact opposite of her original self! Why? I mean, if they want a valley girl on the cast that’s ok. But why change her so much? Why not just make a new character at that point? By taking a predefined character and changing them, they have official screwed themselves out of so many stories. Because now if they ever want someone like the original Lola, a sports loving tomboy, it’s just going to be awkward. They can ether introduce a new character like old Lola, which is stupid and redundant, or suddenly change her personality, which is just bad writing. Why close off so much potential for yourself? More options for stories is hardly ever a bad thing.
This would be like bake when TellTale started making there Sam and Max games, they turned Max into an investment banker with a bad back.
And on another note, out of all the character archetypes they could have written her as, why a vapid valley girl? It’s one of the most overused, stereotypical and lazy archetypes out there. And when it’s for one of your only recurring female characters on the show, the implications are, unfortunate. To say the least. Or maybe not. Maybe “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” just spoiled me for strongly written female characters. That and Joss Whedon. Now Buffy's a good example of writing a valley girl well. I mean there are so many other female Looney Tunes characters out there. Like, um. Granny? And Witch Hazel I guess. Oh, didn’t they make Tweety a girl once to sell clothes? Well there is Tina Russo Duck, but she hasn't appeared yet, and can’t be counted for the argument ether way. I’ll cover the impotence of having strongly written characters of both genders in the future. But I need to end this for now. So until next time, I’m Dollar Ben, and that’s my two cents.
So now The Looney Tunes Show comes out and what do they do? They turn her into a babbling ditzy valley girl who is bad at sports! WHO IS BAD AT SPORTS! The exact opposite of her original self! Why? I mean, if they want a valley girl on the cast that’s ok. But why change her so much? Why not just make a new character at that point? By taking a predefined character and changing them, they have official screwed themselves out of so many stories. Because now if they ever want someone like the original Lola, a sports loving tomboy, it’s just going to be awkward. They can ether introduce a new character like old Lola, which is stupid and redundant, or suddenly change her personality, which is just bad writing. Why close off so much potential for yourself? More options for stories is hardly ever a bad thing.
This would be like bake when TellTale started making there Sam and Max games, they turned Max into an investment banker with a bad back.
And on another note, out of all the character archetypes they could have written her as, why a vapid valley girl? It’s one of the most overused, stereotypical and lazy archetypes out there. And when it’s for one of your only recurring female characters on the show, the implications are, unfortunate. To say the least. Or maybe not. Maybe “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” just spoiled me for strongly written female characters. That and Joss Whedon. Now Buffy's a good example of writing a valley girl well. I mean there are so many other female Looney Tunes characters out there. Like, um. Granny? And Witch Hazel I guess. Oh, didn’t they make Tweety a girl once to sell clothes? Well there is Tina Russo Duck, but she hasn't appeared yet, and can’t be counted for the argument ether way. I’ll cover the impotence of having strongly written characters of both genders in the future. But I need to end this for now. So until next time, I’m Dollar Ben, and that’s my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment