Talkin’ Nerdy: Let’s Get Real About Lola Bunny

Just like the title says, all of this renewed hype about Looney Tunes, brought on by the impending premiere of Looney Tunes Cartoons on HBO Max, has brought to mind one Looney Tune who so far I haven’t seen in any of these shorts…one Lola Bunny.

Lola_Bunny 1

Not since Scrappy-Doo have I encountered so polarizing a cartoon character. You see, when Lola made her debut in Space Jam, she looked like this:

Lola Bunny Space Jam

But later on, when she returned for The Looney Tunes Show, she was changed to this:

Lola Bunny TLTS

While some fans were OK with the change, several others were suddenly like:

And for a long time, I wondered…why? Why are so many fans enraged by this new take on the character? Why does TLTS Lola inspire so much hatred among some folks? Now, if you ask the average Lola hater, they’ll usually say something along the lines of:

Angry Nerd

“Ooooooh, I hate this new Lola Bunny because she’s sexist! She’s an insult! She’s a stereotype! She’s too stupid! She’s a bimbo! She’s not a good role model to young girls! Rant-rant-rant!!”

And you know what?


Yeah, all that stuff Lola anti-fans like to throw out and tell you (and tell you and tell you and tell you) is a complete load. It’s Grade A Bolognium. I wish I had some bread so all of this baloney wouldn’t be going to waste. These reasons for hating TLTS Lola have always seemed weird to me, but I could never quite put my finger on what was so off about these complaints, aside from the obvious fact that they make no sense. When I noticed that it’s only MALE fans who go on about the Lola hate that I began to put 2 and 2 together. What REALLY gave it away was when a Lola hater made a comment on this very site proclaiming that Daisy Lou (a love interest rabbit character who only appeared in a single short, “Hare Splitter”, 1948, d. Friz Freleng) would be a better choice for a female Looney Tune than Lola.

That’s when it hit me. Do you want to know the REAL reason why these guys hate the new Lola so much? Do you wanna strip away the convoluted crapola? You really want to get down to it? Forget all that smoke they like blow up your ass. Whenever TLTS Lola haters say all that stuff I typed above, what they’re REALLY saying is this:

Angry Nerd

“I hate the new Lola because she’s not sexy like the original Lola was!”

That’s it. The Space Jam version of Lola made these folks feel funny down there, and they don’t get that same special feeling when watching the new Lola. THAT’S what they’re up in arms about.


“NO! That can’t be right! CAN IIIIIT?!!!?”

Trust me, it is. Think about it. None of the arguments they say out loud make any sense.

Angry Nerd

“New Lola is too silly acting and stupid!”


We’re talking about a comedy franchise here. Since when are the likes of Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, Pete Puma or Beaky Buzzard towering intellects? Since when is that even a requirement? Why is it OK for male characters to goof it up, but when a female character does the same thing, some nonexistent rules are somehow being broken? Not only does that complaint make no sense, but it’s downright hypocritical, because many of these hardcore Lola Bunny haters are also big fans of characters like Pinkie Pie from My Little Pony or Harley Quinn from DC Comics and DC Super Hero Girls. If you think this:

Pinkie Pie

Or this:

Harley Quinn 2019

…Are somehow better than this:

Lola Bunny TLTS 2

…Shut up!

Angry Nerd

The new Lola is sexist! She’s a female stereotype!”

Madea Shut Up

Ladies, don’t you just love it when guys try to mansplain to you what feminism is? I’m not going to get up on a soapbox here, since as a male, I’m hardly an expert on the subject, but based on what I’ve seen, heard, read and observed, ultimately feminism is about choice; namely, a woman is free to choose to be whatever the hell she wants to be, and that includes being funny, silly and ridiculous. Why are the guy Looney Tunes allowed to be silly and loony and zany but when Lola does it, it’s bad? Holding female characters to different standards and decrying a female character for being clownish while deeming it A-OK for a male character to do the same is itself sexist. When you magically grow a vagina, then you can lecture me about feminism. Until then, cram it!

Angry Nerd

“This new Lola isn’t a good role model like the other Looney Tunes!”

“Role models?” Excuse me?? You think these guys…



…Are role models? Dude, who’s your dealer? ‘Cause that’s some primo stuff you’re spinning on! The Looney Tunes are not, repeat, NOT role models. You’re not supposed to gel any life lessons from these characters; you’re just supposed to laugh at their wacky antics. Bugs Bunny is not a role model; he’s a rebel and a wiseass and a prankster and a troublemaker. That’s why he’s such an awesome character. It’s also why Lola had to change. Regardless of how you felt about The Looney Tunes Show itself, one thing the show did very right was rethink Lola. C’mon, really, what exactly was so great about the Space Jam version?

Lola Bunny Space Jam

Yeah, she may be nice to look at (if you’re into that sort of thing, I’m not personally, but I’m not knocking those who are), but there’s a serious flaw with the original Lola, namely:

SHE. WASN’T. FUNNY. The Looney Tunes franchise has no use for an unfunny character.

I challenge any of these alleged fans of Space Jam Lola to describe the character using any other adjective besides “pretty”, “cute”, “sexy” or “hot”. You can’t, because beyond being ‘Va-Va-Va-Voom!’ sexy,  Space Jam Lola had no personality.

That’s when the anti-fans’ arguments really fall apart. Why is it such a bad thing for a Looney Tune to act loony??

Space Jam Lola would never do any of those things, because that would require her to have a personality, opinions, quirks or a character, which that version is clearly devoid of. Space Jam Lola was just furry fetish fuel, nothing more. I’m not saying that a cartoon character can’t be attractive; goodness knows I’ve had my share of cartoon crushes, but there’s absolutely no reason for a woodland creature to be sexy unless you’re a guy rabbit and you wanna ‘do the math’, if ya know what I mean.

I’m not going to make fun of furries because they don’t deserve to be made fun of, but let’s face it: when these Lola haters see Lola on the screen, they don’t want to laugh; they want to get their rocks off, and they can’t do that with the new Lola, and THAT’S the real reason they hate this new take on the character so much.

So from now on, when the subject of post-Space Jam Lola comes up and one of these folks starts bloviating about how the character’s a disgrace and an abomination and whatnot, keep the above in mind, and then just tell ’em:

Talkin’ Nerdy: The Cold, Hard Truth About Tiny Toons

We recently came across this little nugget on the Anime Superhero Forum:

Tiny Toons

“Its really strange how the Tiny Toons characters did not appear as recurring characters in other Looney Tunes cartoon series like Taz-Mania, Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries, Duck Dodgers (2003), Looney Tunes Show (2011), New Looney Tunes/wabbit or the HBO Max Looney Tunes Cartoons (2020). Does Warner Bros think the Tiny Toons are not good enough to add to any cartoon series that has the Looney Tunes?.” (Yeah, I’m including the poor punctuation.)

-Really, dude? This is strange to you? You really don’t know why you don’t see Tiny Toons characters turning up in non-TT projects like Taz-Mania, Duck Dodgers and Wabbit/New Looney Tunes? Seriously?

Well, the concrete reason is because the Tiny Toons characters are co-owned by Amblin Entertainment, and Amblin would have to be associated or involved with any such project in order for Warner Bros. to use them, but there’s another, very obvious fly in this particular ointment, a fly the size of a brontosaurus. Here’s the cold, hard truth about Tiny Toon Adventures in relation to the rest of the WB lore:

Exclamation Block

The Looney Tunes don’t need the Tiny Toons. At all. The Tiny Toons need the Looney Tunes, but not vice-versa.

What would the Tiny Toons do in a Looney Tunes project? Seriously, I’m asking: what exactly would they do? What purpose would they serve, beyond popping up on screen every so often to remind us that they exist? The problem with trying to integrate the Tiny Toons characters into the Looney Tunes universe is simply that the Tiny Toons are just super-deformed teen versions of the Looney Tunes characters; take away the ‘kid factor’ and they’re just clones of the Looney Tunes and they’d just be redundant appearing alongside of them. Why would you need Buster Bunny when you have Bugs Bunny? Why do you need Plucky Duck when you have Daffy Duck? What need is there for Dizzy Devil when Taz is around? And so on.

As previously stated, Warner Bros. would have to secure permission and/or collaboration from Amblin to use the Tiny Toons for anything, but frankly such a move wouldn’t be worth the effort; Warner doesn’t need the Tiny Toons for anything since they already have the Looney Tunes, whom they own lock, stock and barrel. If you own the rights to Rice Krispies, then you have no reason to buy a cheap knockoff cereal from Aldi.

This is also the reason why the WB shows that came after Tiny Toons have fared better and are remembered more fondly. Tiny Toons‘ greatest success was that of a trailblazer: the series kick-started Warner Bros. Animation’s Silver Age, leading to the likes of Animaniacs, Pinky & the Brain, Freakazoid! et al, but those shows, most notably Animaniacs, are celebrated more and have more staying power because the casts of those shows were original characters with no blatant ties or associations with any pre-existing franchise. Yeah it was cool whenever A! or F! would reference or call back to or feature a brief cameo by a Looney Tunes star, but they didn’t rely on those characters in order for their shows to work or their characters to flourish; the casts of A! and F! could stand on their own. By contrast, the notoriety and legacy of Looney Tunes is baked into Tiny Toon Adventures’ DNA; the Tiny Toons could not and would not exist without Looney Tunes, and at the end of the day, they’re basically just knockoffs that we don’t need when the genuine articles are around. If Tiny Toons had never happened, the Looney Tunes would still continue to exist as they always have.

You know how you never see Scrappy-Doo turning up in these latest Scooby-Doo projects?


The calmer, more rational Scrappy who actually helped move the plots along and devised his ‘Scrappy Traps’ was basically a composite stand-in for Fred and Velma…

Scooby Gang

…But now that Mysteries, Inc. is back together as a Five Man Band, they don’t need Scrappy anymore.

Or how about Roger Rabbit?

Roger Rabbit

After Who Framed Roger Rabbit? came out in 1987, in the wake of the huge “toon boom” that followed the movie, Disney tired making a big push to incorporate Roger into the Disney shorts gang alongside Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Daisy, Pluto et al, but despite Disney’s best efforts (including having Betty White flat-out state in a Disney anniversary special that Roger was the Disney gang’s “new buddy”) this didn’t happen. Know why? Well, for one thing, again, Roger is co-owned by Amblin, so the Mouse House couldn’t really use him without their involvement or association. For another, let’s look at this character for a moment; what’s he known for? He’s well-meaning, but kind of a bumbler; he’s a little accident prone and has a habit of causing chaos and confusion wherever he goes. Hmm, that sounds kind of familiar. Who else in the Mickey Gang is like that? Maybe…



Yeah, aside from ownership rights, the reason Roger Rabbit was never fully integrated into the Disney shorts canon was because Roger was basically Goofy, and Mickey’s Gang already had a Goofy. Sticking Roger in there with them would’ve just been redundant.

It’s the same principle with the Tiny Toons: now that Warner is doing stuff with the Looney Tunes again, they don’t need to use the Tiny Toons for stuff, as they were just teenage stand-ins for the Looney Tunes. Tiny Toon Adventures was a nice kiddification/love letter to the Looney Tunes franchise, but those characters just aren’t needed now, as they didn’t bring anything new to the table that Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Elmer, Sam and the others don’t already contribute. And that’s the reason.

-Side bar: in this same thread, we came across this post:

“If it weren’t for Tiny Toons we’d never have Lola. Remember Babs didn’t really have an LT counterpart so when Space Jam was made they gave her one years after the fact. Even though they never met.”


Sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. Lola Bunny’s creation had nothing to do with Babs. Lola’s first appearance was Space Jam, which opened in 1996; Tiny Toons ran from 1990 to 1995, and was already over by the time Space Jam came around.

Lola was based on Honey Bunny, a character from the Looney Tunes comic books; a female Bugs counterpart who served as his love interest or rival, depending on what the situation called for.


Bugs_Bunny_comic featuring Honey Bunny

The story goes that Honey Bunny was going to make her big screen debut in Space Jam, but the movie’s execs weren’t pleased with her appearance; they thought she looked like Bugs in drag, so the artists redesigned the character, making her curvier and more feminine looking, until they eventually decided that this was a completely different character, thus Lola was born. She was not created to be a mentor for Babs. That issue was addressed in the TTA episode “Fields of Honey” where Honey was given a revisionist history to make her seem more important  and interesting than she actually was, instead of just being Minnie Mouse to Bosko’s Mickey. So the above statement isn’t remotely accurate.

Steak Knives

But thanks for playing, and enjoy your complimentary set of steak knives!


Talkin’ Nerdy: Nitpick the Rainbow

Today I’ve got to pop off for a bit about Marvel Comics’ Infinity Gems.



For those who don’t know, the Infinity Gems are 6 fictional gems (duh!) in the Marvel Universe. They are very powerful, and can be used in unison to make anyone who wields them omnipotent, basically a god who can control time, space and reality and generally be a really bad muchacho.



Each gem is small, smooth and oblong (basically Magic Skittles) and each performs a particular special power:

  • SPACE: Allows the user to exist in any location (or all locations), move any object anywhere throughout the universe and warp or rearrange space.
  • MIND: Allows the user to boost mental power and access the thoughts and dreams of other beings. When backed by the Power Gem, the Mind Gem can access all minds in existence simultaneously.
  • SOUL: This gem is sentient and allows the user to steal, manipulate and alter souls, living or dead. This gem is also the gateway to an idyllic pocket universe.
  • REALITY: Allows the user to fulfill wishes, even if said wishes are in direct contradiction with scientific laws.
  • TIME: Allows the user total control over the past, present and future. It allows time travel, can age or de-age beings and can also be used as a weapon by trapping enemies or entire worlds in unending loops of time.
  • POWER: Accesses all power and energy that ever has or will exist, and can back the other gems and boost their effects. It also allows the user to duplicate almost any superhuman ability and become invincible.

-In addition, each Gem is a respective color:

  • Power=Red
  • Time=Orange
  • Reality=Yellow
  • Soul=Green
  • Mind=Blue
  • Space=Purple
Bling-Bling Boy


When Thanos of Titan first popped up in The Avengers, it became obvious that the Infinity Gems were going to be the all-powerful MacGuffins that would permeate throughout the Marvel Universe (MCU), (though in the movies they’re called Infinity Stones–I think Gems sounds better, but whatever), and that’s all well and good, fine and dandy, BUT……

For some reason, Disney/Marvel decided to switch the Stones’ colors around!


To be fair, this isn’t the first time this has happened: as Jason noted in his Videots of Marvel Super Heroes, for that game Capcom mysteriously changed the colors of 2 of the Gems (they changed the Time Gem from orange to magenta and the Reality Gem from yellow to orange) while leaving the other 4 Gems intact, but the MCU swapped the Gems’ colors completely.

In the MCU as well as the video game Marvel VS Capcom Infinite, the Stones’ colors are now:

  • Reality=Red
  • Soul=Orange
  • Mind=Yellow
  • Time=Green
  • Space=Blue
  • Power=Purple

And this is my reaction to this.

Why you do this thing, Disney?? The Gems’ colors were fine the way they were, why switch them around? Why make the Reality Gem red? Red is traditionally the color of strength and power, making the Power Gem red is therefore a no-brainer. And the Mind Gem is yellow? No! Blue is often associated with the mind, but here the Space Gem is blue. And the Power Gem is Purple? Double-No! The inky abyss of space is often purple, the SPACE Gem should be purple!

Gems VS Stones

What I find particularly jarring about this is that there doesn’t seem to be any reason for the change; Disney/Marvel Studios just wanted to do this for some reason, maybe to establish that the Marvel Movie Universe is different from the Comics’ Universe, I don’t know. I realize this is a little thing that bugs me more than it should, but it still bugs me. It took me long enough to memorize the Gem colors from the comics, now I have to memorize a whole new set of colors!

Tommy Wiseau


*Side Bar: I can’t believe it took us this long to make a Tommy Wiseau joke!

Talkin’ Nerdy: Hey, Nonny-Nonny!

If you’re a Tiny Toons fan, you’ve no doubt seen the short from the Special Classes Day episode, The Just-Us League of Supertoons.


In the short, Plucky Duck (once again in the role of superhero Batduck)  and his sidekick Hamton J. Pig as Decoy the Pig Hostage (I love how on-the-nose that name is) get an invite from Buster Bunny (aka Superbun) to join his elite squad of heroes, the Just-Us League of Supertoons.


Said League is chock full of Tiny Toon parodies of DC characters:

  • Babs Bunny/Wonder Babs (Wonder Woman)
  • Byron Basset/Aqua-Mutt (Aquaman)
  • Li’l Beeper/Li’l Dasher (The Flash)
  • Fifi LaFume/Scentanna (Zatana)
  • Sweetie Bird/Pink Canary (Black Canary)
  • Shirley the Loon/Hawkloon (Hawkgirl)


In the short, the League initially rejects Batduck and Decoy for not possessing any super-powers, just a pile of wacky gadgets…


Not to mention being amazing clog-dancers.

That is, until arch-villain Wex Wuthor (Montana Max) shows up and tries to drain the Leaguers of their powers, wherein Batduck’s lack of powers ultimately saves the day, earning he and Decoy key positions in the League…as parking valets.

A funny short, however, there is a hiccup: The League rejects Batduck because he has no super powers, BUT….


…One cape who did make it into the League was Calamity Coyote as Keen Arrow, a spoof of Green Arrow. Green Arrow’s m.o. is similar to Batman’s: he’s another rich guy with cool toys. So the Just-Us League passes on one toon for having no powers, yet they accepted another toon who likewise has no powers. Kind of undermines the premise a little.


“That does Not. Make. Sense!”

Really, all the writers could’ve done was turn that into a one-off joke, like have Batduck say, “Keen Arrow doesn’t have any powers, and he’s in the League!” to which Superbun could’ve said something like, “We have a one-non-powered hero requirement, and that position is already filled. Sorry!”


“I certainly hope someone got fired for that blunder!”

On a related rambling, something similar bugged me about the DC Super Hero Girls ‘Super Hero High’ special. From the series’ start, Barbara Gordon only interns at Superhero High in the IT department.


Easy as Raspberry PI


In the special, we finally learn why Babs has yet to don the cape and cowl of Batgirl: she isn’t a student at Super Hero High because she feels she’s not worthy of being a student, because she has no powers. In an early scene, Cheetah derides Barbara for being a “Nonny”, as in “Non-Powered Person”, basically this universe’s equivalent to being a Muggle or a Nomag.

Again, this would be fine, EXCEPT….


…There are already non-powered students attending Super Hero High!

Heck, Batgirl isn’t even the only non-powered heroine among the main cast. Katana doesn’t have any super powers, just mad samurai skills and a razor-sharp sword (which likely isn’t even possessed here, given that this is a kids’ show). Harley Quinn doesn’t have any powers either, unless we’re going by Quackerjack’s rules and are counting wackiness as a super power. Throughout the entire 60 minutes of that special, I kept waiting for someone to point out to Babs that Harley, Katana, Catwoman and Lady Shiva don’t have powers yet they’re students, but no one did.


-Which is not to say that Batgirl isn’t worthy of being in Super Hero High, because she most certainly is.


“‘Nonny’? I prefer, Hyper-Advanced, Technologically Gifted Mega-Genius!”


“Hey! That’s my line, Red!”


Talkin’ Nerdy: Sing – Why Animals?

For a moment, let’s talk about Illumination Studios’ latest (at the time of this writing) movie, Sing.

sing-movie-title-cardJust a quick heads-up; This isn’t going to be a review of the movie. We don’t do movie reviews on this site, and I couldn’t review the film anyway, since I haven’t seen it yet. This isn’t a movie review, it’s just pointless rambling.

Now I’m sure that we all know the story of the film by now; a singing competition, contestants each have their own little drama going on, yada-yada-yada, but the one thing that I’ve been wondering since I saw the first trailer for the movie…


Why is the cast made up entirely of animals?

This is especially curious considering that Sing was released right after Illumination’s last movie, The Secret Life of Pets, in which the animals were, well, pets owned by humans. Compare this to Disney’s Zootopia.


In Zootopia, the animal society made sense because the producers were using different animal species to represent different races and classes, and to show how those different races and classes reacted toward each other.


In Sing, by contrast, this seems to be a parallel to our society, except that everybody’s an animal, and there’s no reason for them to be animals. They just are because it’s a kids movie and kids like talking animals.

Plus, the Sing animals wear shoes. I don’t like it when cartoon animals wear shoes.

My guess is that Illumination felt that kids wouldn’t want to watch an animated movie about humans. I might have, but at this point I’d be willing to sit through any Illumination movie that didn’t have the Minions in it.


We get it. You’re Illumination’s biggest cash cow, but we can’t miss you if you don’t go away.

There’s a belief among my friends and colleagues that I dislike anthropomorphic animals. This isn’t the case. I like anthropomorphic animals, there are just a very specific set of conditions in order for me to enjoy them. Generally, I prefer it when animal characters are in a recognizable human environment as opposed to just turning human characters into animals for no reason. I prefer when the people are people and the animals are animals and you don’t mix the two. First, I’m OK with animals that talk or occasionally walk like humans, just as long as said animals don’t live under the delusion that they are human! Referring to other animals as “animals” as though they’re something different and such.


I’m looking at you, Beary Family!

Second, if you’re going to have a society where there are no humans and the characters are essentially human characters in animal guise, then don’t have them interacting with “real” animals!


Anthros and non-anthros existing in the same universe is just plain weird. It’s impossible for me to get my mind around it.

Another question comes to mind: In a universe where all of the animals are intelligent, what do they eat?

I think that ideally, I prefer a world like the one in Warner Brothers’ movie Storks


In which the animals live in a recognizable human environment and  are acknowledged as animals, despite their being intelligent and being to talk directly to the humans.

So it’s not that I dislike anthropomorphic animals in cartoons, it’s just that the situation has to make sense. I still may see Sing at some point. I’ll probably rent it when it comes to Blu-Ray. Also, from a personal observation…


Judy Hopps is far cuter than the rabbits in Sing.