Some movies need not be made... for example.

[Tawmis]

George Lopez to voice Speedy Gonzales in film (Reuters)

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Speedy Gonzales is taking his folk-hero status, incredible speed and signature red kerchief to the big screen, with help from George Lopez.

The comedian is attached to provide the voice of the fastest mouse in all Mexico for a politically correct live-action/CG hybrid feature set up at New Line Cinema.

The Looney Tunes character debuted in the 1950s as a regular nemesis of Sylvester the Cat. A 1955 short about the tiny hero, "Speedy Gonzales," won the Academy Award for best short subject, (cartoon). Pat Boone even released a hit song about the famous mouse in 1962.

Over the years, Speedy appeared in the live-action/animation features "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," "Space Jam" and "Looney Tunes: Back in Action." But the character has often courted criticism that the ethnic characterizations of him and his compatriots (especially lazy cousin Slowpoke Rodriguez) are stereotypically racist and severely outdated.

Aware of this, New Line and the producers plan to update the brand with a modernized sensibility.

"We wanted to make sure that it was not the Speedy of the 1950s -- the racist Speedy," said the comedian's wife Ann Lopez, who will serve alongside him as a producer. "Speedy's going to be a misunderstood boy who comes from a family that works in a very meticulous setting, and he's a little too fast for what they do. He makes a mess of that. So he has to go out in the world to find what he's good at."

That path becomes clearer once Speedy befriends a gun-shy race-car driver.

"Garfield" scribes Alec Sokolow and Joel Cohen will write the script.

Lopez hosts "Lopez Tonight" on TBS and appears in New Line's ensemble hit "Valentine's Day," which has grossed $158 million worldwide after two weekends. He also recently starred in "The Spy Next Door" and provided a voice for "Beverly Hills Chihuahua."

[dotkel50]

"Garfield" scribes Alec Sokolow and Joel Cohen will write the script.

Uh oh.....the Garfield movie was horrible.... even my little nephew thought so.

p.s. My nephew is 18 now and not so little.

[Rath Darkblade]

This is wrong on so many levels... Speedy Gonzales is not a racist cartoon. The cliche characterisation is what makes the character endearing, not offensive. Blech.

I hate political correctness. Wake me up when it dies a horrible, horrible death.

[Datadog]

Wrong on so many levels is right. I'm not even sure where to focus my rage, so I'll just rant about things in random order.

1. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL
2. Nothing has been made better through political correctness.
3. Speedy Gonzales only sounds like George Lopez in my nightmares
4. "A misunderstood boy?" Frikkin' 'ell! You do not develop Speedy Gonzales! He is a static character! "Oh, but we need to give him character development so audiences can relate to him better." Shut up! Examples: Mary Poppins, Optimus Prime, Boba Fett, the Ghostbusters - if you cannot build a story around a like-able static character, then you are a mentally defective screenwriter.
5. "Scribes?" As in... Garfield's accountants?
6. Ah, screw it. The movie's getting made. No amount of fan outcry or internet petitions will stop it. I must accept this.
7. At least this movie sounds better than the upcoming "Marvin the Martian" film.

[dotkel50]

Marvin the Martian destroys Christmas??? WTF? Does anyone in Hollywood have an original thought? Why is almost every movie geared toward prepubescent boys? Even the so called chick flicks are unfunny and oh so predictable. Does anybody do character development anymore? Turns on PBS to watch Jane Austen!!!!

--Rant Over==

[MusicallyInspired]

*groan*

My inner child just died.

[Datadog]

Marvin the Martian destroys Christmas??? WTF? Does anyone in Hollywood have an original thought? Why is almost every movie geared toward prepubescent boys?

I could only wish MtM was geared towards prepubescent boys. The plot they described seemed geared towards pre-schoolers.

Seriously, he's the only Looney Tunes character who's ever tried to repeatedly destroy Earth, and they can't even make a decent comedy out of that? I guess these Hollywood types forgot that the people who grew up with Looney Tunes are in their 20's-40's right now. They might as well make a "Laurel and Hardy" or "Bazooka Joe" movie.

Holy crap. They are making a "Bazooka Joe" movie.

Ouch. Ouuuuuuuch. I need aspirin.

[BBP]

Oh, Looney Tunes are a LOT older than that. They ran from 1929 to 1970, but they get a new and fresh audience every time, those toons just don't date!

They can do what they want with it for as far as I'm concerned. Any film means work for starving actors, cameramen, prop boys etc. Nobody will consider it part of the Looney Tunes canon. And it's not like any of the more recent Warner Brothers LT Ripoff Animations is worthwile.

[Collector]

Marvin the Martian destroys Christmas??? WTF? Does anyone in Hollywood have an original thought? Why is almost every movie geared toward prepubescent boys?

Marketing needs to rethink their strategy. The bulk of the money is with the Baby Boomers and GenX, not the kids. This is why I love watching the classics. they were done in a time when movies were actually made for adults. Think of the Film Noirs.

I guess these Hollywood types forgot that the people who grew up with Looney Tunes are in their 20's-40's right now.

As BBP said, the Warner Bros. cartoons are far older than that. There were the "Merrie Melodies" through out the 30s which was supplanted by "Looney Tunes". The 40's are the height of the "Looney Tunes". In fact that is why they are still good. The ones from the 40's assumed that they were for adults. They were shown before the main movies -- movies intended for adults. The kids' movies were the Saturday matinees.

[Datadog]

That's right. I forgot about the Merry Melodies and so on. It's usually just the episodes from the 60's and 70's that I ever see in reruns.

In any case, I agree that the classics were definitely intended for a more refined audience. Anybody who can watch "What's Opera, Doc" and say it's just kid stuff has some very strange kids.

[MusicallyInspired]

They can do what they want with it for as far as I'm concerned. Any film means work for starving actors, cameramen, prop boys etc. Nobody will consider it part of the Looney Tunes canon. And it's not like any of the more recent Warner Brothers LT Ripoff Animations is worthwile.

Can't say I agree with that. If this is as good as entertainment as an artform can get nowadays then society has really declined in its intelligence far more than I anticipated and I hope the whole market crashes. It's on principle that I think stuff like this shouldn't be made at all.

[Rath Darkblade]

That's right. I forgot about the Merry Melodies and so on. It's usually just the episodes from the 60's and 70's that I ever see in reruns.

In any case, I agree that the classics were definitely intended for a more refined audience. Anybody who can watch "What's Opera, Doc" and say it's just kid stuff has some very strange kids.

I'm a guy who likes opera and light opera (yes, I know, I'm weird that way ), and I love "What's Opera, Doc"! I also love "The Wabbit of Seville". There are so many references to opera in those two, not to mention light and heavy musical touches - as in all Loonie Tunes cartoons.

Speaking of "What's Opera, Doc?" - check this out: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1265&p=12380&hilit= ... f3d#p12380