Loopy De Loop
Loopy De Loop
Loopy De Loop | Logopedia | FANDOM powered by Wikia
1959-1965
Shorts: 52 shorts
voices: Daws Butler as Loopy De Loop
When the Hanna-Barbera studio was founded, the plan was for them to produce both theatrical and television content. What they didn't expect was the success of Huckleberry Hound and QuickDraw McGraw. Screen Gems wanted them to keep focusing on their televised content. Hanna and Barbera on the other hand wanted at least one theatrical series. And thus Loopy De Loop was born.

HB didn't want to use any of their TV characters because audiences would be used to them on the small screen. Loopy De Loop was a new character, a French-Canadian wolf ostracized by society. His kindness and sincerity ignored by others with their prejudices. You know this series coming out during the Civil Rights Movement is interesting. Only in the final cartoon does Loopy get any friends, a cat and mouse pair. 48 Loopy cartoons were aired in theaters while four more were produced for television syndication (the animation quality is barely different however).

Loopy along with his two new friends from the finale would show up in Hanna-Barbera crossovers for an episode or two but always as minor characters. Due to limited television syndication after the 60s, many who grew up after the series ending didn't get to watch the shorts until the launch of the Boomerang channel in the 2000s.
 
One thing I realised is that in this timeline, Hanna-Barbera would be in a good position to indirectly bring more transparency to animation industry finances.

I love cartoons, but one thing that always frustrates me is just how opaque the budgeting process is. I know animation is expensive and time-consuming, and always was. But, like, I could barely find any info on the budgets of Golden Age of Animation shorts. Like, how much did Red Hot Riding Hood cost to make? Fuck if I know. I know there were like three main units at Termite Terrace: Chuck Jones' had the biggest budgets, Friz Freleng's had smaller budgets, and Robert McKimson's had the lowest budgets. What were the actual numbers for their budgets? Fuck if I know.

Hanna-Barbera are actually the only source I have for any kind of actual numbers, thanks to them explaining how rough the transition from cinema to television was. Back at MGM, Hanna and Barbera had budgets of $30.000 - $35.000 (I can't remember for sure what the right figure was, but I usually pick the lower one for caution) for a 7-minute Tom and Jerry short. With Ruff and Reddy, their budget was slashed to a starting point of $2.700. And the wikipedia page has a quote from Hanna's book A Cast of Friends:

Back at MGM our budget was lavish enough to allow as many as sixteen drawings per foot of fully animated film. It was a new ballgame for TV. In order to meet our budget for Ruff and Reddy, we had to pare the drawings down to no more than one or two per foot of film.

That's like my only source giving actual numbers for budgets of big studio cartoon shorts, hahaha. It'd be interesting if Hanna-Barbera establish themselves and then use their position to educate more aspiring animators on the economics of the animation industry (always expensive, always time-consuming). They might benefit from having a better understanding of what budgets you need to get the animation quality you want. (Even I noticed that Hanna-Barbera stuff from the 1990s like Tom and Jerry Kids and Droopy, Master Detective tends to have more fluid animation than, say, Josie and the Pussycats or season 1 of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!)
 
One thing I realised is that in this timeline, Hanna-Barbera would be in a good position to indirectly bring more transparency to animation industry finances.

I love cartoons, but one thing that always frustrates me is just how opaque the budgeting process is. I know animation is expensive and time-consuming, and always was. But, like, I could barely find any info on the budgets of Golden Age of Animation shorts. Like, how much did Red Hot Riding Hood cost to make? Fuck if I know. I know there were like three main units at Termite Terrace: Chuck Jones' had the biggest budgets, Friz Freleng's had smaller budgets, and Robert McKimson's had the lowest budgets. What were the actual numbers for their budgets? Fuck if I know.

Hanna-Barbera are actually the only source I have for any kind of actual numbers, thanks to them explaining how rough the transition from cinema to television was. Back at MGM, Hanna and Barbera had budgets of $30.000 - $35.000 (I can't remember for sure what the right figure was, but I usually pick the lower one for caution) for a 7-minute Tom and Jerry short. With Ruff and Reddy, their budget was slashed to a starting point of $2.700. And the wikipedia page has a quote from Hanna's book A Cast of Friends:

That's like my only source giving actual numbers for budgets of big studio cartoon shorts, hahaha. It'd be interesting if Hanna-Barbera establish themselves and then use their position to educate more aspiring animators on the economics of the animation industry (always expensive, always time-consuming). They might benefit from having a better understanding of what budgets you need to get the animation quality you want. (Even I noticed that Hanna-Barbera stuff from the 1990s like Tom and Jerry Kids and Droopy, Master Detective tends to have more fluid animation than, say, Josie and the Pussycats or season 1 of Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!)
Part of the reason the stuff from the 1990s tends to look way better is because Hanna-Barbera was an early adopter of digital ink and paint. They used their own in-house system from 1983 all the way until 1996. The studio reported a cost savings ratio compared to traditional cel painting of 5 to 1.


But this is the 1960s we're talking about, and computers are still bulky mainframes used for tasks like the moon landing - so back to the drawing board. Basically, HB has a couple of ways they can make their animation look better with 1960s/1970s technology:
  • They could do what Disney did and adopt xerography machines to speed up the ink and paint process by directly copying off sketches, but with the caveat of giving their work a visually scratchier look. While it didn't look too good when Disney used it, for Hanna-Barbera it might as well make their work look like the Mona Lisa compared to their OTL output.
  • They could do what Rankin/Bass did and outsource animation to Japanese studios such as Toei Animation and Topcraft (which actually had a lot of Studio Ghilbi animators), as shows like the now-forgotten The Smokey Bear Show show more fluidity compared to something like HB's Wacky Races.
  • Perhaps the strangest and most esoteric option would be to use computers anyway - specifically Scanimation. Basically, from the late 1960s until the 1980s, this system - basically analog computer animation - would be used by manipulating television signals to create animated videos. Although it was mainly used in on-air branding (look up "Dolphin Productions demo reel" on YouTube) Hanna-Barbera did indeed test the technology for cost-cutting techniques. And the results were..... cursed.
 
Part of the reason the stuff from the 1990s tends to look way better is because Hanna-Barbera was an early adopter of digital ink and paint. They used their own in-house system from 1983 all the way until 1996. The studio reported a cost savings ratio compared to traditional cel painting of 5 to 1.


But this is the 1960s we're talking about, and computers are still bulky mainframes used for tasks like the moon landing - so back to the drawing board. Basically, HB has a couple of ways they can make their animation look better with 1960s/1970s technology:
  • They could do what Disney did and adopt xerography machines to speed up the ink and paint process by directly copying off sketches, but with the caveat of giving their work a visually scratchier look. While it didn't look too good when Disney used it, for Hanna-Barbera it might as well make their work look like the Mona Lisa compared to their OTL output.
  • They could do what Rankin/Bass did and outsource animation to Japanese studios such as Toei Animation and Topcraft (which actually had a lot of Studio Ghilbi animators), as shows like the now-forgotten The Smokey Bear Show show more fluidity compared to something like HB's Wacky Races.
  • Perhaps the strangest and most esoteric option would be to use computers anyway - specifically Scanimation. Basically, from the late 1960s until the 1980s, this system - basically analog computer animation - would be used by manipulating television signals to create animated videos. Although it was mainly used in on-air branding (look up "Dolphin Productions demo reel" on YouTube) Hanna-Barbera did indeed test the technology for cost-cutting techniques. And the results were..... cursed.
1. The 90s shows weren't animated with digital ink and paint. Well 2 Stupid Dogs was but none of the others. T&J Kids, SWAT Kats, PPG, Dexter (besides the Savino years)...all on cels. The reason HB got better was because Turner bought them and because DuckTales and BTAS basically forced other studios to step up their game.
2. HB will 100% outsource some work to Japan. Their workload is only going to get bigger and calling up the east come the 70s seems appealing...
3. We ain't using scanimation that looks like dogshit. That's if you wanted to make 70s HB WORSE lol
 
1. The 90s shows weren't animated with digital ink and paint. Well 2 Stupid Dogs was but none of the others. T&J Kids, SWAT Kats, PPG, Dexter (besides the Savino years)...all on cels. The reason HB got better was because Turner bought them and because DuckTales and BTAS basically forced other studios to step up their game.
Fair enough, I was simply saying it was part of the reason. And I was going to add that Turner buying them caused them to up their game.
2. HB will 100% outsource some work to Japan. Their workload is only going to get bigger and calling up the east come the 70s seems appealing...
Good to hear.
3. We ain't using scanimation that looks like dogshit. That's if you wanted to make 70s HB WORSE lol
Hence why I said it looks cursed.
 
Part of the reason the stuff from the 1990s tends to look way better is because Hanna-Barbera was an early adopter of digital ink and paint. They used their own in-house system from 1983 all the way until 1996. The studio reported a cost savings ratio compared to traditional cel painting of 5 to 1.
Uh, I think you focused on the off-hand mention of 1990s stuff. My main point was about, like, talking more openly about budgets, the expense of animation, and probably giving people an actual idea how the sausage was made, y'know? As opposed to, like, the public seeing animation as a bit of a black box. XD

I think given their transition, Hanna-Barbera would be well-placed to drive a simple message to the public, whether aspiring animators or just viewers: finances go down, animation quality goes to shit. Animation costs money. Oh, to have a world where animation budgets were more transparent, lol. That way the TV Tropes page on Off Model wouldn't have to basically take educated guesses at the average budget of a Western cartoon (between $350.000 to $6 million depending on popularity, how long it's been running...) or anime (~$171.000 for a 30-minute episode).

(But I will say that Scanimation crap looks like some Flash shit you'd find on Newgrounds, LMAO.)
 
Last edited:
About the outsourcing part, could we have Hanna-Barbera maybe import some anime over, thus starting a earlier anime boom?
If Hanna-Barbera started dubbing anime in say the 70s then the anime boom could happen by the 80s as opposed to the 90s.
An earlier anime boom could be a double edged sword. If Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was properly dubbed and given a major theatrical release say by 1986 it would give The Great Mouse Detective some major competition potentially causing The Great Mouse Detective to bomb, ending Disney theatrical animated movies and preventing the Disney Renaissance. We'd lose out on the Disney renaissance (or at least delay it by a number of years), but it could also kill the Animation Age Ghetto and would allow smaller studios to rise up and fill the void left by Disney.

Personally I would love to see Yatterman get dubbed.
 
If Hanna-Barbera started dubbing anime in say the 70s then the anime boom could happen by the 80s as opposed to the 90s.
An earlier anime boom could be a double edged sword. If Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was properly dubbed and given a major theatrical release say by 1986 it would give The Great Mouse Detective some major competition potentially causing The Great Mouse Detective to bomb, ending Disney theatrical animated movies and preventing the Disney Renaissance. We'd lose out on the Disney renaissance (or at least delay it by a number of years), but it could also kill the Animation Age Ghetto and would allow smaller studios to rise up and fill the void left by Disney.

Personally I would love to see Yatterman get dubbed.
We will get earlier anime imports. It will be so successful it might just result in
a dead Woodpecker
 
Top