Disney vs WB

Disney was also sorta aiming for slightly different market than Warner Bros...even my old man brought that up; he saw Disney as more white-collar, and WB as more blue collar.

Now, as we never had the Disney channel when I was a kid, I mostly just watched Looney Tunes cartoons. However, I vastly prefer Disney; I confess, I'm a major Disney fan.

It's not specifically the humor.

But, let's touch on the humor briefly:

I was never as into slapstick the way a lot of other people are, so they kinda had to rely on other stuff with me......and unfortunately one thing that really hits Looney Tunes hard is the references are extremely dated. Sure...they're pushing the envelope like crazy. But, when you don't even know what's being referenced, it's harder to push the envelope. The only reason I realized, in a recent short I was watching, how much they were pushing the envelope, was because I'm a major studier of cultural history.

It also helped that my folks and grandfolks...well, were raised on that stuff, and they could clue me in to half the jokes.

Tell ya what..show some old Looney Tunes cartoons where they're referencing WC Fields or Groucho Marx to your kid...and lmk how easily they get what's going on.

Disney, on the other hand, doesn't just throw some slapstick out into the wind; I think they're a lot more subtle in their comedy, and I find the characters a lot more likable too. In WB's favor, one of my favorite WB characters is Taz...and the main reason is because he was the first WB character to really give Bugs and crew "a run for their money". He was pretty smart, and a serious "threat", unlike say Elmer Fudd.

I'll be fair though...most of the Disney stuff I've seen was their movies, and I've only seen a few of the shorts.

I'm just going by what I've seen. But I thought later on the animation and drawings from Disney were far better overall, whereas pretty much anything past 1940 for WB looked poorly drawn and poorly animated. That was the point they relied more on the comedy than the artistic value....and like I said, the slapstick didn't do it as much for me.
 
As much as I like Disney, I think I'll give the edge to WB. Besides Bugs Bunny being my favorite cartoon character of all time, I've seen Looney Tunes much more consistently over the years. I had some Disney compilations on video when I was little, but they were harder to see on TV unless you had Disney Channel. But Looney Tunes I continued to see much more frequently on TV, even up to my high school days. As such, many of them have stuck in my memory the best.
 
Disney. The WB cartoons relies pretty much completely on their jokes, and since i dont find most of those jokes particularly funny, they feel kinda pointless to me. The Disney shorts however tend to have beautiful animation, atmospheric music, stories, sympathic characters and a general charming atmosphere, which makes them much more enjoyable as far as i am concerned.
 
Warner Bros. for me. Disney may have a few short that are funny, but they can't come close to Warner Bros. in terms of comedic gold. Now when your talking animated features, Disney clearly wins. (Even if they do rely on the tired 'princess' formula.) Sure, Warner Bros. has a few animated gems, but they don't have the marketing know how that Disney has. :sad:That's true. Warner Bros. had the advantage of exposing their shorts on both broadcast, and cable TV. (Or at least, they use to.) Disney, however, limited the exposure of their shorts to Disney Channel, home video, and the occasional 'Wonderful World Of Disney' special in the frontier days before cable, and home video. (At least, they use to, as well.) :shrug:
 
Well, WB for me.

The thing about that Tex Avery, the creator of Looney Tunes, was heavily inspired by Freud and his Jazz philosophy, which "Red Hot Riding Hood" demonstrates, had me caught up on him much later than Disney, which relies more on victorianism and national romanticism.
Looney Tunes is the embodiment of the dark side of people, you know, the seven sins.
Lust = Pepe Le Pew
Greed = Daffy Duck
etc. etc. etc.
 
Everyone seems to be talking about Merry Melodies and the Disney Shorts.

I honestly have to say I could never get into either during the 80s and tended to favor things more like Ruby Spear / DiC's Heath Cliff and Inspector Gadget.

Fast forward to the 90s when we had Duck Tales (Yea, it started in 87, but meh), Dark Wing Duck and Tail Spin then compare that to Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain and Freakazoid; then the line for me starts to get very blurry.

I honestly don't think I could pick save what mood I am in currently >.>

Disney had richer, fuller stories as a whole, but WB kept the slap stick comedy rolling.
 
When it comes to animation, Disney was my first love, Warner was my second, and Cartoon Network was my third. I'm not as open to their newer work as I was to what I grew up on, but I still keep close ties to all three. These are the only studio brands that I have cared or still care about(Pixar is synonymous to Disney with me at this point, as is MGM's cartoon division with Warner)

As a whole I'd have to give it to Disney for their movies, but if we're just talking shorts or TV then Warner is the choice.

I love a good Donald, Goofy, and (older) Mickey short, but Disney had a bit of trouble keeping their cartoons as consistently funny as Warner's. I also prefer Bugs, Daffy, Porky, and the gang to Walt's fab five, because it seems to me that their directors knew how to make what would seem like one-note characters work in more situtations, and tend to be better defined. Their shorts also hold up better for me than Disney's, which is weird considering that Warner's shorts were more topical. Maybe it's because Disney's slapstick was more controlled and subdued, while Warner wasn't as stripped down. The Looney Tunes tended to have a good balance of kid-friendly action with more extreme gags, but didn't stick to one side or another more clearly.

For TV, while I like most of the Disney Afternoon shows, I can't say I'm much of a fan of the cartoons Disney made after. Most of these shows were either average-written and looking school shows, cheap cash-ins to their movies, or lame attempts at fitting in with Nick and CN's goofy toons, which Disney wasn't able to do as well as either networks.

Warner hasn't been too consistent in the past few years themselves, but their 90's works were pretty solid, too; Batman, Superman, Batman Beyond, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Pinky & the Brain, and Freakazoid! were all good shows that I've tested to successfully hold up. I also have found some good shows in the more recent years, besides Justice League. Duck Dodgers is a bit like the classic Warner shorts but is funny in either perspective, while Batman: The Brave & the Bold is a fun show from what I've seen.

If we can count movies in, Disney may have a slight edge, since the only animated movies Warner have done that I personally like are The Iron Giant and Cats Don't Dance. If you just want their shorts and television equated, then Warner all the way.
 
Growing up I never really thought to compare which company I liked more but now that I'm an adult it's kind of fun to take a step back and ask myself which cast of classic characters did I enjoy most. I loved Disney because it felt magical growing up, characters like Micky Mouse and Donald Duck really defined certain aspects of my childhood and of course every childs dream is to go to Disney World, having Disney in my life as a child is something I will always love and cherish. The thing about Disney to me though is that I touched upon Disney every once in a while, such as holiday specials and classic Disney films so I only really got to know Disney a few times a year. Warner Brothers on the otherhand was more of an everyday thing for me, Looney Tunes and other WB animated shows were on television every single day so I got more accustomed to those characters and what they represented, not just that but those LT characters were in commercials, movies, video games and other media a lot more so than Disney characters were when I was growing up (I didn't have Disney Channel then) so I guess all in all I was just more used to WB's cast than Disney's.

I guess if I had to pick which company store my heart more I would have to go with WB's Animation, it was there for me more so than Disney was as a kid and I have slighty fonder memories of WB than I do with Disney.
 
It's an interesting revelation to me that American kids (of the past few generations, anyway) usually got to see more WB than Disney cartoons on television. Because here in Sweden, the WB cartoons are the ones that were only on every now and then, and they haven't been shown regularly on TV at all for some time now, whereas Disney shorts have aired probably almost every single week (mostly on what also happens to be the countrys most watched channel) at least since the 80's. In fact, im pretty much certain that, right after The Simpsons, the classic Disney shorts are the most re-runned television programs in swedish television history.

Not to mention that at one point, a specific collection of such shorts (as well as clips from various older Disney features) that has aired annualy on christmas eve since the 60's were usually seen by about 90% of the countrys population. In recent years, the show usually get somewhat lower ratings, with about 80% of the country tuning in, but thats still pretty impressive.
 
Not to nitpick here, but I think the term you're looking for is "limited". WB rarely had "poor" animation, in the sense of sloppy drawings, wildly fluctuating character models depending on who was animating, a rough sketchiness to the characters, or bad in-betweens. And unless you mean the '40s decade as a whole, I would definitely disagree that anything past the year 1940 was bad. If anything, their best work came from that era, when Rod Scribner, Manny Gould, Emery Hawkins, and more lent their talents to producing exaggerated, cartoony movements.

That said, it's true that WB's budget got slimmer the longer it went, while Disney more or less held the same full animation standard for quite some time.
 
Honestly, I'd rate them this way.
1) Mickey Mouse & Road Runner/ Wilie E. Coyote
2) Bugs Bunny & Goofy
3) Daffy & Donald Duck

I found them equal in that order. I could almost always get a laugh from Mickey and Wilie. Bugs & Goofy were always good rivals for Mickie & Wilie. Daffy & Donald tended to be funny, but they also had ones that were just like Huh? What was the purpose of that.

Once they started actually producing afternoon toons, I think Disney is the runaway winner, but in terms of shorts I thought they were even. Also, I think I should mention that Disney did honor Looney Tunes as a rival and inspiration considering they aired the Looney Tunes Show Saturday morning on ABC long before they started House of Mouse.
 
We've had this discussion here before, and there's no clear winner because there's no way to make an objective call. It comes down to two things: personal preference and personality.

There are a lot of Disney toons that I love, but I'm a Looney Tunes kinda guy. Warner Bros cartoons tended to be more comedic, cartoony, slapsticky and edgy (which made them more appealing to adults). I believe it was Jerry Seinfeld who observed that the older you are, the funnier Looney Tunes cartoons become.

Disney toons always seemed to be more all-ages, family-friendly animated entertainment.
 
I have to say WB for me. Bugs and the gang are just more funny and enduring then Mickey and pals. Though Donald, Goofy and old Mickey are good.
 
aalong64 - you nailed it.
John K?s blog opened my eyes too,well partly,cause I felt a tiny bit unimpressed with Disney characters interactions and humor.Disney does have fluid animation,beautifull backgrounds and music,good timing...but when you take all that away,you ar only left with one dimensional stock characters.Nothing more.I think even Disney knows it,so they just disguise it with plenty of eye candy.
About Warner Bros.I can understand how it can come off as more superficial and heartless to some viewers compared to Disney,but it is just the opposite.WB characters have real personality and charm.You can put Duffy in a blank background and just let him talk,jump,yell and ramble,and hilarity always insures.His personality is enough to amuse you.Disney cant to that,they know it and they hide it,pretty succesfully I must say.
 
I actually thought about this a couple of days ago.

Because most Disney characters are adapted from fairy tales, isn't there really a limit on what you can do with them?
 
Back
Top