Taking Sides: Warner Bro's vs. Disney

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Sorry be so bold. Help!

― felicity, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

In many ways, this is an intractable Beatles vs Rolling Stones of a question, and I will have to think long and hard, and have my sangwishes, before I come up with an answer.

― Edna Welthorpe, Mrs, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Disney = poo. I hate Disney as much as I hate the Beatles, to follow Edna's analogy.

― DG, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I too think this is not as easy an answer as the flip replies above. Of course if we were talking shorts - then Warners all the way. But taking main features into acount - Disney has a lot of strings to its bow. Jungle Book, Dumbo and a take on many of the fairy tales which have been branded revisionist merely because they have been sooo successful (and is the key to much of that success quality?). You can't kid a kid.

― Pete, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Pete I refer you to the dynamite equation eloquently explained above.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Disney = "Trust In Me"

Warner Bros = "Bugs Bunny Dressed As Female Bunny"

Counter strike.

― Pete, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Warner Bros = Touch by Lori and the Chameleons) Disney = Stress (The Extinction Agenda) by Organized Konfusion

It's a draw.

― Tim, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Tim you're wierd. Are you coming to SOAS tonight?

Warner Stores have a)BUFFY b)Powerpuff Gurls and Disney stores haf Mickey Mouse. Warner stores win.

― Sarah, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Should I?

Animaniacs was briefly the best programme on British telly. Warners win.

― Tim, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For the pub quiz, yes. There may be cash money involved you see. Wacko from Animaniacs sang more like John Lennon than Lennon managed himself. But when Wacko did it, it was funny!

― Sarah, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Wacko was a genius. I fell off the chair when he delivered that joke to Rasputin.

― Pete, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ptee's OTM here. Warner Brothers rules the shorts while Disney's rockin the full-length. The best Disney show I can think of is Darkwing Duck, whereas Warner Brothers has/had Batman, Batman Beyond, Animaniacs, Histeria, the first season of Tiny Toons Adventures, usw.

― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Disney get points off for copyright extension malarkey. Warner Bros been implicated in anything like this?

― Alan Trewartha, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Edna, you are my knight in shining armor today.

Now back to the FITE!

― felicity, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I like Dan's answer, unsurprisingly. Right down to Darkwing Duck.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Warner Bros. had Chuck Jones, Mel Blanc and the hugely underrated Michael Maltese (one of the funniest English-language writers of the last century), and therefore "PRONOUN trouble!," which still makes me giggle after over 20 years. Disney didn't. Case closed.

(On the other hand, Disney had Carl Barks, and WB didn't. But still.)

― Douglas, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I find the original short cartoons of Warner Bros vastly superior to those of Disney. There is a major difference between the types of characters the two companies created, Bugs (the new york wise guy), Daffy (the egomaniac ne'er do well), Porky (the fall guy), etc…they all had characteristics that would appeal to adults. Whilst, Disney only seem to have sickly cutsey characters like Mickey, Goofy, Mini etc…With the exception of Donald.

Though, Disney has produced many good 20 minute cartoon series in the past 15 years or so, such as Duck Tales, Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers, and the the previously mentioned Darkwing Duck. Whilst the attempts to re-introduce the WB characters in shows like Animaniacs, and the one about the Acme Looniversity all fell flat, they didn't have the 'harder' edge of the originals and followed the Disney mould of cutsiness.

So, in seems that in terms of a legacy, Disney is going to win. Which, is a shame.

― jel, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Whilst the attempts to re-introduce the WB characters in shows like Animaniacs, and the one about the Acme Looniversity all fell flat, they didn't have the 'harder' edge of the originals and followed the Disney mould of cutsiness.

The first season of "Tiny Toon Adventures" and "Animaniacs" as a whole are many things, but I wouldn't necessarily call them "cutesy". One of the main characters in "Tiny Toons" was best known for loving animals to death, after all, and the entirety of the Warners' insanity can't be described with the word "cute", unless you find scatalogical humor cute. (Think of the Lake Titicaca song, for instance, or the episode where they torture Beethoven, or the solar system song, etc.) The "Tiny Toons" movie is also responsible for one of the best cartoon lines ever: "That little man ain't wearin' no pants!"

― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also Katie Kaboom unerringly accurate, non-wutesy portrait of adolescence.

― Tim, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The later attempts to update the Warner characters have been prone to Poochie syndrome - ie the kid Bugs character was always trying to be cool (backwards baseball cap wearing). They had worn out this by the time Animaniacs came around, cf. the very core joke of Pinky & The Brain is The Brain = Orson Welles. Seemed to be a real freedom for the writers around that period.

Main problem of course with update WB cartoons is the incessant violence and the anti-violence TV educationalist lobby. For some reason its okay to keep showing these pieces of art from a bygone age, but you cannae make 'em like that anymore.

― Pete, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yes but Buster made up for his backwards baseball cap by not wearing pants. If that isn't the eptiome of cool, I don't know what is.

― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I was the epitome of cool today until about half 3 in that case.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I always sort of thought Disney Cartoons were funny. Hmph. Not the crap movies, of course--but the actual cartoons shown inbetween the Mickey Mouse club.

― Mandee, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's got to be WB, although clearly there are great Disney moments (Trust In Me, as suggested). But Chuck Jones will win for me everytime, and that's before you get round to considering the later genius of things like Pinky And The Brain. One of the things I liked about the Tiny Toons and Animaniacs stuff was that they would often not even pretend that they were doing this stuff for children - like the one where they resurrected the classic 'Who's on first?' joke and set it at Woodstock, or the Animaniacs ep with the Death from the Seventh Seal. And I'm saying all this despite my previous professional problems with Warner films.

― Mark Morris, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Warners toons had better music

― electric sound of jim, Wednesday, 23 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ok, ...where do I start.....warner brothers suck, don't get me wrong they do have their good moments here and there but all together they don't know what age group to target so the target all of them. Like WB channel they have those stupid teen girl mushy crap shows, warner brothers stoped making cartoons like bugs in the 60's for a good reason but once they saw that cartoons still make money they tried to get back in it, and failed they were underthought and rushed out. they tried to resurect their cartoons and make tham more current. The problem with both disney and w.b. is thier trying to think to much on the plot and make them more like real movies and that isn't working, the reason the earlier ones worked is that they played off natural human insticts just down to the core steriotypes and jokes, because thats how we view things in our subconcious, next there is evendence that bugs bunnay actually came from disneys "tortuse and the hare" they are identical except for color bugs came out months after the tortuse and the hare was relesed. Disney characters are also easier to relate to. They are aimed at the people that will be watching it not at everyone, not trying to do alittle bit for everyone. W.b. Also over saturises things to the point where isn't not funny, but that's only recently, they had it down well with bugs. they need to figure it out again. sorry for my rambiling.

― Jeremiah, Saturday, 23 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)