Which is worse: Disney's exploitations or WB's exploitations

Wonderlicious · Post by **Wonderlicious** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:13 am

Many people feel that Disney's sequels and TV shows are offensive exploitations of the original classics. A lot of people view the Warner Brothers exploitations of Looney Tunes the same. However, which do you think is worse?

I personally find that Warner Brothers are easily the worst candidate here? The reason is because whilst a lot of Disney's sequels and TV spin-offs aren't as good as the original classics, they at least keep the tone of the original somewhat. A lot of the WB stuff really doesn't keep in tone with the originals and just bastardises the characters. For example, take Baby Looney Tunes. I saw an episode of that, and was really horrified at the characterisations and tone, which lacked the continuity and feel of the original shorts. And the writing and animation was also pretty bad. I haven't seen Loonatics Unleashed, but I'm guessing that that show is also pretty lame.

Your opinion?

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:19 am

Oh Warners, definitely. Where can I start?

With this quote?

Warner Brothers expects Space Jam gear to earn $1 billion! Toy industry experts see Space Jam as one big commercial for toys. In fact, Bugs Bunny and Jordan first joined forces in one small commercial (for Nike).

Many movie critics have written that Space Jam is not such a great film. Could the studio have been thinking more about selling a lot of Space Jam junk than about making the best movie possible? Gerald Levin, chairman of Time Warner (which owns Warner Brothers and TFK), makes no bones about it. According to the New York Times, Levin said, "Space Jam isn't a movie. It's a marketing event."

http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazine ... 16,00.html

Then there's various stories about executives meddling in Looney Tunes: Back In Action (I mean, why hire a great movie maker and genuine fan as the fantastic Joe Dante

if you're going to allow clueless 25 year old pencil pushers to make the decisions?)

Certainly Dante and Goldberg's hearts were in the right place, and they clearly worked hard to try to get the Looney Tunes spirit right. In Slate film critic David Edelstein's article about Looney Tunes: Back in Action in The New York Times (Nov. 2, 2003), Dante stalwartly guarded the integrity of his animated stars' personalities, as defined in the classic cartoons. He told Edelstein, "Bugs has a very defined persona. He's the chairman of the board, the hip character who never loses his cool and is always above everything. . . I can't tell you how many times executives said, `We want Bugs to do this,' and we said, `No, that's not what Bugs would do, that's what Daffy would do.' " And they said, `We're sick and tired of hearing what Bugs would do and wouldn't do.'"

If you think that's bad, look at this: Eric Goldberg said about the animated characters, "So often I really had to represent them. I felt like I was channeling them. Sometimes I'd fight over nuances, but sometimes it was big things. During one big argument somebody said, `Does Bugs have to say, 'What's up, Doc?'" This makes it rather easier to comprehend how Buzz Bunny could come about, doesn't it?

http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/597/597449p2.html
(Never the less Back In Action is still, despite all this, a good film. But sadly, it's not great and not what a true Dante Looney Tunes film should be.)

And then we have lots of other examples.

Executives being amazed the Looney Tunes/Animated Superhero boxsets are selling because they only saw them as kiddie fluff.

The fact that Hasbro asks for a new cartoon Batman series so that they can create a new toy line and we end up with The Batman (which in case you don't get the point, sucks eggs backwards through a straw its so craptacular).

I can't even begin to explain how record breaking successful movies like Tim Burton's Batman films could morph into the monstrosity that is Batman & Robin - a film built around the exact opposite of what people liked about Burton's films.

Then there's the Scooby Doo live action movie - a film that took great delight in being mean and uncharitable about a well-loved group of characters. The whole purpose of the first movie was to make them all as unlikeable as possible. What super-genius agreed to that idea then? Thankfully What's New Scooby Doo? does the whole self-aware mocking while actually respecting the well-loved characters and formula. (But soon we'll have Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get A Clue! which includes such gems as Scooby turning into a robot with nanotechnology. *sigh*)

Finally, let me point out this little rant I posted not so long ago:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 877#248877

I rest my case.

PixarFan2006 · Post by **PixarFan2006** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:02 am

Warner Bros by far. They ruined their networks CN and Boomerang, (which was supposed to only show classic cartoons but added a bunch of crappy shows from the 1990s and even the early 2000s.) I was shocked when i found out that Pokemon will be joining their lineup. If this keeps up Boomerang will be going near Toon Disney's fate. (boomerang is only avilable through satellite)

Oh, and I am also mad at warner bros for ruining the classic Looney Tunes by making Baby Looney Tunes and Loonatics (which i refuse to watch). I liked Space Jam as a kid. I was not too fond of Back in Action, tough.

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:34 am

Warner Brothers - nothing to add to Netty really. The whole Lunatics thing far and away trumps anything Disney has ever done.

I dont even recognize Space Jam or Back in Action as being part of continuity. In fact anything post 1964 is tenuous.

Elladorine · Post by **Elladorine** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:20 pm

I have little to add to Netty's list. WB has absolutely no respect for their classic characters.

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:03 pm

We do have to give them props for their wonderful treatment of their past works however. The Golden Collection is wonderful. However, with the possible exception of Tiny Toons and some of the TV Specials in the 70s they have not done much right since 1974.

TheSequelOfDisney · Post by **TheSequelOfDisney** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:17 pm

I voted for WB

Isidour · Post by **Isidour** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:27 pm

I vote for both, explotation of the classics is just an "easy track" to more money, instead of exploring new character, plots and adventures. Who started this, I don´t know but I´m quite shure that if it worked for one of them the other did as and exploted its classical cartoons

NarniaDis · Post by **NarniaDis** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:08 pm

WB deffinately.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:05 am

Mr. Toad wrote:We do have to give them props for their wonderful treatment of their past works however. The Golden Collection is wonderful. However, with the possible exception of Tiny Toons and some of the TV Specials in the 70s they have not done much right since 1974.

I think that the Golden Collections were only released after massive in-fighting at Warners, as the Looney Tunes characters had always been under "Warner Family Entertainment" where as the Golden Collection was released by the Film department. You can imagine the politics involved in that... Family Entertainment would fight to protect their income "asset" to the ends of the Earth.

Also I believe all of Warners' management thought the Golden Collection would fail, because nobody would pay so much for "children's cartoons".

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:23 am

2099net wrote:
Mr. Toad wrote:We do have to give them props for their wonderful treatment of their past works however. The Golden Collection is wonderful. However, with the possible exception of Tiny Toons and some of the TV Specials in the 70s they have not done much right since 1974.
I think that the Golden Collections were only released after massive in-fighting at Warners, as the Looney Tunes characters had always been under "Warner Family Entertainment" where as the Golden Collection was released by the Film department. You can imagine the politics involved in that... Family Entertainment would fight to protect their income "asset" to the ends of the Earth.

Also I believe all of Warners' management thought the Golden Collection would fail, because nobody would pay so much for "children's cartoons".

I am not sure if I buy into that 100%. If that was the case, why the great restorations and bonus features on the first instalment? Why get Jerry Beck and Leonard Maltin involved if you dont think these will be of historical significance to people? I am sure the infighting took place given the recent treatments in feature films but in the end someone recognized the value and convinced someone in management to green light this stuff.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:36 am

Well, if you remember, after the first release Jerry Beck himself repeatedly said how important it was to buy the set.

OK guys - the race is on!

It's vitally important that the GOLDEN COLLECTION set sell better than the other Looney Tunes sets. If you want to continue seeing classic Looney Tunes restored and packaged with great extras on DVD, you must buy (from any legitimate retail source) the GOLDEN box - and NOT buy the others (unless you REALLY want them).

The reason: the sales of the GOLDEN COLLECTION will convince Waner Bros. that there is a large audience of adult consumers who want this kind of product. As hard as it is to believe, the powers that be at Warner Bros. Home Video do not know this. The GOLDEN COLLECTION is a test, an experiment.

If the Premiere Collection (and that other crap) sells better than the GOLDEN COLLECTION, then that is what you'll get instead.

I think you guys know how important this is. Spread the word. Let's make the GOLDEN COLLECTION a hit. The 2nd & 3rd wave are on hold until they see the sales figures from the first wave. If the sales are great, the 2nd wave can be out as early as next summer.

http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=83529

Also, I'm pretty sure I read the actual release of the 1st set was down to one man (Glenn Ford? No not the actor, or was he?) who repeately fought to release an "adult" set. Warner expected the cheaper sets to sell more. The restoration was nothing to do with the DVD release - they had been scheduled in well before any decision had been made to release DVD sets.

dvdjunkie · Post by **dvdjunkie** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:24 am

Get ready to throw rocks at me...........I voted for Disney as the worst violator of this.

All of these sub-par direct-to-video releases have 'dumb-downed' the Disney company to being just a money monger.

Why not spend the little extra time and put the film into the theater. They have an audience that is just waiting for the next Disney release. No, they have to go and spend their time making worthless - talentless - tasteless- remakes and retread after retreads of there stuff. Now THAT IS EXPLOITATION folks!!!

Their talent pool has been scraped dry and they insist on foisting all these crappy Disney Original Movies that are so sweet and schmaltzy and have no plots or reason for being made onto an unsuspecting public. The youth of today is being told that it is okay to be stupid, and like brainless fodder like Raven, Kim Possible, and the like. Whatever happened to going to the movie theater as a family? Disney just made it easier for mom and dad to have a night out without the brats, by making these insipid movies that they call Original.

Never watched any of the Warner Bros. movies like Space Jam or Back in Action, because I don't consider those to be Looney Tunes cartoons, they are live action and the only movies of that type that I ever thought were any good were "Song of the South" and "Roger Rabbitt", both of which are Disney products. "Tiny Toons" were based on their characters as kids, I saw nothing wrong with that. But you don't see Warner Brothers foisting direct-to-video releases every other month to make money from their so-called "new talent".

That is why I voted for Disney as the worst violator of the exploitation of their products.

The Little Merman · Post by **The Little Merman** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:06 pm

Good lord, Warner Bros.!

*tlm

Timon/Pumbaa fan · Post by **Timon/Pumbaa fan** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:22 pm

WB!

While Loony Tunes: Back in Action was really good, it wasn't enough to forgive WB for Baby Loony Tunes(a kiddy show that turns our beloved characters into a teacher's tool to teach kids lessons for children... that doesn't involve dynamite

) Space Jam, or Lunatics(*barf*).

And that's just Loony Tunes stuff, read what Netty has to say.

I want to see WB make more Loony Tune shorts like they did in the late 30's to late 60's. Those characters are part of my childhood.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:16 pm

dvdjunkie wrote:they are live action and the only movies of that type that I ever thought were any good were "Song of the South" and "Roger Rabbitt", both of which are Disney products.

And "Mary Poppins", "Bedknobs and Broomsticks", and "Pete's Dragon". Then again, for both MP and B&B it was only like...10-15 minutes of the films in an animated world, as opposed to SOTS, PD, and WFRR, where animated characters was a continued presence...

Escapay

Mr. Toad · Post by **Mr. Toad** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:34 pm

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:
I want to see WB make more Loony Tune shorts like they did in the late 30's to late 60's. Those characters are part of my childhood.

Good news Justin. I just had a discussion with Jerry Beck on another site. Warner Brothers has guaranteed up to Volume 10 and will likely go all the way(17 volumes)

Lars Vermundsberget · Post by **Lars Vermundsberget** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:46 pm

I guess it can be argued quite well that WB's "exploitation" of their classic characters is "worse" than what Disney do to their own. But for some reason that still doesn't bother me much. And that doesn't really mean that I don't appreciate WB's classic characters and animated shorts, either.

Timon/Pumbaa fan · Post by **Timon/Pumbaa fan** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:46 pm

Mr. Toad wrote:Good news Justin. I just had a discussion with Jerry Beck on another site. Warner Brothers has guaranteed up to Volume 10 and will likely go all the way(17 volumes)

I think you misinterpeted what I said. I was saying I want WB to make Loony Tunes shorts today like they did back then with new animators and voice actors. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen.

I'm glad the old shorts are getting the treatment they deserve though.

Lars Vermundsberget · Post by **Lars Vermundsberget** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:54 pm

Well, on the 2-disc edition of "Casablanca" there is a 1995 short with the classic characters called "Carrotblanca". It's quite good, I guess, but it seems to me that there is something about the classic shorts from the 30s, 40s and 50s that neither WB nor Disney can "recreate" today.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Which is worse: Disney's exploitations or WB's exploitations

I think that the award for worst exploitation of classic characters goes to...

Which is worse: Disney's exploitations or WB's exploitations