Walt Disney and Looney Tunes

[chadhobbick]

While watching the Looney Tunes marathon on CN, it got me to thinking/wondering about what Walt Disney thought about these cartoons. I know that they are almost polar opposites of his creations due to their rampant use of violent, yet funny gags, in the cartoons, but did he embrace them or look down on his direct competitor for theatrical shorts?

Disney Channel, you need to take notice on how WB is trying to introduce a whole new generation basically to the cartoons that helped put them on the map. It's sad that more kids/people think of the LT shorts than Disney ones. I could name off probably 20 LT shorts and only 5 Disney shorts since the Disney ones get basically no play any more. I know that LT shorts haven't been shown on tv in the last few years, but it seems that WB/CN are trying to rectify that, and i'm hoping today's venture works. LT and Disney shorts should be well known, and not forgotten from future generations.

[Mr. Toad]

This has been the case for 40 years. Looney Toons have constantly been repackaged and put out for new generations to watch.

A few Disney shorts would get play on Wonderful World of Disney and for a few years when cable exploded they got play but on the whole Looney Toons have gotten way more exposure to all generations since they were initially aired.

Certainly Disney shorts had bigger budgets and were more aesthetically pleasing, especially in terms of background. However, I would argue the Looney Toons had better stories and were far funnier. As you get to the end of the Donald and Mickey Treasures they get rather stale and generic. Aside from some later Road Runners, I don't think the same was true for Looney Toons.

I love them both but if I had to choos I think I would ake the Looney Toons.

[Kyle]

Looney Tunes has more appeal than Disney's shorts. this isn't true for All of them, but too many of Disney's involve the characters going through the motions with limited expressions. (happy, sad, mad/frustrated, that's about it) this was usually because Disney didn't let anyone bring anything uniqe to it. you had to follow the model sheet exactly or it gets redrawn. model sheets are to be used as guides, not something written in stone.

Looney Tunes were more honest in their interpretation of real life personalities and social situations. and they varied greatly from what animator to another while still staying in character.

All that being said, I do think they need to be playing these shorts. especially the Fred Moore ones. He was one of the few animators that animated Mickey with a real personality.

[Goliath]

However, I would argue the Looney Toons had better stories and were far funnier.

I disagree. Looney Tunes shorts may be funnier, but they did have better stories? Hardly. Basically the story of every LT cartoon is having a gag and then have endless variations on that gag. The gag *was* the story. The gags *defined* the stories. And while this also was true of Disney in the early years (say, 1928-1932), I would say that story became way more important, and the gags came forth *from* the story. Carl Barks has once said about working at Disney's that all the jokes they invented had to be meaningful or contributing to the story. And that's why I think Disney shorts were superior to Warner Bros.

As you get to the end of the Donald and Mickey Treasures they get rather stale and generic. Aside from some later Road Runners, I don't think the same was true for Looney Toons.

I don't know about Warner Bros., but I agree with your opinionon the Donald and Mickey series, although I enjoy some of the later Mickey's, like 'Mickey and the seal', 'Pluto's Christmas Tree' and 'The Nifty Nineties'.

Looney Tunes has more appeal than Disney's shorts. this isn't true for All of them, but too many of Disney's involve the characters going through the motions with limited expressions. (happy, sad, mad/frustrated, that's about it).

Again, I don't agree. I think Disney characters had a great variety of expressions. The difference with Looney Tunes is, after the first 4 or 5 years, Disney didn't allow his animators to exaggerate the action anymore. Like, in the early cartoons, Mickey could dance with Minnie and step on her feet all the time, and then on her legs and they would become really long, and she had to tie them in a knot and cut of a piece ('The Barn Dance', 1929). But Walt wanted his characters to be believable, so he didn't want to use that kind of gags anymore. Warner Bros. didn't have those kind of rules. That's why very late in their careers, Elmer could still shoot Daffy Duck in the face and Daffy's beak would turn around 160 degrees. Donald couldn't do that kind of things. That doesn't mean Donald had few expressions. I would argue he had even more, because the Disney animation was way more nuanced.

this was usually because Disney didn't let anyone bring anything uniqe to it. you had to follow the model sheet exactly or it gets redrawn. model sheets are to be used as guides, not something written in stone

On the contrary, Disney used the uniqueness of his animators to great extent. He used Fred Moore extensively on 'Three Little Pigs' because he was the only animator who could bring charm to the characters. Whenever he wanted to have characters on screen who would be believeable not just because of their movement, but because of their personalities, he asked Norm Fergusson to animate. For example, for years he was the only one toanimate Pluto because he was the only one who could do it convincingly. Art Babbitt was the authority on Goofy, because he was the only one who could make him a believeable character. When you watch the Silly Symphonies, you can see how different the animation looks from one sequence to another, depending on the animator. And you yourself mentioned Fred Moore giving Mickey a very distinct personality.

Looney Tunes were more honest in their interpretation of real life personalities and social situations. and they varied greatly from what animator to another while still staying in character.

What is great about the Looney Tunes is indeed the ability to cast them in very different 'roles', yet they never seemed 'different'. The loud and hyper-active Daffy Duck from the early 1940's is very different from the toned-down, sarcastic Duck of the 1950's, but you never get the feeling you're watching a different character.

[dvdjunkie]

I just think that the animators for Warner Bros. Looney Tunes were a lot better and had more control of what they were depicting in their 'toons.

Most of the Walt Disney cartoons were very formulaic, and you always knew what you were going to get. Some of the Disney storylines were tried and true and repeated over and over with different characters.

Personalities were the big factor Warner Bros. Name some character besides Mickey Mouse that had a bigger audience and larger overall appeal than Bug Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Sylvester Cat, Tweety, Tazmanian Devil, and Marvin the Martian.

Warner Bros. cartoons were 6 - 8 minutes long, and they got to the point quickly, and made you laugh because they were so true in their ideas of what life is all about.

It is only my opinion, but I think that Disney was afraid to offend anyone with their humor, while Warners slapstick, in-your-face, cartoons made you watch and laugh.

I wish that the Disney channel would have an hour a day of their original shorts that everyone could see. Exposure is the key to recognition, and the Warner Bros. cartoons are shown all the time, the New Year's Day Marathon was just a sample of how to sell your product to a new generation of viewers.

[Goliath]

Most of the Walt Disney cartoons were very formulaic, and you always knew what you were going to get. Some of the Disney storylines were tried and true and repeated over and over with different characters.

That is true of the very early black and white Disney shorts, but after that, there is a great deal of variety in Disney shorts. But Warner Bros. *was* very formulaic. Sylvester tries to catch Tweety. Coyote tries to catch Road Runner. Daffy tries to outsmart Bugs. Elmer hunts Bugs. They would have variations on these themes over and over again. That's what their cartoons were about. But with Disney, the characters were in different situations each short. 'The Nifty Nineties' is very different from 'Mickey and the Seal'. 'Brave little tailor' can't be compared to 'The band concert'. 'Lonesome ghosts' has an entirely different structure than 'Lend a paw' etc.

Name some character besides Mickey Mouse that had a bigger audience and larger overall appeal than Bug Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Sylvester Cat, Tweety, Tazmanian Devil, and Marvin the Martian.

Donald Duck! Goofy!

Porky Pig wasn't nearly as popular as all those others and was soon cast in little supporting roles, and Taz and Marvin only were in 5 or 6 shorts.

It is only my opinion, but I think that Disney was afraid to offend anyone with their humor, while Warners slapstick, in-your-face, cartoons made you watch and laugh.

That's interesting, considering Disney has gone through so much trouble to let Leonard Maltin give introductions on a lot of their shorts in the Treasures series, about how certain elements in those shorts aren't PC anymore today.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Looney Tunes has more exposure these days than the Disney shorts, but they aren't always better.

I've found that I don't really prefer one company over the other at the moment.

I agree wtih Goliath a lot of Looney Tunes shorts were very formulaic. I actually get bored watching the Road Runner shorts, you know the Coyote is going to lose everytime he pulls out a new gadget so it takes away the fun. I never really found Daffy Duck very funny he's more of an annoyance to me.

A lot of Disney's characters had a lot of emotion. Take Pluto for instance you always knew what was going throug his head, how he felt etc. and he never spoke a word. He had a huge amount of emotion and was very good at getting it across.

I agree with Goliath on a lot of his points

[chadhobbick]

dvdjunkie wrote:
Name some character besides Mickey Mouse that had a bigger audience and larger overall appeal than Bug Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Sylvester Cat, Tweety, Tazmanian Devil, and Marvin the Martian.

Goliath wrote:
Donald Duck! Goofy!

Porky Pig wasn't nearly as popular as all those others and was soon cast in little supporting roles, and Taz and Marvin only were in 5 or 6 shorts.

True, but ask anybody and they would think that Taz or Marvin were in just as many shorts as Bugs or Daffy. That shows just how popular these characters are in the public's mind. In regards to Porky, he would have to be in the top four of the WB/LT catalogue just as Mickey, Donald, and Goofy are in the Disney catalogue.

Yes, the Disney characters were put into different scenarios w/different plots, but you have to give the LT crew credit, no matter how many gags were recycled w/the same and different characters, they still worked on multiple levels each time.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

True, but ask anybody and they would think that Taz or Marvin were in just as many shorts as Bugs or Daffy. That shows just how popular these characters are in the public's mind. In regards to Porky, he would have to be in the top four of the WB/LT catalogue just as Mickey, Donald, and Goofy are in the Disney catalogue.

Yes, the Disney characters were put into different scenarios w/different plots, but you have to give the LT crew credit, no matter how many gags were recycled w/the same and different characters, they still worked on multiple levels each time.

What levels would those be? All I see is the same gag being used over and over to the point where you know it's coming before it happens (especially with Road Runner shorts)

Also just because Taz or Marvin were in just as many shorts as Bugs or Daffy doesn't mean they're popular it could mean they worked better for role in the short. I think though that Taz might be more popular than Marvin (I myself prefer Marvin). I doubt that the animators said "ok Taz is pretty popular let's use him in this short" it's probably more of a "ok Taz woudl work well in this short because..." Just a thought It seemed too much of a blanket statement saying that they were popular therefore they were going to be in more shorts

[chadhobbick]

You might want to go back and read the posts I quoted, including your own. Taz and Marvin were only in a handful of shorts, if that. I was saying that most people think they were in just as many as Bugs or Daffy, thereby showing how popular the characters were, even though they were in 5 or less shorts.

I guess that for me I thought the same gag worked on many levels in different shorts, but that's me. I love the Road Runner shorts, b/c I felt sorry for the Coyote, and loved to see what contraption he would get from ACME in order to try and capture the Road Runner.

I guess we have to agree to disagree, but my thread has kinda gone off track of what I originally asked, but it's fun regardless.

[Goliath]

I never really found Daffy Duck very funny he's more of an annoyance to me.

Daffy is my favorite Looney Tune besides Bugs. I especially like the later, sarcastic Daffy, directed by Chuck Jones.

[Yes, the Disney characters were put into different scenarios w/different plots, but you have to give the LT crew credit, no matter how many gags were recycled w/the same and different characters, they still worked on multiple levels each time.

Of course they deserve all the credit for that. I like the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies very much. They never bore me. Unless it's that pesky Speedy Gonzales. I hate that vermin!

As for your thread going off-topic: I think the discussion still matches the title. I also think nobody really knows what walt's opinions were on Looney Tunes. I don't know if he ever said anything about them at all.

[MK Sharp]

I like the Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies very much. They never bore me.

At last, another fan of Bosko and Buddy! Hurrah!

Actually, I do get the feeling that when people refer to Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies, they're only referring to the well-known product from 1940ish to around 1960.

There's vast swathes of mid to late 1960s WB cartoons that are just horrible, seriously tedious. All those awful Speedy vs Sylvester or Daffy films, for starters; plus some really woeful Roadrunners. And if I never see another Hippety Hopper "It's a giant mouse" short it'll be too soon.

I find the 30s WB output quite fascinating (particularly the Harman-Ising period), but I concede that it is, like much early animation, an acquired taste these days; and watching a few in quick succession often reveals how formulaic they are and how much they use the same gags over and over.

As for what Walt's opinions might have been, I would imagine that during the time when Disney was concentrating on shorts (1930-1940) the WB product was often so noticeably of lesser quality as to be not worth worrying about; and by the time the Tex Avery / Bob Clampett influence had really energised the WB shorts, Disney had moved on to features.

By the 1940s Disney was not longer the absolute leader in animated shorts, but it no longer mattered. It is noticeable that various of the Disney directors were attempting to incorporate the WB style into their films. There are the occasional Disney shorts in the 40s where there's been a clear thought of "Let's get some more Tex Avery style action into this to liven it up". But there's no consistency to it; there isn't a visible effort to change the Disney house style on a permanent basis.

Interestingly, the Walter Lantz shorts of the 1940s display a clear effort to try and mix Disney style animation with the WB gag sensibility, albeit done on the cheap so it often just fails to meet either benchmark.

My take on the whole subject can be summed up as: a 1950 WB short is likely to be better (by which we mean funnier) than a 1950 Disney; but a 1935 Disney will knock a 1935 WB into a cocked hat.

[Goliath]

Actually, I do get the feeling that when people refer to Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies, they're only referring to the well-known product from 1940ish to around 1960.

There's vast swathes of mid to late 1960s WB cartoons that are just horrible, seriously tedious. All those awful Speedy vs Sylvester or Daffy films, for starters; plus some really woeful Roadrunners.

I think the same can be said of Disney. When I think of Disney shorts, most of the times I think of the late 1930's or early 1940's Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. But there are a lot of tedious Disney shorts in the 1950's and 1960's. I especially don't care for the late Mickey's in which Pluto is really the main character. Or all those Donald shorts with Chip and Dale, the bee or the bear!

It is noticeable that various of the Disney directors were attempting to incorporate the WB style into their films. There are the occasional Disney shorts in the 40s where there's been a clear thought of "Let's get some more Tex Avery style action into this to liven it up".

Interesting. Which shorts do you think were influenced by the WB style?

My take on the whole subject can be summed up as: a 1950 WB short is likely to be better (by which we mean funnier) than a 1950 Disney; but a 1935 Disney will knock a 1935 WB into a cocked hat.

That's an excellent summary!

[skippy]

I find quite a bit of the Ward Kimball TV Space Animation to have some Looney Toon-esque quality.

[slave2moonlight]

I see Walt as a competitive person I think, but still more of an artist focusing on his own product and what he wanted it to be more than anything else. I think he probably saw the other studios' animations as competition, but I don't think he wanted to flat out copy them or looked down on them or anything.

But getting to a topic we can speak on with more personal experience, all this discussion of who is better and why, I really feel the Disney shorts and the Looney Tunes shorts are comparing apples and oranges. I have to admit, I have more often heard people say that the Looney Tunes are better, and they say it's so because they're "funnier." Well, that's the whole thing, really. Too many people see cartoons in only two ways: A. Strictly for kids, and B. Purely for making one laugh. The Looney Tunes shorts were focused on the comedy more than anything. Wild, zany, cartoony comedy. As has been mentioned here before, the Disney shorts were as much about stories and characters who feel real that we can identify with and so on, and from there comes the humor, but it wasn't usually gag after gag, rolling in the aisles humor. The Looney Tunes were formulaic almost from the get-go, while the Disney shorts didn't feel so blatantly formulaic (except in the very early ones). Because of this, I find the Disney characters much more versatile with a wider range of emotions. Hard to imagine Bugs shedding a real tear. The Disney characters seemed more like real actors rather than just comedians, and unlike most Looney Tunes shorts, the Disney shorts really seemed like works of art.

So, there are a lot of folks who prefer Disney, and I am one of them. But folks who just see cartoons as for laughing and nothing else, they probably usually prefer Looney Tunes, and maybe they're the majority these days. Though, I don't doubt part of their popularity is surely all the Saturday morning airplay they got over the years, while Disney has always been stingier about everything, including airing their shorts. I remember when I only got to see them on the Wonderful World of Disney, and later on Disney Channel, which was a pay channel during its best years. That all adds up to not very much exposure for the Disney shorts, especially in comparison to the constantly running Looney Tunes shorts. So, the Looney Tunes ended up being part of so many people's fond Saturday morning memories while deprived of Disney shorts (perhaps that is why so many modern people seem to be less emotionally developed these days and more self centered, cocky jerks like Bugs and Daffy).

Don't get me wrong though, I love the Looney Tunes shorts too, though I always preferred early Daffy to the annoying, greedy Daffy Chuck Jones created. I like a lot of Chuck Jones's work, but I didn't particularly like what he did with Bugs and Daffy's personalities. Seems like he just made them jerks.

Anyway, my personal opinion, both are great and different forms of short cartoon entertainment, though I always have and always will choose Disney over WB. I'd hate to live without one though. But I have yet to start collecting the pricey Looney Tunes Gold Collection DVDs, as I've been too focused on not missing the Walt Disney Treasures sets, ha.

[MagicMirror]

As has been said, it's a case of apples and oranges. The two studios had completely different intentions in their films and style of animation.

For me, however, the Looney Tunes cartoons are the best pieces of film ever animated, and Tex Avery, Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett are the Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael of animation. The characters are the strongest ever created in animation - I think part of that must be due to Mel Blanc, but the writers and animators deserve some of the credit. There is sometimes a little snobbery towards the WB cartoons, along with the assumption that something that is funny, or intended to be funny, can't be artistically brilliant as well.

[didi-5]

I think there is room for both Disney and Looney Tunes shorts - yes, they're different, and sometimes they reference or parody each other (The Corny Concerto referencing Fantasia, for example). I don't think you should put one set of shorts above another although it is all a question of taste - Disney sometimes have a taste of the cutes, while LT are clever and funny.

[musicradio77]

Thanks for the info on the Disney and WB cartoons. I used to watch the WB cartoons back when I was a kid when I saw it on WNEW-TV (channel 5) when it was part of the morning and afternoon staple which was "Bugs & Porky" and "Bugs & Woody" where it did showed the WB cartoons with the few Woody Woodpecker cartoons thrown in the mix.

I used to watch the Looney Tunes shows on every TV station which does have a history starting with WNEW-TV (channel 5) in New York City back in the early 80's along with Superstation WTBS, TNT. WWOR-TV (channel 9) back in the late 80's and early 90's where they acquired the WB cartoons in the mix when it was on a weekday back when I was sick from school and on a summer break except a segment on "Steampipe Alley" where they showed a WB cartoon in between segments.

I used to watched "Steampipe Alley" on Sunday mornings at 10:00 AM on channel 9 and I do missed that show. Mario Cantoine was the host which is now a comedian where he is still doing stand up. It was one of the last local kids show on TV.

I also remember the "Bugs Bunny & Tweety Show" when it was on an ABC station WABC-TV (channel 7) back in the late 80's and early 90's when it was on Saturday mornings, prior to that was the "Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show" on CBS on a NYC station WCBS-TV (channel 2). I missed these when it was on Saturday mornings.

And let's not forget Nickelodeon where they used to air the WB cartoons under the title "Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon" and finally last one I saw was on CN back in the early 2000's.

I have the movies like "Bugs Bunny Superstar", "The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie", "The Looney, Looney, Looney Bugs Bunny Movie", "Bugs Bunny's 1001 Rabbit Tales", "Daffy Duck's Fantastic Island", "Daffy Duck's Quackbusters", "Space Jam", "Tweety's High Flying Adventures" and "Looney Tunes Back in Action".

As for both, I like them all. I need to get more Looney Tunes DVD's.

[Voiceroy]

While watching the Looney Tunes marathon on CN, it got me to thinking/wondering about what Walt Disney thought about these cartoons. I know that they are almost polar opposites of his creations due to their rampant use of violent, yet funny gags, in the cartoons, but did he embrace them or look down on his direct competitor for theatrical shorts?

I actually found a semi-answer to your question in a very similar thread topic on The Animation Show forums: http://www.animationshow.com/forums/ind ... topic=3523

It's sad that more kids/people think of the LT shorts than Disney ones.

I'm sorry. Why is this sad?

I never really found Daffy Duck very funny he's more of an annoyance to me.

Which depiction of Daffy are you referring to? He changed a lot over the decades, depending on which director was involved.

Daffy is my favorite Looney Tune besides Bugs. I especially like the later, sarcastic Daffy, directed by Chuck Jones.

This is my favorite Daffy as well. I'm still waiting for WHV to release an all-Daffy LT Golden Collection. A close friend and fellow animation fan gave me a gift back in the late 90's of every Daffy cartoon ever made, in chronological order even. It's one of the most thoughtful gifts I've ever been given.

As for the the "off-topic" discussion this turned into of Disney shorts vs WB -- can't one enjoy both equally? As an animation fan, I actually love both. Now, I'll confess that I prefer classic MM/LT shorts over Disney's, but that's because I really enjoy the zany, comedic, cartoonyness of the classic WB toons. The Disney toons I tend to watch for the animation; WB for the comedy.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I never really found Daffy Duck very funny he's more of an annoyance to me.

Which depiction of Daffy are you referring to? He changed a lot over the decades, depending on which director was involved.

As for the the "off-topic" discussion this turned into of Disney shorts vs WB -- can't one enjoy both equally? As an animation fan, I actually love both.

Starting with where you quoted me:

Your asking the guy who has to make sure his pants are on before he leaves the house, if I can't remember that there's no way I'll know the director Honestly I'm not too sure, I'd have to go back and watch the shorts to get the director name. However I will say that my first impression on Daffy may make it hard to like the other version. Also, I don't really like Daffy as a character but I do enjoy certain shorts of his on a level where I'll watch them, such as Duck Dodgers and the Wild West ones. But all in all I much prefer other characters over him like Gossamer

I myself enjoy both companies equally for shorts. For the most part it's due to the fact I grew up watching both of the companies shorts while growing. Nowadays I analyze them more and can appreciate them on a more artistic quality instead of just liking them because they're funny or good. I think I prefer Disney slightly more though, I find I love the main gang while in Looney Tunes I have characters I don't care for as much (Daffy).