DVDizzy Forum

I know most users here are big fans of the Disney shorts, but how do you think they fare against the Warner.Bros shorts?

I know they can't really be compared, being that Looney Tunes focused more on comedy, rather than animation and music (although they are some brilliant music themed shorts! "What's Opera, Doc?" anyone?). Do we have any fans here?

I'm certainly a bigger Disney fan, but I own the Looney Tunes Golden Collection sets, and love them of course.

I enjoy them both. It really depends what mood I'm in. The Merrie Melodies were very innovative and still entertaining, but sometimes I prefer the flat out comedy of the Silly Symphonies.

Shouldn't this set be in the "Off-Topic" section?

If it is a compare and contrast thread then no it belongs here. I am actually surprised we have never taken a good run at this on this Board.

I do disagree that Disney was way ahead in the music department especially later on after Disney gave up on the Silly Simphonies. I think the work of Carl Stallings(music) and Treg Brown(sound effects) may have been better than that at Disney.

The one thing Disney had going for it was bigger budgets and it really shows up in the backgrounds and the lack of reused animation.

I love both series of shorts and really I dont think anybody else - Fleisher, Lantz, MGM, Terrytoons, Columbia came close to the accomplishments of either studio.

I have waffled over the years over which I prefer.

I suppose I was just refering to the Silly Symphonies when it comes to music. And perhaps the iconic songs in the Disney feature films (though of course, they aren't shorts). I suppose I don't get too much of a music feel when watching MM/LT. Though I have just remembered Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs, which is easily the best music themed short ever made. Too bad we'll likely never see it on dvd

One thing both studios had was continuity of staff and teams of staff and I think this contributed greatly to both studios quality and success.

I think that they are the best shorts ever made, better even than Disney's. The actual animation is more 'free', and I'm probably one of the few who find WB animation to have more 'life' in it than Disney animation.

I can easily understand why some think the Disney shorts are "better", while others think the WB shorts are. I prefer to think that they are all in all very different. They were hardly "trying to do the same thing" so to speak, so I guess it's not quite fair to compare them on the same terms.

I like both Silly Symphones and Looney Tunes. They both have classic value.

Sorry, but I get the impression that some of the posts mentioning "Silly Symphonies" would make more sense if it said "Merrie Melodies" or "Looney Tunes" instead.

for me it all depends on my mood. they are all great classic cartoons. but if it were to come to quality i think the disney shorts are better. even though the looney tunes have there great moments as well

Though the Melodies series contained risky sight gags, unpredictible humor and have classy characters....Silly Symphonies are probaly the most memorable series, 2nd to Tom/Jerry.


"Melodies" will be remembered for introducing such bizzare characters, Bugs Bunny, Foghorn Leghorn, Tweety, etc. But some of the shorts don't have the fire in the story's heart, the magic's gone when Melodies tries to pull a Disney stunt (Snow White and 7 N's).


"Symphonies" holds a special place in my heart, Old Mill taught moi how to face my fear of storms, Grasshopper and Ants gave me a new respect on bugs while 3 Lil Pigs taught me how to read (placed captions on the screen) and last but not least Mother Goose Goes Hollywood, introduced me to Greta Garbo, W.C Fields, Stephin Fechit, and Donald Duck which contains such lovely animation of caricatures.

Both of these series have their highs/lows in film history, for me, I'm fond of Silly Symphonies cause of the story and characters, "Melodies" was mainly toon verisons of live actions shorts (Laurel/Hary, Marx Bros, Charlie Chaplin). Again I've only grown up on Disney's Silly Symphonies but I'll try something new.

Write back please

sign Mason

I love classic American amimation, period, and while Disney is my favorite, the classic Warner Bros. cartoons run a close second, along with the Tom and Jerry cartoons from MGM. I would say those three studios were fairly equal during the Golden Age. Now, if only the MGM shorts could get the same treatment on DVD that the Disney and Warner ones do, I'd be happy. I doubt some of the Tom and Jerry's will ever see the light of day on DVD, though. Thankfully, I have them all on Laserdisc.

I like WB's toons almost as much as I like Disney's toons. And yes, I liked T&J, too. I'm surprised T&J has yet to permanently leave the airwaves of Cartoon Network like the WB toons have, or even some of MGM's other series. Those ones are gone, yet Tom and Jerry are still here.

Hard for me not to be biased on this one since I've been a WB 'toons fan since shortly after birth. But I'm also an overall animation fanatic--while I love the comedy and characterizations of LT/MM toons, I love the same elements in the old Disney shorts. I just happen to love WB 'toons more.

However, LT/MM largely seem to have been created more for adults, while Disney shorts were more intended to suit all audiences.

But there are some points where there does appear to be a clear "winner" overall:

- Animation
Edge: Disney
They had bigger budgets. It's almost unfair to compare them on this one.

- Comedy
Edge: WB
As Comedian Jerry Seinfeld observed, Looney Tunes cartoons just get funnier the older you get. I'm in my mid-30's and every time I rewatch an old LT or MM 'toon, I'll finally "get" a joke I never caught when I saw the same cartoon as a child.


- Characters
Edge: WB
I'll probably offend someone saying this, but Mickey is one of the most generic animated characters ever. Sorry, that's just my opinion. He's just bland to me. He seems to serve mostly as the "straight man" to the comic relief of the supporting characters like Pluto, Donald, and Goofy. But hey, it worked for Dean Martin and Bud Abbot. And why mess with a formula that works. It's just amazing to me that such a fairly dull character has become a worldwide beloved icon.

And I'm also a lifelong Daffy fan. As far as I'm concerned, he's the funniest animated character ever created. I don't care much for Bugs except in some cartoons because he tends to come across as a bully. But LT/MM has such a larger "talent pool" of comedic 'toon characters than the cast of Disney regulars.

But again, I realize this is just my opinion.