Disney v. Looney Tunes and the state of animation...
So as not to derail Final Judgment further, let's contiunue this here.
I take the Disney v. Looney Tunes argument not as a challenge between artists or studios, but rather a specific set of characters. Disney the animator's main purpose in life was furthering the art of animation on film, and his ultimate goal was features. Looney Tunes existed as a Vaudevillian offshoot, designed to make short films, fast & funny.
When movie theatres shifted away from all day matinees that included shorts before the films, Looney Tunes was destined to disappear, until the advent of Saturday morning cartoons. This, unfortunately, also meant that they had to do things fast and cheap, which ultimately hurt their product in the long run.
Having said all that, when I hear the phrase Disney vs. Looney Tunes, I see it as a matchup between core characters (NOT the feature film characters).
These guys:
vs. These guys:
As much fun as Mickey and the gang are, and as good as those old Goofy sport shorts are, they just can't hold a candle to Looney Tunes.
The sarcasm, acerbic humor, and cross-age appeal of the jokes makes them the undisputed kings. Look at Animaniacs, the closest thing we've had to quality animated short film since the heyday, and you'll see that the original LT style is unbeatable.
Although I guess Disney still cranks out the racism too...
http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_the-9-most-racist-disney-characters...
Mammy!
Ok, i will concede. When you mash it up like that, I do agree that the troupe of characters known as the loony tunes are better than the group known as the disney gang. I do like the goofy sport things, and some of the donald duck stuff, and of course chip and dale, but Loony Tunes did make better 'saturday morning cartoons'
I was defending the disney franchise as a whole, and their featured films against, say, a bugs bunny movie. I do think that Little Mermaid and Aladdin and those movies are overall better than Loony Tunes, but that's sort of apples to oranges.
So, yes, I think LT has better cartoons, in the short sense of the word. I totally get the vaudevillian thing too.
Can we talk about Pixar?
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
here's an interesting thing:
this movie was made by disney. It has characters from Mickey Mouse to Bugs Bunny in it. (they're in the same scene! falling in parachutes?)
So, could Disney acutally be the parent company of the WB? or something? I mean, Disney is the parent company to many many things.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
disney does make some of the best movies around, yes. i've never seen a pixar movie i didn't like.
but cartoon network stopped showing looney tunes because we now live in a over-sensitive, coddling society and too much of the show is probably considered "offensive" to children. plus, there was the occasional use of drugs in looney tunes; la cucaracha is about smoking pot, which is probably the main reason they stopped showing looney tunes in the first place. the LT mythos always struck me as rebellious and defiant, and what parent wants that in their children, right?
there's this movie coming out, i should post this in the documentary thread, called Waking Sleeping Beauty.
I want to see this!! I love the walt disney studio of animation. I want to be in that world! Part of that world!!
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
ohh and this one too. It just rivets me. I'm fascinated!!
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
Yeah, modern showings of Looney Tunes on TV have all references to race and violence edited out, which takes the teeth out of the humor completely. They won't even show characters getting shot anymore.
Pixar's brief and storied history is amazing. Disney almost caused the death of Pixar, refusing to believe that their way was the right way to go.
didn't it come about from Disney wanted to push the sequel of Toy Story really fast, but Pixar said they'd only do it if the story was good, and disney just wanted it made NOW. Disney was prepared to fire Pixar, and take the story, and do their own thing with it, but they didn't......and now Pixar is a part of disney, and gets to do stories their way, which is obviously the right way. When disney has tried to do it's own version of a pixar movie, it flops. Meet the Robinsons had that pixar look, but it was made by Walt Disney animation Studios. It just wasn't as good. WDAS needs to stick to stuff like Princess and the frog animation, because when they do classic disney stuff like that, it is truly beautiful. and pixar is beyond brilliant.
Brentinlouis Wrote: What was that rule about being intentionally annoying?
but cartoon network stopped showing looney tunes because we now live in a over-sensitive, coddling society and too much of the show is probably considered "offensive" to children. plus, there was the occasional use of drugs in looney tunes; la cucaracha is about smoking pot, which is probably the main reason they stopped showing looney tunes in the first place. the LT mythos always struck me as rebellious and defiant, and what parent wants that in their children, right?
I would submit that it also has to do with what modern day kids find to be entertaining and television ratings.
When I was a kid (I'll go with the age of 7, which for me would've been in 1982), I watched Looney Tunes on Saturday mornings, and as much I liked them, I LIIIIIIVED for The Smurfs, Pac-Man and He-Man, etc. My kids like Looney Tunes, but my youngest would pick Sponge Bob over Bugs any day of the week.
And for the record, I would not have any qualms about letting my kids watch the original, un-censorced Looney Tunes ('cause it's my job to make sure they understand the context of anything "controversial").
Pixar actually did attempt to splinter off from Disney briefly (around the time of Cars)
ixar and Disney had disagreements after the production of Toy Story 2. Originally intended as a straight-to-video release (and thus not part of Pixar's three-picture deal), the film was eventually upgraded to a theatrical release during production. Pixar demanded that the film then be counted toward the three-picture agreement, but Disney refused.[11] Pixar's first five feature films have collectively grossed more than $2.5 billion, equivalent to the highest per-film average gross in the industry. Though profitable for both, Pixar later complained that the arrangement was not equitable. Pixar was responsible for creation and production, while Disney handled marketing and distribution. Profits and production costs were split 50-50, but Disney exclusively owned all story and sequel rights and also collected a distribution fee. The lack of story and sequel rights was perhaps the most onerous aspect to Pixar and set the stage for a contentious relationship.[12]
The two companies attempted to reach a new agreement in early 2004. The new deal would be only for distribution, as Pixar intended to control production and own the resulting film properties themselves. The company also wanted to finance their films on their own and collect 100 percent of the profits, paying Disney only the 10 to 15 percent distribution fee.[13] More importantly, as part of any distribution agreement with Disney, Pixar demanded control over films already in production under their old agreement, including The Incredibles and Cars. Disney considered these conditions unacceptable, but Pixar would not concede.[13]
Disagreements between Steve Jobs and then Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner made the negotiations more difficult than they otherwise might have been. They broke down completely in mid-2004, with Jobs declaring that Pixar was actively seeking partners other than Disney.[14] Pixar did not enter negotiations with other distributors. After a lengthy hiatus, negotiations between the two companies resumed following the departure of Eisner from Disney in September 2005. In preparation for potential fallout between Pixar and Disney, Jobs announced in late 2004 that Pixar would no longer release movies at the Disney-dictated November time frame, but during the more lucrative early summer months. This would also allow Pixar to release DVDs for their major releases during the Christmas shopping season. An added benefit of delaying Cars was to extend the time frame remaining on the Pixar-Disney contract to see how things would play out between the two companies.[15]
Pending the Disney acquisition of Pixar, the two companies created a distribution deal for the intended 2007 release of Ratatouille, in case the acquisition fell through, to ensure that this one film would still be released through Disney's distribution channels. (In contrast to the earlier Disney/Pixar deal Ratatouille was to remain a Pixar property and Disney would have received only a distribution fee.) The completion of Disney's Pixar acquisition, however, nullified this distribution arrangement.[16]
Im glad they stood by their guns. Disney was out of control and needed to be brought back down to earth.
Sorry, its not Richard Williams.
I construct my memories with my present. I am lost, abandoned in the present. I try in vain to rejoin the past: I cannot escape. - Sartre
I want to see this!! I love the walt disney studio of animation. I want to be in that world! Part of that world!!
This killed me! I love it!
but cartoon network stopped showing looney tunes because we now live in a over-sensitive, coddling society and too much of the show is probably considered "offensive" to children. plus, there was the occasional use of drugs in looney tunes; la cucaracha is about smoking pot, which is probably the main reason they stopped showing looney tunes in the first place. the LT mythos always struck me as rebellious and defiant, and what parent wants that in their children, right?
I would submit that it also has to do with what modern day kids find to be entertaining and television ratings.
When I was a kid (I'll go with the age of 7, which for me would've been in 1982), I watched Looney Tunes on Saturday mornings, and as much I liked them, I LIIIIIIVED for The Smurfs, Pac-Man and He-Man, etc. My kids like Looney Tunes, but my youngest would pick Sponge Bob over Bugs any day of the week.
And for the record, I would not have any qualms about letting my kids watch the original, un-censorced Looney Tunes ('cause it's my job to make sure they understand the context of anything "controversial").
I grew up watching Looney Tunes, though the core of my watching was other things. Still though, it saddens me that this generation of kids will miss out on them.
ixar and Disney had disagreements after the production of Toy Story 2. Originally intended as a straight-to-video release (and thus not part of Pixar's three-picture deal), the film was eventually upgraded to a theatrical release during production. Pixar demanded that the film then be counted toward the three-picture agreement, but Disney refused.[11] Pixar's first five feature films have collectively grossed more than $2.5 billion, equivalent to the highest per-film average gross in the industry. Though profitable for both, Pixar later complained that the arrangement was not equitable. Pixar was responsible for creation and production, while Disney handled marketing and distribution. Profits and production costs were split 50-50, but Disney exclusively owned all story and sequel rights and also collected a distribution fee. The lack of story and sequel rights was perhaps the most onerous aspect to Pixar and set the stage for a contentious relationship.[12]
The two companies attempted to reach a new agreement in early 2004. The new deal would be only for distribution, as Pixar intended to control production and own the resulting film properties themselves. The company also wanted to finance their films on their own and collect 100 percent of the profits, paying Disney only the 10 to 15 percent distribution fee.[13] More importantly, as part of any distribution agreement with Disney, Pixar demanded control over films already in production under their old agreement, including The Incredibles and Cars. Disney considered these conditions unacceptable, but Pixar would not concede.[13]
Disagreements between Steve Jobs and then Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner made the negotiations more difficult than they otherwise might have been. They broke down completely in mid-2004, with Jobs declaring that Pixar was actively seeking partners other than Disney.[14] Pixar did not enter negotiations with other distributors. After a lengthy hiatus, negotiations between the two companies resumed following the departure of Eisner from Disney in September 2005. In preparation for potential fallout between Pixar and Disney, Jobs announced in late 2004 that Pixar would no longer release movies at the Disney-dictated November time frame, but during the more lucrative early summer months. This would also allow Pixar to release DVDs for their major releases during the Christmas shopping season. An added benefit of delaying Cars was to extend the time frame remaining on the Pixar-Disney contract to see how things would play out between the two companies.[15]
Pending the Disney acquisition of Pixar, the two companies created a distribution deal for the intended 2007 release of Ratatouille, in case the acquisition fell through, to ensure that this one film would still be released through Disney's distribution channels. (In contrast to the earlier Disney/Pixar deal Ratatouille was to remain a Pixar property and Disney would have received only a distribution fee.) The completion of Disney's Pixar acquisition, however, nullified this distribution arrangement.[16]
Im glad they stood by their guns. Disney was out of control and needed to be brought back down to earth.
What i think is cool too is that Jobs is the largest shareholder in Disney now and is on the Board of Directors and oversees all sorts of shit. He has a pretty cool life.
Regardless of which of the two is better, I think they're both infinitely better than the cartoons that are on now. I miss the days when you didn't necessarily watch a particular show...at least not like we think of a show now...you just watched cartoons. So you'd watch Disney or Looney Tunes, but it would just be an hour or two-hour block of cartoon shorts of varying lengths. They were brilliant. They didn't try to fill out a half-hour block. They just made a short that took as long as it needed to do what they wanted to do. There are so many from both studios that I still remember and love...Lambert the Sheepish Lion, Knight for a Day and the one where Mickey, Donald and Goofy went camping in an RV on the Disney side. And anything with Foghorn Leghorn, the bulldog whose name I forget and Yosemite Sam on the Looney Tunes side. Classics.
Tom and Jerry were my favorite.
Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, best, Sylvester J. Pussycat, Sr. (I just found out that is his full name) definitly best.
Also, Marvin the Martian was great.
Old school Daffy & Bugs were awesome. I remember "Easter Yeggs" when Bugs took over for the lazy Easter Bunny. Bugs was harassing a kid who'd been pestering him all day and was getting ready to pelt the kid, and the easter bunny comes in and says "Stop! You'll give the Easter Bunny a bad name!" to which Bugs replies "I already have a bad name for the Easter Bunny..."
I love their subversive adult humor.
My favorite was always the one when bugs ended up in antarctica and hung out with the penguin and i think there was an abominable snowman too. there's also one where bugs was stuck on a plane with a gremlin, i love that one too.
Plus, Looney Tunes was chock-full of old-timey racist humor!
