Why doesn't Warner Bros get the attention Disney does?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why doesn't Warner Bros get the attention Disney does?
Why doesn't Warner Bros get the attention Disney does?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Unironically? Cuz the Looney Tunes fell off as a cultural icon.
We could be having videos about Warner Bros adults right about now.
Yes they do?
Whilst Disney went down this hill of making cartoons with a very very safe PG insentive WB continued the legacy of 40's toons.
It's just now WB has gone the same path as disney. Looney Toons feels very safe now. Whereas the Mickey shorts are feeling more ambitious.
Because WB is more than just cartoons. It actually makes content for mature audiences.
Yea, cartoons like Falling Hare and The Great Piggy Bank Robbery.
whenever disney wanted to make something mature they'd get touchstone to do it
Now of days that will be 20th Century.
This. There was also never a "Warner Bros. Magic". Disney marketed itself as more than just a film company but instead actively ingratiated itself into people's psyches as this cornerstone of childhood that
>Would be a magic source of memories you pass along to your own theoretical kids, the definitive family movie company
>A source of wonder and whimsy which you could always look back to and find as a source of comfort.
And the above reason is why, that "Disney" logo can't taint itself. Anything that follows it has to be childlike whimsy or the illusion breaks
No parks and they don't merchandise every IP they own within an inch of its life like Disney does
>No parks.
They have 1 in the middle east and Six Flags.
>They don't merchandise every IP they own within an inch of its life like Disney does.
Disney doesn't do merchandising of their recent (non-preschool) TV shows and Warner Bros does have merch.
https://wbshop.com/pages/looney-tunes
>There was also never a "Warner Bros. Magic".
There was under Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones.
Disney marketed itself as more than just a film company but instead actively ingratiated itself into people's psyches as this cornerstone of childhood
So does Warner Bros.
>Is a magic source of memories you pass along to your own theoretical kids, the definitive family cartoon company as seen in Hare Ribbin' and Birdy and the Beast.
>A source of wonder and whimsy which you could always look back to and find as a source of comfort as seen in One Froggy Evening and What's Opera Doc?.
Anon, those are the cartoons themselves, I'm talking about the consistent branding surrounding them. When you think of Looney Tunes, you think of the Looney Tunes brand. Disney brands its properties differently, it goes out of its way to let you know that the thing you are watching is part of the childhood wonder machine that is Disney. Mickey Mouse isn't the star of one particular shows, he's the Disney mascot. They aren't animated movies based on fairy tales. They're the Disney Princesses. Even when they're not princesses, they're literally advertised as Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, Disney's 101 Dalmations. On Disney DVD.
There was an active branding method to all of it to make Disney synonymous with "childhood magic"
>They have 1 in the middle east and Six Flags.
WB doesn't own Six Flags anymore and no one is going to the middle east for vacation. If they don't have a major US-based theme park like Disney and Universal do, they're hardly in the business
Disney was always the best animation company in the old days. They had the most important advancements (sound films, technicolor, multiplane camera, feature-length movie, etc). They were the most influential to other artists (Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, etc would not exist with Silly Symphonies). They were held in the highest esteem by other animators and directors at the time. Disney's animation was always the best and most ambitious on the market. The only animation company that truly compared with Disney in the old days was Fleischer, but Disney still won out. Warner Bros. is entertaining, but their stuff is really just an extension of what Disney built in the 30s and early 40s. This is perhaps also a personal opinion, but I don't really like that Warner Bros. had little variety, whereas companies like Disney were moved away from comedies on many times to peruse things like Silly Symphonies or the full-length films which explored other types of genres and styles.
Walt Disney actively cultivated a brand and cult of personality in addition to pushing animation techniques and technologies forward. The man is so beloved that he's basically America's King Arthur with the whole "They'll unfreeze him from the tube when the Disney corporation needs him most" thing.
The Warners were so indifferent to what was going on at Termite Terrace that they assumed they were the ones that made Mickey Mouse, with Chuck Jones believing that they'd pull the plug if they found out otherwise. And now everybody thinks of the Animaniacs as the Warner Brothers instead of Jack and family.
I genuinely wish that Walt was frozen.
Disney's popularity stems from their animated features and superhero movies, both of which WB are shit at making (outside of Batman)
disneys popularity comes from its shorts and its films
disney became popular through shorts, and maintained its almost world culturual significance through animated movies that pioneered the industry.
Now ironically it's the shorts keeping them alive and the movies people are ignoring.