
There's always been comparisons like this.
You're either an Elvis fan or a Beatles fan...
You're either an Apple fan or a Windows fan...
You're either a Coke fan or a Pepsi fan...
And naturally there is the saying that you're either a Disney animation fan or a Warner Brothers animation fan.
It's really apples and oranges for me. Well, at least the animation part. As for the others, I'm an Elvis man, an avid Mac user and I prefer Mountain Dew to either of those sodas...
Most might think since I have a blog with Disney the name that I prefer the Mouse's animation. Yeah, I do really prefer it. But not in a superior way. I just happen to love the Disney classics and tone of the shorts as compared to Warner's shorts. I happen to love Warner shorts though. I think they're far more edgy than the Disney ones. My favorite Disney character is Donald and my favorite Warner character is Daffy so I guess you could say I like the wild, irreverent characters that both studios offer, but I prefer Disney's more gentle and subtle prism of viewing life. But I have a great deal of Warner Brothers animation on DVD too. I love Bugs and Porky and all those zany Looney Tunes characters. In fact, I don't think there will ever be a character voice actor as good as Mel Blanc. Ever. He's simply amazing and irreplaceable. It's also a problem for me too, because when I hear the Warners characters voiced now(especially Bugs) they just don't sound right. It's not the same with Disney characters... whenever I see someone else do the voice I don't automatically think that it sounds different. Disney's celluloid characters are simply more replaceable and interchangeable when it comes to voicing. This isn't to say that people like Clarence Nash and Jim MacDonald aren't great voices, but there are people that can do great impressions of the Disney characters and pull it off successfully. For Warner, it's simply impossible to live up to the unique interpretations of Blanc.
As for the cartoons themselves, the stylings of Warner versus Disney shorts are quite different also. The insane and crazy, tone of the Warner shorts are far more carefree and wild in story and structure. While Disney chose to tell stories within the constructed narrative of American life, Warner chose to be the rebel... the non-conformists.
I grew up seeing more Warner cartoons than Disney... they saturated my childhood. Disney showed theirs far less so maybe it was the feeling of them being so special that they only played them in a limited environment that made them feel so important. Everyday I came home from school to turn on the tube and catch Foghorn Leghorn or some other character make me forget about the bad day I had had trying to do math or science. A Disney cartoon was rare on a Sunday night if I got the chance to watch the Wonderful World of Disney. But as I've gotten older I don't compare them... there's no reason you can't enjoy a slice of Bugs with your Mickey or vice versa.
The great opportunity kids have today is to actually own what I had to wait to see after school. We can now enjoy classic animation(Warner or Disney) anytime we want... be it when you get home from school or at three in the morning when you have insomnia. And with that said, there really is only one thing left to say...
That's all folks.