Looney Tunes Vs. MGM

[Brandon Pierce]

I pick Looney Tunes (WB).

[lislebartman]

Now that's a hard choice, Brandon.

I grew up watching both WB & MGM cartoons (not to mention Famous, Fleischer, Lantz, & Terrytoons), but to have to choose between the two studios is a bit difficult.

I'd have to say I like them both equally.

[LightAngel]

Looney Toones all the way! They rule!!

[Nftnat]

I cast my lot with WB when I got re-interested in toons, back in early '99. I like, am fascinated with, & want to know everything about the toons from all studios old & new; but I am a Warner Brothers loyalist.

[Matthew Hunter]

While I like a lot of the MGM cartoons, Warner cartoons will always be my favorite. It seems to me that the WB studio had a more stable setup and are more consistently funny. MGM has its highlights, but not like the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies.
-Matthew

[hippety hopper]

I like both but WB I think were better.

If you were to ask which one I like better out of WB or Disney then it would be hard!

[Joe Tully]

Verrrry hard...but I think I have to say MGM. I was starting to think I'd seen just about everything in cartoons when I discovered Tex's MGM stuff. So I hold a very high opinion of Tex's MGM work. But considering Clampett's work almost made me want to say WB, but I think I've gotten more enjoyment out of Tex's work.

Yes, much more enters into it than those 2 directors, but those are my favorites and I can't think about this all day, so that's how I vote. :D

[Thad Komorowski]

I just simply can't decide. Both studios were great, with such characters as Bugs, Tom & Jerry, the Road Runner, etc.

But if I had to choose, WB's the winner.

-Thad:D

BTW, the 14,000 post on this board!

[Jimmy Kustes]

I've seen LoonyTunes ad naussum, but that just shows how much I like them.:)
MGM just doesn't get enough air time, Tex Avery is about the only cartoon coinnosior show on Cartoon Network that displayes all MGM. Also, Tom and Jerry as well as the Pink Panther are faves from MGM.

[PorkyandDaffy]

Looney Tunes.

[Gossamer]

Considering that Harman-Ising, Tex Avery and Chuck Jones directed for both studios at one time or another, this is kind of like asking me which I like better, my right or left arm. Instead of MGM or Looney Tunes, you might better ask UPA or Walter Lantz. Me, I just like good cartoons period. But I'm marching to a different orchestra.

[J Lee]

I'd go with Looney Tunes because of the sheer number -- some years Warners released three times as many cartoons as MGM -- the fact that the WB `toons between 1937-41 are far more rewathcable than the MGM shorts of the same period and the variety and characters Warners allowed their directors to create.

Once MGM came up with Tom and Jerry they locked Hanna-Barbera into doing that for the next 15 years. Schlesinger saw the light at the same time Quimby was doing that and went the other way, freeing Clampett from having to do nothing but Porky Pigs after 1940; imagine if he had been forced to spend his entire career at WB doing nothing but the pig, or if Leon had decided it would be a great idea if Jones did nothing but Sniffles cartoons from 1940 onwards.

[The Dork Knight]

I say both

[Rob]

While I obviously like both studios, I'd have to say MGM's cartoons of the '40s and '50s were probably better than WB's. The animation, Scott Bradley's music (Stalling's work was great sure, but Bradley was just as good if not better, and sorely underrated), the stories and gags, all contributed to a nearly perfect string of cartoons.

[Calhoun07]

Looney Tunes. I will always love them the most.

[johnmcw]

Looney Tunes hands down.

1. They are more honest about life as we know it; MGM cartoons were always, like their movies, a bit sanitized. As such Looney Tunes come down the ages better.

2. They have a warmth, a heart, that MGMers lack. MGM cartoons are often about technique and timing -- TOM AND JERRY as well as, as much as I hate to say it, Tex. That's neat, but it's a trick.

3. Looney Tunes are verbally witty, MGMers are just funny, usually. MGM has no equivalent to RABBIT FIRE and its followers. How often do you find yourself recalling an MGM cartoon where you say "I like it when such-and-such SAYS..." rather than "DOES"? Tom and Jerry and Barney Bear don't say much, and Droopy talks FUNNY, but what he is saying is less important. Droopy is a trick voice; Bugs Bunny is so real it's sad to imagine that he does not actually exist. That's Looney Tunes versus MGM.

4. Scott Bradley was good, but Stalling was tremendous -- more variation, defter use of the orchestra. Bradley could swing, and could make musical jokes. But he was often a bit shrill, a tad Terrytoons/Scheibesque. Stalling was just godly.

5. Looney Tunes have a better ratio of treasures to dross, in my view. A lot of early MGM is hopelessly forgettable except to fanatics -- many of the Happy Harmonies, for example, the Captain and the Kids series for the most part. Much fewer Looney Tunes fall into that category -- perhaps all of Buddy, and then some here and some there.

[sealwhale]

It depends on the time period more than anything else, but if I'm just considering, say, the period starting with Blitz Wolf and ending with The Big Snooze, I would say I like WB's output better. Although I think MGM's output during this period was more consistently excellent, there are so many WB cartoons that are just more memorable. There are some absolutely brilliant cartoons from Clampett, Tashlin, Jones, and Freling from this period that I just want to watch over and over again, while most Tom and Jerry or Tex Avery cartoons seem to lose a lot of their edge after many repeated viewings.
And as for Stalling vs. Bradley, Stalling is, without a doubt, the greatest scorer of animation ever. At his best, he was able to pervade the subconscious of the viewer with themes automatically associated with the action, and arrange them in such a way as to perfectly complement the cartoon (and even stand on their own as great musical accomplishments). I do think Scott Bradley is underrated--he certainly had cartoon scoring down to a science. But I guess that's why I find his scores to be a little too methodical and even stale at times. Bradley certainly knew what he was doing, but Stalling had an innate ability that nobody else could even touch.