1. We are looking for a volunteer to help out with entering the DC and Marvel comics solicitations. If you are interested, please contact Harley.
    Dismiss Notice

Why do all WB animated movies end up tragically underrated and obscure?

Discussion in 'The Warner Bros. Club' started by brickrrb2, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. brickrrb2

    brickrrb2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,187
    Likes Received:
    6
    Everything Disney does is considered a masterpiece. Yet everything WB does ends up underrated and falls into obscurity. Examples:

    Space Jam (Though it gets more mock than praise.)

    Looney Tunes back in Action

    Osmois Jones

    Iron Giant

    I mean what gives
     
  2. Silverstar

    Silverstar Rock the Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    29,284
    Likes Received:
    131
    Disney and Warner's animated films of that era were in completely different leagues. This is like comparing ice cream to spinach. WB has never had the budget, the technical expertise nor at bottom the inclination to compete with Disney on their level with their animated films, and during the brief moment they tried to do so, their efforts just came off as toothless and half-hearted.

    Regarding the examples you've cited:

    Space Jam was cultish Micheal Jordan fodder at best, campy commercial 90's cheese at worst.

    The Iron Giant does have a loyal following of fans.

    Looney Tunes: Back in Action and Osmosis Jones just weren't very good.

    Finally, the motion that "everything Disney does is considered a masterpiece" is a exaggerated generalization. Disney has produced plenty of bombs (The Winnie the Pooh Movie, Home on the Range and Treasure Planet, to name just 3 examples); it's just that their studio has 2 movie-producing companies on their payroll (Disney Pictures and Pixar, respectively), the Mouse House makes a point to release several films a year (they can whip out 2 or 3 animated movies in the time it takes Warner to release 1), which are strongly promoted and hyped, and over the decades Disney has garnished a strong following among a wide general audience, so their worst films are either quickly buried or they manage recoup sales through DVD/Blu-Ray releases.
     
  3. Goldstar Neo

    Goldstar Neo Good Morning!

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,146
    Likes Received:
    82
    Your argument is flawed from the get-go because some Disney movies have flopped also: Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, The Winnie the Pooh movie, The Heffalump Movie, Chicken Little. Are Angels in the Outfield and Operation Dumbo Drop considered masterpieces?I think not. The main reason why Cars became a franchise is because kids keep buying the toys. I don't personally know anyone who thinks that Cars is a masterpiece. All you're doing here is generalizing.
     
    #3 Goldstar Neo, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
  4. brickrrb2

    brickrrb2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,187
    Likes Received:
    6
    That's another thing. In my opinion Those Were GOOD Movies.
     
  5. Silverstar

    Silverstar Rock the Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    29,284
    Likes Received:
    131
    So you're a fan of Treasure Planet and The Heffalump Movie? Fair enough, but critically and commercially those films are considered bombs.

    Really, this is just tantamount to fanboy ranting: "The animated 90's-00's movies I liked don't get the praise of the animated 90's-00's movies I didn't like. It's not fair!". Nevermind that Disney and Warner were/are operating on completely different levels, each of the films should be judged on an individual case-by-case basis rather than "Disney movies do good, WB movies do bad" and the fact that Disney has produced unsuccessful animated films and Warner has produced successful ones, making the whole "everything Disney does is considered a masterpiece, yet everything WB does ends up underrated and falls into obscurity" thesis flawed, purely opinion based and nothing that can be quantified in any kind of factual manner. You need to provide some solid facts, figures and numbers so your statements will carry some weight for once.
     
    #5 Silverstar, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
  6. Goldstar Neo

    Goldstar Neo Good Morning!

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,146
    Likes Received:
    82
    And that's where your argument fails; you're basing everything solely on your own personal opinions rather than on anything factual, such as box office sales or longevity. You're entire point seems to be: I like this movie, so it's good, and I didn't like that movie, so it's bad. Personal opinion ≠ fact.
     
  7. Lemanic

    Lemanic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, the fact that WBA no longer have any identity (lost it to Pixar and Dreamworks) may be a clue to your question here.

    After 1969, all WBA have done is to ride trends after trends without any heart put into it (Iron Giant and The LEGO Movie being exeptions) and no pride to further capitalize on it (as their ignorance on Brad Birds demands clearly shows).

    Because of the media landscape in the US, WB is now riding on the "politically incorrect hipster" trend with no regrets making some blunt nazi stuff, just because "aginst da maynstreem".
     
  8. Silverstar

    Silverstar Rock the Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    29,284
    Likes Received:
    131
    The OP wasn't even talking about WB's current crop or movies; he was just making a pat generalization about how all of WB's animated films from the era he grew up in, the 90's, are all underrated and forgotten while all of Disney's films from that era are regarded as classics, neither of which is correct.

    But to that point, I don't even think that WB at bottom even has the desire to compete with Disney on that level, nor could they even if they wanted to. Disney and Dreamworks are singular corporate entities with a singular goal in mind, and with a single individual in charge acting as the guiding force. Warner, by contrast, is like a tribe without a chief; it's a giant conglomeration of people each with their own agendas who all want credit and all want their hands in the pot, without 1 person willing to be the One in Charge to map out a single strategy and steer the company in one direction. The essential problem with WB is that they are ruled by committee rather than by 1 individual.
     
  9. Rick Jones

    Rick Jones Hero Fan
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    514
    Warner's never seemed that serious about big screen animated features to me so I usually don't even think of them when it comes to this. Just as it usually is with Iron Giant, I forget that they even did Lego Movie.
     
  10. Goldstar Neo

    Goldstar Neo Good Morning!

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,146
    Likes Received:
    82
    I can't speak for the totality of Warner Brothers' features, but I will say that WB did enter an unfortunate creatively bankrupt period around the mid 1990s when they tried to imitate Disney's style. Both Thumbelina and Quest for Camelot failed because they were naked imitations of Disney features with the makers of these films not having a full understanding of what makes Disney's features memorable. By contrast, DreamWorks succeeded because they offered an alternative to Disney's movies instead of trying to copy Disney's style the same way that the old school Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies and MGM's theatrical shorts didn't become popular until after they stopped trying to copy Disney's cartoon shorts and offered viewers an alternative to them.

    Just for the record, I think that Looney Tunes: Back in Action deserved more praise than it ever received.
     
    #10 Goldstar Neo, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
  11. Rick Jones

    Rick Jones Hero Fan
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    514
    They were involved with Anastasia?
     
  12. Goldstar Neo

    Goldstar Neo Good Morning!

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,146
    Likes Received:
    82
    Whoops! My mistake. That was 20th Century Fox. I was thinking about Thumbelina from 1994. Fixing that now.
     
  13. Rick Jones

    Rick Jones Hero Fan
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    514
    No worries. I was starting to wonder if it was a studio collab or something.
     
  14. Rhaynebow

    Rhaynebow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,147
    Likes Received:
    64
    I think it's because WB is such a bigger studio as a whole compared to Disney. When you think of Disney, you most likely think of animation. When you think of Warner Bros, maybe you think of Bugs Bunny, but probably not much else in world of animation. WB vs Disney puts WB in the winner's circle. But WBA vs Disney and the mouse has Bugs beat. WBA hasn't gotten nearly as much love as Disney has and the lack of an identity like Dreamworks has, doesn't help. But unlike with Disney where if the animation fails, the whole company might keel, the loss of WBA doesn't really hurt WB since you can't quite kill the Loony Tunes and the live-action dept. proved that Batsy and Superman don't need to be animated to have movies. Basically...WB probably doesn't feel the need to fight Disney on the grounds of animation. They have other ways to get to the top. The success of the Lego Movie might be giving WBA hope, but they're gonna need some 3 more hits like those before Big Daddy WB will pay attention.

    Of course, I might be horribly wrong about this.
     

Share This Page

  • Find Toonzone on Facebook

  • Toonzone News

  • Site Updates

    Upcoming Premieres

  • Toonzone Fan Sites


Tac Anti Spam from Surrey Forum