Notwithstanding any of Disney's failures to do so, the difference as I see it is that Disney seeks to maintain a "Disneyness" to all of their animation. There is a minimum level of quality. Standards. And an overall look-and-feel sameness to the product.
Warner has room for free-thinkers. Sometimes the things they think up are crap. Way below the Disney standard. But sometimes they're awesome. Way above the Disney standard. Unfortunately, both of those extremes tend to get filtered out by the Disney apparatus.
I agree that Warner has produced some spectacular stuff - but not lately. I have been singularly underwhelmed by everything they've done since 1960 with a scant handful of exceptions (Animaniacs was pretty good). Their later efforts with their core characters have been unforgivably terrible - not funny and utterly devoid of artistry.
And Disney has definitely been wildly successful, overall, in its efforts beyond the world of film, in a way that Warner really hasn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 04:03 pm (UTC)And Disney has Eeyore and Donald (although Warner has Foghorn Leghorn and Speedy Gonzalez).
no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 05:13 pm (UTC)Warner has room for free-thinkers. Sometimes the things they think up are crap. Way below the Disney standard. But sometimes they're awesome. Way above the Disney standard. Unfortunately, both of those extremes tend to get filtered out by the Disney apparatus.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 06:20 pm (UTC)And Disney has definitely been wildly successful, overall, in its efforts beyond the world of film, in a way that Warner really hasn't.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-20 07:19 pm (UTC)