Mickey's New 'Old' Image ...

[EpcotServo]

Wait? Where has Mickey gone?


Seriously though...I don't see the "Reinvention" Mickey, he's always been Mickey. Epic Mickey changes nothing, we've seen him in Kingdom Hearts and such. He has a ton of sides, There's the friendly side, the mischievous side, the helpful side, the adventurer side, the hero side...He's all that. Even if they label it a "Reinvention", it's not. All those sides will have been, and always will be, Mickey. He's never been a one trick Mouse people...

[WDW1974]

Anyone who thinks squeaky clean Mickey (i.e. bland corporate symbol) is Disney needs to study their history a bit.

The analogy to Bart Simpson of his time would be dead on ... don't agree with the writer's take that he was akin to Family Guy's Stewie though, but I wasn't alive in the 1920s and 30s so maybe the comparison isn't THAT off.

I would say Mickey's current image is as much of a problem with Disney as folks who believe the DISNEY MAGIC (not the boat) is the same as the magic Disney created for decades in its films, TV shows and theme parks.

One is tangible, substantive and, dare I say it, real. Or at least it sure feels like it.
The other is a sanitized product of a cynical marketing machine.

There's a huge difference.

A good example in the parks would be the dumbing down of PoC in the USA by first making the pirates not chase the women, but instead be chasing food or having the women chasing them ... and then adding Jack Sparrow to tie in to merchandise sales and movie tix and DVD sales etc ... vs. say DLP where you have a more pure and 100% politically incorrect version where pirates still chase wenches and you even get a projection on a second story window (in shadow form) where a pirate has a woman slung over his back. I'm pretty sure he's not after any food, except perhaps her melons.

That's what REAL Disney was about.

It was about transporting you into another time and place. Sure, it was santitized (for your protection), but not to the point where it felt fake, commercial and tacky.

Taking this back to Mickey, I cringe when I see a foamhead with no personality laughing and saying things like 'Oh gosh Minnie, being here with all our friends is a reason to celebrate.' Yet, I realize that for many folks that IS Mickey.

I don't think his creator would necessarily agree.

Disney needs to stop worrying about offending people on the far ends of the spectrum in the USA and be true to its roots.

[Bairstow]

So is there anyone who doesn't think the current interpretation of Mickey Mouse is tired, inert, and irrelevant?

Didn't think so.

Still, the "Epic Mickey" direction took me by surprise, and it's only a good thing if Disney is at least showing a willingness to move in a direction, even a scary steampunk direction, towards new ideas.

And I thought Bloc28 was a major step.


I mean, just look at the logo for this thing:


It will be interesting to see that printed on a bunch of T-shirts at the World of Disney.

[The Mak]

Originally Posted by Bairstow

So is there anyone who doesn't think the current interpretation of Mickey Mouse is tired, inert, and irrelevant?

Didn't think so.

Still, the "Epic Mickey" direction took me by surprise, and it's only a good thing if Disney is at least showing a willingness to move in a direction, even a scary steampunk direction, towards new ideas.

And I thought Bloc28 was a major step.


I mean, just look at the logo for this thing:


It will be interesting to see that printed on a bunch of T-shirts at the World of Disney.

...The accumulated filth of all their fornication and murder will foam up about their waists and all the prostitutes and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "Oh boy!"

[Dj Corona]

I read this article this morning on AOL, loved the line about "Tinker Bell spends the entire movie trying to murder Wendy, yet modern parents see a homicidal fairy as plucky"! or something close to that.
Aside from that, as far as already considering an "Epic Mickey" ride, attraction, etc. ...isn't that jumping the gun a little for something that hasn't even came out yet?? A) Because there have been people that have come and gone off these boards, even as well as some still on here, that wouldn't mind something in the way of a "History of Mickey" dark ride, or something along those lines....and B) Aside for a one time appearance at MNSSHP, there's been no park love for the Kingdom Hearts series. At all.
Anywho, that being said, I have no problem bringing the un-P.C. Mickey back to the future, so long as there's not a Leonard Maltin introduction to go along with the game!! (Anybody who owns a Disney Treasure DVD knows what I'm talking about)

[Disney05]

I personally don't like the angry looking Mickey. I don't have a problem with giving him an updated look, but Mickey looks pissed! Just not the image I think he should be.

[_Scar]

Anyone who thinks squeaky clean Mickey (i.e. bland corporate symbol) is Disney needs to study their history a bit.

Yes, but he USED to be. He was changed a very, very long time ago.

The analogy to Bart Simpson of his time would be dead on ... don't agree with the writer's take that he was akin to Family Guy's Stewie though, but I wasn't alive in the 1920s and 30s so maybe the comparison isn't THAT off.

Bart, maybe and probably a little worse. Stewie? That's overboard.

I would say Mickey's current image is as much of a problem with Disney as folks who believe the DISNEY MAGIC (not the boat) is the same as the magic Disney created for decades in its films, TV shows and theme parks.

He seems wildly popular atm. He's probably (well, obvious) Disney's most popular character. I don't see how he's a problem to Disney. I wouldn't want to see you in charge of anything Disney anytime soon. What you think is a problem- people believing in the quality Disney puts out/Mickey's image- is so far from a problem.

One is tangible, substantive and, dare I say it, real. Or at least it sure feels like it.
The other is a sanitized product of a cynical marketing machine.

There's a huge difference

.

Drama queen.

A good example in the parks would be the dumbing down of PoC in the USA by first making the pirates not chase the women, but instead be chasing food or having the women chasing them ... and then adding Jack Sparrow to tie in to merchandise sales and movie tix and DVD sales etc ... vs. say DLP where you have a more pure and 100% politically incorrect version where pirates still chase wenches and you even get a projection on a second story window (in shadow form) where a pirate has a woman slung over his back. I'm pretty sure he's not after any food, except perhaps her melons.

In the United States, men chasing women is not very accepted- at all. I don't see how this is a problem changing the scene. Do you want Brer Fox in Splash make the tar tar baby? Or Uncle Remus AA telling you the story? Disney respects those boundaries and tries their best not to offend anyone.

I LOVE the Johnny AA. So real, so lifelike. I don't understand WHY people think he was brought in for movie sales. Cmon people.... he is the face of Pirates of the Caribbean! He only adds to the story of the ride, not subrtacts.

That's what REAL Disney was about.

The REAL Disney would not want to offend anyone. You can still put on a great show without crossing any lines... I guess not for you though.

It was about transporting you into another time and place. Sure, it was santitized (for your protection), but not to the point where it felt fake, commercial and tacky.

Fake, commercial, and tacky? Guarentee you're the minority in this argument. Pirates is anything but tacky. There are barely any movie references considering what they could have done. Commercial? I don't understand why you keep bringing Johnny trying to sell dvds up... does he say "Pirates now out on Blu Ray! Only 59.99" when the boat passes by?

Taking this back to Mickey, I cringe when I see a foamhead with no personality laughing and saying things like 'Oh gosh Minnie, being here with all our friends is a reason to celebrate.' Yet, I realize that for many folks that IS Mickey.

I don't think his creator would necessarily agree.

Mickey has a ton of personality. True, it's not mean, rude, dumb, ect but he has that distinct personality that you know he's the level-headed one. He's the hero of the bunch and he represents Disney.

His creator made the Mickey we see today. That's just Disney 101! You should know that.

Disney needs to stop worrying about offending people on the far ends of the spectrum in the USA and be true to its roots.

ROFL!!

Yes, I TOTALLY agree. Disney offending people would drive in the fans. Getting back to that raunchy, racist Disney Magic we all know and want back!

[SirNim]

Mickey = Loki

The Trickster Mouse, brought back to life from the depths of castrati hell.

Or, at least, that's one poetic way to look at it.

[EPCOT Explorer]

Originally Posted by CaptainMichael

Disney was anything but "Disney" back then. A shame what the company has become.


He obviously needs reinvention. Mickey is largely irrelevant these days except with the preschool audience.

In some ways, yes. True Disney is EVERYTHING. Not just Castles, Dreams, and Magic...but the "Hard Facts" that have created America (to use a certain dedication), and the universal tool of a story to paint a vivid picture for the minds eye. A story on anything. Mickey used to be a differentiated character. As of late, he's a symbol.

Honestly, he could be both.

Originally Posted by WDW1974

Anyone who thinks squeaky clean Mickey (i.e. bland corporate symbol) is Disney needs to study their history a bit.

The analogy to Bart Simpson of his time would be dead on ... don't agree with the writer's take that he was akin to Family Guy's Stewie though, but I wasn't alive in the 1920s and 30s so maybe the comparison isn't THAT off.

I would say Mickey's current image is as much of a problem with Disney as folks who believe the DISNEY MAGIC (not the boat) is the same as the magic Disney created for decades in its films, TV shows and theme parks.

One is tangible, substantive and, dare I say it, real. Or at least it sure feels like it.
The other is a sanitized product of a cynical marketing machine.

There's a huge difference.

A good example in the parks would be the dumbing down of PoC in the USA by first making the pirates not chase the women, but instead be chasing food or having the women chasing them ... and then adding Jack Sparrow to tie in to merchandise sales and movie tix and DVD sales etc ... vs. say DLP where you have a more pure and 100% politically incorrect version where pirates still chase wenches and you even get a projection on a second story window (in shadow form) where a pirate has a woman slung over his back. I'm pretty sure he's not after any food, except perhaps her melons.

That's what REAL Disney was about.

It was about transporting you into another time and place. Sure, it was santitized (for your protection), but not to the point where it felt fake, commercial and tacky.

Taking this back to Mickey, I cringe when I see a foamhead with no personality laughing and saying things like 'Oh gosh Minnie, being here with all our friends is a reason to celebrate.' Yet, I realize that for many folks that IS Mickey.

I don't think his creator would necessarily agree.

Disney needs to stop worrying about offending people on the far ends of the spectrum in the USA and be true to its roots.

Agreed in full.

Honestly, the PotC were never noticeable enough for me...and I really don't think that that small change has any real effect on the effect of the attraction itself. However, it's that thought process that still makes things bland, you are right.

Originally Posted by The Mak

...The accumulated filth of all their fornication and murder will foam up about their waists and all the prostitutes and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "Oh boy!"

YOU WIN THIS THREAD!

Originally Posted by _Scar

Yes, but he USED to be. He was changed a very, very long time ago.



Bart, maybe and probably a little worse. Stewie? That's overboard.



He seems wildly popular atm. He's probably (well, obvious) Disney's most popular character. I don't see how he's a problem to Disney. I wouldn't want to see you in charge of anything Disney anytime soon. What you think is a problem- people believing in the quality Disney puts out/Mickey's image- is so far from a problem.

.

Drama queen.



In the United States, men chasing women is not very accepted- at all. I don't see how this is a problem changing the scene. Do you want Brer Fox in Splash make the tar tar baby? Or Uncle Remus AA telling you the story? Disney respects those boundaries and tries their best not to offend anyone.

I LOVE the Johnny AA. So real, so lifelike. I don't understand WHY people think he was brought in for movie sales. Cmon people.... he is the face of Pirates of the Caribbean! He only adds to the story of the ride, not subrtacts.



The REAL Disney would not want to offend anyone. You can still put on a great show without crossing any lines... I guess not for you though.



Fake, commercial, and tacky? Guarentee you're the minority in this argument. Pirates is anything but tacky. There are barely any movie references considering what they could have done. Commercial? I don't understand why you keep bringing Johnny trying to sell dvds up... does he say "Pirates now out on Blu Ray! Only 59.99" when the boat passes by?



Mickey has a ton of personality. True, it's not mean, rude, dumb, ect but he has that distinct personality that you know he's the level-headed one. He's the hero of the bunch and he represents Disney.

His creator made the Mickey we see today. That's just Disney 101! You should know that.



ROFL!!

Yes, I TOTALLY agree. Disney offending people would drive in the fans. Getting back to that raunchy, racist Disney Magic we all know and want back!

No one said it was a problem. However, why WOULDN'T you want to get back to your roots...and even open up to a whole new demographic?
Have your cake and eat it too....Keeping Mickey a symbol is almost close minded.

"A Whole New Demographic"....I wonder if Disney Marketing sings that instead of '"Whole New World"?


Yeeeeah, Splash Mountain/Song of the South. Again. Do your research. It's NOT racist. People are TOO sensitive about these things. The whole story has been disambiguated by these "sympathies". As a student of History I ask you...Do you REALLY think we are just going to wipe away years of our History, no matter how dirty? NO. That's wrong. You disrespect your past that way. No. You forget that way. No. You are wont to repeat it that way.
On the note of the ride itself....Put Remus back. It's part of the story, part of the history...and IF YOU KNEW about this, you would see that it was actually quite bipartisan to have a African American actor star in the movie, and play the role that he did. This PR spin against FACT is sickening.


You don't understand why Johnny Shlep was brought in? The movie? Umm..."Whole New Demographic" of teen girls drooling more than a fanboi on D23 Expo day? Heard of them? There ya go.
The ride isn't supposed to have a defined story in the first place. Adding him just makes this another Disney "Hide and Seek" scenario. Original, right? Nemo, Mexico, Philhar.

Mick's personality NOW is tacky. And cheesey. In a good way. Like We've said...He's a symbol. And that's fine. But as I said before....Let him out of his shell for a bit. REALLY make him a DISNEY character again. Let him have an adventure for a change. He's spent too much time holding Walt's hand in front of a Castle.

Yes, always let him be in the roll of a partner, and of a symbol, but let the character be himself, too.


As always, there's a happy balance. Right now...it's too happy.

[wbt06]

For all the people that cannot believe Disney would want a game like this should do there research. This game was pitched to Spector by Disney. He did some revisions on some elements but the core has always been there. He also believes in the game so much that to do it he let Disney by his new independent company. Plus he wants to make a ducktales game and no not the cartoon the comics. He is a true Disney buff who loves the history and would not want to tarnish Mickey’s character but add to it

[EPCOT Explorer]

Originally Posted by wbt06

For all the people that cannot believe Disney would want a game like this should do there research. This game was pitched to Spector by Disney. He did some revisions on some elements but the core has always been there. He also believes in the game so much that to do it he let Disney by his new independent company. Plus he wants to make a ducktales game and no not the cartoon the comics. He is a true Disney buff who loves the history and would not want to tarnish Mickey’s character but add to it

Good term there. Add to Mickey. Or ADD BACK, really....This has been there since the beginning.

[_Scar]

Yeeeeah, Splash Mountain/Song of the South. Again. Do your research. It's NOT racist. People are TOO sensitive about these things. The whole story has been disambiguated by these "sympathies". As a student of History I ask you...Do you REALLY think we are just going to wipe away years of our History, no matter how dirty? NO. That's wrong. You disrespect your past that way. No. You forget that way. No. You are wont to repeat it that way.

Song of the South being racist is ALL a matter of opinion. So is the sexism in PotC. The fact of the matter is some people get extremely offended. It's very unproffessional to just ignore this too. It's not a good way to run a business always on that distinct line of boundaries, especially for Disney. Cmon now, guys. I can't be the only sane person here.

Ok here's a totally fabricated situation that has nothing to do with gender or racism. Imagine the Haunted Mansion showed the ghost bride chopping off a husband's head. Don't you think that would offend people? But wait.... it may not offend others. Does that make it right? Should something like this be shown because some people think its okay? Children would surely not to visit this ride. Just like blacks may be offended by Splash if it followed its original story (Song of the South movie). Or the women being chased by men in PotC would make women feel uncomfortable.

On the note of the ride itself....Put Remus back. It's part of the story, part of the history...and IF YOU KNEW about this, you would see that it was actually quite bipartisan to have a African American actor star in the movie, and play the role that he did. This PR spin against FACT is sickening.

Once again, the movie being racist is all subjective. Personally, I love the movie. Don't think its racist one bit. But I also know it offends people. And I respect that and I would never want that in Splash.

You don't understand why Johnny Shlep was brought in? The movie? Umm..."Whole New Demographic" of teen girls drooling more than a fanboi on D23 Expo day? Heard of them? There ya go.
The ride isn't supposed to have a defined story in the first place. Adding him just makes this another Disney "Hide and Seek" scenario. Original, right? Nemo, Mexico, Philhar.

Johnny Shlep? Anyways, Johnny is the face of PotC. Sorta lkike Mickey is the face of Disney. Just because girls love him doesn't mean anything. Do you really think they put in Depp because they wanted teen girls to swoon? Cmon now.

Mick's personality NOW is tacky. And cheesey. In a good way. Like We've said...He's a symbol. And that's fine. But as I said before....Let him out of his shell for a bit. REALLY make him a DISNEY character again. Let him have an adventure for a change. He's spent too much time holding Walt's hand in front of a Castle.

Fine, but hold true to his personality. A mean and pissed off Mickey is not the Mickey we've seen for over 70 years.

Yes, always let him be in the roll of a partner, and of a symbol, but let the character be himself, too.

He is a symbol of Disney, but that doesn't mean he has no character! He's always the voice of reason, fighting for good in the word, ect. That is character and could be symbolic of Disney, too.

As always, there's a happy balance. Right now...it's too happy.

Before Epic Mickey even showed an altered Mickey, did you ever think Mickey was lacky character? I didn't, still don't.

[EPCOT Explorer]

Originally Posted by _Scar

Song of the South being racist is ALL a matter of opinion. So is the sexism in PotC. The fact of the matter is some people get extremely offended. It's very unproffessional to just ignore this too. It's not a good way to run a business always on that distinct line of boundaries, especially for Disney. Cmon now, guys. I can't be the only sane person here.

Ok here's a totally fabricated situation that has nothing to do with gender or racism. Imagine the Haunted Mansion showed the ghost bride chopping off a husband's head. Don't you think that would offend people? But wait.... it may not offend others. Does that make it right? Should something like this be shown because some people think its okay? Children would surely not to visit this ride. Just like blacks may be offended by Splash if it followed its original story (Song of the South movie). Or the women being chased by men in PotC would make women feel uncomfortable.


Once again, the movie being racist is all subjective. Personally, I love the movie. Don't think its racist one bit. But I also know it offends people. And I respect that and I would never want that in Splash.


Johnny Shlep? Anyways, Johnny is the face of PotC. Sorta lkike Mickey is the face of Disney. Just because girls love him doesn't mean anything. Do you really think they put in Depp because they wanted teen girls to swoon? Cmon now.

Fine, but hold true to his personality. A mean and pissed off Mickey is not the Mickey we've seen for over 70 years.

He is a symbol of Disney, but that doesn't mean he has no character! He's always the voice of reason, fighting for good in the word, ect. That is character and could be symbolic of Disney, too.


Before Epic Mickey even showed an altered Mickey, did you ever think Mickey was lacky character? I didn't, still don't.

No matter what you do in business...some idiot that doesn't know his HISTORY will be upset. More often then not...They will be the minority. Look at The Simpsons. Look at Family Guy. People need to be open minded. If they can't handle DISNEY of all things, then wow. Honestly, I think that Disney needs to push some boundaries. Get more people drawn to something that ISN'T bland. Like we've said before...REAL STORYTELLING. If pushing a boundary is that...then, go for it! Get the job done. They did in the past.

There's nothing to be offended about in the Song of the South movie. If you knew, you would see that they are not Slaves. Servants. Meaning paid. Meaning that I *think* that this isn't Antebellum America...it's Reconstruction. If you don't know what that is, google it.


Shlep? Google. Did they put Jack in to POTC for that effect? Umm...Yeah. Merch. Audiences. They wanted to attract a bigger audience to that ride. It's obvious. Marketing is a sly beast.

And? This adds to his character. He can still be all those things while doing this. Trust me...Mickey is too popular to be ruined now. That's absurd.


And yes, yes I did. Because, if you watch ooooooold Disney/Mickey Mouse shorts, I MUCH prefer that plucky "sympathetic" (as Walt called him) character to Mundane Mickey. I love Mundane Mickey, don't get me wrong, but Epic Mickey actually looks exciting. Excuse me for wanting a better product.

[_Scar]

No matter what you do in business...some idiot that doesn't know his HISTORY will be upset. More often then not...They will be the minority. Look at The Simpsons. Look at Family Guy. People need to be open minded. If they can't handle DISNEY of all things, then wow. Honestly, I think that Disney needs to push some boundaries. Get more people drawn to something that ISN'T bland. Like we've said before...REAL STORYTELLING. If pushing a boundary is that...then, go for it! Get the job done. They did in the past.

Simpsons? Family Guy?! Those are 2 horrible examples. Disney targets a family audience, not an adult one.And yes, it may not offend the majority.... but do you really want people out there offended. You do know a great amount of people were offended by Song of the South. And the women being chased? Did you know that? Can you just ignore that? Do you really think that if they brought these into the park it'd attract a greater audience? That makes me laugh.

There's nothing to be offended about in the Song of the South movie. If you knew, you would see that they are not Slaves. Servants. Meaning paid. Meaning that I *think* that this isn't Antebellum America...it's Reconstruction. If you don't know what that is, google it.

To me, once again, it's not racist. But I can clearly see how it could be percieved that way. I love the movie, enough to admit it has flaws, one very big flaw.

Shlep? Google. Did they put Jack in to POTC for that effect? Umm...Yeah. Merch. Audiences. They wanted to attract a bigger audience to that ride. It's obvious. Marketing is a sly beast.

They put him in because he is the face of Pirates! With your mindset, you'd think EVERY SINGLE RIDE is to get people to buy merch. You can't be that paranoid by that. There's nothing there suggesting merch, and if there is point it out. Point out the one single outlying fact that it targets merch that any other Disney ride does not have.

And? This adds to his character. He can still be all those things while doing this. Trust me...Mickey is too popular to be ruined now. That's absurd.

Not necesarily. There were 2 very different sides to the "old" Mickey. And his character was officially changed by Walt himself because of complaints ofn him having 2 different sides which led to other characters we see today. That's just Disney history right there. History will probably repeat itself.

And yes, yes I did. Because, if you watch ooooooold Disney/Mickey Mouse shorts, I MUCH prefer that plucky "sympathetic" (as Walt called him) character to Mundane Mickey. I love Mundane Mickey, don't get me wrong, but Epic Mickey actually looks exciting. Excuse me for wanting a better product.

Opinion. I much prefer a nice Mickey and a mean Donald.

[EPCOT Explorer]

Originally Posted by _Scar

Simpsons? Family Guy?! Those are 2 horrible examples. Disney targets a family audience, not an adult one.And yes, it may not offend the majority.... but do you really want people out there offended. You do know a great amount of people were offended by Song of the South. And the women being chased? Did you know that? Can you just ignore that? Do you really think that if they brought these into the park it'd attract a greater audience? That makes me laugh.




To me, once again, it's not racist. But I can clearly see how it could be percieved that way. I love the movie, enough to admit it has flaws, one very big flaw.



They put him in because he is the face of Pirates! With your mindset, you'd think EVERY SINGLE RIDE is to get people to buy merch. You can't be that paranoid by that. There's nothing there suggesting merch, and if there is point it out. Point out the one single outlying fact that it targets merch that any other Disney ride does not have.



Not necesarily. There were 2 very different sides to the "old" Mickey. And his character was officially changed by Walt himself because of complaints ofn him having 2 different sides which led to other characters we see today. That's just Disney history right there. History will probably repeat itself.




Opinion. I much prefer a nice Mickey and a mean Donald.

Simp. and FamGuy are examples, extreme ones, nonetheless. Disney is capable of going out ad targeting other audiences, you know that, right? Like they used to? Seriously, the "typical syrupy" family audience has it's place, but it's tired and overused in other areas of the company. They should me taking OTHER lines of thought, and OTHER audiences and going after them. Again, that would add more balance to the mix.

Great many people? I laugh at that. Introduce it the right way, market it the correct way, it'll be fine. Didn't say anything about attracting about audiences, here, I'm going for a richer and more immersive type of Storytelling. Which is EXACTLY what Disney is about.

Pirates, again. The ride is supposed to be face-LESS. It's supposed to be a EXPERIENCE through the universe of a pirate. Adding a character (unoriginal, at that. WDI Original would be interesting. ) is a simple marketing ploy. Research, again.

Your Disney History logic is flawed...Mickey became Mundane Mickey because Walt and his 9 Old Men created new characters. Keepling Mickey in the limelight was achieved because he's the original. The symbol.The other characters seemed to get all the fun. Disney History repeating itself? Who you calling dramatic, now? If you are alluding to Mickey reverting to his old character, yeah, it's happening. And I'm all for it.




For those worried about Mickey's image...don't. Nothing can change it. It's been the same way for 81, almost 82, years now. He's cemented as the icon. He won't be tarnished. He won't be changed. He will, however, be added to, and made to appeal to other demographics while still retaining his spirit.