News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I think we are getting off topic here but one comment I’ll make when talking about the new Mickey cartoon style is it reminds me of the old Ren and Stimpy cartoons where everything is overly exaggerated which makes it more comical at times.
Yep.. and that’s a problem for ‘alot’ of people. It’s supposed to be comical but not gross & cringey. They’re like bad parodies.. and I’d argue it is very much on topic.. cause Iger’s using it as one of spins as a “savior” of “Disney’s roots”, when it’s the exact opposite. And pretends the Mickey before it & Clubhouse, (that being 90s-early 2000s era ; Prince & the Pauper, Runaway Brain, Mickey Mouse Works, House of Mouse, Once Upon & Twice Upon A Christmas, and Three Musketeers) never existed. They’re not mentioned once in the documentary.
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Yep.. and that’s a problem for ‘alot’ of people. It’s supposed to be comical but not gross & cringey. They’re like bad parodies.. and I’d argue it is very much on topic.. cause Iger’s using it as one of spins as a “savior” of “Disney’s roots”, when it’s the exact opposite.
I honestly don’t mind the new cartoon style as long as we never lose the old style at times as well. I’m curious to see if/when the studios goes back to hand drawn animation movies what they are like. IMO Disney and Pixar has been very much lacking in the creativity department in movies for awhile now
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I honestly don’t mind the new cartoon style as long as we never lose the old style at times as well. I’m curious to see if/when the studios goes back to hand drawn animation movies what they are like. IMO Disney and Pixar has been very much lacking in creativity department in movies for awhile now
I agree. And that’s why I’m so frustrated about it.. we ‘have’ lost the genuine old style.. and while we’ve seen bits & hints of classic/traditional animation in clothing ads featuring Oswald, 101 Dalmatians, etc.. the staff within is a skeleton crew. They just will not and don’t see the value in doing full movies in that style anymore nor television series. Or full length shorts on that matter.. only ones that are about 4-5 mins at most due to lack of staffing, internal support, and budgets being able to make longer ones, which is a shame since they’re great otherwise. (See Goofy in How To Stay At Home short series)
 
Last edited:

bcoachable

Well-Known Member
We are going for 8 days… with 2 days planned for Disneyland… 1 day planned for DCA and are Anniversary is in October we are going to check out Ophir Boogie bash one night… we are also going to Universal Studios… I would like to do the famous tram tour…with 2 days to check out other Southern California sites since I have never been
If I may be so bold, I’d like to suggest a cool urban hiking adventure (if your group is into this sort of thing) that takes place under the Hollywood sign:

Dm me if you would like more info…
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
All fine and dandy, but, my point was that the cartoon style isn’t a Disney original thing, and is extremely dated. It’s actually now pretty boring.
My thought is that it's similar to the way that Blippi reincarnates certain elements of Barney (the slow speaking rate, exaggerated facial expressions, over the top enthusiasm and uber expository dialogue...) In that the features that draw in kids as viewers tend to be reproduced, because, well, they earn viewers, ergo execs like them. So yes, it's been done before, but it's all been done before for a reason.

This overall style has been around for awhile, and I suspect originates somewhere in the anime world (although I'm not a cartoon buff and couldn't say for sure). To my mind the key elements are: 1. Exaggerated, simplistic visual representations of what is happening in the plot 2. Limited need to follow a lengthy verbal narrative because most of the action is visual 3. Fast paced action, with lots of action, be it slapstick comedy or wild chase scenes or whatever the case may be. I think this connects with kids of the Youtube generation.
 

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
My thought is that it's similar to the way that Blippi reincarnates certain elements of Barney (the slow speaking rate, exaggerated facial expressions, over the top enthusiasm and uber expository dialogue...) In that the features that draw in kids as viewers tend to be reproduced, because, well, they earn viewers, ergo execs like them. So yes, it's been done before, but it's all been done before for a reason.

This overall style has been around for awhile, and I suspect originates somewhere in the anime world (although I'm not a cartoon buff and couldn't say for sure). To my mind the key elements are: 1. Exaggerated, simplistic visual representations of what is happening in the plot 2. Limited need to follow a lengthy verbal narrative because most of the action is visual 3. Fast paced action, with lots of action, be it slapstick comedy or wild chase scenes or whatever the case may be. I think this connects with kids of the Youtube generation.

Not really sure what all that means, but, have you ever seen a Tex Avery cartoon…?!
 

DisneyHead123

Well-Known Member
Not really sure what all that means, but, have you ever seen a Tex Avery cartoon…?!
In regard to what I meant - the summary version would be "It's not about what's new or old, it's about what works to bring in viewers." Kids tend to have very specific preferences.

I looked up the Tex Avery Bugs Bunny cartoons and I think I may have seen them although they all run together. It's funny how Bugs used to come across like a Wise Guy Mobster, ha ha!
 

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
In regard to what I meant - the summary version would be "It's not about what's new or old, it's about what works to bring in viewers." Kids tend to have very specific preferences.

I looked up the Tex Avery Bugs Bunny cartoons and I think I may have seen them although they all run together. It's funny how Bugs used to come across like a Wise Guy Mobster, haha.

Yes, that’s exactly my point. It was cute at the time , and still is now for the classic aspect, but, the new Disney style is just a Cartoon Network ripoff.
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
Yep.. and that’s a problem for ‘alot’ of people. It’s supposed to be comical but not gross & cringey. They’re like bad parodies.. and I’d argue it is very much on topic.. cause Iger’s using it as one of spins as a “savior” of “Disney’s roots”, when it’s the exact opposite. And pretends the Mickey before it & Clubhouse, (that being 90s-early 2000s era ; Prince & the Pauper, Runaway Brain, Mickey Mouse Works, House of Mouse, Once Upon & Twice Upon A Christmas, and Three Musketeers) never existed. They’re not mentioned once in the documentary.
I'd be curious to know if Iger even knows about most of the things you suggest he's trying to hide from you.
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
I'd be curious to know if Iger even knows about most of the things you suggest he's trying to hide from you.
He damn well should, they’re all very important parts of Mickey’s history. Fantasmic! included (which also wasn’t mentioned for whatever reason). Seriously, that Disney + documentary was ‘awful’. The ‘entire’ 90s-early 2000s era of Mickey literally ignored/framed as something that never existed or that brought anything good or significant to the Mouse’s history/legacy as a character. Insane
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
When they talk about "CalArts Style", they mean the "bean mouth"-style faces of the characters in shows like Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, and Star vs. the Forces of Evil (the latter two both owned by Disney).
Truth be told, my criticism has nothing to do with any “Cal-Arts” style. (Which ironically was coined by the man that created Ren & Stimpy.. the very thing that started this whole problem and was the main inspiration behind the new shorts..who has his own share of serious issues I’d rather not get into) My problem is in the way they treat the characters as gross, needlessly edgy mockeries of themselves rather than anything sincere & with real personality & emotion.
But more than that, like I said.. seemingly intentionally erasing/burying an entire important era’s worth of history for the character to push a false narrative to make Iger look like a “savior.”, when he’s the man that created the problem to begin with. In that he became “soulless” under management before him. Which is total Bull when you realize, one of Iger’s first projects he greenlit was Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Which as opposed to presenting Mickey as an all-age appealing, humorous character with imperfections. He became a bland shell of a character with no heart, emotion, or personality. He became another Barney clone strictly aimed towards preschoolers. And that was the ‘main’ Mickey they pushed while discontinuing and pushing nearly everything made prior into obscurity since/starting in ‘06. Now we have the Rudish Mickey since ‘12 masquerading as a “return to roots” but like I said.. I’m just sick of this blatantly false narrative that modern Mickey was nothing but a “soulless mascot” until Iger went and “saved” him and “returned him to his roots”.
He actually went & ruined him to become soulless to begin with and then later “fixed” him by making him a mean spirited mockery of what once was rather than the tasteful continuation that was around through the 90s-early 00s.
 
Last edited:

Pancho

Member
The new cartoons are interesting. some are amusing with a bit of charm, others are kinda disturbing and downright scary for little kids. not sure where they are going with them. and what's up with the presentation of Goofy? is he supposed to be homeless? All in all, I think they are a misstep for the classic characters and they should move on from them.
 

Inspired Figment

Well-Known Member
And this pattern isn’t new by any means. You thought that Mickey story Documentary was just a one off? Just watch the Imagineering story. Notice how they just gloss over classic era EPCOT Center. Not going in any real depth in it like the earlier parts, and never going into the ‘drastic’ changes that happened in the late 90s-2000s that made it the mess it became synonymous with.. huh, I ‘wonder’ why that could be… perhaps because it’d so clearly point to today’s Imagineering & the “new” EPCOT direction by the “savior” Iger being anything ‘but’ a “save” and only a repeat of the issues spearheaded by late Eisner minus Wells (which Iger just so happened to be closely apart of) that have created the still ongoing problems that are gonna bite them in the butt yet again.. hmm

The same reason they pretend the good Mickey of the 90s-early 2000s never existed cause it ultimately showcases that their narrative is wrong and that their “fix” is not a “fix” by any means…
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom