Just to be clear right off the bat, I am not ranting. I'm not arguing, and I'm not trying to start an argument. I just have a genuine question. I'd like to bring up a few points first.
I'm a big fan of Disney and Disney Parks. I've been browsing a few Disney Park forums and listening to some podcasts, and I've noticed that some hardcore Disney fans are a bit annoyed at how much attention Disney's relatively new IP's are getting. (Particularly Marvel and Star Wars.) I've seen a lot of people bothered that these "foreign" franchises are getting attention despite not being created by Disney.
But here's why I'm confused. The Mad Hatter was not created by Disney. Neither was Winnie the Pooh. Or even Peter Pan. They were created by Lewis Carroll, A. A. Milne, and J. M. Barrie respectively. Disney just made great adaptations that became iconic. When you go to a Disney Park, you don't see the Lewis Carroll version of the Mad Hatter. You see Disney's ADAPTATION of the Mad Hatter.
Star-Lord first appeared in "Marvel Preview #4" by Steve Englehart in 1976, though he was later popularized in the 2000's with series' like "Annihilation" and, in 2008, "Guardians of the Galaxy." But this original comics version isn't the version that walks around the park. The Star-Lord at Disneyland has the movie costume, listens to "Come and Get Your Love", and might talk about his evil dad, Ego the Living Planet. All of these things are exclusive to the MCU movies. Just like the Mad Hatter at Disney Parks is the Disney version of a character created by Lewis Carroll, the Star-Lord at Disney Parks is the Disney version of a character created by Steve Englehart.
And true, Disney uses the versions of Star Wars characters from movies created by 20th Century Fox. But that's because those movies are too iconic to change (AGAIN) and Star Wars doesn't have a prominent multiverse like Marvel. But they did reboot the expanded universe. So the universe those movies take place in is a Disney version of the universe. (And the argument could be made that these movies follow the classic Disney formula. Especially "A New Hope", which is HEAVILY based after Joseph Campbell's legendary book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", an accurate analysis of a writing formula used in most fairy tales, myths, and, yes, Disney movies. Star Wars in many ways is a fairy tale in space.)
Books, movies, and comic books are mediums created to tell stories. It doesn't seem fair to disregard a movie because the medium it's based after isn't a book. How do we know that Lewis Carroll wouldn't have preferred to make "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" into a movie or comic book instead if he had the option? Stories should be judged on creativity and quality, not the medium used.
And yes, Marvel and Star Wars are being advertised HEAVILY now. But that's just because those franchises are big in the public conscience, and Disney knows how to make money. The mainstream hype will die out eventually (Probably after "Avengers 4" and "Star Wars: Episode 9"). It's a fad I like a lot, but it's a fad nonetheless. And all fads are temporary.
So why are some Disney fans insistent that these franchises are ruining Disney? I'm not trying to argue. I am genuinely curious. Thank you! And sorry for the long post.
I'm a big fan of Disney and Disney Parks. I've been browsing a few Disney Park forums and listening to some podcasts, and I've noticed that some hardcore Disney fans are a bit annoyed at how much attention Disney's relatively new IP's are getting. (Particularly Marvel and Star Wars.) I've seen a lot of people bothered that these "foreign" franchises are getting attention despite not being created by Disney.
But here's why I'm confused. The Mad Hatter was not created by Disney. Neither was Winnie the Pooh. Or even Peter Pan. They were created by Lewis Carroll, A. A. Milne, and J. M. Barrie respectively. Disney just made great adaptations that became iconic. When you go to a Disney Park, you don't see the Lewis Carroll version of the Mad Hatter. You see Disney's ADAPTATION of the Mad Hatter.
Star-Lord first appeared in "Marvel Preview #4" by Steve Englehart in 1976, though he was later popularized in the 2000's with series' like "Annihilation" and, in 2008, "Guardians of the Galaxy." But this original comics version isn't the version that walks around the park. The Star-Lord at Disneyland has the movie costume, listens to "Come and Get Your Love", and might talk about his evil dad, Ego the Living Planet. All of these things are exclusive to the MCU movies. Just like the Mad Hatter at Disney Parks is the Disney version of a character created by Lewis Carroll, the Star-Lord at Disney Parks is the Disney version of a character created by Steve Englehart.
And true, Disney uses the versions of Star Wars characters from movies created by 20th Century Fox. But that's because those movies are too iconic to change (AGAIN) and Star Wars doesn't have a prominent multiverse like Marvel. But they did reboot the expanded universe. So the universe those movies take place in is a Disney version of the universe. (And the argument could be made that these movies follow the classic Disney formula. Especially "A New Hope", which is HEAVILY based after Joseph Campbell's legendary book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", an accurate analysis of a writing formula used in most fairy tales, myths, and, yes, Disney movies. Star Wars in many ways is a fairy tale in space.)
Books, movies, and comic books are mediums created to tell stories. It doesn't seem fair to disregard a movie because the medium it's based after isn't a book. How do we know that Lewis Carroll wouldn't have preferred to make "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" into a movie or comic book instead if he had the option? Stories should be judged on creativity and quality, not the medium used.
And yes, Marvel and Star Wars are being advertised HEAVILY now. But that's just because those franchises are big in the public conscience, and Disney knows how to make money. The mainstream hype will die out eventually (Probably after "Avengers 4" and "Star Wars: Episode 9"). It's a fad I like a lot, but it's a fad nonetheless. And all fads are temporary.
So why are some Disney fans insistent that these franchises are ruining Disney? I'm not trying to argue. I am genuinely curious. Thank you! And sorry for the long post.
Last edited:
