This is my problem… why can’t we still have a version that appeals to all ages, without having to be needlessly edgy, and without having to be ‘completely’ dumbed down w little to no personality or humor for preschoolers. There’s no reason why we can’t have one perfectly balanced/accessible to all like we did in the past.. new content I mean. Or heck, some of that old content that’s missing finally made available to watch again.
Because it reveals how current Disney management views Mickey and his history and how they want people to view him & his legacy.. and ultimately has revealed to me ‘why’ I can’t find things like Mickey Mouse Works or House of Mouse on Disney Plus or any of the other missing things being mentioned in any other accounts of Mickey’s history. They don’t ‘want’ people to know it exists.. they don’t want anyone to acknowledge or watch it.. which makes no sense at all. Doesn’t help that they needlessly talk crap about Mickey’s Christmas Carol (first Mickey animated project made since the last one in the 50s, I ought to mention) in the Mickey Story Documentary for supposedly being “too safe” and “not actually a Mickey film”. That’s like saying Muppets Christmas Carol is too safe and that it’s actually a Michael Caine film and the Muppets don’t carry the true spirit & message throughout, while Scrooge shows us the opposite. ‘That’ is what upsets me. None of that gets any appreciation or respect by the company, but actual mean spirited parodies that mock the company & the character & strictly preschool content & Ren & Stimpy style stuff that feels more parody like than genuine does.. it’s gross and rubs me the wrong way.
Question, do you have little kids? Seeing how Mickey Mouse Clubhouse has an almost magic appeal to my 4 and 1 year old, and it allows wifey and I to actually get stuff done when the kids are watching that show, it's an absolute godsend. I don't care at all how much an adult thinks they "dumbed down" Mickey, the fact is, kids of the target age group love it and it gives their parents a well-needed breather. It fills its intended function beautifully.
I don't expect my kids to care at all about Clubhouse when they get older... because they won't be preschoolers anymore and they will no longer be the intended audience. I'd be more worried if they were still obsessed with it!
I remember seeing the Mickey and Minnie ones at a local daycare two decades ago.There’s actually a whole range of “Totally Minnie” (and related) merchandise, not to mention a lot of stuff featuring the characters wearing this later-’80s garb:
But yes, you’re right that these forays into contemporary fashion were a relatively minor part of the characters’ identity, which remained rooted in their classic designs.
I wasn’t aware of the Worlds of Wonder Talking Mickey cassettes and books. Thanks for bringing them to my attention; I’ll have to check them out.
My thoughts about your perspective after reading all you've had to say about the matter:
Because the version of Mickey that "appeals to all ages" doesn't work.
The formula is based on lots of research, pioneered by Children's Television Workshop, the group behind Sesame Street. Their focus was educational entertainment (especially for inner-city children). To really understand how to use TV in education, they invented new tools (like eye-tracking cameras that tracked kid's gaze and attention span during a program to measure what kids focused on most). They also tested retention of information (the names of characters, details of a scene, educational content, etc.) and deliberately built in more of what connected with kids.
The Dora formula started dying as the early 2010s approached. Especially with the success of Sofia the First and Doc Mcstuffins which both ditched the fake interactivity format. Which explains the retool for future CGI Preschool Mickey shows starting with Roadside Racers. Plus some international audiences (especially Japan) aren't fond of the interactivity format.The formula is based on lots of research, pioneered by Children's Television Workshop, the group behind Sesame Street. Their focus was educational entertainment (especially for inner-city children). To really understand how to use TV in education, they invented new tools (like eye-tracking cameras that tracked kid's gaze and attention span during a program to measure what kids focused on most). They also tested retention of information (the names of characters, details of a scene, educational content, etc.) and deliberately built in more of what connected with kids.
Before this, children's programming was largely treated as "adult programming, but silly."
Sesame Street research - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Dora the Explorer was another milestone in children's programming, focused on language learning, geography, and animals. The annoying character voices, the simulated interactivity with open-ended questions and long pauses to allow viewers to respond, problem-solving, and the characters staring straight into the "camera" were all extremely effective at getting/retaining kids' attention.
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse/Funhouse/Racers all use these approaches to connect with kids, and while it is formulaic, the formula really works!
Roadster Racers, though, doesn't seem to have any educational aspirations, other than some occasional slight geography lessons. And Funhouse just seems to consists of wacky adventures.
I would disagree a little there. It's all done in good fun, but some of the episodes do make fun of Mickey's unfailingly cheerful and helpful reputation. He's a bit of a helicopter parent/pet owner in School of Fish. He's almost cluelessly naive in The Big Good Wolf. His inability to say "no" to anyone is played up in Supermarket Scramble and Houseghosts. And in Just the Four of Us, they hilariously demonstrate just how exhausting actually being friends with Mickey and Minnie would feel (this episode is a series highlight for me, although my wife finds the references to horror films a little too creepy).
Yes, the "Dora formula" could not compete with the true interactivity of apps.
I agree. No real educational content there. They seem to use similar approaches from the behavioral research findings for wholesome kids entertainment, though.
I see these as Disney demonstrating a bit of self awareness about Mickey rather than outright mocking, but I see what you mean.
To me, mockery implies a certain snideness, whereas what the shorts engage in is affectionate teasing.
Are you kidding me?
Ride of a Lifetime, read it. It mentions how it went down. And that’s how it reads to me atleast.
No idea… truth be told. Now granted, Roy was no saint either, though I deeply respect him for his efforts with animation & trying his best to keep the company more in line with how Walt would’ve innovated tastefully. But yeah.. He wanted to sell off the parks while retaining only the animation & live action film & tv studios. But the best scenario would’ve been someone chosen who loved & was passionate about the parks & the animation/film studios equally.
