Not calling Iger a remotely good CEO or anything, but wasn't Mickey Mouse Clubhouse in production as early as 2004 (according to Bill Farmer here: https://mediamikes.com/2014/02/disn...ks-about-voicing-goofy-and-new-series-the-7d/ ) which was back when Eisner was still there and before Bob Iger became the head of the Disney company)
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Mickey Shorts Animation and Style
- Thread starter _caleb
- Start date
Haymarket
Well-Known Member
I love them (their designs and the shorts), except that I find Goofy's appearance viscerally repulsive; I'm still perplexed as to how his design was approved. At least he's still his affable self, however. All the others look great. [Edit: apparently I'm not alone re Goofy.]
www.cracked.com
Disney's New Cartoons Turn Goofy Into An Abomination
I have not mouth yet I must yaaaaaaa-hoo-hoo-hoo-hooey!
www.cracked.com
Last edited:
I think the mindset for Goofy's design there was to harken back to Dippy Dawg from his earliest appearances.I love them, except that I find Goofy's appearance viscerally repulsive; I'm still perplexed as to how his design was approved. At least he's still his affable self, however. All the others look great. [Edit: apparently I'm not alone re Goofy.]
View attachment 691728Disney's New Cartoons Turn Goofy Into An Abomination
I have not mouth yet I must yaaaaaaa-hoo-hoo-hoo-hooey!
You certainly don't have to like Rudish's take on Goofy, but he doesn't always look exactly like that.I love them, except that I find Goofy's appearance viscerally repulsive; I'm still perplexed as to how his design was approved. At least he's still his affable self, however. All the others look great. [Edit: apparently I'm not alone re Goofy.]
View attachment 691728Disney's New Cartoons Turn Goofy Into An Abomination
I have not mouth yet I must yaaaaaaa-hoo-hoo-hoo-hooey!
Part of the shorts' characterizations is changing their appearance to convey a feeling. Again, not everyone's cup of tea, but it can be fun and creative and it certainly isn't boring:
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
"Tell us about <whipcrack> The Code."
"<whipcrack> The Code?"
"<whipcrack> The Code!"
That Cheese Wrangler episode is my 4 year old's favorite.
I don't think Disney is particularly proud of the Mouse Works/House of Mouse TV content from that era. It was quickly-made, low-budget, and poor production quality.
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
Truth be told, it wasn’t. Have you actually watched it? Very close to Theatrical cartoon quality. One of the most high quality shows of that period. Both from a writing, animation, and even art direction standpoint. A perfectly modernized take on Classic Mickey. Utilizing the art direction of the 40s (sometimes even the earlier periods of the 30s & 20s) and updating the writing & humor with a more contemporary twist. Full of personality, emotion, and humor that doesn’t ever veer towards gross out stuff. And in the argument you’re making against me, could be used against your preference of the current Rudish show vs say.. Get a Horse. Disney’s lack of acknowledging this show makes ‘no’ sense whatsoever. It even had 2 direct to video holiday specials released in different years. No way would they do that if it were never popular.
Last edited:
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
I’m positive at this point that it’s purely inner politics/egos at work not allowing it to be acknowledged or released out of spite/contempt for it due to Roy Jr.’s direct involvement with it during the Save Disney period to oust Eisner and management keeping him in & nothing more.
I may not like the CG preschool or new Rudish takes, but I’m not petty enough to not even acknowledge their part in history or not let them be released.
I may not like the CG preschool or new Rudish takes, but I’m not petty enough to not even acknowledge their part in history or not let them be released.
Last edited:
If you're referring to Mickey's Once/Twice Upon a Christmas movies, those aren't based on Mickey Mouse Works and House of Mouse.
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
Nope. Mickey’s Magical Christmas: Snowed in at the House of Mouse & Mickey’s House of Villains (Halloween themed). Which are directly tied into the show and also not available to watch on Disney Plus.
Last edited:
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
Something fun I found related to this show a little while back:
I'm not arguing, just discussing. Most of this is just our opinions, after all.
I have seen most episodes of both. The shorts may have been of higher quality than, say, the wraparound stories, but they were not given the same time, effort, resources as features, and, in my opinion, it shows.
I have no doubt the shows were extremely popular. They were on
I mean, even in you love HoM, the quality differences seem obvious:
EDIT: Mouse Works and House of Mouse aired on ABC Saturday AMs, not Disney Channel. Thanks, @Stumpos!
Last edited:
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
I get your argument against feature animation vs television animation.. but, we’re simply discussing the merits of a Mickey cartoon series, not a feature film. Of course they’re not gonna have the same animation quality as the full length theatrical features. This even applied back in the old days of Snow White & Pinocchio in comparison to the Mickey & Friends shorts being made then.
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
Television Animation even today is the one making the Rudish shorts, not the theatrical animation unit. Infact, I’d say the animation itself is quite comparable when it comes to tv animation. The real difference is in the art direction & writing.
Right. TV was seen as a "lesser" medium, meant to have smaller budgets, short production cycles, and lower standards for quality. Today, the motion picture landscape has changed to a point where the distinction makes a lot less sense.
OG Mickey shorts were still produced by the same animators using the same processes as features (this was before people had TVs in their homes). It wasn't until the 50's that Mickey started appearing on TVs, and that's when the "lesser" production approach began. Disney Television Animation was launched by Eisner in 1984, and many of those projects were outsources to international studios. You can see the quality differences it in the animation itself. (Note: I'm not saying any of the TV content isn't good!)
Yes, in recent years (with the rise of streaming,) Walt Disney Animation Studio and Disney Television Animation are practically interchangeable. Where it used to be the "A-Team" and B/C-Team," now it can be a toss-up whether a job goes to one or the other (or, in rare instances, both)!
Rudish's Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse, is housed under DTA, but uses a higher-quality production process (and budget!) usually reserved for features.
It's obvious you're a fan of animation. Why assume Eisner-era Mickey isn't on Disney+ due to some personal vendetta Iger has for Roy? Why not entertain other possibilities?
FigmentsBrightIdeas
Well-Known Member
Because it doesn’t make any sense to me otherwise why they should just erase and/or prevent free goodwill & profit flowing in from an otherwise very positively received show and an important landmark in Mickey’s history regarding his television animation debut…
I also think perhaps the situation with Journey Into Imagination and Dreamfinder & Figment has made me think this way aswell. Inner politics has been stopping that from happening for many many years aswell.. and it’s what ultimately closed the original, beloved iteration of the attraction. Execs used Honey I Shrunk the Audience to close the attraction, put all the focus all the sudden on the Magic Eye Theatre next door and intentionally lessened the ride & ImageWorks portions in marketing, signage, and queue ropes. They changed guest flow ‘to’ get attendance levels down on Imagination to change it. And even with all the pushback they’ve gotten from that decision and all the sales from Figment merch & appearances in Festivals. They still refuse to do the right thing with it.. ‘that’ is why I don’t trust Disney anymore and typically feel most of their issues stem from corporate egos who simply want to leverage the company for their own gain (typically position, power, and their own profit) rather than anyone else’s or benefiting art , the company’s legacy, or society in a way that’s positive like Walt set out to do.
House of Mouse and Mickey Mouse Works actually premiered on ABC as part of the One Saturday Morning block, not on Disney Channel (they didn't start moving production of new shows to Disney Channel until 2002 with Kim Possible).
Course I notice a lot of shows from that era like Nightmare Ned, Jungle Cubs, The Weekenders, Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, Lloyd in Space, Teamo Supremo, and Filmore (aside from the UK) aren't on Disney Plus either so maybe it's an era thing in general?
Right. But you're dealing with limited information here.
As I said, there are other reasons. Quality may be one such reason. You may well be right that internal politics are another.
Lots of speculation here. I don't think even the parks execs care as much about all this as you do.
They saw an opportunity for a movie tie-in. And as much as people today look fondly on the original Imagination, I'm not sure it was seen as super valuable to parks execs.
Again, you're assigning motive and assuming drama where I just don't think it exists. I know on a few occasions, things we love are not promoted because of sponsor relationships, complexities in broadcast rights, and to work around future plans. Sometimes, it's just Disney being a business.
Ultimately, they know people will pay anyway, so why bother?
Disney+ is doing fine without the low-budget House of Mouse shorts, which are mostly available on YouTube. I think you might be reading too much into it.
You're right! Editing my post to correct my mistake.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I hate the character design/animation of the Rudish shorts -- enough to make them basically unwatchable for me, even though I like the background art and the plots are fine.
I don't think it's because it's different from classic Mickey through the years (even though I do prefer that style). I had a similar issue with Ren & Stimpy (even though I don't think the animation/design of the Rudish shorts is the same as Ren & Stimpy), in that even as a kid I didn't like it because of how much I disliked the character art.
I don't think it's because it's different from classic Mickey through the years (even though I do prefer that style). I had a similar issue with Ren & Stimpy (even though I don't think the animation/design of the Rudish shorts is the same as Ren & Stimpy), in that even as a kid I didn't like it because of how much I disliked the character art.