Star Wars Disney Characters Going Away?

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I don't. It was alright before, and should be alright now.

It's simple - they didn't give a hoot about the long-term value of the Star Wars brand before, just how much they could make off of the association. Now that they own them, it's a far, far different matter. I'm not surprised at all, and it makes the knee-jerk-reactions of some self-anointed "hard core" Star Wars fans when Disney made the purchase even more laughable - because Disney is taking brand integrity even more seriously than Lucas ever did.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I don't like how hypocritical the move is. Disney had no problems dressing Goofy as Vader in his underwear when it was another companies property, but now that Disney owns Star Wars they need to preserve the integrity of the characters? Please. :rolleyes:

You need to look up the meaning of "hypocritical".

It in no way applies here.

You take care of a rental car to ensure it doesn't get damaged, but you don't worry about how hard you run the engine or if you wear down the breaks or tires too quickly, because it's not yours and therefore not your long-term concern. When you actually own something, you have different concerns than when you are "renting" (or licensing, in this case).

It just further proves what thinking folks already knew - Lucas and his supposed "tight grip" on Star Wars was as much of a myth as the stories in the films themselves - and further affirms that the Star Wars brand landed exactly in the place it needed to be most. It also proves how brilliantly Disney is handling the brand - by recognizing that even though it now would get 100% of the profits from Disney/Star Wars mash-ups, and in the short term, more $, that the long-term value of the brand is more important.

Essentially, it proves everything the naysayers say is/was wrong about the purchase, as incorrect.
 

Chet Dakota

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I saw an advertisement yesterday for a new LEGO Star Wars The Force Awakens series on Disney XD starting soon. It is called Rise of the Resistance. As with all LEGO Star Wars series in the past, certainly, it is another series where the movie Characters stumble and bumble their way through a very loose interpretation of the story.

There is also the new LEGO Star Wars The Force Awakens video game coming out in June. The preview is a takeoff on the first real movie trailer, and in one clip the narrator says "There has been an awakening", and Finn wakes up to an alarm clock, where another shows BB-8 rolling across the sand, then runs through a sand castle on a beach.

Are these LEGO projects protecting the integrity of the character brand? But, putting Mickey Mouse in a Jedi robe does not?
 

RandomPrincess

Keep Moving Forward
You can meet Stan Shunpike, the knight bus conductor.
Stan is not there. No characters from the book are recreated outside of the rides except for the singer Celestina (who is never seen in the books only spoken about) The shrunken head in the Knight Bus was only a movie add on. We met "Alec" the Knight Bus conductor when were were there in Jan.

All other characters you see are just random, not actual characters from the books.
 
Last edited:

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Kind of like how releasing a movie every year for the rest of eternity preserves the integrity?
Has more integrity then the half-dozen Marvel movies they put out annually. It'd be nice if Disney got a little more brave with their Anthology film choices past Rogue One though.

This seems to be a case of Disney protecting the characters better than Lucas did. It seems to be the reason why Hyperspace Hoopla went away.
I still miss Hyperspace Hoopla. The end of day show that replaced it was so bland in comparison. Snig and Oopla should be canonized as the hosts of some Holonet Morning Zoo show.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Different Lucasfilm franchise, but I wish they had actually done more with Indiana Jones mashups. Not out of a desire to see Indy Mickey, but as an excuse to have Disney comics character Arizona Goof get some wider use.
985026-indianapateta1.jpg

He's Goofy's globetrotting archaeologist cousin that has a sweet-tooth for black licorice and a fondness for dramatic entrances/exits by rope/climbing through windows.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Has more integrity then the half-dozen Marvel movies they put out annually.

How do the Marvel movies not have "integrity"? If anything, one of the reasons they get praise is that the movies and characters tend to be loyal to the comic book source material.
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
How do the Marvel movies not have "integrity"? If anything, one of the reasons they get praise is that the movies and characters tend to be loyal to the comic book source material.
Fatigue's started to set in. Lot of reliance on formula. Villains are really generic outside Loki. And the success of the MCU feeding back into 616 and re-orienting stuff to support the movies and the properties under the MCU's umbrella's been ruffling some feathers.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
It's simple - they didn't give a hoot about the long-term value of the Star Wars brand before, just how much they could make off of the association. Now that they own them, it's a far, far different matter. I'm not surprised at all, and it makes the knee-jerk-reactions of some self-anointed "hard core" Star Wars fans when Disney made the purchase even more laughable - because Disney is taking brand integrity even more seriously than Lucas ever did.
I certainly respect Disney's approach to this, however I wonder if they would have been inclined to do this if the same Intellectual Property protection wasn't being done by JK Rowling and James Cameron.
 

John

Well-Known Member
I too agree with this move, I just wish they would start caring as much about the integrity of the parks as much as they seem to be about their IP. This is clearly a more long term approach to how they are going to go forward.
 

Jon81uk

Well-Known Member
I honestly don't know why they would do this. Sure, they own the rights wholesale now and are clearly more protective of it, but Jedi Mickey never impacted the brand in any major way. Why would it now all of a sudden?

I think it was the other characters that looked cheap anyway. Mickey wasn't pretending to be Obi-Wan or Luke, he was still Mickey. But Minnie and Goofy were playing the part of Leia and Vadar, these are the ones that looked wrong.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
I honestly don't see the problem with crossover stuff, and I in fact love it. Let's be honest- Star Wars has been doing this stuff from the very beginning, what with the characters appearing on the Muppet Show and Sesame Street and that didn't hurt the long-term viability of the franchise one iota, obviously.
 

G00fyDad

Well-Known Member
Good. All of my Star Wars/Goofy figurines (Darth Vader Goofy, Cade Bane Goofy, C3-P0 Goofy, JarJar Binks Goofy) still in their original packaging might be worth something soon.
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
You need to look up the meaning of "hypocritical".

It in no way applies here.

You take care of a rental car to ensure it doesn't get damaged, but you don't worry about how hard you run the engine or if you wear down the breaks or tires too quickly, because it's not yours and therefore not your long-term concern. When you actually own something, you have different concerns than when you are "renting" (or licensing, in this case).

Well, I understand how people are more likely to take care of something when they own it (hence the traditional argument of capitalism over socialism, which accepts the human temptation to sin and to put self over others, and turns it on its head by making your destiny more your own) BUT that does not make it any less hypocritical, depending upon how a person presents himself.

Racing the engine or wearing down the brakes on a vehicle may not be immediately visible like a wreck would be, but it is most certainly damage. And if have borrowed or used something with the assurance that it won't get damaged, yet only worry about surface damage -- until you own it, that, my friend is, hypocrisy.

Just because someone can't see damage that you did, doesn't make it not damage. (Umm, like the teenager who breaks something and leaves it for someone else be accused.) Now, while I do not agree that the mashups are damaging, if the company believed that it was, and then changed their tune after they owned Star Wars, then it is hypocritical in their treatment of the partners. Just as much as the person who races and tears up the engine and brakes of the rental but comes back without an outside scratch and claims he "took care" of the car without damage.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I have a link in a thread I started in the Imagineering forum that shows some amazing Stars Wars collectibles. Hopefully these come to the Japanese pavilion in WS.

Worthy of the direction of the franchise. Not sure Goofy Jedi ever really was. IMO
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Well, I understand how people are more likely to take care of something when they own it (hence the traditional argument of capitalism over socialism, which accepts the human temptation to sin and to put self over others, and turns it on its head by making your destiny more your own) BUT that does not make it any less hypocritical, depending upon how a person presents himself.

Racing the engine or wearing down the brakes on a vehicle may not be immediately visible like a wreck would be, but it is most certainly damage. And if have borrowed or used something with the assurance that it won't get damaged, yet only worry about surface damage -- until you own it, that, my friend is, hypocrisy.

Just because someone can't see damage that you did, doesn't make it not damage. (Umm, like the teenager who breaks something and leaves it for someone else be accused.) Now, while I do not agree that the mashups are damaging, if the company believed that it was, and then changed their tune after they owned Star Wars, then it is hypocritical in their treatment of the partners. Just as much as the person who races and tears up the engine and brakes of the rental but comes back without an outside scratch and claims he "took care" of the car without damage.

I think it is less hypocrisy and more a case of ignorance. Lucasfilm and it's new management sent the mouse for a bit of Jedi training is all. Apologies for the mash-up mental image.
 

Launchpad McQuack

Well-Known Member
I never got to meet the Disney/Star Wars characters in person, unfortunately. I do think they were a neat little thing to bring out on special occasions, though.

However, I can see why they are doing this now. Star Wars is about to have a much bigger presence in the park, and my thoughts are that they want this Star Wars land to be an immersive area where you enter the world of the movies. For this reason, they want to only display the "real" characters in the parks. For example, there is no reason to have Darth Goofy walking around with kids if you are trying to sell how special an actual meeting with the "real" Darth Vader is. Having the characters dressed in Star Wars costumes says "you are at our Disney park," as opposed to having just Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, Chebacca, etc says "you have traveled to a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."


All that being said, I still have a "Darth Mickey" shirt someone gave me for Christmas and also just bought a "Pooh Dameron" shirt from Ript Apparel, so I enjoy the mashup concept.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom