DVDizzy Forum

It's apparently an "Easier to read on streaming mobile devices which are the wave of the future" thing.

FigmentJedi wrote:It's apparently an "Easier to read on streaming mobile devices which are the wave of the future" thing.

I don't care if it's easier to read on a billboard. It still feels like a metaphorical middle finger to us.

[I edited it because... well... sacrilegious is a big word.]

DisneyJedi never fails to make me laugh with his apocalyptic raging.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

magicalwands wrote: Ub Iwerks was actually the one who created Mickey.

If you want to get really technical, Hugh Harman influenced Iwerks in his design of Mickey quite a bit (via mice drawn in 1925 around a photo of Walt).

And if you want to really REALLY get technical, an animal called a "mouse" has inspired them all to create such a popular anthropomorphic character.

Super Aurora wrote:And if you want to really REALLY get technical, an animal called a "mouse" has inspired them all to create such a popular anthropomorphic character.

Super Aurora, you rock

Super Aurora for President 2012!

While I don't like the way it looks, I don't think there's any conspiracy to it, the reason they gave was what I already assumed in the first place. Its logo design 101 really. The less complicated a logo the more clearly it'll read and get engraved into the public's mind. The less you need to create an identifiable logo the better. Look at Apple, its just an apple symbol, no words. The problem for me is when you have an already established name it never quite looks right when shortened, (with few exceptions). I feel the same way about Nickelodeon vs Nick and their revamped logos. Even Cartoon Network is doing this crap shortening it to just CN. Does Anyone even call it that? No. its always Cartoon Network, and its always Nickelodeon. It sucks but Disney isn't the only company guilty of this, and it has nothing to do with respect for Walt.

The difference between those two is most people just say 'Disney.' In this case, the shortening changes it to what people really call it. I never say "Walt Disney," tbh.

Still, I think "Walt Disney" looks better above titles than just "Disney" would; more balance.

God I hate this.

I hope the Walt Disney Animation Studios logo isn't next.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

magicalwands wrote: Ub Iwerks was actually the one who created Mickey.

If you want to get really technical, Hugh Harman influenced Iwerks in his design of Mickey quite a bit (via mice drawn in 1925 around a photo of Walt).

Oh please. Like anyone truly knows. All we know is Walt made a mouse, with his wife's help he named him Mickey, he gave him his voice, and in essence Walt made him what is the true beloved Mickey Mouse we know.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote: If you want to get really technical, Hugh Harman influenced Iwerks in his design of Mickey quite a bit (via mice drawn in 1925 around a photo of Walt).

Oh please. Like anyone truly knows. All we know is Walt made a mouse, with his wife's help he named him Mickey, he gave him his voice, and in essence Walt made him what is the true beloved Mickey Mouse we know.

I would call Walt the "Creator" and Iwerks the "Designer" if we had to put names to them.

But yes, Duster, Iwerks did indeed design Mickey. There's no "oh please" about it.

Disney Duster wrote:Oh please. Like anyone truly knows. All we know is Walt made a mouse, with his wife's help he named him Mickey, he gave him his voice, and in essence Walt made him what is the true beloved Mickey Mouse we know.

What? 'Like anyone truly knows'? This is FACT.

Walt lost Oswald to Universal, then he asked Iwerks to draw up some new cartoon characters; Iwerks drew cow and horse characters (who later became Horace and Clarabelle) which Walt was disappointed with; Iwerks saw a photograph of Walt which Hugh Harman (a former animator for Disney who later worked for Warner Brothers) had drawn mice upon, which inspired him to draw an original mouse design that is now one of the most famous logos in the world. Walt liked Iwerks' design and called the mouse Mortimer, but Lillian Disney renamed him Mickey.

It's not like the Disney Essence, Duster, which is subjective. All this happened, goddamit!

What bothers me most is the exclusion of the word "Pictures" rather than "Walt". Most other movie studios have the word "Pictures" in their names. I don't know ... Universal Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, etc.

A film with just the word "Disney" in front almost doesn't feel like a real film. So I suppose from now on, opening credits will read "Disney Presents" instead of "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" (or "Walt Disney Pictures" as on the WDAS releases).

I don't like it at all.

I don't mean reiterate, but as I already mentioned, do you guys think this change might affect Walt Disney Animation Studios?

DisneyDuster wrote:Oh please. Like anyone truly knows.

It's ironic to me that you would say that about a statement that has a firm basis in fact and yet in another thread you state that you know that "Walt would have wanted" Tangled to be called Rapunzel.

DrFrankenollie wrote:Walt liked Iwerks' design and called the mouse Mortimer, but Lillian Disney renamed him Mickey.

For some reason, Mickey Rooney claims that he is the inspiration behind Mickey being renamed from Mortimer because of a chance meeting he says he once had with Walt, as laughable as that may sound based on Walt's own account of the character's creation.

JulianCarter wrote:I don't mean reiterate, but as I already mentioned, do you guys think this change might affect Walt Disney Animation Studios?

I don't think it will but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me, especially after they announced that they're building an Avatar land at Disney theme parks, a horrifically terrible decision in my opinion.

Ouch.

What if...



http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/ ... comic-sans

"We are the Comic Sans defenders," proclaims the Tumblr Comic Sans Project. "We will make the whole world Comic Sans." And that's just what they're doing, one famous logo at a time, until all those iconic typefaces have been replaced with the so-reviled-it's-becoming-cool font, Comic Sans.

Mooky wrote:What if...

OMG, that's the funniest thing ever!

I just realised that modifying the Walt Disney Pictures' logo to simply read "Disney" is not as odd as I thought. For those of you who read my previous posts, you'll see that I said that the omission of the word "Pictures" is what bothered me most. Well, I just realised that the following movie opening logos:







... do not display the word "Pictures" either, despite the studio names being officially known as "Universal Pictures", "Paramount Pictures" and "Columbia Pictures".

Of course, if Disney were to follow these studios' example precisely, they would have only removed the word "Pictures" from the logo, and not "Walt" too. Oh well ... I suppose I'll have to live with it.

One more thing, while the opening logo on Disney films will simply read "Disney", I suspect that the official division name will remain "Walt Disney Pictures". It would make no sense to modify that.

[/img]

This is kind of disappointing to me, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see when they release "Beauty and the Beast" to theaters.

But seriously, what's next, going back and actually revising the title cards of old movies so that there is no "Walt" or "presets"? I'll bet the people at Disney resent that the Disney -- excuse me, I mean Walt Disney Family Museum exists and that it is designed to kind of carry the torch for him.

Big Disney Fan wrote:But seriously, what's next, going back and actually revising the title cards of old movies so that there is no "Walt" or "presets"?

I doubt that...

Big Disney Fan wrote:I'll bet the people at Disney resent that the Disney -- excuse me, I mean Walt Disney Family Museum exists and that it is designed to kind of carry the torch for him.

I don't understand what you mean by this. The slight change in the logo is hardly a clue to Bob Iger's grand conspiracy to, er, make us forget who Walt was.