DVDizzy Forum

I dunno, I don't think I would ever consider the Phantom Blot that good of a villain. I've never really liked Pete either. Of course, I haven't seen all the shorts or read all the comics, but they always seemed way below the standard set in the feature films.

I'm surprised they'll be doing a Mickey film though. I honestly don't think there's ever been a Mickey film released in theaters in my lifetime. It's a little weird to think they'll go back to something like that. But I'm not oppose to that idea. Like the Pooh film, I think there's always room to do new things. It's more about the charm and the entertainment than anything.

Well Blot kinda varies from writer to writer, but his animated incarnations in DuckTales and House of Mouse definitely pale in comparison to some of his comic appearances. Master criminal ridiculously good with the deathtraps and far more of an actual threat then any of the other members of Mickey's rogues gallery.

Heck, a new Mickey TV series based on his various comic adventures would be fantastic.

Disney Duster wrote:I gotta say it:

I don't know if this is really that "Disney" or what Walt would want because Mickey was only ever in shorts and one cameo in Fantasia, not a whole feature film about him and his friends.

I know about Mickey and the Beanstalk, but that never happened,and I know people say it was because of the war and budget, but perhaps Walt also decided it wasn't good to use Mickey and the gang for a whole feature, actually.

Be honest with me... You're just doing this to fuck with our heads, aren't you? This is all just an act, right? You know, trying to get a rise out of us? Your evolution to becoming a parody on yourself is done on purpose, isn't it? Just a warning, though: don't take the act too far. Would be a shame to jump the shark too soon. Don't wanna waste all that entertainment potential.

essentially, by any logic, half the stuff mickey's in never happened. In fact, I'd go so far as to say at least %80 of mickey mouse material is noncanon. In the old shorts he's a deckhand, a pilot, a cowboy, construction worker, a firefighter, and a mechanic all of which are incarnations released within seven years of each other.

ajmrowland wrote:essentially, by any logic, half the stuff mickey's in never happened. In fact, I'd go so far as to say at least %80 of mickey mouse material is noncanon. In the old shorts he's a deckhand, a pilot, a cowboy, construction worker, a firefighter, and a mechanic all of which are incarnations released within seven years of each other.

Can there even exist such a thing as "canon" with these type of characters? I mean, you'd have to take into account everything with Mickey in it, so animated shorts, comics, videogames, simply everything. Not to mention the fact that he's eighty years old, and doesn't look a bit older. Obviously that's done so that the writers can do pretty much whatever they want with the character, and maybe that's what they need to do right now.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:I don't know if this is really that "Disney" or what Walt would want because Mickey was only ever in shorts and one cameo in Fantasia, not a whole feature film about him and his friends.

Are you serious or just trying to provoke a reaction from the rest of us? What is more "Disney" than Mickey Mouse? I have to ask, why are you so negative and dismissive of everything Disney have recently done or are planning to do? Lilo & Stitch, Princess and the Frog and Tangled were all "un-Disney", on another thread you've done nothing but complain about the Fantasyland expansion at WDW and you've said that you don't agree with Disney making Reboot Ralph, King of the Elves and Mort. Now, Mickey Mouse isn't "Disney"?

Don't say I'm saying what I'm not saying. I know Mickey Mouse is very Disney, but he's never been the main protagonist that talked with his friends for an entire Disney film before. Don't you get the feeling Mickey is reserved for the shorts and is too special to be over-used in a movie all about him?

"The Search for Mickey Mouse" planned movie may have been okay if he only appeared at the beginning and end of the movie, you know.

Also, you must have missed when I loved, LOVED the WDW Fantasyland expansion, until they changed it, then I became sad and mad! I also didn't like Pixie Hollow, but I liked everything else! That's similar to how I looked forward to Rapunzel until it became Tangled. You see, it's like Disney starts Disney ideas and then makes them un-Disney when they think of money and public appeal.

I also never said I don't want King of the Elves. I think it's too much reliance on fairy tale stuff, but whatever. I am actually looking forward to Reboot Ralph, as long as they make him alive or jump to a nother video game because of Disney magic and not just eletronics. Disney has always been about things that have real life in them, such as humans, animals, or puppets given real life magically.

Goliath, you have known me for so long, there's no reason I would try to pull anything like that. Forum members that have been here forever don't become trolls.

DisneyDuster wrote:Don't say I'm saying what I'm not saying. I know Mickey Mouse is very Disney, but he's never been the main protagonist that talked with his friends for an entire Disney film before. Don't you get the feeling Mickey is reserved for the shorts and is too special to be over-used in a movie all about him?

No I don't get that feeling. If they can make a feature-length film of Winnie the Pooh shorts then I don't know why they couldn't do something similar for Mickey Mouse if they wanted to. As long as the story is good and with characters that have the appeal of Mickey, Donald Duck, Goofy, Minnie Mouse, etc, I don't see why a film like this couldn't be successful.

Disney Duster wrote:Don't you get the feeling Mickey is reserved for the shorts and is too special to be over-used in a movie all about him?

Uh, I think that one might just be you. I'm assuming you're okay with him being in half a movie, though, ala "Fun and Fancy Free," because it's what Walt wanted (henceforth to be abbreviated to as IWWW for all the times it comes up in your posts). So he's special enough for thirty minutes, but not for anything more?

Disney Duster wrote:You see, it's like Disney starts Disney ideas and then makes them un-Disney when they think of money and public appeal.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'm starting to suspect that this idea of "un-Disney" might just be something you've defined and latched on to solely by yourself. Sounds crazy, I know. Call it a hunch.

Disney Duster wrote:I also never said I don't want King of the Elves. I think it's too much reliance on fairy tale stuff, but whatever.

...how can that rely too much on "fairy tale stuff" and things like "Pinocchio" and "Sleeping Beauty" don't? How is relying on "fairy tale stuff" a flaw? How can you say you think it relies too heavily on this "fairy tale stuff" when there hasn't been so much as an official synopsis yet?

Disney Duster wrote:Forum members that have been here forever don't become trolls.

Perhaps, but they can become narrow-minded and repetitive to the point where it's difficult to distinguish between the two.

KubrickFan wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:essentially, by any logic, half the stuff mickey's in never happened. In fact, I'd go so far as to say at least %80 of mickey mouse material is noncanon. In the old shorts he's a deckhand, a pilot, a cowboy, construction worker, a firefighter, and a mechanic all of which are incarnations released within seven years of each other.

Can there even exist such a thing as "canon" with these type of characters? I mean, you'd have to take into account everything with Mickey in it, so animated shorts, comics, videogames, simply everything. Not to mention the fact that he's eighty years old, and doesn't look a bit older. Obviously that's done so that the writers can do pretty much whatever they want with the character, and maybe that's what they need to do right now.

no. that's my point.

Disney Duster wrote:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: Are you serious or just trying to provoke a reaction from the rest of us? What is more "Disney" than Mickey Mouse? I have to ask, why are you so negative and dismissive of everything Disney have recently done or are planning to do? Lilo & Stitch, Princess and the Frog and Tangled were all "un-Disney", on another thread you've done nothing but complain about the Fantasyland expansion at WDW and you've said that you don't agree with Disney making Reboot Ralph, King of the Elves and Mort. Now, Mickey Mouse isn't "Disney"?

Don't say I'm saying what I'm not saying. I know Mickey Mouse is very Disney, but he's never been the main protagonist that talked with his friends for an entire Disney film before. Don't you get the feeling Mickey is reserved for the shorts and is too special to be over-used in a movie all about him?

So Donald Duck can star in an anthology film revolving around his birthday, but Mickey can't get a whole film for himself?

"The Search for Mickey Mouse" planned movie may have been okay if he only appeared at the beginning and end of the movie, you know.

That was always a lame idea. If a movie is going to be made about Mickey Mouse, Mickey should be allowed to do something besides....not appear in his own movie.

In fact, that was the very problem that plagued many of his later shorts; it got to where Mickey could no longer star in a short without Donald, Goofy, or Pluto stealing all the fun. Mickey was reduced to guest-starring in the Pluto series before going into early retirement, because he wasn't allowed to do anything interesting anymore.

Something like that would have made a terrible full-length movie. People would want to pay good money to see Mickey Mouse, not everybody except Mickey.

Exactly. And an adventure in the style of one of the comic stories would be the right way to have an exciting story for Mickey to participate in.

Winnie the Pooh was a literature character, he fit the kinds of things previous Disney movies were about. But Mickey was made by Walt himself, for the shorts and for small, special guest roles in films.

I have to admit I don't find any of the package features to actually be films in the normal sense of the word. I don't even think they are Animated Classics, a list that was made after Walt died, so we don't know if he would have put them on such a list, and I don't think he would have.

I'm just going by example. In the past, Mickey was never part of the Animated Classics, (except Fantasia which is obviously a very different kind of thing entirely, and Mickey never spoke in it) being over-exposed in full-length. I just feel Mickey's too special for that. I don't understand how not everyone else feels that way.

Another thing is in all past films, Mickey played a character, he played a role, he wasn't as himself. So even if he was in a full-length movie, from Disney's past examples, it shouldn't be as himself. Though like I said The Search for Mickey Mouse seemed fine because it didn't over-expose him, it kept him special, only seen for a little bit.

But Walt had plenty of time, lots and lots of chances to have Mickey star and talk with his pals in an animated film. If he didn't do it with Mickey and the Beanstalk, he could have done it any time later when he had more budget! But he chose not to! Doesn't that tell you something?

SpringHeelJack wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I also never said I don't want King of the Elves. I think it's too much reliance on fairy tale stuff, but whatever.

...how can that rely too much on "fairy tale stuff" and things like "Pinocchio" and "Sleeping Beauty" don't? How is relying on "fairy tale stuff" a flaw? How can you say you think it relies too heavily on this "fairy tale stuff" when there hasn't been so much as an official synopsis yet?

Oh, I meant that I think it means Disney today is limiting itself to fairy tale-like things too much instead of looking at the other things Walt did in his animated films in his lifetime. The mere name, King (royalty) of the Elves (fairy tale creatures) already signifies what I mean.

DisneyDuster wrote:But Walt had plenty of time, lots and lots of chances to have Mickey star and talk with his pals in an animated film. If he didn't do it with Mickey and the Beanstalk, he could have done it any time later when he had more budget! But he chose not to! Doesn't that tell you something?

There are a lot of things Walt Disney could have done but never did. Who's to say that he planned a Mickey Mouse but never got around to making it for one reason or another? All that is known about this project is Burny Mattinson is planning it, it features Mickey, Donald and Goofy and it has not yet even been pitched to Lasseter and co. Why not wait to see what actually happens with it before decreeing that it shouldn't be made?

DisneyDuster wrote:I just feel Mickey's too special for that. I don't understand how not everyone else feels that way.

Mickey is special but he's not a relic. I feel that if Disney can create a strong and entertaining story, there is no reason why Mickey shouldn't be in feature film.

Disney Duster wrote:I just feel Mickey's too special for that. I don't understand how not everyone else feels that way.

Maybe it's because nothing about it is written in stone, like you must think it is.

But Walt had plenty of time, lots and lots of chances to have Mickey star and talk with his pals in an animated film. If he didn't do it with Mickey and the Beanstalk, he could have done it any time later when he had more budget!

Walt also had plenty of chances to make The Little Mermaid. And Beauty and the Beast. And Chanticleer. And an annual continuation of Fantasia. But be they because of inner politics, or economics, or critical or financial reception of other films, or just that nothing clicked as quick as others, some of those projects never came to fruition.

Even Walt might've accepted at some point that some projects would never be completed during his lifetime. But it doesn't mean they were never meant to be. Nothing was destined to die with Walt himself. The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast proved that in spades. If Mickey was never intended to star in a full-length narrative, surely Walt would've written it down in black-and-white before he died. But he didn't!

But he chose not to! Doesn't that tell you something?

It tells me you need to re-check your ouija board.

DisneyDuster wrote:Oh, I meant that I think it means Disney today is limiting itself to fairy tale-like things too much instead of looking at the other things Walt did in his animated films in his lifetime. The mere name, King (royalty) of the Elves (fairy tale creatures) already signifies what I mean.

I haven't read the original short story but I know it's very much a modern-day fairytale, set in the Mississippi Delta and with a backstory of war between elves and trolls. So I don't think it's a typical fairytale but it's something new that Disney haven't done before so I'm excited for it.

Mickey doesn't speak during 'The Sorceror's Apprentice' but he does speak in Fantasia when he goes to tug on the composers arm from what I remember

Disney Duster wrote:Winnie the Pooh was a literary character, he fit the kinds of things previous Disney movies were about. But Mickey was made by Walt himself, for the shorts and for small, special guest roles in films.

First of all, fixed. Don't take it harshly, just a little bit of word training.

I'm not going to hark on about these comments too much, but considering that you can be quoted as saying that the new Pooh film would have been perfect and "Disney" enough for being the 50th animated feature...

The Pooh stories, like Mickey and the Beanstalk, were first developed as a feature, but Walt decided that they would be better off as a set of featurettes (consider, naturally, that the books are a string of practically unrelated episodes). Of course, the original featurettes were strung together as a single film with The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, but it was done after Walt's death, and one could ultimately argue it was equally a quick and cheapish way to roll out a feature film. Nobody can quote Walt whether he'd like what is basically a quickly cobbled product, just like how one can't quote how he'd not want a Mickey movie.

Disney Duster wrote:I have to admit I don't find any of the package features to actually be films in the normal sense of the word. I don't even think they are Animated Classics, a list that was made after Walt died, so we don't know if he would have put them on such a list, and I don't think he would have.

Well, the package features are films, any way you look at them; they are cultural artefacts made up of moving images, no matter what. I will admit, though, that the package features were probably put in the canon just to pad things out a bit (just like how Dinosaur was added).

Disney Duster wrote:You see, it's like Disney starts Disney ideas and then makes them un-Disney when they think of money and public appeal.

They kinda need to, so people will actually want to watch their movies. If people don't watch movies you make, then what's the point of making them?

Disney Duster wrote:I am actually looking forward to Reboot Ralph, as long as they make him alive or jump to a nother video game because of Disney magic and not just eletronics.

Wait, what?

Disney Duster wrote:as long as they make him alive or jump to a nother video game because of Disney magic and not just eletronics

Are you serious?

Disney Duster wrote: to a nother video game because of Disney magic and not just eletronics.

Also, am I the only one who doesn't find Mickey as a very interesting character? He's an icon, alright, but a character? He has never had many things going on, which is pretty much why Donald and Goofy tend to take the spotlight whenever they appear all together. Honestly the few times I've found Mickey a bit compelling was in the Musketeers movie. And I thought the whole point of "Epic Mickey" was to make a modern take on him, to make him interesting to today's audiences, did that work? I wanna know, because the only things about the game that I heard is that it was not as dark as people expected/wanted it, but they found it entertaining even though the camera sucks.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:But Walt had plenty of time, lots and lots of chances to have Mickey star and talk with his pals in an animated film. If he didn't do it with Mickey and the Beanstalk, he could have done it any time later when he had more budget! But he chose not to! Doesn't that tell you something?

There are a lot of things Walt Disney could have done but never did. Who's to say that he planned a Mickey Mouse but never got around to making it for one reason or another?

But I am pointing out he had many, many, many, many chances. I'm just asking everyone to really think about if, after all those chances, he never made a Mickey Mouse animated classic feature, what does that make you think?

Semaj wrote:Walt also had plenty of chances to make The Little Mermaid. And Beauty and the Beast. And Chanticleer. And an annual continuation of Fantasia. But be they because of inner politics, or economics, or critical or financial reception of other films, or just that nothing clicked as quick as others, some of those projects never came to fruition.

Even Walt might've accepted at some point that some projects would never be completed during his lifetime. But it doesn't mean they were never meant to be. Nothing was destined to die with Walt himself. The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast proved that in spades. If Mickey was never intended to star in a full-length narrative, surely Walt would've written it down in black-and-white before he died. But he didn't!

That's a really good argument, I can admit. However, Walt mentioned all of those projects, which gives a little more credibility to them being okay. The fact that he started Mickey and the Beanstalk as a feature film, but didn't think he could make it complete...I simply don't get that, because there's other animation in the film that makes up the other half. I don't quite understand how that one couldn't have been made, and there is the possibility Walt really did change his mind on having Mickey in full-length.

Also, Walt probably didn't write a lot of things down because he trusted his company to follow in what he would want them to do. Towards the end of his life he let them make features on their own, and they were still based on classic books or had talking animals or magic.

I'm just saying that with all Walt's past examples, with only those things to go on to figure out what he would want, it seems to point to him not wanting Mickey over-exposed in a full feature, and especially not as himself, because even for Mickey and the Beanstalk he would have played a role, a character.

I just want everyone to give it a serious contemplation.

Wonderlicious wrote:First of all, fixed. Don't take it harshly, just a little bit of word training.

Surely you know I knew the word literary. I purposely chose to use the word "literature". I like to break common rules, be they grammar or what. Only a bunch of people with their own opinions make up rules. If I see no need for them, then I write what I would like to write. However, if you tell me the word "literary' was the only proper way to write that sentence, that's good to know in case I must be formal to certain people.

As for the rest, well said, but I'd just like everyone to think about what I said above.

Dream Huntress wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:You see, it's like Disney starts Disney ideas and then makes them un-Disney when they think of money and public appeal.

They kinda need to, so people will actually want to watch their movies. If people don't watch movies you make, then what's the point of making them?

Um...do you know what art is? And you know there will always be lots of people who watch movies Disney makes that are just like their old movies. Everyone on this forum probably would at least be enjoy them, though we want more original things, too.

Dream Huntress wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:I am actually looking forward to Reboot Ralph, as long as they make him alive or jump to a nother video game because of Disney magic and not just eletronics.

Wait, what?

Please don't take my quotes out of context. I also wrote about how Walt Disney always made movies about things that were truly alive, be it animals, humans, or puppets given the gift of real life magically (which could even symbolize spiritually).

So I'm saying as long as Disney treats Ralph as someone who is alive because of Disney magic and not because he's electronically seemingly yet artificially alive, then it's Disney.

Disney Duster wrote: Surely you know I knew the word literary. I purposely chose to use the word "literature". I like to break common rules, be they grammar or what. Only a bunch of people with their own opinions make up rules. If I see no need for them, then I write what I would like to write. However, if you tell me the word "literary' was the only proper way to write that sentence, that's good to know in case I must be formal to certain people.

<center></center>