Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney getting ready to tinker with Mickey Mouse

This is topic Disney getting ready to tinker with Mickey Mouse in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005964

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2009, 10:18 PM:

Looks sort of like they're going to turn Mickey into....well, Bugs Bunny.

New York Times article

After Mickey’s Makeover, Less Mr. Nice Guy

By BROOKS BARNES
Published: November 4, 2009

LOS ANGELES — For decades, the Walt Disney Company has largely kept Mickey Mouse frozen under glass, fearful that even the tiniest tinkering might tarnish the brand and upend his $5 billion or so in annual merchandise sales. One false move and Disney could have New Coke on its hands.

Mickey as he will appear in the video game Epic Mickey. The game, to be released next fall, will show the character's darker side.

Now, however, concerned that Mickey has become more of a corporate symbol than a beloved character for recent generations of young people, Disney is taking the risky step of re-imagining him for the future.

The first glimmer of this will be the introduction next year of a new video game, Epic Mickey, in which the formerly squeaky clean character can be cantankerous and cunning, as well as heroic, as he traverses a forbidding wasteland.

And at the same time, in a parallel but separate effort, Disney has quietly embarked on an even larger project to rethink the character’s personality, from the way Mickey walks and talks to the way he appears on the Disney Channel and how children interact with him on the Web — even what his house looks like at Disney World.

“Holy cow, the opportunity to mess with one of the most recognizable icons on Planet Earth,” said Warren Spector, the creative director of Junction Point, a Disney-owned game developer that spearheaded Epic Mickey.

The effort to re-engineer Mickey is still in its early stages, but it involves the top creative and marketing minds in the company, all the way up to Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chief executive.

The project was given new impetus this week with the announcement that, after 20 years of negotiations, the company has finally received the blessing of the Chinese government to open a theme park in Shanghai, potentially unlocking a new giant market for all things Mickey.

Disney executives are treading carefully, and trying to keep a low profile, as they discuss how much they dare tweak one of the most durable characters in pop culture history to induce new generations of texting, tech-savvy children to embrace him. Disney executives will keenly watch how Epic Mickey is received, to inform the broader overhaul.

Keeping cartoon characters trapped in amber is one of the surest routes to irrelevancy. While Mickey remains a superstar in many homes, particularly overseas, his static nature has resulted in a generation of Americans — the one that grew up with Nickelodeon and Pixar — that knows him, but may not love him. Domestic sales in particular have declined: of his $5 billion in merchandise sales in 2009, less than 20 percent will come from the United States.

“There’s a distinct risk of alienating your core consumer when you tweak a sacred character, but at this point it’s a risk they have to take,” said Matt Britton, the managing partner of Mr. Youth, a New York brand consultant firm.

In Epic Mickey, the foundation of which a group of interns dreamed up in 2004, the title character still exhibits the hallmarks that younger generations know: he is adventurous, enthusiastic and curious. “Mickey is never going to be evil or go around killing people,” Mr. Spector said.

But Mickey won’t be bland anymore, either. “I wanted him to be able to be naughty — when you’re playing as Mickey you can misbehave and even be a little selfish,” Mr. Spector said.

In many ways, it is a return to Mickey at his creation. When the character made its debut in “Steamboat Willie” in 1928, he was the Bart Simpson of his time: an uninhibited rabble-rouser who got into fistfights, played tricks on his friends (pity Clarabelle Cow) and, later, was amorously aggressive with Minnie.

Epic Mickey, designed for Nintendo’s Wii console, is set in a “cartoon wasteland” where Disney’s forgotten and retired creations live. The chief inhabitant is Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, a cartoon character Walt Disney created in 1927 as a precursor to Mickey but ultimately abandoned in a dispute with Universal Studios. In the game, Oswald has become bitter and envious of Mickey’s popularity. The game also features a disemboweled, robotic Donald Duck and a “twisted, broken, dangerous” version of Disneyland’s “It’s a Small World.” Using paint and thinner thrown from a magic paintbrush, Mickey must stop the Phantom Blot overlord, gain the trust of Oswald and save the day.

Consumers will not be able to buy the game before fall of next year. Anticipation is intense. “Wow! This is amazing,” said Eli Gee on GameInformer.com. “I’m really... REALLY excited.”

Other observers are less impressed. “The approach warrants a lot of caution given the difficulty that publishers have had gaining traction on the Wii,” said Doug Creutz, a media analyst at Cowen and Company.

Industry veterans with experience in the family niche think that the Disney brand can overcome such hurdles.

“This is a huge opportunity to create more relevancy for Mickey and pull him into the fastest-growing entertainment medium,” said Jim Wilson, the chief executive of Atari’s North American business. “If it’s a good game — and given the strength of the developer and I.P., the likelihood of that is high — people are going to buy it.”

Not that the idea is not radical. “I was told to withhold judgment until I had seen the whole pitch,” said Graham Hopper, executive vice president for Disney Interactive Studios.

Disney has big video game ambitions, spending at least $180 million on their development this year alone. It has had successful spinoff titles, but no true self-published blockbusters. Disney generated about $86 million in retail sales from January to September in the United States, according to NPD data. Nintendo of America, the leading seller of games, had about $1 billion in sales.

Mr. Iger solved a right problems with the game by making a deal with NBC Universal in 2006. In the negotiations, Mr. Iger persuaded NBC Universal to trade the Oswald rights for rights to Al Michaels, the sportscaster. NBC wanted Mr. Michaels for its new football franchise and Mr. Michaels wanted to go, but Disney held him in a longtime contract through its ESPN unit.

In the interim, Mr. Spector has struggled with the correct 3-D model of the mouse, consulting with animators and John Lasseter, the Pixar co-founder.

Considerable effort has gone into instilling a backdrop of choice and consequence. Players can either behave in an entirely happy way and help other characters — and have an easier go of it in the wasteland — or choose more selfish, destructive behavior with a harsher outcome, including a Mickey that starts to physically resemble a rat.

“Ultimately,” Mr. Spector said, “players must ask themselves, ‘What kind of hero am I?’ ”

When it comes to Mickey, Disney is asking it, too.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-17-2009, 11:16 PM:

Well, Mickey was more famous with recent generations including mine for his mascot like status on the Disney ads and properties than the cartoons themselves. I have no nostalgic recollections of Mickey Mouse cartoons, at least of the very few that I saw as a kid. I wonder if the studio is just overthinking this character. Just let him be like Big Bird is on Sesame Street. A genial harmless bland character who represents the shows .

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-18-2009, 07:13 AM:

I liked "Mr. Mouse" who smacked down the Jonas Brothers to keep them towing the company line on South Park!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-18-2009, 08:41 AM:

I am with Pravin -- I can't recall seeing only but a pittance few Disney cartoons in theatres as a kid. All I know of Mickey Mouse came from Disney's TV output, which was prolific during the 50s & 60s. I don't even think I could tell you what Mickey's personality really is, other than his weird castrati voice. Almost all the cartoons I've run in theatres while they still ran cartoon were I would say 80% WB and 19% MGM, mostly Tom & Jerry and the rest everything else.

Disney, in spite of its monumental stature in the industry never had any big presence with Mickey on the theatre screen. Maybe others can relate a different recollection, but as a kid who went to lots of Saturday Matinees, the screams always went up when the Warner cartoon logo hit the screen. I recall they usually had 4 cartoons before the feature and that ratio of WB and MGM being by far the dominant player held pretty consistently.

When I ran the commercial houses in Texas, it was always WB cartoons, even in the Spanish-language theatre -- they opened the shows with WB (in English).

Was it because Disney charged more for their stuff? I know exactly how much I used to pay in the days when WB still had an animation dept -- $7 bucks for the week per cartoon. Somehow I can't see Disney being that accommodating. They probably had their unique set of off-putting rules to play their cartoons, keeping exhibitors to seek more relaxed distribs -- I am just guessing.

Since lots of the stuff we do is somehow trying to recapture a bit of our youth, once I started running my own show and blessedly never had to run any commercials or be dictated to by a corporate "home office" (damn, I love non-profit), I have booked only WB cartoons to play before all my shows. Never anything else. And Bugs' or Elmer's head appearing in the concentric circles or the words Merry Melodies can still make an audience utter audible sounds of excitement, even clap when the WB logo hits the curtain as it opens to that unmistakable music;
Disney cartoons never had an iconic opening with recognizable music, did it? I've seen so few, I can't even remember. Neither did MGM if I am not mistaken.

I get gasps especially when I have lots of Brooklyn Center Cinema virgins in the audience who don't ever expect to see a WB cartoon. :thumbs up: And sure, most people would express considerable delight if they were expecting to see the usual preshow gack and then were treated to a WB cartoon instead....it's like being told, "We were mistaken; you will not need root canal after all."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2009, 11:52 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
I have booked only WB cartoons to play before all my shows. Never anything else.

Frank - where do you book those?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-18-2009, 01:59 PM:

I always viewed Mickey as a sort of squeaky voiced personalityless
dufus. His 'toons were beautifully animated and drawn but sort of
lifeless compared to WB.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-18-2009, 02:41 PM:

WB cartoons are available from Warner Brothers. See your booker. Up until recently, they had a list of individual WB & MGM cartoons you could rent. Now, they are renting them in blocks of 6 cartoons on 2 reels. You can separate them as long as you splice them back together gain. Hopefully if enough people ask, they will go back to renting individual cartoons.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-18-2009, 05:01 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Almost all the cartoons I've run in theatres while they still ran cartoon were I would say 80% WB and 19% MGM, mostly Tom & Jerry and the rest everything else.

Back in my home town in KY, probably 90% of the cartoons we booked were Universal (Woody Woodpecker, The Beary Family, Chilly Willy, et.al.). 5% were UA (Pink Panther, The Inspector, et.al.), and the other 5% were Fox (Terrytoons-which at the time were all BRAND NEW IB Tech prints!). Disney shows always came with Disney cartoons.

I never ran a WB cartoon until the early 80s, when I was working the big revival house in Lexington.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-19-2009, 09:39 AM:

Tim, that's interesting. I guess it was different in different regions of the country. Now what you mention Woody Woodpecker (funny how the words "wood" and "pecker" seem to go together so naturally [thumbsup]

), I do remember seeing a few of them as a kid, but precious few.

quote: Bill Enos
I always viewed Mickey as a sort of squeaky voiced personalityless dufus. His 'toons were beautifully animated and drawn but sort of lifeless compared to WB.

Not to mention just not funny. No one could match the sharp, rich wit and comicality of the WB animation dept. output. Could you imagine what it must have been like going to work every day with those guys?!

quote: Mike Blakesley
Frank - where do you book those?

Our theatre has always been in the netherworld between theatrical and non-theatrical. When Warners still had shorts department and were booking theatrically, then I would book them thru the NY offices theatrically. When they stopped servicing them theatrical, I would book them thru Kit Parker Motion Pictures who would book many WB titles, including the cartoons. It was very loose back then, KP would book them to anyone, theatrical or non-theatrical, it mattered not -- it was easy during that period 80s and early 90s.

Then KP gave up 35mm distribution and depending on the WB office in your region, might be able to book the cartoons or maybe not. Then they stopped altogether, and the situation was dire. I resorted to booking them on 16mm from Swank and running 35mm collectors' 35mm IBT prints. That was the situation as I knew it when we last ran a full-fledged film program. But from what Mitchell is saying, it looks like WB is finally back to booking them fairly consistently now.

The BIG horror is that at one point, I believe in the late 70s, WB sent word out to all the film depots to bandsaw all of their cartoon print inventory.....these were IB TECH prints!. Some bean counter in the bowels of WBs noticed that the cost to store all those cartoon prints was more than what they were earning and so, off with their heads....and tails. Literally thousands of perfectly run-able IBT prints were sent to the bandsaws or dumpsters across the country. So I don't know what WB is actually sending out now when you book a cartoon from them.

I know Kit Parker had a mixture of the full-frame IBT original inventory prints and some of those awful reduction Eastman prints (1.37 image pillared and enveloped in the 1.85 area so they could be played in the AMC theatres). AMC teamed up with WB to strike those 1.85 prints after some 20-something AMC executive who was too young to ever have seen a cartoon in a movie theatre, but only saw them on Saturday morning TV thought, "Hey, I've got a brilliant idea, why don't we run a cartoon before the features in our theatres." He thought he had an original idea.

Anyway, in order to do that efficiently and cheaply, naturally they couldn't outfit all their theatres with 1.37 plates and appropriate lenses and competent projectionists [Eek!]

, so instead they got WB to make those bastardized 1.85 reduction prints. I got a few of them inadvertently from Kit Parker and they were not worthy to touch the garment of the IBT prints. They were dull, lifeless and seemed to suffer from an uneven illumination of the frame edge to edge. I've never seen that kind of anomaly. First thing I thought was somehow video had to be involved with these reprints.

I wonder that what they are releasing now and if they are better rendered prints....full-frame 1.37 hopefully? But why do I doubt that? Thank the celluloid gods that some film collectors preserved at least some of those original IBT prints that were rescued from the stain on WB that will live on in infamy -- the disgrace of their printicide mass murder.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-19-2009, 10:25 AM:

If you go back to the original Mickey Mouse, before he got his first makeover, he was a raunchy little rodent. Steamboat Willy would never be made by Disney today.

I remember back in the 1970's, when the AFI was still in L'efant Plaza, as part of their tribute to animation they showed an in-house Disney cartoon, made for Walt's birthday, with all sorts of raunchy "outtakes" (as they weren't really outtakes) of cartoons. Pretty hilarious. The last scene was a graveyard with rows and rows of identical tombstones that said "Mort". Presumedly a pun on the French word for dead and the original name of Mickey -- Mortimer Mouse.

AFI was not allowed to publicize that showing or even say where they got it. It was a special treat for those of us who showed up that day. Has anyone else ever seen it, and does it still exist?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-19-2009, 06:36 PM:

By comparison all the WB characters are mean as hell, devious, sarcastic, violent to an extreme, destructive,......and more, which is why they are so much fun. They are like real life compacted into seven minutes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-19-2009, 07:37 PM:

I've read quite a bit about the Looney Tunes golden years, and the directors always say "We didn't make these films for kids; we made them for ourselves." Whereas Walt Disney made no bones about the fact that his stuff was meant for a family audience. That's why the Disney cartoons tend toward the cute, where the WB cartoons are no-holds-barred funny. Those guys weren't trying to pander to the kiddies.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-19-2009, 08:42 PM:

The new, "cool" Mickey.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-19-2009, 08:46 PM:

Looks like Cool Mickey might be up for some Minnie Munchies [thumbsup]

***Munchies- The Breakfast of Champions***

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-20-2009, 12:45 AM:

LOL! [Big Grin]

I agree with Bill, I never really got excited about Mickey Mouse. The Mickey Mouse Club, yes, but mainly because Annette and Darlene were doing all the exciting.

Goofy was much funnier than Mickey. Or Donald. Or Pluto. Or the friggin' Chipmunks. Donald Duck and Chipmunk cartoons used to piss me off, because you couldn't understand what they were saying. And Mickey's voice was just wrong. It was bland and uninteresting, and needed to be brought down a register.

I was, however, fascinated with "Steamboat Willie" as a youngster. For its historical standing. I always saw that famous still, and wondered what the cartoon looked and sounded like. I was probably 30 before I finally saw it.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-20-2009, 12:07 PM:

And of course WB went through an attempt to "update" the Looney Tunes characters a few years ago. Haven't heard much about that project lately. Did that one meet an appropriately 'toon-like demise, like under a falling anvil? With dynamite. Gotta have dynamite.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2009, 06:57 PM:

That was the missing link in that final Chuck Jones Road Runner cartoon...no explosions! Wile E. kept falling off stuff, but nothing blew up! Stupid anti-violence complainers.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-20-2009, 07:20 PM:

I haven't read this entire thread, but let's look at a few facts:

1. - Mickey Mouse has never been funny. He really has no entertaining qualities whatsoever*, so I am a bit surprised that people care about this.

*except in videogames like Castle of Illusion, World of Illusiion and Mickey Mania

2. - The new Epic Mickey videogame is looking pretty awesome so far.

3. - Mickey needs some personality. This is overdue.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2009, 07:50 PM:

I thought Mickey spent a lot of his time tagging Minnie Mouse's sweet nasty ass. Hence his rather joyous personality.
[Smile]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2009, 10:24 PM:

Bobby. Seriously. Get on match.com or something. [Big Grin]

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 11-27-2009, 12:14 PM:

My favorite Disney cartoon is CLOCK CLEANERS, from the early 1930's, which I have in 16mm b/w, although it was filmed and shown in 35mm Technicolor. I used to show it in the street or on my lawn at our annual block party.

It is notable for its light classical music, its ballet sequences with delightful synchronization of rhythms, its adherence to Newton's laws in the animation, and the rich cast of characters, including Mickey, Donald and Goofy. It is always a hit, both with the little tykes and their parents. I wish I had it in color.

I just hope the studio doesn't try to turn Mickey into a super-hero!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-27-2009, 12:59 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I thought Mickey spent a lot of his time tagging Minnie Mouse's sweet nasty ass. Hence his rather joyous personality.

No, Mickey gave her the broom when he discovered she was fucking goofy.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-27-2009, 01:55 PM:

quote: Gerard S. Cohen
I used to show it in the street or on my lawn at our annual block party.

You're luck Disney never hunted you down and broke you kneecaps [evil]

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-27-2009, 02:47 PM:

Should Mickey be rendered into a super hero, his comic would be published by Marvel.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-27-2009, 06:41 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
he discovered she was fucking goofy

I know we're talking about a cartoon character here, but why leave her just because she's a little odd?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-27-2009, 09:19 PM:

I said she was FUCKING GOOFY!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-27-2009, 11:19 PM:

Randy, the problem was you should have capitalized Goofy in your original post.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-27-2009, 11:26 PM:

dammitt...

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-28-2009, 07:03 PM:

Mickey needs to lose the high squeaky voice and get an accent, and a stutter or a lisp or something. I think Joe's right, he has no entertainment value at all.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2009, 10:53 PM:

He's more of a symbol these days. He brings in billions of dollars, I'm surprised they want to screw with him at all. Apparently this is just for a game (at first, anyway). I suppose Theme-park Mickey will still look exactly the same, given that there are way more demographics visiting the parks than just the gamer crowd. Cheerful happy Mickey is more appealing in the theme-park environment than edgy, crafty Mickey....this is probably part of the reason Islands of Adventure is the bottom-grossing theme park in Orlando, while the Magic Kingdom is the top.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2009, 02:59 AM:

Yeah...until Harry Potter Island opens up in 2010.

Historically, Mickey has been a bit of crafty mouse in his yute. Even through Fantasia he didn't do as he was told.

Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2009, 03:02 AM:

Ah, the two what? Uh, uh, what was that word? Two what? Did you say yutes? What is a yute?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2009, 03:12 AM:

Excuse me your honor...these two youuuuuthhhhzzzzzeeeesssss

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-29-2009, 12:00 PM:

That's {i]Utes[/i].

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2009, 02:34 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Yeah...until Harry Potter Island opens up in 2010.

That will be an interesting time to watch the sales figures. I tend to think MK will be on top of the heap. Universal will see a huge spike but it'll taper off rahter quickly, since after the next couple of movies there won't be a steady stream of new Potter stuff to fuel the engine.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2009, 03:24 PM:

I don't think WDW will be hurt significantly by Harry Potter...though I don't think Harry Potter will need new books to fuel the engine...I haven't seen its fan base drop. New kids each day join it and the older ones don't seem to let it drop.

WDW is still THE destination for those seeking a theme park in Orlando. Universal can only support but so many days of activities, as can Sea World. WDW can exhaust one's finances before "doing it all." I think the Harry Potter stuff will turn some more days into Universal though and certainly boost their entire park a bit. But, in a sense, Universal survives because the mouse is down the road to begin with.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-04-2009, 10:25 AM:

Have you guys seen Disney's financials lately... There was an article in Time a month or so ago regarding them. So it's no wonder they're digging up every last thing they can to market. The only aspect of Disney showing any major profit at all are the teen flicks and the Cable TV stuff. Everything else is way way way down. Park attendance is 28% down itself and Pixar aside they have not had a big money maker film in ages. Both the economy and stupid film decisions have hit them hard.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2009, 10:46 AM:

Eh. They're just one major hit away from being right back on top again. They all go thru this kind of slump now and then. Universal isn't exactly having a banner year either.

I think Disney's Orlando parks will get helped by Universal's Harry Potter feature. And the original Disneyland is doing record business these days too.