Yeah, but I would think Disney would want MM to transcend kids stuff only as well. Similar to Pixar, which pays attention to both kids and adults.
Boomer market?I think Disney has diversified itself incredibly well, to where each age group has properties that target them like a laser. It's also worth noting that, anecdotally, girls and women seem to stick with the Mickey and Friends products as they get older. I'd be interested in seeing data on that.
The Pixar example is a good and interesting one. I'd point to Cars as the flagship Pixar franchise as far as being a money maker goes, which actually kind of follows the Mickey strategy in that it is absolutely massive with little kids, whereas people like us see it as nothing more than those kind of sub-par boring Pixar outlier films.
I never had the Disney Channel. So he was rather elusive. Is the Disney Channel popular, even in todays' cable cutting edge? The Disney Channel was also not offered in every cable package when I grew up, so he was MIA.
LOL. You're right. I was thinking about the Cruise ships actually haha. But those seem more younger family focused.The retiree-market is the "buying infinite shit for the grandkids" market, so everything is targeted to them technically.
I remember a time when Mario was, at his height of popularity, more popular than Mickey Mouse. People used that little nugget to convey how popular Mario had become. I believe this factoid was done around Super Mario Brothers 3 release in the US. That game was a juggernaut at the time.
But even as a long time Disney fan, I always wondered why the Mouse was so elusive. He never had a show in the super popular Disney Afternoon. Fantasia was the last animated feature movie Mickey Mouse. I remember seeing the Prince and the Pauper short when I saw The Rescuer Down Under in the theaters. It was surreal because it was a modern production, at the time lol, with Mickey Mouse starring in it.
Even with the first Kingdom Hearts game, he remains rather elusive there. He becomes more involved in later games. But playing KH3, I saw Mickey on screen way more than any other medium in the last 10 years lol. Yep in KH lol. Too bad he's attached to the crazy KH story lol.
I do know about the recent shorts, which is a nice thing. But overall, which is Mickey so elusive with Disney. Using the Nintendo analogy, it's if Nintendo were to put Mario in a some vault, no pun intended, for many years. Sony's closest mascot is Kratos, and he gets a lot of love too. Same with Master Chief and Xbox. But you could say that's apples to oranges since Disney is way more broad as a company--film, parks, TV, and so on.
LOL. You're right. I was thinking about the Cruise ships actually haha. But those seem more younger family focused.
Cruise ships are licensed right? Does Disney run those?
LOL. You're right. I was thinking about the Cruise ships actually haha. But those seem more younger family focused.
Cruise ships are licensed right? Does Disney run those?
Was that Runaway Brain? I remember it was big deal he was getting theatrical short when it came out.
He haunted my dreams during my childhood years because of this movie
Awesome cartoon.
There was also one with a poor mickey and a rich one.
Prince and the Pauper. That came out theatrically tooAwesome cartoon.
There was also one with a poor mickey and a rich one.
When it comes to making animated films Disney would rather build new brands then say make a film were mickey, donald, and goofy go on an adventure.
Haven't played that one. My favorite Mickey game is still Castle of Illusion, including the excellent remake that came out a generation ago.
Haven't played that one. My favorite Mickey game is still Castle of Illusion, including the excellent remake that came out a generation ago.
I'm more curious on why the Looney Toones dissapeared all of a sudden. In the 90's they were kinda "cool" tons of reruns from their classics in CN, videogames, space jam, appeared in lots of clothes, even the tiny toons, but suddenly, they stopped being "hip"
Even the reboots feel like they don't know what to do with them, the Seinfeld-esque show always felt odd to me
Time Warner has had a lot of corprorate changes unlike Disney over the years. They've merged. Sold some interest. Got bought again and so on. Iger has been with Disney much longer.Yeah this is a good question. Looney Tunes are the ones who seem elusive these days. I'd have to go out of my way to find Looney Tunes branded stuff for my son.
Maybe they're still around for like the late elementary/middle school aged demographic?
Ya, they were a staple of '80s syndication and sorta sunk like a rock by the end of the '90s. Their popularity was an echo phenomenon. They were the cartoons all the executives and content creators of the time grew up with and worshipped.I'm more curious on why the Looney Toones dissapeared all of a sudden. In the 90's they were kinda "cool" tons of reruns from their classics in CN, videogames, space jam, appeared in lots of clothes, even the tiny toons, but suddenly, they stopped being "hip"
After Time Warner bought Turner Enterprises(the owners of TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network/later Boomerang) they struck a deal to make the Looney Tunes exclusives of the Turner channels. Which meant long running airings of the Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon and ABC, among others, ceased in 1999. The Turner channels ran the Looney Tunes with much fanfare until about 2004, when after the disastrous failure of the film Looney Tunes Back in Action WB decided to "retire"(so to speak) the franchise, with the exception of DVD releases very little was seen and heard from the property for several years. Since then they have had new shows and the original cartoons have come back to Cartoon Network and Boomerang, but they are a bit more sporadic than they used to be. There are several reasons they aren't really relevant to todays kids, but I feel the big reason is the WB-Turner agreement. WB could've easily continued to license the cartoons out to different networks and platforms that would've kept the characters in the public eye, but I think forcing them to only be available on a few select platforms really hurt the brand.I'm more curious on why the Looney Toones dissapeared all of a sudden. In the 90's they were kinda "cool" tons of reruns from their classics in CN, videogames, space jam, appeared in lots of clothes, even the tiny toons, but suddenly, they stopped being "hip"
Even the reboots feel like they don't know what to do with them, the Seinfeld-esque show always felt odd to me
After Time Warner bought Turner Enterprises(the owners of TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network/later Boomerang) they struck a deal to make the Looney Tunes exclusives of the Turner channels. Which meant long running airings of the Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon and ABC, among others, ceased in 1999. The Turner channels ran the Looney Tunes with much fanfare until about 2004, when after the disastrous failure of the film Looney Tunes Back in Action WB decided to "retire"(so to speak) the franchise, with the exception of DVD releases very little was seen and heard from the property for several years. Since then they have had new shows and the original cartoons have come back to Cartoon Network and Boomerang, but they are a bit more sporadic than they used to be. There are several reasons they aren't really relevant to todays kids, but I feel the big reason is the WB-Turner agreement. WB could've easily continued to license the cartoons out to different networks and platforms that would've kept the characters in the public eye, but I think forcing them to only be available on a few select platforms really hurt the brand.
that movie really hurt looney tunes and the actors that starred in it :( i enjoyed it at the time tbhAfter Time Warner bought Turner Enterprises(the owners of TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network/later Boomerang) they struck a deal to make the Looney Tunes exclusives of the Turner channels. Which meant long running airings of the Looney Tunes on Nickelodeon and ABC, among others, ceased in 1999. The Turner channels ran the Looney Tunes with much fanfare until about 2004, when after the disastrous failure of the film Looney Tunes Back in Action WB decided to "retire"(so to speak) the franchise, with the exception of DVD releases very little was seen and heard from the property for several years. Since then they have had new shows and the original cartoons have come back to Cartoon Network and Boomerang, but they are a bit more sporadic than they used to be. There are several reasons they aren't really relevant to todays kids, but I feel the big reason is the WB-Turner agreement. WB could've easily continued to license the cartoons out to different networks and platforms that would've kept the characters in the public eye, but I think forcing them to only be available on a few select platforms really hurt the brand.
Though to be fair the original Disney cartoons, the Mickey series, the Donald Duck series, Silly Symphonies etc, were all run on television until some point in the late 90s-early 2000s until they too disappeared. Unlike the Looney Tunes who have had hundreds of their cartoons released on easy to come by DVD sets, the Disney content was only available very briefly on limited sets that quickly became very expensive. And there's no corporate fuckery going on either like there was with the Looney Tunes/WB, it's just Disney is weird for some reason. I'm holding out hope all the old cartoons and the early television productions will be made available on the new Disney streaming service, but who knows.
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse on DC probably generated more revenue that any single movie would to be honest. Dat family $$Disney Channel?
I'm talking about major movies and such. He's relegated to Disney Channel, which is like some purgatory for dead properties lol.
I just assume the comics aren't that popular in US, considering Don Rosa is nobody there and Carl Barks is mainly known as creator of DuckTales. I'm under the impression that northern europe and Italy are the strongholds of duck/mickey comics.Wait, in Europe? You mean they don't exist elsewhere? Those comics are basically my childhood and they're great.
Winnie the Pooh is popular? He seems so ho-hum? Kinda like Leave it to Beaver lol.Also worth noting on this topic: Winnie the Pooh is one of the most valuable IPs in the world as well, and the last time they put out a Pooh movie (which I believe was supposed to be top notch), it completely bombed.
Interestingly, my son is also all about Pooh and specifically Tigger, and he's never seen any of the Winnie the Pooh shows or films. Like Dwebble said above, some properties are "above" movies.
If you didn't own a Nintendo system Mario was just as elusive thoI never had the Disney Channel. So he was rather elusive. Is the Disney Channel popular, even in todays' cable cutting edge? The Disney Channel was also not offered in every cable package when I grew up, so he was MIA.
I think Disney has diversified itself incredibly well, to where each age group has properties that target them like a laser. It's also worth noting that, anecdotally, girls and women seem to stick with the Mickey and Friends products as they get older. I'd be interested in seeing data on that.
The Pixar example is a good and interesting one. I'd point to Cars as the flagship Pixar franchise as far as being a money maker goes, which actually kind of follows the Mickey strategy in that it is absolutely massive with little kids, whereas people like us see it as nothing more than those kind of sub-par boring Pixar outlier films.
I get a kick out of threads like this because I was in your exact same shoes a few years ago. I even responded to a similar thread at the old place in agreement, saying that it seems Mickey is relegated to just being the mascot of the theme parks and the corporation itself. Then I had a kid, and it was actually hilarious to see how blind I was to the whole thing. It amazes me how there is basically no spillover.
If you didn't own a Nintendo system Mario was just as elusive tho
Winnie the Pooh is popular? He seems so ho-hum? Kinda like Leave it to Beaver lol.