Epic Disney on GameInformer

[LOPcagney]

Yup.

[Fuzzy Lobster]

Well, I don't think I'll buy it, but credit where credit's due for doing something different, I guess. I think that drippy cover-Mickey is pretty nifty.

When those guys mentioned this game on the podcast a long time ago, I thought they were joking when they called it "Epic Mickey". Heh.

[syntheticgerbil]

My opinion falls somewhere between vimes and syntheticgerbil: I want it to be good so badly but I've developed such a cynical view about how Disney opperates that what initially appealed to me about the screenshots was that it looked as though it didn't twist the Disney metaverse but the Disney merchandise. Disney has too much to lose. I doubt they'll let this game be any more subversive than Mary Poppins. I'd love to see a game set in a crumbling Disney theme-park, and all the crazy escapism/commercialism/decadence/waste etc. associated with it. That's far more interesting to me than "Mickey Mouse, but, like, cooler."

Yeah, a little of what I was saying was overcompensating for the lack of Disney hate in this thread, but I really do absolutely hate that company. They've done a variety of awful things to other animators and studios since the 1930s/1940s up until this very day and the value of their artistic output and pioneering efforts in the animation industry have been greatly exaggerated (or not if that's how you swing), not to mention they are the largest media company in the entire world, getting there from pure divide and conquer type tactics. If the mouse ever meant anything, he sure as hell means nothing now (not that I can say the same for any Warner Bros. characters either).

So the good part to me is the game is being overseen by Warren Spector, which should guarantee you a quality product (and no one hates a quality product), but the bad part is it's riding the Disney wave, of course. Had it not involved the mouse and been an original IP, it would not be getting this kind of publicity from all sorts of different factions, although still at least a moderate amount of press. It just seems like a lot of time and talent being wasted on an ultimately licensed game no matter how you spin it, even though it will probably still be good like the early Capcom and Sierra Disney games. To me, the game design is not in question here, not like Kingdom Hearts which is pretty much a DeviantArt user's wet dream.

I mean if anyone thinks I'm just another angry guy spouting hate for hate's sake, let's say instead of the mouse we go more extreme and have Warren Spector make an Epic Captain Crunch game sponsored by Quaker. If that sounds like an okay game, then I should probably be ignored.

[lobotomy42]

My opinion falls somewhere between vimes and syntheticgerbil: I want it to be good so badly but I've developed such a cynical view about how Disney opperates that what initially appealed to me about the screenshots was that it looked as though it didn't twist the Disney metaverse but the Disney merchandise. Disney has too much to lose. I doubt they'll let this game be any more subversive than Mary Poppins. I'd love to see a game set in a crumbling Disney theme-park, and all the crazy escapism/commercialism/decadence/waste etc. associated with it. That's far more interesting to me than "Mickey Mouse, but, like, cooler."

Being "subversive" in any meaningful sense is pretty damn difficult in *any* commercially released media product, especially multi-million dollar projects like video games. I agree that "Mickey Mouse, but, like, cooler" is all we can reasonably hope for but that may very well still be a damn entertaining game. The company's evil-ness does not prevent it from occasionally releasing cool shit in spite of itself.

[shammack]

The Magical Quest Starring Mickey Mouse was pretty great.

[MrHoatzin]

Being "subversive" in any meaningful sense is pretty damn difficult in *any* commercially released media product, especially multi-million dollar projects like video games. I agree that "Mickey Mouse, but, like, cooler" is all we can reasonably hope for but that may very well still be a damn entertaining game. The company's evil-ness does not prevent it from occasionally releasing cool shit in spite of itself.

With all this said, it is weird to me that this stuff, so far, has almost universally been drawing veneration out of people as the first reaction. Those initial sketches that leaked were kindof meh, but everyone was in soft awe at whatever Disney had in store under that Hot Topic Steampunk Gothic™ aesthetic. I wonder if a) Disney has such a stake in people's nostalgia that people's first reaction at the thought of Disney-anything is a warm positive one before they really had the time to fully assess the images on their own merits, or it is interesting because the characters that we're seeing broken apart and rebuilt weren't just some random blobby cartoon dogs and whales, those were Goofy and Monstro, characters we know, ideas within the common culture that people don't freely get to comment on in that exact fashion, and with the blessing of the IP owner at that, or c) sbecause Warren Spector is a badass and people are curious to see what he will do with sumting that odd.

[juv3nal]

I wonder if a), or , or c)

Personally I vote ©, but Disney still gets a some credit from me for things like Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 and (at least partly), Destino. Destino here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU_f2vqEgGM

[Chthonic Boom]

For me, my interest is largely due to it being Warren Spector's baby - if it was being made by someone else, say American McGee's Mickey then I'd be much quicker to write it off as a lame and unnecessary attempt to be edgy.

What really excites me isn't just that it's Warren Spector, but rather the clear passion that Warren has for all things Disney. You can see it in the video linked in the first post in the thread - and it isn't just him shilling his latest project, he has talked about this in the past. This is the guy who co-wrote Toon, a pen and paper RPG based on old cartoon tropes.

The way I see it, here is an incredible talent given free license to work on what sounds like the game he's wanted to make all his life, so I can't help but be excited to see where he's going to take it.

[vimes]

What really excites me isn't just that it's Warren Spector, but rather the clear passion that Warren has for all things Disney.

That's one of the bit I don't quite get : if he loves the Disney aesthetic and universe so much, why would he change nearly all of it? "I love Disney, so I've made a game about its universe crumbling down and rotting with corruption" ?

[elmuerte]

Maybe that is his way to show his affection

[Horticulture Tycoon]

He's showing us a world without Disney, and the HORROR that would ensue.

[elmuerte]

if only there was a world without disney

[Ben X]

if only there was a world without disney

No "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and no "A Goofy Movie"? A nightmarish alternate reality. Brrr...

[Lu]

if only there was a world without disney

Are you being serious? Why would you want that?

[elmuerte]

No "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and no "A Goofy Movie"? A nightmarish alternate reality. Brrr...

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is barely a Disney creation.

[snappity]

I don't understand how this game has avoided cancellation. It seems like any day now some executive who would rather be funding the creation of a billion Hannah Montana backpacks is going to learn of Epic Mickey's existence and immediately destroy it. I suppose it's nice to dream though.

[BigJKO]

I like the idea that Epic Mickey focuses on all the old, forgotten Disney creations and how they're turning against the memorable ones.

[toblix]

edit: Sorry, missed a page break, post irrelevant.

[Jake]

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is barely a Disney creation.

Except that they produced it... Touchstone = a Disney label.

[elmuerte]

Except that they produced it... Touchstone = a Disney label.

That's mainly because Disney bought the movie rights to the book. You wouldn't call "Dead Poets Society" or "The Royal Tenenbaums" a Dinsey movie, right?

Amblin is listed as the main production company for Roger Rabbit.

[lobotomy42]

That's mainly because Disney bought the movie rights to the book. You wouldn't call "Dead Poets Society" or "The Royal Tenenbaums" a Dinsey movie, right?

Amblin is listed as the main production company for Roger Rabbit.

Wait...."book" ????

[elmuerte]

The movie is based on the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit?

[syntheticgerbil]

Are you being serious? Why would you want that?

I would say that would be a very nice world, besides maybe sound cartoons coming in a little later without Disney's early competition, and I wouldn't miss them much. They aren't that big in terms of innovation and really wouldn't be sorely missed. At least the guy wouldn't be widely miscredited for creating animation anymore.

Oh yeah, also a lot of animators would have kept their jobs during the red scare if old bastard Walt didn't make some time to turn people in as communists in order to crush the competition. That's how to be a shrewd businessman, folks.

The movie is based on the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit?

Let's not forget the animation in Who Framed Roger Rabbit is hardly in the traditional Disney animation style at all, having much more to do with Tex Avery and Warner Bros. ilk.

There's also the case of Richard Williams as the animation director, who was never a Disney animator or employee, and whose work has shown very little Disney influence even though he mentored under two sets o two major Warner Bros. and Disney animators (although this was at UPA, when the people he mentored under had moved on from the old Hollywood studios and had much changed their style), having had much more to do with what used to come out of the Canadian animation industry. Disney was nice enough to repay him for his work in Roger Rabbit later in the 90s by stealing all his ideas from Thief and the Cobbler for Aladdin and later buying out his failed, delayed, and butchered movie through Miramax, adding references to Aladdin, and then burying it for good. I've heard rumors the guy can come back and finish the Thief movie his way if he wants to it for free (with Disney making the profits) since all of his team's artwork, storyboards, pencil tests etc. are all in their vault now.

So anyways, besides the Zemeckis and live action parts, you had a contracted masterful animation director who was not looking to do things the Disney way, involving original non-Disney characters he created or helped create, so I'd say there is a ton merit in saying it's not much of a Disney film. At least not at all in the way of it being their studio inhouse development like The Jungle book or some complete crock of shit like Emperor's New Groove.

[Ben X]

You know, I was joking when I named "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "A Goofy Movie" as the pinnacle of Disney's contribution to and effect on the industry.

[syntheticgerbil]

Oh...

Hah, well I like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, but oh well...