Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 260
Joined: October 29th, 2004
Location: UK

Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas

Post by JustinWilliams » October 29th, 2004, 7:02 am

Here's the link to new clips, pics, downloads and more from Disney's site - the link's not advertised yet just got e-mailed it by an employee this morning :) Calms some of my fears about it!

http://www.mickeydvd.com

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » October 29th, 2004, 1:37 pm

...and raises new ones!

Welcome to the board Justin! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 49
Joined: October 24th, 2004
Location: Oakey Oaks

Post by David » October 30th, 2004, 5:08 am

I abhored the thought of this movie to start with, but the more I see the Mickey bots, the more i am starting to like them! (don't hate me) I am actually looking forward to this DVD!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25294
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » October 30th, 2004, 9:06 am

David...we've never banned anyone on the grounds of bad taste before, but...





:D Just Kidding! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Macaluso » October 30th, 2004, 9:13 am

I'd have been banned long ago.

And I hate seeing Micky confined to DVD. :(

I want a theatrical micky movie.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 49
Joined: October 24th, 2004
Location: Oakey Oaks

Post by David » October 30th, 2004, 4:12 pm

Ben wrote:David...we've never banned anyone on the grounds of bad taste before, but...





:D Just Kidding! ;)
I really hate myself for liking this! I'm the person who led protests agains the evils of Shrek,and the whole CGI industry, and I encouraged virtually everyone I knew to go see Home on the Range because it was the last 2D feature! And now here i am counting the days till it's release!

I loathe myself!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 415
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by PatrickvD » October 31st, 2004, 8:12 am

I preferred the direction of Runaway Brain that Disney was sending Mickey in.... ah well

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 49
Joined: October 24th, 2004
Location: Oakey Oaks

Post by David » November 1st, 2004, 6:57 am

I think we should all be glad that Disney are at least trying to make use of these characters, trying to reinvent them so a different generation can enjoy them, the alternative would be to never use these characters and to let them fall by the wayside!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 43
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Guardstone » November 1st, 2004, 2:01 pm

Erm... I'm sure lots of folks here will call me nuts, but I don't really like Mickey, he's so boring. Films like this certainly won't help that image. Disney should spice up the little fella and give him a real adventure if they want to keep him as an asset other that the daft ambassador he currently is for the company.

GeorgeC

Post by GeorgeC » November 2nd, 2004, 12:37 am

Guardstone wrote:Erm... I'm sure lots of folks here will call me nuts, but I don't really like Mickey, he's so boring. Films like this certainly won't help that image. Disney should spice up the little fella and give him a real adventure if they want to keep him as an asset other that the daft ambassador he currently is for the company.

I think you're mistaking likeability with wasted potential and misdirection.

Look, I agree the Disney Company has wasted Mickey for years but this goes back to decisions made regarding the character the mid- to late-1930s.

When Mickey started in 1928, he was a wild and crude little guy who tortured animals, sexually harassed Minnie, and was not a completely stand-up citizen. Very politically incorrect.

However, because of his pluckiness and his underdog status, audiences grew to like him a lot, and through the mid-1930s, there were actually a lot of good Mickey cartoons made like "The Brave Little Tailor," "Through the Looking Glass," and "The Band Concert."

The thing you notice about a lot of these cartoons is that it's not really Mickey's OVERALL personality that's the great thing, it's the situations he's placed in and how he reacts to them. He doesn't give up, he's eternally optimistic, and ultimately finds his way out of things. That appealed a lot to people during the Great Depression, and it really should still have appeal even today.

If all you've ever seen of Mickey is the majority of cartoons made with him since the 1980s -- especially the made-for-TV and direct-to-video junk with the exception of The Three Musketeers --, then your conclusion that he's boring and useless is basically correct but not completely informed. When you look at his earlier cartoons, and especially the color shorts up to about 1938, it's a different story. This is a character with possibilities, but they've been squandered by managers too afraid to break out of a stereotype that's developed around Mickey since the 1950s. Of course, unless you buy the Disney Treasures DVDs or watch a friend's set, you'd never realize that because Disney doesn't let these classic shorts be shown on American TV much anymore!

The problem is at some point in the mid-/late-1930s, the Disney Company basically turned Mickey into a father-figure and upstanding citizen to an alarming degree. He became duller, and over time his adventures became less imaginative. It was a lot easier to do cartoons with Donald Duck and Goofy because they had off-kilter, imperfect (and in Donald's case cocky and JERKY) personalities that leant themselves to comedy. It's harder to do comedy and invent new situations for a character that's a bit TOO perfect. That's why less Mickey shorts were made in the 1940s and why from about 1953 to 1983 there were no new Mickey Mouse theatrical shorts made.

I think another mistake Disney made with the character was that they overdesigned Mickey. As much as I like Freddie Moore's character design work and animation, I think it was the biggest mistake to HUMANIZE Mickey's design (Moore's redesign) and take him from the "Brave Little Tailor" iconic look to his appearance in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." I think the older, simpler black-and-white design with the plain black eyes works better than the human eyes and flesh-toned face Mickey we all see today.

I think Mickey Mouse is a perfect example the age-old argument of human-design/locomotion versus caricature designs in animation. They went a bit too far in the human direction as far as I'm concerned with Mickey and he paid a price there in design along with the dull plots they gave his later post-1930s shorts.

"Runaway Brain" (1995?) was a step in the right direction but somebody at Disney got scared and this short was never promoted that well in the mainstream world outside of Hollywood animation. It's more in the spirit of "The Brave Little Tailor" and classic 1930s Mickey than anything else I've seen in the past 20-some years.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9044
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas

Post by ShyViolet » November 14th, 2004, 11:00 pm

I read the review on DVD toons. I haven't seen the...special or whatever it is, but I totally agree. It's disgusting to see these characters watered down, marketed, and mutated almost beyond recognition. (I thought that's what they did at House of Mouse :twisted: ) All I have to say is SCREW SHOWING CLASSICAL CHARACTERS IN CGI! If Walt Disney suddenly came back to life from whatever Cryogenic Chamber he's frozen in and says he approves what the company has done to his characters, I STILL don't think it's right. If Disney meant for Mickey and Minnie to be ugly robotic mutants, he'd have drawn them that way in the first place. End of story.
I remember watching Mickey's Christmas Carol when I was eight years old. That was my first introduction to the "Christmas Carol" story. It definetely left an impression on me, and I can't believe that this is the kind of crud kids nowadays are exposed to. Hopefully the tide will turn soon...I believe it will. If you look at the history of animation, the tide always turns just when things are at their worst.... :wink:
Last edited by ShyViolet on November 15th, 2004, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 162
Joined: October 26th, 2004

Post by Uli » November 15th, 2004, 6:24 am

...
Last edited by Uli on May 25th, 2007, 8:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 243
Joined: November 1st, 2004
Location: New York
Contact:

I completely disagree

Post by askmike1 » November 15th, 2004, 6:15 pm

I'm sorry if what I say sounds rude, but I must say it...

1) You should not, shant not, and cannot judge a film if you HAVEN'T SEEN IT! That is like saying a Movie is horrible just because other people think that. Don't judge the movie without watching it first

2) Don't say Walt wouldn't have liked CG Mickey and Friends. Neither you, I, nor anyone else knows what Walt would have approved of. That is why I hate the phrase Walt Would Walt Do. Not even Roy or Diane Disney knows what Walt would have done. And, if I had to make a guess, I would THINK Walt would have approved of it. After all, Walt loved new technology (think Fantasia, a film 'made before its time').

3) Just because Mickey & Friends are classic characters, don't mean they can't be used anymore. I love the fact that the Walt Disney Co. is using Mickey in two films in one year (Twice Upon... and Three Musketeers). CGI is a great way to revive the "#1 Brand in America", Mickey & Pals.

4) After SEEING!!! the film, I would like to share my opinions of it. I think this was a Great film on par with both Three Musketeers and Christmas Carol. The animation is NOT robotic at all. Each member of the fab 5 (not that fab five) looks exceptional. Pluto is extremely realistic. Donald and Daisy are perfect. Mickey and Minnie look exactly how you would expect them to look in real life (assuming talking 5' tall mice existed...). Some people may have problems with Goofy, Max, and Donalds nephews, but I think they looked fine too. The stories were nice and the animation flowed perfectly. The backgrounds weren't entirely realistic, but why should they be. Disney wasn't going for realism or animation depicting everyday life. They were going for a cartoony approach to CG (which I think they did perfectly). The town looks exactly like ToonTown. On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate this movie an 8.

Overall, I think most people are stuck in the past and unwilling for change. People who grew up with Mickey shorts will most likely not like the CG approach. I just hope people actually watch the movie and become willing for change. Once again, I'm sorry if this came out as rude in any way.
-Michael
[url=http://www.mainstreetword.com]MSW[/url]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9044
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 15th, 2004, 10:05 pm

No worries...I get your point. It's just that I've SEEN House of Mouse, where they brought back the original characters, and it's absolutely awful. The gags are dumb, the stories boring, and trust me about 75% of the "new" cartoons' plots are borrowed from the older cartoons. Mickey's Christmas might not be as bad, but it doesn't seem like they're treating these characters with much respect anymore. If you can't make new stuff that's worthy, why not just show kids the original shorts? Why do today's kids constantly have to get shortchanged?? :?
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7261
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » November 15th, 2004, 11:03 pm

I'm looking forward to seeing this, for better or worse. Whether I approve of the idea or not, this is a major event for these characters, and I'm curious to see how it looks. Although I don't like the "plastic-y" look or glassy eyes I've seen in some of the preview shots, I've also been impressed with some of what I've seen. I'll withhold final judgment until I've seen the whole thing. The artists involved deserve to get the benefit of the doubt, methinks (with all due repsect to reviewers who have seen the DVD and didn't like it).

Post Reply