Post by alquackskey on Sept 26, 2021 2:02:14 GMT
It's a debate that comes up a lot, and I was interested in seeing what the people on here thought.
There's no denying Disney's broad reach at this point; even without considering their many acquisitions, they have a catalogue spanning about a century - given how many different subsidiaries they've worked with, not to mention how many of them have had brouhahas surrounding copyright and the like, it makes sense that the waters have been muddied a little.
The idea of something being "Disney" in general is actually an interesting one in itself.
I've been looking through Fox's catalogue, trying to get acquainted with their major properties (which might be worth a thread in itself?) since the acquisition. One thing I've noticed is that, despite having some absolutely iconic films and franchises under their belts, many don't really have that 'brand identity' that Disney does.
While the TV shows (such as The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy or American Dad) might be known as Fox shows, that doesn't tend to apply as much to the movies - I never really hear people referring to Planet of the Apes, Alien or Home Alone as Fox movies in the way that people refer to Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King as Disney movies.
There's a certain identity that's pushed with Disney's IPs; being made by Disney is something that you're supposed to recognize. This, of course, leads to the likes of the Disney Princess line; again, a significant element of these characters is that they're Disney Princesses.
And yet, despite this specific branding, the question of what actually qualifies something for the label of 'Disney' isn't wholly clear.
There are some cases that are totally unambiguous; for example, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are Disney characters, plain and simple.
However, when you branch into the films, I think the question becomes a lot more interesting.
Take the likes of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Beauty and the Beast; both are classic Disney movies based on fairy tales.
Obviously, Disney doesn't own the rights to either story - seeing as they're fairy tales - yet, at the same time, the Disney versions of these characters are the first thing that comes to mind for most people.
Would you consider the likes of Snow White to be a 'Disney character'? Would you make the distinction that you're talking about Disney's version of the story?
I've noticed that, in many cases, people only make the distinction when they're not talking about the Disney version - these stories have become so closely associated with Disney that people actually have to point out when they're referring to the originals.
Of course, this isn't always the case - sometimes, you get situations where the Disney version eclipses the original (Many casual viewers would be unaware that One Hundred and One Dalmatians was based on a book, for example), whereas, in others, Disney adapts an already iconic work.
The one that springs to my mind is Tarzan - as iconic as the Disney version is, many would think of the original stories or earlier live-action adaptations. The story isn't as heavily linked to Disney as the likes of the above-mentioned One Hundred and One Dalmatians.
Plus, unlike certain other characters and stories, the rights around Tarzan are actually somewhat complicated - it's been noted by many Kingdom Hearts fans that Tarzan and his world never appeared in the series beyond the first game - even in retreads like Chain of Memories or Coded - because of issues with copyright and the Rice Burroughs estate.
It doesn't just stop at confusion in the Disney Animated Classics line, though - there's a whole host of other confusing labels that come along.
For example, the likes of James and the Giant Peach or The Lone Ranger.
Both are adaptations of existing works that do not belong to Disney - would you still think of their versions of these characters when you think of Disney movies?
What about the likes of Return to Oz, which is actually set in the world of the Warner Bros. movie?
Should these films have identities as 'Disney movies' in the way that the above-discussed films do?
Then there's one of my favourite cases, The Brave Little Toaster.
That one has a very confusing rabbit hole around rights and distribution; to be honest, I'm still not wholly sure where they currently lie.
From what I can gather, Disney shot the film down, despite funding it. Hyperion made the film, and Disney aired it on the Disney Channel and they did VHS tapes for it. There's been a lot of kerfuffle since then, and it's hard to know who owns what.
There was a Brave Little Toaster pin released in one of the parks in 2015, which would suggest they own the rights, but I'm not entirely sure.
Would you class that as a Disney movie?
Then you get odd cases where something is owned by Disney, but not necessarily associated so closely with it.
Kingdom Hearts is an interesting example - it's developed by Square Enix, but wholly owned by Disney.
What I find interesting here is that it's far more heavily associated with Square; the likes of Sora, Riku, Kairi, Organization XIII etc tend to be forgotten about as Disney characters. This shows up a lot in discussions around Super Smash Bros., where people are often surprised to learn that Sora is owned by Disney (which would affect his chances of being included).
Would you consider Sora to be a Disney character?
He's owned completely by Disney, but they don't actually make the games - that's all on Square.
And, of course, we have the acquisitions.
By this point, many associate Pixar with Disney - some don't even bother to make distinctions between the two!
To the general public, the likes of Buzz Lightyear or Mike Wazowski are Disney characters - and, while owned by Disney now, they weren't owned by Disney when they were created.
Of course, it makes sense - Pixar have always been closely associated with Disney, even before the acquisition.
But what about the other properties?
The Muppets, Marvel, Star Wars... all currently owned by Disney.
Where do you draw the line on what counts as 'Disney' in those situations?
Take The Muppets as an example - do you consider Kermit to be a Disney character at this point?
How about the movies? Would you call The Great Muppet Caper a Disney movie? How about Muppet Treasure Island, which Disney was involved in the production of? Or Muppets: Most Wanted, which was made after the acquisition? How about Muppets Take Manhattan and Muppets in Space, which Disney don't own the distribution rights to?
Then there's Walter, a character that was created following Disney's acquisition of The Muppets - even if you wouldn't call Miss Piggy or Gonzo Disney characters, would you count Walter?
Marvel and Star Wars are in a similar situation - most would call the likes of Spider-Man a Marvel character, not a Disney one.
However, what about the movies?
Can The Avengers be considered a Disney movie? How about Iron Man, which was made before the acquisition?
Then there are films like Raimi's Spider-Man films or even Universal's The Incredible Hulk - Disney owns the characters, but not the distribution rights (nor were they involved with production).
Not to mention the comics - do you call newly introduced heroes (or characters like Phil Coulson or Trevor Slattery) Disney characters?
Disney has divided the Star Wars fanbase, with many pointedly refusing to acknowledge the sequel trilogy as anything other than "The Disney Trilogy".
Are the likes of Rey or Jyn Erso Disney characters?
Do the Disney films count as such? How about the originals, which are fully owned by Disney?
Then there's the likes of the Studio Ghibli situation, where Disney had a significant role in distribution and funding for many years.
Should any of the films released during that time be considered, in any part, 'Disney'?
I know that, for many, the line is pretty clear.
However, the idea of 'Disney' as a label in itself is pretty vague - I find it interesting to think about, and I wonder where people draw the line?
On a similar note, what about crossovers?
Think along the lines of House of Mouse - would the likes of Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox or Muppet characters be out of place?
How about characters for films that Disney made, but do not actually own the rights to?
Or the likes of Studio Ghibli, where Disney had a significant role in distribution, but never actually owned the film rights?
Regardless of what they would do, where do you draw the line at what would or wouldn't be too much?
There's no denying Disney's broad reach at this point; even without considering their many acquisitions, they have a catalogue spanning about a century - given how many different subsidiaries they've worked with, not to mention how many of them have had brouhahas surrounding copyright and the like, it makes sense that the waters have been muddied a little.
The idea of something being "Disney" in general is actually an interesting one in itself.
I've been looking through Fox's catalogue, trying to get acquainted with their major properties (which might be worth a thread in itself?) since the acquisition. One thing I've noticed is that, despite having some absolutely iconic films and franchises under their belts, many don't really have that 'brand identity' that Disney does.
While the TV shows (such as The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy or American Dad) might be known as Fox shows, that doesn't tend to apply as much to the movies - I never really hear people referring to Planet of the Apes, Alien or Home Alone as Fox movies in the way that people refer to Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King as Disney movies.
There's a certain identity that's pushed with Disney's IPs; being made by Disney is something that you're supposed to recognize. This, of course, leads to the likes of the Disney Princess line; again, a significant element of these characters is that they're Disney Princesses.
And yet, despite this specific branding, the question of what actually qualifies something for the label of 'Disney' isn't wholly clear.
There are some cases that are totally unambiguous; for example, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are Disney characters, plain and simple.
However, when you branch into the films, I think the question becomes a lot more interesting.
Take the likes of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Beauty and the Beast; both are classic Disney movies based on fairy tales.
Obviously, Disney doesn't own the rights to either story - seeing as they're fairy tales - yet, at the same time, the Disney versions of these characters are the first thing that comes to mind for most people.
Would you consider the likes of Snow White to be a 'Disney character'? Would you make the distinction that you're talking about Disney's version of the story?
I've noticed that, in many cases, people only make the distinction when they're not talking about the Disney version - these stories have become so closely associated with Disney that people actually have to point out when they're referring to the originals.
Of course, this isn't always the case - sometimes, you get situations where the Disney version eclipses the original (Many casual viewers would be unaware that One Hundred and One Dalmatians was based on a book, for example), whereas, in others, Disney adapts an already iconic work.
The one that springs to my mind is Tarzan - as iconic as the Disney version is, many would think of the original stories or earlier live-action adaptations. The story isn't as heavily linked to Disney as the likes of the above-mentioned One Hundred and One Dalmatians.
Plus, unlike certain other characters and stories, the rights around Tarzan are actually somewhat complicated - it's been noted by many Kingdom Hearts fans that Tarzan and his world never appeared in the series beyond the first game - even in retreads like Chain of Memories or Coded - because of issues with copyright and the Rice Burroughs estate.
It doesn't just stop at confusion in the Disney Animated Classics line, though - there's a whole host of other confusing labels that come along.
For example, the likes of James and the Giant Peach or The Lone Ranger.
Both are adaptations of existing works that do not belong to Disney - would you still think of their versions of these characters when you think of Disney movies?
What about the likes of Return to Oz, which is actually set in the world of the Warner Bros. movie?
Should these films have identities as 'Disney movies' in the way that the above-discussed films do?
Then there's one of my favourite cases, The Brave Little Toaster.
That one has a very confusing rabbit hole around rights and distribution; to be honest, I'm still not wholly sure where they currently lie.
From what I can gather, Disney shot the film down, despite funding it. Hyperion made the film, and Disney aired it on the Disney Channel and they did VHS tapes for it. There's been a lot of kerfuffle since then, and it's hard to know who owns what.
There was a Brave Little Toaster pin released in one of the parks in 2015, which would suggest they own the rights, but I'm not entirely sure.
Would you class that as a Disney movie?
Then you get odd cases where something is owned by Disney, but not necessarily associated so closely with it.
Kingdom Hearts is an interesting example - it's developed by Square Enix, but wholly owned by Disney.
What I find interesting here is that it's far more heavily associated with Square; the likes of Sora, Riku, Kairi, Organization XIII etc tend to be forgotten about as Disney characters. This shows up a lot in discussions around Super Smash Bros., where people are often surprised to learn that Sora is owned by Disney (which would affect his chances of being included).
Would you consider Sora to be a Disney character?
He's owned completely by Disney, but they don't actually make the games - that's all on Square.
And, of course, we have the acquisitions.
By this point, many associate Pixar with Disney - some don't even bother to make distinctions between the two!
To the general public, the likes of Buzz Lightyear or Mike Wazowski are Disney characters - and, while owned by Disney now, they weren't owned by Disney when they were created.
Of course, it makes sense - Pixar have always been closely associated with Disney, even before the acquisition.
But what about the other properties?
The Muppets, Marvel, Star Wars... all currently owned by Disney.
Where do you draw the line on what counts as 'Disney' in those situations?
Take The Muppets as an example - do you consider Kermit to be a Disney character at this point?
How about the movies? Would you call The Great Muppet Caper a Disney movie? How about Muppet Treasure Island, which Disney was involved in the production of? Or Muppets: Most Wanted, which was made after the acquisition? How about Muppets Take Manhattan and Muppets in Space, which Disney don't own the distribution rights to?
Then there's Walter, a character that was created following Disney's acquisition of The Muppets - even if you wouldn't call Miss Piggy or Gonzo Disney characters, would you count Walter?
Marvel and Star Wars are in a similar situation - most would call the likes of Spider-Man a Marvel character, not a Disney one.
However, what about the movies?
Can The Avengers be considered a Disney movie? How about Iron Man, which was made before the acquisition?
Then there are films like Raimi's Spider-Man films or even Universal's The Incredible Hulk - Disney owns the characters, but not the distribution rights (nor were they involved with production).
Not to mention the comics - do you call newly introduced heroes (or characters like Phil Coulson or Trevor Slattery) Disney characters?
Disney has divided the Star Wars fanbase, with many pointedly refusing to acknowledge the sequel trilogy as anything other than "The Disney Trilogy".
Are the likes of Rey or Jyn Erso Disney characters?
Do the Disney films count as such? How about the originals, which are fully owned by Disney?
Then there's the likes of the Studio Ghibli situation, where Disney had a significant role in distribution and funding for many years.
Should any of the films released during that time be considered, in any part, 'Disney'?
I know that, for many, the line is pretty clear.
However, the idea of 'Disney' as a label in itself is pretty vague - I find it interesting to think about, and I wonder where people draw the line?
On a similar note, what about crossovers?
Think along the lines of House of Mouse - would the likes of Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox or Muppet characters be out of place?
How about characters for films that Disney made, but do not actually own the rights to?
Or the likes of Studio Ghibli, where Disney had a significant role in distribution, but never actually owned the film rights?
Regardless of what they would do, where do you draw the line at what would or wouldn't be too much?
