Talk:Disney

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Notable?

Maybe it's just because it's such a short article, but I find the notability of this gag pretty questionable. Bad Bad Guy 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The works of Disney are so numerous and expansive that there's bound to be some references to them in any American show. As listed on the page, the references to Disney don't seem at all related, and unless someone can come up with more references to make me think otherwise, I don't think this article should be kept. Has Matt? (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote keep. Just because Disney references are popular doesn't mean we shouldn't note them; Nintendo ('80s video games in general) references are popular too. If anything, their popularity makes them more notable. Though the references listed here are quite varied, they are each still relevant not because they're direct references to each other, but to Disney works that are equally various. — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 11:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
While I would generally say that Disney references would be notable and deserve their own article, I'm not happy with the current one. Cinderella would for example be a movie that I would accept in a Disney references list. Golden Girls or The Nightmare Before Christmas not. Yes, I know that they're Disney by name. But not in spirit. Just because TNBC happened to be financed by Disney doesn't make it a typical Disney movie. It's a Tim Burton movie. Yes, this is a problem. In my opinion, it's meaningless to list a movie such as TNBC here, on the other hand, where do we draw the line? Can we draw the line? Loafing 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggest scope of page be narrowed to "classic" Disney animations and films, as well as the theme parks, and exclude Touchstone, ABC, and other loosely-associated media. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 13:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This would mean fewer references, but they're more related and wouldn't need as much explanation. EDIT: Wow, there are even fewer than I thought. A lot of the references on the page were not productions by Disney himself (I'm assuming that's where we draw the line for "classic" films). Only the appearances in licensed would stay in the Films section (though the Lion King reference actually doesn't belong, I don't think it should be separated from Cinderella because they occur at the same time), and the two Theme Park attractions would stay. It's shaping up to be a pretty short page, but are we okay with that? — SamSF%20sig.jpgFisher (Come in, Lambert.) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The need for subheadings would be lost. But we have short pages here, that's fine if they are both complete and notable. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the article with these changes. Now it makes sense and is interesting. We should keep it. Loafing 06:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I say definitely keep!! MHarrington 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Nightmare Before Christmas

I would actually consider putting The Nightmare Before Christmas back in the list. Granted, it's not a "classic" Disney movie in the strictest sense, but Disney has embraced it pretty strongly since then. As a few examples: The 2006 3D version was released under the Disney banner, Disney included Halloween Town in their Kingdom Hearts game right alongside all of the other "classic" Disney environments, and Jack Skellington even appears as a "meetable" character at some of the Disney Theme Parks. -DAGRON 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Nightmare Before Christmas ride at Disneyland (it's only open in the fall and the winter) and Jack and Sally appearing in the 2007 Disney DVD logo. I think the original version still bears the Touchstone name, though. Bad Bad Guy 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If we agree the scope of the page includes the theme parks, then there's fodder for the argument for including TNMC. If Disney chooses these characters to represent them, I'd suggest they are references to Disney. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1980's Movies

Shouldn't we still get rid of Homestarloween Party and 12:00's references? Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? — Defender1031*Talk 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with removing them because they were actually produced by Walt Disney Pictures. Bad Bad Guy 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cinderella.

Disney does not own Cinderella & didn't create it & isn't the only one to have animated it. The Cinderella dress Strong Bad is wearing looks nothing like the one in disney.

The most famous incarnation of cinderella is still disney's. All of the others are knock-offs such as SB is talking about. — Defender1031*Talk 08:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The mouse calls to my mind the talking mice in Disney's version, somehow. I believe Disney's version is the only 1 that makes mice that prominent. Bad Bad Guy 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] dang straight about sequels and knock-offs!

yeah, I feel sorry for the kids who are growing up with "Cinderella 3" or whatever. oh, yeah! and they (the Chapman bros.) did reference "The Nightmare Before Christmas", the King of Town was dressed up as The Mayor of Halloween Town. you had a good childhood, Chapman bros. you had it good.

[edit] Cheat Commandos

Would it be possible to put in this page how the Cheat Commandos all have a marking on them that resembles the shape of the Mickey Mouse logo? Hooray4Homestar 00:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this has been discussed already (perhaps someone could help me find it). I believe the consensus was that it's just a coincidence. — It's dot com 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If it's just a coincidence it should not be under Cheat Commandos#Fun Facts either. Bad Bad Guy 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Shopping for Danger. Consensus was for "Accept" and then the fact was moved to Cheat Commandos. OptimisticFool 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't have a direct bearing here. The shape is there, so it's okay, as part of a description, to state on the Cheat Commandos or toon pages that the shape is there, but to put it on this page would be to say it's intentional, which I don't think it is, and which I don't think previous discussions have supported. — It's dot com 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's the only discussion I found; you did ask for help finding it, no? (Source) Seems that there was no consensus that it's just a coincidence; perhaps we should form one, eh? I say: it's a coincidence. OptimisticFool 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I also think it's a coincidence. I coulda sworn there was some other discussion on it that I also thought it coincidence, but I can't find it. Oh, well. Let it be known that in this discussion, taking place right now, I DO sign it down as coincidence. --DorianGray 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duck Tales

What was the rationale for removing the ducktales reference? It was completely disney affiliated, yes? -DAGRON 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The rationale was that DuckTales was created after Walt Disney died, but I do not think that is convincing at all because it utilizes characters created during the Walt era. Bad Bad Guy 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Bad Bad Guy is correct. Everything he wrote is correct. ALL correct. 166.216.165.61 14:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this page ought to be only about walt's creations... Seems legit to cover ALL things from the disney corporation, walt-related or not. (Then again, star wars, now owned by disney, ought to remain separate). — Defender1031*Talk 15:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Snow White?

The more I look at Strong Bad's princess outfit, the more it actually looks like a parody of Snow White (especially the sleeves). She might actually fit the "secret princess" description better since she had to hide with the dwarfs. Does this count as a reference? Bad Bad Guy 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disney Legends

Do facts like the ones below belong here?

I know one would argue that these actors also did lots of non-Disney stuff, that they didn't get their start at Disney, that their statuses as Disney Legends were never referenced, etc, but I think similar arguments could be used against John Cleese's cameo referencing Monty Python. (He also did lots of non-Python stuff, he didn't get his start with Python, his status as a Python was never referenced, etc.) BBG 01:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the important distinction is more of public perception. Though it is true that the two you mentioned did significant work with Disney, it isn't necessarily the work they are most known for or most readily associated with. But John Cleese, though he did work distinct from Monty Python, seems much more irrevocably associated with Monty Python in public perception. Just my opinion on the matter. -128.103.10.135 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
How can we be sure of any old actor's trademark role anymore? Since practically no one reruns The Dick Van Dyke Show anymore, I wouldn't be surprised if he's better known now as Bert Alfred (or just Bert, since his last name appeared only in the book) than as Rob Petrie. BBG 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would say that just because a certain actor is famous for something that's known to be a common reference made in H*R doesn't make it a reference. When I think of angela lansbury, i think of "murder, she wrote" (which is what that toon is actually referencing.) When i think of Dick Van Dyke, i think of "the dick van dyke show", and when i think of john cleese, i think of Q from james bond. I think that all of them should only be listed if it's made clear that they are being spoken about in reference to their roles in these places. — Defender1031*Talk 01:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
That may be true, however, Dick van Dyke was in the 1993 film Diagnosis Murder in which Rance Howard portrayed a garbage truck driver, and Howard later had a minor role in Frost/Nixon, with Kevin Bacon, who was in the audience at the 60th annual Emmy's where Conan O'Brien presented an award. Conan also appeared Gigantic, a documentary film about They Might be Giants, who have worked closely with The Brothers Chaps on several occasions. ...actually, maybe it's better if we only document direct references. —98.222.134.36 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, here's the list of official Disney Legends. BBG 02:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools