Keskustelujen arkisto

Pages: 1
Author

Topic: Disney knock-offs

(9 messages)
Nectaria
Have you seen some "Disney" stuffs that are knock-offs and not official stuffs by Disney? I own some of the Disney knock-offs but most of them are Bambi knock-offs. Many of those Bambi books that I have are based on the Disney version not on the original version by Felix Salten (maybe because the original version was very dark and not very family friendly and maybe that why they chose the Disney version). All of those books shows that Bambi have a rabbit friend (in some versions, the rabbit does not have a name but in some others, the rabbit's name was Thumper just like the Disney version). In one "unofficial Disney" Bambi book, Bambi, Bambi's mother, Faline, The Great Prince of the Forest and Thumper appeared in their Disney designs but many of the other animals have different designs that are non-Disney. This book have made some changes like Flower being replaced by a Fox (Yes, the Fox was Flower's replacement and his role was the same as Flower's), some pages featured the appearances of some hunters (Of course, the hunters' faces were never shown in the Disney version), The Great Prince of the Forest was called as "The King of the Forest" and some scenes from the Disney version were never shown in the book like the fire scene. I wonder if there are some knock-offs of Dumbo, The Rescuers or Fox and the Hound? I have never seen any knock-offs of those Disney movies yet.
Thomps2525
Mad magazine cartoonist Wallace Wood created a poster featuring several Disney characters. It was published in a 1967 issue of The Realist. Publisher Paul Krassner is now selling copies of the poster with new digital coloring done by a former Disney employee. In the United States, satires and parodies are usually protected and can not be deemed to be in violation of copyright law. In this case, however, I am really surprised that Disney was unable to halt production of the poster. It was obscene---so obscene that I am not going to post the link to it.
Nectaria
Quote from user: Thomps2525Mad magazine cartoonist Wallace Wood created a poster featuring several Disney characters. It was published in a 1967 issue of The Realist. Publisher Paul Krassner is now selling copies of the poster with new digital coloring done by a former Disney employee. In the United States, satires and parodies are usually protected and can not be deemed to be in violation of copyright law. In this case, however, I am really surprised that Disney was unable to halt production of the poster. It was obscene---so obscene that I am not going to post the link to it.
Well, I have seen some of the "Disney" parodies of the Mad magazine before but most of these parodies are strange. Do you know which Disney characters were featured on this poster? If yes then please tell me about all of the Disney characters that were featured on the poster.
MustangRockstar
Nectaria - just do a Google search for Wally Wood and Disney poster, it's very easy to find.
It's kind of the precursor to the more exploitative interpretations we see of cartoon characters today.
Nectaria
Quote from user: MustangRockstarNectaria - just do a Google search for Wally Wood and Disney poster, it's very easy to find.

It's kind of the precursor to the more exploitative interpretations we see of cartoon characters today.

OK, I searched for this poster and I noticed that I have seen it before. I didn't read all Thomps' message correctly and that why I was a little confused. Of course this poster featured some things that were inappropriate for "real" Disney like showing some characters being naked. There are some other "unofficial Disney" parody comics that were created by people who worked on the Underground comics like Air Pirates for example and those comics also featured some inappropriate things.
MustangRockstar
Not going to lie, those things have never been my cup of tea.
I'm not particularly offended by them, I just don't find it entertaining or particularly redeeming.
Nectaria
Quote from user: MustangRockstarNot going to lie, those things have never been my cup of tea.

I'm not particularly offended by them, I just don't find it entertaining or particularly redeeming.

Did you mean't that you're not a fan of those unofficial "Disney" parodies that featured inappropriate things that "real" Disney will never allow to use on their cartoons or comics? Well, I'm not a fan of those parodies/knock-offs either because I prefer the real Disney ones over the knock-off ones.
Thomps2525
In 1955, when Mad was still a ten-cent comic book, Will Elder drew a Disney parody titled "Mickey Rodent." Donald was known as "Darnold Duck." The artwork was signed by "Walt Dizzy." It can be seen at:
http://johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com/2009/01/mickey-rodent-mad-19.html
Being a parody, the Mad story did not violate any Disney-owned copyrights. But is that obscene poster considered to be a "parody"? If so, I think the definition of "parody" needs to be made more restrictive.
MustangRockstar
Quote from user: NectariaQuote from user: MustangRockstarNot going to lie, those things have never been my cup of tea.

I'm not particularly offended by them, I just don't find it entertaining or particularly redeeming.

Did you mean't that you're not a fan of those unofficial "Disney" parodies that featured inappropriate things that "real" Disney will never allow to use on their cartoons or comics? Well, I'm not a fan of those parodies/knock-offs either because I prefer the real Disney ones over the knock-off ones.

I like a good parody, but the entire point is to make something humorous.

The problem that I have with a lot of the crude humor, and Wally Wood's poster, is that I don't really find it all that funny. It's provocative, which tends to generate a certain "nervous" laugh. But I don't find anything particularly humorous about it.

I find that a lot, but not all of the knockoffs, just aren't very good. If you took the Disney aspect out, I find most of it wouldn't even be noticed or worth noticing.
Pages: 1