Granted, he was the one that eventually became Disney's iconic character, but why blame him for that? It was, after all, Charles Mintz's fault with his gratuitous Executive Meddling that ultimately forced Disney to abandon Universal and give up the character.
Perhaps Oswald doesn't know that it was because of Mintz. He may think that his father just gave up on him and instead went with the mouse. Or he might know that it was because of Mintz and that Walt didn't stick up for him. Either way, he would be taking out his rage on his little brother.
Because, at this point, Mickey's the one who created the Phantom Blot out of playfulness and ended up destroying the world for forgotten toons.
But it was specifically stated before that mess happened, Oswald was still angry and jealous of his brother's fame.
Jealous, yes, but not angry BEFORE the Blot was unleashed. Best way for the comics to come out.
Ozzie didn't know that Mickey caused the disaster; it was after The Reveal that the bigger monster, NOT the smaller one that abducted Mickey, was trapped in the giant bottle on Mickeyjunk Mountain. After Mickey confesses, well, he gets angrier (and releases the aforementioned bigger Blot by accident.)
Because Toons think Watsonian, and therefore have no concept of rights being bought or characters being sold.
Disney ones do, anyway. Toons from other companies tend to make fourth wall-breaking jokes all the time as per Rule of Funny.
Jealousy and resentment are seldom rational; it's the same with Ozzie's case.
The Original Phantom Blot wasn't lame.
Warren Spector calling the Phantom Blot lame to justify using his name for a generic blob monster.
Because the Phantom Blot was lame. Really, his whole guise was akin to a lame Scooby Doo villain where all he did was put on a black sheet, and steal one type of camera. You find out at the end it was because he was actually smuggling weapons information, but even still, not that threatening. And then in later uses from House of Mouse, his main objectives were stealing everyone's color and money. He was an interesting thief, but definitely not Epic Mickey malicious or threatening. The Eldritch Abomination from paint aspect is a much more interesting interpretation of the character.
That was just the first story he appeared in, though. Most later stories with him as the villain tended to scrap the aspect of the character that he was unwilling to kill Mickey hands on, made him wear the black cloak all the time instead of just as a disguise, and escalated his ambitions into outright World Domination. I always thought he was a cool villain, especially since Mickey was more typically pitted against incompetent thugs like Pete. I'm not necessary against the "ink monster" reimagining, though. I just don't like that the Blot we've seen so far seems to be little more than a mindless monster rather than the Diabolical Mastermind he should be.
Okay, so maybe it was a pretty weak excuse to justify The Blot by calling the original Phantom Blot "lame". What he should have said was "not quite applicable to the game".
The rename to "Shadow Blot" probably was done to shake the In Name Only stuff.
Because it is racist culturally outdated. Even Wasteland has standards.
By today's standards, probably, but I'm sure when they were first making it, they didn't intend to be racist. The film certainly does fall under Wasteland's standards of "rejected and unloved". Would be a shame to see it go to waste.
Just because they didn't 'intend' for it to be racist doesn't mean it isn't. You do know that a shocking amount of racism was done with 'good' intentions, right?
Also, wouldn't culturally outdated things be EXACTLY the sort of stuff the Wasteland keeps? It's about forgotten, abandoned things.
Because there are some things that should be abandoned, like the racism that Disney perpetuated through its old works. The Wasteland is about things that Disney eventually moved on from, not outright took down because they're just unacceptable.
You're ignoring the fact that Song of the South isn't actually racist- it's just perceived that way. All of the ideas that it is racist are misconceptions. It's not actually any more racist than all of the other classic Disney films-no, the characters are not slaves, no, racism does not appear in the story, yes, you can play clips from it out of context to make them sound racist, no, they are not racist in context.
You seem to be forgetting that even though Warren Spector is making this game, Disney still controls all final creative decisions on what can and can not be allowed. They still refuse to allow this video to go on Blu Ray or DVD, so I don't see why they would feel the need to make an exception for this game. Plus, the Unfortunate Implications of the film are simply too high for it to work in Epic Mickey (Remember that the characters were meant to represent a cultural bias of slaves against slave owners. Even if they made Br'er Rabbit a helper of sorts, I don't see how they could possibly include Br'er Fox or Br'er Bear in it while still maintaining their original personalities and not seeming culturally racist).
Simple, show Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear as mindless parts of the mutated things-pieced-together bots.
Because Splash Mountain and the infamy of the film will ensure that the Brer animals will never be forgotten.
Uh... I remember reading some old disney comics with Song of the South characters. Didn't sound racist at all back then, especially because they used the fox and bear and rabbit, you know, the animals, the non-racist part of the film. They could use the characters again in this game, but remove the traces of racism from them. I mean, Whitewash was re-introduced in a non-racist way, why can't Disney do the same?
Okay, I know the game's not out yet, but from the cinematics that have been released, it seems that Oswald is, instead of hating Mickey to death, actually afraid of Mickey. What gives?
I dunno, he DID destroy an entire world.
Well, Mickey was holding a paintbrush, which can shoot thinner. Oswald was probably afraid Mickey would erase him on the spot, just like the thinner did when an entire bottle of it crashed, bringing the tidal wave in the "Mean Street" flashback.
Think of it this way- Oswald probably isn't that familiar with Mickey. He's been basically banished from the Wasteland (banished may not be the best word- but he's nixed from being ruler thanks to the Blot and the Mad Doctor) and probably scared and confused. He's not vengeful of Mickey because he doesn't know that Mickey created the mess, and that he stole ABSOLUTELY everything from him. He's probably going to end up vengeful once he gets more of the story (the idea that the Blot is making him a pawn- though I suspect that's the Mad Doctor's doing) and the second half of the game is redeeming him and saving Wasteland.
The Above would be true if it weren't for the fact that Oswaldwas aware of Mickey's popularity. I dunno about him knowing that Mickey Created the Phantom Blot, but still.
Oswald was only afraid of Mickey in that opening cutscene, but in a later cutscene, he makes himself known to Mickey and Gus, confronting the mouse in jealousy over his success.
It seemed less of fear as much as caution mixed with shock.
"Epic" Mickey should have been better named.
Couldn't they think of a better name then "Epic Mickey"?
Hell, it beats the working title for the game: Super Secret Warren Spector Game Project for Disney.
Well technically, it's Disney's Epic Mickey, but many just call it Epic Mickey anyway.
And it got really annoying constantly hearing it called "Disney's Epic Mickey". What, did they think people would think it was "Warner Bros' Epic Mickey" or "Dreamworks' Epic Mickey"?
Because most people wouldn't associate Mickey Mouse in the same title as "Epic". Thus to remind them that it's not some dude named Mickey, but Mickey Mouse in an exciting, awesome, dark Disney adventure. Just go with it. It'll stop hurting soon.
Besides, it's not like you're REQUIRED to say Disney first. No one's stopping you from saying just "Epic Mickey".
What exactly counts as a "Rejected Disney Character"? Because a lot of the characters that Warren mentions, like Clarabelle Cow and Horace Horsecollar, did star in later Mickey Mouse shows (especially in House of Mouse). Also why is Minnie in the Wasteland- she's certainly not rejected by any means. How come we also don't see early Mickey Mouse designs in there either (like the insane one from Plane Crazy)?
Old designs of characters fall under the "Rejected" part. There's no old Mickeys around because despite how much he's changed, his various incarnations are still too popular to fall astray.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are a few Mickeys as statues and cardboard cut-outs, as told by the trailers.
But even still, Horace Horsecollar? Clarabelle Cow? PETE and Daisy Duck? They've been reused constantly throughout Disney's history, especially in House of Mouse and Kingdom Hearts, so why are they in the wasteland? They're pretty much the least obscure characters there!
All older versions of the characters save for Daisy, who seems to be from one of the cartoon reels used for Wasteland's transportation judging from the off-colors.
It could just be the older Daisy that had the Donald voice. That is clearly forgotten if no one could think of that before me.
That still doesn't explain why clearly non rejected characters are ending up in the Wasteland. Also, if it is simply an "older version" rule, why isn't an older version of Mickey there?
Not sure if this helps, but in "Tales of the Wasteland," Oswald admits that he's not totally forgotten, it's just that the few fans he does have think of him more as a proto-Mickey Mouse.
Yeah, Horace and Clarabelle were used, but does anyone know who they are? Go walk up to some one and ask "Hey! Do you know Donald Duck and Goofy?" "Yeah." "Do you remember Horace Horsecollar and Clarabelle Cow?" "........what?" I don't think the Wasteland is for "Rejected" characters, it's for FORGOTTEN characters. And Pete? I think they just wanted to put him in because it's a Mickey game and Pete is considered Mickey's enemy. If it helps, he has his peg-leg, unlike the modern Pete.
Alright, sure, minor characters, but if that's the case, why are Hook and Smee in Wasteland? The generic pirates, sure, but those two can hardly qualify as forgotten.
Dunno if this helps, but Wikipedia says that the Wasteland Daisy is, in fact, a robot.
You have facts wrong. None of the Sensational Six Disney character are in the wasteland - Daisy, Donald, and Goofy are all robot duplicates. Minnie doesn't appear in the game at all (aside from her image on trashed merchandise) and neither does Pluto, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Horace Horsecollar and Clarabelle Cow's only appearance in DECADES in animated form was the fairly recent (and not exactly world-changing) House of Mouse as minor recurring characters. But they're not loved, they've never had their own properties, and outside of the comics most people don't remember them. Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and even Pluto have all had either their own television series, a long series of theatrical shots, or both - and Minnie and Daisy, as love interests are able to ride on their coat-tails. Hence, Clarabell and Horace just aren't remembered well these days. The only valid point is Pete - they try to justify it by saying it's because his peg leg was discarded in his design, but that's just bullshit - Pete (despite their lame justifications) doesn't belong in the Wasteland, and it's just clearly uncreative that he's there and appears in so many different forms. As for Smee and Hook - Smee is a discarded prototype design and Captain Hook is a robot built to keep Smee company, just like Daisy, Donald, and Goofy. If anything, my complaint with the game so far is that they've used generic non-existent characters as NPCs for shopowners when there are a gaggle of other forgotten Disney characters not in the game at all - such as Peter Pig, Humprhey, Ranger Woodlore, and Clara Cluck, as well as Oswald's other supporting cast members of Fanny and Homer that they could have used instead of generic reskins of Goofy, Clarabelle, and Horace.
Point of order! Humphrey is not forgotten. He is a favourite among Disney employees, and has had a starring role in a few of the more recent cartoons. Ranger Woodlore would probably be out of place without Humphrey (that, and there is no Wasteland version of Frontierland where the two would fit in). Peter Pig had concept art for the game and must've been cut at some point. And Clara Cluck should probably fall under the same logic that includes Horace and Clarabelle, but you can't win 'em all.
The Pete on main street is not Big Pete from Modern day Disney, but is Pegleg Pete that was actually an antagonist in several Oswald cartoons and early Disney cartoons (Pete is actually the only character Disney kept and is the oldest currently used character, even older than Mickey MouseandOswald the Lucky Rabbit.)
When they first meet on Main Street, Mickey even asks why Pete is in the Wasteland. Pete responds that there's lots of Petes.
Oswald's supporting cast, there is one character in the game: Ortensia. If any more of them were around, Oswald wouldn't feel so bitter and unloved. He had Ortensia, and then he lost her to the Blot, thus his characterization.
Finally, Hook is not naturally a Beetleworx. He was affected by the machine on Skull Island more than the other pirates, to the point where he was completely subsumed. He's an early, unused version. Just like Smee. And if it's okay for Smee to be an unused design, why is it so terrible for old versions of Pete to be there? They're just old personality types that have fallen out of use in favour of his current portrayal.
Should characters & elements from The Black Cauldron be in Wasteland? That hasn't just been forgotten by the public, but by Disney themselves. Is that what stopped it from being included?
People who complain that this game is "too much like Kingdom Hearts" or that that it's pretty much just a Kingdom Hearts ripoff. Flat "What.". Have you even looked at any of the trailers, gameplay, storylines, or anything about the game at all? Yes, it has Mickey Mouse, but it's Retro Mickey and Retro Disney, so how is it anything like Kingdom Hearts? Also, STOP COMPARING THE TWO GAMES TOGETHER. Besides being "Disney", they have nothing in common.
Kingdom Hearts stopped being a Disney game series years ago anyway.
Although debatable Disney aside, the two games are still completely different with their own different play styles and stories that it's annoying as hell to see it get lambasted for being a "KH Ripoff".
Frankly, this game feels more like a Darker and EdgierMickey Mania than anything else (you know, the Genesis game that was about Mickey revisiting the settings of his most famous cartoons)...
Both games are awesome and both games have Disney and a Heart-theme, yes, but they are really nothing alike, just like the Original Editor said. Kingdom Hearts is a Fantasy Action-RPG, Epic Mickey is a Jump and Run Platformer. Kingdom Hearts features a High and Mighty King-Badass Mickey Mouse, this one features Mickey as a, more or less, Badass Normal. There are similarities, yet the games aren't comparable. Strange, but true.
Okay, so in the "behind the scenes" video from E3 a few months back, we have the Phantom Blot in a cloak, much like his older incarnations, doing the failed heart-extracting. But in the official opening released, not only is the Phantom Blot in his inky form from his creation by Mickey, but it's the Mad Doctor doing the experimenting! Why the change? Why was he in a cloak?
That's not the Blot, it's the Mad Doctor. He had a dark "raincoat" in his original appearance.
It's more likely that, early on in development, the Mad Doctor was supposed to be wearing that for at least part of the game. It's likely that it was removed because that makes him look identical to the classic Phantom Blot, and they didn't want to cause confusion.
Oswald doesn't hate Mickey as much as he is envious of him. He wants Mickey's life, and everything in it. He wants all the friends, fame, AND all of his settings.
As bad as the comparison to this with Kingdom Hearts is, why are some people comparing this game to Super Mario Sunshine? There's liquid-spraying, yes, but that's paint and thinner, not water, and this isn't about clearing your name, you can go down the evil path for all I care.
Super Mario Sunshine is about washing paint away. Epic Mickey is about spraying paint (and/or thinner) all over everything. This game would only be comparable to Super Mario Sunshine if that game had a mode that let you play as Shadow Mario. Which it doesn't.
"There's liquid-spraying" < You just answered your own question. This game's paint/thinner spraying mechanic looks and works very similarly to Mario's water spraying mechanic in Sunshine. It doesn't matter if the liquid Mickey uses is said to be paint or thinner rather than water or if the story is different; in the end, both games feature liquid spraying as the main gimmick and main way of fighting enemies. And NO, you can't really play a evil path in Epic Mickey.
And for even more Cowboy Bebop at His Computer research, people are confusing the "Shadow Blot" (they renamed the Phantom Blot during development for some reason) for Oogie Boogie. Um... how many people are failing to take ten seconds of internet research for the characters, and to realize that Touchstone is NOT working on the game?
The removal of the Alice in Wonderland themed section of the Wasteland because of the Tim Burton film. Just... that.
This actually makes some sense. The area was to be based on Alice's Curious Labyrinth at Disneyland Paris, so it would be based on an unfamiliar attraction for most of the audience. And because Epic Mickey's entire conceit is twisting its setting into a Burtonesque reimagining of the original, it could very easily lead to the assumption that this area is based on the new movie that many people have seen, rather than what it actually is about.
So how DO you perform that glitch that gets you both the E-Tickets and to rescue the first Gremlin in Dark Beauty Castle?
Knock an enemy next to the tickets, grab them to keep the pressure plate down, and quickly rescue the goblin.
How did a bunch of inanimate objects end up in the Wasteland as part of Mickeyjunk Mountain? Does this mean that if I stop playing my SNES, it'll get sucked into the Wasteland too?!
Or they're copies of the game someone lost and forgot about. Somewhere in Wasteland, there's a pile of orphaned Disney related socks.
Well, as soon as you remember it, it'll reappear, so no problem!
The merchandise is there because they're objects no longer in production.
Why is Constance the Lonesome Manor's bride character? She just came in a few years ago and there are a lot of other choices for a good "Horace Horsecollar mystery" quest. Like the Hatbox Ghost.
The entire KILL THE MOUSE TAKE HIS HOUSE fad.
Where in the hell did it come from? The sentence and the idea of Oswald being all.... inky.
/co/ got the notion of Oswald being the primary villain of the game from those early plot leaks that kinda fudged the details, plus the motivation that he wishes he was Mickey Mouse created a monster.
Oh,so /co/ came up with the phrase?
What the hell was the Blot trying to do?
When the Blot gets Mickey's Heart, Gus says that the Blot will now be free to leave Wasteland and attack the Disney world. Oh, but wait a second, he went there already! Sure, technically it was just a big ol' Blotling, but that's irrelevant since NO ONE can leave the Wasteland without a Heart. And the Blotling went into the Disney world to kidnap Mickey so he could take his Heart... so he could go into the Disney world? What?
I always assumed that the Blot only managed to get Mickey into Wasteland by "projecting" a small amount of himself out. Considering he's basically an Eldritch Abomination, it's entirely possible that he could slightly influence the outside world without actually escaping into it.
Only the Blot's arm actually makes it out of the Wasteland and stretches through to Mickey's room. The Blot himself can't get out of the Wasteland all the way unless he has Mickey's heart.
Destruction of Wasteland
If Yen Sid, the incredibly powerful Sorcerer, was able to create the world of Wasteland, why couldn't he simply restore it after Mickey ruined it? He was able to stop the phantom brooms in Sorcerer's Apprentice, so why not just one living ink blot? And even if he wasn't able to fix it completely, he could have still aided Oswald in the Blot Wars by supplying him with weaponry or something.
The impression I got from the previews was that he simply didn't discover what happened — at least, not until it was far too late for him to do anything. Plus, it was interfering with Wasteland that created the Blot in the first place — more meddling from outside has the potential to make things even worse.
Even still, you'd think that because he himself created the world, merely removing one enemy from it should be a piece of cake for him. After all, he was able to stop an entire whirlpool and thousands of possessed brooms with just a wave of his hand.
The brooms were caused by his own magic (Okay, technically Mickey did it, but the wand was his.) While the Wasteland was technically his creation, it was filled with things he didn't create, Blot and giant hole included. Plus, as shown by the opening the blot can grow ginormous, so big that Yen Sid could accidentally destroy the wasteland completely, or a good chunk of it. Plus he didn't know who done it and if they had used supernatural forces when they did it. It wasn't till later he found out the truth.
It's not just the Blot, what about the Thinner? You'd think if he really cared, he'd at least fix that, or even build them a new world. Did he think the inhabitants of Wasteland did it themselves?
Different versions of characters treated as separate characters
Word of God says that although black and white versions of characters such as Horace and Clarabelle are seen in Wasteland, the modern versions of them are still in the regular Disney world. How, then, does Mickey not remember them at all? He should at least remember them from Mickey MouseWorks/House of Mouse (yeah, those are the modern versions, but he should still recognize the way they looked before or associate the name with the similar appearances). Furthermore, surely everyone noticed that the Mickey design used in this game is from the late 30's, but is supposed to be the modern Mickey. Is the 1940-present design of Mickey actually a different guy that is totally unrelated to the whole game? Plus, there is that joke in Runaway Brain where Mickey comments on a picture of him from Steamboat Willie found in his wallet by saying, "Oh, that's old." If you ask me, the whole thing makes more sense if it were possible to assume that the Word Of God is false and that cartoon characters changing their design is just how they age. I would do that, but multiple Pete incarnations appear in-game.
It could be that updates on the appearance of characters are the same character, but different versions of the character that couldn't really be considered "updates" are different (like the Petes with peg legs and the Petes without them, and of course Petetronic who is a program.)
The way I see it, is because Mickey is also subject to the weird rules, but a special case on his own. There are several incarnations of Mickey Mouse, but since they are all insanely popular, none of them have ended up in Wasteland. The Mickey that we see in Epic Mickey is from after the shorts of Clarabelle and Horace, probably from the time when Mickey, Donald and Goofy were a Power Trio, with the older Mickeys and modern ones living on different places. That's why this Mickey doesn't recognize them: He never worked with them in the first place.
It makes more sense if you just consider that Warren Spector was not aware of House of Mouse, which isn't exactly unlikely, since that's the only place Horace and Clarabell have been used in decades outside of comic books. And even then, House of Mouse wasn't popular or influential enough to re-integrate Horace and Clarabelle into Mickey's gang of friends in the public consciousness. The old Mickey design is probably used because Mickey's flanderization into a bland everyman without a personality is associated with his change in eye design from two dots to the more detailed eyes and pink skin pigment.
Oh great, now Horace is stuck in the Wasteland without his girlfriend. That's extra depressing.
Maybe Epic Mickey simply takes place beforeHouse of Mouse? That might even be one reason why the game only references Disney movies up to The Jungle Book, while House of Mouse features characters from later movies as well.
The fact that there is only one ending
I have now beaten the game twice. The first time, I pretty much just played, and the second, I tried to do the opposite of everything I did the first time. I got the same overall ending both times. There are these little segments that show what happened to some of the characters, but the same basic thing happens either way. Oswald gives Mickey his Heart back and Mickey leaves. Even though I totally broke into Ortensia's house and sold her stuff and kept the money. Both times, I did about half of the good stuff and half of the bad (though, the first time, the bad stuff was mostly me not knowing what to do or having trouble finding things) but I was the Hero the first time and Scrapper second. So why wasn't there another ending for if you have the full Thinner bar? I was extremely disappointed, especially since I heard there was another ending. And furthermore, on the "Cutscenes" section of the "Extras" menu, there's only one slot to save the ending cutscene, despite being able to change it so much. I think there should have been one slot for the part of the ending that is always the same, and one slot for each of the segments that can change.
This game is full of wasted potential, sadly - either cut due to Peter Molyneuxitis (the developer promising more than you can deliver), Executive Meddling, or the game-killing "we have to get it out by Christmas!" mentality.
(Original JBM writer) I think it was probably the last one. I wouldn't have minded waiting another whole year if it would've made the game as good as it could be. I love the game, really, but even aside from this, I think it could've been much, much better. I'm starting to see why people hate the camera so much (originally, I just thought that 3D platform games in general have camera issues) and my second time through the game, I realized how short it is.
According to my information, there are three different endings. You just ran into the same ending twice, which I believe is the neutral/mixed ending. In order to get to either the good/paint or bad/thinner ending, you have to use that fluid all the way, most notably against the bosses. The reverse of mixed is still mixed.
"According to my information" is the key phrase here. No one has yet proven that there is another ending (good/bad variants on specific scenes aside); there are only a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that people heard from other people. The few people who do claim to have firsthand knowledge either never get around to providing evidence, or ultimately end up pointing to one of the known variants on the ending. At this point, it's much more likely that the alternate endings are just rumors arising from people misreporting the situation to each other.
I've played the game and gotten the overall good ending and watched a video online for the bad ending. The only difference (minus the interchangeable bits) is that the good ending doesn't include The Stinger that reveals that Mickey still has part of the Blot within him.
How much conviction would you place on that? It's not corroborated by other accounts of the 'good' ending, and it strikes me as unlikely that the scene would be omitted exclusively in one scenario. (The almost-perfect endings definitely include it as well.) While Blot-related, the scene isn't overtly evil and comes across more as a Sequel Hook. Additionally, people appear to be prone to omit the scene from videos, recollection, or viewing, since it takes place post-credits.
This game will have to ignore its own existence if it wants to have a sequel.
Since this game seems to be pretty popular so far, its own existence would kind of empty the wasteland and give everyone their hearts back. So... unless the game is just going to ignore its own existence, that kind of makes the prospect of a sequel impossible, doesn't it? I know there's not a whole lot they can do about that, but... it bothers me.
They don't have to re-use the Wasteland as a setting if they don't wish to, or they could de-emphasize it. I'm picturing any sequels being something like a cross between the Mario & Luigi games, the Sam & Max: Freelance Police games, and a Buddy Cop Show done with Mickey and Oswald.
That would be awesome.
If there is a sequel to the game, they should ABSOLUTELY ignore it's existence. I'm a fan of meta, but it is too much for the game to exist within the world of the game.
This shouldn't even be an issue. If you want to think about it from a certain angle, the game does have a fourth wall. They're aware that they are cartoon characters, and there's the concept of fans and the like, but not that they're in a game. It's like we're playing a game that's set in a world that is exactly the same as our own, except for this game doesn't exist in that world.
Compare Bonkers, which has both animated characters who are still animated within the show's universe, and animated characters who are supposed to be "real." Or Kid Radd, featuring characters who know they're from a video game, but don't know that they're really from a webcomic.
Is this game selling well? If not, it might not be that big of an issue.
Why no Fifinella?
Disney finally got to use the gremlins, awesome, but why no Fifinella? They were made for the same failed film as the gremlins, so how come we don't see the females of the species?
Maybe disney never got the rights for it back?
Disney never had any Gremlin rights issues. The Fifinella were even part of the Dark Horse Return of the Gremlins miniseries.
Hopeful answer: They're saving the fifinella for the sequel.
Why was an Alice in Wonderland themed world dropped as to not compete with the Tim Burton Movie but Tron stuff added to the game when a new movie based off Tron came out around the time Epic Mickey was released or at least close to it's release?
I get that Warren and the team said that they dropped the Alice in Wonderland themed stuff as to not compete with the Tim Burton film but if they didn't want to compete or confuse people with a new Alice in Wonderland film coming out shouldn't they have dropped the Tron stuff with a brand new Tron movie coming out as well for the same reasons? I mean did Warren and the team think Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland would be better than what they had planned but assume the new Tron movie be not as good. Personally I think both elements should have been dropped or at least brought back the Alice in Wonderland World if Tron stuff was going to be added to the game with a new movie of it coming out.
The way I get it is that Disney's Alice is clean and kid friendly and bright and stuff, but it would have been all grungy and dark in the games, due to the nature of it(Look at the Dumbo's on the first level). Tim Burton's most known works include Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride, which wouldn't look out of place in Epic Mickey, like "normal" Alice would. The Tron level has a modern-retro vibe going on, which the new movie doesn't share.
Well I guess I understand that but another thing that bothers Me about this is what the heck Tron stuff is doing in a world for forgotten Disney stuff since if a new Tron movie coming out around the time Epic Mickey was being released that should mean that Tron isn't forgotten since a brand new movie carrying the name was coming out around the holiday season which was Epic Mickey's release date, you can't really say it's a world for forgotten Disney stuff and put something in there that Disney is making a brand new movie out of I know there are some other things that were sort of not forgotten in the game as well but with something in the game that has a new movie being made around Epic Mickey's release it doesn't seem all that forgotten due to it having a new movie of it being made.
Um, what exactly are you trying to say here? I can't decipher your run-on sentence.
Wow, that is a noteworthy run-on. I think what they're trying to say is basically "Why is there a Tron setting in the Wasteland (a place for forgotten things) when the new movie Tron: Legacy was coming out about the time Epic Mickey was released?" I'm pretty sure the answer is either A: Warren Spektor and the production team may not have been aware of the movie and the execs figured a little publicity wouldn't hurt, or B: Tron the original, despite being fairly influential as far as science-fiction movies go, was basically a cult classic; most people save for hardcore geeks and a few people who were alive in the 80s forgot about Tron until Legacy came out, and those who knew about it from Kingdom Hearts probably wouldn't have seen the original movie.
Do the toons consider the shorts they started in to be acting gigs, or their actual life?
This is where Leaning on the Fourth Wall meets Mind Screw. Whenever a character talks about old shorts they starred in, they make it very clear that they considered themselves actors, and that they are aware that their cartoons are just entertainment for the masses. So if everything that happens in those cartoons is just acting, then why do relationships and actions from them affect how the characters interact in "real life"? Mickey is immediately furious upon seeing Pete for the first time in Mean Street, but why? Everything bad they've done to each other was in a cartoon, and they are perfectly aware of that. Acting is Serious Business, apparently.
The Disney comics point towards acting in shorts as Mickey's day job while the comics are his actual adventures. And Pete's been a dick off camera and on panel for the longest time.
Not that this has anything to do with the Disney-verse (except via Who Framed Roger Rabbit), but the Looney Tunes canon seems to imply that the lines are really, really blurred for the characters involved. They're thrust into crazy situations by whoever's holding the brush, and their stardom simply depends on how they handle the situations. Animator Bob Clampett attributed Bugs Bunny's success over his foes to the fact that he was Genre Savvy enough to read the script in advance.
The Bunny Kids eat splatters. How is eating them alive any better than melting them with thinner?
It's quicker and easier for the player, and it gives Oswald one less mouth to feed. No one said it was the better option for the splatters.