6 ms·

When I became a parent I was really surprised at how much crap Disney puts out. My previous exposure had just been their blockbuster movies which showed a close

by afavour 11mo ago

When I became a parent I was really surprised at how much crap Disney puts out. My previous exposure had just been their blockbuster movies which showed a close attention to detail. But you scratch under the surface and it's an endless pile of awful quality clothing, crappy lunchboxes, that kind of thing. To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone. And to say nothing of the shoddy quality of their TV shows. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling is shocking given Mickey is supposed to be their signature character. They just don't care. And I think it does have an impact: my kids tired of Clubhouse very quickly and have little connection to Mickey and friends. Compare that to say, Dreamworks’ Gabby’s Dollhouse which they loved. Disney is propped up by its tentpole features but their bench is incredibly weak. There are only so many Blueys you can buy to make up the difference.

roywiggins 11mo ago
Fond-ish memories of Disney's direct-to-vhs push in the 90s https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-straight-to-video-sequels-prequels-and-midquels-ranked-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-straight-to-video-seq...
scrumbledober 11mo ago
The animation quality of mickey mouse clubhouse was appalling when I first had kids. They seem to have decided to care about that, as the animation on mickey mouse clubhouse + is a marked improvement.
throw0101d 11mo ago
> And to say nothing of the shoddy quality of their TV shows. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling is shocking given Mickey is supposed to be their signature character. ≤4-year-olds do not care: there's bright colours and motion, and some semblance of story. The point is not to give some kind of lesson, but to distract/entertain (and probably release dopamine). See also Paw Patrol, Spidey Amazing Friends, PJ Masks, etc. None of these seem to have made any attempt at having a 'layer' that appeals to adults. In some ways I equate this animation style with the algorithmic social media system: meant for 'quick hits'. Contrast with (e.g.) Bluey.
- dylan604 11mo ago
  Bluey is just one show. Disney has an entire network and platform to fill with content. There's not a lot of producers making Bluey level content, yet the vacuum still needs to be filled. Bluey level content also costs more to create than the one step above AI slop to fill that void. Just like not every song on an album will be a banger, there will always be fluff/fill/padding.
  - tietjens 11mo ago
    It’s in too short supply. That level of humor, thoughtfulness, just human care put me into a show parents and kids can relate to.
  - dragontamer 11mo ago
    On a foreign language scale, Bluey and Peppa Pig are around B1- or A2+. Or in other words: a typical adult needs about one year of self study (or nearly 6 months of more focused intensive study) before they can fully understand a show like Bluey or Peppa Pig. And maybe half that for substantial understanding. (3 months intensive, 6 months typical self study to reach A2+ / watch Bluey with substantial understanding but not complete understanding). If I were to guess at Mickey Mouse clubhouse, it's damn near A1 or A0+, it's so repetive and slow that you can learn some words from it. Yeah, that's a lot more boring than the 'advanced' shows like Bluey or Peppa Pig. Also note that children are not aware of tools (ie hammers or screwdrivers) yet. So simple learning exercises to know that hammer hammers nail but not screws is the kind of thing needed at pre-school level. I'd imagine that the appropriate age for Mickey Mouse clubhouse is under 3. Bluey/Peppa Pig are closer to 6 or 7+ year old material. Or in foreign language levels: B1-ish / 2+ on the American scale. ------ Seriously. Just switch the shows to a different language and the level gap becomes blatantly clear. In perhaps more Techie terms: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse level of understanding is achievable with Duolingo. Peppa Pig / Bluey (and similar level shows) are so far beyond Duolingo that I bet most Duolingo users will NEVER be able to achieve Bluey-level understanding in a foreign language (and that deep textbook + 1000ish vocab study memorization needs to be done before Bluey can be understood). ------ Maybe the vocab estimate is easiest to understand. Bluey feels like a show that uses 1000 words with mastery (and maybe 2000 hard words as learning exercises in the show). Mickey Mouse clubhouse uses maybe 250 words with mastery and maybe uses the top1000 list as learning/teaching words. How (and why??) does Mickey Mouse clubhouse make an ENTIRE song consisting of a single word? (hotdog?) Because it's written for people where 'Hot dog' is a difficult word and needs repetition.
dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago
> To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone. That's because people consider Disney an entertainment company whereas in fact its the biggest licensing company in the world.
mkehrt 11mo ago
Apropos of nothing, I watched some Gabby's Dollhouse with some children recently, and that show is absolutely unhinged. Cats everywhere.
tehwebguy 11mo ago
> Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling Yes, this show is absolute dogshit, pure slop and yet it ended in 2016. The dialog is completely braindead, episodes barely make sense. The ancient Mickey Mouse cartoons are so good! Just a few I loved which are still very funny and I bet a few people remember: - 1940: Mr. Mouse Takes a Trip ("Tickets please!") - 1959: Donald in Mathmagic Land
MandieD 11mo ago
If I never hear the theme to "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" again, it will be too soon. We don't let our kid watch TV at home, barely watching it ourselves, and have no streaming subscriptions. My American niece, on the other hand, a mere two years my son's senior, has had a TV in her room since at least age 5 with access to Disney+, and my brother and sister-in-law let her fall asleep to it. She was a good little hostess, putting on something she thought her younger cousin would like, and she was, sadly, correct. However, while she had spent her life with constant AV stimulation, my kid couldn't sleep. I eventually had to tell her that if she wanted her cousin to sleep in her room, she had to turn off the TV at bedtime. This was very, very hard for her, and she couldn't understand why he couldn't sleep.
ben_w 11mo ago
> To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone. That explains the surprisingly mediocre Darth Vader toy I saw over the weekend, and the "the only Star Wars part of this trailer is the lightsaber"-ness on the ads for the new Star Wars game.
mbreese 11mo ago
> Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling I think it’s important to remember that you probably aren’t their target audience. Their audience expects to see simple characters with simple stories. The CG doesn’t need to be advanced, so having it fast to produce is the goal. It has to hold the interest of a toddler for 25 min without annoying the parents too much. Shiny and simple rendering is probably what they are going for. You can certainly argue about the educational qualities of the show, but I think entertaining was their primary goal for Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Also, this show hasn’t been made for years, has it? You’re looking at a show that was produced from 2006-2016. The oldest shows would be almost 20 year old CG. The newest is still nearly 10 years old. At the time it was fresh, the CG was pretty good, compared to similar kids shows. My kids were young right in this window, and we watched a lot of Disney. Disney definitely hit a CG valley though that you can see with some of their shows that switched from a 2D look to a more 3D rendering. Thankfully we aged out of those shows around 2015, so it has been a while. Disney has always been a content shop where quantity has its own quality, so I’m sure I’d have similar opinions as you if I was looking at the shows now. But at the time, it wasn’t bad. I’m not sure how the OpenAI integration will work. I can see all sorts of red flags here.
- echelon 11mo ago
  I think y'all are thinking about this wrong. Right now the deal is structured as Disney pays OpenAI. That's going to invert. Once OpenAI pays Disney $3B/yr for Elsa, Disney is going to go to Google and say, "Gee, it sure would suck if you lost all your Disney content." Google will have to pay $5B/yr for Star Wars. And then TikTok, and then Meta... door to door licensing. Nintendo, Marvel, all of the IP giants will start licensing their IPs to platforms. This has never happened before, but we're at a significant and unprecedented changing of the tides. IP holders weren't able to do this before because content creation was hard and the distribution channels were 1% creation, 99% distribution. One guy would make a fan animation and his output was a single 5 minute video once every other month. Now everyone has exposure to creation. Now that the creation/consumption funnel inverts or becomes combined, the IP holders can charge a shit ton of money to these platforms. Everyone is a creator, and IP enablement is a massive money making opportunity. In five years, Disney, Warner, and Nintendo will be making absolute bank on YouTube, TikTok, Meta platforms, Sora, etc. They'll threaten to pull IP just like sports and linear TV channels did to cable back in the day. This will look a lot like cable. Also: the RIAA is doing exactly this with Suno and Udio. They've got them in a stranglehold and are forcing them to remove models that don't feature RIAA artists. And they'll charge a premium for you to use Taylor Swift®. Anyone can make generic AI cats or bigfoot - it's pretty bland and doesn't speak to people. But everyone wants to make Storm Troopers and Elsa and Pikachu. Not only do teenagers willfully immerse themselves in IP, but they're far more likely to consume well-known IP than original content. Creators will target IP over OC. We already know this. We have decades of data at this point that mass audiences want mass media franchises. The "normies" will eat this up and add fuel to the fire. Disney revenues are $90B a year. I would not be surprised if they could pull a brand new $30B a year off of social media IP licensing alone. Same for Nintendo and the rest of the big media brands. (WBD has a lot more value than they're priced at.) This is the end game. Do you see it now?
johnnyanmac 11mo ago
It's been there for at least 40 years or so. Like, direct to DVD shows how they'll crank things down for a quick buck. So this isn't surprising in the grand scheme of things. But this past 5-10 years has indeed been quite the drastic dip. You'll have little bits of nuggets here and there because they still have some amazing artists (the '20's mickey mouse shorts are amazing). But you know we're in for a vast decline when they are starting to make even their premier content take shortcuts, play safe, and stifle creativity.
cogman10 11mo ago
Krusty the clown was a parody of Disney and the simpsons authors nailed it. [1] Disney has basically always been like this. Overpriced goods powered by the brand alone. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dsy16hhOI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dsy16hhOI
- frogpelt 11mo ago
  Fun fact: Krusty now owned by Disney.

by afavour 11mo ago

roywiggins 11mo ago

Fond-ish memories of Disney's direct-to-vhs push in the 90s https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-straight-to-video-sequels-prequels-and-midquels-ranked-2020-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-straight-to-video-seq...

scrumbledober 11mo ago

The animation quality of mickey mouse clubhouse was appalling when I first had kids. They seem to have decided to care about that, as the animation on mickey mouse clubhouse + is a marked improvement.

throw0101d 11mo ago

> And to say nothing of the shoddy quality of their TV shows. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling is shocking given Mickey is supposed to be their signature character. ≤4-year-olds do not care: there's bright colours and motion, and some semblance of story. The point is not to give some kind of lesson, but to distract/entertain (and probably release dopamine). See also Paw Patrol, Spidey Amazing Friends, PJ Masks, etc. None of these seem to have made any attempt at having a 'layer' that appeals to adults. In some ways I equate this animation style with the algorithmic social media system: meant for 'quick hits'. Contrast with (e.g.) Bluey.

dylan604 11mo ago
Bluey is just one show. Disney has an entire network and platform to fill with content. There's not a lot of producers making Bluey level content, yet the vacuum still needs to be filled. Bluey level content also costs more to create than the one step above AI slop to fill that void. Just like not every song on an album will be a banger, there will always be fluff/fill/padding.
- tietjens 11mo ago
  It’s in too short supply. That level of humor, thoughtfulness, just human care put me into a show parents and kids can relate to.
- dragontamer 11mo ago
  On a foreign language scale, Bluey and Peppa Pig are around B1- or A2+. Or in other words: a typical adult needs about one year of self study (or nearly 6 months of more focused intensive study) before they can fully understand a show like Bluey or Peppa Pig. And maybe half that for substantial understanding. (3 months intensive, 6 months typical self study to reach A2+ / watch Bluey with substantial understanding but not complete understanding). If I were to guess at Mickey Mouse clubhouse, it's damn near A1 or A0+, it's so repetive and slow that you can learn some words from it. Yeah, that's a lot more boring than the 'advanced' shows like Bluey or Peppa Pig. Also note that children are not aware of tools (ie hammers or screwdrivers) yet. So simple learning exercises to know that hammer hammers nail but not screws is the kind of thing needed at pre-school level. I'd imagine that the appropriate age for Mickey Mouse clubhouse is under 3. Bluey/Peppa Pig are closer to 6 or 7+ year old material. Or in foreign language levels: B1-ish / 2+ on the American scale. ------ Seriously. Just switch the shows to a different language and the level gap becomes blatantly clear. In perhaps more Techie terms: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse level of understanding is achievable with Duolingo. Peppa Pig / Bluey (and similar level shows) are so far beyond Duolingo that I bet most Duolingo users will NEVER be able to achieve Bluey-level understanding in a foreign language (and that deep textbook + 1000ish vocab study memorization needs to be done before Bluey can be understood). ------ Maybe the vocab estimate is easiest to understand. Bluey feels like a show that uses 1000 words with mastery (and maybe 2000 hard words as learning exercises in the show). Mickey Mouse clubhouse uses maybe 250 words with mastery and maybe uses the top1000 list as learning/teaching words. How (and why??) does Mickey Mouse clubhouse make an ENTIRE song consisting of a single word? (hotdog?) Because it's written for people where 'Hot dog' is a difficult word and needs repetition.

dvfjsdhgfv 11mo ago

> To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone. That's because people consider Disney an entertainment company whereas in fact its the biggest licensing company in the world.

mkehrt 11mo ago

Apropos of nothing, I watched some Gabby's Dollhouse with some children recently, and that show is absolutely unhinged. Cats everywhere.

tehwebguy 11mo ago

> Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling Yes, this show is absolute dogshit, pure slop and yet it ended in 2016. The dialog is completely braindead, episodes barely make sense. The ancient Mickey Mouse cartoons are so good! Just a few I loved which are still very funny and I bet a few people remember: - 1940: Mr. Mouse Takes a Trip ("Tickets please!") - 1959: Donald in Mathmagic Land

MandieD 11mo ago

If I never hear the theme to "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" again, it will be too soon. We don't let our kid watch TV at home, barely watching it ourselves, and have no streaming subscriptions. My American niece, on the other hand, a mere two years my son's senior, has had a TV in her room since at least age 5 with access to Disney+, and my brother and sister-in-law let her fall asleep to it. She was a good little hostess, putting on something she thought her younger cousin would like, and she was, sadly, correct. However, while she had spent her life with constant AV stimulation, my kid couldn't sleep. I eventually had to tell her that if she wanted her cousin to sleep in her room, she had to turn off the TV at bedtime. This was very, very hard for her, and she couldn't understand why he couldn't sleep.

ben_w 11mo ago

> To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone. That explains the surprisingly mediocre Darth Vader toy I saw over the weekend, and the "the only Star Wars part of this trailer is the lightsaber"-ness on the ads for the new Star Wars game.

mbreese 11mo ago

> Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling I think it’s important to remember that you probably aren’t their target audience. Their audience expects to see simple characters with simple stories. The CG doesn’t need to be advanced, so having it fast to produce is the goal. It has to hold the interest of a toddler for 25 min without annoying the parents too much. Shiny and simple rendering is probably what they are going for. You can certainly argue about the educational qualities of the show, but I think entertaining was their primary goal for Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. Also, this show hasn’t been made for years, has it? You’re looking at a show that was produced from 2006-2016. The oldest shows would be almost 20 year old CG. The newest is still nearly 10 years old. At the time it was fresh, the CG was pretty good, compared to similar kids shows. My kids were young right in this window, and we watched a lot of Disney. Disney definitely hit a CG valley though that you can see with some of their shows that switched from a 2D look to a more 3D rendering. Thankfully we aged out of those shows around 2015, so it has been a while. Disney has always been a content shop where quantity has its own quality, so I’m sure I’d have similar opinions as you if I was looking at the shows now. But at the time, it wasn’t bad. I’m not sure how the OpenAI integration will work. I can see all sorts of red flags here.

echelon 11mo ago
I think y'all are thinking about this wrong. Right now the deal is structured as Disney pays OpenAI. That's going to invert. Once OpenAI pays Disney $3B/yr for Elsa, Disney is going to go to Google and say, "Gee, it sure would suck if you lost all your Disney content." Google will have to pay $5B/yr for Star Wars. And then TikTok, and then Meta... door to door licensing. Nintendo, Marvel, all of the IP giants will start licensing their IPs to platforms. This has never happened before, but we're at a significant and unprecedented changing of the tides. IP holders weren't able to do this before because content creation was hard and the distribution channels were 1% creation, 99% distribution. One guy would make a fan animation and his output was a single 5 minute video once every other month. Now everyone has exposure to creation. Now that the creation/consumption funnel inverts or becomes combined, the IP holders can charge a shit ton of money to these platforms. Everyone is a creator, and IP enablement is a massive money making opportunity. In five years, Disney, Warner, and Nintendo will be making absolute bank on YouTube, TikTok, Meta platforms, Sora, etc. They'll threaten to pull IP just like sports and linear TV channels did to cable back in the day. This will look a lot like cable. Also: the RIAA is doing exactly this with Suno and Udio. They've got them in a stranglehold and are forcing them to remove models that don't feature RIAA artists. And they'll charge a premium for you to use Taylor Swift®. Anyone can make generic AI cats or bigfoot - it's pretty bland and doesn't speak to people. But everyone wants to make Storm Troopers and Elsa and Pikachu. Not only do teenagers willfully immerse themselves in IP, but they're far more likely to consume well-known IP than original content. Creators will target IP over OC. We already know this. We have decades of data at this point that mass audiences want mass media franchises. The "normies" will eat this up and add fuel to the fire. Disney revenues are $90B a year. I would not be surprised if they could pull a brand new $30B a year off of social media IP licensing alone. Same for Nintendo and the rest of the big media brands. (WBD has a lot more value than they're priced at.) This is the end game. Do you see it now?

johnnyanmac 11mo ago

It's been there for at least 40 years or so. Like, direct to DVD shows how they'll crank things down for a quick buck. So this isn't surprising in the grand scheme of things. But this past 5-10 years has indeed been quite the drastic dip. You'll have little bits of nuggets here and there because they still have some amazing artists (the '20's mickey mouse shorts are amazing). But you know we're in for a vast decline when they are starting to make even their premier content take shortcuts, play safe, and stifle creativity.

cogman10 11mo ago

Krusty the clown was a parody of Disney and the simpsons authors nailed it. [1] Disney has basically always been like this. Overpriced goods powered by the brand alone. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dsy16hhOI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Dsy16hhOI

frogpelt 11mo ago
Fun fact: Krusty now owned by Disney.