How would popular culture change if Disney died before finishing "Steamboat Willey"? Would a bunch of lesser animators have competed for his crown, or would someone else have reached his position of supremacy, for example? Would animation have a lesser part in our popular culture, or would amusement parks?
No Disney
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Straha
Banned
a utopia as animation is never stigmatized as being "kid's stuff". The stuff thatappared IOTL from disney would come along at around the smae itme but be less mass marketed. Without the example of disney to point to, attempts to santize youth culture never happen. With better animation we get better comics and better TV animation. Political correctness never occours so we have a far better pop culture. More draka books,movies of the draka books,Cthulu mythos movis and lots of other goodness.
SurfNTurfStraha said:
But how did Disney prevent any of that??? Anyone could have done it at any time, but nobody ever did. I think that lack of demand limited our supply of such works, not anything attributable to Walt Disney.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Without Disney, it would probably take longer for the concept of the animated movie to develop. Snow White was a first. Another thing, which would probably be felt more, is that Disney dealt the death blow to alot of amusement parks when Disneyland opened. It completely raised the bar on what an amusement park was to be. If you are fortunate to ever visit Disney's California Adventure (I like it - it has a sorta World's Fair atmosphere about it) theres a part called Pacific Pier - or something close - it recreates the feel of a turn of the century Midway and Boardwalk of an amusement park. The carousel is decorated with the names of various amusement parks (mostly in California) which Disneyland directly contributed to closing.
The amusement parks of the 1940s and 50s were rather dirty and rundown affairs. Witness the demise of Luna Park and other places on Coney Island.
The amusement parks of the 1940s and 50s were rather dirty and rundown affairs. Witness the demise of Luna Park and other places on Coney Island.
Well, another way to go is that the Fleischer Studios, created by Max and Dave Fleischer would have become the premiere cartoon studios. Throughout the 1930s they were the studios that created Superman and Gulliver's Travels , both of which were considered great animated works for their times. As such you could have a Supermanland Amusement Park built in Metropolis, Illinois (According Joel Siegel's biography there was actually a plan for such an amusment park). Also, Warner Brothers studios would have been another premiere animation outlet, with the introduction of Tex Avery and Chuck Jones.
As for Anaheim, California and Orlando, Florida. Remember that before the introduction of Disneyland, Anaheim was th ehome of a large brothel and prostitution outlet. Apparently it was popular as a smuggling hub during the Prohibition years...
As for Anaheim, California and Orlando, Florida. Remember that before the introduction of Disneyland, Anaheim was th ehome of a large brothel and prostitution outlet. Apparently it was popular as a smuggling hub during the Prohibition years...
Well because this is a good thread I shall bring it back to life,
Well if Disney died then Anime would take over, and without Disney...... A lot of kids will be very unhappy, and Animation in America follows the Japanese Anime, meaning ....... We get violent anime that isn't considered for kids in the U. Leading to no rise of four kids and funimation:O :O
Well if Disney died then Anime would take over, and without Disney...... A lot of kids will be very unhappy, and Animation in America follows the Japanese Anime, meaning ....... We get violent anime that isn't considered for kids in the U. Leading to no rise of four kids and funimation:O :O
WestVirginiaRebel
Banned
Disney might have been taken over by Universal Studios, and Ub Iwerks would have taken up the task of creating Mickey (who was based on a 1925 drawing by Hugh Harman of mice standing around Walt.)
It's possible that in Disney's absence, Universal, Fleischer and Warner Bros. Studios form a "Big Three" in American Animation. There would be an increased diversification of offerings, catering to different age groups. The direction would more or less mirror OTL Anime, though there might be a prevalence of anti-War propaganda in the 1960s-70s. But in general, the Animation Age Ghetto (to quote TvTropes) would cease to exist.
Orville_third
Banned
It should be noted that Disney's animation (at least at the beginning) wasn't directed primarily at children, but at all audiences.
A few more butterflies:
-Davy Crockett would not be as popular as he is today...much less than back in the 1950's when Davy Crockett mania was sweeping the nation, thanks to the Disney TV show.
-Disney's animators produced special effects and title sequences for a number of films, such as Forbidden Planet.
-Without Disney, would other studios be able to master cross-promotion and become media empires?
A few more butterflies:
-Davy Crockett would not be as popular as he is today...much less than back in the 1950's when Davy Crockett mania was sweeping the nation, thanks to the Disney TV show.
-Disney's animators produced special effects and title sequences for a number of films, such as Forbidden Planet.
-Without Disney, would other studios be able to master cross-promotion and become media empires?
No Florida Project
Another major point is that much of Florida would be left alone. No Disney means not only no Disneyland, but no Disney World either. The forests, marshes, countryside ripped up in OTL would be far more left alone, a major impact for the wildlife, gators, puma, egrets, manatees. Without Disney's groundbreaking it's more doubtful that other parks such as Universal, SeaWorld, etc would be so quick to move in as well. Florida would still be a popular tourist destination but the gadrene rush would be much less, people interested in just getting away from the northern snows.
Another major point is that much of Florida would be left alone. No Disney means not only no Disneyland, but no Disney World either. The forests, marshes, countryside ripped up in OTL would be far more left alone, a major impact for the wildlife, gators, puma, egrets, manatees. Without Disney's groundbreaking it's more doubtful that other parks such as Universal, SeaWorld, etc would be so quick to move in as well. Florida would still be a popular tourist destination but the gadrene rush would be much less, people interested in just getting away from the northern snows.
Another major point is that much of Florida would be left alone. No Disney means not only no Disneyland, but no Disney World either. The forests, marshes, countryside ripped up in OTL would be far more left alone, a major impact for the wildlife, gators, puma, egrets, manatees. Without Disney's groundbreaking it's more doubtful that other parks such as Universal, SeaWorld, etc would be so quick to move in as well. Florida would still be a popular tourist destination but the gadrene rush would be much less, people interested in just getting away from the northern snows.
Dont necro old posts. 'Old' for this purpose being somewhere between six months and a year.
Mind you, at least you had something useful to say!
I think the preferred option here is to start a new thread, link to the old one, and then add your comments.
Sorry for the necro post. I'm still fairly new at this
Now you got me wondering, are there such things as zombie posts?
If someone gets hacked by a spambot, I suppose. As a term, though, no.
The shelf life of when it is ok to add to a thread and when it is a necro is dependent on two things: how long the last post was, and how much tenure a thread has. The more tenure, the longer you can have between when the last posts were. So if a thread is 20 pages long, started in 2009, kept going in 2010, 2011 and the last post was in December of 2011, I think you'd be ok to post a bump now, November 2012; if that thread were a tenured thread, but hadn't been replied to since 2006, then no, leave it be and start a new one. If a thread is like 6 posts long, hasn't been added to since 2009, then bumping now in November 2012 is a no-no. Just make a new thread in that case. This is to keep stuff from happening like when Gustavus Adolphus bumped this thread in 2010 when the thing was inactive since 2004 for Christ sake.
Timelines may also be different. The writer, if they're adding, can add whenever they feel like. A guy interested in the timeline, though, should not bump it themselves if it's been inactive for like a year or more.
