Killing someone who lived iOTL is always a bit of a careful thing to consider. I mean, it's one thing to save someone, but another to play Grim Reaper. So I have actually been kicking around ideas, but it's a weird and morbid thing to consider unless an obvious potential butterfly occurs (e.g. someone who uses a lot of drugs but has somehow never OD'ed).Yes, but I meant more in a sense of someone dying by random happenstance like a car crash or food poisoning.
So far those who died iTTL who didn't iOTL include:
- MJ: embolism following elective surgery exacerbated by unlisted drugs
- Corey Haim (OD) and Corey Feldman (apparent accident)
- John Kricfalusi (suicide)
USR president remains Gorby.Who's the alternate Russian President here, and a 1989 final girl? Mind explaining?
Final Girl was Joss Whedon's 1989 deconstructive "Smart Slasher" starring Rhonda the Immortal Waitress, an idea that evolved into Buffy iOTL. Read about it in the "Death of the Slasher" entry on Slasher films.
Indeed, for all we know 9/11 could might well be averted if Gore's presidency somehow manages to wrangle the different intelligence agencies to communicate with each other. But it's these butterflies that make this timeline so interesting.
Probably the big thing that could change everything is if Disney does not lobby for a longer copyright law. Depends on how Jim felt about things lapsing into the public domain though...
I've seriously been looking into things. They're amazingly convoluted. On one hand, the proximate causes are changed, but on the other hand the ultimate causes (i.e. US policy on Israel and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979) have not. Bin Laden was the Poster Child for a larger network, so assuming that he decides to go into the family business instead, or catches an RPG round in 1988, you still have folks like Mullah Omar and such more than happy to carry out the fight. And Omar was arguably even crazier and more aggressive than Bin Laden.There's also the very significant probability it won't happen at all. The differences in international relations could mean that Bin La-dee-dah choses a different target, tactic, country... or doesn't attack at all. Gore has 4-8 years to change how the US deal with western Asia which might entirely change how Bin Ladarussiancar chooses to poke the American bear. I don't know enough about the proximate causes of why they planned the hijackings the way they did to come down one way or the other, but I would never consider it a 'fixed event' in a timeline, even one that has (ostensibly) nothing to do with international relations, aversion of Flight 123 crash being a notable butterfly already.
As of right now in the timeline, Afghanistan is falling into civil war as the Taliban, a name meaning "students" and made up of radicalized child refugees who fled Afghanistan for Pakistan in '79 and literally grew up indoctrinated by ultraconservative mullahs, invades with support from Pakistani Intelligence, who naively believe them to be a stabilizing force.
Many of the elements that led to it are already in place, and as per iOTL there have already been ongoing plans for taking terrorism to the US both in the middle east and domestically.
As for why the World Trade Center: 1) it's an actual strategic target (financial), 2) it's an iconic part of the NYC skyline, so the symbolic value is huge, and 3) the potential body count is huge.
So, yea, still really trying to figure out what to do here. 9/11 itself is not a "fixed point", but something is going to be attempted at some point. I'm just trying to figure out what and when.
Yeesh this is a morbid post! Talk about playing Grim Reaper.
Yep, as others mentioned Winnie the Pooh the original story and characters, are now Public Domain, but the Disney Trademarks, specifically the look of Pooh and Piglet et al from the Disney interpretation of Winnie the Pooh, remain under Trademark. So your story about Pooh and Piglet teaming up with Dorothy and battling the Wicked Witch of the West can go ahead and get published as planned, just as long as Pooh and Piglet don't overtly resemble their Disney versions and Dorothy's slippers are any color but "ruby".Copyright aside, I'm pretty sure Disney have trademarked most or all of their characters. Trademarks, as I (admittedly limitedly) understand, can be renewed in a way copyrights theoretically can't, and they would have to be nuts to let their trademarks lapse. The endless extensions of copyright are just another line of defense.
Round about 1986 Turner (per OTL) bought up MGM and UA and everything with them from Tracinda, but after swallowing CBS iTTL that was too big of a gulp. Turner sold a lot of it off (and sold UA back to Tracinda) and Disney grabbed the MGM brand and park rights while Turner, Disney, and Dodi Fayed split the pre-1986 MGM film rights three ways. It's posted I believe in the News section for 1986.
Is it too late to suggest bringing this sort of writing back for Shrek! merchandise?
No formal post, but I can totally see that twisted Henson humor making its way into ads for Shrek and others. You can consider that Canon.Eh, it might be too late to put this kind of stuff in an official post, but I won't be surprised if it's actually part of Shrek's marketing scheme. I mean, Jim is literally the head creative officer at Disney.