Talk:Oswald the Lucky Rabbit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notice of link removal

I just edited out a bunch of links to some of Oswald's films, cause they led to places other than the film themselves. If anyone want's to remake/create the pages, feel free for the links. Fruckert (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing the template for Mammal's. I'm assuming that's vandalism. Fruckert (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for merge

...oops, don't know how to do the template thing :[ .

Can someone help a newbie out?

Merge proposal is for Oswald the lucky Rabbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruckert (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Who added this...

Who was the one that added that "The Ol' Swimmin' Hole" was the first cartoon to have sychonized sound? From what I read, all of the Walt Disney shorts were silent. 96.250.154.239 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Took the filmography and puted it on seprate page linked from the main article abut the characther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHver (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing uncited sentence

There is an uncited sentence on this page added about two years ago. The sentence says "Oswald was replaced by Mickey Mouse in the Spring of 1928." The sentence makes it sound like Oswald's series ended altogether. Also, Steamboat Willie was released in November 1928, even though the first Mickey short, Plane Crazy, was made in May 1928 (I think). Also, the sentence is out of place and doesn't fit. So I'm removing the sentence. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 01:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Public domain

"Some earlier Oswald shorts (as well as the character) are in the public domain[...]" I think the mention of the character being PD should belong in another section of the article, with a citation. The DVD section is primarily on DVDs, not the character himself. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be safe I removed the thing saying Oswald is PD, even though it had a cite. That may not be true. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oswald's Voice in Epic Mickey

It says that Oswald would be voiced by Frank Welker in Epic Mickey, and yet I also read that Rob Paulsen would be voicing him. So, do we have any sources about the voice in that game? - Smashman202 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

older half-brother of Mickey Mouse

Does this mean that Oswald is half mouse?173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Great source for a new section on giving Oswald a voice

Here's a great source from Polygon that we can use to add a section about giving Oswald a voice. There's plenty of other content that can be cited from this source as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this the main picture?

I don't understand, Oswald is a character from the 20's, yet the main picture of the article is his most recent appearance in a video game? I don't really understand what's the criteria for these pictures (for example, Felix the Cat shows his most recent design, but Popeye shows a comic from the 50's, Naruto Uzumaki (a more modern character), shows his first design, even though he's been in many games already and a second part of the series. Even Felix, which shows a more recent design, shows a cartoon design (because, you know, he's a cartoon character). If Oswald had to show a new design, why show a video game design if Oswald had nothing to do with video games until Epic Mickey? Cancerbero 8 (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oswald hasn't had anything to do with cartoons since 1943 either. Popeye has been in new material consistently since his creation, Felix only slightly less so. Both of those characters have starred in feature films. Oswald has been nothing but a footnote for half a century, until he was the star of this game. The vast majority of readers who know of him now will know of him from this game. I don't know that there are strict guidelines for this sort of thing, but it's generally either the character's most recent appearance or the appearance that would be most recognizable, whichever is most appropriate for the article. In this case, they are both the same. The video game was a major release, selling 1.3 million units in North America for a retail total of $64.2 million in December 2010 alone, and it was only released on one platform (the Wii). Compare that to Tomb Raider: Underworld starring Lara Croft, released on 6 major consoles (and a few others), which sold 1.5 million in both November and December 2008. Oswald and Mickey sold a game 2x better than Lara Croft. Before this, games starring Mickey Mouse alone had been mediocre since the mid-90s, with games like Disney's Hide and Sneak and Disney's Magical Mirror Starring Mickey Mouse tanking. As far as Disney is concerned right now, Oswald's a video game character. If he gets another major release, like a movie or TV series, we could replace the image, but right now this is the character. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Further, if you take a look at Epic Mickey#Development, it mentions that Epic Mickey is one of the reasons (if not the reason) that Iger wanted to buy back Oswald when he became CEO. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but according to that logic, R.O.B. should have its Super Smash Bros. Brawl model as an image, since he had only been used in two games from the mid 80's until his appearance in the aforementioned wii title which sold more than 10 million copies. I just don't agree with the fact that a 1940's cartoon should be represented by a 3D render of a video game he was recently on. The reason? Oswald is a cartoon character, and that's the reason he starred on the game on the first place. Mickey Mouse has also starred on more video games than cartoons recently, yet the article shows his iconic image. I doubt a game that came out two years ago is enough to set an iconic image for a character that, as you mentioned, had existed for half a century, no matter how much money it made (think about the iconic image of Optimus Prime. I doubt it's the Michael Bay version, even though it made way more money than the original Optimus ever did). Cancerbero 8 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

R.O.B. was in the game for nostalgia (he was sold with every original NES, so parents and retailers would think it was a toy and not a dreaded video game system). He wasn't Smash Brothers' main character, and Smash Brothers wasn't designed around him, he was fan service. Oswald's original fans aren't the target market for Epic Mickey (as most 1927-1943 movie goers are no longer alive), so nostalgia has nothing to do with it. And as you say, Mickey's image is iconic. He has been in movies and television series consistently since his creation, as well as being merchandized mercilessly. That evolved image (with deliberate caucasian skin tone) is the most relevant, not the Steamboat Willie black-and-white minstrel show version. If you go to http://disney.com/ you can see which image they think is the most relevant. This can also be seen in their merchandising, such as the sculpture image shown on the page. All Oswald merchandizing resembles the character design from this game more than any depiction in the original cartoons or comics. This is not a still from a game, but rather official Disney character art. If official line-drawing character art of his recent design becomes available I would not oppose that being used over a CG render, but I still think this design is the most relevant to the most living people. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I already know why R.O.B. was created, no need to give me a lecture on video game history, I already had Game History classes at University. I don't think this design is the most relevant to living people (I wasn't alive in the 20's to see Oswald's cartoons, but I knew about him waaaay before Epic Mickey came out. This design isn't relevant to my grandparents or my parents either, maybe it's just relevant to those who bought Epic Mickey). But let it be so... Cancerbero 8 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To whoever posted the image and whoever is defending it, have some respect for the original character design as conceived and drawn by Ub Iwerks and Walt Disney himself. Think about perspective and think about hisoricity. There shouldn't be disagreement about this, and it amazes me that there has been. In five years, who will remember or give a hoot about the videogame? The image that is being displayed here will be off the radar, out of sight, out of mind and irrelevant within a couple of years. Obviously the enduring, timeless image of Oswald is the Ub/Walt drawn vintage-Universal/Disney version. (I'll lay odds that the person who posted this image was from, or closely linked to, the Disney/Disney Interactive merchandising and marketing depts.) Remove this image please. Replace it with the original character. Please stop trying to rewrite history. Oswald represents the product of Iwerks' and Disney's creative imagination and ingenuity in the medium's earliest years. Let it say and teach that. Please stop trying to defend marketing on Wikipedia. If you absolutely feel it that is important to show a recent version of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, place the image in the body of the text, farther down, in the "Return to Disney ownership" section. 50.54.228.178 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please, give me a break. Nobody is rewriting history. The Epic Mickey Oswald is the incarnation of the character that he's known the most for these days, so it's only natural to use its design. Anybody who thinks otherwise is biased, I'm sorry to tell you. And I can tell you that yes, that will still be the most well-known Oswald version in five years. Add to that the fact that it's the only Oswald design to have been used in the latest years (even outside of the video game). And this will come across as a surprise to you, but Oswald was a forgotten character that only Disney enthusiasts knew about until the game came out, and the game will be the only reason he will be remembered in the following years. And there's nothing timeless or enduring about Oswald's original design, seeing how a) it has changed so much over the years, and b) the character was forgotten until the game brought him back. - 200.43.250.1 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Transfer from Disney to Mintz

The section in which Oswald is taken over by Mintz does not jive with the explanation given in the PBS American Experience film.[1] Most of the section is uncited. Would any of the experts here mind cleaning up that section to fit the information in the American Experience film? Taram (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)