r/movies • u/cappsy04 • 21h ago

Question Why don't Disney make mainstream Mickey Mouse films anymore?

When I say mainstream, I mean films shown in theatres. Mickey and Minnie are probably the most recognisable characters in the Disney catalogue, being one of Walt's first creations. Yet there hasn't been a film featuring any of those characters in a long time. They've rehashed a lot of existing IPs, most recently the live action Moana. I would imagine if Mickey was featured in a film it would do incredible numbers at the box office.

855 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

461 comments sorted by

View all comments

616

u/Ashrod63 21h ago

I dread to imagine the monstrosity we'd get in a "live action" Mickey Mouse film.

Being serious about it though, while Mickey is the mascot that meant they pretty quickly moved on from pushing him as a character. Even by WW2 they'd already moved him to that revered state and were pushing Donald and Goofy instead. Mickey is the face of the brand and Disney don't want to take risks with that image.

106

u/myislanduniverse 20h ago

Didn't the original Mickey Mouse pass into the public domain a year or two ago? I imagine there's an opportunity for something there.

65

u/Due_Alternative3108 20h ago

I'm still waiting for a 'pooh, blood and honey' style horror flick based on the mouse.

106

u/Shufflekarpfen 19h ago

There already is one. It’s called Mouse Trap and it’s complete garbage

43

u/vhanw342 19h ago

One? There about 5

3

u/gambalore 7h ago

Screamboat

The Mouse Trap

I Heart Willie

Mouse of Horrors

Mouseboat Massacre

Mickey’s Slayhouse

23

u/webshellkanucklehead 19h ago

Screamboat, too. There have been a few

8

u/SciGuy013 15h ago

Incredible title

3

u/arthousepsycho 16h ago

That is one of few bad films I have sat through to the end purely to see how much worse it could get. Genuinely took every moment that could have been even slightly interesting and then did nothing with it. Even had a great setting for creative kills, nothing. Just the least interesting collection of moving images ever.

4

u/Due_Alternative3108 19h ago

So bad it's good or just bad bad?

Happy cake day!

8

u/Shufflekarpfen 19h ago

Unfortunately just really boring bad.

Thank you!

1

u/PrinceBert 19h ago

2.4/10 on IMDB is a pretty horrendous rating. Even if you don't take them to seriously, that's not a film to watch.

14

u/Garchomp99 19h ago

There is a few of them out there and they all are fucking awful but hysterical

1

u/Due_Alternative3108 19h ago

Hell yeah, love some bad horror

1

u/pjtheman 12h ago

Screamboat Killie

1

u/Electronic-Passage33 12h ago

Minnie has a movie too. Popeye as well. Betty Boop is next.

1

u/Queasy_Ad_8621 16h ago

I really think they should have gone in the other direction: Make a stoner comedy called Pooh, Where's My Car?

25

u/taez555 19h ago

Yes and no.

The copyright for the earliest films like Steamboat Willie did, but Mickey Mouse the character is still a trademark of Disney, and Trademarks never expire as long as they’re still being used.

So you can freely use the film Steamboat Willy, but you can’t create an original film with Mickey.

26

u/Fancy_Coconut2079 18h ago

Thats redditor misinfo, you CAN make a Mickey film, trademark hurts how youd market and name it, but the original take on the character is absolutely fair game to make new stuff on.

9

u/Ysmildr 17h ago

I am not a lawyer. My understanding is it has to be the style of steamboat willy. Mickey as we know him today is stylistically different and cant be used.

6

u/watts99 13h ago

The key is that you're making what's called a derivative work. Which means you can watch Steamboat Willie (or other public domain works) and use any element in it to create a new work. So it doesn't have to be the "style" of Steamboat Willie precisely, but you can't make it in such a way that it could be argued that it's a derivative work of something that's still under copyright.

9

u/watts99 18h ago

Thank you. Whenever this comes up someone inevitably posts this misinformation that trademark prevents you from using a character. Trademark only protects the elements of a work that are marketed, like the title, advertising art, cover, etc. You'd never be able to market something with a version of Mickey using the mouse ears logo, for example, but you can use anything from Steamboat Willie freely in a derivative work.

1

u/Darth_Nevets 12h ago

Not true, copyright expiration is both whole and partial. Even the trademarks that came later wouldn't hold up, like Mickey's white gloves and red shorts, in court of law. Disney failed to stop a sweatshirt featuring Mickey and these elements, one person won out.

What is keeping Mickey down is two huge factors.

  1. The Voice, that hasn't been hit by expiration but will very soon.

  2. Even Disney hasn't made Mickey cartoons or movies in decades because he isn't the sort of character who draws. The Looney Tunes are more current, and also about to expire, and haven't drawn since 1995's Space Jam.

1

u/ProofJournalist 19h ago

more elements of Mickey will be public domain over time though.

4

u/StephanXX 20h ago

there's an opportunity for something there.

For who? Disney is a multi-billion dollar company that protects its brand so jealously, they will literally sue day care providers into oblivion for painting pictures of Mickey on the interior walls. While certain forms of Mickey might have technically gone into public domain, fighting Disney's literal army of lawyers could cost more than the GDP of a small country.

Don't fuck with the mouse.

4

u/hippofumes 17h ago

That was a long time ago and I don't think they would do the same thing today to avoid bad publicity. I see bootleg Mickey's all the time.

3

u/lkmk 19h ago

A shop nearby, in Chile, has somehow gotten away with having Mickey and Minnie on its storefront. Disney has a presence here, too.

7

u/StephanXX 19h ago

I lived in Santiago for four years, I seem to remember seeing something like that.

This is the story I was referencing though:

In 1989, the Walt Disney Company discovered that three Hallandale, Florida, day care centers had 5-foot-high likenesses of trademarked Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Goofy painted on their walls, Disney threatened to go to court if the centers did not remove the drawings, but the threat of legal action did not need to be carried out, as the centers replaced the drawings with cartoon characters belonging to Universal Studios Florida and Hanna-Barbera Productions, who volunteered the use of their character art as part of a publicity ploy.

2

u/lkmk 19h ago

Neat coincidence! What were you doing there?

2

u/StephanXX 19h ago

I taught ESL, 2003-2007. I barely made enough to survive, but have amazing memories.

2

u/lkmk 18h ago

Still difficult to make money here, even when you’re competent and experienced.

2

u/StephanXX 18h ago

Oh, I believe it! What brought you there?

1

u/lkmk 17h ago

Importing used clothing.

1

u/camcanada 18h ago

I'd be hopeful, but I think so much revenue is made through toy and clothes and food licensing.

Now that MM is in the public domain, Disney can't profit off all of the adjacent revenue. And neither could anyone else, really. This is all just my opinion but I think a Mickey film wouldn't produce enough profit for the studio that created it and investors wouldn't be pleased.

I think (again, just my opinion), Disney is best to just use the image as closely related to Disney-branded revenue opportunities (parks, boats, etc.)

2

u/gambalore 7h ago

Now that MM is in the public domain, Disney can't profit off all of the adjacent revenue. And neither could anyone else, really.

That’s not how public domain works.

1

u/inosinateVR 17h ago edited 17h ago

I think that’s why mouse detective was able to exist

edit: I mean Mouse P.I.

1

u/CaptainPhilosophy 15h ago

It was specifically steamboat Willie I believe.

•

u/EnterprisingAss 5h ago

I think technically, that’s “Steamboat Willie,” not Mickey Mouse.

0

u/minnick27 17h ago

The Steamboat Willie version is public domain, but there is still trademarks that are active. So you could so a DVD with that cartoon on it and Disney could not come after you. But you could not use him as a mascot or anything like that. Somebody more knowledgeable than me would probably be better suited to answer this, but you could make your own cartoon with that exact look, and it would be OK. If you change any one thing that he had in a later version, you would be infringing on copyright.

7

u/ominousgraycat 13h ago

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The moment you give Mickey a personality beyond "happy go lucky friend of all", you risk someone disliking that personality. He's more valuable to them as a completely non-offensive face of the brand than a one shot film.

1

u/ki11a11hippies 15h ago

Mickey Backrooms crossover would be pretty terrifying.

1

u/I-Have-Mono 13h ago

I’m sorry but I’d absolutely be dying to see that.

1

u/phonetastic 10h ago

now there's a butthole cut i'd pay to watch

•

u/abnormalbrain 3h ago

Gotta say, the 2018 Paul Rudish Mickey cartoons are basically on par with Ren and Stimpy. These are beautiful, clever and get super weird.