Mickey or Oswald: How would the Company Differ?
Imagine if Walt had kept the rights to Oswald. What would have happened. Would he still have been successful. I wrote an article on my blog about how I feel Oswald is under appreciated: The Four Parks: Oswald the (Not So) Lucky Rabbit
If anything shouldn't he be the most important Disney character because he was the reason Mickey was made? Discuss or leave a comment on my blog:
Re: Mickey or Oswald: How would the Company Differ?
I've got to say, I really think Epic Mickey brought a new light to Oswald. It's funny; I always knew that Oswald was the first official Disney character and the story of how he was "taken" from Walt. What Epic Mickey did though was put a life into that... a story of how Oswald may have felt as a result, thinking he had been "replaced" and not knowing the whole story. In other words, it gave Oswald a personality he'd not had before.
All that said, I also think Epic Mickey is the reason we're seeing so much re: Oswald these days.
Would things have been different? I think so! Absolutely! Oswald's character was very different than Mickey. He was, for lack of a better way of putting it, lacking in the childish innocence that Mickey grew into. I say "grew into" because really, at first, Mickey was even somewhat "adult". That said, the same could've happened with Oswald. Would Disney have become the icon it is today? Would parks celebrating Disney characters and imagination have sprung up all over the world? It's hard to say. It is undoubedtly one of those "butterfly effect" things though. I'm sure had Oswald not gotten "taken" away, the entire focus of Walt and Roy etc. would've been different. It was what happened with Oswald that lead them to be the shrewd business men they were. They were bitten and weren't going to let themselves be again.
Definitely makes you wonder... alas, without a time machine and the ability to change things without disrupting the present, we'll never know! :lol: