General

Disney geeks freak because they don’t get a peek of the Peak they seek

As Disneyana fans begin to grumble about the “Brother Bear” story that Al Lutz reportedly got wrong, Jim Hill asks that everyone please show a little restraint.

Published

21 years ago

October 27, 2003

Jim Hill

Okay. I know. A lot of you folks got to see “Brother Bear” this past weekend during the film’s exclusive NY and LA engagements. And it was gratifying to hear that so many of you really seemed to enjoy Walt Disney Feature Animation’s latest creation.

But, me personally, what I found kind of disturbing was some of the e-mails that I received yesterday. Messages where people would segue straight from singing this picture’s praises to savagely attacking Al Lutz.

Fairly typical of these notes was the one I got from RedRobin, which read:

Dear Jim:

Have you seen “Brother Bear” yet? The reason I’m asking is that I myself caught this new Disney film this past weekend at the El Capitan in LA. And there was something about that movie that really DIDN’T catch my eye.

What am I talking about, Jim? Well, do you recall that Al Lutz “Miceage” story from two weeks? The one where Al said that that the animators working on “Brother Bear” were forced — at the very last minute — to change the main mountain featured in that film so that it would look more like DCA’s Grizzly Peak? So this new animated feature could supposedly have some sort of a strong tie-in with that particular Disney theme park?

Well, did I miss something, Jim? Because I watched this entire movie on Saturday. And NOT ONCE in “Brother Bear” did I ever see a mountain that looked even remotely like Grizzly Peak at Disney’s California Adventure.

So — given that you’ve been harping on Al Lutz a lot lately to clean up his act — I would love to hear your take on this, Jim. Did Lutz flat-out lie to his Miceage readers? Or was he just fed some bad info by someone inside WDFA?

So what’s the truth here, Jim? Did Al actually get this story wrong? Or does Grizzly Peaks really make an appearance in “Brother Bear” which I somehow managed to miss?

Can’t wait to read your reply to this “Why For” question, Jim. Keep up the great work with the site.
RR

Look, gang. Over the past few weeks, I’ll admit that I’ve written a few articles that have taken a few pot shots at Mr. Lutz. Pieces that made fun of the way Al always stresses the most negative aspect of whatever story he’s reporting. Which tends to make the bad news sound even worse.

But — that said — that still doesn’t mean that I actually get my jollies from watching Al Lutz screw up. By that I mean: I’m not a big fan of schadenfreude. Which is a German term which means: “Taking malicious satisfaction in the misfortune of others.”

Me personally? I’m a big believer in what comes around goes around. Which is why you’re going to have to forgive me, RedRobin (As well as the rest of you folks who wrote to me yesterday about this “Brother Bear” brouhaha). Because — if you’re looking forward to reading some sort of column where I joyfully crow that “Al Lutz got it wrong!? Al Lutz got it wrong?! — that AIN’T gonna happen.

And why not? Because sometime in the not-so-distant future, I know that I’m gonna get something wrong too. And I’d genuinely prefer it if Al Lutz weren’t out there, lying in the bushes. Waiting to pounce on me the very next time that I forget that it’s “I before E except after C.”

No — better yet — given how truly nasty some of the e-mails that I received yesterday were, I’m fairly certain that Al is going to get pounded pretty savagely by his critics for getting this particular story wrong. Which is why I think that I’m now going to try and draw some fire away from Mr. Lutz by owning up to a recent error of my own.

“Which error am I talking about?,” you ask. Well, how many of you folks recall that “You Know What Bugs Me” story that I posted on JHM back on October 1st? You know, the article where I said that I was concerned that Warner’s marketing department wasn’t really up to the challenge of properly promoting “Looney Tunes: Back in Action”?

Well, as part of the original version of that article, I said that Eric Goldberg had been an animator on “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” Which — as Allan Neuwirth (I.E. author of that essential animation text, “Makin’ Toons” as well as all-around nice guy) so graciously pointed out to me later on that same week — was wrong.

You see, while researching that piece, I must have had a major brain fart. For Eric Goldberg NEVER ever worked on “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” In fact, this master animator wasn’t even offered his first official Mouse House gig (I.E. the position of lead animator on the Genie for “Aladdin”) until after production of “Roger Rabbit” wrapped.

Mind you, ‘way back in the mid-1990s, Goldberg WAS been offered the job as head of animation on the proposed-but-never-produced “Roger Rabbit” sequel. So I guess how you can understand how I might have made this mistake. But the fact of the matter is … I still initially got this story wrong.

So — as you can see, gang — Al Lutz doesn’t have an exclusive when it comes to getting stuff wrong about Disney’s animated features. The key difference between our two situations that is that no one — except Allan Neuwirth, of course — ever caught my original error. Which is why I was able to quietly revisit that story — after it had been posted, mind you — and make a small correction. Set things right, if you will.

Whereas Al … His “Brother Bear” / Grizzly Peak story is still out there for the whole world to see. To add insult to injury, at one point in the “Grin and Bear It” section of his October 15th Miceage update, he actually says “You can’t make this stuff up folks!”

Which brings us to the $64 question: Did Al — in fact — actually make up this entire animators-were-forced-to-redo-“Brother-Bear” story? To be honest, I don’t think so. I’m betting that what really happened here is that Lutz got hoaxed by some cruel jerk inside of TDA and/or WDFA. Someone who deliberately fed Al bad information. With the hope that he’s eventually post it on Miceage.com and then look bad.

Or (Watch now as I try to put an even more positive spin on this pretty awful situation) maybe Al Lutz just innocently misinterpreted something that someone within the Mouse House told him. I mean, perhaps DCA’s Grizzly Peak really DOES make an appearance in “Brother Bear.” Only — instead of the full-blown last-minute change of this picture’s art direction that Lutz so lovingly described in his article — maybe this California Adventure icon only makes a cameo appearance in the finished version of the film.

I mean, you guys know how the artists at Disney Feature Animation love to slip in-jokes into their movies, right? Take — for instance — how Mickey, Donald and Goofy can be found sitting in the audience for Ariel’s concert at the start of “The Little Mermaid.” Or how that tiny toy version of the Beast from “Beauty and the Beast” has a hiding-in-plain-sight appearance in “Aladdin.” Or how Pumbaa from “The Lion King” gets carried through the city square during the “Out There” sequence of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame.”

So — with an eye toward continuing this tradition — perhaps the crew at Disney Feature Animation — Florida quietly DID slip a single image of DCA’s Grizzly Peak into “Brother Bear.” In some quick shot that we’re all only going to discover after we buy the “Brother Bear” DVD next year and then patiently click through the entire film, frame-by-frame.

Hey, I’ve got some friends who still work at WDFA-F. Let me make a few phone calls and see if I can’t get someone from Orlando to go on the record about this. Reveal — for once and for all — whether this Disney’s California Adventure icon really DOES make some sort of appearance in “Brother Bear.”

Because — based on what I personally saw this past Sunday (You see, Nancy, Jeff, Flo and I actually drove down to NYC to catch the 2:45 p.m. matinee of this movie at the Ziegfeld Theatre) — DCA’s Grizzly Peak DOESN’T make an appearance in “Brother Bear.” At least not in any way that really registers with moviegoers.

Mind you, I kept an eagle eye out through the entirety of this motion picture, people. Constantly scanning around to see if this DCA icon was making some sort of appearance. And I honestly never saw anything that looked like Grizzly Peak. (Mind you — at one point — I though that I caught a glimpse of Grandmother Willow from “Pocahontas.” Which is perhaps something else I should ask my pals at WDFA-F about. Anyway …)

So — getting back to the whole point of today’s article — I really don’t think that you folks should be all that hard on Al Lutz for getting this Grizzly Peak / “Brother Bear” story wrong. I mean, if you really knew about all the stuff that Disney Feature Animation actually DID deliberately stick into some of its most recent films …

Like that scene in “Pocahontas,” where Meeko braids Pocahontas’ hair. That scene was actually inserted into the movie in direct response to a request made by executives from the Mattel Corporation. These suits thought that their company would actually be able to sell some more “Pocahontas” dolls if there was footage in the film showing how much fun it was to braid the Indian Princess’ hair.

Or how about that scene in “Mulan” where Mushu is brushing his teeth down by the river. The scene was originally put in the film because Disney was hoping to persuade Colgate to become a promotional partner on the picture. Colgate eventually balked at the idea. Reportedly because the toothpaste that Mushu was using was colored blue. Which — of course — is the color of the toothpaste made by Colgate’s arch rival, Crest.

… Changing the look of a mountain in “Brother Bear” just so it might help promote a troubled Disney theme park doesn’t sound all that far fetched, now does it?

I mean — given how good Al’s sources usually are — I initially bought this story. As did hundreds of you, no doubt. It was only after I saw “Brother Bear” for myself this past weekend and realized that the picture appeared to Grizzly Peak-free that I thought that “Jeese, that story’s really going to come back to haunt Al.”

Well … That and the 23 nasty e-mails that popped up in my in-box this morning. Each and every one of them gleeful about the very idea that Lutz had screwed up in such a public manner.

Anywho … As I said at the start of this article, I’m not a big fan of schadenfreude. Nor do I particularly enjoy the company of people who seem to take great joy in the misfortune of others. I keep thinking that “If they’re attacking Al this week … Next week, it’s going to be me.”

Which is why — whenever I write anything — I always try to keep in mind something that one of my old writing teachers once told me. Which is: “Always make sure that the words you use are sweet and tender. For you never know when you may be forced to eat them.”

In the meantime, let me offer up a little advice here that’s just for Al Lutz: Sorry, Al. You’re in kind of a tough spot here, big guy. My suggestion is just fall on your sword. Admit that you unintentionally made a mistake, then move on.

See? Do just like I’m doing here …

Folks, I’m sorry that I made that stupid Eric-Goldberg-worked-on-“Who-Framed-Roger-Rabbit?” mistake in the initial version of my “You Know What Bugs Me?” article. But I’ve now corrected that error as well as admitting that I initially made that mistake. Which is why I’m hoping that all you JRH readers can eventually forgive me. And that I promise that I’ll try to not make such stupid mistakes in the future, okay?

You see what I mean, Al? One simple, sincere apology and all your troubles are behind you. It’s easy. Really.

What’s more — by admitting that you made an error and then apologizing for that mistake — you totally undercut your critics. They’re the ones who then come across as being aggressive and excessive, should they opt to continue their attacks.

But please don’t make the mistake of stonewalling here, Al. Or — even worse — quietly excising that whole “Grin and Bear It” section out of your October 15th update. Pretending that you never wrote that part of that article. Doing something like that would just give your most vocal critics even more fodder for future attacks. And you don’t really want to give those guys any more ammo, do you, Al?

Okay. That concludes the semi-private communication portion of today’s JHM article.

My apologies to those of you who may feel that today’s is a trifle self-indulgent. One writer offering another writer advice on how to weather a professional crisis. Who the he*ll cares about a piece of cr*p like that?

Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe today’s JHM article is ‘way too self-indulgent. But I figured — if I could actually manage to get out in front of this whole Al Lutz / Grizzly Peak / “Brother Bear” controversy before the story went rogue — I could prevent things from getting too ugly.

I mean, let’s remember, folks: We’re just talking about a feature length cartoon and a theme park here, people. So Al Lutz made a mistake. Big deal. This is NOT a moment that calls for great celebration and/or excessive gnashing of teeth. It’s a non-story, really.

So let’s all just briefly acknowledge what happened here, hope that Al eventually rectifies his error and get on with our lives, okay?

General

Seward Johnson bronzes add a surreal, artistic touch to NYC’s Garment District

Published

9 years ago

June 23, 2015

Jim Hill

Greetings from NYC. Nancy and I drove down from New
Hampshire yesterday because we'll be checking out
Disney Consumer Products' annual Holiday Showcase later today.

Anyway … After checking into our hotel (i.e., The Paul.
Which is located down in NYC's NoMad district), we decided to grab some dinner.
Which is how we wound up at the Melt Shop.

Photo by Jim Hill

Which is this restaurant that only sells grilled cheese sandwiches.
This comfort food was delicious, but kind of on the heavy side.

Photo by Jim Hill

Which is why — given that it was a beautiful summer night
— we'd then try and walk off our meals. We started our stroll down by the Empire
State Building
…

Photo by Jim Hill

… and eventually wound up just below Times
Square (right behind where the Waterford Crystal Times Square New
Year's Eve Ball is kept).

Photo by Jim Hill

But you know what we discovered en route? Right in the heart
of Manhattan's Garment District
along Broadway between 36th and 41st? This incredibly cool series of life-like
and life-sized sculptures that Seward
Johnson has created.

Photo by Jim Hill

And — yes — that is Abraham Lincoln (who seems to have
slipped out of WDW's Hall of Presidents when no one was looking and is now
leading tourists around Times Square). These 18 painted
bronze pieces (which were just installed late this past Sunday night / early
Monday morning) range from the surreal to the all-too-real.

Photo by Jim Hill

Some of these pieces look like typical New Yorkers. Like the
business woman planning out her day …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the postman delivering the mail …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the hot dog vendor working at his cart …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the street musician playing for tourists …

Photo by Jim Hill

Not to mention the tourists themselves.

Photo by Jim Hill

But right alongside the bronze businessmen …

Photo by Jim Hill

… and the tired grandmother hauling her groceries home …

Photo by Jim Hill

… there were also statues representing people who were
from out-of-town …

Photo by Jim Hill

… or — for that matter — out-of-time.

Photo by Jim Hill

These were the Seward Johnson pieces that genuinely beguiled. Famous impressionist paintings brought to life in three dimensions.

Note the out-of-period water bottle that some tourist left
behind. Photo by Jim Hill

Some of them so lifelike that you actually had to pause for
a moment (especially as day gave way to night in the city) and say to yourself
"Is that one of the bronzes? Or just someone pretending to be one of these
bronzes?"

Mind you, for those of you who aren't big fans of the
impressionists …

Photo by Jim Hill

… there's also an array of American icons. Among them
Marilyn Monroe …

Photo by Jim Hill

… and that farmer couple from Grant Wood's "American
Gothic."

Photo by Jim Hill

But for those of you who know your NYC history, it's hard to
beat that piece which recreates Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of V-J Day in Times Square.

Photo by Jim Hill

By the way, a 25-foot-tall version of this particular Seward
Johnson piece ( which — FYI — is entitled "Embracing Peace") will actually
be placed in Times Square for a few days on or around August 14th to commemorate the 70th
anniversary of Victory Over Japan Day (V-J Day).

Photo by Jim Hill

By the way, if you'd like to check these Seward Johnson bronzes in
person (which — it should be noted — are part of the part of the Garment
District Alliance's new public art offering) — you'd best schedule a trip to
the City sometime over the next three months. For these pieces will only be on
display now through September 15th.

General

Wondering what you should “Boldly Go” see at the movies next year? The 2015 Licensing Expo offers you some clues

Published

9 years ago

June 10, 2015

Jim Hill

Greeting from the 2015 Licensing Expo, which is being held
at the Mandalay Bay
Convention Center in Las
Vegas.

Photo by Jim Hill

I have to admit that I enjoy covering the Licensing Expo.
Mostly becomes it allows bloggers & entertainment writers like myself to
get a peek over the horizon. Scope out some of the major motion pictures &
TV shows that today's vertically integrated entertainment conglomerates
(Remember when these companies used to be called movie studios?) will be
sending our way over the next two years or so.

Photo by Jim Hill

Take — for example — all of "The Secret Life of
Pets" banners that greeted Expo attendees as they made their way to the
show floor today. I actually got to see some footage from this new Illumination
Entertainment production (which will hit theaters on July 8, 2016) the last time I was in Vegas. Which
was for CinemaCon back in April. And the five or so minutes of film that I viewed
suggested that "The Secret Life of Pets" will be a really funny
animated feature.

Photo by Jim Hill

Mind you, Universal Pictures wanted to make sure that Expo
attendees remembered that there was another Illumination Entertainment production
coming-to-a-theater-near-them before "The Secret Life of Pets" (And
that's "Minions," the "Despicable Me" prequel. Which
premieres at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival next week but
won't be screened stateside 'til July 10th of this year). Which is why they had
three minions who were made entirely out of LEGOS loitering out in the lobby.

Photo by Jim Hill

And Warner Bros. — because they wanted "Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice" to start trending on Twitter today — brought
the Batmobile to Las Vegas.

Photo by Jim Hill

Not to mention full-sized macquettes of Batman, Superman and
Wonder Woman. Just so conventioneers could then see what these DC superheroes
would actually look like in this eagerly anticipated, March 25, 2016 release.

Photo by Jim Hill

That's the thing that can sometimes be a wee bit frustrating
about the Licensing Expo. It's all about delayed gratification. You'll come
around a corner and see this 100 foot-long ad for "The Peanuts Movie"
and think "Hey, that looks great. I want to see that Blue Sky Studios production
right now." It's only then that you notice the fine print and realize that
"The Peanuts Movie" doesn't actually open in theaters 'til November
6th of this year.

Photo by Jim Hill

And fan of Blue Sky's "Ice Age" film franchise are in for an even
longer wait. Given that the latest installment in that top grossing series
doesn't arrive in theaters 'til July
15, 2016.

Photo by Jim Hill

Of course, if you're one of those people who needs immediate
gratification when it comes to your entertainment, there was stuff like that to
be found at this year's Licensing Expo. Take — for example — how the WWE
booth was actually shaped like a wrestling ring. Which — I'm guessing — meant
that if the executives of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. didn't like
the offer that you were making, they were then allowed to toss you out over the
top rope, Royal Rumble-style.

Photo by Jim Hill

I also have to admit that — as a longtime Star Trek fan —
it was cool to see the enormous Starship Enterprise that hung in place over the
CBS booth. Not to mention getting a glimpse of the official Star Trek 50th
Anniversary logo.

Photo by Jim Hill

I was also pleased to see lots of activity in The Jim Henson
Company booth. Which suggests that JHC has actually finally carved out a
post-Muppets identity for itself.

Photo by Jim Hill

Likewise for all of us who were getting a little concerned
about DreamWorks Animation (what with all the layoffs & write-downs &
projects that were put into turnaround or outright cancelled last year), it was
nice to see that booth bustling.

Photo by Jim Hill

Every so often, you'd come across some people who were
promoting a movie that you weren't entirely sure that you actually wanted to
see (EX: "Angry Birds," which Sony Pictures Entertainment / Columbia
Pictures will be releasing to theaters on May 20, 2016). But then you remembered that Clay Kaytis —
who's this hugely talented former Walt Disney Animation Studios animator — is
riding herd on "Angry Birds" with Fergal Reilly. And you'd think
"Well, if Clay's working on 'Angry Birds,' I'm sure this animated feature
will turn out fine."

Photo by Jim Hill

Mind you, there were reminders at this year's Licensing Expo
of great animated features that we're never going to get to see now. I still
can't believe — especially after that brilliant proof-of-concept footage
popped up online last year — that Sony execs decided not to go forward
with production of Genndy Tartakovsky's
"Popeye" movie. But that's the
cruel thing about the entertainment business, folks. It will sometime break
your heart.

Photo by Jim Hill

And make no mistake about this. The Licensing Expo is all
about business. That point was clearly driven home at this year's show when —
as you walked through the doors of the Mandalay
Bay Convention Center
— the first thing that you saw was the Hasbros Booth. Which was this gleaming,
sleek two story-tall affair full of people who were negotiating deals &
signing contracts for all of the would-be summer blockbusters that have already
announced release dates for 2019 & beyond.

Photo by Jim Hill

"But what about The Walt Disney Company?," you
ask. "Weren't they represented on the show floor at this year's Licensing
Expo?" Not really, not. I mean, sure. There were a few companies there hyping
Disney-related products. Take — for example — the Disney Wikkeez people.

Photo by Jim Hill

I'm assuming that some Disney Consumer Products exec is
hoping that Wikkeez will eventually become the new Tsum Tsum. But to be blunt,
these little hard plastic figures don't seem to have the same huggable charm
that those stackable plush do. But I've been wrong before. So let's see what
happens with Disney Wikkeez once they start showing up on the shelves of the
Company's North American retail partners.

Photo by Jim Hill

And speaking of Disney's retail partners … They were
meeting with Mouse House executives behind closed doors one floor down from the
official show floor for this year's Licensing Expo.

Photo by Jim Hill

And the theme for this year's invitation-only Disney shindig? "Timeless
Stories" involving the Disney, Pixar, Marvel & Lucasfilm brands that
would then appeal to "tomorrow's consumer."

Photo by Jim Hill

And just to sort of hammer home the idea that Disney is no
longer the Company which cornered the market when it comes to little girls
(i.e., its Disney Princess and Disney Fairies franchises), check out this
wall-sized Star Wars-related image that DCP put up just outside of one of its
many private meeting rooms. "See?," this carefully crafted photo
screams. "It isn't just little boys who want to wield the Force. Little
girls also want to grow up and be Lords of the Sith."

Photo by Jim Hill

One final, kind-of-ironic note: According to this banner,
Paramount Pictures will be releasing a movie called "Amusement Park"
to theaters sometime in 2017.

Photo by Jim Hill

Well, given all the "Blackfish" -related issues
that have been dogged SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment over the past two years, I'm
just hoping that they'll still be in the amusement park business come 2017.

Your thoughts?

General

It takes more than three circles to craft a Classic version of Mickey Mouse

Published

9 years ago

June 9, 2015

Jim Hill

You know what Mickey Mouse looks like, right? Little guy,
big ears?

Truth be told, Disney's corporate symbol has a lot of
different looks. If Mickey's interacting with Guests at Disneyland
Park (especially this summer, when
the Happiest Place on Earth
is celebrating its 60th anniversary), he looks & dresses like this.

Or when he's appearing in one of those Emmy Award-winning shorts that Disney
Television Animation has produced (EX: "Bronco Busted," which debuts
on the Disney Channel tonight at 8 p.m. ET / PT), Mickey is drawn in a such a
way that he looks hip, cool, edgy & retro all at the same time.

Looking ahead to 2017 now, when Disney Junior rolls out "Mickey and the
Roadster Racers," this brand-new animated series will feature a sportier version
of Disney's corporate symbol. One that Mouse House managers hope will persuade
preschool boys to more fully embrace this now 86 year-old character.

That's what most people don't realize about the Mouse. The
Walt Disney Company deliberately tailors Mickey's look, even his style of
movement, depending on what sort of project / production he's appearing in.

Take — for example — Disney
California Adventure
Park's "World of Color:
Celebrate!" Because Disney's main mouse would be co-hosting this new
nighttime lagoon show with ace emcee Neil Patrick Harris, Eric Goldberg really had
to step up Mickey's game. Which is why this master Disney animator created
several minutes of all-new Mouse animation which then showed that Mickey was
just as skilled a showman as Neil was.

Better yet, let's take a look at what the folks at Avalanche Studios just went
through as they attempted to create a Classic version of Mickey & Minnie.
One that would then allow this popular pair to become part of Disney Infinity
3.0.

"I won't lie to you. We were under a lot of pressure to
get the look of this particular version of Mickey — he's called Red Pants
Mickey around here — just right," said Jeff Bunker, the VP of Art
Development at Avalanche Studios, during a recent phone interview. "When
we brought Sorcerer Mickey into Disney Infinity 1.0 back in January of 2014,
that one was relatively easy because … Well, everyone knows what Mickey Mouse
looked like when he appeared in 'Fantasia.' "

"But this time around, we were being asked to design
THE Mickey & Minnie," Bunker continued. "And given that these Classic
Disney characters have been around in various different forms for the better
part of the last century … Well, which look was the right look?"

Which is why Jeff and his team at Avalanche Studios began watching hours &
hours of Mickey Mouse shorts. As they tried to get a handle on which look would
work best for these characters in Disney Infinity 3.0.

"And we went all the way back to the very start of Mickey's career. We began
with 'Steamboat Willie' and then watched all of those black & white Mickey shorts
that Walt made back in the late 1920s & early 1930s. From there, we
transitioned to his Technicolor shorts. Which is when Mickey went from being
this pie-eyed, really feisty character to more of a well-behaved leading
man," Bunker recalled. "We then finished out our Mouse marathon by
watching all of those new Mickey shorts that Paul Rudish & his team have
been creating for Disney Television Animation. Those cartoons really recapture
a lot of the spirit and wild slapstick fun that Mickey's early, black &
white shorts had."

But given that the specific assignment that Avalanche Studios had been handed
was to create the most appealing looking, likeable version of Mickey Mouse
possible … In the end, Jeff and his team wound up borrowing bits & pieces
from a lot of different versions of the world's most famous mouse. So that
Classic Mickey would then look & move in a way that best fit the sort of
gameplay which people would soon be able to experience with Disney Infinity
3.0.

"That — in a lot of ways — was actually the toughest
part of the Classic Mickey design project. You have to remember that one of the
key creative conceits of Disney Infinity
is that all the characters which appear in this game are toys," Bunker
stated. "Okay. So they're beautifully detailed, highly stylized toy
versions of beloved Disney, Pixar, Marvel & Lucasfilm characters. But
they're still supposed to be toys. So our Classic versions of Mickey &
Minnie have the same sort of thickness & sturdiness to them that toys have.
So that they'll then be able to fit right in with all of the rest of the
characters that Avalanche Studios had previously designed for Disney Infinity."

And then there was the matter of coming up with just the
right pose for Classic Mickey & Minnie. Which — to hear Jeff tell the
story — involved input from a lot of Disney upper management.

"Everyone within the Company seemed to have an opinion
about how Mickey & Minnie should be posed. More to the point, if you Google
Mickey, you then discover that there are literally thousands of poses out there
for these two. Though — truth be told — a lot of those kind of play off the
way Mickey poses when he's being Disney's corporate symbol," Bunker said.
"But what I was most concerned about was that Mickey's pose had to work
with Minnie's pose. Because we were bringing the Classic versions of these
characters up into Disney Infinity 3.0 at the exact same time. And we wanted to
make sure — especially for those fans who like to put their Disney Infinity
figures on display — that Mickey's pose would then complement Minnie.

Which is why Jeff & the crew at Avalanche Studios
decided — when it came to Classic Mickey & Minnie's pose — that they
should go all the way back to the beginning. Which is why these two Disney icons
are sculpted in such a way that it almost seems as though you're witnessing the
very first time Mickey set eyes on Minnie.

"And what was really great about that was — as soon as
we began showing people within the Company this pose — everyone at Disney
quickly got on board with the idea. I mean, the Classic Mickey that we sculpted
for Disney Infinity 3.0 is clearly a very playful, spunky character. But at the
same time, he's obviously got eyes for Minnie," Bunker concluded. "So
in the end, we were able to come up with Classic versions of these characters
that will work well within the creative confines of Disney Infinity 3.0 but at
the same time please those Disney fans who just collect these figures because
they like the way the Disney Infinity characters look."

So now that this particular design project is over, does
Jeff regret that Mouse House upper management was so hands-on when it came to
making sure that the Classic versions of Mickey & Minnie were specifically
tailored to fit the look & style of gameplay found in Disney Infinity 3.0?

"To be blunt, we go through this every time we add a new character to the
game. The folks at Lucasfilm were just as hands-on when we were designing the
versions of Darth Vader and Yoda that will also soon be appearing in Disney
Infinity 3.0," Bunker laughed. "So in the end, if the character's
creators AND the fans are happy, then I'm happy."

This article was originally posted on the Huffington Post's Entertainment page on Tuesday, June 9, 2015