Connect with us

Film & Movies

Jeffrey Katzenberg and the Future of Cinema

JHM columnist Joseph L. Kleiman listens in as the co-founder of DreamWorks’ Studios talks at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show.

Published

on

Texas Instruments’ DLP Cinema is the finest digital film experience around. If you’ve been fortunate enough to see a digital film presentation at a major cineplex, chances are it was projected in DLP. If you’ve seen Universal Studios’ “Shrek 4-D,” you’ve also send DLP projection. So how does DLP Cinema work?

1. A digital projector based on DLP Cinema? technology transfers the digitized image file onto three optical semiconductors known as Digital Micromirror Devices, or DMDs. Each of these chips is dedicated to one primary color-red, green, or blue. A DMD chip contains a rectangular array of over one million microscopic mirrors.

2. Light from the projector’s lamp is reflected off the mirrors and is combined in different proportions of red, green and blue, as controlled by the image file, to create an array of different colored pixels that make up the projected image. Think of the DMD mirrors as the colored cards held up by an audience in a sports arena to create a giant image. Each person holds up a single colored card, yet when combined, these thousands of cards create a picture. If the card colors are changed, the picture changes too.

3. The DMD mirrors tilt either toward or away from the light source thousands of times per second to reflect the movie onto the screen. These images are sequentially projected onto the screen, recreating the movie in front of you with perfect clarity and a range of more than 35 trillion colors.

That’s right – 35 trillion colors! And studio executives love it. Almost all of Disney’s major films are being shown at Hollywood’s El Capitan Theater (which Disney owns) in DLP Cinema. Eddie Murphy loves it. Practically all of his films over the last five years have been released in DLP (I’ll never forgive myself for seeing “Pluto Nash” just because it was being shown in this digital format). George Lucas is gaga over it. And Jeffrey Katzenberg, the cofounder of Dreamworks and former head of The Walt Disney Studios thinks DLP is the future. Here’s what he had to say during Rich Templeton, TI’s CEOs keynote speech at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show:

RICH TEMPLETON: Now, from small screens to big screens, options and quality for digital TV and video continue to improve. We’re seeing the same kinds of improvements as people move from their living room to go out on the town. Going to the movies is one of the great American pastimes and DLP Cinema is TI’s solution for bringing incredible picture quality to the digital movie theatre. DLP Cinema relies on our most advanced Digital Light Processing technology. It can create 35 trillion different colors and that’s more colors than you can capture with film.

To give you a peek at how life at the movies is changing, we’ve installed a DLP Cinema in the back of this theatre and we’re going to use it to visit with our next guest. He’s everybody’s favorite ogre, our swamp-loving fellow who churns out box office revenue like dragons breathing fire. Via the wonder of DLP Cinema, here’s a true fairy tale hero, “Shrek.”


(Screen lowers and segment of “Shrek 2” is shown in DLP Cinema)


RICH TEMPLETON:
Now, we couldn’t actually get Shrek here today in person; it turns out he had a conflicting engagement in a land far, far away, but we do have a live guest that we’re very excited about. In fact, he’s one of the key people behind the company that created “Shrek” in the first place.


ANNOUNCER:
He’s produced some of your all-time favorite movies, he was the president of Paramount Pictures and chairman of Walt Disney Studios. Today he’s the cofounder of DreamWorks Studios and CEO and director of DreamWorks Animation. Please welcome Jeffrey Katzenberg. (Applause.)

DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg (l.) talks with Texas
Instruments CEO Richard Templeton at the International Consumer
Electronics Show, which was held earlier this month in Las Vegas, NV.
Photo by Jonathan Kleiman. Copyright LPN Media.

RICH TEMPLETON: Well, Jeffrey, thanks for coming to our show today. I think you did have a chance to participate this morning in Carly Fiorina’s keynote, so I guess we should call this your CES sequel or Katzenberg 2, if that’s okay. You’re an expert at sequels.

It’s really fascinating, you saw the example of Shrek playing and what’s happening and in many ways digital is revolutionizing the movie and the film business. And maybe you could take just a couple minutes, give us a sense, maybe starting on the creativity side, what does it unlock, what does it let you do?

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Well, let me talk about it in terms of both on the animation and the live action side. First on the animation side, you know, digital has really created a revolution in our business. In literally less than ten years now we’ve seen the business pretty much transition from 2D into CG. And I think probably the most compelling thing about CG is how immersive it is for the audience. It really is an opportunity for us to take our audience into a world that’s got a verisimilitude, a sense about it that feels as though it really envelops you in its story and in its characters and it’s allowing us to tell different stories and to tell the story that we do tell in way more complex and creative ways.

Let me give you a teeny, little example of this. In 1988 “The Little Mermaid,” which was the last movie that was inked and painted by hand, the color palette for the character of Ariel, the lead, originally was designed with 11 colors in terms of different aspects of skin tones, hair, costume and the movie was over budget and behind schedule and in order to get it back on schedule and budget we cut the number of colors from 11 to 7.

RICH TEMPLETON: It sounds like our industry sometimes.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Right. And so today if you were to make that, as you look at Will Smith’s character in “SharkTale,” there are 300-some-odd colors used and it’s unlimited, it could be any number of them.

So it’s had such a dramatic impact and become an enormous creative tool for the artists, empowering them in ways that I think none of us really imagined or anticipated. Well, I shouldn’t say none of us, I’d say John Lasseter did, who really is the pioneer of CG animation.

Interestingly, on the live action side of it, DreamWorks released this last summer a movie called “Collateral” with Tom Cruise that Michael Mann directed and it probably represents to this moment in time right now today in terms of what’s been in the movie theatres probably the most ambitious film that has embraced digital production, digital cinematography in the process of making this movie and for Michael, who we talk a lot about this, as a storyteller creatively he literally would not have made the film were it not for the creative empowerment that came from digital production. His ability to shoot at nighttime, his ability to shoot, you know, almost 30 percent of that movie literally takes place in a cab. With film you could never get a depth of field, you could never actually get a sense of the environment of Los Angeles as you were moving through it, the movie would have been too claustrophobic. The shots that he did it at night, the coyote walking across the street, literally not achievable using film.

So from a creative standpoint I think Michael would say that the film was not something that he could have or would have been able to make without this new technology.

RICH TEMPLETON: That’s fascinating. How far in terms of we’ve got the revolutionary leaders like yourself and working with folks like you, how much change have we seen or are we just at the beginning in terms of the impact on the creative side?

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Well, it is very much just the beginning. Again, for CG animation there’s now been nine movies made in history that are really sort of the full bells and whistles production. And you think of that nine pictures in the …

RICH TEMPLETON: I think of your name associated with a lot of those nine.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Well, not enough, thank you. But that is a business that’s not out of the in, we’re not past our toddler stage yet and the sky is the limit. I mean, the opportunities, the rate of change, the rate of empowerment that comes; this again is a tiny example of this one little detail, the facial structure mechanism for the character of Shrek, so in the three years between “Shrek 1” and “Shrek 2” the complexity of what we were able to do in “Shrek 2” is times ten what we were able to do on “1.”

So whether it’s the amount of controls — and these are all things that our artists use to act, eyebrows, skin movements, cheeks, jaw line; it’s just the more and more detail and complexity that we give to it the better the acting is. So this rate of change, I have to say that I think Moore’s Law actually seems to have its own application in our business, which is every 18 months it seems to double in its speed and its complexity and its capabilities. It’s missing that part of getting half as expensive each time though so that part is not working out so well. We’ve got half of Moore’s Law, the other half we’ve got to work on.

RICH TEMPLETON: Well, it’s clear as we look out into the world today that communications and entertainment are driving technology and I think you just really hit the nail on the head. We are investing tremendous amounts of money to put more capabilities in extremely creative people’s hands like yourself and fascinated by it. But I know also as it comes the aspect of moving the creative side to the production, post production and then distribution there’s a lot of change going on and underway. Can you speak a little bit about what you see there?

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Sure. Well, I’d kind of divide it into a couple things. First is as a productivity tool again it’s having a tremendous impact and we do actually see savings. The fact is again just looking on the animation side of it first, our costs of our films have actually stayed pretty constant now for the last three years and since our movies do take between three and four years to make, we actually can look out over thenext three years and see again that it’s holding pretty constant. That’s a six year period of time. Clearly the costs for manpower goes up a little bit every year but we are getting productivity savings that are offsetting the sort of natural cost of labor that goes up. So there is a value on that.

On the live action side, again Michael Mann, you know, I have to use as sort of the example of the moment, there is absolutely no question, first of all he can do a take that’s 17 minutes long, in film you’ve got to stop, you’ve got to change cartridges and you don’t have the capability of doing that. The lighting packages, all of the support personnel involved in it, the stuff is so much lighter and more mobile and all of those things, so
once again there is a real productivity savings.

I think the place that people are focused on right now, and rightfully so because it’s the place of greatest opportunity in a way, is how do you now move into the distribution and the exhibition side of the business and there’s lots of talk, there has been a lot of talk about it over the last few years and there is absolutely no question about if; it’s when.

And I think from a filmmaker standpoint and a distributor standpoint and an exhibitor standpoint it cannot happen soon enough. It has tremendous, tremendous cost savings involved in it on all sides of the equation and ultimately, which I think will be the real driving force for it, is for movie-going. It is such a richer experience, the quality of presentation in a great digital cinema is unequal. And we’ve had a lot of experience with it on the animation side of it.

And I can tell you that if you look at “Shrek” on film you are seeing at the very most, in perfect presentation at the very most 80 percent of what, in fact, we have created. You don’t see a tremendous amount of atmosphere and detail and lighting. On one of these great monitors, an HD monitor and a high-end DVD what you would see would blow you away in the detail and the creativity and therefore the viewing experience.

And to me one of the things I’m really excited about, because again it’s sort of at the essence of what we do, we create our product three-dimensionally. So the richest experience for a moviegoer is actually to see it three-dimensionally. One of the things that will happen I think in reasonably short order of cinema around the world converting from film to digital will be a broadly available exhibition of movies in 3D, not as a gimmick but as an immersive movie-going experience unreplicateable in your home, by the way, which is part of why it’s just good business. As the home experience gets better and better and better, if exhibition, if this business is going to stay robust, it must offer a better experience.

And again exhibition has done a fantastic job. For all of you going today, you know now the movie theatres that you go into have stadium seating in them, their presentation is terrific, those boxes that were around 10 and 20 years ago are for the most part gone and the cinema experience is way, way better today than it was even five or ten years ago. But then when you look a handful of years into the future, we have to offer the audience a
unique experience and I think the digital cinema and digital presentation is of the essence to us achieving that.

RICH TEMPLETON: Well, we are in many ways lined up. As you see the demo of the 1080P TV that’s over your shoulder, it makes a brilliant image when you see it exhibited, but what you’re doing creatively …

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: If I can carry it, I can take it, right? Isn’t that the rule? (Laughter.)

RICH TEMPLETON: I’ve got a chance to slow you down versus Howie.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: I should say. (Laughter.) Howie didn’t get away with the good stuff. (Laughter.)

RICH TEMPLETON: But really as we keep taking even the home experience up we agree very strongly we want to put more powerful tools in your hands and in the exhibition hands to create a very unique experience in the cinemas. We’re hoping that breaks through pretty soon and we hit that curve.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Well, I think it is, you know, a number of the things that we’ve done together people have followed and TI has been a great partner to DreamWorks. “Shrek” was the first animated movie accepted into competition at the Cannes Film Festival in over 50 years and when we brought it there one of the things that we were able to do was to get the Cannes Film Festival also for the first time ever to have a digital presentation and people were blown away by the quality of what they were able to see.

Once again this last September the Venice Film Festival invited “SharkTale” and for those of you that were at the presentation this morning you know I talked about some of the drama of our getting the movie finished in order to make it there. The other half of the equation was the drama of putting up a six-story inflatable screen, one of the largest screens ever built, and the fact that this was inflatable, and then we put it in the middle of San Marco Square in Venice and showed “SharkTale” in digital with TI projectors and it really was an extraordinary experience.

And I think that what we are trying to do is to kind of coax along all the involved parties, including the consumer and the media to create this real interest and real demand for something that makes tremendous business sense.

RICH TEMPLETON: Well, Jeffrey, maybe I’m asking a dangerous question but can you pick your favorite film that you’ve worked on or is it always the next one?

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: “Madagascar” is my favorite film ever. It will be out in May of this coming year. (Laughter.) It’s really, really funny.

RICH TEMPLETON: That was not an arranged prompt.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: And I brought a trailer of it just in case I was asked that question.

RICH TEMPLETON: Well, the best part that I find about this opportunity today and getting to sit with some of these is I get to actually see these trailers before my kids do and they come home and tell me about them, so a great opportunity to be here and to see that. So do you want to try to give some introduction to the “Madagascar” clip that you have and give us a sense of what really stands out or what’s different or unique in your mind of
what the team has achieved?

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: No, not really. (Laughter.) Just play the trailer and then we can talk afterwards.

RICH TEMPLETON: So they should watch some other movie coming out this year? But, no, please, if you have any setup on it or if we want to just …

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: No, I think we can run the trailer and it actually kind of tells the story, which is what a good trailer does.

(Video segment, followe by applause.)

RICH TEMPLETON: Fantastic is all I can say.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Well, we’ve got our fingers crossed. You know, each one of these movies we just try and do something that’s unique, never been seen before and, as I say, with a technology that just seems to empower the artist and push their imagination, we just love making these movies, it’s a lot of fun for us. And you know we are, we’re very, very excited about this.

RICH TEMPLETON: Well, we certainly loved seeing it. All of us are either parents or grandparents or children that haven’t grown up yet and seeing these films like “Shrek 2,” we’re looking forward to this, I just can’t describe the feeling it gives. I know how our kids react to it. It’s a great presentation so you guys should be extraordinarily proud of what that team can do and has presented.

So we certainly appreciate you joining us this afternoon and running the Katzenberg 2 sequel. We wish you the best of luck with “Madagascar” and we encourage you to keep wowing the consumers of the world.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Well, thank you, Rich, appreciate it.

RICH TEMPLETON: Thanks very much.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: And, as I say, we appreciate what you guys are doing.

RICH TEMPLETON: That’s great.

JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Thank you all.

RICH TEMPLETON: Jeffrey, thank you. (Applause.)


Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Film & Movies

How “An American Tail” Led to Disney’s “Hocus Pocus”

Published

on

Over the last week, I’ve been delving into Witches Run Amok, Shannon Carlin’s oral history of the making of Disney’s Hocus Pocus. This book reveals some fascinating behind-the-scenes stories about the 1993 film that initially bombed at the box office but has since become a cult favorite, even spawning a sequel in 2022 that went on to become the most-watched release in Disney+ history.

But what really caught my eye in this 284-page hardcover wasn’t just the tales of Hocus Pocus’s unlikely rise to fame. Rather, it was the unexpected connections between Hocus Pocus and another beloved film—An American Tail. As it turns out, the two films share a curious origin story, one that begins in the mid-1980s, during the early days of the creative rebirth of Walt Disney Studios under Michael Eisner, Frank Wells, and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

The Birth of An American Tail

Let’s rewind to late 1984/early 1985, a period when Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg were just getting settled at Disney and were on the hunt for fresh projects that would signal a new era at the studio. During this time, Katzenberg—tasked with revitalizing Disney Feature Animation—began meeting with talent across Hollywood, hoping to find a project that could breathe life into the struggling division.

One such meeting was with a 29-year-old writer and illustrator named David Kirschner. At the time, Kirschner’s biggest credit was illustrating children’s books featuring Muppets and Sesame Street characters, but he had an idea for a new project: a TV special about a mouse emigrating to America, culminating in the mouse’s arrival in New York Harbor on the same day as the dedication of the Statue of Liberty in 1886.

David Kirschner
David Kirschner (IMDb)

Katzenberg saw the patriotic appeal of the concept but ultimately passed on it, as he was focused on finding full-length feature projects for Disney’s animation department. Kirschner, undeterred, took his pitch elsewhere—to none other than Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg’s production partner. Kennedy was intrigued and invited Kirschner to Spielberg’s annual Fourth of July party to pitch the idea directly to the famed director.

Spielberg immediately saw the potential in Kirschner’s idea, but instead of a TV special, he envisioned a full-length animated feature film. This project would eventually become An American Tail, a tribute of sorts to Spielberg’s own grandfather, Philip Posner, who emigrated from Russia to the United States in the late 19th century. The film’s lead character, Fievel, was even named after Spielberg’s grandfather, whose Yiddish name was also Fievel.

Disney’s Loss Becomes Universal’s Gain

An American Tail went on to become a major success for Universal Pictures, which hadn’t been involved in an animated feature since the release of Pinocchio in Outer Space in 1965. Meanwhile, over at Disney, Eisner and Wells weren’t exactly thrilled that Katzenberg had let such a promising project slip through his fingers.

Not wanting to miss out on any future opportunities with Kirschner, Katzenberg quickly scheduled another meeting with him to discuss any other ideas he might have. And as fate would have it, Kirschner had just written a short story for Muppet Magazine called Halloween House, about a boy who is magically transformed into a cat by a trio of witches.

The Pitch That Sealed the Deal

Knowing Katzenberg could be a tough sell, Kirschner went all out to impress during his pitch. He requested access to the Disney lot 30 minutes early to set the stage for his presentation. When Katzenberg and the Disney development team walked into the conference room, they were greeted by a table covered in candy corn, a cauldron of dry ice fog, and a broom, mop, and vacuum cleaner suspended from the ceiling as if they were flying—evoking the magical world of Halloween House.

Katzenberg was reportedly unimpressed by the theatrical setup, muttering, “Oy, show-and-tell time” as he took his seat. But Kirschner knew exactly how to grab his attention. He started his pitch with the fact that Halloween was a billion-dollar business—a figure that made Katzenberg sit up and take notice. He listened attentively to Kirschner’s pitch, and by the time the meeting was over, Katzenberg was convinced. Halloween House would become Hocus Pocus, and Disney had its next big Halloween film.

A Bit of Hollywood Drama

Interestingly, Kirschner’s success with Hocus Pocus didn’t sit well with his old collaborators. About a year after the film’s release, Kirschner ran into Kathleen Kennedy at an Amblin holiday party, and she wasted no time in expressing her disappointment. According to Kirschner, Kennedy said, “You really hurt Steven.” When Kirschner asked how, she explained that Spielberg and Kennedy had given him his big break with An American Tail, but when he came up with the idea for his next film, he brought it to Disney rather than to them.

Hollywood can be a place where loyalty is valued—or, at least, perceived loyalty. At the same time, this was happening just as Katzenberg was leaving Disney and partnering with Spielberg and David Geffen to launch DreamWorks SKG, which only added to the tension. Loyalty, as Kirschner found out, can be an abstract concept in the entertainment industry.

A Halloween Favorite is Born

Despite its rocky start at the box office in 1993, Hocus Pocus has gone on to become a beloved part of Halloween pop culture. And, as Carlin’s book details, its success helped pave the way for more Disney Halloween-themed projects in the years that followed.

As for why Hocus Pocus was released in July of 1993 instead of during Halloween? That’s a story for another time, but it has something to do with another Halloween-themed project Disney was working on that year—Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas—and Katzenberg finding himself in the awkward position of having to choose between keeping Bette Midler or Tim Burton happy.

For more behind-the-scenes stories about Hocus Pocus and other Disney films, be sure to check out Witches Run Amok by Shannon Carlin. It’s a fascinating read for any Disney fan!

And if you love hearing these kinds of behind-the-scenes stories about animation and film history, be sure to check out Fine Tooning with Drew Taylor, where Drew and I dive deep into all things movies, animation, and the creative decisions that shape the films we love. You can find us on your favorite podcast platforms or right here on JimHillMedia.com.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

How Disney’s “Bambi” led to the creation of Smokey Bear

Published

on

When people talk about Disney’s “Bambi,” the scene that they typically cite as being the one from this 1942 film which then scarred them for life is – of course – the moment in this movie where Bambi’s mother gets shot by hunters.

Which is kind of ironic. Given that – if you watch this animated feature today – you’ll see that a lot of this ruined-my-childhood scene actually happens off-camera. I mean, you hear the rifle shot that takes down Bambi’s Mom. But you don’t actually see that Mama Deer get clipped.

Now for the scariest part of that movie that you actually see on-camera … Hands down, that has to be the forest fire sequence in “Bambi.” As the grown-up Bambi & his bride, Faline, desperately race through those woods, trying to find a path to safety as literally everything around them is ablaze … That sequence is literally nightmare fuel.

Source: Economist.com

Mind you, the artists at Walt Disney Animation Studios had lots of inspiration for the forest fire sequence in “Bambi.” You see, in a typical year, the United States experiences – due to either natural phenomenon like lightning strikes or human carelessness – 100 forest fires. Whereas in 1940 (i.e., the year that Disney Studios began working in earnest of a movie version of Felix Salten’s best-selling movie), America found itself battling a record 360 forest fires.

Which greatly concerned the U.S. Forest Service. But not for the reason you might think.

Protecting the Forest for World War II

I mean, yes. Sure. Officials over in the Agricultural Department (That’s the arm of the U.S. government that manages the Forest Service) were obviously concerned about the impact that this record number of forest fires in 1940 had had on citizens. Not to mention all of the wildlife habitat that was now lost.

But to be honest, what really concerned government officials was those hundreds of thousands of acres of raw timber that had been consumed by these blazes. You see, by 1940, the world was on the cusp of the next world war. A conflict that the U.S. would inevitably  be pulled into. And all that now-lost timber? It could have been used to fuel the U.S. war machine.

So with this in mind (and U.S. government officials now seeing an urgent need to preserve & protect this precious resource) … Which is why – in 1942 (just a few months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor) – the U.S. Forest Service rolls out its first-ever forest fire prevention program.

Which – given that this was the early days of World War II – the slogan that the U.S. Forest Service initially chose for its forest fire prevention program is very in that era’s we’re-all-in-this-together / so-let’s-do-what-we-can-to-help-America’s war-effort esthetic – made a direct appeal to all those folks who were taking part in scrap metal drives: “Forest Defense is National Defense.”

Source: Northwestern

And the poster that the U.S. Forest Service had created to support this campaign? … Well, it was well-meaning as well.  It was done in the WPA style and showed men out in the forest, wielding shovels to ditch a ditch. They were trying to construct a fire break, which would then supposedly slow the forest fire that was directly behind them.

But the downside was … That “Forest Defense is National Defense” slogan – along with that poster which the U.S. Forest Service had created to support their new forest fire prevention program didn’t exactly capture America’s attention.

I mean, it was the War Years after all. A lot was going in the country at that time. But long story short: the U.S. Forest Service’s first attempt at launching a successful forest fire prevention program sank without a trace.

So what do you do in a situation like this? You regroup. You try something different.

Disney & Bambi to the Rescue

And within the U.S. government, the thinking now was “Well, what if we got a celebrity to serve as the spokesman for our new forest fire prevention program? Maybe that would then grab the public’s attention.”

The only problem was … Well, again, these are the War Years. And a lot of that era’s A-listers (people like Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, even Mel Brooks) had already enlisted. So there weren’t really a lot of big-name celebrities to choose from.

But then some enterprising official at the U.S. Forest Service came up with an interesting idea. He supposedly said “Hey, have you seen that new Disney movie? You know, the one with the deer? That movie has a forest fire in it. Maybe we should go talk with Walt Disney? Maybe he has some ideas about how we can better capture the public’s attention when it comes to our new forest fire prevention program?”

And it turns Walt did have an idea. Which was to use this government initiative as a way to cross-promote Disney Studio’s latest full-length animated feature, “Bambi.” Which been first released to theaters in August of 1942.

So Walt had artists at Disney Studio work up a poster that featured the grown-up versions of Bambi the Deer, Thumper the Rabbit & Flower the Skunk. As this trio stood in some tall grasses, they looked imploring out at whoever was standing in front of this poster. Above them was a piece of text that read “Please Mister, Don’t Be Careless.” And below these three cartoon characters was an additional line that read “Prevent Forest Fires. Greater Danger Than Ever!”

Source: USDA

According to folks I’ve spoken with at Disney’s Corporate Archives, this “Bambi” -based promotional campaign for the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention campaign was a huge success. So much so that – as 1943 drew to a close – this division of the Department of Agriculture reportedly reached out to Walt to see if he’d be willing to let the U.S. Forest Service continue to use these cartoon characters to help raise the public’s awareness of fire safety.

Walt – for reasons known only to Mr. Disney – declined. Some have suggested that — because “Bambi” had actually lost money during its initial theatrical release in North America – that Walt was now looking to put that project behind him. And if there were posters plastered all over the place that then used the “Bambi” characters that then promoted the U.S.’s forest fire prevention efforts … Well, it would then be far harder for Mr. Disney to put this particular animated feature in the rear view mirror.

Introducing Smokey Bear

Long story short: Walt said “No” when it came to reusing the “Bambi” characters to promote the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program. But given how successful the previous cartoon-based promotional campaign had been … Well, some enterprising employee at the Department of Agriculture reportedly said “Why don’t we come up with a cartoon character of our own?”

So – for the Summer of 1944 – the U.S. Forest Service (with the help of the Ad Council and the National Association of State Foresters) came up with a character to help promote the prevention of forest fires. And his name is Smokey Bear.

Now a lot of thought had gone into Smokey’s creation. Right from the get-go, it was decided that he would be an American black bear (NOT a brown bear or a grizzly). To make this character seem approachable, Smokey was outfitted with a ranger’s hat. He also wore a pair of blue jeans & carried a bucket.

As for his debut poster, Smokey was depicted as pouring water over a still-smoldering campfire. And below this cartoon character was printed Smokey’s initial catchphrase. Which was “Care will prevent 9 out of 10 forest fires!”

Source: NPR

Which makes me think that this slogan was written by the very advertising executive who wrote “Four out of five dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.”

Anyway … By the Summer of 1947, Smokey got a brand-new slogan. The one that he uses even today. Which is “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.”

The Real Smokey Bear

Now where this gets interesting is – in the Summer of 1950 – there was a terrible forest fire up in the Capitan Mountains of New Mexico. And over the course of this blaze, a bear cub climbed high up into a tree to try & escape those flames.

Firefighters were finally able to rescue that cub. But he was so badly injured in that fire that he was shipped off to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. and nursed back to health. And since this bear really couldn’t be released back in the wild at this point, he was then put on exhibit.

And what does this bear’s keepers decide to call him? You guessed it: Smokey.

Source: USDA

And due to all the news coverage that this orphaned bear got, he eventually became the living symbol of the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program. Which then meant that this particular Smokey Bear got hit with a ton of fan mail. So much so that the National Zoo in Washington D.C. wound up with its own Zip Code.

“Smokey the Bear” Hit Song

And on the heels of a really-for-real Smokey Bear taking up residence in our nation’s capital, Steve Nelson & Jack Rollins decide to write a song that shined a spotlight on this fire-fightin’ bruin. Here’s the opening stanza:

With a ranger’s hat and shovel and a pair of dungarees,
You will find him in the forest always sniffin’ at the breeze,
People stop and pay attention when he tells them to beware
Because everybody knows that he’s the fire-preventin’ bear

Believe or not, even with lyrics like these, “Smokey the Bear” briefly topped the Country charts in the Summer of 1950. Thanks to a version of this song that was recorded by Gene Autry, the Singing Cowboy.

By the way, it was this song that started all of the confusion in regards to Smokey Bear’s now. You see, Nelson & Rollins – because they need the lyrics of their song to scan properly – opted to call this fire-fightin’-bruin Smokey THE Bear. Rather than Smokey Bear. Which has been this cartoon character’s official name since the U.S. Forest Service first introduced him back in 1944.

“The Ballad of Smokey the Bear”

Further complicating this issue was “The Ballad of Smokey the Bear,” which was a stop-motion animated special that debuted on NBC in late November of 1966. Produced by Rankin-Bass as a follow-up to their hugely popular “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” (which premiered on the Peacock Network in December of 1964) … This hour-long TV show also put a “THE” in the middle of Smokey Bear’s name because the folks at Rankin-Bass thought his name sounded better that way.

And speaking of animation … Disney’s “Bambi” made a brief return to the promotional campaign for the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program in the late 1980s. This was because the Company’s home entertainment division had decided to release this full-length animated feature on VHS.

What’s kind of interesting, though, is the language used on the “Bambi” poster is a wee different than the language that’s used on Smokey’s poster. It reads “Protect Our Forest Friends. Only You Can Prevent Wildfires.” NOT “Forest Fires.”

Anyway, that’s how Disney’s “Bambi” led to the creation of Smokey Bear. Thanks for bearin’ with me as I clawed my way through this grizzly tale.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

“Indiana Jones and the Search for Indiana Jones”

Published

on

News came late last week that NBC was cancelling the “Magnum PI” remake. This series (which obviously took its inspiration from the Tom Selleck show that originally debuted on CBS back in December of 1980 and then went on run on that network for 8 seasons. With its final episode airing on May 8, 1988).

Anyway … Over 30 years later, CBS decided to remake “Magnum.” This version of the action drama debuted on September 24, 2018 and ran for four seasons before then being cancelled. NBC picked up the “Magnum” remake where it ran for one more season before word came down on June 23rd that this action drama was being cancelled yet again.

FYI: The second half of Season 5 of “Magnum” (10 episodes) has yet to air on NBC. It will be interesting to see when that final set of shows / the series finale gets scheduled.

This all comes to mind this week – out ahead of the theatrical release of “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” because … Well, if CBS execs had been a bit more flexible back in 1980, the star of the original version of “Magnum PI” (Tom Selleck) would have played the lead in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Which was released to theaters back on June 12, 1981.

That’s the part of the Indiana Jones story that the folks at Lucasfilm often opt to skim over.

That Harrison Ford wasn’t George Lucas’ first choice to play Doctor Jones.

Auditions for Indiana Jones – Harrison’s Not on the List

Mind you, Steven Spielberg – right from the get-go – had pushed for Ford to play this part. The way I hear it, Lucas showed Spielberg a work-in-progress cut of “The Empire Strikes Back.” And Steven was so taken with Harrison’s performance as Han Solo in that Irwin Kershner film that he immediately began pushing for Ford to be cast as Doctor Jones.

Whereas Mr. Lucas … I mean, it wasn’t that George had anything against Harrison. What with Ford’s performances first in “American Grafitti” and then in “A New Hope,” these two already had a comfortable working relationship.

But that said, Lucas was genuinely leery of … Well, the sort of creative collaboration that Martin Scorcese and Robert DeNiro. Where one actor & one director repeatedly worked together. To George’s way of thinking, that was a risky path to follow. Hitching your wagon to a single star.

Which is why – when auditions got underway for “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in 1979 — Mike Fenton basically brought in every big performer of that era to read for Dr. Jones except Harrison Ford. We’re talking:

  • Steve Martin
  • Chevy Chase
  • Bill Murray
  • Jack Nicholson
  • Peter Coyote
  • Nick Nolte
  • Sam Elliot
  • Tim Matheson
  • and Harry Hamlin

Casting a Comedian for Indiana Jones

Please note that there are a lot of comedians on this list. That’s because – while “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was in development — Spielberg was directed his epic WWII comedy, “1941.” And for a while there, Steve & George were genuinely uncertain about whether the movie that they were about to make would be a sincere valentine to the movie serials of the 1930s & the 1940s or more of a spoof.

It’s worth noting here that three of the more ridiculous set pieces found in “Temple of Doom” …

  • the shoot-out at Club Obi Wan in Shanghai
  • Indy, Willie & Short Round surviving that plane crash by throwing an inflatable life raft out of the cargo hatch
  • and that film’s mine cart chase (which was not only inspired by Disney theme park favorites the Matterhorn Bobsleds & Big Thunder Mountain Railroad but some of the sound effects that you hear in this portion of “Temple of Doom” were actually recorded after hours at Disneyland inside of these very same attractions)

…  all originally supposed to be in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” I’ve actually got a copy of the very first version of the screenplay that Lawrence Kasdan wrote for the first “Indy” movie where all three of these big action set pieces were supposed to be part of the story that “Raiders” told. And I have to tell you that this early iteration of the “Raiders” screenplay really does read more like a spoof of serials than a sincere, loving salute to this specific style of cinema.

Casting Indiana Jones – Jeff or Tom

Anyway … Back now to the casting of the male lead for “Raiders” … After seeing virtually every actor out in LA while looking for just the right performer to portray Indiana Jones, it all came down to two guys:

  • Jeff Bridges
  • and Tom Selleck

Jeff Bridges as Indiana Jones

Mike Fenton was heavily pushing for Jeff Bridges. Having already appeared with Clint Eastwood in 1974’s “Thunderbolt & Lightfoot” (Not to mention that “King Kong” remake from 1976), Bridges was a known quantity. But what Fenton liked especially liked about Bridges when it came to “Raiders” was … Well, at that time, Jeff was just coming off “Heaven’s Gate.”

Mind you, nowadays, because we’ve all now had the luxury of seeing the director’s cut of this Michael Cimino movie, we recognize “Heaven’s Gate” for the cinematic masterpiece that it is. But 40+ years ago, that honestly wasn’t the case. All audiences had to judge this movie by was the severely truncated version that United Artists sent out into theaters. Which – because “Heaven’s Gate” had cost $44 million to make and only sold $3.5 million of tickets – then became the textbook example of Hollywood excess.

Credit: Indiewire.com

Long story short: Given that being associated with “Heaven’s Gate” had somewhat dinged Bridges’ reputation for being a marketable star (i.e., a performer that people would pay good money to see up on the big screen), Jeff was now looking to appear in something highly commercial. And the idea of playing the lead in a film directed by Steven Spielberg (the “Jaws” & “Close Encounter” guy) and produced by George Lucas (Mr. “Star Wars”) was very, very appealing at that time. Bridges was even willing to sign a contract with Spielberg & Lucas that would have then roped him into not only playing Indiana Jones in “Raider of the Lost Ark” but also to appear as this very same character in two yet-to-be-written sequels.

Better yet, because “Heaven’s Gate” had temporarily dimmed Bridges’ star status, Jeff was also willing to sign on to do the first “Indy” film for well below his usual quote. With the understanding that – should “Raiders of the Lost Ark” succeed at the box office – Bridges would then be paid far more to appear in this film’s two sequels.

That seemed like a very solid plan for “Raiders.” Landing a known movie star to play the lead in this action-adventure at a bargain price.

Ah, but standing in Mike Fenton’s way was Marcia Lucas.

Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones

Marcia Lucas, who had seen Tom Selleck’s audition for “Raiders” (And you can see it as well. Just go to Google and type in “Tom Selleck” and “Indiana Jones.” And if you dig around for a bit, you’ll then see a feature that Lucas & Spielberg shot for “Entertainment Tonight” back in 2008 [This story was done in support of the theatrical release of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”]. And as part of this piece, George and Steve share Tom’s original audition for “Raiders.” And what’s genuinely fascinating about this footage is that Selleck’s scene partner is Sean Young. Who – at that time, anyway – was up for the role of Marion Ravenwood) and kept telling her husband, “You should cast this guy. He’s going to be a big star someday.”

And given that George was smart enough to regularly heed Marcia Lucas’ advice (She had made invaluable suggestions when it came to the editing of “American Graffiti” and the original “Star Wars.” Not to downplay George Lucas’ cinematic legacy, but Marcia Lucas was a world-class storyteller in and of her own right), Lucas then reached out to Spielberg and persuaded him that they should cast relative unknown Tom Selleck as Doctor Jones over the already well-known Jeff Bridges.

Now don’t feel too bad for Jeff Bridges. When he lost out on playing the lead in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Jeff then accepted a role in the very next, high profile, sure-to-be-commercial project that came along. Which turned out to be Disney’s very first “TRON” movie. Which was eventually released to theaters on July 9, 1982.

Back to Tom Selleck now … You have to remember that – back then – Selleck was the handsome guy who’d already shot pilots for six different shows that then hadn’t gone to series. Which was why Tom was stuck being the guest star on shows like “The Fall Guy” and “Taxi.” Whereas once word got out around town that Selleck was supposed to play the lead in a project that Spielberg was directed & Lucas was producing … Well, this is when CBS decided that they’d now take the most recent pilot that Tom had shot and then go to series with this show.

That program was – of course – the original “Magnum PI.” And it’s at this point where our story started to get complicated.

“Magnum PI” – Two Out of Three Say “Yes”

Okay. During the first season of a TV show, it’s traditionally the network – rather than the production company (which – in this case – was Glen A. Larson Productions. The company behind the original versions of “Battlestar Galactica” & “Knight Rider”) or the studio where this series is actually being shot (which – in this case – was Universal Television) that has all the power. And in this particular case, the network execs who were pulling all the strings behind-the-scenes worked for CBS.

And when it came to the first season of “Magnum PI,” CBS had a deal with Glen A. Larson Productions and Universal Television which stated that the talent which had been contracted to appear in this new action drama would then be available for the production of at least 13 episodes with an option to shoot an additional 9 episodes (This is known in the industry as the back nine. As in: the last nine holes of a golf course).

Anyway, if you take those initial 13 episodes and then tack on the back nine, you then get 22 episodes total. Which – back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, anyway – was what a full season of a network television show typically consisted of.

Anyway … The contract that Selleck had signed with Glen A. Larson Productions, Universal Television & CBS stated that he had to be available when production of Season One of “Magnum PI” began in March of 1980. More to the point, Tom also had to be available should CBS exercise its option to air 22 episodes of this new series on that television network over the course of “Magnum PI” ‘s first season.  

Which then made things complicated for George Lucas & Steven Spielberg because … Well, in order for “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to make its June 12, 1981 release date, that then meant that production of the first “Indy” movie would have to get underway no later than June 23, 1980.

But here’s the thing: Production of Season One of “Magnum PI” was scheduled to run through the first week of July of that same year (1980). So in order for Tom Selleck to play Indiana Jones in “Raiders,” he was going to need to be wrapped on production of “Magnum PI” by June 22, 1980 at the absolute latest.

So Spielberg & Lucas went to Glen A. Larsons Productions and asked if Selleck could please be sprung from his “Magnum PI” contractual obligations by June 22nd. And they said “Yes.” Then Steven & George went to Universal Television and asked executives there for their help  in clearing Tom’s schedule so that he’d then be available to start work on “Raiders.” And they say “Yes” as well.

Spielberg & Lucas now go to CBS. But instead of the quick “Yeses” that they got from officials at Glen A. Larson Productions and Universal Television, it takes those suits at the Tiffany Network weeks before they then decided to say “No, they couldn’t release Tom Selleck early to go work on ‘Raiders’ “ because …

I’ve never really been able to get a straight answer here as to why CBS execs dug in their heels here. Why they flat-out refused to release Selleck early from his “Magnum PI” contractual obligation and allow him to go shoot “Raiders.”

Payback from “The Star Wars Holiday Special” Trash Talk

That said, it is worth noting that “The Star Wars Holiday Special” aired on CBS back in November of 1978. And given that – in the years that followed —  Lucas wasn’t exactly shy when it came to saying how much he hated that two hour-long presentation (Or – for that matter – how George really regretted caving into the requests of CBS execs. Who had insisted that television stars long associated with the Tiffany Network – people like Art Carney, Harvey Korman & Bea Arthur – be given prominent guest starring roles in “The Star Wars Holiday Special”). And I’ve heard whispers over the years that CBS executives preventing Tom Selleck from appearing in “Raiders” could be interpreted as the Tiffany Network getting some payback for what George had said publicly about the “Star Wars Holiday Special.”

Harrison Ford Comes to Rescue “Indiana Jones”

Anyway … It’s now literally just weeks before production of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is supposed to begin and Spielberg & Lucas have just learned that that they’ve lost their film’s star. CBS is flat-out refusing to release Tom Selleck early from his “Magnum PI” contractual obligation. So Steven & George now have to find someone else to play Indy … and fast.

The real irony here is … The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists would go on strike in the Summer of 1980. Which then shut prematurely shut down production of the first season of “Magnum PI.” (As a direct result, the first full season of this action drama to air on CBS only had 18 episodes, rather than the usual 22). And because this job action lasted ‘til October 23rd of that same year … Well, this meant that Tom Selleck would have actually been free to start shooting “Raiders of the Lost Ark” on June 23, 1980 because production of Season One of “Magnum PI” was already shut down by then due to that AFTRA strike.

But no one knew – in May of 1980, anyway – that this job action was going to happen in just a few weeks. All that Steven Spielberg & George Lucas knew was that they now needed a new lead actor for “Raiders.” And circling back on Jeff Bridges was no longer an option. As I mentioned earlier, Jeff had agreed to do “TRON” for Disney. And – in the interim – Bridges gone off to shoot “Cutter’s Way” for MGM / UA.

Credit: EW

So this is where Harrison Ford enters the equation. As he recalls:

In May of 1980, I get a call from George Lucas. Who says ‘I’m messaging a script over to you this morning. As soon as it gets there, I need you to immediately read this script. Then – as soon as you’re done – I need you to call.

So the script arrives and it’s for ‘Raiders.’ I read it and it’s good. So I call George back and say ‘It’s good.’ And he then says ‘Would you be interested in playing Indy?’ I say that it looks like it would be a fun part to play.

George then says ‘ That’s great to hear. Because we start shooting in four weeks. Now I need you to meet with Steven Spielberg today and convince him that you’re the right guy to play Indy.’

Of course, given that Spielberg had been pushing for Ford to pay Indy ever since he had first seen that work-in-progress version of “The Empire Strikes Back” … Well, Harrison’s meeting with Steven was very, very short. And just a few weeks later, Spielberg, Lucas & Ford were all at the Port de la Pallice in La Rochelle. Where – on the very first day of shooting on “Raiders” (which – again – was June 23, 1980)– the scene that was shot was the one where that Nazi sub (the one that Indy had lashed himself to its periscope by using his bullwhip as a rope) was arriving at its secret base.

And all of this happened because Harrison immediately agreed to do “Raiders of the Lost Ark” when the part of Indy was first offered to him in mid-May of 1980.  

Before “Star Wars” was “Star Wars”

So why such a quick yes? Well, you have to remember that “Empire Strikes Back” wouldn’t be released to theaters ‘til May 21, 1980. And no one knew at that time whether this sequel to the original “Star Wars” would do as well at the box office as “A New Hope” had back in 1977 (FYI: “Empire” would eventually sell over $500 million worth of tickets worldwide. Which is roughly two thirds of what the original “Star Wars” earned three years earlier).

More to the point, the four films that Harrison had shot right after “A New Hope” / prior to “Empire Strikes Back” (i.e., “Heroes” AND “Force 10 from Navarone” AND “Hanover Street” AND “The Frisco Kid”) had all under-performed at the box office. So to Ford’s way of thinking, taking on a role that Tom Selleck was no longer available to play – one that had the potential of spawning two sequels – seemed like a very smart thing to do. Especially after three years of cinematic stumbles.

By the way, whenever this topic ever comes up, Harrison Ford is very gracious. He always makes a point of saying that he’s grateful to have gotten this career opportunity. More to the point, that he still feels kind of bad that Tom Selleck never got the chance to play this part.

Tom Selleck After “Indiana Jones”

That said, we shouldn’t feel too bad for Tom Selleck. After all, the original “Magnum PI” proved to be a long running hit for CBS. And in an effort to smooth over any residual bad feelings that may have resulted from Tom being forced to give up “Raiders” back in May of 1980, Selleck was eventually allowed to create his own production company (i.e., T.W.S. Productions, Inc. As in Thomas William Selleck Productions). Which – after the fact – was then cut in on some of those “Magnum PI” -related revenue streams.

More to the point, while “Magnum PI” was on hiatus following its second year in production, Selleck flew off to Yugoslavia. Where he then shot his own Indiana Jones-esque film for theatrical release. Which was called “High Road to China” in the States, but – overseas – was promoted as “Raiders of the End of the World.”

FYI: Warner Bros. released “High Road to China” stateside 40 years ago this year. On March 18, 1983, to be exact. It didn’t do all that great at the box office. $28 million in ticket sales versus $15 million in production costs.

And over the years, there’s even been some talk of finding a way to maybe set things right here. By that I mean: Finally finding a way to officially fold Tom Selleck into the world of Indiana Jones.

Could Tom Selleck Work with Indiana Jones?

The way I hear it, between the time when “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” was theatrically released in May of 1989 and when “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” debuted in May of 2008, there were a number of ideas for Indiana Jones sequels tossed around. And from what I’ve been told, there was at least one treatment for a fourth Indiana Jones film written that proposed pairing up Harrison Ford & Tom Selleck. With the idea here being that Selleck was supposed to have played Ford’s brother.

Obviously that film was never made. And – no – I don’t know what state Indiana Jones’ brother was supposed to be named after.

This article is based on research for Looking at Lucasfilm “Episode 80”, published on June 29, 2023. Looking at Lucasfilm is part of the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network.

Continue Reading

Trending