General

$485 Million doesn’t count?!

Jim Hill tries to make sense of the controversy surrounding “Toy Story III,” a film that Disney really wants Pixar to make … sort of.

Published

22 years ago

September 25, 2002

Jim Hill

Perhaps animation veteran Floyd Norman put it best.

Floyd (who’s beloved by animation insiders for his bitingly funny take on the biz. Don’t believe me? Then find yourself a copy of Norman’s 1992 book, “Faster! Cheaper! The Flip Side to the Art of Animation.” You can thank me later. Anyway … ) once drew a picture of Disney CEO Michael Eisner and Pixar CEO Steve Jobs duking it out.

And what were the weapons that this cutting cartoonist placed in Michael and Steve’s hands? Bags of money. Floyd drew a picture of Eisner & Jobs attempting to beat each other to death with bags of money. And – appropriately enough – Norman titled this toon “Clash of the Titans.”

That – in a nutshell – is what’s actually going on right now between the Walt Disney Company and Pixar Animation Studio. Michael Eisner & Steve Jobs are duking it out over money-related matters.

To be specific, they’re fighting about all of the moola that a third “Toy Story” film could potentially pull in. Based on the worldwide grosses of 1995’s “Toy Story” and 1999’s “Toy Story II,” conservative estimates suggest that “Toy Story III” could pull in $350 – $400 at the global box office. Not to mention the additional cash that could be raised off of the sale of “Toy Story III” merchandise. As well as the hundreds of millions more that could be racked in from the sale of a “Toy Story III” home video & DVD.

So we’re obviously talking about a huge wad of cash here, folks. That Disney & Pixar – once all of the production & marketing costs for “Toy Story III” were recovered – would be splitting right down the middle.

So it sounds like a no-brainer for these two companies to green-light production of “Toy Story III,” doesn’t it? Particularly since all of the actors who provided voices for the first two “Toy Story” films are positively itching to get back in the saddle.

Take – for instance – Tim Allen : While doing press interviews earlier this year to help promote Touchstone Pictures’ “Big Trouble,” Tim Allen was asked about “Toy Story III.” His reply: “Tom Hanks wants to do it. So do I, and Don Rickles and the director and the writers.” So what’s the hold-up? Tim explained that “It’s a corporate and business thing. And it’s a shame. (Because) There’s an absolutely great idea for a new script.”

And Tom Hanks – while doing promotion for Dreamworks’ “Road to Perdition” this summer – basically confirmed what Allen had said. He told reporters that voicing Woody was one of his favorite assignments and “… if there are plans for Toy Story 3, I’d be more than willing to talk to the folks at Pixar and Disney about being part of it.

So there you have it. A film sequel that’s almost guaranteed to make a fortune. A project that the original voice actors would be glad to be a part of. And then there’s that “great idea for a new script.” (More on that later).

So what exactly is holding up “Toy Story III”? Well, Disney CEO Michael Eisner wants Pixar Animation to honor its February 1997 agreement with the Mouse House. To the letter.

To explain: Under the terms of this contract (Which supercedes the original three picture deal that the computer animation studio signed with Mickey ‘way back in 1991), Pixar has ’til 2007 to deliver five finished feature length animated films to Walt Disney Studios. The movies covered in this agreement are 1998’s “A Bug’s Life,” 2001’s “Monsters, Inc.” as well as these forthcoming Pixar Animation Studio projects; “Finding Nemo” (Summer 2003), “The Incredibles” (2004) and “Cars” (2005).

You’ll note that nowhere in that listing did “Toy Story II” come up. Why’s that? Well, that’s because it’s a sequel to “Toy Story,” a film that was covered under Pixar’s earlier deal with Disney. And – according to language included in the 1997 agreement – sequels don’t count. At least when it comes to those five pictures that Pixar owes Disney.

And why exactly don’t sequels count? Because – back in 1997 when Disney and Pixar originally signed this new deal – it was assumed that any and all sequels that would be done to earlier Pixar productions would be done on the cheap. Like “The Return of Jafar,” Disney’s 1994 direct-to-video follow-up to their 1992 hit, “Aladdin.”

Both parties assumed that – if sequels were made to “Toy Story” and “A Bug’s Life” (or any other Pixar projects) – they’d probably be thrown together very quickly. Made for as little money as possible. With an eye toward making a maximum profit off of a fairly low grade product.

So, while Pixar’s A team labored on “A Bug’s Life” in early 1998, the B team got to work on “Toy Story II: Collector’s Item.” Only the script that these folks came up with turned out to be pretty good. And the preliminary animation on “Toy Story II” project … Well, that turned out to be pretty good too.

And – as the folks at Disney & Pixar began looking at the rough assembly of footage for “Toy Story II” – people at both companies began to realize that this film was just too good to throw away as a direct-to-video release. Which is why – in June of 1998 – Disney & Pixar announced that “Toy Story II” would be coming to the big screen first, THEN going the home video route.

So this “Walt Disney Studios presents a Pixar Animation Studios film” finally hits theaters in November 1999. It garners rave reviews as well as earning $245 million during its domestic release (Which is $54 million more than the original “Toy Story” earned, by the way).

So Steve Jobs reportedly calls Michael Eisner so that the two moguls can gloat over their immensely successful film. Jobs then casually mentions that – since “Toy Story II” was such a huge hit – that he’s assuming that Eisner would be willing to count this film as one of the five projects that Pixar owes Disney. So – with “A Bug’s Life” and “Toy Story II” already in the hopper – that means that Steve only owes Michael three more …

Eisner then allegedly interrupts Jobs. “Re-read your contract, Steve,” Michael says. “Sequels don’t count. You still owe me four films.”

Steve was supposedly flabbergasted. How could “Toy Story II” – a film that would eventually go on to accumulate a worldwide gross of $485 million – not count?

Okay, okay. According to the letter of the law, Pixar DID owe Disney four films. I understand that.

But – at the same time – some consideration has to be paid to the hard work and effort that the staff at Pixar Animation Studio poured into “Toy Story II.” They COULD HAVE treated this film like it was a throw-away and just made a half-hearted effort. After all, what’s the point of busting your ass on “Toy Story II”? Had things actually gone according to plan, it would have only been a direct-to-video film. A lesser product.

Only the folks at Pixar didn’t treat “Toy Story II” like it was a lesser product. They kept plussing & plussing & plussing the production until it became the film that totally won over audiences in November of 1999. Me personally? I think that Disney should have done something to recognize all that extra effort … And a good place to have started would have been by recognizing “Toy Story II” as one of the five films that Pixar still contractually owed to the Walt Disney Company.

Anyway … It was at this exact moment that the bad blood reportedly began boiling between Eisner & Jobs. Soon after this conversation, Steve allegedly began making noise about finding a new production partner for Pixar as soon as the Disney deal wrapped up in 2007.

Eisner – who, amazingly enough, still seems totally unaware that his insistence that Pixar honor its contract TO THE LETTER will probably result in Jobs refusing to reup his studio’s production pact with Disney – actually acerbated the situation by pressing Pixar to go forward with “Toy Story III.” Again without offering to count that proposed project toward the five films that the computer animation studio still owed Mickey.

According to Pixar insiders, the only way that Jobs would now agree to make “Toy Story III” was if it would get his company out of its arrangement with the Mouse that much quicker. There are also reports that Pixar has already begun production on the studio’s first post-Disney film. This feature – which is supposedly being developed by Jan Pinkava (the director of Pixar’s 1999 Academy Award winning short, “Geri’s Game”) – could be out in theaters as early as the Summer of 2006.

All because Michael Eisner wants Pixar to follow its contract with the Mouse House right down to the last codicil. Rather than honor the spirit of the agreement. Me personally? I just can’t understand how a film like “Toy Story II” – a movie that’s so incredibly entertaining, that earned rave reviews, a project that earned nearly a half billion dollars internationally – still doesn’t count. That’s just mind blowing to me.

Okay. Enough about that: What about “Toy Story III”? According to Jobs, “(That) train has left the station. (Our) next three films are spoken for … We wanted to make a Toy Story 3. But – in the current deal – it’s not going to happen. Toy Story 2 was a big success and we never complained (that) it didn’t count (as a contracted film). But we can’t do (that) again.”

As for Disney: Well, if what I’m hearing is correct, Eisner’s actually toying with the idea of making “Toy Story III” WITHOUT Pixar’s involvement. In an interview earlier this year, Uncle Mike was actually quoted as saying “We have the right to do a sequel irrespective of the two deals (Disney made with Pixar). I don’t need a new deal (with Pixar) to make Toy Story 3. I can get (the) five movies (that Pixar owes Disney) plus Toy Story 3.”

So would Disney really dare to make a “Toy Story III” without Pixar’s direct involvement? The contract that Pixar has with Disney expressly prohibits that studio from taking any of the characters that they created for “Toy Story,” “A Bug’s Life,” “Monsters, Inc.,” “Finding Nemo,” “The Incredibles” and “Cars” and using them in a non-Disney film. On the other hand, the Mouse does appear to have plenty of latitude when that corporation wants to use the Pixar characters. Which (perhaps) explains the “Buzz Lightyear of Star Command” animated TV series, WDW’s “Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin” attraction as well as DCA’s soon-to-be-opening “Flik’s Fun Fair.”

I guess the bigger question is – were Disney to go forward with a “Toy Story III” as a solo project – would they follow the story arc that John Lasseter & Co. have tentatively mapped out for that movie? Because – if they did – it would at least provide a fitting cap to this much beloved film series.

And what might that cap be? Well, let me preface this by saying that I personally am quite happy with the way that the “Toy Story” saga has already wrapped up. The end of “Toy Story II” – with Buzz, Woody, Jessie, Bullseye, Bo Peep and the gang looking on as Wheezy sang “You’ve Got a Friend in Me” (With a trio of Barbies as the penguin’s back-up singers) – was sheer bliss for me. I don’t think that you could have ended that story on a higher note.

But the proposed storyline for “Toy Story III” (at least the little bits that I’ve heard) concludes in such a warm, winning way – leaving all of these characters that we’ve come to love in a much better place – that I can’t help but wish that Disney or Pixar or SOMEBODY would get off their asses & make this movie.

So what happens during “Toy Story III”? Sorry, but that would be telling. You want your movies spoiled years in advance? Go over to Aint It Cool News. (Particularly this week. Where Moriarty just revealed EVERYTHING that there is to know about J.J. Abrams’ new “Superman” screenplay. As the good doctor so eloquently puts it, “You will believe that a franchise can suck.” Anyway …)

So – without really spoiling the film – what can I tell you about “Toy Story III”? Well, I can tell you is that the film deals with a subject that Pixar has reportedly gotten a lot of mail about: What happens when Andy grows up.

It seems that hundreds of kids out there have written to Pixar over the years, wondering what’s going to happen to Woody, Buzz et al when Andy finally outgrows his toys. Is it going to be a rerun of what happened to Jessie, where she was ignored, forgotten, then eventually given away to charity?

To do that … would just break the hearts of thousands of kids around the globe. To think that Slinky Dog, Rex and Mr. Potato Head came to such a sad end.

Which is why the folks at Pixar – particularly Lasseter – reportedly wants to end the “Toy Story” story with all the characters in a safe place. So – as “Toy Story III” faded out – it was crucial that Woody, Buzz and the gang would be somewhere where they’d always be cared for. Where they’ll always be loved.

So how to do you do this? Well – to get to the end – sometimes you have to go all the way back to the beginning. In this case, that meant digging out of the original treatment for “Toy Story” (written in the Spring of 1991).

How many of you out there have the ultimate “Toy Box” on DVD? Okay. Go get it. Now slap in the supplemental disc & find your way to the original treatment that’s archived on this disc. Isn’t it amazing how many pieces of “Toy Story II” (Not to mention, of course, the original “Toy Story”) can be found in this document? The yard sale that the characters accidentally end up in? The greedy toy collector? The dangerous crossing of the highway? And – of course – the toy penguin with the broken squeaker.

Yes, the original treatment for “Toy Story” is fun to read. But what we’re here to talk about is the proposed ending of “Toy Story III.” Well – if you read the original treatment for “Toy Story” – you’ll get a large-sized hint as to where Lasseter and Co. want to go with the third and (supposedly) final chapter of this much beloved film series.

So what happens at the end of the original treatment of “Toy Story”? Tinny (a tin toy based – appropriately enough – on the title character in Pixar’s 1989 Academy Award winning short, “Tin Toy”) and his friend, Dummy (A ventriloquist dummy modeled after Charlie McCarthy that occasionally wears a cowboy hat), have survived encounters with obnoxious dogs, obsessive toy collectors, being separated from the kids that love them, even tumbling out a garbage truck into speeding traffic … And they really deserve a break. After their long ordeal, these characters deserve to find a loving home where there will always be kids to play with them. (For a toy is never truly happy unless it is being loved by a child).

And – miracles of miracles – they actually find this wonderful place. Right next door to where the obnoxious dog lives. It’s a pre-school with a kindergarten. Tinny and Dummy (along with their new friends, Slinky Worm and Wheezy) eventually their way into the kindergarten class room. Here, the other toys tell them that their troubles are finally over.

Why for? Because in this room, there will always be children who are willing to play with Tinny & Dummy. And each year, a brand new crop of kids arrives to shower the playthings with affection and attention. And the best part of the deal is … The children go home every day once school lets out. And the toys get the entire summers off. To rest. To vacation. Play with their fellow playthings. Whatever.

This is where Lasseter & Co. supposedly want to leave Woody, Buzz and the crew to be at the end of “Toy Story III.” In a place where there’ll always be kids to play with them. Where the audience knows that they’ll be loved and cared for years yet to come.

That’s not too shabby a way to wrap up the “Toy Story” saga, now is it? Of course, given that it’s looking more & more unlikely that we’ll never see this movie (Because – according to Michael Eisner’s way of looking at things – a film that makes $485 million still DOESN’T COUNT !!!), I guess that we’ll just have to make do with the ending of “Toy Story II.”

Which is still pretty snazzy. At least to my way of thinking. What with the glitter ball and all.

But I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that a film that makes almost a half a billion dollars … just doesn’t count. That just boggles my mind.

Your thoughts?

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