First up, Evan writes in to ask:

Hi Jim,

I love your web site and I read it often. It is a great site to get information I had yet to learn about Walt Disney and various other topics.

Which brings me to my question: I’ve noticed this week that — to coincide with “George of the Jungle 2” being released — 2 stories on the great Jay Ward have appeared on your site. Now I know that Walt Disney was a fan of Rocky and Bullwinkle, and he enjoyed watching “Rocky and His Friends” each week on primetime television.

But what boggles (my mind) is the Bullwinkle statue on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood, located right in front of the former Jay Ward production facilities and adjacent to the Dudley Do-Right Emporium, a Ward family owned store. Now I know the story of the statue. But among the many names in the cement near it (Paul Frees, Bill Scott, June Foray, and others who worked [on] the show) is the Walt Disney’s name scrawled in the cement.

Did Walt actually attend the unveiling of this statue in 1961? Or did (Disney) perhaps make a visit to the studio and place his name in the cement then? If you know anything in regards to this, I’d love to hear about it.

Thanks!

Evan

Dear Evan:

Boy, I wish I had better news for you here. But that Walt Disney signature that you see in the cement at the base of the Bullwinkle statue in Hollywood? It’s a fake.

Or — rather — a sort of a goof on Walt Disney. You see, Evan, Jay Ward and Bill Scott (the two comic geniuses behind “The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show”) really enjoyed taking swipes at Uncle Walt.

I mean, surely you recall that infamous episode of “Fractured Fairy Tales” when Prince Charming — instead of waking up Sleeping Beauty — opts to build a theme park around the slumbering princess. (If you HAVEN’T seen this particular cartoon before: Not to worry, Evan. You can actually find it on the “Rocky & Bullwinkle & Friends” 4-disc DVD set. Which came out back in August and is currently on sale over on Amazon.com.)

Anyway … The next time you watch this episode of “Fractured Fairy Tale,” Evan, pay particularly close attention to Prince Charming. Doesn’t he look an awful lot like a certain studio head? Right down to the slicked-back hair and that pencil-thin mustache.

To put it bluntly, Ward and Scott were not big fans of Walt. Want proof? Here’s a quote from Keith Scott’s excellent book, “The Moose That Roared: The Story of Jay Ward, Bill Scott, a Flying Squirrel and a Talking Moose” (Thomas Dunne Books, July 2000):

“Disney worked twenty years to get animation to appear as real as possible, and the nearer he got to reality, the duller the shows got. We believe animation should involve a push beyond reality. If you’ve got a picture that can be done with live characters, you might as well use live characters. We use animation to sell a story, Disney uses the story to sell animation.”

That’s Bill Scott explaining how Jay Ward Studios’ approach to animation differed fundamentally from Disney’s. (By the way: “The Moose That Roared” is a flat-out wonderful book. It’s the definitive volume on the Jay Ward operation. Keith Scott — who, oddly enough, is NOT related to Bill Scott in any way — did a really great job with this book. If you’re an animation fan, I highly recommend that you pick “The Moose That Roared.” Which — not-sot-coincidentally — is also currently on sale over at Amazon.com.)

Jeese, is it just me … or does this column already have more plugs than an electrician’s convention?

Anywho … Given that the guys at Jay Ward Productions were always looking for way to tease and twit Uncle Walt, when it came time (on September 19, 1961) to formally dedicate that Bullwinkle statue in front of what-was-then the company’s main office, Bill and Jay came up with what they thought was a truly inspired gag to pull on the head of Walt Disney Productions.

I mean, given that Walt Disney was the least likely guy to attend this sort of flakey affair, what better way would there to be to make fun of the Old Mousetro than to forge his signature in cement? So that — for years yet to come — thousands of people would do just as you did, Evan. Which is drop by the plaza on Sunset Boulevard where the Bullwinkle statue still stands. Then cast your eyes down at all those signatures that have been cast in concrete and suddenly go: “Is that Walt Disney’s signature?”

Sadly, Jay and Bill are no longer with us, Evan. But — wherever they are — I’m sure that they’d get a kick out of knowing that — over 42 years after the fact — that this one gag is continuing to trip up animation fans.

By the way: For those of you who have never seen the Bullwinkle statue on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, Nancy and I dropped by there earlier this year and took this picture:

This impressive 15-foot-tall edifice is located at 8217 Sunset Boulevard, just across from the Chateau Marmont hotel.

Sadly, Jay Ward’s animation studio is no more. So what company now occupies this historic piece of Hollywood turf? Would you believe a dog groomer? Which means that — as the canine customers are killing time out in the courtyard directly under the Bullwinkle statue — they occassionally widdle on Uncle Walt’s faux signature. Which — again — I’m sure would amuse Bill Scott and Jay Ward to no end.

Speaking of Jay Ward: His daughter, Ramona, still operates a cool little boutique that’s just up the street from the Bullwinkle statue. It’s Dudley Do-Right’s Emporium. Which is located at 8200 Sunset Boulevard.

Nancy and I spent a pleasant half hour or so poking around in this funky little shop. There’s all sorts of neat Jay Ward related items available for sale here. Stuff like Wottsamatta U sweartshirts, limited edition Bullwinkle watches and “George of the Jungle” storyboards.

So — if you’re ever out in Hollywood and (just like Evan, Nancy and I) want to make a pilgrimage to the place where the Kirward Derby was concieved — I suggest that you follow this link. (Alright! Enough with the links already!) Where the nice folks at seeing-stars.com will tell you exactly how to get to the Bullwinkle statue as well as Dudley Do-Right’s Emporium.

And — speaking of “George of the Jungle” — Bill writes in to ask:

Hi Jim:

Great article today about “George of the Jungle 2”! It is too bad that some of (Brendan Fraser’s) original ideas weren’t included (in the sequel).

In a related question, I was wondering if you knew whether Caterpillar’s lawsuit against Disney over GOTJ2 was going to impact their presence in Disney’s California Adventure?

Thanks for the great read every day!

Bill

Dear Bill:

Actually, Disney and Caterpillar have been on the outs since October of last year. Ever since the Imagineers rethemed DCA’s Bountiful Valley Farm into A Bug’s Land. And Disneyland resort guests began racing past Caterpillar’s display tractors so that they could catch a ride on Heimlich the caterpillar’s Chew Chew Train.

In fact, there are many within the Walt Disney Company who believe that the only reason that Caterpillar Inc. actually filed this lame-brained lawsuit against the Mouse was NOT because “George of the Jungle 2” cast the corporation’s heavy equipment in a bad light. But — rather — because Caterpillar execs were angry that Disney hadn’t lived up to their end of the bargain on DCA.

To explain: When Caterpillar Inc. initially signed up to be one of the sponsors of Disney’s California Adventure theme park, company officials were reportedly promised that hundreds of thousands of people would walk through that park’s Bountiful Valley Farm area each year and see their corporation’s tractors on. Which — in theory — would help enhance the reputation of this heavy equipment firm among the millions of tourists who annually visit the Disneyland Resort.

But then DCA opened in January 2001 and pretty much immediately underwhelmed theme park fans. And guest surveys done during California Adventure’s first year of operation quickly pointed to Bountiful Valley Farm as being the most boring part of the park. The “district” of California Adventure that Disneyland resort visitors liked least. To add insult to injury, Caterpillar’s tractor display was often singled out as the worst “attraction” in the entire theme park.

Clearly something had to be done to spruce up this corner of California Adventure — and fast. Which is why WDI pulled the “A Bug’s Land” retheming idea out of their Sorcerer Mickey shaped hat. The “Bountiful Valley Farm” name was quickly erased. And — out behind where Caterpillar’s tractors are on display — the Imagineers swiftly erected “Flik’s Fun Fair,” a clever collection of kiddie rides inspired by the 1998 Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar Animation Studio’s release, “A Bug’s Life.”

This DCA expansion area immediately proved to be a hit with the public. But the downside of this rushed addition to the theme park was that — where a few hundred people used to tour the Caterpillar tractor display on a daily basis prior to “Flik’s Fun Fair” opening — now virtually no one was climbing up the stairs to peek into those cabs.

And — given that Caterpillar Inc. had supposedly paid the Walt Disney Company some pretty big bucks for the privilege of prominently displaying the firm’s heavy equipment in what used to be DCA’s “Bountiful Valley Farm” area — I guess you can understand why executives of this Illinois-based corporation allegedly decided that it was time that they made some noise. That they let the Mouse know how truly unhappy they were with the way that “Flik’s Fun Fair” had so egregiously upstaged Caterpillar’s tractor display.

Of course, given that the Walt Disney Company was still — in theory — honoring its part of Caterpillar’s DCA sponsorship agreement, the heavy equipment corporation really couldn’t do much more than just *** and moan about how “Tuck and Roll’s Drive ’em Buggies” were continually drawing away potential visitors from the firm’s tractor display. (“And what was WDI’s response to these complaints?” you ask. Well, the Imagineers kept trying different signage to see if that might convince more youngsters to stop for a brief moment and peer inside one of the three tractors on display. To date, nothing that WDI has done has helped.)

But then Caterpillar execs reportedly learned that the company’s Wheel Loaders played a prominent role in “George of the Jungle 2″‘s finale (I.E. That film’s villain — Lyle Vandergroot, played by “Wings” sitcom star Thomas Haden Church — plans on using the dozers to destroy George’s jungle home), they supposedly thought: “Now here’s a way that we can legally stick it to the Mouse.” And so they did.

Which is why — earlier this month — Caterpillar Inc. filed suit in Federal District court against the Walt Disney Company. The corporation sought a restraining order, asking that Buena Vista Home Entertainment be prevented from selling any and all “George of the Jungle 2” videos and DVDs in the United States. Why for? Because — according to papers that the heavy equipment company filed in Illinois — the big yellow bulldozers featured in the film’s climax prominently feature the Caterpillar name and logo.

And why exactly should this concern U.S. Federal court officials? Because — according to the argument that Caterpillar’s attorneys put forward — this sequence in the film (which showed George and his CG animal pals doing battle with a bunch of the corporation’s Wheel Loaders) could have a negative impact on children watching the “George of the Jungle 2” video and/or DVD. And — as a result — could have a significant impact on the sale of Caterpillar’s line of children’s products and/or tarnish the heavy equipment corporation’s reputation by association.

Of course, when Disney’s lawyers heard what Caterpillar Inc. was up to, they were supposedly shocked. I mean, they knew that there had been some bad blood between the heavy equipment corporation and the entertainment conglomerate. But to go so far as to file an obviously frivolous nuisance lawsuit just to trip up “George of the Jungle 2” just took Mouse House attorneys totally by surprise.

In response to Caterpillar’s request to stop all sales of “George of the Jungle 2,” Disney’s attorneys said: “While we have great respect for Caterpillar, we consider this (suit to be) without legal merit and we expect (that people who purchase this DVD) will view these sequences for their comedic value and not take them seriously.”

Luckily for the Mouse (given the millions that the Walt Disney Company and its promotional partners had already invested in the “George of The Jungle 2” October 21st launch date), District Court judge Billy McDade refused to honor Caterpillar’s request for a temporary restraining order that would block the scheduled sale of the sequel in the United States.

As he dismissed Caterpillar’s lawsuit this past Tuesday, District Court judge Billy McDade wrote that “… the court finds this argument to be unpersuasive.” Disney — obviously thrilled to have dodge a bullet here — attempted to mend fences with the heavy equipment corporation. While still trying to assert that the Mouse House was in the right in this case.

In a prepared statement, Disney’s attorneys said that “… while we have great respect for Caterpillar, we have — from the start — considered this (lawsuit to be) without any legal merit and we believe the court reached the proper decision. We expect the audience will view these sequences for their comedic value and not take them seriously.”

So — getting back to your original question, Bill — where does this leave Disney and Caterpillar’s relationship? On pretty shaky ground. I would imagine that the Imagineers are now going to redouble the efforts to try and improve signage around “A Bug’s Land”‘s tractor displays. With the hope that more DCA visitors will then opt to visit this heavy equipment display. Which would then (in theory) make Caterpillar execs happy with the Walt Disney Company once again.

But given the bad blood that exists between the heavy equipment corporation and the entertainment conglomerate, I would imagine that things are going to remain pretty iffy between Caterpillar and Disney right up until January 2006. Which is when Caterpillar’s DCA sponsorship agreement supposedly expires.

And — finally — Rick (who’s actually getting married this weekend in Las Vegas … so congrats to Rick and his lovely bride, Molly) writes in to ask:

Jim

Is it true that Universal holds the rights to the Tyrannosaurus Rex and that’s why Disney used the Carnotaurus (in “Dinosaur”) instead? If this is true, this will settle a bet that I have with one of my friends and I’ll have bragging rights

Talk to you soon.

Rick

Dear Rick:

Actually, it’s the other way around. You see, the real reason that Disney opted to use the Carnotaur as the defacto villain in its Summer 2000 theatrical release, “Dinosaur” (as well as using this massive meat-eater as the heavy in Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s “Countdown to Extinction” attraction. Which — of course — in honor of the release of Walt Disney Pictures’ first CG animated feature, was renamed “Dinosaur — The Ride” in May of 2000) was because they couldn’t find a way to copyright Tyrannosaurus Rex.

You see, Rick, almost every other director in the history of Hollywood — whenever they’d previously made a picture that featured dinosaurs — used Tyrannosaurus Rex as their film’s villain. Which — from the Walt Disney Company’s point of view — made this variety of ancient reptile damned difficult to copyright. And since the Mouse was looking to make millions off of the sale of “Dinosaur”-inspired toys, books, posters, etc. it became clear to Mickey’s merchandising team that this movie’s creative team had to take a very unique approach to the characters that they were creating. In short, to insure that Disney’s dinosaurs didn’t look like anyone else’s dinosaurs. Which meant that the corporation could then have a exclusive license on creatures that looked like the dinos in “Dinosaur.”

Which was why Ralph Zondag and Eric Leighton (“Dinosaur”‘s directors) were always getting odd notes from the merchandising side of the Mouse House. Weird memos that would say things like: “Don’t go for the obvious dinosaurs in this film. Your apatasaurs, your triceratops, your T-rexes. Give us characters that are unusual. That moviegoers haven’t seen before. Both because they’ll have unique visual appeal to our audience as well as being easy to copyright.”

Which is why Baylene ended up being a brachiosaur, as opposed to being a garden variety brontosaurus or apatasaur. And why Eema became a styracosaur, rather than your stereotypical triceratops. And why it’s a pair of carnotaurs — rather than a herd of T-rexes — that relentlessly pursue Aladar and his friends.

It’s like what Deep Throat supposedly told Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein: “Follow the money.” When the Mouse does something unusual like this, Rick, you can usually bet that there are some bucks involved. Disney thought that — by going with some unusual looking reptiles for “Dinosaur” — they’d be guaranteeing themselves that, when kids came clamoring to their parents for “Dinosaur” toys, that these adults wouldn’t be able to buy off their offspring with “Jurassic Park” action figures and/or “Land Before Time” plush. That these children would insist on toys that looked exactly like Baylene and Eema and Aladar and — of course — the carnotaurs.

It’s just too bad that “Dinosaur” didn’t actually do all that great a job of connecting with kids. Which was (I guess) why the Disney Stores were eventually forced to remainder so much of their “Dinosaur” — related merchandise.

Still — given that, just this past week, I noticed that our local Disney Store was selling Aladar Halloween costumes — I have to assume that (somewhere) the Mouse still has a warehouse full of this stuff. All of these dinosaurs that Disney’s artists deliberately designed to look unlike any other dinos that had ever appeared on the big screen.

Speaking of you Hollywood artistic types … pay close attention now. This is Jim Hill being subtle:

Between October 30th and November 5th, I will be out in Southern California. So if — by chance — some of you studio types (I.E. You folks who are still working on major motion pictures. Films that feature — oh, I don’t know — talking cows, wisecracking rabbits, hat wearing cats, curious chimps and/or rude green ogres) would like me to drop by and say “Hello,” I can be reached by lobbing an e-mail at stadlerhill@mindspring.com.

And — speaking of next week’s trip out to LA — time’s a-wasting if you still want to sign up for this next round of JHM tours of Disneyland and Disney’s California Adventure. At this point, virtually all of the slots for Sunday’s tours are gone. Mind you, there is still some wiggle room for Saturday’s tours. But not a whole hell of a lot. So — if you want to get in on the fun — you’d best send me an e-mail ASAP.

Anywho … That wraps up another extremely busy week here at JimHillMedia.com. Here’s hoping that you enjoyed our most recent assortment of articles and that you’ll come back next week … when we’ll have got some even better pieces (including an extra-special Halloween surprise that you won’t want to miss) to post.

Beyond that, you folks have a great weekend, okay? And we’ll see you again on Monday.