Earlier this week, EdwrdScssrhnds wrote to say:

Jim –

Really loved your articles this week about forthcoming projects from Disney Theatrical as well as that new Clive Barker book. Your story about how Disney closes the deal with Clive – by offering him his very own “Abarat Land” at Disneyland – got me thinking: Didn’t Katzenberg make the same sort of offer to Tim Burton back in the early 1990s, back when Jeffrey was trying to get that director to sign a long term contract with Walt Disney Studios?

Dear EdwrdScssrhnads –

Wow, you’ll got a really good memory, guy. Back in the early 1990s – when former Disney animator Tim Burton had become one of Hollywood’s hottest directors – the Mouse really WAS desperate to get Tim to commit to some sort of long term contract with the company. Which is why they kept saying “Yes” to whatever projects that Burton would kick Disney’s way.

“A stop motion children’s film that features a morose skeleton who kidnaps Christmas? Sure, Tim! A sophomoric Chris Elliot comedy that’s stuffed with lots of expensive special effects? Absolutely, Tim. We’d love to make a movie like that! A black-and-white comic drama that dramatizes the life of infamous cross-dresser Ed Wood, the worst director in Hollywood history? Bring it on!”

And – each time that Burton would begin making a movie for the Mouse – then-Disney studio head Jeffrey Katzenberg would begin whispering in Tim’s ear. “Why do you want to make movies for all those other awful companies like Warners or Fox? We’ve got everything that you need right here in Burbank. Hell, we can even make your creatures come to life right off of the silver screen. Think about it, Tim. A ‘Nightmare Before Christmas’ ride at Disneyland? Or – better yet – how about an entire Tim Burton-themed theme park? With a ‘Nightmare Before Christmas’ land and a ‘James and the Giant Peach’ land?”

Burton was reportedly sorely tempted by Katzenberg’s constant cajoling. But – in the end – Tim opted to sign a long term contract with Warners instead. Disney execs were reportedly so furious when they learned of Burton’s defection to the enemy that they deliberately screwed up the release of “Ed Wood.” Throwing that picture straight out into wide release in late 1994, rather than starting the film out in a few smaller art houses and allowing audience interest to build in this odd little project.

Disney supposedly took the same sort of cavalier attitude with Burton’s “Nightmare” follow-up – Henry Selick’s “James and the Giant Peach.” Putting that film out in too many theaters without enough promotional support. Which is why that stop motion project supposedly did so poorly at the box office.

Which might explain why both Tim Burton and Henry Selick have been so reluctant to take part in the promotion of Disneyland’s “Haunted Mansion Holiday” attraction. After all, these guys remember all too well the shabby treatment that their films received when Mickey didn’t get his way. So why should these two talented film-makers go out of their way to help Disney now?

Still, given the continuing success of “Haunted Mansion Holiday” (which is now slated to be installed seasonally at both the Haunted Mansion at WDW’s Magic Kingdom as well as Tokyo Disneyland), perhaps Tim Burton might eventually have a change of heart someday. Particularly if Disney does a really good job with Clive Barker’s “Abarat” themed land. Maybe then Burton will agree to a long term deal with the Mouse House. Which – hopefully – could eventually lead to a full fledged “Nightmare Before Christmas” land.

Here’s hoping, anyway. Anyhow … Eric G. of Townsend, MA. writes to say:

Dear Mr. Hill:

You seem to know a lot about the early days at Disney-MGM. I recall that – back when I took the animation tour in the Fall of 1989 – I saw some storyboards for a movie called “Mickey’s Arabian Adventure.” These drawings showed Mickey in a Arabian marketplace clutching something that looked an awful lot like the genie’s lamp from “Aladdin.”

Did Disney’s animators ever actually get around to making “Mickey’s Arabian Adventure”? I mean, I’ve kept an eye for this film for over 13 years now. But I’ve never heard word one about a finished version of this toon. Could you please fill in the blanks for me, Jim?

Dear Eric G. –

Of course I’d be happy to fill in the blanks for you, Eric. The “Mickey’s Arabian Adventure” film that you mention was a short that the artists at Disney Feature Animation Florida were supposed to have made back in the early 1990s. Back when all these animators were supposed to was churn out a steady stream of new short subjects which were supposed to have been paired with Disney’s latest feature length animated releases.

“Mickey’s Arabian Adventure” was one of at least three different short subjects that the crew at WDFA were supposed to have churned out. Two other titles that these folks did development work on was an animated featurette based on the story of Christopher Columbus (starring – of course – Mickey Mouse as the noted explorer and Minnie Mouse as Queen Isabella of Spain) which supposed to have run in theaters in the Fall of 1992 (The 400th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the Americas), as well as “The Legend of Lord Goofstroke: Goofy of the Apes.” Which – of course – was supposed to have been a comic retelling of the legend of Tarzan (with Goofy wearing the loincloth in this go-round).

Of course, by the time the Disney-MGM Studio Theme Park threw open its gates in May of 1989, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” had also opened and proven to be an enormous success. Which is why the animators at WDFAF suddenly found themselves abandoning their long-in-the-planning short subjects in favor of doing new Roger Rabbit Maroon Cartoons.

These Orlando-based animators worked on a number of “Roger Rabbit” (Including one called “Hare in My Soup” – which featured Roger as a harried waiter in a hoity-toity restaurant – that got shut down just as production was getting underway because Spielberg and Disney couldn’t agree on how the rabbit character was being used) … until they were recruited to start working on individual scenes and sequences for Disney’s newest feature length cartoons. Movies like 1991’s “Beauty and the Beast” and 1994’s “The Lion King.”

The superior work that these Florida animators did on these individual sequences lead to these artists being given a shot at making their very own feature length animated films, 1998’s “Mulan” (a film that I’ll reveal even more about with my next answer here at “Why For”) as well as 2002’s “Lilo & Stitch.”

As for what became of “Mickey’s Arabian Adventure” … I would imagine, Eric G., that – once Disney released a feature length animated version of the story of “Aladdin” in 1992 – execs at WDFA decided that it might be wise to table all plans for a animated short version of the same story. At least for a while. So I would guess that all those storyboards that you saw during your Orlando vacation ‘way back in 1989 have been safely tucked away in Disney’s Animation Research Library in Glendale, CA. Where they wait patiently for some enterprising animator to come uncover them someday and say “You know, these storyboards have the makings of a great animated short.”

Anywho … PsPorridgeHaut slung me an e-mail earlier this week, which said:

Dear Jim –

I love, love, LOVE your “Why For” column and all the way cool stuff that you reveal about Disney’s animated films. I particularly enjoyed last week’s story about that unfinished gag from “The Little Mermaid.” You know, the one about where the shark eats the dynamite? So I was wondering: Do you know any great stories about unfinished stuff from my own favorite Disney animated movie, “Mulan”?

Dear PsPorridgeHaut (Great name, by the way),

Actually, there are a lot of great things that ended up getting cut out of “Mulan.” Ballsy dramatic sequences, like the opening that Disney’s Florida story artists had originally envisioned for this film. Picture a scene where all of the incidents that lead up to the creation of the Great Wall of China are played out by shadow puppets performing by candle light behind a paper screen. This would have been a truly beautiful, evocative way to have started the movie … particularly given the shocking ending that WDFAF’s animators had originally wanted to tack onto this placid opening sequence.

And what sort of shocking ending was that? Well, picture this: Eventually, the camera would have pulled back away from the paper screen, revealing that there was an audience seated in a puppet theater that was watching this shadow play. The camera would then have drifted over to the theater’s window and revealed that – just as the off-screen puppeteer is explaining how the Great Wall prevented the Mongol horde from ever returning and attacking China – that Shan Yu and his army are (at that very same moment) swarming over the Wall. The sequence was supposed to have ended with the horde entering the theater in the middle of the puppet show. The audiences flees, screaming. Shan Yu kills the puppeteer and then sets fire to the shadow puppets and the paper screen.

Not exactly what you’d expect from a Disney animated film, is it? Well, the idea behind this version of “Mulan”‘s opening sequence was to give moviegoers as much info as possible about the world that they were about to enter as well as establish that Shan Yu and his horde really are very bad guys. The worst villains that we’ve ever encountered in a Disney feature length cartoon. Which would (hopefully) make the audience realize that the stacks are extremely high in this film. That if Fa Zhou actually does go off to war to fight against a ruthless army like this, there’s just no way that he’ll ever return alive. Which is why Fa Mulan (because she loves her father so) really has no choice but to go off to fight against the Mongols in his place.

But perhaps my favorite little dramatic plot twist that was originally proposed for “Mulan” that didn’t make it into the finished version of the film was the Chinese Dragons sequence. What sequence was this? Well, do you remember how Shan Yu and his gang of assassins made their way into the Imperial Palace by posing as a Chinese dragon in the victory parade? Well, originally Mulan was supposed to have learned of this treachery just before the celebration sequence in the palace’s courtyard was supposed to gotten underway.

Mulan then tells Shang, Yao, Chien-Po and Ling. The soldiers all then agree to set aside their differences and help their old friend unmask the invaders. So the five of them – with Crikee, Mushu, and Khan’s help – race into the palace’s courtyard to find … that there are no less than 15 different Chinese dragons dancing among the thousands of people who have crowded into the vast courtyard!

What was to have followed was a tense, but funny scene, as Mulan and her friends raced through the crowd – ripping the Chinese dragon costumes off of the backs of dozens of happy dancers. All the while realizing that – at the very moment – the assassins must be making their way ever closer to the Emperor.

Were you to watch this general section of “Mulan” again today, you would actually be able to pick out the shot that was originally supposed to have set up this suspenseful sequence. The “crane shot” of the entire palace courtyard, which showed that there are at least a dozen Chinese dragons dancing round in the crowd.

So why didn’t the folks at WDFAF opt to go forward with this exciting version of the palace courtyard sequence? To be honest, at this point in the picture, “Mulan”‘s two directors – animation vets Tony Bancroft and Barry Cook – were just running for the goal posts. Trying to wrap up the plot line in their picture just as quickly and neatly as possible, while still giving moviegoers all the tears, thrills and laughs that they have come to expect from Disney’s animated films. The whole idea behind the “Let’s go find the assassins in their Chinese dragon costume” was fun and exciting. But not exactly necessary for the successful completion of the film. Which is why this intriguing plot point eventually hit the cutting room floor.

Does that answer your question, PsPorridgeHaut?

And – finally – Polly Purebread wrote to say:

Jim –

What’s going on with your web site this week? First you fall for that obviously fake “Tom Schumacher was fired” story. Then you do an article about the new Clive Barker book where you actually mis-spell the name of the series throughout the entire article. (It’s “Abarat,” Jim. NOT “Arabat”). Then no new story today. This is amateur night stuff, guy. Totally bush league. And I honestly expected better of a web site with your name on it, Jim.

As did I, Polly. As did I.

Look, I won’t lie to you folks. We’ve had a rough couple of days here at JimHillMedia.com.

First up: Okay. I’ll admit it. We totally screwed up with that Tom Schumacher story. To give you a little background on how this exactly happened: This alleged news item was sent out to a number of Disneyana web sites late Monday night. Since I live ‘way out here in New Hampshire, I was already in bed by the time that e-mail came in rolling in at 11:23 p.m. EST. So I didn’t know about Tom Schumacher supposedly being fired until early Tuesday morning, when I was awaken by phone calls from various LA newspapers & TV stations, seeking conformation of the story.

But Michelle – our editor here at JimHillMedia.com (who works out of San Diego, CA.) – was still up when that e-mail came in. More importantly, she saw that the piece had also been sent to David Koenig & Al Lutz at MousePlanet, Jerry Beck of Cartoon Research and Lon Davis of Mouse Hole.

Which put Michelle in an awful predicament. You see, if she took the time to do a proper check on the story’s authenticity, she ran the risk of JimHillMedia.com getting scooped on this tasty little news item by our competition. But – if Michelle ran the story as it was and it turned out to be totally bogus – she then ran the risk of doing irreparable harm to the website’s reputation and credibility.

In the end, our fearless editor decided to run the article just as she’d received it. But with the following header attached to the top of this alleged news story:

Note: this information is unconfirmed, and should be treated as rumor until officially confirmed by the Walt Disney Company.

I received this interesting email this evening, as did several other webmasters and Internet columnists. There’s enough right in here to make me suspect it’s true, but not enough for me to confirm it at this hour of the evening. If anyone can confirm or disprove this, I’d appreciate an e-mail.

Which should have been enough to cover Michelle’s ass. Except that – due to the way that pages are formatted here at JimHillMedia.com – that disclaimer wasn’t actually attached to the top of the “Thomas Schumacher Fired?” story. It appeared in a separate box on top of that article. Which is why a lot of you folks never read (or even saw) that disclaimer. Which is why you assumed Michelle’s story was an actual news story, rather than just an interesting rumor that we were posting … with the hope that JimHillMedia.com readers could then be able to help us confirm or deny this particular story.

As you might imagine … that story caused a sensation. Particularly since all of the other Disneyana web sites opted not to run the item. We were the only web site who had decided to go out on a limb and run that piece. Which is why – since it’s my name that’s all over this web site – I’m the one who took all the heat when it turned out that this story was wrong. That Thomas Schumacher hadn’t actually been fired. That the reason that Schumacher hadn’t been sighted around WFDA for the past couple of days was that he was overseas, helping to promote the upcoming European release of “Lilo & Stitch.”

My apologies to all you folks out there – Mr. Schumacher, as well as our faithful JimHillMedia.com readers – who got tripped up or tricked by this bogus piece. Let me assure you that something like this will never happen again at this site. That we now have several new policies in place – particularly in regard to where disclaimers should be located and how prominently they should be featured in all future JimHillMedia.com articles – which should prevent you (and us) from getting hoaxed like that again. Again, my sincerest apologies for any of the confusion and consternation that this alleged article may have caused.

And – while I’m apologizing – let me sling a “Mea Culpa” at Clive Barker and all you “Abarat” fans out there. When I was writing Wednesday’s story, I was being so careful about double-checking the spelling of names like Kaspar Wolfswinkel, Christopher Carrion, Rojo Pixler and Candy Quackenbush that it never occurred to me to double-check the spelling of the book itself. Which is “Abarat,” NOT “Arabat” (damn it!!). Again, my apologies for screwing that up. I promise that we’ll make the appropriate changes to the text of that story shortly.

That is – of course – providing that our tech guy, Jon Nadelberg, is actually available to make some changes to that particular story sometime soon. Now please don’t mis-interpret this and think that I’m criticizing poor Mr. Nadelberg. Truth be told, Jon’s this extremely busy guy who has a very demanding career in addition to having to play doting dad to his brand new baby boy. Which is why, due to his crushing schedule (as well as a few meetings that he was forced to attend at the last minute), Nadelberg wasn’t really available to update JimHillMedia.com during the latter part of this week. Which is why those “Arabat” / “Abarat” typos remains in place in Wednesday’s story and why there was no update at all on Thursday.

Given that Jon donates all of his time and efforts to JimHillMedia.com, those of us who work here at the site are sincerely grateful for any time that Nadelberg can find to work on the site and update its content. Hopefully, over the next week or so, things will once again begin to calm down in Jon’s life. Which (hopefully) will mean that we’ll be getting back our old schedule – where there’s a new article and/or a story from the archives going up on the website every weekday, Monday through Friday.

So – again – my heartfelt apologies for any of the glitches that you may have stumbled upon while visiting JimHillMedia.com this week, folks. Keep in mind that we’re still a fairly young web site. Not even four months old yet. So we’re still working out some of our kinks.

I promise that we’ll try to do better in the future at avoiding these sorts of flubs. In the meantime, should you have any additional complaints and comments about JimHillMedia.com, be sure to lob them straight at the guy whose name is all over this website – Jim Hill – at jim@jimhillmedia.com.

That’s it for now, kids. See you next week, okay?