General

A special which-witch-is-which edition of Why For

Jim Hill’s back with even more answers to your Disney-related questions. This time around, Jim talks about Walt Disney’s connection to MGM’s “The Wizard of Oz,” reveals who almost wound up playing Eglantine Price in “Bedknobs & Broomsticks” as well as offering an update on Monday’s “Harry Potter and the Letter of Intent” story

Published

18 years ago

October 19, 2006

Jim Hill

First up, George S. writes to say:

My family and I were visiting Disney-MGM earlier this year. And while I was at that park, I got talking with a cast member who was working at the “Great Movie Ride.” He met our car as we rolled back in that attraction’s exit area and asked us what we had all thought of the ride. I told him that I thought that TGMR didn’t have nearly enough Disney in it. That it paid tribute to far too many films that didn’t have anything to do with Disney Studios, movies like “The Wizard of Oz.”

This cast member then told me that if it weren’t for Walt Disney, MGM never would have made “The Wizard of Oz.” I wanted him to explain that remark. But then he hurried off to help unload the next car that was coming into the station. And my family and I went off to dinner.

Since then, I’ve been puzzling about what this cast member said. And I can’t figure out what the connection might be between Walt Disney and “The Wizard of Oz.” So can you help me out? You seem to know about all of these weird connections between Disney and other movies.

Dear George S.

I think what that WDW cast member was trying to tell you was that it was the huge success of Walt Disney’s 1937 release, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” …

… that actually inspired Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to put “The Wizard of Oz” into production.

I mean, it can’t really be a coincidence that — just three weeks after Disney’s feature-length cartoon opens to a huge box office and glowing reviews — that MGM head Louis B. Mayer acquired the movie rights to L. Frank Baum’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.”

MGM certainly wanted the public to think that its lavish live-action version of “The Wizard of Oz” was a suitable follow-up to Disney’s animated “Snow White.” Don’t believe me? Then check out this poster for “Oz” ‘s original release in August of 1939.

Yep. You read the copy on that poster right. “Biggest screen sensation since ‘Snow White.’ “

Though — truth be told — long before film had actually begun turning through a camera, during the pre-production phase of MGM’s “The Wizard of Oz,” Disney’s first animated feature had a huge impact on this live-action musical.

How so? Well, take — for example — the Wicked Witch of the West. The production team initially had a lot of trouble getting a handle on what the villain of “The Wizard of Oz” should look like, how the witch should behave, etc. And since Disney had had such success with portraying the Queen in “Snow White” as a beautiful but cold & cruel woman …

… The “Wizard of Oz” production team thought that this might also be the way to go with the Wicked Witch of the West. Which is why they initially hired elegant Gale Sondergaard …

Photo courtesy of Google Images

… to play this role in the picture. MGM’s costume department then created a sequined cowl & witch’s hat. With the hope that this would give the Wicked Witch of the West a somewhat sinister air of sophistication.

Not to mention aping the look of the Queen in “Snow White.”

But after camera tests were done of Gale in this get-up, the higher-ups at MGM decided to go another way with the Wicked Witch. Rather than modeling that character after “Snow White” ‘s beautiful but evil queen, they decided to try a look that was more in line with the Queen’s disguise …

… You know? The ugly old crone?

So the studio first pulled all of the sequins off of Sondergaard’s witch’s costume, then slathered Gale’s beautiful face with heavy make-up …

… in an attempt to make this glamorous actress look as ugly as possible. But being the great beauty that she was, Sondergaard’s strong cheekbones still read through all of that heavy make-up. Which is when the studio realized that they were going to have to hire another actress to play the Wicked Witch. Someone like Margaret Hamilton …

… whose already strong chin & sharp features would provide a good base for the Wicked Witch make-up.

Mind you, even though Gale Sondergaard left the cast of “The Wizard of Oz,” she still managed to appear in a big budget fantasy film that a movie mogul deliberately put into production as his studio’s answer to “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

Only in this case, it wasn’t Louis B. Mayer. But — rather — Darryl F. Zanuck of 20th Century Fox. And the movie was “The Blue Bird” …

… A Shirley Temple vehicle where Sondergaard played Tylette, a spoiled house cat who had been magically turned into a human being.

Unfortunately, “The Blue Bird” bombed at the box office when this Walter Lang film was released to theaters in January of 1940. So Gale’s performance as Tylette pretty much went straight into the toilette …

And speaking of movie that under-performed, Emily T. writes in with a question about “Bedknobs & Broomsticks”:

Dear Jim —

I really enjoyed that story that you did last week about how Disney Feature Animation recycles story ideas. Mostly because you touched on my absolute favourite Disney film, “Bedknobs and Broomsticks.”

Copyright 1971 Walt Disney Productions

For years, I have heard that this Robert Stevenson film was the studio’s attempt to do sort of a sequel to “Mary Poppins.” Which is one of the reason that David Tomlinson wound up cast as this film’s romantic lead.

Copyright 1964 Walt Disney Productions

But recently I have heard that Disney actually intended on making “Bedknobs” (to borrow a Jim Hill-ism) a really-for-real sequel to “Mary Poppins.” That the studio supposedly went so far as to offer the role of Eglantine Price to Julie Andrews. And that Angela Lansbury only got this role after Julie turned down the part. Is there any truth to this story?

Dear Emily T.

Actually, yes there is. Ever since Julie had done her Oscar-winning turn in “Mary Poppins” …

… the folks at Walt Disney Studios had been hoping to lure this Brit back to Burbank. Have Julie lend some of her star power of a new Walt Disney Productions picture.

Which is why in late 1968 “Bedknobs” producer Bill Walsh sent Julie a copy of the film’s screenplay. Andrews (who — at that time — was right in the middle of shooting “Darling Lili” with her husband Blake Edwards) took a quick glimpse at the script. Concerned that the character of Eglantine Price was a little too close to Mary Poppins, which might then cause her critics & fans to accuse Julie of repeating herself, she politely passed on the project.

Which is how Angela Lansbury eventually wound up playing the apprentice witch in this December 1971 release …

… But not before the studio seriously considered a dozen other actresses for this part. Including Lynn Redgrave, “Laugh In” starlet Judy Carne and British TV favorite Wendy Craig.

Photos courtesy of Google Images

But given that Lansbury was just coming off of her Tony Award-winning turn in the hit musical, “Mame,” it was felt that Angela had the proper chops to tackle all of the singing & dancing that had to be done in “Bedknobs & Broomsticks.” More to the point, that this Broadway star (just as Julie Andrews did when she transitioned from appearing in “Camelot” to starring in “Mary Poppins”) would bring a certain amount of class to this new picture from Walt Disney Productions.

So Disney officially offered Lansbury the part of Eglantine Price in the fall of 1969. Angela formally accepted the role in November of that same year. And by March of 1970, she was seated on a broomstick. Hanging from piano wires high above a soundstage floor in Burbank.

Now where this gets interesting is that — once Julie finished working on “Darling Lili” — she picked up that copy of “Bedknobs & Broomsticks” that Bill Walsh had sent her in late 1968. She then gave the script a much more thorough reading. And this time around, Andrews liked what she saw.

Which is why Julie then picked up the phone and gave Bill a call, telling him “You know, if you’re still looking for an Eglantine Price, I think I’d be interested in playing this part now.”

It was then that Walsh had to tell Andrews that — just a week earlier — Disney had signed Angela Lansbury to star in “Bedknobs & Broomsticks.” That a story about this deal would be appearing in the trades shortly.

Ever the pro, Julie told Bill that he made the right choice, that Angela would do an excellent job with the role. And then — before hanging up — Andrews wished Walsh well, saying that she hoped production of his new film would go smoothly.

Now when you hear a story like that, you just have to wonder: How much better would “Bedknobs & Broomsticks” have done at the box office in 1971 if the company’s PR flaks had been able to promote this picture as ” … Julie Andrews’ triumphant return to Walt Disney Studios” ?

And — finally — I answer the questions that I’ve been getting via e-mail ever since Monday, when JHM ran my “Harry Potter and the Letter of Intent” story ran on JHM back. Since that time, my article has been rebutted by both the Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet. Who say that a representative from J.K. Rowling’s office told them that there was “no truth” to this rumor.

So — faced with a denial like that — am I now going to change my story?

No.

There is a letter of intent, folks. I’m certain of it.

Copyright Warner Bros. Productions

As to why I’m certain … I can’t say any more without revealing who my sources on this story actually are. And I’m not going to do that because … Well, if I did that, I’d wind up destroying a friend’s career. And I’m not going do that just so I can prove to a bunch of Harry Potter fans that what I posted on Monday is actually true.

“So if Disney really is working on a ‘Harry Potter’ -related project,” you ask, “then why would a representative from Ms Rowling’s office tell the Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet that there was ‘no truth’ to this story?” … I don’t know what to tell you, folks. Other than to point out that we’re still at least nine months away from when this project was originally supposed to be announced. So maybe a decision was made to deny any doings with Disney until the proper time for the official announcement arrived.

As to the other alleged “error” in Monday’s article (I.E. I supposedly got the publication date for the seventh “Harry Potter” book wrong) …Look, I actually called Scholastic last week during the research phase of this story. And according to the staffer that I spoke with, July 7, 2007 is the date that this publishing house hopes to begin selling the seventh & final book on.

As this unnamed Scholastic employee explained it to me:

“That date is just too perfect. It’s a Saturday in the middle of summer. By then, the kids will have been out of school for a couple of weeks. So they’ll be chomping at the bit to get their hands on this book. So that means that the big boxes will be able to move hundreds of thousands of copies at all those stroke-of-midnight sales events.

Of course, Jo has to finish writing the book by next spring in order for us to actually meet that delivery date. Which is why we’re all sending good thoughts her way right now. Hoping that she’ll then be able to get the manuscript to us in time to take advantage of the whole 7-7-7 thing.

But if we don’t get her manuscript in time to take advantage of the July 7th publication date … It ultimately doesn’t matter.

Scholastic is still going to have the most highly anticipated book of the year. The final installment of the ‘Harry Potter’ series. This book is going to sell like gangbusters no matter when we release it.”

So there you have it. Scholastic is hoping to receive Rowling’s manuscript in time to take advantage of the inherent PR value of having the seventh & final “Harry Potter” book officially go on sale on July 7, 2007. But if that doesn’t actually happen … It’s not the end of the world. This publishing house already knows that it has one of the best selling books in history on its hands.

And speaking of the end of the world … We’ve now reached the end of this week’s edition of “Why For.” Here’s hoping that you all enjoyed the assortment of stories that have been posted on JHM over the past five days. More importantly, that you come back to the site next Monday to see what else we have to offer.

Have a great weekend, okay?

General

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

Published

9 years ago

June 23, 2015

Jim Hill

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

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

… the postman delivering the mail …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the hot dog vendor working at his cart …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the street musician playing for tourists …

Photo by Jim Hill

Not to mention the tourists themselves.

Photo by Jim Hill

But right alongside the bronze businessmen …

Photo by Jim Hill

… and the tired grandmother hauling her groceries home …

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

… or — for that matter — out-of-time.

Photo by Jim Hill

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

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

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

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

General

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

Published

9 years ago

June 10, 2015

Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Your thoughts?

General

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

Published

9 years ago

June 9, 2015

Jim Hill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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