General

A Very “Mary” Christmas: Part II

In Part II of this four part series, Jim Hill talks about a “Poppins” follow-up project that was to have starred Julie Andrews and *** Van ***: “The Poet and the Nightingale.”

Published

19 years ago

December 21, 2004

Jim Hill

Okay. It’s now late 1965 / early 1966. And “Mary Poppins” is the biggest thing to happen to Walt Disney Productions since … Well … Since “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” initially hit theaters back in December of 1937.

The profits from that picture keep pouring in. As do the awards and the acclaim. And Disney studio execs think: “Well, I could get used to this. Why don’t we just give audiences what they want and crank out another ‘Mary Poppins’?”

The only problem is … Walt Disney wasn’t your average studio head. After all, this was the guy who’d regularly trot out his “You can’t top pigs with pigs” speech whenever anybody brought up the subject of sequels.

But studio staffers knew that — starting in the early 1960s — the Old Mousetro has somewhat softened his stance on the whole “Disney doesn’t do sequels” issue. I mean, if that really wasn’t the case, then why would Walt have allowed 1957’s “Old Yeller” to be followed by 1963’s “Savage Sam”? Or 1961’s “The Absent-Minded Professor” to be followed by 1963’s “Son of Flubber”? Or 1964’s “The Misadventures of Merlin Jones” to be followed by 1965’s “The Monkey’s Uncle.”

You get what I’m saying here, folks? By this point in the company’s history, Walt Disney Productions was already in the sequel business. They just didn’t like people to notice.

Anyway … Disney execs are anxious to get another “Poppins” sized project out there. Another film that would hit and hit big. So — with Walt’s blessing — they tried a few more musicals: 1967’s “The Happiest Millionaire” and 1968’s “The One and Only, Genuine Original Family Band.” But even as they’re watching these still-in-production films in dailies form, it’s already painfully apparent that “Millionaire” and “Band” lack that “Mary Poppins” magic.

But what can Disney do? Walt’s still out there, telling the press that he doesn’t want to do a “Poppins” sequel. Saying things like ” Time is getting on, and I still have things left to do … I don’t want to go back and cover the same ground.”

It’s clear that Walt doesn’t like repeating himself. Otherwise why would he continue to block production of the already-in-development “Bedknobs & Broomsticks”? Out of concern that the proposed film — what with its mix of music, magic, elaborate special effects and animated sequences — already had far too much in common with “Poppins.” Which would allow Disney’s critics to say: “Ah, the old guy’s just out of ideas now.”

Which was why Walt — even though the Sherman Brothers had already written written songs for “Bedknobs & Broomsticks,” even though Don DaGradi had already storyboarded 80% of the picture — still refused to let production go foward. Maybe in a few years it would be a smart move for Walt Disney Productions to make a movie based on those Mary Norton books. But not now.

Which left Disney studio execs with precious few options. Until one enterprising executive went burrowing through the company’s archives — looking at projects that Walt Disney Productions had once considered producing — and came across that file for the long-ago-cancelled Hans Christian Andersen film.

You see, as far back as 1937, Walt Disney had been toying with the idea of producing a feature-length film that chronicled the life of this Danish-born storyteller. A motion picture that would skillfully combine live action & animation in an effort to bring such well-known Andersen fairy tales as “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” “Thumbelina,” “The Ugly Duckling” and — of course — “The Little Mermaid” to life.

The only problem was … Veteran Hollywood producer Sameul Goldwyn had already announced his intentions to produce a film based on Andersen’s life. Even going so far as to register the title for his proposed motion picture — “The Life of Hans Christian Andersen” — with the Hays Office.

Obviously, it didn’t make much sense for both of these two production companies to make separate Andersen bio pics. Which was why — in March of 1940 — a compromise was reached. Sameul Goldwyn & Walt Disney would work together to produce a single Hans Christian Anderson film. With Disney animating all of the fairy tale sequences to be featured in the picture, while Goldwyn would supervise all of the film’s live action sequences.

Sounds like a match made in Hollywood heaven, right? Well, it’s just too bad that World War II intervened. After the war, Walt Disney Productions found itself in a hell of a financial hole. Barely able to afford producing any of its own films, let alone helping to bankroll an ambitious co-production like “The Life of Hans Christian Andersen.”

Which was why — when Sameul Goldwyn finally decided to go forward with his Andersen bio pic in the early 1950s — he had to do so alone. At that point in the game, Walt wasn’t interesting in doing any co-productions. Disney had already moved to bigger and better dreams. Like Disneyland and his studio’s brave foray into the world of television production.

But still — while that Andersen bio pic co-production was still under consideration — Disney artists had churned out hundreds of conceptual drawings. Some of which show the tall, gawky author trying to make his way in polite European society. While still others colorfully illustrated the many fairy tales that Andersen could tell over the course of the picture, like “The Little Fir Tree” and “The Steadfast Tin Soldier.”

Clearly, this material had the makings of a great motion picture. One that Sameul Goldwyn had actually missed with his 1952 production, “Hans Christian Andersen.” (Don’t get me wrong, folks. That Danny Kaye film does have a wonderful score by Frank Loesser, not to mention some pretty amazing production values. But it’s not really the story of Hans Christian Andersen. The film’s screenplay — written by industry giants Myles Connolly, Moss Hart and Ben Hecht — actually disregards what happened to Hans in his lifetime. Preferring instead to weave out of whole cloth this totally bogus tale of how Andersen, the poor cobbler, supposedly fell in love with this beautiful ballerina.

Speaking of weaving … Here’s some interesting bits of trivia that show how “Hans Christian Andersen,” “Mary Poppins” and the world of Walt Disney are all tightly woven together : When Walt Disney was first considering which stars to cast in what roles for “Mary Poppins,” which Hollywood veteran did he initially consider for the role of Bert? That’s right. “Hans Christian Andersen” star Danny Kaye.

And — when that Sameul Goldwyn film was finally adapted for the stage in December of 1977 — which former Disney star wound up playing the title role in “Hans Christian Andersen”? Tommy Steele, who played the singing-and-dancing butler in “The Happiest Millionaire.” The movie that Walt Disney had hoped would eventually top “Mary Poppins.”

It’s really weird how so many of these stories are inter-connected, don’t you think? Speaking of stories … Let’s get back to today’s column, which is already in progress.)

As I was saying … This material clearly had the makings of a major motion picture. Which was why — starting as far back as 1966 — Walt Disney Productions execs began talking up this Hans Christian Andersen film as a possible “Mary Poppins” follow-up project.

Here’s the way that studio executives hoped that this project would eventually play out. *** Van *** & Julie Andrews would agreed to reteam in a film tentatively titled “The Poet and the Nightingale.” Van *** would (of course) play the role of Hans Christian Andersen, while Andrews would play Andersen’s love interest, the legendary concert singer, Jenny Lind AKA “The Swedish Nightingale.”

Supporting these two headliners would be virtually the entire “Mary Poppins” production team. Producer/writer Bill Walsh, director Robert Stevenson, screenwriter Don DaGradi, songwriters Richard M. & Robert B. Sherman, musical director Irwin Kostal, choreographers Marc Breax and Dee Dee Wood. Not to mention Disney’s army of animators, matte painters and special effects artists.

That sounds like a wonderful idea for a film, doesn’t it? Disney execs certainly thought so. Which is why they tried desperately to put this project in motion. But — sadly — I guess “The Poet and the Nightingale” just wasn’t meant to be.

What caused this project to derail? A number of things, actually. The success of “Mary Poppins,” for one. Julie Andrews & *** Van *** became such huge stars in the wake of that 1964 Walt Disney Productions release that they both wound up being signed up for a number of major motion pictures. Which meant that Julie & ***’s dance card was already filled for several years ahead when Disney execs tried to talk with the two stars about possibly appearing in “The Poet and the Nightingale.”

And — as for a “Mary Poppins” re-union film — Albert “Cubby” Broccoli already had one in the works (sort of) : “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Given that “Mary Poppins” had actually out-grossed his own 1965 production, “Goldfinger,” Cubby decided that there was real money to be made in the family film market. Which was why Broccoli contacted Disney and asked Walt if he’d be interested in doing a co-production. A motion picture based on Ian Fleming’s non-James Bond-based book, “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, or The Magical Car.”

As you might expect (given what happened with Sameul Goldwyn), Walt wasn’t very keen on the idea of doing a co-production. So he politely told Cubby “No.” But that didn’t deter Broccoli. If he couldn’t work directly with Disney, the man who actually produced “Mary Poppins” …. Well, he’d just hire away all of the talented people that had worked with Walt on that picture.

Which is why many people consider “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” to be the unofficial “Mary Poppins” re-union film. After all, on this one picture, you’ve got “Poppins” star *** Van ***, songwriters Richard M. & Robert B. Sherman, musical director Irwin Kostal and choreographers Marc Breaux and Dee Dee Wood. The very people who made “Mary Poppins” ‘s musical sequences so memorable.

Sadly, “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” finally opened in December of 1968, the film didn’t do “Mary Poppins” -sized business. Nor did any of the other original musicals — like 1967’s “Dr. Dolittle” or 1969’s “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” — that Hollywood put into production in the mid-to-late 1960s. Even films that were based on established Broadway hits like 1966’s “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” or 1969’s “Hello, Dolly!” failed to perform at the box office.

Clearly, audiences’ tastes were changing. The people who had initially embraced “Mary Poppins” hadn’t responded as enthusiastically to Disney’s follow-up films, “The Happiest Millionaire” and “The One and Only, Genuine Original Family Band.” Which indicated to Disney studio execs that the era of the original movie musical in Hollywood was now over. Which was these same executives reluctantly tabled their plans to produce “The Poet and the Nightingale” by the late 1960s.

Now don’t be too harsh in judging these execs, folks. You have to understand that these Disney Productions officials lost a lot of their confidence when Walt died back in December of 1966. Almost immediately, these execs began second-guessing themselves. Wondering if the decisions that they were making were actually the same sorts of decisions that Walt would have made if he were still alive.

Plus you have to understand that Disney studio executives had kind of lost their enthusiasm for *** Van *** by this point in the late 1960s. Some say that it was the remarks that *** had made to the press during the publicity tour for “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” (Reports from that period have Van *** saying things like “This picture will out-Disney Disney”), while still others insist that it was just that solid string of flops that the sitcom vet had starred in in the late 1960s / early 1970s. Either way, *** Van *** was no longer at the top of Disney’s “A” list.

Whereas Julie Andrews … She remained the star that Disney most wanted to get back in bed with. Which was why — in late 1969 / early 1970 — when the studio was gearing up production for “Bedknobs & Broomsticks,” they offered Andrews the film’s lead role: Amateur sorceress Eglantine Price.

The only problem was … Julie couldn’t make up her mind about whether or not she actually wanted to take this role. Having so enjoyed working on “Mary Poppins” (and given that the “Bedknobs & Broomsticks” production team was made up almost entirely of “Poppins” veterans), she knew that this film would be a lot of fun to work on.

The only problem was … Andrews worried about how Hollywood would perceive her taking another job at Disney? Would this be seen as Julie taking a step backwards? That — rather than having her career moving forward — here she was, returning to work at the Mouse House. Appearing in yet another musical where she’d play yet another prim English woman who dabbled in magic.

So Andrews hemmed and hawed for months, trying to decide what to do. Disney executives — more out of fustration than anything else, thinking that Julie’s delay in deciding meant that she wasn’t really interested in performing the role — finally offered the part to Angela Lansbury.

Which was why — virtually on the very same day that the Broadway vet said “Yes, I’d love to be your Eglantine Price” — “Bedknobs” producer Bill Walsh recieves a telegram from Julie Andrews. Which says (in essense) that the “Mary Poppins” star had given this matter plenty of thought and that Julie had finally decided that — yes — she’d love to play Eglantine Price too.

Which was when Bill had to make that unfortunate phone call. Where he had to explain that Disney had just gotten tired of waiting around for Andrews to make up her mind. Which was why — in the end — the studio had wound up giving this role to Angela Lansbury instead.

The upside of this whole unfortunate situation is … Welll … This wouldn’t be the last time that Disney Company execs would call Julie Andrews and ask her to appear in a new film for the studio. And — no — I’m NOT talking about 2001’s “The Princess Diaries” and/or 2004’s “Princess Diaries II.”

COMING SOON: When this four part series continues, Jim Hill talks about what happened when Michael Eisner first arrived at the Walt Disney Company and immediately set the studio to work on a “Mary Poppins” sequel.

General

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

Published

8 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

8 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

8 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