General

Monday Mouse Watch: Excuses abound as to why “Cars” under-performed

Disney’s spin machine went into overdrive yesterday, as the Mouse tried to explain away why it wasn’t actually disappointed that “Cars” (Which had originally been projected to take in $70 – $75 million) only managed to pull in $60.1 million over its opening weekend. Jim Hill now shares some of the more interesting rationalizations that are currently making the rounds

Published

18 years ago

June 11, 2006

Jim Hill

The good news is … “Cars” was No. 1 at the box office this past weekend, raking in $60.1 million. Which (according to Box Office Mojo) gave this John Lasseter film the second highest opening weekend gross ever for a film that was released in the month of June (Only Warners’ “Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban” — which debuted back in June of 2004 — earned more. Taking in $93.6 million over its opening weekend).

Advertisement
Click Here

The bad news is … $60.1 million is a figure that’s significantly south of what had originally been projected for this Pixar Animation Studios production.

You may recall how — early last week — I reported that various unnamed industry insiders were looking for “Cars” to pull in $75 – $80 million over its opening weekend. But by Friday afternoon (Reportedly based on internal projections that Disney Studio staffers had begun discreetly sharing with various investment analysts), box office estimates for this new animated feature were already being revised downward. With Jessica Reif Cohen of Merrill Lynch stating that she expected “Cars” to earn just $70 million over its opening weekend, while Marc Sharpiro of Banc of America took a more conservative approach. Suggesting that it was far more likely that Pixar’s latest release would gross between $65 million to $70 million during its first three days in release.

But — in the end — all three of us were wrong. With $62.8 million being the estimate as of Sunday afternoon. And then — late Monday afternoon — came the devastating news: The film’s final official tally was actually $60.1 million. $2.7 million less than had originally been reported.

Given that Shapiro reportedly said that — were “Cars” to earn less than $60 million over its opening weekend — that this new Pixar film would be viewed by the investment community as a real disappointment … Well, it’s hard to understand how a gross of just $60.1 million could still be seen as a cause for celebration.

Mind you, that didn’t stop Disney from breaking out the party hats. According to Chuck Viane, president of Buena Vista Pictures Distribution:

“This is John Lasseter’s biggest opening ever. We are so thrilled for John and everyone at Pixar. Which is now seven for seven at the boxoffice.”

Of course, what Mr. Viane neglected to mention is that — while $60.1 million may be the most money that a motion picture that was personally directed by John Lasseter has ever earned over its opening weekend — “Cars” is not, in fact, the strongest opening movie that Pixar Animation Studios has ever produced. That honor should actually be awarded to Brad Bird’s “The Incredibles,” which sold more than $70.4 million worth of tickets over its opening weekend back in November 2004.

Film Title	Opening Weekend Gross
“The Incredibles”	$70.4 million
“Finding Nemo”	$70.2 million
“Monsters, Inc.”	$62.5 million
*“Cars”*	*$60.1 million*
“Toy Story 2”	$57.3 million
“A Bug’s Life”	$33.2 million
“Toy Story”	$29.1 million

Truth be told, in spite of being released during the summer months (A period when motion pictures traditionally do better, in comparison to tickets sales for similiar films that are released during the spring, fall & winter months), “Cars” still managed to do almost 17% less business than both “The Incredibles” and “Finding Nemo” did over their opening weekends. A fact that Wall Street is unlikely to ignore.

Then when you factor in how “Cars” did over its opening weekend in comparison to all the other top grossing CG features that have been released over the past 10 years …

Film Title	Opening Weekend Gross
“Shrek 2”	$108 million
“The Incredibles”	$ 70.4 million
“Finding Nemo”	$70.2 million
“Ice Age 2: The Meltdown”	$68 million
“Monsters, Inc.”	$62.5 million
*“Cars”*	*$60.1 million*
“Toy Story 2”	$57.3 million
“Shark Tale”	$47.6 million
“Madagascar”	$47.2 million
“Shrek”	$42.3 million

… To be honest, this John Lasseter film isn’t looking all that strong, now is it? Particularly when you check out the per-screen average for “Cars” opening weekend.

Film Title	Opening Weekend Gross	Numbers of Screens	Per-Screen Average
“Shrek 2”	$108 million	4,223	$25,951
“Finding Nemo”	$70.2 million	3,425	$20,821
“Monsters, Inc.”	$62.5 million	3,237	$19,331
“The Incredibles”	$70.4 million	3,933	$17,917
“Toy Story 2”	$57.3 million	3,236	$17,734
“Ice Age 2: The Meltdown”	$68 million	3,969	$17,162
*“Cars”*	*$60.1 million*	*3,895*	*$15,086*
“Ice Age”	$57.2 million	3,316	$13,996
“A Bug’s Life”	$33.2 million	2,686	$12,382
“Dinosaur”	$38.8 million	3,257	$11,929

Now I know, there are those of you out there who are saying: “Now wait a minute, Jim. We’re just talking about a single weekend here. ‘Cars’ will undoubtedly develop some legs. This Pixar film is almost certain to run all summer long. So wouldn’t it be wiser to wait until Labor Day — to see what this John Lasseter movie earns over the next 12 weeks — before labeling this motion picture a disappointment?”

Well, that’s certainly the scenario that Chuck Viane is now trying to sell to the press. Here’s a quote from yesterday’s press release:

“It’s going to be fun watching how quickly the grosses add up for ‘Cars’ because during the summer, (where) every day is a holiday.”

Expanding on “Cars” box office potential, Viane went on to say:

“On Monday, 61 percent of (the children in the U.S. will be) out of school. Then a week from Monday, 81 percent. That’s the great thing about the summer. It’s not just about the weekend. The week takes on the aura of being a seven-day playdate.”

But what Mr. Viane is neglecting to mention is that — over the past eight months — the drop-off in ticket sales that top-grossing films have typically experienced during their second weekend in release has been brutal.

Don’t believe me? Then take a look at the chart below:

Name of film	First weekend’s gross	Second weekend’s gross	Percentage of drop-off in ticket sales
“X-Men: The Last Stand”	$102.7 million	$34.1 million	66.9%
“Madea’s Family Reunion”	$30 million	$12.6 million	57.9%
“King Kong”	$50.1 million	$21.2 million	57.6%
“The Da Vinci Code”	$77 million	$34 million	55.8%
“The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”	$65.5 million	$31.8 million	51.4%
“Ice Age 2: The Meltdown”	$68 million	$33.8 million	50%
“Mission: Impossible III”	$47.7 million	$25 million	47%
“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”	$102.6 million	$54.7 million	46.7%
“Over the Hedge”	$38.4 million	$27 million	29.6%

You see, in this era, where studios frontload films (I.E. Place as many prints as possible in theaters for a motion picture’s opening weekend. With the hope that this move will then allow that movie to achieve a record-breaking box office total during its first few days at the multiplex), it’s very rare that a film develops legs nowadays.

And then when you factor in that — on average — tickets sales for a Pixar picture tend to drop off by 37.6% from that film’s opening weekend to its second weekend in release … Well, that indicates that Mickey probably doesn’t have another “The Incredibles” or “Monsters, Inc.” -sized hit on its hands right now.

Which perhaps finally brings us to the real problem here. That Wall Street had unrealistic expectations for “Cars.” That — given the $7.4 billion that the Walt Disney Company just paid out in order to acquire Pixar — that the investment community had just assumed that box office totals would continue to climb. That this animation studio’s string of smash hit films would just go on forever.

Well, instead of having another “Finding Nemo” -sized home run on its hands, Disney now appears to be dealing with another “A Bug’s Life.” A film that did rather well when it was initially released to theaters back in November of 1998, earning $162.7 million domestically & an additional $200.6 million when it was released overseas. For a final total of $363.3 million.

Which ain’t exactly chump change. At least to Chuck Viane’s way of thinking. When asked if he was disappointed by “Cars” only earning $60.1 million over its opening, the president of Buena Vista Pictures Distribution said:

“”To me, a home run is a home run. Once it goes over the fence, it doesn’t matter how far it goes. And a $60 million opening is over the fence in anybody’s ball park.”

And what Chuck says is true. A $60.1 million opening weekend for a motion picture is something that really should be celebrated. Until you remember that “The Incredibles” made $70.4 million over its opening weekend and “Finding Nemo” made $70.2 million over its opening weekend …

Then — when you take into account the box office performances of these two previous Pixar pictures … Well, it’s easy to understand why some on Wall Street might already be calling “Cars” a disappointment.

Now as to why this new John Lasseter film failed to break any records … Well, what I find fascinating is the wide variety of excuses that Disney insiders are already offering as to why “Cars” didn’t do better over its opening weekend. The rationalizations for the animated feature’s underwhelming box office performance include:

The Cuddle Factor: To most people, cars are cold, metallic objects. Which is why — in spite of the fact that the folks at Pixar had anthropomorphized all of the autos that appear in their latest motion picture — these characters still left a lot of potential movie-goers cold (FYI: This is also supposedly why 20th Century Fox’s “Robots” didn’t do better than it did last year when this Blue Sky Studios film was released to theaters. Audiences supposedly prefer their animated features to star warm-blooded creatures like Manny the Mammoth from “Ice Age” & “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown”).
“Cars” running time: Some folks at Disney are attributing this weekend’s disappointing box office returns to the movie’s running time. Given that this John Lasseter film clocks in at a whopping 1 hour & 56 minutes … Well, “Cars” excessive length supposedly made it difficult for the multiplexes to get in multiple showings of this motion picture each day.

Which is an interesting theory. Until you realize that “The Incredibles” was 1 hour & 55 minutes long. And given that that Brad Bird film had little or no trouble racking up $70.4 million in ticket sales over its opening weekend … Well, I hardly think that that one extra minute of running time actually had that significant an impact on “Cars” box office performance over this past weekend.

The film lacked female appeal: With much of the emphasis in “Cars” trailers & TV commercials being placed on the film’s racing sequences (With the hope that these ads might then convince the NASCAR crowd to come out & see this new animated feature), Disney’s PR department may have accidentally sent the wrong message to female movie-goers. Convincing this rather large market segment that “Cars” had little if anything that would appeal to and/or entertain women. Hopefully, a new set of commercials might be enough to turn that particular misconception around.

The World Cup: Given that Americans are probably the only people on the planet who aren’t paying strict attention to what’s been going on inside of Munich’s Allianz Arena this past weekend, I find it kind of laughable that some people at Disney are actually insisting that … Well, if all the people in the U.S. who had been watching (via satellite) those football matches in Germany had gone to the multiplex instead, “Cars” would have had a much healthier box office for its opening weekend.

Looking further on down the line now … There are already those at Disney who are expressing some serious concern about how “Cars” will play internationally. Given that this John Lasseter film stars a NASCAR racer who eventually comes to appreciate life in a small town that’s been bypassed by a super highway … Well, one wonders how foreign film-goers (Who aren’t all that familiar with NASCAR or our country’s car culture) will actually embrace a motion picture that celebrates this distinctly American institutions.

(Though — to be fair here — I guess that I should also mention that there are folks at Dreamworks Animation who has expressed similiar concerns about “Over the Hedge.” How that animated feature — which gleefully sends up the suburbs & America’s consumer culture — may have a real problem connecting with movie-goers overseas.)

Anyway … Getting back to “Cars” now. With the opening weekend performance of this John Lasseter film now officially being labeled a disappointment by Wall Street (Want proof? Once word got out that Pixar’s latest movie had failed to meet its initial box office projections, Disney’s stock price actually dropped by 3% when the New York Stock Exchange opened for trading on Monday morning), now all eyes turn to how “Cars” does over its second weekend in theaters.

A lot of people at Pixar & Disney are now hoping and praying that moviegoers prefer Lightning McQueen over the more realistic street racers that will be seen in “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” (I.E. That Universal Pictures release that rolls into theaters next Friday. Which will offer this Pixar film some considerable competition for the young male audience over the coming weekend).

Because if this new John Lasseter film actually follows box office trends and sees its ticket sales fall off by more than 50% during its second weekend in theaters … Well, Disney could find itself with some pretty serious “Cars” trouble on its hands.

Your thoughts?

General

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

Published

9 years ago

June 23, 2015

Jim Hill

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

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

… the postman delivering the mail …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the hot dog vendor working at his cart …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the street musician playing for tourists …

Photo by Jim Hill

Not to mention the tourists themselves.

Photo by Jim Hill

But right alongside the bronze businessmen …

Photo by Jim Hill

… and the tired grandmother hauling her groceries home …

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

… or — for that matter — out-of-time.

Photo by Jim Hill

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

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

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

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

General

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

Published

9 years ago

June 10, 2015

Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Photo by Jim Hill

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

Your thoughts?

General

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

Published

9 years ago

June 9, 2015

Jim Hill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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