Waise the woof! It’s a special going-to-the-dogs edition of Why For

Jim Hill

18 years ago

First up, Greg O. writes to say:

Jim,

I’m a long time reader and quite honestly I don’t understand the brouhaha regarding your site. I don’t particularly have an interest in the business side of the WDC, but I agree with you, news is news. I think the biggest gripe is that it appears you have been spending far more time on the business side of the WDC and not the entertainment and creative side. But me personally, I’m glad to read ANYTHING about the mouse company.

Now to the real reason I’m writing. I read earlier today that the astronomy eggheads decided that Pluto is no longer a planet. Now if I were a sharp person working in the PR department at Disney, I would be releasing a press release stating that while the astronomy world no longer considers Pluto a planet, the Walt Disney Company still considers Pluto a dog, Mickey’s best pal, and a STAR in it’s universe. If a lowly ******* manager at a *** firm can think up something like that, why can’t those high-priced suits at Disney do it?

Greg O.

Dear Greg:

As it turns out, the people who work in Disney’s PR department are pretty sharp. Literally minutes after I got your e-mail, this press release popped up in my in-box:

In reaction to news today that Pluto was demoted to the status of “dwarf planet,” the Seven Dwarfs issued their own short statement:

“Although we think it’s DOPEY that Pluto has been downgraded to a dwarf planet, which has made some people GRUMPY and others just SLEEPY, we are not BASHFUL in saying we would be HAPPY if Disney’s Pluto would join us as an 8th dwarf. We think this is just what the DOC ordered and is nothing to SNEEZE at.”

Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

As Mickey Mouse’s faithful companion, Pluto made his debut in 1930 – the same year that scientists discovered what they believed was a ninth planet. Said a white-gloved, yellow-shoed source close to Disney’s top dog, “I think the whole thing is goofy. Pluto has never been interested in astronomy before, other than maybe an occasional howl at the moon.”

Now — as I mentioned in Tuesday’s “Really? But I thought that you hated the Walt Disney Company” column — I normally don’t reprint press releases at JHM. But — in this case — I’ll make an exception. Why For? Because I’m kind of intrigued by what the Mouse is trying to do with this particular press release. Which is attempt to clear up a pretty common mis-conception about this Disney character.

To explain: Check out this rather intriguing sentence. Which appears toward the end of yesterday’s press release:

Pluto made his debut in 1930 – the same year that scientists discovered what they believed was a ninth planet.

“So what’s so intriguing about that?,” you ask. Well, it’s not so much what that sentence says. But — rather — what it doesn’t say.

You see, until relatively recently, it was always part of the established Disney Company mythos that Pluto (the cartoon character) was named after Pluto (the planet). Which was a story that — when taken at face value — sort of made sense. After all, the ninth planet in our solar system was discovered back in 1930. Which was the exact same year that Pluto made his initial appearance in a Mickey Mouse short called “Chain Gang.”

Except that … If one were to actually watch “Chain Gang,” you’d notice that it’s not one dog that’s trying to track down Mickey after he busts out of prison. But two …

And then — when you get the chance to look at these dogs up-close later on in this same short — you’ll see that these two are really supposed to be bloodhoods. Which makes sense. Given that this pair of hounds has been sent out into the swamp to track down prisoners.

Mind you, later that same year, another dog did appear in a Mickey Mouse short, “The Picnic.” Only this time around, this cartoon canine was supposed to be Minnie Mouse’s dog and his name was then Rover.

It wasn’t until 1931 that a new dog character appeared in a Mickey Mouse short, “The Moose Hunt,” where Mickey actually called that character “Pluto.” And to hear animation historian John Canemaker tell the tale on “The Complete Pluto: Volume One” DVD set, Pluto finally got his name not because anyone at the studio wanted to pay tribute to the newest planet in our solar system. But — rather — because Walt himself then supposedly had a dog that was named Pluto.

Which is why one day in early 1931, when the studio’s storymen were struggling to come up with a proper name for this dog that was making an appearance in “The Moose Hunt,” Walt supposedly said: “Pluto’s a good name.” And then the storymen (who were obviously anxious to please the boss) immediately said: “You’re right, Walt. Pluto’s a great name for a dog. Let’s call him Pluto!”

So that’s how Pluto really got his name. Walt was allegedly paying tribute to his own pet, not the newest planet in our solar system. Which is why it’s nice to see that Disney’s PR staff didn’t use yesterday’s press release to perpetuate this particular tall tale.

Because — Lord knows — the Mouse’s marketing department has dropped some real whoppers in previous press releases. Take — for example — this e-mail that I just got from Alicia P. Which talks about the press releases that Disney Studios sent out for the first theatrical release of “Lady & the Tramp.”

Jim,

Don’t be so quick to label all of the press releases that the Walt Disney Company sends out as junk. I’ve been collecting Disney press kits for several years now and I find them to be truly fascinating reading. Where else am I going to be able to learn about the real-life inspiration for “Lady & the Tramp”? That Christmas when Walt gave his wife a hat box. Only when Lily opened up the box, she found that there was a cocker spaniel puppy inside.

It’s those sorts of colorful little ancedotes that you’ll only find in Disney press releases. Which is why you — as a guy who makes his living writing about Disney history — should always make a point of reading them. So that you can then take these stories and fold them into the articles that you write for JHM.

I think that your decision to deliberately disregard Disney’s press releases is a wrong one. Please reconsider.

Alicia —

I think you’re a little confused. In Tuesday’s article, I didn’t say that I totally disregard Disney’s press releases. Only that I didn’t like to reprint them unedited on my website.

Though — that said — the story you cite in your e-mail (I.E. The cocker spaniel puppy in the hat box story) is a perfect example of why you really have to be careful about accepting unquestioned the stories that Disney’s PR department regularly churns out.

You see, the real inspiration for “Lady & the Tramp” wasn’t that cocker spaniel puppy that Walt supposedly gave Lily one long-ago Christmas. But — rather — veteran Disney storyman Joe Grant‘s dog. Who was an English Springer Spaniel, by the way. Not a Cocker Spaniel.

In the late 1930s, Walt supposedly saw a sketch that Joe had done of his family’s dog (FYI: This English Springer Spaniel actually was called Lady. Mostly because of the way Lady’s fur hung off of her hind quarters. Which made it appear as the Grant’s family dog were wearing a furry skirt). Disney reportedly saw some real potential in that sketch. Which is why he asked Joe to do some additional sketches, see if there was actually enough material there to do a full-length feature on the life of a pampered house pet.

Well, it took Joe over five years to finally flesh out Walt’s idea. But eventually in June of 1943, Grant was actually able to show his boss the series of storyboards that he’d put together for a proposed feature that Joe was already calling (in honor of the Grant family dog) “Lady.”

This cartoon (as Joe envisioned it) was supposed to have chronicled the life of a very pampered Springer Spaniel named Lady. This dog’s homelife had recently been disrupted when her owners (Mr. & Mrs. Fred) had had a baby. But Lady was starting to get a handle on things … Until, of course, Mr. Fred’s mother-in-law arrives with her two terrible Siamese cats, Nip & Tuck, in tow.

As for the rest of this film’s story (Which was reportedly directly inspired by events from Grant’s own life. This veteran story artist had noticed how out of sorts his dog had become after Joe & his wife, Jennie, had had their daughter Carol. How Lady — who had once been the center of attention in the Grant household — really had trouble adjusting to her new place in the pecking order once Carol came along) … Grant tried mightily to insert some real drama into this storyline. He even had Lady do battle with a rat that had snuck into the house and was threatening the new baby.

But in the end, the 1943 version of “Lady” was shelved because Walt felt that the story (as Joe had originally laid it out) was just too soft. Sure, the Springer Spaniel character that Grant had created was cute. Charming, even. But charm all by itself wasn’t enough to sustain a full length animated feature. To do that, you needed conflict.

It wasn’t ’til nearly two years later, when Walt read Ward Greene’s “Happy Dan, the Cynical Dog” article in “Cosmopolitan” magazine, that he finally found what he was looking for. That somewhat cynical, antagonistic character that could then serve as a counterpoint to the overly sweet Lady. But even then — having discovered the vital ingrediant that this dog picture was missing — it would still be another decade before “Lady & the Tramp” finally made it into theaters.

Now as to that Cocker-spaniel-puppy-in-a-hatbox story … Well, that may have actually happened one Christmas in the Disney household. But as for that one event supposedly providing the true inspiration for “Lady & the Tramp” … I’m afraid that Carol Grant Grubb (I.E. Joe Grant’s daughter) would vehemently disagree with that.

And speaking of disagreeable things, Lane S. wrote in this week to complain about a 2003 Walt Disney Pictures release:

Jim,

I just read your story about how Disney Toon Studios is really cutting back on the number of video premieres that they’re going to make each year. I think that this is really great news. I can’t wait for Disney to stop turning out these pieces of trash. Did you ever see that “Teacher’s Pet” movie? It was really ugly and full of all these mean-spirited spoofs of classic Disney animated films. If that’s really the best that this studio can do these days, then I agree. Just shut down that entire arm of the company and don’t do any more of these awful cheapquels.The only way Disney will ever get back its traditional animation audience is if it stops making awful movies like “Teacher’s Pet.”

Lane S.

I’m afraid that we’re just going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to “Teacher’s Pet.” I — for one — loved this Timothy Bjorklund film. Especially because it made use of Gary Baseman‘s signature style to send up such classic Disney films as “Pinocchio,” “Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs,” …

… “Cinderella” & “Sleeping Beauty.”

Of course, if you were to ask the folks who were actually working at Disney Feature Animation back in 2003 about what their favorite moment from the “Teacher’s Pet” movie was, I’m betting that it might be when the Disney lot is depicted as a “Home for the Insane” (If you look close at the image capture below, you can actually see the grim little skeletons that are serving as the pillars for this macabre version of the Team Disney Burbank building). Or — better yet — that blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scene from the very end of this animated feature. Which shows animators with incredibly bloodshot eyes struggling to finish working on the “Teacher’s Pet” movie.

And speaking of finishing … That’s pretty much it for this week at JHM, folks. Special thanks to those of you who hung in there after all the uproar on Monday & Tuesday. Here’s hoping that next week won’t be quite as tumultuous.

Have a great weekend, okay?