Connect with us

Film & Movies

We owe this snazzy new version of “King Kong” to … Michael Eisner?!

Strange but true, folks. Jim Hill explains how the Walt Disney Company’s former CEO initially helped get that 1976 remake of “Kong” underway, then inadvertantly helped make Peter Jackson’s remake into a better motion picture

Published

on

It’s often been said that success has many fathers.

Well, if that’s really the case, one can’t help but wonder if former Disney CEO Michael Eisner feels like a proud papa as he looks upon this new version of “King Kong.” After all, this Peter Jackson-directed remake has been greeted with great acclaim. And — given this Universal Pictures release is almost certain to do huge at the box office this holiday season — Michael must be getting some satisfaction out of the success of this motion picture.

What’s that you say? “Why would the former CEO of the Walt Disney Company be getting any satisfaction out of the success of a Universal Studios film?” Well, this version of “King Kong” probably wouldn’t have even been produced if it weren’t for the actions of Michael Eisner.

Don’t believe me? Then let’s remember that one of Peter Jackson’s chief motivations for making this new version of “King Kong” was that he wanted to erase all memory of the first remake of this classic motion picture. You know, that train wreck of a motion picture that Paramount Pictures released back in 1976?

And just who was the guy who originally came up with the idea of Paramount producing this initial “Kong” remake? You guessed it. Michael Eisner.

As the story is told in Ray Morton’s excellent new book, “King Kong: The History of a Film Icon — From Fray Wray to Peter Jackson,” Michael (who was still an ABC executive at the time) initially got this idea of remaking “King Kong” back in December of 1974 after catching the original Merian C. Cooper movie on late night TV. So he pitched the idea of redoing “Kong” to his friend, Barry Diller. Who was then the chairman and chief executive officer of Paramount Pictures.

Diller initially seemed indifferent to Eisner’s idea. Which is why Michael then walked across the street and pitched his idea for a “King Kong” remake to Sidney Sheinberg. Who was then the chief operating officer of MCA-Universal Pictures.

Now what Eisner didn’t know was that Universal Pictures was finishing up post production on “Jaws.” And given that this Steven Spielberg film was expected to do really well when it was finally released to theaters in June 1975, Universal was already on the lookout for some sort of monster-based horror movie to serve as a follow-up to this project.

So when Michael suggested remaking “King Kong” to Sidney, Sheinberg immediately jumped on the idea. I mean, here was the perfect project to follow-up “Jaws.” Not to mention that this new version of “Kong” could be the very next Universal Pictures production to make use of Sensurround, that bold new in-theater sound system that literally had movie-goers shaking in their seats.

This is why Sidney immediately put a “King Kong” remake on Universal’s production fast track. Sheinberg

quickly contacted RKO-General (I.E. The studio that produced the original film) and offered them $200,000 plus 5% of the net profits to remake “Kong.” Sidney also hired noted screenwriter Bo Goldman (Best known for his work on “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest“) to produce a screenplay for the motion picture.

Of course, what Sheinberg didn’t know was that — back over at Paramount — Barry Diller was beginning to warm to Michael Eisner’s idea of remaking “King Kong.” Diller then contacted colorful independent producer Dino De Laurentis and asked him if he’d been interested in bringing the big ape back to the big screen.

Dino immediately jumped at Barry’s suggestion. So — while Paramount Pictures also began pursuing the remake rights to “King Kong” — De Laurentis quickly hired Lorenzo Semple, Jr. (who was then best known as the screenwriter of “Papillon” and “Three Days of the Condor“) to produce a script for this motion picture.

So here you have two major motion picture studios quickly gearing up to produce big budget remakes of “King Kong.” With both Universal Studios and Paramount Pictures planning on releasing this movie during the 1976 holiday season.

So (as you might have already guessed) when Universal officials found out that Paramount Pictures execs had gone behind their backs and snagged the “Kong” remake rights from RKO … Well, that’s when the lawsuits began flying.

It took numerous trips to Los Angeles Superior Court to finally sort out all the details. With Universal Studios trumpeting about how their “The Legend of King Kong” would obviously be the superior motion picture. A full-color remake that would retain much of the charm of the original “King Kong” (I.E. The story would still be set in the 1930s, all the monsters featured in the film would still be created by using stop motion animation, etc.) with the added plus of Sensurround.

Whereas Paramount Pictures … Well, Dino De Laurentis had fallen in love with the idea of doing a modern day version of “King Kong” (Which was why the very first version of the film’s screenplay that Semple turned out was entitled “Kong ’76”). Which meant that — when Kong finally got loose in Manhattan — he wouldn’t automatically head for the Empire State Building. But — rather — NYC’s newest, tallest structure: The World Trade Center.

As you can see by this teaser poster that Dino had created …

… In Paramount’s proposed version of “King Kong,” the giant ape was to have straddled the two towers as he battled jet fighters. However, by the time the finished version of this John Gulliermin film hit theaters in December of 1976 … Well, as you can see, the studio made a few adjustments to “King Kong” ‘s poster …

… dropping most of the jets that had originally been pictured on the poster in favor of helicopters. Which Paramount studio execs felt would make for a fairer fight.

Anyway … Getting back to Paramount Pictures’ proposed “King Kong” remake: Dino wanted this fantasy film to be loaded with realism. So it would be shot on location in modern day Manhattan. And stupid little stop motion puppets simply wouldn’t do for Mr. De Laurentis. Which is why the flamboyant Italian producer ordered that a 42-foot-tall mechanical version of the monster be created. So that a full-sized version of Kong could be seen interacting in real time with actors in this film.

Well, that was the plan, anyway. The fact of the matter is that — in spite of the $1.7 million that was spent on the creation of this “Big Kong” figure — the giant robotic ape never really worked properly. Which is why it was only used in a handful of shots in the finished film.

As for the rest of the shots in that picture that feature King Kong … They were performed by noted make-up effects artist Rick Baker. Who worked for hours in front of miniature sets while he sweated inside of a King Kong suit that featured five interchangable heads.

Anywho … Getting back to all the legal posturing: Dino trumpeted that Paramount’s film would be called “King King: The Legend Reborn.” And that — in order to get the jump on Universal’s “The Legend of King Kong” — that his production would begin shooting on January 15, 1976. To which Universal execs responded: “Well, we’ve already hired Joseph Sargent to direct our version of ‘King Kong.’ And we’re going to start shooting on January 5, 1976.”

So — as the suits and the counter-suits continued to fly — this literally became a game of chicken between two major Hollywood studios. All because Michael Eisner had pitched his idea for a “King Kong” remake to both Barry Diller & Sidney Sheinberg.

In Eisner’s defense, it should be noted here that Michael didn’t approach both Universal Studios and Paramount Pictures with his “King Kong” remake idea out of any form of malice. But — rather — because Eisner just thought that this was a really great concept for a brand-new motion picture. Which is why he pitched his “King Kong” remake idea to any studio exec that would listen.

But in the end, it was Barry Diller who ultimately ordered Dino De Laurentis to stop with all the silly lawsuits and find a way to settle with Universal Pictures. (“Why did Barry order Dino to do this?,” you query. Well, it seems that Paramount & Universal were actually partners in the Cinema International Corporation, which was a European film distribution company. And Diller was reluctant to bring suit against a corporation that his studio was already doing business with).

Which is why — in the end — Paramount & Universal eventually came to a mutually beneficial agreement concerning “King Kong.” In return for a share of Paramount’s profits on this John Guillermin film, Universal would let Joseph Sargent go and shut down production of its own “The Legend of King Kong.”

However, as part of this agreement with Paramount, Universal Studios retained the right to use the King Kong character as part of an attraction that could be added to its Hollywood tram tour. And — indeed, some ten years later — Disney Legend Bob Gurr led a team of designers & engineers to create a 30-foot-tall Kong figure that would regularly menace tourists as they explored USH‘s backlot. Four years later, a “Kongfrontation” ride became one of the signature attractions of Universal Studios Florida when that theme park first opened back in May of 1990. (Sadly, this USF attraction closed in September of 2002 to make way for that theme park’s “Revenge of the Mummy” ride.)

And one of the other aspects of Universal’s peace accord with Paramount Pictures is that MCA retained the right to make its own “King Kong” movie further on down the line.

Anyhow … Paramount’s “King Kong” (which wound up costing that studio over $23 million to produce, making “Kong” the most expensive motion picture that Paramount had produced up until that time) sold $90 million worth of tickets worldwide. Which meant that this Dino De Laurentis production wasn’t quite the blockbuster that Paramount Pictures had been looking for.

In fact, Charles Bludhorn — the then-chairman of Paramount’s parent company, Gulf & Western — was said to be have been sorely disappointed with the box office performance of John Guillermin’s “King Kong.” Bludhorn reportedly openly disparged the film in front of the company’s shareholders while attending Gulf & Western’s annual meeting in the spring of 1977.

Of course, one of the other people who was said to be sorely disappointed with Paramount’s “King Kong” was director Peter Jackson. Who had fallen in love with the Merian C. Cooper version of the film when he was just eight years old. And — from that day forward — Jackson had dreamed of shooting his very own version of “King Kong.” Both as a tribute to Cooper and Willis O’Brien (I.E. The stop motion master who got Kong to move in the first film) as well as in an effort to erase all memories of that god-awful 1976 remake.

Speaking of Paramount’s version of “King Kong” … Given the universally poor reviews that this picture recieved back in 1976, it’s easy to understand why this John Guillermin film is rarely shown nowadays. Of course, when you factor in the whole filmed-on-location-at-the-World-Trade-Center aspect of the production …

… it’s easy to understand why the 1976 version of “King Kong” hasn’t been seen recently.

Anyway … Getting back to the Peter Jackson-based portion of this story. Back in 1995, Jackson directed and co-wrote the Michael J. Fox horror comedy, “The Frighteners” for Universal Studios. Universal execs were so enthusiastic about the work that Peter had done on this motion picture that they asked him: “What other motion picture would you like to make for our studio? How about a remake of ‘The Creature of the Black Lagoon‘?”

Jackson politely demurred. Insisting that there was only one motion picture that he really wanted to remake. And that was Merian C. Cooper’s “King Kong.”

Of course, Universal executives were thrilled to hear Peter’s comments. Given that the studio had been sitting on those “King Kong” remake rights since 1976. And now finally here was a filmmaker with the passion and the talent to actually make this picture happen.

Mind you, Jackson wasn’t interested in shooting Bo Goldman’s old script. Which is why he and his longtime collaborator Fran Walsh hammered together an entirely new “King Kong” screenplay. Which — while it was very respectful of the original Merian C. Cooper film (I.E. The movie’s story was still set in the 1930s, it would still end with Kong at the top of the Empire State building battling biplanes, etc.) — the script still featured lots of new sequences that were obviously inspired by hit films of the 1980s & 1990s (EX: “Raiders of the Lost Ark” & “Jurassic Park“).

The screenplay that Jackson & Walsh turned in absolutely thrilled Universal executives. Here finally was a version of “King Kong” ” that was sure to connect with modern moviegoers. The only problem was — with the picture’s trio of attacking tyranosaurs and that herd of stampeding apatosaurs — this was sure to be one motion picture that would be prohibitively expensive to produce. Early internal estimates suggested that it could cost Universal Pictures as much as $200 million to bring Peter Jackson’s vision of “King Kong” to the big screen.

Add to this the fact that — when “The Frighteners” finally rolled into theaters in July 1996 — this Michael J. Fox film didn’t do all that well. “The Frighteners” pulled in a mere $16 million during its domestic release. Which meant that this Peter Jackson motion picture didn’t even come close to cover its promotion & production costs.

Now add to this the fact that Sony Pictures had just announced its plans to produce its own big budget version of that classic Japanese monster movie, “Godzilla.” And the news that Michael Eisner had just greenlit Disney’s planned remake of Merian C. Cooper’s other giant ape movie, “Mighty Joe Young.” And you can understand why Universal executives might suddenly get cold feet.

I mean, here was Peter Jackson, a director whose first working-within-the-studio-system film had seriously under-performed at the box office. And yet he wanted Universal Studios to commit $200 million to a remake of “King Kong.” A film classic that hadn’t performed all that well the last time it got remade.

So — given these circumstances — is it any wonder that (in spite of the eight months of pre-production that Jackson and his wizards at Weta had already put into “King Kong”) that Universal execs finally pulled the plug on this project in January of 1997.

As you might understand, given his love of the original film, Peter was absolutely devastated to lose what he thought would be his one-and-only chance to produce a new version of “King Kong.” Still, as one of Jackson’s dream project dies, another film fantasy that this director had been hoping for decades that he’d get the chance to produce came into being: “The Lord of the Rings.”

Of course, I don’t need to tell you folks about the crucial role that Michael Eisner played in the creation of that Academy Award winning trio of films. How the head of the Walt Disney Company first insisted that Peter Jackson try & tell all of J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic fantasy in two films, rather than three. Then how Michael — concerned about the high costs of producing these motion pictures — abruptly pulled the plug on this Miramax Pictures production. Which left Jackson scrambling to find a studio that would actually fund his vision for these films.

Which — luckily — led Peter to New Line Studios. A company that actually had executives who were bold enough to embrace Jackson’s vision. Who were willing to pony up $300 million to see if there actually was an audience out there for a big screen version of the “Lord of the Rings” book.

So — as you can see — from 1974 on forward, Michael Eisner has been a factor in the “King Kong” saga. First as the guy who initially proposed that this classic motion picture be remade, then as the studio exec who — by inadvertently delaying Peter Jackson’s first attempt to get “King Kong” remade — helped us get the film that’s now being screened at multiplexes all around the world.

Now some people might wonder why Michael Eisner feels such a kinship to a character like King Kong. But — me personally — I can’t help but notice that there’s a bit of a resemblance between these two entertainment industry giants.

Anyway … Let me wrap things up here by mentioning two other weird little bends to this story. When asked if he was bitter that he didn’t actually get a chance to remake “King Kong” back in 1997, Peter Jackson said “No.” That — while the cancellation of that production may have seemed to be a huge blow back then — it actually turned out to be a blessing. You see, the years that he spent working on the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy made Jackson made a better director. More to the point, CG technology has now greatly improved. Which allowed Peter to bring much more of his original vision to the big screen.

(FYI: Remember how Universal Studios execs shut down production of Jackson’s “King Kong” back in January of 1997 because that version of the film was projected to cost $200 million. Care to guess how much the 2005 version of “Kong” cost? Would you believe $207 million?)

Getting back to the differences between the 1997 and 2005 version of Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” … The intervening years also gave Peter the chance to review the screenplay that he and Fran Walsh had originally written. Which made Jackson realize that the scope of his “King Kong” film needed to be tightened. That there was really no room for prologues set during World War I with flying aces who played baseball high over the trenches. That — in order for this picture to play to modern moviegoers — that film’s title character had to be someone that audiences could really relate to.

Well, as those of you who have already seen the new version of “King Kong” know, Peter Jackson succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. This new Universal Pictures release is really a landmark motion picture. It’s actually no faint praise to say that Jackson’s “King Kong” is almost as good as Cooper’s original. If you haven’t seen it yet, go check out this movie ASAP. You’ll be glad you did.

Also … Just to demonstrate how everything in Hollywood seems to work in cycles and/or circles: Do you remember the project that Universal Studios execs originally offered Peter Jackson as a possible follow-up to “The Frighteners”? That’s right. A big screen remake of that 1954 horror classic, “The Creature from the Black Lagoon.”

Well, Universal Studios just announced that they’re finally going forward with production of a “Black Lagoon” remake. And guess who they just hired to helm this picture? Michael Eisner’s son, Breck Eisner.

And — to add to the irony of this whole situation — one of the main reasons that Breck actually got this job wasn’t because of Daddy’s connections (Eisner’s son is already quite an accomplished director. Earlier this year, he earned some great reviews for “Sahara.” The big screen version of Clive Cussler’s best seller that Breck directed for Paramount Pictures). But — rather — because Universal Studios was looking for another monster movie to follow-up what they thought would be the smashing success of “King Kong.”

So — as you can see — it’s 1975 all over again, folks. With the execs at Universal looking for a film that would be a worthy follow-up to “Jaws.”

Anywho … That’s the protracted version of the impact that Michael Eisner had on the production of two “King Kong” remakes. Which I hope you found somewhat entertaining.

Your thoughts?

Jim Hill is an entertainment writer who has specialized in covering The Walt Disney Company for nearly 40 years now. Over that time, he has interviewed hundreds of animators, actors, and Imagineers -- many of whom have shared behind-the-scenes stories with Mr. Hill about how the Mouse House really works. In addition to the 4000+ articles Jim has written for the Web, he also co-hosts a trio of popular podcasts: “Disney Dish with Len Testa,” “Fine Tooning with Drew Taylor” and “Marvel US Disney with Aaron Adams.” Mr. Hill makes his home in Southern New Hampshire with his lovely wife Nancy and two obnoxious cats, Ginger & Betty.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Film & Movies

How “An American Tail” Led to Disney’s “Hocus Pocus”

Published

on

Over the last week, I’ve been delving into Witches Run Amok, Shannon Carlin’s oral history of the making of Disney’s Hocus Pocus. This book reveals some fascinating behind-the-scenes stories about the 1993 film that initially bombed at the box office but has since become a cult favorite, even spawning a sequel in 2022 that went on to become the most-watched release in Disney+ history.

But what really caught my eye in this 284-page hardcover wasn’t just the tales of Hocus Pocus’s unlikely rise to fame. Rather, it was the unexpected connections between Hocus Pocus and another beloved film—An American Tail. As it turns out, the two films share a curious origin story, one that begins in the mid-1980s, during the early days of the creative rebirth of Walt Disney Studios under Michael Eisner, Frank Wells, and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

The Birth of An American Tail

Let’s rewind to late 1984/early 1985, a period when Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg were just getting settled at Disney and were on the hunt for fresh projects that would signal a new era at the studio. During this time, Katzenberg—tasked with revitalizing Disney Feature Animation—began meeting with talent across Hollywood, hoping to find a project that could breathe life into the struggling division.

One such meeting was with a 29-year-old writer and illustrator named David Kirschner. At the time, Kirschner’s biggest credit was illustrating children’s books featuring Muppets and Sesame Street characters, but he had an idea for a new project: a TV special about a mouse emigrating to America, culminating in the mouse’s arrival in New York Harbor on the same day as the dedication of the Statue of Liberty in 1886.

David Kirschner
David Kirschner (IMDb)

Katzenberg saw the patriotic appeal of the concept but ultimately passed on it, as he was focused on finding full-length feature projects for Disney’s animation department. Kirschner, undeterred, took his pitch elsewhere—to none other than Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg’s production partner. Kennedy was intrigued and invited Kirschner to Spielberg’s annual Fourth of July party to pitch the idea directly to the famed director.

Spielberg immediately saw the potential in Kirschner’s idea, but instead of a TV special, he envisioned a full-length animated feature film. This project would eventually become An American Tail, a tribute of sorts to Spielberg’s own grandfather, Philip Posner, who emigrated from Russia to the United States in the late 19th century. The film’s lead character, Fievel, was even named after Spielberg’s grandfather, whose Yiddish name was also Fievel.

Disney’s Loss Becomes Universal’s Gain

An American Tail went on to become a major success for Universal Pictures, which hadn’t been involved in an animated feature since the release of Pinocchio in Outer Space in 1965. Meanwhile, over at Disney, Eisner and Wells weren’t exactly thrilled that Katzenberg had let such a promising project slip through his fingers.

Not wanting to miss out on any future opportunities with Kirschner, Katzenberg quickly scheduled another meeting with him to discuss any other ideas he might have. And as fate would have it, Kirschner had just written a short story for Muppet Magazine called Halloween House, about a boy who is magically transformed into a cat by a trio of witches.

The Pitch That Sealed the Deal

Knowing Katzenberg could be a tough sell, Kirschner went all out to impress during his pitch. He requested access to the Disney lot 30 minutes early to set the stage for his presentation. When Katzenberg and the Disney development team walked into the conference room, they were greeted by a table covered in candy corn, a cauldron of dry ice fog, and a broom, mop, and vacuum cleaner suspended from the ceiling as if they were flying—evoking the magical world of Halloween House.

Katzenberg was reportedly unimpressed by the theatrical setup, muttering, “Oy, show-and-tell time” as he took his seat. But Kirschner knew exactly how to grab his attention. He started his pitch with the fact that Halloween was a billion-dollar business—a figure that made Katzenberg sit up and take notice. He listened attentively to Kirschner’s pitch, and by the time the meeting was over, Katzenberg was convinced. Halloween House would become Hocus Pocus, and Disney had its next big Halloween film.

A Bit of Hollywood Drama

Interestingly, Kirschner’s success with Hocus Pocus didn’t sit well with his old collaborators. About a year after the film’s release, Kirschner ran into Kathleen Kennedy at an Amblin holiday party, and she wasted no time in expressing her disappointment. According to Kirschner, Kennedy said, “You really hurt Steven.” When Kirschner asked how, she explained that Spielberg and Kennedy had given him his big break with An American Tail, but when he came up with the idea for his next film, he brought it to Disney rather than to them.

Hollywood can be a place where loyalty is valued—or, at least, perceived loyalty. At the same time, this was happening just as Katzenberg was leaving Disney and partnering with Spielberg and David Geffen to launch DreamWorks SKG, which only added to the tension. Loyalty, as Kirschner found out, can be an abstract concept in the entertainment industry.

A Halloween Favorite is Born

Despite its rocky start at the box office in 1993, Hocus Pocus has gone on to become a beloved part of Halloween pop culture. And, as Carlin’s book details, its success helped pave the way for more Disney Halloween-themed projects in the years that followed.

As for why Hocus Pocus was released in July of 1993 instead of during Halloween? That’s a story for another time, but it has something to do with another Halloween-themed project Disney was working on that year—Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas—and Katzenberg finding himself in the awkward position of having to choose between keeping Bette Midler or Tim Burton happy.

For more behind-the-scenes stories about Hocus Pocus and other Disney films, be sure to check out Witches Run Amok by Shannon Carlin. It’s a fascinating read for any Disney fan!

And if you love hearing these kinds of behind-the-scenes stories about animation and film history, be sure to check out Fine Tooning with Drew Taylor, where Drew and I dive deep into all things movies, animation, and the creative decisions that shape the films we love. You can find us on your favorite podcast platforms or right here on JimHillMedia.com.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

How Disney’s “Bambi” led to the creation of Smokey Bear

Published

on

When people talk about Disney’s “Bambi,” the scene that they typically cite as being the one from this 1942 film which then scarred them for life is – of course – the moment in this movie where Bambi’s mother gets shot by hunters.

Which is kind of ironic. Given that – if you watch this animated feature today – you’ll see that a lot of this ruined-my-childhood scene actually happens off-camera. I mean, you hear the rifle shot that takes down Bambi’s Mom. But you don’t actually see that Mama Deer get clipped.

Now for the scariest part of that movie that you actually see on-camera … Hands down, that has to be the forest fire sequence in “Bambi.” As the grown-up Bambi & his bride, Faline, desperately race through those woods, trying to find a path to safety as literally everything around them is ablaze … That sequence is literally nightmare fuel.

Source: Economist.com

Mind you, the artists at Walt Disney Animation Studios had lots of inspiration for the forest fire sequence in “Bambi.” You see, in a typical year, the United States experiences – due to either natural phenomenon like lightning strikes or human carelessness – 100 forest fires. Whereas in 1940 (i.e., the year that Disney Studios began working in earnest of a movie version of Felix Salten’s best-selling movie), America found itself battling a record 360 forest fires.

Which greatly concerned the U.S. Forest Service. But not for the reason you might think.

Protecting the Forest for World War II

I mean, yes. Sure. Officials over in the Agricultural Department (That’s the arm of the U.S. government that manages the Forest Service) were obviously concerned about the impact that this record number of forest fires in 1940 had had on citizens. Not to mention all of the wildlife habitat that was now lost.

But to be honest, what really concerned government officials was those hundreds of thousands of acres of raw timber that had been consumed by these blazes. You see, by 1940, the world was on the cusp of the next world war. A conflict that the U.S. would inevitably  be pulled into. And all that now-lost timber? It could have been used to fuel the U.S. war machine.

So with this in mind (and U.S. government officials now seeing an urgent need to preserve & protect this precious resource) … Which is why – in 1942 (just a few months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor) – the U.S. Forest Service rolls out its first-ever forest fire prevention program.

Which – given that this was the early days of World War II – the slogan that the U.S. Forest Service initially chose for its forest fire prevention program is very in that era’s we’re-all-in-this-together / so-let’s-do-what-we-can-to-help-America’s war-effort esthetic – made a direct appeal to all those folks who were taking part in scrap metal drives: “Forest Defense is National Defense.”

Source: Northwestern

And the poster that the U.S. Forest Service had created to support this campaign? … Well, it was well-meaning as well.  It was done in the WPA style and showed men out in the forest, wielding shovels to ditch a ditch. They were trying to construct a fire break, which would then supposedly slow the forest fire that was directly behind them.

But the downside was … That “Forest Defense is National Defense” slogan – along with that poster which the U.S. Forest Service had created to support their new forest fire prevention program didn’t exactly capture America’s attention.

I mean, it was the War Years after all. A lot was going in the country at that time. But long story short: the U.S. Forest Service’s first attempt at launching a successful forest fire prevention program sank without a trace.

So what do you do in a situation like this? You regroup. You try something different.

Disney & Bambi to the Rescue

And within the U.S. government, the thinking now was “Well, what if we got a celebrity to serve as the spokesman for our new forest fire prevention program? Maybe that would then grab the public’s attention.”

The only problem was … Well, again, these are the War Years. And a lot of that era’s A-listers (people like Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, even Mel Brooks) had already enlisted. So there weren’t really a lot of big-name celebrities to choose from.

But then some enterprising official at the U.S. Forest Service came up with an interesting idea. He supposedly said “Hey, have you seen that new Disney movie? You know, the one with the deer? That movie has a forest fire in it. Maybe we should go talk with Walt Disney? Maybe he has some ideas about how we can better capture the public’s attention when it comes to our new forest fire prevention program?”

And it turns Walt did have an idea. Which was to use this government initiative as a way to cross-promote Disney Studio’s latest full-length animated feature, “Bambi.” Which been first released to theaters in August of 1942.

So Walt had artists at Disney Studio work up a poster that featured the grown-up versions of Bambi the Deer, Thumper the Rabbit & Flower the Skunk. As this trio stood in some tall grasses, they looked imploring out at whoever was standing in front of this poster. Above them was a piece of text that read “Please Mister, Don’t Be Careless.” And below these three cartoon characters was an additional line that read “Prevent Forest Fires. Greater Danger Than Ever!”

Source: USDA

According to folks I’ve spoken with at Disney’s Corporate Archives, this “Bambi” -based promotional campaign for the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention campaign was a huge success. So much so that – as 1943 drew to a close – this division of the Department of Agriculture reportedly reached out to Walt to see if he’d be willing to let the U.S. Forest Service continue to use these cartoon characters to help raise the public’s awareness of fire safety.

Walt – for reasons known only to Mr. Disney – declined. Some have suggested that — because “Bambi” had actually lost money during its initial theatrical release in North America – that Walt was now looking to put that project behind him. And if there were posters plastered all over the place that then used the “Bambi” characters that then promoted the U.S.’s forest fire prevention efforts … Well, it would then be far harder for Mr. Disney to put this particular animated feature in the rear view mirror.

Introducing Smokey Bear

Long story short: Walt said “No” when it came to reusing the “Bambi” characters to promote the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program. But given how successful the previous cartoon-based promotional campaign had been … Well, some enterprising employee at the Department of Agriculture reportedly said “Why don’t we come up with a cartoon character of our own?”

So – for the Summer of 1944 – the U.S. Forest Service (with the help of the Ad Council and the National Association of State Foresters) came up with a character to help promote the prevention of forest fires. And his name is Smokey Bear.

Now a lot of thought had gone into Smokey’s creation. Right from the get-go, it was decided that he would be an American black bear (NOT a brown bear or a grizzly). To make this character seem approachable, Smokey was outfitted with a ranger’s hat. He also wore a pair of blue jeans & carried a bucket.

As for his debut poster, Smokey was depicted as pouring water over a still-smoldering campfire. And below this cartoon character was printed Smokey’s initial catchphrase. Which was “Care will prevent 9 out of 10 forest fires!”

Source: NPR

Which makes me think that this slogan was written by the very advertising executive who wrote “Four out of five dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.”

Anyway … By the Summer of 1947, Smokey got a brand-new slogan. The one that he uses even today. Which is “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.”

The Real Smokey Bear

Now where this gets interesting is – in the Summer of 1950 – there was a terrible forest fire up in the Capitan Mountains of New Mexico. And over the course of this blaze, a bear cub climbed high up into a tree to try & escape those flames.

Firefighters were finally able to rescue that cub. But he was so badly injured in that fire that he was shipped off to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. and nursed back to health. And since this bear really couldn’t be released back in the wild at this point, he was then put on exhibit.

And what does this bear’s keepers decide to call him? You guessed it: Smokey.

Source: USDA

And due to all the news coverage that this orphaned bear got, he eventually became the living symbol of the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program. Which then meant that this particular Smokey Bear got hit with a ton of fan mail. So much so that the National Zoo in Washington D.C. wound up with its own Zip Code.

“Smokey the Bear” Hit Song

And on the heels of a really-for-real Smokey Bear taking up residence in our nation’s capital, Steve Nelson & Jack Rollins decide to write a song that shined a spotlight on this fire-fightin’ bruin. Here’s the opening stanza:

With a ranger’s hat and shovel and a pair of dungarees,
You will find him in the forest always sniffin’ at the breeze,
People stop and pay attention when he tells them to beware
Because everybody knows that he’s the fire-preventin’ bear

Believe or not, even with lyrics like these, “Smokey the Bear” briefly topped the Country charts in the Summer of 1950. Thanks to a version of this song that was recorded by Gene Autry, the Singing Cowboy.

By the way, it was this song that started all of the confusion in regards to Smokey Bear’s now. You see, Nelson & Rollins – because they need the lyrics of their song to scan properly – opted to call this fire-fightin’-bruin Smokey THE Bear. Rather than Smokey Bear. Which has been this cartoon character’s official name since the U.S. Forest Service first introduced him back in 1944.

“The Ballad of Smokey the Bear”

Further complicating this issue was “The Ballad of Smokey the Bear,” which was a stop-motion animated special that debuted on NBC in late November of 1966. Produced by Rankin-Bass as a follow-up to their hugely popular “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” (which premiered on the Peacock Network in December of 1964) … This hour-long TV show also put a “THE” in the middle of Smokey Bear’s name because the folks at Rankin-Bass thought his name sounded better that way.

And speaking of animation … Disney’s “Bambi” made a brief return to the promotional campaign for the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program in the late 1980s. This was because the Company’s home entertainment division had decided to release this full-length animated feature on VHS.

What’s kind of interesting, though, is the language used on the “Bambi” poster is a wee different than the language that’s used on Smokey’s poster. It reads “Protect Our Forest Friends. Only You Can Prevent Wildfires.” NOT “Forest Fires.”

Anyway, that’s how Disney’s “Bambi” led to the creation of Smokey Bear. Thanks for bearin’ with me as I clawed my way through this grizzly tale.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

“Indiana Jones and the Search for Indiana Jones”

Published

on

News came late last week that NBC was cancelling the “Magnum PI” remake. This series (which obviously took its inspiration from the Tom Selleck show that originally debuted on CBS back in December of 1980 and then went on run on that network for 8 seasons. With its final episode airing on May 8, 1988).

Anyway … Over 30 years later, CBS decided to remake “Magnum.” This version of the action drama debuted on September 24, 2018 and ran for four seasons before then being cancelled. NBC picked up the “Magnum” remake where it ran for one more season before word came down on June 23rd that this action drama was being cancelled yet again.

FYI: The second half of Season 5 of “Magnum” (10 episodes) has yet to air on NBC. It will be interesting to see when that final set of shows / the series finale gets scheduled.

This all comes to mind this week – out ahead of the theatrical release of “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” because … Well, if CBS execs had been a bit more flexible back in 1980, the star of the original version of “Magnum PI” (Tom Selleck) would have played the lead in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Which was released to theaters back on June 12, 1981.

That’s the part of the Indiana Jones story that the folks at Lucasfilm often opt to skim over.

That Harrison Ford wasn’t George Lucas’ first choice to play Doctor Jones.

Auditions for Indiana Jones – Harrison’s Not on the List

Mind you, Steven Spielberg – right from the get-go – had pushed for Ford to play this part. The way I hear it, Lucas showed Spielberg a work-in-progress cut of “The Empire Strikes Back.” And Steven was so taken with Harrison’s performance as Han Solo in that Irwin Kershner film that he immediately began pushing for Ford to be cast as Doctor Jones.

Whereas Mr. Lucas … I mean, it wasn’t that George had anything against Harrison. What with Ford’s performances first in “American Grafitti” and then in “A New Hope,” these two already had a comfortable working relationship.

But that said, Lucas was genuinely leery of … Well, the sort of creative collaboration that Martin Scorcese and Robert DeNiro. Where one actor & one director repeatedly worked together. To George’s way of thinking, that was a risky path to follow. Hitching your wagon to a single star.

Which is why – when auditions got underway for “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in 1979 — Mike Fenton basically brought in every big performer of that era to read for Dr. Jones except Harrison Ford. We’re talking:

  • Steve Martin
  • Chevy Chase
  • Bill Murray
  • Jack Nicholson
  • Peter Coyote
  • Nick Nolte
  • Sam Elliot
  • Tim Matheson
  • and Harry Hamlin

Casting a Comedian for Indiana Jones

Please note that there are a lot of comedians on this list. That’s because – while “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was in development — Spielberg was directed his epic WWII comedy, “1941.” And for a while there, Steve & George were genuinely uncertain about whether the movie that they were about to make would be a sincere valentine to the movie serials of the 1930s & the 1940s or more of a spoof.

It’s worth noting here that three of the more ridiculous set pieces found in “Temple of Doom” …

  • the shoot-out at Club Obi Wan in Shanghai
  • Indy, Willie & Short Round surviving that plane crash by throwing an inflatable life raft out of the cargo hatch
  • and that film’s mine cart chase (which was not only inspired by Disney theme park favorites the Matterhorn Bobsleds & Big Thunder Mountain Railroad but some of the sound effects that you hear in this portion of “Temple of Doom” were actually recorded after hours at Disneyland inside of these very same attractions)

…  all originally supposed to be in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” I’ve actually got a copy of the very first version of the screenplay that Lawrence Kasdan wrote for the first “Indy” movie where all three of these big action set pieces were supposed to be part of the story that “Raiders” told. And I have to tell you that this early iteration of the “Raiders” screenplay really does read more like a spoof of serials than a sincere, loving salute to this specific style of cinema.

Casting Indiana Jones – Jeff or Tom

Anyway … Back now to the casting of the male lead for “Raiders” … After seeing virtually every actor out in LA while looking for just the right performer to portray Indiana Jones, it all came down to two guys:

  • Jeff Bridges
  • and Tom Selleck

Jeff Bridges as Indiana Jones

Mike Fenton was heavily pushing for Jeff Bridges. Having already appeared with Clint Eastwood in 1974’s “Thunderbolt & Lightfoot” (Not to mention that “King Kong” remake from 1976), Bridges was a known quantity. But what Fenton liked especially liked about Bridges when it came to “Raiders” was … Well, at that time, Jeff was just coming off “Heaven’s Gate.”

Mind you, nowadays, because we’ve all now had the luxury of seeing the director’s cut of this Michael Cimino movie, we recognize “Heaven’s Gate” for the cinematic masterpiece that it is. But 40+ years ago, that honestly wasn’t the case. All audiences had to judge this movie by was the severely truncated version that United Artists sent out into theaters. Which – because “Heaven’s Gate” had cost $44 million to make and only sold $3.5 million of tickets – then became the textbook example of Hollywood excess.

Credit: Indiewire.com

Long story short: Given that being associated with “Heaven’s Gate” had somewhat dinged Bridges’ reputation for being a marketable star (i.e., a performer that people would pay good money to see up on the big screen), Jeff was now looking to appear in something highly commercial. And the idea of playing the lead in a film directed by Steven Spielberg (the “Jaws” & “Close Encounter” guy) and produced by George Lucas (Mr. “Star Wars”) was very, very appealing at that time. Bridges was even willing to sign a contract with Spielberg & Lucas that would have then roped him into not only playing Indiana Jones in “Raider of the Lost Ark” but also to appear as this very same character in two yet-to-be-written sequels.

Better yet, because “Heaven’s Gate” had temporarily dimmed Bridges’ star status, Jeff was also willing to sign on to do the first “Indy” film for well below his usual quote. With the understanding that – should “Raiders of the Lost Ark” succeed at the box office – Bridges would then be paid far more to appear in this film’s two sequels.

That seemed like a very solid plan for “Raiders.” Landing a known movie star to play the lead in this action-adventure at a bargain price.

Ah, but standing in Mike Fenton’s way was Marcia Lucas.

Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones

Marcia Lucas, who had seen Tom Selleck’s audition for “Raiders” (And you can see it as well. Just go to Google and type in “Tom Selleck” and “Indiana Jones.” And if you dig around for a bit, you’ll then see a feature that Lucas & Spielberg shot for “Entertainment Tonight” back in 2008 [This story was done in support of the theatrical release of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”]. And as part of this piece, George and Steve share Tom’s original audition for “Raiders.” And what’s genuinely fascinating about this footage is that Selleck’s scene partner is Sean Young. Who – at that time, anyway – was up for the role of Marion Ravenwood) and kept telling her husband, “You should cast this guy. He’s going to be a big star someday.”

And given that George was smart enough to regularly heed Marcia Lucas’ advice (She had made invaluable suggestions when it came to the editing of “American Graffiti” and the original “Star Wars.” Not to downplay George Lucas’ cinematic legacy, but Marcia Lucas was a world-class storyteller in and of her own right), Lucas then reached out to Spielberg and persuaded him that they should cast relative unknown Tom Selleck as Doctor Jones over the already well-known Jeff Bridges.

Now don’t feel too bad for Jeff Bridges. When he lost out on playing the lead in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” Jeff then accepted a role in the very next, high profile, sure-to-be-commercial project that came along. Which turned out to be Disney’s very first “TRON” movie. Which was eventually released to theaters on July 9, 1982.

Back to Tom Selleck now … You have to remember that – back then – Selleck was the handsome guy who’d already shot pilots for six different shows that then hadn’t gone to series. Which was why Tom was stuck being the guest star on shows like “The Fall Guy” and “Taxi.” Whereas once word got out around town that Selleck was supposed to play the lead in a project that Spielberg was directed & Lucas was producing … Well, this is when CBS decided that they’d now take the most recent pilot that Tom had shot and then go to series with this show.

That program was – of course – the original “Magnum PI.” And it’s at this point where our story started to get complicated.

“Magnum PI” – Two Out of Three Say “Yes”

Okay. During the first season of a TV show, it’s traditionally the network – rather than the production company (which – in this case – was Glen A. Larson Productions. The company behind the original versions of “Battlestar Galactica” & “Knight Rider”) or the studio where this series is actually being shot (which – in this case – was Universal Television) that has all the power. And in this particular case, the network execs who were pulling all the strings behind-the-scenes worked for CBS.

And when it came to the first season of “Magnum PI,” CBS had a deal with Glen A. Larson Productions and Universal Television which stated that the talent which had been contracted to appear in this new action drama would then be available for the production of at least 13 episodes with an option to shoot an additional 9 episodes (This is known in the industry as the back nine. As in: the last nine holes of a golf course).

Anyway, if you take those initial 13 episodes and then tack on the back nine, you then get 22 episodes total. Which – back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, anyway – was what a full season of a network television show typically consisted of.

Anyway … The contract that Selleck had signed with Glen A. Larson Productions, Universal Television & CBS stated that he had to be available when production of Season One of “Magnum PI” began in March of 1980. More to the point, Tom also had to be available should CBS exercise its option to air 22 episodes of this new series on that television network over the course of “Magnum PI” ‘s first season.  

Which then made things complicated for George Lucas & Steven Spielberg because … Well, in order for “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to make its June 12, 1981 release date, that then meant that production of the first “Indy” movie would have to get underway no later than June 23, 1980.

But here’s the thing: Production of Season One of “Magnum PI” was scheduled to run through the first week of July of that same year (1980). So in order for Tom Selleck to play Indiana Jones in “Raiders,” he was going to need to be wrapped on production of “Magnum PI” by June 22, 1980 at the absolute latest.

So Spielberg & Lucas went to Glen A. Larsons Productions and asked if Selleck could please be sprung from his “Magnum PI” contractual obligations by June 22nd. And they said “Yes.” Then Steven & George went to Universal Television and asked executives there for their help  in clearing Tom’s schedule so that he’d then be available to start work on “Raiders.” And they say “Yes” as well.

Spielberg & Lucas now go to CBS. But instead of the quick “Yeses” that they got from officials at Glen A. Larson Productions and Universal Television, it takes those suits at the Tiffany Network weeks before they then decided to say “No, they couldn’t release Tom Selleck early to go work on ‘Raiders’ “ because …

I’ve never really been able to get a straight answer here as to why CBS execs dug in their heels here. Why they flat-out refused to release Selleck early from his “Magnum PI” contractual obligation and allow him to go shoot “Raiders.”

Payback from “The Star Wars Holiday Special” Trash Talk

That said, it is worth noting that “The Star Wars Holiday Special” aired on CBS back in November of 1978. And given that – in the years that followed —  Lucas wasn’t exactly shy when it came to saying how much he hated that two hour-long presentation (Or – for that matter – how George really regretted caving into the requests of CBS execs. Who had insisted that television stars long associated with the Tiffany Network – people like Art Carney, Harvey Korman & Bea Arthur – be given prominent guest starring roles in “The Star Wars Holiday Special”). And I’ve heard whispers over the years that CBS executives preventing Tom Selleck from appearing in “Raiders” could be interpreted as the Tiffany Network getting some payback for what George had said publicly about the “Star Wars Holiday Special.”

Harrison Ford Comes to Rescue “Indiana Jones”

Anyway … It’s now literally just weeks before production of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is supposed to begin and Spielberg & Lucas have just learned that that they’ve lost their film’s star. CBS is flat-out refusing to release Tom Selleck early from his “Magnum PI” contractual obligation. So Steven & George now have to find someone else to play Indy … and fast.

The real irony here is … The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists would go on strike in the Summer of 1980. Which then shut prematurely shut down production of the first season of “Magnum PI.” (As a direct result, the first full season of this action drama to air on CBS only had 18 episodes, rather than the usual 22). And because this job action lasted ‘til October 23rd of that same year … Well, this meant that Tom Selleck would have actually been free to start shooting “Raiders of the Lost Ark” on June 23, 1980 because production of Season One of “Magnum PI” was already shut down by then due to that AFTRA strike.

But no one knew – in May of 1980, anyway – that this job action was going to happen in just a few weeks. All that Steven Spielberg & George Lucas knew was that they now needed a new lead actor for “Raiders.” And circling back on Jeff Bridges was no longer an option. As I mentioned earlier, Jeff had agreed to do “TRON” for Disney. And – in the interim – Bridges gone off to shoot “Cutter’s Way” for MGM / UA.

Credit: EW

So this is where Harrison Ford enters the equation. As he recalls:

In May of 1980, I get a call from George Lucas. Who says ‘I’m messaging a script over to you this morning. As soon as it gets there, I need you to immediately read this script. Then – as soon as you’re done – I need you to call.

So the script arrives and it’s for ‘Raiders.’ I read it and it’s good. So I call George back and say ‘It’s good.’ And he then says ‘Would you be interested in playing Indy?’ I say that it looks like it would be a fun part to play.

George then says ‘ That’s great to hear. Because we start shooting in four weeks. Now I need you to meet with Steven Spielberg today and convince him that you’re the right guy to play Indy.’

Of course, given that Spielberg had been pushing for Ford to pay Indy ever since he had first seen that work-in-progress version of “The Empire Strikes Back” … Well, Harrison’s meeting with Steven was very, very short. And just a few weeks later, Spielberg, Lucas & Ford were all at the Port de la Pallice in La Rochelle. Where – on the very first day of shooting on “Raiders” (which – again – was June 23, 1980)– the scene that was shot was the one where that Nazi sub (the one that Indy had lashed himself to its periscope by using his bullwhip as a rope) was arriving at its secret base.

And all of this happened because Harrison immediately agreed to do “Raiders of the Lost Ark” when the part of Indy was first offered to him in mid-May of 1980.  

Before “Star Wars” was “Star Wars”

So why such a quick yes? Well, you have to remember that “Empire Strikes Back” wouldn’t be released to theaters ‘til May 21, 1980. And no one knew at that time whether this sequel to the original “Star Wars” would do as well at the box office as “A New Hope” had back in 1977 (FYI: “Empire” would eventually sell over $500 million worth of tickets worldwide. Which is roughly two thirds of what the original “Star Wars” earned three years earlier).

More to the point, the four films that Harrison had shot right after “A New Hope” / prior to “Empire Strikes Back” (i.e., “Heroes” AND “Force 10 from Navarone” AND “Hanover Street” AND “The Frisco Kid”) had all under-performed at the box office. So to Ford’s way of thinking, taking on a role that Tom Selleck was no longer available to play – one that had the potential of spawning two sequels – seemed like a very smart thing to do. Especially after three years of cinematic stumbles.

By the way, whenever this topic ever comes up, Harrison Ford is very gracious. He always makes a point of saying that he’s grateful to have gotten this career opportunity. More to the point, that he still feels kind of bad that Tom Selleck never got the chance to play this part.

Tom Selleck After “Indiana Jones”

That said, we shouldn’t feel too bad for Tom Selleck. After all, the original “Magnum PI” proved to be a long running hit for CBS. And in an effort to smooth over any residual bad feelings that may have resulted from Tom being forced to give up “Raiders” back in May of 1980, Selleck was eventually allowed to create his own production company (i.e., T.W.S. Productions, Inc. As in Thomas William Selleck Productions). Which – after the fact – was then cut in on some of those “Magnum PI” -related revenue streams.

More to the point, while “Magnum PI” was on hiatus following its second year in production, Selleck flew off to Yugoslavia. Where he then shot his own Indiana Jones-esque film for theatrical release. Which was called “High Road to China” in the States, but – overseas – was promoted as “Raiders of the End of the World.”

FYI: Warner Bros. released “High Road to China” stateside 40 years ago this year. On March 18, 1983, to be exact. It didn’t do all that great at the box office. $28 million in ticket sales versus $15 million in production costs.

And over the years, there’s even been some talk of finding a way to maybe set things right here. By that I mean: Finally finding a way to officially fold Tom Selleck into the world of Indiana Jones.

Could Tom Selleck Work with Indiana Jones?

The way I hear it, between the time when “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” was theatrically released in May of 1989 and when “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” debuted in May of 2008, there were a number of ideas for Indiana Jones sequels tossed around. And from what I’ve been told, there was at least one treatment for a fourth Indiana Jones film written that proposed pairing up Harrison Ford & Tom Selleck. With the idea here being that Selleck was supposed to have played Ford’s brother.

Obviously that film was never made. And – no – I don’t know what state Indiana Jones’ brother was supposed to be named after.

This article is based on research for Looking at Lucasfilm “Episode 80”, published on June 29, 2023. Looking at Lucasfilm is part of the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network.

Continue Reading

Trending