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

Listen to the Article

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.

Film & Movies

How Mattel’s “Men in Space” Toyline Lead to the Creation of Buzz Lightyear

Published

on

Buzz Lightyear Origin Story - images of Major Matt Mason, Buzz Lightyear, and Lunar Larry Concept Art
Listen to the Article

Angus MacLane’s “Lightyear” is supposed to be … Well, not exactly an origin story for Buzz Lightyear, the action figure that we know from all of the “Toy Story” films. But Rather an explanation of why Andy is so excited at his birthday party in the first “Toy Story” movie when he gets that Buzz Lightyear toy.

You see, Andy’s seen the movie that this action figure was based on. Which is supposed to be this huge Summer blockbuster. Which is why Andy & his friends at that party react the way they do. As far as they’re concerned, the movie that spawned the Buzz Lightyear action figure line was the greatest film they’ve ever seen.

Credit: Disney

Of course, because I’m a nerd and an animation history buff, I can’t help but think about how Buzz Lightyear – the character from the “Toy Story” films, rather than the really-for-real space ranger that Chris Evans voices in “Lightyear” – really started out. Which honestly wasn’t supposed to be a spoof on Captain Kirk from “Star Trek” or Gil Gerad’s Buck Rogers from the TV show. But – rather – as a riff on a space-themed toy line that Mattel produced in the mid-1960s called “Men in Space” which was then built around a character called Major Matt Mason.

Now how we got to the “Men in Space” toy line is kind of convoluted. This story actually starts over 60 years ago when Mattel sent two dolls out into the world, Barbie & Chatty Cathy.

Doll’s For Boys – Mattel’s Space Action Figure

Mattel made money hand over fist from sales of these two products. Which then made Mattel’s competitors stand up and take notice. They too wanted in on this mass-produced plastic toy market. Which is what prompted Hasbro to do something bold in 1964. Which was to license a concept that Stanley Winston had been developing. Which is a military-themed doll for boys.

Hasbro’s G.I. Joe

Just so you know: The executives on the marketing side of Hasbro knew that that nomenclature – “dolls for boys” – wasn’t going to fly. Especially with the Dads of the 1960s. So this is why the phrase “action figure” came from.

credit: The Toys that made us

Anyway, Hasbro introduces G.I. Joe, “America’s movable fighting man” (because – again – you can’t call this toy what it actually is. Which is a poseable doll for boys) in 1964. And it’s a huge hit right out of the box.

Marx “Best in the West” Cowboy Dolls

And Hasbro & Mattel’s direct competition, Marx, sees what going on with G.I. Joe and decides that … Well, we want in on the “dolls for boys” market … So they come up with the “Best of the West” line. Which is this series of G.I. Joe-sized poseable cowboy dolls. Those arrive in the marketplace in 1965 and are also hugely successful.

Mattel Introduces “Men in Space” Toyline

So now here’s Mattel. Which has cornered the market when it comes to dolls for girls with its Barbie & Chatty Cathy lines. But now that Hasbro & Marx have blazed this brave new trail – poseable dolls for boys – with their G.I. Joe & “Best of the West” action figures, Mattel wants in too.

But now that soldiers & cowboys are the exclusive property of Hasbro & Marx, Mattel has to find some sort of hook for its new “dolls for boys” line. So rather than looking back to World War II or the glory days of the America West, Mattel decides to take a chance on what’s going on in the real world at that exact moment. Which is the space race.

Which is why – just in time for the holiday buying season of 1966 – Mattel rolls out its “Men in Space” toy line. Who is headlined by Major Matt Mason an astronaut-themed action figure “ … who lives and works on the Moon.”

Credit: Vintage Action Figures

Major Matt Mason – Astronaut-Themed Action Figure

Now what was kind of interesting about Major Matt Mason is that the toy line that he headlined was based in reality. As in: A lot of the outfits & ride vehicles that were created for Mattel’s “Men in Space” line were direct lifts of publicity images that NASA had already put out there of space vehicles that they envisioned building once man actually made it to the moon. Which brought up some interesting copyright-related issues at that time.

Now I have to tell you that Mattel’s “Men in Space” toy line had problems right from the get-go. Instead of the sturdy 12-inch-tall poseable action figures that G.I. Joe and Marx’s “Best of the West” toys were … Major Matt Mason was half that size. Also, instead of hard plastic, Mattel used a rubber-like substance called Plastizol when it was making its “Men in Space” toys. That material was poured into a mold that had a wire armature inside.

Which wasn’t the sturdiest thing on the planet. Typically, after a few months of playing with your Major Matt Mason, the wire armature inside of this “Men in Space” action figure would break and it would then no longer be poseable.

Mind you, this was a deliberate choice on Mattel’s part. Their thinking was – by making Major Matt Mason half the size of G.I. Joe and then making this action figure out of cheaper material – … Well, that could then help them keep the cost of their “Men in Space” toy line down. Which would then – in theory, anyway – make these action figures far more affordable and make it possible for consumers to eventually purchase the entire playset.

Major Matt Mason’s Astronaut Friends

Oh, yeah. Did I forget to mention that Major Matt Mason had friends? Well, co-workers really. Sgt. Storm, Chip Davis, and Jeff Long (who was an African-American astronaut). Who could all lived & worked together with Matt inside of a three-level lunar base and then got around the moon’s surface by using space sleds and jet propulsion packs.

Credit: Mattel

“Men in Space” Toy Sales

Mind you, Mattel’s “Men in Space” action figures didn’t sell nearly as well as that toy company had hoped they would over the 1966 holiday shopping season. And the thinking initially was that this was because Major Matt Mason & Co. didn’t have anyone that they could battle with. So – in much the same way that Buzz Lightyear has his evil nemesis, Emperor Zurg – the “Men in Space” team then found themselves (just in time for the 1967 holiday shopping season) dealing with evil aliens like Captain Lazer, Callisto, Scorpio and Or.

Unfortunately for Mattel, interest in the space program began to wane as the 1960s gave way to the 1970s. Which is why they decided to discontinue their “Men in Space” toy line in 1970.

Lunar Larry – The Original Buzz Lightyear

So when it comes to Buzz Lightyear, where’s the Major Matt Mason / “Men in Space” connection? Well, if you take a look back at the original concept art for Woody’s nemesis in the first “Toy Story” movie, he isn’t this G.I. Joe sized action figure. But – rather – a six-inch-tall poseable astronaut doll who (I kid you not) is called Lunar Larry.

Credit: Disney
Credit: Disney
Credit: Disney
Credit: Disney

Tom Hanks, Robert Zemeckis, & “Men in Space” Film

FYI: If all had gone according to plan back in 2011, there would have been an even stronger “Toy Story” / “Major Matt Mason” connection. This was when it was announced in the Hollywood trades that Tom Hanks (that’s right. The voice of Woody) had co-written a movie based on Mattel’s “Men in Space” toy line. Not only that, but Hanks was trying to persuade Robert Zemeckis (who Tom had worked with on “Forest Gump,” “Cast Away,” “The Polar Express,” and Disney+’s live-action “Pinocchio”) to come direct the “Major Matt Mason” – the man who lived & worked on the Moon – movie.

Wait. It gets better, Hanks himself reportedly wanted to play Major Matt Mason.

I’m not entirely sure whatever became of Tom Hanks’ “Men in Space” movie. This past February, Hanks & Zemeckis announced that they’ll be re-united with Eric Roth, the writer of “Forest Gump,” on a film adaptation of “Here.” Which is Roth’s graphic novel.

Supposedly sometime over the past 10 years, Paramount Pictures acquired the rights to make a “Men in Space” movie. Hanks is still allegedly attached as a producer for this project. But given that Tom will be turning 66 next month, I doubt that he still wants to play Major Matt Mason.

Which is kind of a shame. Given what Woody once said to Buzz in the original “Toy Story” …

YOU ARE A TOY!!!  You aren’t the real Buzz Lightyear, you’re an action figure!!  You are a child’s plaything!!!

… I would pay good money to see Tom Hanks play one of the original action figures: Major Matt Mason, the man who lived & worked on the Moon as part of Mattel’s “Men in Space” toy line.

Credit: New York Times

This article is based on research for Fine Tooning with Drew Taylor “Episode 178”, published on June 16, 2022. Fine Tooning with Drew Taylor is part of the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

“Honey, I Shrunk the Audience!”: Sequel Troubles and New Attractions

Published

on

Honey I Shrunk the Audience
Listen to the Article

This article is part of a series documenting the story of “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” and Disney Science-Based movies. Be sure to check out our additional research on the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”.

On the heels of the enormous success of the original “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” movie (which was released to theaters in June of 1989) — Disney Studios made plans to release a whole series of science-based gimmick comedies based on the “Honey” characters. A number of the titles that the Studio copywrote as possible follow-ups to that film:

  • “Honey, I Sent the Kids to the Moon”
  • “Honey, I Swapped Brains with the Dog”

With the plan here being that — from here on in — every two years, just like clockwork, a brand-new “Honey” movie would arrive in theaters (ideally in early June) and then clean up at the box office. Just like the original “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” did in June of 1989.

“Honey, I Blew Up the Baby”

We now jump ahead to June of 1992. Which is when “Honey, I Blew Up the Baby” finally arrived in theaters.

Now if you’re halfway decent at math, you’ll immediately notice that — hey — the follow-up to the original “Honey, I Shrunk” film didn’t arrive in theaters two years later (like Disney originally planned) but three years later.

“And why was that?,” you ask. Well, at it turns out, it was a lot harder to develop a suitable sequel to the original “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” than anyone at Disney had thought it would be. The Studio went through dozens of drafts before executives at Disney finally threw up their hands and said “We give. Let’s just go buy someone else’s script and then turn it into a ‘Honey, I Shrunk’ movie.”

And that’s exactly what Disney did. They found this script called “Big Baby.” Which was originally supposed to be a parody of all those Godzilla movies. Only — in this case — instead of a giant radioactive lizard rising up out of Tokyo Bay and then laying waste to the city, the monster in this movie was a toddler who’d accidentally been made 200 feet tall. And who was now disrupting Rush Hour because he kept picking up cars off of the freeway and then making them go “Vroom Vroom.”

Very cute idea for a movie. Definitely something there that could then be used for a “Honey, I Shrunk” story. But here’s the thing: At this time, the State of Nevada was offering movie studios in Hollywood a huge tax break if they came and shot movies in that state.

Filming in Las Vegas, Nevada

And given that the movie that Disney was then calling “Honey, I Blew Up the Baby” was going to be hugely expensive to make (what with all of these elaborate special effects scenes of that giant toddler wandering around that regular-sized cityscape) … Well, Mouse House executives then began to think “Could we switch the location of ‘Honey, I Blew Up the Baby’ from a generic Southern Californian suburb to — say — the Las Vegas Strip? Which has all sorts of famous, recognized-around-the-globe super-sized icons like Vegas Vic, that giant neon Cowboy who’s been a fixture on the Las Vegas Strip since 1951.

The only problem is that a story that’s set in Las Vegas doesn’t exactly scream “Family friendly.” Of course, the real irony here is that — while “Honey, I Blew Up the Baby” was actually in production in June of 1991 was when Las Vegas was beginning its initial flirtation with becoming a more family-friendly destination resort. This is when we saw resorts like the Luxor first announced. Heavily themed hotels & casinos which would also have rides & attractions incorporated into their designs that would then appeal to kids.

Credit: Walt Disney Company

From Blowing up the Baby to Blowing up the Kid – Movie Name Change

Disney didn’t initially realize that setting “Honey, I Blew Up the Baby” in Las Vegas would then have an impact on this “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” sequel. They were more concerned with what focus groups were telling them about the title of this “Honey” sequel. As is: They didn’t want to take their children to see a Disney movie where babies got blown up. That was cruel & gross sounding.

Disney’s marketing team tried to explain to the people in these focus groups that no babies would actually be harmed over the course of this sequel. That — when they said “Blew Up” — they didn’t mean “exploded.” But — rather — made bigger.

It didn’t matter. According to what Disney learned from all those focus groups, “Honey, I Blew Up the Baby” was the sort of film title that turned people off. It sent the wrong message to would-be movie-goers. So they would up trashing the thousands of teaser posters that had already been printed for this project as a new title was crafted for this “Honey, I Shrunk” sequel. Which would now be known as “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid.”

Credit: Walt Disney Company

Box Office Troubles for Franchise

The new title didn’t matter. To this day, no one at Disney knows what exactly went wrong here. Whether it was the movie’s title or that decision to take advantage of the tax credit that the State of Nevada was offering and changing the story’s location to Las Vegas … But long story short, “Honey, I Blew Up the Kids” cost almost twice as much as the original “Honey,  I Shrunk” did to shoot and only did 2/3rds of the original film’s ticket sales.

Which then sent the message to Disney film executives that perhaps this was NOT the studio’s next big film franchise. More to the point, that the enormous success of the first “Honey, I Shrunk “ movie may have had more to do with “Tummy Trouble” (the new Roger Rabbit short that had been placed in front of this film when it went out into theaters back in June of 1989) more than audiences falling in love with the antics of Wayne Szalinski.

So the idea of creating any further theatrical releases based on the “Honey, I Shrunk” characters was temporarily tabled as execs at the Mouse House regrouped. Debated about what should happen next with this franchise.

More “Honey, I Shrunk…” in the Disney Theme Parks

Whereas the Imagineers, they had no such qualms when it came to the “Honey, I Shrunk” franchise. They had seen how popular the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure” was with Guests at Disney-MGM Studios. Likewise the Flying Bumble Bee vignette in the Special Effects Workshop of the Backstage Tour at this theme park.

And given that — starting in August of 1993 — accusations had begun to surface about Michael Jackson and some of his younger fans, the thinking at Imagineering (at that time, anyway) was that maybe it was time to start working on a replacement for “Captain EO” (which had first opened at the Parks in the Fall of 1986).

And given that “Captain EO” was being presented in 3D theaters that were located in Future World at EPCOT and in Tomorrowlands at Disney Parks around the globe, the thinking was that a new movie that featured characters from a Disney-produced science-based gimmick comedy would be the perfect replacement for this Michael Jackson movie.

“Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” – Hiring Eric Idle

So production began in earnest in the Fall of 1993 on this new 3D movie. But “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” almost stopped before it even began. Monty Python vet Eric Idle likes to tell the story about how — one afternoon — he walked into a hotel bar in Los Angeles and found actress Marcia Strassman sitting there, nursing a drink. Eric noticed that Marcia looked a little down and asked if he could join her.

Anyway, Idle eventually asked Strassman why she looked so depressed. And Marcia — who played Diane Szalinkski, Wayne’s wife in the “Honey, I Shrunk” film — explained that they were supposed to begin shooting “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” (a new 3D movie for the Disney Parks) that morning. But that — just before shooting was to begin — the actor who was supposed to play Nigel Channing in that film had dropped out. And now the whole project was on hold while Disney scrambled to find a new actor to play the host of that show’s “Inventor of the Year” ceremony.

It was then that Eric Idle supposedly said “Well, I’m not doing anything for the next couple of days. Do you think that Disney would consider me for this part?” And Marcia said “Let’s find out,” and then asked the bartender for the house phone.

And the very next day, Eric Idle is on the set for “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience.” As director Randall Kleiser walked this Monty Python vet through this hugely-difficult-to-shoot / FX-filled production. Kleiser — by the way — got this gig because the Imagineers thought that he’d done an amazing job with the direction of that “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid.”

And speaking of doing a great job, the Imagineers were so pleased with Eric Idle’s performance as Nigel Channing, the MC of the “Inventor of the Year” Awards that — when it came time to redo the “Journey into Imagination” ride — they reached out to Idle again and asked if he’d be willing to reprise that character. Which he was. So now Eric Idle is an established fixture at Future World … I mean, World Nature.

“Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” – Attractions Around the World

“Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” finally opened at EPCOT in November of 1994. And it proved to be so popular with WDW visitors that Oriental Land Company execs (They’re the folks who operate Tokyo Disneyland & Tokyo DisneySea) insisted that they get a clone of this 3D movie for the Tomorrowland theater at their Disneyland.

Honey, I shrunk the audience Epcot sign
Credit: Flickr Gary Burke

The Tokyo version — which went by the name of “MicroAdventure!” There’s an exclamation point at the end of that attraction’s name, by the way) opened in April of 1997. It was so well received that the original Disneyland Park in Anaheim — which was in the process of designing its second New Tomorrowland (which would open for the Spring of 1998) — said “Hey, we want a clone too.”

So the Anaheim version of “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” opened in May of 1998, going into the exact same theater that Disneyland’s version of “Captain EO” had been screened in. And then — the following year — Disneyland Paris got its own version of “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience.” Which opened at that theme park in March of 1999.

Closing for “Captain EO”

All four versions of “Honey, I Shrunk the Audience” then screened at theme parks around the globe the next 11 years. Until May of 2010 arrived. Which was when — within one month’s time — all four versions of this 3D attraction shuttered.

Michael Jackson had died back in June of 2009. And since Disney believes firmly in death being the ultimate disinfectant, the Summer of 2010 was deemed to be the perfect time to begin screening “Captain Eo” at the Parks again.

“Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves” & “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: The TV Show”

In May of 1997 — Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment releases “Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves.” Which was a home premiere extension of that film series which marked Rick Moranis’ last appearance as Wayne Szalinksi.

In September of 1997, “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: The TV Show” debuts in syndication. This hour-long adventure comedy series ran for three season. With Peter Scolari (formerly Tom Hanks’ co-star on “Bosom Buddies”) now playing the role of Wayne Szalinski.  A total of 66 episodes were produced, with the last one airing May 20, 2000.

Next Steps for “Honey, I Shrunk” Film Franchise

On May 13, 2019 , a“Honey, I Shrunk” reboot was announced. To star Josh Gad playing Wayne Szalinski’s son Nick. Josh persuaded Rick Moranis to come out of retirement to play Wayne again & recruited Joe Johnston — the guy who directed the original “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” more than 30 years earlier to come back and direct the sequel.

Joe was done in Atlanta in March of 2020 directing the construction of the sets for “Shrunk.” That’s what this sequel (which will air of Disney+) will be called. Just “Shrunk.” When the pandemic happened. Production suspended.

Good news. “Shrunk” is now back on. Can’t reveal where it’s going to be shot. But Josh & Rick are slated to go before the cameras next year. Can’t wait.

This article is based on research for The Disney Dish Podcast “Episode 375”, published on May 23, 2022. The Disney Dish Podcast is part of the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

“Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”: The Movie & Early Attractions

Published

on

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids - Wayne looking through magnifying glass
Listen to the Article

This article is part of a series documenting the story of “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” and Disney Science-Based movies. Be sure to check out our additional research on the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”.

When Michael Eisner came on board as Disney’s new CEO in the mid-1980s, he had gone over the company’s books and learned that there was this certain type of film (a science-based gimmick comedy) that the Studio used to release that had done very well at the box office over the past 25 years or so.

We’re talking about Disney-produced comedies like “The Absent-Minded Professor,” “The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes,” “The Misadventures of Merlin Jones.” FX-filled films where college kids accidentally a paint that could then make them invisible.  Or a family pet — in this case, a duck — gets exposed to radiation and then starts laying solid-gold eggs. You know, things that could happen to anyone in every day life. Provided — of course — your name is Dean Jones or Kurt Russell.

Flight of the Navigator and Rebirth of Science-Based Movies

So Eisner decides that it’s high time that Walt Disney Pictures gets back in the science-based gimmick comedy business again. Which is why he greenlights production of “Flight of the Navigator,” which arrives in theaters in July of 1986. The only problem is … This Randall Kleiser film (Remember that name. It’s going to come up again) suffers from “This-movie-really-wants-to-be-E.T.-instead” syndrome. Which means that it’s heartfelt and has some wonderful, sincere moments as well as some killer visual effects.

Credit: Disney

 But “Flight of the Navigator” is not long on laughs. And remember that the reason that Eisner put this Randall Kleiser film into production in the first place is because he wanted to revive the science-based gimmick comedy genre at Disney Studios.

But “Flight of the Navigator” (while it didn’t exactly set the box office on fire when it was released to theaters in the Summer of 1986) did well enough when the VHS version of this movie hit store shelves in January of 1987 that Eisner thought “Okay. We can take another stab at this. Get me a script for another science-based gimmick comedy.”

Which is when the script for “Teenie Weenies” shows up on his desk.

Teenie Weenies – Origins of “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”

Now “Teenie Weenies” has kind of an interesting pedigree. Because it came to Disney by way of Stuart Gordon. Who — back in the mid-1980s, anyway — was best known for having written & directed some pretty out-there horror comedies, 1985’s “Re-Animator” and 1986’s “From Beyond.” But Stuart also had a love for cheesy 1950s sci-fi films like “The Incredible Shrinking Man” (which Universal Pictures first released to theaters in April of 1957).

And one day Gordon had a brainstorm: What if — instead of some earnest white guy scientist in a lab coat who gets shrunk down to the size of a bread crumb — it’s a kid instead? Or — better yet — kids? What would happen in that case?

So Gordon and his frequent collaborators — Ed Naha & Brian Yuzna — work up a screenplay that explores this idea. And it eventually makes its way to Disney. And Eisner likes what he sees. But even so, Michael doesn’t want to spend a whole lot of money on this movie. Plus he’s not crazy about that title, “Teeny Weenies.” Can we please come up with a better title for this movie? Which is why — for a time — this film is called “Grounded,” then “The Big Backyard.”

Credit: Worthpoint

So Stuart is initially supposed to direct this movie for Disney. Which — I know — given that this guy previously directed really out-there horror comedies (Trust me, folks. If you’ve ever seen “Re-Animator,” you’ll know what I’m talking about) seems like a weird choice for the Mouse House.

But Michael’s thinking at the time was … Well, “The Big Backyard” is going to be full of visual effects shots. And given some of the scenes in “Re-Animator” & “From Beyond,” this guy already knows how to do this stuff. So better to stick with the devil you know.

So — to keep production cost down — Disney decides to shoot “The Big Backyard” down in Mexico City at Churubusco Studios. So Stuart casts up the project.

FYI: The role of inventor Wayne Szalinski was originally written with Chevy Chase in mind. But since he was shooting “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” around this same time, he wasn’t available. So Disney then offer this part to John Candy. Who — when he passed on the role — suggested that the Studio consider Rick Moranis, his old pal from “SCTV,” for the part. Which is how Moranis became Szalinksi.

Production & Filming “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”

Production is just about to get underway on “The Big Backyard.” But then Stuart Gordon gets sick and has to withdraw from this project. Michael Eisner now starts freaking out. I’ve got a big new visual-effects-drive comedy for Disney Studios all set to start shooting and — days before production is supposed to begin — I don’t have a director.

Enter Academy Award-winning visual effects guy Joe Johnston. This is the guy who started as a concept artist on the first “Star Wars” film, went on to design Boba Fett for “The Empire Strikes Back,” and — by the time “Willow” rolled around — George Lucas had promoted Joe to associate producer. More to the point, Johnston was the production designer on those two “Ewok” TV movies that ran on ABC in 1984 & 1985.

So Joe had come up through the ranks at Lucasfilm. Yet, he hadn’t actually directed a movie up until that time. But he’d basically done everything else you could do behind-the-camera on a big visual effects film. Johnston was the right guy in the right place at the right time when Disney desperately needed a director for “The Big Backyard.” So tag. You’re it.

And Joe — to his credit — delivered. Disney was so pleased with the work that he did on “The Big Backyard” that — after this science-based gimmick comedy officially opened at the box office in June of 1989 and did really, really well, the Studio immediately offered Johnston another FX-fille project. This one being a big screen adaptation of Dave Stevens’ cult classic comic book, “The Rocketeer.”

Joe Johnston, Thomas Wilson Brown, Amy O’Neill, and Robert Oliveri in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989) Credit: iMDB

From “The Big Backyard” to “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”

But that title. “The Big Backyard.” Michael still hated it. He wanted something punchy & fun like the titles of those earlier Disney science-based gimmick comedies from the 1960s & the 1970s. Something like “Now You See Him, Now You Don’t” or “The Monkey’s Uncle.” A title that tells you right up front that this is a family comedy.

There was a line in the movie that always got a big laugh at test screenings. It was when Rick Moranis turned to his wife Marcia Strassman and then reluctantly admitted “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.” Eisner said “That gets a laugh. Let’s go with that.” Which is how “The Big Backyard” became “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.”

“Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” Box Office Success

And “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” did crazy business at the box office in the Summer of 1989. We’re talling $222 million in ticket sales worldwide. Which is the equivalent of nearly a half a billion dollars in today’s money. Which then made “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” the highest grossing live-action Disney film of all time. A title it retained for five years, only to then be dethroned by “The Santa Clause.”

Now it’s worth noting here that one of the reasons that “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” did so well at the box office in the Summer of 1989 was that — right in front of this Joe Johnston movie — was the very first “Roger Rabbit” short, “Tummy Trouble.” The film that inspired this short — “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” — had come out the previous summer and done very well at the box office. That Robert Zemeckis movie had taken home four Oscars at the 61st Academy Awards, which had been held just three months previous in late March of 1989.

So there are some folks even today who say “Well, ‘Honey, I Shrunk the Kids’ wasn’t really this monstrous hit back in the Summer of 1989. It was more a case that ‘Honey, I Shrunk the Kids’ — when it was paired with “Tummy Trouble” — was such a tempting combo that moviegoers just could not resist this double bill. Especially on the heels of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” and how well that movie had done the previous Summer.

“Honey, I Blew Up the Kid”

This would become painfully clear in the Summer of 1992 when the sequel to “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” — “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid” — finally arrived in theaters. Only instead of a new “Roger Rabbit” short, this Randall Kleiser film (See. I told you that name would come up again) had a Disney-produced CG short in front of it called “Off Your Rocker.” And that Barry Cook cartoon — while fun — just wasn’t the box office draw that “Tummy Trouble,” “Roller Coaster Rabbit” or “Trail Mix-Up” had been.

Consequently, “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid” only did about 2/3rds of the business that “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” did domestically. We’re talking $96 million in ticket sales in North America versus $130 million in North American ticket sales back in 1989.

Which — when you factor in that the original “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” cost $18 million to make versus the $32 million it cost to make “Honey, I Blew Up the Kid” — isn’t a great place to be. Especially in a Hollywood where — increasingly — the Studio’s accountants are the ones calling the shots. Rather than the creatives.

Honey I Blew Up the Kid Movie Poster

Potential “Honey” Sequels

It’s the Summer of 1989 and “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” is still this enormous hit. Which Disney immediately wants to make all sorts of sequels to.

Which is why — as the Wall Street Journal reported in August of that same year — the Studio pre-emptively trademarked a bunch of possible titles for follow-ups to the original “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” movies. These titles included:

  • “Honey, I Sent the Kids to the Moon”
  • “Honey, I Made the Kids Invisible”
  • “Honey, I Xeroxed the Kids”
  • and “Honey, I Switched Brains with the Dog”

“Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” Attractions at Disney MGM Studio Theme Park

Now where this gets interesting is that — even before “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” had opened in theaters (on June 23, 1989) — Michael Eisner was insisting that this Joe Johnston movie be folded into the Disney theme parks somewhere.

Luckily in the Late Winter / early Spring of that same year, the Imagineers were readying the Disney MGM Studio theme park for its May 1st opening.

Tram Tour Blue Screen Bumble Bee Experience

Since WDW’s 3rd gate was supposed to help promote the Studio’s latest releases … Well, WDI decided that — as part of the Visual Effects portion of that theme park’s Backstage walking tour (which used to be the second half of the Tram Tour at Disney MGM) — they’d use Blue Screen as a way to recreate that moment from “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” when the boys accidentally fall onto the back of a bumble bee and then get flown all around the backyard.

This experience selected two kids to demonstrate how blue screen technology worked. They were then strapped by Cast Members to this huge fake bumble bee. These kids were then told to flail about as a camera moved in and out, capturing their expressions.

Then — seconds later — this just-captured footage was inserted into a clip from “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.” Which then showed these same kids — now miniaturized — buzzing around a backyard on the back of a giant bumble bee.

Siskel and Ebert Cameo

Roger Ebert & Gene Siskel (who — at the time — were the hosts of the hugely popular “At the Movies” show) suddenly came onscreen. Roger & Gene then seemingly began to criticize the performance of the two kids who had just volunteered to demonstrate how blue screen technology worked. With Roger Ebert (he was the heavy-set grumpier member of this duo. Siskel was the more even-tempered, bald-headed guy) complained that “ … it looked like those two were hanging onto a huge fuzzball.”

This cameo was made possible by a deal that Disney had made with Roger & Gene back in 1986. Prior to that, Ebert & Siskel’s movie review show — which began life as a one-time-only TV special on Chicago Public Television back in 1975 — had been shown on various PBS stations around the country. Disney offered to make “At the Movies” the very first syndicated show offered by Buena Vista Television and to then take Ebert & Siskel nationally.

Roger & Gene agreed to this deal with one condition: That Disney execs wouldn’t then interfere in any way with the production of “At the Movies.” More to the point, if Walt Disney Studios made a stinker of a movie, that Ebert & Siskel would then be allowed to state that opinion — loud & clear — on a TV show that the Mouse himself produced.

Michael Eisner personally guaranteed that Roger & Gene would be free to say whatever they liked about Disney-produced films. And because Disney execs made a point of being completely hands-off when it came to “At the Movies” …

Well, that’s why — when the Imagineers came a-calling and said “Would you please shoot this 30 second bit for the Special Effects Workshop. Which will be part of the Backstage Tour thing we’re now building at Disney-MGM Studios,” Ebert & Siskel said “Sure.”

I mean, these two guys took their film criticism jobs seriously. They were total pros. But at the same time, Roger & Gene didn’t take themselves all that seriously. They got the gag, I mean.

“Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” Playground

When “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” finally opened in theaters and then became the fifth highest grossing film of the year (behind “Batman,” “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” “Lethal Weapon 2” and “Rain Man”), Eisner insisted that something of size that celebrated the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” be built at Disney MGM. Which is why — between New York Street and the Studio Catering Company — a brand-new playground began to rise up.

The gimmick of the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure” was — as soon as Guests enterted this space — they were shrunk down to the size of an ant. This enclosed space (which was designed to look like a teeny tiny chunk of the Szlanski’s backyard that was now writ huge) featured 30-foot-tall blades of grass that were built out of metal & fiber glass. Which — prior to installation — had to (in model form, mind you) go through a wind tunnel test to prove that these faux enormous blades of grass could withstand 300 MPH winds and still stay in place. Because … Well, Florida. Hurricanes. You do the math.

And since this “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” play area was being built in Florida … Well, keeping Guests cool was a major consideration. So the Imagineers have people choices. They could either stand under a 52-foot-long nozzle of a giant garden hose and periodically get dripped. Or they could stand in front of a giant dog nose. And — every so often — that enormous canine would sneeze. But instead of snot, a cool mist of water would come shooting out of those enormous nostrils.

By the way, both of these enormous props — the leaky nozzle of that garden hose AND that giant dog nose — were manufactured out in California at WDI’s Tujunga facility and then shipped cross country. You gotta wonder what motorists in the Midwest thought of that as they saw a flatbed with a giant dog nose on it rolling by them on the interstate.

A lot of folks — when talking about the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure” — remember that soggy material which covered the ground. It sort of looked like dirt. That was Safe Deck, a material that the Imagineers found which was made up of ground-up old truck tires. Mind you, to make it actually look like the dirt you have in your own backyard, the Imagineers had to scatter little handfuls of ground up green truck tires & red truck tires & blue truck tries. Which brings us to the real important question: Where do you get green & blue truck tires?

Kodak-themed Slide: Was Kodak the Sponsor of “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure”?

One of the most popular and famous props in the play area was a slide that was shaped as an enormous, partially opened cannister of Kodak film.

Because that huge cannister of Kodak film was so obviously on display in the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure” — did that then mean that Kodak was the sponsor of this Disney-MGM attraction?

And the answer to that question is actually “No.” Eastman Kodak Co. signed a 15-year-long promotional agreement with The Walt Disney Company the year previous (On April 27, 1989. Just days before Disney-MGM officially opened to the public). And this was a deal that linked Disney & Kodak in multiple ways. On television, at the movies and in the Disney theme parks.

The Kodak-themed slide was actually something of a freebie. I mean, you have to understand that the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure” was one of the very first projects that Walt Disney Imagineering put into development after the Mouse House signed that new 15-year-long deal with Eastman Kodak.

And what better way to tell all of those Kodak executives back in Rochester, NY that we really appreciate you sticking with us for the long haul and being a participant at Disney Parks & Resorts but then surprise them with a slide that was shaped like an enormous cannister of Kodak film.

Mind you, all of this goodwill would evaporate just a few years later when the Imagineers went to Kodak and said “Hey. It’s time to redo the ‘Journey into Imagination’ ride at Epcot.” To which Kodak executives replied “Film sales are falling through the floor because of the rise of digital photography. We have no money available to fund a redo of the ‘Imagination’ ride. You’re on your own, Disney.”

Closing “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure”

The “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: Movie Set Adventure” had a good long run at the Studio theme park. It officially opened on December 17, 1990 and then closed on April 2, 2016 to make way for an entirely different sort of movie set adventure. Maybe you’ve heard of the place? “Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge” ?

Up Next: Sequel Challenges and 3D Movie Experiences.

Anyway … On the next installment of this series (The third & final chapter of the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” story), we’ll discuss Disney’s troubles when it came to developing a suitable sequel to the first film in this series. Not to mention the challenges that the Imagineers faced when they decided to build a new 3D movie experience around Wayne Szalinski’s shrink ray.

Get ready for way too many mice.

This article is based on research for The Disney Dish Podcast “Episode 374”, published on May 16, 2022. The Disney Dish Podcast is part of the Jim Hill Media Podcast Network.

Continue Reading

Trending