First up, Harry C. from Kowloon, Hong Hong writes in to ask:
Dear Jim:
A short question for “Why For”? but Pixar-related rather than Disney-related? Why are there no bloopers at the end of “Finding Nemo”?
Thanks and keep up the terrific work!
Best,
Harry C.
Dear Harry:
To hear “Finding Nemo” director Andrew Stanton tell it, the real reason that Pixar opted not to include any out-takes with this film is so that the studio wouldn’t get pigeon-holed. So that Pixar wouldn’t become too predictable. That their films wouldn’t start to feel too formulaic.
This is also why Pixar chose Thomas Newman — rather than the studio’s usual composer, Randy Newman — to provide the score for “Finding Nemo.” Just to mix things up a bit. (Given his long association with Pixar Animation Studio, I’m sure that Newman was a little disappointed when he learned that he wasn’t getting the “Finding Nemo” scoring job. But — then again — given that this gig went to his cousin, Thomas, I would imagine that Randy wasn’t too too upset. After all, at least the job stayed within the Newman family.)
Look for Pixar to continue to play with people’s preconceived notions about their pictures with the studio’s November 2004 release, “The Incredibles.” This Brad Bird film will be the very first Pixar production to feature a mostly human cast (No toys. No bugs. No blue furry monsters or cute little clown fish) as well as a score by four time Academy Award winner John Barry. The early buzz on this film is that “The Incredibles” could be the best Pixar picture yet.
Better than “Monsters, Inc.” or “Toy Story II?” That hardly seems possible. But we shall see come the Fall of 2004 …
Next, Bill K. checks in with an “Alice in Wonderland” related question:
Hi Jim,
Let me say that I’m a big fan of your site. It never fails (that) I learn something every time I visit.
I have a question I was hoping you could answer for me. When I was younger, I had the “Little Golden Book” version of Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland” animated feature. The book hit most of the highlights of the film. But what I found much more interesting was the sequence it contained that wasn’t in the film.
In the book, Alice encounters the Jabberwock. Which – if I remember correctly – had flames in its eyes and a sort of smoke-stack nose.
There’s a part in the movie where it looks like such a scene may have existed. Since it is surrounded by references to Lewis Carroll’s original poem, such as the “mome raths” and the “tulgey wood.” However, the only version of Alice I have ever seen contains no encounter with the Jabberwock. Was it cut? Did it ever exist? If you have the answer, I’d love to hear.
Thanks!
Bill K.
Dear Bill K.
Sadly, I too have been trying to chase down the truth about the infamous “Jabberwocky” sequence for a number of years now. But — for the life of me, Bill — I haven’t been able to get to the bottom of what actually happened to this particular piece of Disney’s animated feature, “Alice in Wonderland.”
What IS clear is that — at least at one time — a sequence that was based on Lewis Carroll’s nonsense poem WAS put into development. But just how far this particular scene actually made it along Disney’s development track before “Jabberwocky” got cut remains to be seen.
This much is clear. The “Jabberwocky” sequence for “Alice” at least got far enough along to be storyboarded. For these brightly colored drawings (done in pastels, if I’m remembering correctly) were used as the illustrations for a “Jabberwocky” book that Disney Press published back in 1992.
And voice veteran Stan Freberg has repeatedly claimed that — in the late 1940s / early 1950s — he made several trips to Disney Studios to record voices for the “Jabberwocky” sequence for the animated “Alice in Wonderland.”
But I should also point out here that — in a letter I received from Disney archivist Dave Smith back in the early 1990s — Smith insisted that (according to studio record searches that his staff has done over the years) the “Jabberwocky” sequence for Disney’s animated “Alice in Wonderland” never actually went into production.
So maybe what actually happened here was that the production staff at Disney Studios only got as far as making a leica reel of the proposed “Jabberwocky” sequence. (“What’s a leica reel?” you ask. Well, this is what animators put together when they want to test a particular scene. See if it stands on its own, even in extremely rough form. So they film the storyboard, add a temporary soundtrack, then screen the thing to see if the sequence actually holds together.)
Perhaps what happened to the “Jabberwocky” sequence is that — after they added Stan’s vocals to those brightly colored storyboards — Walt just didn’t like what he saw and ordered the scene cut from the picture.
It’s just too bad that Scott McQueen, the former senior manager of library restoration at the studio, no longer works for the Walt Disney Company. If ever there were a person who could have told us definitively if there had been a “Jabberwocky” sequence animated for “Alice in Wonderland,” Scott was that guy. Disney lost a real prize when the Mouse was stupid enough to let McQueen walk on out the door. He regularly found footage that people had said was missing for decades …
Sorry that I couldn’t be more helpful here, Bill. But — if it’s any consolation — you now at least know that you have some company when it comes to pondering this particular Disney animation mystery.
Next, Rick G. asks:
Jim,
I was wondering if we will ever see Captain EO on DVD.
Still love your site. Keep up the cool stuff!
Rick G.
Dear Rick:
It’s really unlikely that Buena Vista Home Entertainment will ever put “Captain EO” out on DVD. Why for? Well, because of all those deals that Disney had to cut with Hollywood heavy hitters like George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola and Michael Jackson in order to make “Captain EO” happen.
As I understand it, the initial up-front fee and subsequent royalty deals that Theme Park Productions (That’s the name of WDI’s in-house film production division. Under the guidance of Imagineering veteran Tom Fitzgerald, TTP produces all of the movies — be they full screen 3D extravaganzas or just brief overhead monitor shows — that you see once you’re inside a Disney theme park) made with George, Francis and Michael were written with the specific understanding that “Captain EO” would only be shown inside Disney theme parks.
Were Disney to ever want to release “Captain EO” on home video or DVD, that would mean that the Mouse would have to start a brand new series of negotiations with Lucas, Coppola and Jackson. And — chances are — this trio of show business sharpies would make Mickey pay through the nose for the privilege of releasing “Captain EO” through Buena Vista Home Entertainment.
Speaking of noses, one of the other reasons that we’ll probably never see “Captain EO” on home video and DVD is that this 3D movie was made ‘way back in 1986. That’s quite a number of plastic surgery procedures ago for Mr. Jackson. Back when Michael was in his Audrey Hepburn / Elizabeth Taylor / Bambi phase.
So — since Jackson continues to insist that he’s never ever had plastic surgery — I seriously doubt that Jacko would ever allow “Captain EO” to be seen again. Otherwise, how would Michael explain away that he had one sort of nose back in 1986 and an entirely different schnozz in 2003.
Anyway … personal message to Rick G. here: Sorry that I missed you when I was out in LA last week. But — as usual — I had far too little time and far too many people to see when I was out in Southern California. So how’s about dropping me a line toward the end of August (after Alice goes back to Poway) and we’ll see if we can’t work something out then, okay?
Next, Nick drops me a line to ask:
Hey Jim,
I’m one of your more younger (teenaged) fans and I enjoy your articles a lot. Can you give any inside detail on what ROTM will be like (any chance there’ll be inversions?)?
Keep up the great work,
Nick
Nick –
Sorry, but my friends over at Universal Studios’ theme park division have sworn me to secrecy about ROTM. (For those of you out there who aren’t theme park weenies, ROTM stands for “Return of the Mummy” — the amazing new coaster that Universal Creative is currently building for the company’s Orlando theme park to replace “Kongfrontation.”)
What I CAN tell you, Nick, is that — yes — ROTM will have at least one inversion. And that this Universal Studios Orlando attraction — once it opens in the Spring of 2004 — will really raise the bar when it comes to themed thrill rides in Central Florida.
So how good is “Return of the Mummy” going to be, Nick? Think of this as Universal Studio’s “Pirates of the Caribbean.” The attraction that you just HAVE TO ride whenever you visit that park. The ride where you see all sorts of cool new details whenever you ride the attraction.
NOW do you understand why — earlier this year — Disney suddenly announced that it was adding “Expedition Everest” to Animal Kingdom’s meager assortment of attractions? The theme park industry is a relatively small world, Nick. And the people designing these amazing new attractions naturally talk with their friends and competitors about the various rides their particular company has in the pipeline.
You see what I’m saying, Nick? The Imagineers must have heard that Universal had this killer new attraction in the works for its Central Florida theme park. That’s why the Mouse felt that it had to move quickly, rise to Universal Studio’s challenge — top “Return of the Mummy” or risk becoming the also-ran resort in Orlando.
The upside of this battle between Disney and Universal is … over the next few years, thrill ride fans will soon have two very good reasons to visit Central Florida. Universal Studio’s “Return of the Mummy” and Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s “Expedition Everest: Legend of the Yeti.” So it’s really hard to complain about something like that.
And finally, Suzanne O. writes in to ask:
Hi Jim,
Just read an article on Digital Media you did on inside in animation films by Disney artists. I owned (stored away from view) a framed 1970’s poster with most if not all the Disney characters in pornographic positions. Bright Day glow colors … very specific stuff. All I know about the piece is that it was pulled from shelves after a suit from Disney. Someone said to me that it was done by a famous Warner Brothers artist. Have you heard or do you know anything about this piece?
Suzanne O.
Suzanne –
Yes. I’m familiar with the unauthorized Disney poster that you’re talking about. And — up until recently — I knew virtually nothing about its origins, Suzanne.
But then I read Bob Levin’s great new book, “The Pirates and the Mouse: Disney’s War Against the Counterculture” (Fantagraphics Books, June 2003). And right there — on Page 79 — the real history behind this pornographic Disney poster was finally revealed to me.
That section of “The Pirates and the Mouse” reads as follows:
The counterculture’s first strike against Disney occurred shortly after Walt Disney’s death in 1966, when Paul Krassner, who would become one of the founders of the Youth International Party, better known as the Yippies, but was then a one-man assault unit as editor of the savagely satirical, virulently anti-establishment “Realist” (I mean, there was nothing f*cking like it), decided to “demystify” the entire Disney oeuvre and “signify the crumbling of an empire.” “Disney’s characters were taken so seriously,” he says. “They were spokesfigures for this entire system of stifling, arbitrary rules. I thought that, with Disney — the creator of these repressed characters — dead, it was time they went on a binge.”
Krassner solicited the help of Wally Wood, the ex-E.C. great, whom he had met when he sold a story idea to “Mad,” and Wood delivered “a magnificent degenerate montage.” His “Walt Disney Memorial Orgy” showed Mickey shooting up, Goofy scr*wing Minnie, the Seven Dwarfs having their way with Snow White. Krassner ran it as a centerfold spread in his May 1967 issue …
Krassner also released “Orgy” in poster form. The Disney organization ignored these defamations because, (Paul) says, it knew he was judgment-proof and didn’t want to give him free publicity. But when the poster didn’t disappear but began appearing on dorm room and crash pad walls in a colorized, bootleg edition, Disney sued its publisher, a San Franciscan named Sam Ridge, and forced him out of business.
So there you go, Suzanne. The full story of the origins of your pornographic Disney poster. It really is a crude but still somewhat cool curio, don’t you think?
By the way … next Thursday, JimHillMedia.com will be doing a full blown review of Bob Levin’s “The Pirates and the Mouse” book. So be sure to drop by the site next week to check that out, okay?
Alright. That’s it for today, folks. I hope you enjoyed this week’s assortment of stories. See you on Monday, okay?
jrh
P.S. Almost forgot. This weekend, we’re going to try something different at JimHillMedia.com. We’re going to run a new story on both Saturday and Sunday to see if JHM readers might actually be interested in regularly reading new material over the weekend.
So — if you’d like to be part of our little experiment — be sure to drop by JimHillMedia.com on both Saturday and Sunday to check out Jim Korkis’ newest series, “The History of Comics.”