First, Alikzam from aol.com writes to ask:

Dear Jim:

I thought I read in an article of yours (or perhaps another’s) that Anthony Quinn was the voice of Long John Silver in this year’s “Treasure Planet.” After reading the current review on the film by your guest reporter (which was very good, by the way), I discover that it is not Anthony Quinn who did the voice. Was I wrong? Was it because he passed away and maybe they didn’t have enough footage of his voice?

See, I’d noticed an interesting coincidence, with a lot of help from your articles. A lot of actors’ last films are Disney films — or are almost Disney films. The more I talk about it, the less sense it makes to me, but I still stand by it. See, I was saying Anthony Quinn’s last film was “Treasure Planet” (that’s obviously wrong), Madeline Khan’s last film was “A Bug’s Life”, Jim Varney’s last film was “Atlantis”, James Coburn’s last film was “Monsters Inc.”, and there’s probably some I’m forgetting or just don’t know. Then there’s the “almost” actors you’ve mentioned in past stories: John Candy doing voicework for a turkey in “Pocahontas” who never made it in the film, and Chris Farley, who had signed up to be in “Dinosaur”.

So I guess this is a two-in-one, and the second one is kind of morbid, but are there any other interesting “they almost made it” or “it was their last” stories?

AliKzam Los Angeles, CA

AliKzam –

Thanks for your kind note. Regarding whether or not the late Anthony Quinn was originally supposed to provide the voice of Long John Silver in “Treasure Planet” … to be honest, Alikzam, I’ve never heard that. Based on various conversations that I’ve had over the years with people who work at Disney Feature Animation, I was under the impression that TP directors John Musker and Ron Clements had wanted to land Sean Connery for that role. But when Disney wouldn’t agree to pay Connery the price he was asking, Sean took a pass on the pirate project.

Of course, Connery is always at the top of a lot of people’s casting lists. I’ve heard tell that Sean was Chris Columbus’ first choice to play Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore in the “Harry Potter” film series. I’ve also heard that Peter Jackson made several attempts to try and recruit Connery to come play Gandalf in his epic scale “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy. But — just as with “Treasure Planet” — the negotiations for both of these primo roles supposedly broke down over monetary matters.

As to whether Connery (or Anthony Quinn, for that matter) might have done a better job with the Long John Silver role than Broadway veteran Brian Murray (and – more importantly – whether or not having some extra star power on board the film might have made it easier to sell “Treasure Planet” to a mass audiences) … who can say?

Anywho … in your question, you also mentioned “Saturday Night Live” vet Chris Farley. Farley’s untimely death in December 1997 is considered (by many of the folks at Dreamworks, anyway) to be a real tragedy. Why for? Because Chris was the comic actor that that studio had initially hired to provide the voice for the title character of “Shrek.” And according to animators who worked on that version of the project, the vocal performance that Chris was giving as the ogre was nothing short of extraordinary.

Of course, this was all for the earlier version of “Shrek.” Back when the film’s story followed the adventures of a teenage ogre who just didn’t want to lurk around the swamp and frighten people. Shrek (who – in this version of the picture – was basically a sweet, well intentioned soul) wanted to do good. His ultimate dream was to become a knight and rescue fair damsels in distress.

Which is how the ogre — in this version of the picture as well as the one that eventually showed in theaters last year — found himself on a seemingly hopeless quest (To rescue a sleeping princess that was trapped in a remote castle which was guarded by a fierce, fire-breathing dragon). Only in this version of the film, Princess Fiona wasn’t voiced by sweet, good natured Cameron Diaz. But rather gruff, sarcastic female comic Janeane Garofalo.

You see — in this version of the script for “Shrek,” folks — it was the princess who was guarded and remote. The one who didn’t trust people. And it was Shrek’s sweetness, kind heart and good nature that eventually drew Fiona out. Caused the princess to open her eyes. To learn that it was wrong to judge a person just based on how they looked.

Were you to ask the folks at Dreamworks, they’d probably still tell you that the Chris Farley version of “Shrek” would have been infinitely better than the Michael Myers / Cameron Diaz version that the studio eventually released in May of 2001. But Farley’s tragic death in December 1997 caused a ripple effect. Since Chris was no longer available to record the rest of his dialogue for “Shrek”‘s title character, Dreamworks had no choice but to chuck everything that they’d done up until that point and start the movie from scratch.

This mean recasting the role. And since Mike Myers (the new voice of Shrek) seemed incapable of playing a sweet, sincere character … well, that meant that the ogre’s part in the picture was going to have to be radically rewritten to play to Myer’s strengths. Which is how the gruff, emotionally remote version of the film’s title character came in being.

Of course, given that the title character of “Shrek” was now going to be sarcastic and nasty, that meant that the role of Princess Fiona would have to be rewritten as well. To provide some contrast to the new slant on the ogre’s character (As well as set up that whole “Opposites attract” angle that helps drives the movie’s love story). Which is why Janeane Garfofalo suddenly found herself out on the street while Cameron Diaz was brought in to play the kinder, gentler version of Fiona.

I had hoped that this year’s DVD release of “Shrek” might attempt to shed some light on the ill-fated Chris Farley version of this movie. But no such luck, kids. Dreamworks — supposedly out of concern of upsetting the notoriously finicky Mike Myers — deliberately steers clear of ever mentioning that there had been an earlier version of “Shrek” in the works that was to have featured Chris Farley’s voice.

The closest that the “Shrek” DVD ever came to acknowledging that there might have been an earlier version of this CG film in production was when it showed some concept sketches (as well as a maquette or two) from the Farley and Garofalo’s version of “Shrek.” (Sadly, none of the pieces of art that I’m mentioning here are ever acknowledged — on the DVD, anyway — as being from a non-Mike-Myers version of that film.)

Getting back to Anthony Quinn … would it interested you to know, Alikzam, to know that this actor actually did once star as Long John Silver in an earlier live action version of this Robert Louis Stevenson classic that was also set in space? This 1987 film had a somewhat awkward title — “Treasure Island in Space” – and featured Academy Award winner Ernest Borgnine in the role of Billy Bones. For more information of this bizarre “Treasure Planet” predecessor, check out this detailed description of the movie over at the Kult Movie Maximus website.

Next, Spot writes to ask:

Jim,

So I get home last night, sit down on the couch to relax and watch some TiVo, when my kids ask if they can watch “The Wiggles” that we recorded that morning. Being the nice guy I am (Well, really. “The Wiggles” puts me to sleep faster than drinking a bottle of Nyquil), I put it on for them. I’m a half hour into my late afternoon nap when they wake me to restart the recording. Well before I do that I happen to tune into 5 min commercial after all the Playhouse Disney shows. You know the one where they have the little boy and girl pimping out the newest Disney merchandise. Well, last night they were talking about the new “Lilo & Stitch” DVD that will be available Dec 3. Well, this is the first time I heard about it. So I go online to see what nifty special features are going to be included. Well, from what I can tell it’s just going to be a standard DVD (No Special Edition 2 disk set), with some minimal features. So hears where it gets tricky. I have been burned by Disney and other company before buy buying the regular DVD, and then a couple months later a new and improved Special Edition 2 disk set with all sorts of features to make a Disney Dweeb drool at the mouth. So — Finally — here is my question … Is this the only Lilo & Stitch DVD on the drawing boards right now, or is there a Special Edition just around the corner with all sorts of great goodies included? And if you know what the goodies are please bring us into the Loop!

Thanks a lot Jim,

Spot

Well, like a lot of you folks out there, I was under the impression that the release of the extra special collector’s edition of “Lilo & Stitch” (the one with the directors’ commentaries along with the infamous “Jet flying through downtown Honolulu” sequence that was cut from the picture after 9/11) would be released to stores sometime late next month. A couple of times, I’ve even heard a specific release date being mentioned for the deluxe “Lilo & Stitch” DVD … which was Tuesday, January 28th.

So imagine my surprise earlier this week when I received an e-mail from someone who works deep inside the Mouse House who insists that Michael Eisner himself earlier this year pulled the plug on the 2-disc deluxe collector’s edition of “Lilo & Stitch.” And worse than that, the Walt Disney Company is supposedly toying with completely abandoning the 2-disc collector’s edition format for all of its future animated titles.

Why for? Well, here’s a real surprise: These proposed cutbacks of any additional features to be included in future animated releases from Buena Vista Home Entertainment are coming because the Mouse is trying once again to economize. According to Disney’s own market research, only 8% of the DVD buyers out there are interested in adult-aimed features (I.E. Extras such as directors’ commentaries, character design galleries, deleted scenes, etc. ) on their discs. The other 92% of DVD buyers are kids and parents who just want the movie. Who are perfectly happy with a DVD that just shows the film and nothing more.

Disney’s cost savings — should Buena Vista Home Entertainment actually opt to go forward with adopting just the single disc format for all the future DVD releases of the company’s animated classics — could be considerable. Reportedly saving the company as much as $7 million in worldwide production costs per title.

But what about the cost to all us animation fans? My heart actually aches when I think about all the great stuff that was supposedly deliberately left off of the plain Jane version of the “Lilo & Stitch” DVD that hit store shelves earlier this week. Almost 75% of the additional features that had been created specifically for “Lilo”‘s DVD release ended up on the cutting room floor. Cool extras like:

– a 20 minute tour of the Florida animation studio (led by “Lilo & Stitch” directors Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois)

– 7 long deleted scenes from the film, including one with Stitch’s gang (from an abandoned plotline of the film) as well as the infamous 747 rescue scene that was cut after 9/11

– full galleries with watercolor backgrounds, storyboards, art layouts, etc.

– a 45 minute long “On Location with the Directors” featurette.

Plus the now obligatory director’s commentary. From all accounts, the deluxe collector’s edition 2-disc DVD of “Lilo & Stitch” would have been absolutely killer. But — in spite of the fact that Buena Vista Home Entertainment has had the master tapes for all these extras in hand since May 2002, a full month before “Lilo & Stitch” actually rolled into theaters — it now seems unlikely that much of this great archival material (which had deliberately been created for the deluxe “Stitch” DVD) will ever see the light of day.

Which begs the question: What’s the deal with the limited number of extras that actually DID end up on the single disc version of “Lilo & Stitch”? Well, as it turns out, those features were actually culled from the master tapes for the 2-disc set. And these extras were deliberately picked for their kid-friendly-ness. (Which explains that A*Teens “I Can’t Help Falling in Love” music video as well as the hula lesson.)

Would a public outcry on this subject ultimately help get the deluxe 2-disc collector’s edition of “Lilo & Stitch” released? To be honest, I’m not sure. Over the past few years, the Walt Disney Company has obviously made making a profit a higher corporate priority than pleasing its customers. Besides, if 92% of all potential Disney DVD buyers seem perfectly happy with buying a single disc version of one of the company’s classic animated films that has limited additional features, then what’s the point of busting your butt to try and please that whiny, bitchy, hard-to-please other 8%?

Still, once this news gets out about this, I would imagine that the Walt Disney Company is going to be looking for some sort of graceful way out of this extremely awkward situation. Some way that they can appease all of those angry Disney DVD buyers who only collect the deluxe 2-disc DVD version of the corporation’s animated films. Who are now furious that Disney deliberately turned their back on them (and the 2-disc format).

May I suggest (as a face saving gesture for the Mouse): In mid-2003, Buena Vista Home Entertainment will be rolling out a direct-to-video follow-up to “Lilo & Stitch” called “Stitch! The Movie.” This video and DVD release is – of course – really just a tease for the REAL money maker, which is: “Stitch! The Animated Series, ” the daily cartoon show that Walt Disney Television Animation will debuting in the Fall of 2003.

So rather than admit that they screwed up and that they never intended to release a 2-disc version of “Lilo & Stitch,” wouldn’t it be smart of the folks from Buena Vista Home Entertainment to now say that they were holding the deluxe collectors edition of this film back ’til the late Summer / early Fall of 2003? So they’d have another title that they could use to help promote “Stitch! The Animated Series”?

But to deliberately NOT go forward with releasing the deluxe 2-disc set of “Lilo & Stitch” — particularly after all the hours and artistry that Disney staffers have already poured into this project — just to save a couple of bucks. That would be (there’s just no other way to describe this, folks) a stupid waste.

And isn’t it high time that the Walt Disney Company stopped being so wasteful and/or stupid in the way it manages its assets?

Finally, Sketch105 writes to ask:

Jim, I understand you receive thousands of questions a day. You have become my Disney bible man. I was re-reading your article on Discoveryland and noticed your Douglas Adams reference. I’m fan of the late Mr. Adams’ work, and I was wondering if you knew anything about the film adaptation of “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” that is currently in “development” (or was it development hell?)

Sketch105

Thanks for the healthy bit of hype, Sketch105. But there’s no need to artificially inflate my alleged importance on the Web. At best, I only get a couple of dozen inquiries each day here at JimHillMedia.com. All from nice people like yourself who are ooking for answers to their rather obscure Disney-related questions.

Anyway … as for the long awaited movie version of Douglas Adams’ much beloved “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,” the one that “Austin Powers” director Jay Roach has been trying to get Disney to make for a couple of years now … well — in spite of Adams’ untimely passing back in May 2001 — Roach still insists that it’s “all systems go” on this comic sci-fi adventure. And that Jay is doing everything within his power to see to it that this now-decades-in-development film finally makes it to the big screen.

Toward this end, back in September of this year, Roach had Disney hire screenwriter Karey Kirkpatrick (best known for her work on “James and the Giant Peach,” “Chicken Run” and “The Road to El Dorado”) to pick up where Adams left off with his unfinished “Hitchhikers” script. Provided that Kirkpatrick’s rewrite meets with studio approval, production of “Hitchhikers” could begin as early as 2004, with a worldwide release to theaters sometime in 2005.

So don’t be like Marvin the Paranoid Android, Sketch105. Try to be optimistic. It may not be too much longer before the infinite probability drive kicks in and we finally all get a chance to see the long awaited movie version of “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.”

So just to play it safe, try and keep a towel handy.

 

Okay. That takes care of my answers to this week’s “Why For” questions. But NOW I have a question for you folks. As in: Do you really like JimHillMedia.com? Are you actually enjoying having a spot like this to regularly visit on the Web?

Well, if so, then what I really need is for you folks to start supporting the site. And that means — I’m sorry, but there’s just no subtle way to say this — donations.

According to Michelle, JimHillMedia.com (the site) is currently running at a deficit. Not a huge deficit, mind you. Just your average, medium sized $100 or so deficit. But — if a number of you nice folks were to toss a couple of bucks into that Amazon honor box on the JimHillMedia.com home page on a regular basis — we’d quickly be out of the hole and back in the black at the site.

I know, I know. It’s a really tough time of year to be asking people for money. And I’m honestly embarrassed that I have to ask. But writing for the Web is lot like working in television in 1948. I mean, everyone’s very exciting about the financial possibilities inherent with this medium. But to date, very few people have actually figured out how to make a buck off of this thing.

Look, Michelle and I honestly aren’t expecting to make a fortune off of JimHillMedia.com. But it would be nice if the site were actually self supporting. So, please (I’m asking nice here) … throw in a few bucks in the honor box and I promise that I’ll hold up my end of the deal. Which is keep churning out those long winded stories and/or answering your Disney related questions.

Whaddaya say? Is it a deal?

jrh