General

Why For?

Jim Hill’s back with even more answers to your Disney-related questions. This time around, Jim talks about an early Disneyland attraction that never quite made it off the drawing board, why “The Wild” actually was screened for a few critics last week as well as offering a peek at what’s been going on lately over at WDW’s Pleasure Island

Published

19 years ago

April 14, 2006

Jim Hill

First up, T.S. writes in to ask:

Dear Jim:

I was wondering if you could clear up a Disneyland-related mystery for me. For years, I’ve owned a copy of that concept painting that Peter Ellenshaw did of this theme park back in the early 1950s. Hopefully you’re familiar with the painting that I’m talking about here. It’s the one that Walt stood in front of during that very first episode of the “Disneyland” TV show back in 1954.

Anyway, the reason that I’m writing to you today is that I’ve always been intrigued by what Peter painted in the upper right-hand corner of this early Disneyland concept painting. Which seems to show a quaint old colonial village, complete with a white steepled church.

Photo by Jeff Lange

Which brings me to my question: Was this where Walt originally planned on building Liberty Street / Liberty Square? My understanding was that he always wanted that new land built out behind Main Street U.S.A. next to the Opera House. Yet here is Ellenshaw placing a colonial village inbetween Fantasyland and Tomorrowland.

So did Walt’s plans for the park change between 1954 and 1956 (When first International Street and then Liberty Street were announced)? Or is what Peter painted here actually an indication of some other land or attraction that never made it off of WED’s drawing board?

Here’s hoping you can answer my question,

T.S.

Dear T.S.

You know, I too had wondered about that particular section of the Disneyland concept painting. I mean, for years now, I have been used to the idea that there were these entire lands (I.E. “Anything-can-Happen Land”), individual attractions (I.E. “Mickey Mouse Club Island”) and facilities (I.E. The on-site TV studio) that were originally proposed for the Anaheim theme park but ultimately never built.

But this … This was different. The very fact that this land / attraction / whatever was actually included as part of the painting that Walt stood in front of on the very first broadcast of the “Disneyland” TV show … Well, that meant something. That meant – at least as of October of 1954 – something of size was supposed to be built back in this corner of the park. Something that evidently involved quite a bit of design.

But for 20+ years, no matter who I talked with, no matter what books I read, I could never get a straight answer about what Peter Ellenshaw had painted in the upper right hand corner of that Disneyland concept painting …

But then one day, I was talking with Jeffrey Ford. (I.E. The son of Tennessee Ernie Ford, who now rides herd on the web site that honors his late father’s name, ErnieFord.com). And while we were chatting about Ernie’s professional & personal relationship with Walt, Jeffrey mentioned that – through a family friend who had actually been Disney’s personal projectionist back in the late 1950s / early 1960s – he had acquired a lot of material that pertained to the early days of Disneyland. In particular the development of the Anaheim theme park.

And one of the more intriguing pieces of paper that Tennessee Ernie’s son had in hand was a copy of a script for a presentation that was used to woo prospective Disneyland sponsors. This presentation laid out some specifics about the 1954 version of the Anaheim theme park, what Walt hoped to accomplish with the project. More importantly, what sorts of shows & attractions were supposed to be up & running on opening day.

And among the proposed rides that is described in great detail as part of this proposed Disneyland sponsor pitch session was the ride-in-the-country ride.

Photo by Jeff Lange

Literally, that’s all this proposed Disneyland attraction was supposed to be, folks. For a dollar, you would have to rent an old fashioned horse and buggy. Then you & your friends or family could then go for a ride down a recreation of a quiet country lane. En route, you’d pass through a recreation of a quaint old New England village as well as an old fashioned family farm.

But Disneyland visitors weren’t going to allowed to stop and explore any of these areas. Oh, no. Their horse (Which – it was hoped – would eventually be able to repeatedly ride along this route with little or no prompting from the passengers in back. Who – likely as not – wouldn’t have all that much experience when it came to operating a horse & buggy) would proceed right on through at a very moderate pace. Eventually returning its buggy-load of guests right back to the attraction’s off-load / on-load area.

Based on the description of the ride-in-the-country ride that Jeffrey recently read to me over the phone, I can assume that this proposed Disneyland attraction was originally supposed to be the Anaheim theme park’s equivalent of a “Tunnel of Love.” As in: The ride that young couples could go on so that they could then have a little “alone time” during their visit to this family fun park. Maybe steal a kiss or two while leisurely riding by all of that faux New England scenery.

That sounds like kind of an intriguing attraction, don’t you think? So why wasn’t the ride-in-the-country ride ever built? There are three reasons, actually: Time, space and money.

Even as Walt was standing there in front of that concept painting of Disneyland in October of 1954, talking about what his new family fun park would be like, the clock was already ticking. There were less than nine months of construction time left ‘til Disneyland had to open. And – to be honest – at this point, the Anaheim construction site still looked more like a former orange grove than a Magic Kingdom.

Then there was the fact that Disneyland wound up costing a lot more to construct than Walt originally thought it would. An awfully lot more.

Which is why – as various parts of the Anaheim theme park finally got greenlit (EX: Tomorrowland wasn’t originally supposed to be one of the “lands” that Disneyland would have ready for opening day. If all had gone according to plan, Tomorrowland wouldn’t have come on line at the Anaheim theme park ‘til sometime in 1957. But in the Fall of 1954, Walt suddenly changed his mind and decided that Disneyland just couldn’t open without the theme park having some sort of Tomorrowland. Which is why the Imagineers really had to rush and/or ad-lib in order to have something ready on that side of the park for guests to see on July 17, 1955) – other aspects of the project had to be put on the back burner.

And then there was the size issue. If you look closely at the space that this proposed ride-through-the-country ride was supposed to occupy, you’re talking about a huge portion of the available developable land inside of the berm. The equivalent of the entire piece of property that the Jungle Cruise currently occupies. And all of it dedicated to a single extremely-low-capacity attraction that had a very high (At least for the 1950s, that is) ticket price.

So when you take all of that into consideration … I guess it’s easy to see why Walt eventually opted to cut that ride-in-the-country ride out of Disneyland’s opening day assortment of attractions. And then, given how the Ol’ Mousetro had to aggressively expand his family fun park in the late 1950s in order to meet guest demand … Well, it becomes obvious that this particular piece of property became far too valuable to be occupied by a single over-sized attraction.

So instead of getting that ride-in-the-country ride, Disneyland wound up with the Fantasyland Autopia, the Motor Boat Cruise, the Phantom Boats, the Submarine Voyage as well as the Matterhorn. Which – when you think about it, T.S. – is actually a pretty good trade for a tired old horse-and-buggy ride.

Besides, those Disneyland visitors who needed someplace in the park where they could then be alone with their significant others … They eventually got that in 1967, when the Imagineers finally got around to building “Adventures thru Inner Space.”

But I digress … Anyway, I hope that answers your question, T.S.

Next, Windy City Wayne blows in to say:

Dear Jim:

I’ve really been enjoying your coverage of “The Wild,” particularly this week’s story about Jim Svejda. I too hate it when these allegedly-legitimate critics write such ridiculously positive reviews, with the hope that these bogus quotes will then get pulled out of their articles and used as part of that film’s promotion.

That said, I did want to point out one error in Monday’s story. Toward the end of that article, you quote Eric Lurio as saying that Walt Disney Pictures wouldn’t be holding any advance screenings of “The Wild” for critics. At least here in Chicago, that wasn’t really the case.

We actually got to see “The Wild” on Tuesday, April 4^th. Mind you, Disney’s PR people didn’t tell us about this screening until late in the afternoon on Monday, April 3^rd. So it was pretty obvious that the studio wasn’t all that eager to screen this film to critics. But that said, Disney did give us a chance to see “The Wild” prior to its theatrical release.

I just thought you’d want to know,

Wayne from the Windy City

Dear Wayne –

Yeah, after I’d actually posted “Tis a pity that he’s a ‘quote whore’,“ I began hearing about these rather begrudged screenings for “The Wild” that were held around the country last week for critics. And there’s actually a pretty funny rumor associated with these screenings.

The way I hear it, the folks who actually produced “The Wild” were furious when they learned that Disney’s PR staff was planning on not screening their film for critics.

But Disney … Well, you have to understand the attitude in-house back at Burbank when it came to “The Wild” seemed to be that … “Well, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.” Meaning that – even without having actually seen this picture – people were already making unfortunate comparisons to Dreamworks’ May 2005 release, “Madagascar.” Insisting that this new Walt Disney Pictures release was somehow just a cheap copy of that earlier CG film.

Mind you, anyone who actually knows anything about animation will tell you that “The Wild” may be many things. But this film wasn’t cheap to produce. I’ve heard figures as high as $80 million (Canadian) floated as possible production budgets for this particular animated feature.

More to the point, “The Wild” isn’t actually a clone / copy of “Madagascar.” Truth be told, the basic idea for this animated feature made the rounds in Hollywood for a number of years before the folks at Disney & C.O.R.E. finally got together and decided to turn this bare-bones concept into a really-for-real motion picture. And it’s been suggested that the folks at Dreamworks Animation may have “borrowed” heavily for that initial “The Wild” proposal that was making the rounds as they began development of “Madagascar.”

Now far be it from me to point fingers here … But ever since the days of “Antz” and “a bug’s life,” there have been these whispers about Dreamworks. How that animation studio allegedly keeps extremely close tabs on what its competition is up to. Which is why the story development teams at Disney & Pixar would often get irked when Dreamworks would suddenly put a project in its production pipeline (EX: “Shark Tale”) that would share an awful lot of turf with a film that they were already working on (EX: “Finding Nemo”).

So (Not to get too far off-track here, folks) don’t be so quick to call “The Wild” a “Madagascar” clone. If what I’ve been hearing from many animation vets turns out to be true … Well, perhaps the proper way to describe what actually happened here is that “The Wild” (While this animated feature was still in its concept phase) may have served as the inspiration for “Madagascar.”

Copyright Disney Enterprises LLC

Okay. Now that I’ve made the staff at Dreamworks Animation mad, let’s get back to infuriating the folks at Disney …

Anyway … Disney’s attitude toward advance screenings for “The Wild” seems to be … Well, in a recent interview with the Associated Press, Disney publicity chief Dennis Rice summed up the studio’s philosophy quite succinctly:

“If we think screenings for the press will help open the movie, we’ll do it. … If we don’t think it’ll help open the movie or if the target audience is different than the critics’ sensibilities, then it may make sense not to screen the movie.”

This – in a nutshell – pretty much sums up the attitude that Walt Disney Pictures’ PR department reportedly had toward “The Wild.” It seemed like America’s critics were already gunning for this particular animated feature. That they seemed downright eager to tear this picture apart. So why give these guys even more ammo by allowing them to see “The Wild” prior to its theatrical release?

I mean, wouldn’t the smarter thing to do here be to just release the film without any critics screenings? So that – when the inevitable negative reviews came … Well, they’d at least be run on Saturday, rather than Friday. Which would then give “The Wild” kind of a chance to find its audience before the picture got buried in bad reviews.

So that (hopefully) explains why Disney was originally thinking of taking the no-advance-screenings-for-critics route with “The Wild.” But all that supposedly changed once the film’s producers got wind of Disney’s plan.

To put it bluntly, these guys were p*ssed that Disney was thinking about sending “The Wild” out into theaters without first letting critics take a look at the picture. I mean, the crew at C.O.R.E. had spent three years slaving over this film. And they were proud of their movie. Which is why they wanted this motion picture launched with as much fanfare as possible.

More to the point, the folks at C.O.R.E. knew that – if “The Wild” were sent out into theaters without first staging any screenings for critics – that would send a message to the rest of entertainment industry that Disney had zero confidence in this motion picture. That they didn’t really expect the picture to perform. Or – worse yet – that Mouse House management actually thought that this movie stank. Which would make it that much more difficult for the crew at C.O.R.E. to persuade another studio to underwrite the production costs of their next animated feature.

Copyright Disney Enterprises LLC

But luckily C.O.R.E. had an ace up its sleeve. In that William Shatner (I.E. William’s one of the principal investors in this Canadian CG operation. More importantly, Shatner is actually the CEO of this corporation) was also the Emmy Award winning star of a very popular ABC series, “Boston Legal.” Which is why it was supposedly strongly suggested that – if there were no advance critic screenings of “The Wild” – Mr. Shatner might be very unhappy. And an unhappy William Shatner might not be inclined to show up for work for a couple of days on “Boston Legal.” Or — worse yet — might feel the need to talk with the press about how Disney isn’t being all that supportive of “The Wild.”

Once news of this “suggestion” reportedly got back to Mouse House management, word quickly came down from on high that Walt Disney Pictures should hold press screenings for “The Wild.” Which explains those hastily announced / quickly thrown together screenings for the film that were held around the country last week.

Me personally? Given that I’ve always been a fan of those “Ray & Carl” commercials that C.O.R.E. used to produce for Blockbuster, I’ll be heading out to the multiplex later today to go check out “The Wild.” Hoping that I’ll have a good time when I finally get to see this film.

Mind you, I’ve heard all of the negative buzz about this picture. How industry observers are saying that “The Wild” has to at least out-gross “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown” this coming weekend at the box office in order to be considered a success. Which – in theory – shouldn’t be all that difficult to do. Given that this will be the third weekend that this 20^th Century Fox animated feature will be playing in theaters.

But – then again — “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown” is a hugely popular follow-up to the original “Ice Age.” By that I mean: It’s the first film this year to actually achieve blockbuster status (I.E. Earn over $100 million during its initial domestic release). So – in spite of all of the promotional effort that Disney’s finally thrown behind “The Wild” – there’s no guarantee that this CG animated feature will actually be able to out-gross “Ice Age 2” this coming weekend.

Well, I guess we’ll all have to wait ‘til Sunday rolls around and we get finally get a sense of what this Walt Disney Picture’s grosses actually are. Here’s hoping that Good Friday translates into some great box office for “The Wild.”

And – finally – Gerry M. writes in to ask:

Jim:

I was wondering if you could give JHM readers an update on what’s going on over at Pleasure Island.

Dear Gerry –

Sure. I’d be glad to pass along what little I know. As you can see by the photo below that Max Schilling took this past weekend …

Photo by Max Schilling

The construction walls are already up on PI. Various shops along Hill Street are already being cleaned out and are getting ready for their renovation. Construction crew have already begun dismantling both the Hub Stage and the West End Stage. Now as to what Pleasure Island will look like once all of this work is complete, hopefully this overview of the new site plan for WDW’s night-time entertainment district will give you a clue.

Photo by Max Schilling

As to possible new tenants on the island and/or the impact that all these changes may have on PI’s remaining nightclubs … Well, there are a lot of rumors currently flying around. When I get some more solid information about what’s actually going on with this section of Downtown Disney, I’ll be sure and post an update here.

And that pretty much concludes this week’s edition of “Why For.” My apologies for it taking this long to post, folks. I’ll try & do better next week.

Anyway, here’s hoping that all of you have a very Happy Easter. We’ll see you again on Monday, alright?

General

Seward Johnson bronzes add a surreal, artistic touch to NYC’s Garment District

Published

9 years ago

June 23, 2015

Jim Hill

Greetings from NYC. Nancy and I drove down from New
Hampshire yesterday because we'll be checking out
Disney Consumer Products' annual Holiday Showcase later today.

Anyway … After checking into our hotel (i.e., The Paul.
Which is located down in NYC's NoMad district), we decided to grab some dinner.
Which is how we wound up at the Melt Shop.

Photo by Jim Hill

Which is this restaurant that only sells grilled cheese sandwiches.
This comfort food was delicious, but kind of on the heavy side.

Photo by Jim Hill

Which is why — given that it was a beautiful summer night
— we'd then try and walk off our meals. We started our stroll down by the Empire
State Building
…

Photo by Jim Hill

… and eventually wound up just below Times
Square (right behind where the Waterford Crystal Times Square New
Year's Eve Ball is kept).

Photo by Jim Hill

But you know what we discovered en route? Right in the heart
of Manhattan's Garment District
along Broadway between 36th and 41st? This incredibly cool series of life-like
and life-sized sculptures that Seward
Johnson has created.

Photo by Jim Hill

And — yes — that is Abraham Lincoln (who seems to have
slipped out of WDW's Hall of Presidents when no one was looking and is now
leading tourists around Times Square). These 18 painted
bronze pieces (which were just installed late this past Sunday night / early
Monday morning) range from the surreal to the all-too-real.

Photo by Jim Hill

Some of these pieces look like typical New Yorkers. Like the
business woman planning out her day …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the postman delivering the mail …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the hot dog vendor working at his cart …

Photo by Jim Hill

… the street musician playing for tourists …

Photo by Jim Hill

Not to mention the tourists themselves.

Photo by Jim Hill

But right alongside the bronze businessmen …

Photo by Jim Hill

… and the tired grandmother hauling her groceries home …

Photo by Jim Hill

… there were also statues representing people who were
from out-of-town …

Photo by Jim Hill

… or — for that matter — out-of-time.

Photo by Jim Hill

These were the Seward Johnson pieces that genuinely beguiled. Famous impressionist paintings brought to life in three dimensions.

Note the out-of-period water bottle that some tourist left
behind. Photo by Jim Hill

Some of them so lifelike that you actually had to pause for
a moment (especially as day gave way to night in the city) and say to yourself
"Is that one of the bronzes? Or just someone pretending to be one of these
bronzes?"

Mind you, for those of you who aren't big fans of the
impressionists …

Photo by Jim Hill

… there's also an array of American icons. Among them
Marilyn Monroe …

Photo by Jim Hill

… and that farmer couple from Grant Wood's "American
Gothic."

Photo by Jim Hill

But for those of you who know your NYC history, it's hard to
beat that piece which recreates Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous photograph of V-J Day in Times Square.

Photo by Jim Hill

By the way, a 25-foot-tall version of this particular Seward
Johnson piece ( which — FYI — is entitled "Embracing Peace") will actually
be placed in Times Square for a few days on or around August 14th to commemorate the 70th
anniversary of Victory Over Japan Day (V-J Day).

Photo by Jim Hill

By the way, if you'd like to check these Seward Johnson bronzes in
person (which — it should be noted — are part of the part of the Garment
District Alliance's new public art offering) — you'd best schedule a trip to
the City sometime over the next three months. For these pieces will only be on
display now through September 15th.

General

Wondering what you should “Boldly Go” see at the movies next year? The 2015 Licensing Expo offers you some clues

Published

9 years ago

June 10, 2015

Jim Hill

Greeting from the 2015 Licensing Expo, which is being held
at the Mandalay Bay
Convention Center in Las
Vegas.

Photo by Jim Hill

I have to admit that I enjoy covering the Licensing Expo.
Mostly becomes it allows bloggers & entertainment writers like myself to
get a peek over the horizon. Scope out some of the major motion pictures &
TV shows that today's vertically integrated entertainment conglomerates
(Remember when these companies used to be called movie studios?) will be
sending our way over the next two years or so.

Photo by Jim Hill

Take — for example — all of "The Secret Life of
Pets" banners that greeted Expo attendees as they made their way to the
show floor today. I actually got to see some footage from this new Illumination
Entertainment production (which will hit theaters on July 8, 2016) the last time I was in Vegas. Which
was for CinemaCon back in April. And the five or so minutes of film that I viewed
suggested that "The Secret Life of Pets" will be a really funny
animated feature.

Photo by Jim Hill

Mind you, Universal Pictures wanted to make sure that Expo
attendees remembered that there was another Illumination Entertainment production
coming-to-a-theater-near-them before "The Secret Life of Pets" (And
that's "Minions," the "Despicable Me" prequel. Which
premieres at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival next week but
won't be screened stateside 'til July 10th of this year). Which is why they had
three minions who were made entirely out of LEGOS loitering out in the lobby.

Photo by Jim Hill

And Warner Bros. — because they wanted "Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice" to start trending on Twitter today — brought
the Batmobile to Las Vegas.

Photo by Jim Hill

Not to mention full-sized macquettes of Batman, Superman and
Wonder Woman. Just so conventioneers could then see what these DC superheroes
would actually look like in this eagerly anticipated, March 25, 2016 release.

Photo by Jim Hill

That's the thing that can sometimes be a wee bit frustrating
about the Licensing Expo. It's all about delayed gratification. You'll come
around a corner and see this 100 foot-long ad for "The Peanuts Movie"
and think "Hey, that looks great. I want to see that Blue Sky Studios production
right now." It's only then that you notice the fine print and realize that
"The Peanuts Movie" doesn't actually open in theaters 'til November
6th of this year.

Photo by Jim Hill

And fan of Blue Sky's "Ice Age" film franchise are in for an even
longer wait. Given that the latest installment in that top grossing series
doesn't arrive in theaters 'til July
15, 2016.

Photo by Jim Hill

Of course, if you're one of those people who needs immediate
gratification when it comes to your entertainment, there was stuff like that to
be found at this year's Licensing Expo. Take — for example — how the WWE
booth was actually shaped like a wrestling ring. Which — I'm guessing — meant
that if the executives of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. didn't like
the offer that you were making, they were then allowed to toss you out over the
top rope, Royal Rumble-style.

Photo by Jim Hill

I also have to admit that — as a longtime Star Trek fan —
it was cool to see the enormous Starship Enterprise that hung in place over the
CBS booth. Not to mention getting a glimpse of the official Star Trek 50th
Anniversary logo.

Photo by Jim Hill

I was also pleased to see lots of activity in The Jim Henson
Company booth. Which suggests that JHC has actually finally carved out a
post-Muppets identity for itself.

Photo by Jim Hill

Likewise for all of us who were getting a little concerned
about DreamWorks Animation (what with all the layoffs & write-downs &
projects that were put into turnaround or outright cancelled last year), it was
nice to see that booth bustling.

Photo by Jim Hill

Every so often, you'd come across some people who were
promoting a movie that you weren't entirely sure that you actually wanted to
see (EX: "Angry Birds," which Sony Pictures Entertainment / Columbia
Pictures will be releasing to theaters on May 20, 2016). But then you remembered that Clay Kaytis —
who's this hugely talented former Walt Disney Animation Studios animator — is
riding herd on "Angry Birds" with Fergal Reilly. And you'd think
"Well, if Clay's working on 'Angry Birds,' I'm sure this animated feature
will turn out fine."

Photo by Jim Hill

Mind you, there were reminders at this year's Licensing Expo
of great animated features that we're never going to get to see now. I still
can't believe — especially after that brilliant proof-of-concept footage
popped up online last year — that Sony execs decided not to go forward
with production of Genndy Tartakovsky's
"Popeye" movie. But that's the
cruel thing about the entertainment business, folks. It will sometime break
your heart.

Photo by Jim Hill

And make no mistake about this. The Licensing Expo is all
about business. That point was clearly driven home at this year's show when —
as you walked through the doors of the Mandalay
Bay Convention Center
— the first thing that you saw was the Hasbros Booth. Which was this gleaming,
sleek two story-tall affair full of people who were negotiating deals &
signing contracts for all of the would-be summer blockbusters that have already
announced release dates for 2019 & beyond.

Photo by Jim Hill

"But what about The Walt Disney Company?," you
ask. "Weren't they represented on the show floor at this year's Licensing
Expo?" Not really, not. I mean, sure. There were a few companies there hyping
Disney-related products. Take — for example — the Disney Wikkeez people.

Photo by Jim Hill

I'm assuming that some Disney Consumer Products exec is
hoping that Wikkeez will eventually become the new Tsum Tsum. But to be blunt,
these little hard plastic figures don't seem to have the same huggable charm
that those stackable plush do. But I've been wrong before. So let's see what
happens with Disney Wikkeez once they start showing up on the shelves of the
Company's North American retail partners.

Photo by Jim Hill

And speaking of Disney's retail partners … They were
meeting with Mouse House executives behind closed doors one floor down from the
official show floor for this year's Licensing Expo.

Photo by Jim Hill

And the theme for this year's invitation-only Disney shindig? "Timeless
Stories" involving the Disney, Pixar, Marvel & Lucasfilm brands that
would then appeal to "tomorrow's consumer."

Photo by Jim Hill

And just to sort of hammer home the idea that Disney is no
longer the Company which cornered the market when it comes to little girls
(i.e., its Disney Princess and Disney Fairies franchises), check out this
wall-sized Star Wars-related image that DCP put up just outside of one of its
many private meeting rooms. "See?," this carefully crafted photo
screams. "It isn't just little boys who want to wield the Force. Little
girls also want to grow up and be Lords of the Sith."

Photo by Jim Hill

One final, kind-of-ironic note: According to this banner,
Paramount Pictures will be releasing a movie called "Amusement Park"
to theaters sometime in 2017.

Photo by Jim Hill

Well, given all the "Blackfish" -related issues
that have been dogged SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment over the past two years, I'm
just hoping that they'll still be in the amusement park business come 2017.

Your thoughts?

General

It takes more than three circles to craft a Classic version of Mickey Mouse

Published

9 years ago

June 9, 2015

Jim Hill

You know what Mickey Mouse looks like, right? Little guy,
big ears?

Truth be told, Disney's corporate symbol has a lot of
different looks. If Mickey's interacting with Guests at Disneyland
Park (especially this summer, when
the Happiest Place on Earth
is celebrating its 60th anniversary), he looks & dresses like this.

Or when he's appearing in one of those Emmy Award-winning shorts that Disney
Television Animation has produced (EX: "Bronco Busted," which debuts
on the Disney Channel tonight at 8 p.m. ET / PT), Mickey is drawn in a such a
way that he looks hip, cool, edgy & retro all at the same time.

Looking ahead to 2017 now, when Disney Junior rolls out "Mickey and the
Roadster Racers," this brand-new animated series will feature a sportier version
of Disney's corporate symbol. One that Mouse House managers hope will persuade
preschool boys to more fully embrace this now 86 year-old character.

That's what most people don't realize about the Mouse. The
Walt Disney Company deliberately tailors Mickey's look, even his style of
movement, depending on what sort of project / production he's appearing in.

Take — for example — Disney
California Adventure
Park's "World of Color:
Celebrate!" Because Disney's main mouse would be co-hosting this new
nighttime lagoon show with ace emcee Neil Patrick Harris, Eric Goldberg really had
to step up Mickey's game. Which is why this master Disney animator created
several minutes of all-new Mouse animation which then showed that Mickey was
just as skilled a showman as Neil was.

Better yet, let's take a look at what the folks at Avalanche Studios just went
through as they attempted to create a Classic version of Mickey & Minnie.
One that would then allow this popular pair to become part of Disney Infinity
3.0.

"I won't lie to you. We were under a lot of pressure to
get the look of this particular version of Mickey — he's called Red Pants
Mickey around here — just right," said Jeff Bunker, the VP of Art
Development at Avalanche Studios, during a recent phone interview. "When
we brought Sorcerer Mickey into Disney Infinity 1.0 back in January of 2014,
that one was relatively easy because … Well, everyone knows what Mickey Mouse
looked like when he appeared in 'Fantasia.' "

"But this time around, we were being asked to design
THE Mickey & Minnie," Bunker continued. "And given that these Classic
Disney characters have been around in various different forms for the better
part of the last century … Well, which look was the right look?"

Which is why Jeff and his team at Avalanche Studios began watching hours &
hours of Mickey Mouse shorts. As they tried to get a handle on which look would
work best for these characters in Disney Infinity 3.0.

"And we went all the way back to the very start of Mickey's career. We began
with 'Steamboat Willie' and then watched all of those black & white Mickey shorts
that Walt made back in the late 1920s & early 1930s. From there, we
transitioned to his Technicolor shorts. Which is when Mickey went from being
this pie-eyed, really feisty character to more of a well-behaved leading
man," Bunker recalled. "We then finished out our Mouse marathon by
watching all of those new Mickey shorts that Paul Rudish & his team have
been creating for Disney Television Animation. Those cartoons really recapture
a lot of the spirit and wild slapstick fun that Mickey's early, black &
white shorts had."

But given that the specific assignment that Avalanche Studios had been handed
was to create the most appealing looking, likeable version of Mickey Mouse
possible … In the end, Jeff and his team wound up borrowing bits & pieces
from a lot of different versions of the world's most famous mouse. So that
Classic Mickey would then look & move in a way that best fit the sort of
gameplay which people would soon be able to experience with Disney Infinity
3.0.

"That — in a lot of ways — was actually the toughest
part of the Classic Mickey design project. You have to remember that one of the
key creative conceits of Disney Infinity
is that all the characters which appear in this game are toys," Bunker
stated. "Okay. So they're beautifully detailed, highly stylized toy
versions of beloved Disney, Pixar, Marvel & Lucasfilm characters. But
they're still supposed to be toys. So our Classic versions of Mickey &
Minnie have the same sort of thickness & sturdiness to them that toys have.
So that they'll then be able to fit right in with all of the rest of the
characters that Avalanche Studios had previously designed for Disney Infinity."

And then there was the matter of coming up with just the
right pose for Classic Mickey & Minnie. Which — to hear Jeff tell the
story — involved input from a lot of Disney upper management.

"Everyone within the Company seemed to have an opinion
about how Mickey & Minnie should be posed. More to the point, if you Google
Mickey, you then discover that there are literally thousands of poses out there
for these two. Though — truth be told — a lot of those kind of play off the
way Mickey poses when he's being Disney's corporate symbol," Bunker said.
"But what I was most concerned about was that Mickey's pose had to work
with Minnie's pose. Because we were bringing the Classic versions of these
characters up into Disney Infinity 3.0 at the exact same time. And we wanted to
make sure — especially for those fans who like to put their Disney Infinity
figures on display — that Mickey's pose would then complement Minnie.

Which is why Jeff & the crew at Avalanche Studios
decided — when it came to Classic Mickey & Minnie's pose — that they
should go all the way back to the beginning. Which is why these two Disney icons
are sculpted in such a way that it almost seems as though you're witnessing the
very first time Mickey set eyes on Minnie.

"And what was really great about that was — as soon as
we began showing people within the Company this pose — everyone at Disney
quickly got on board with the idea. I mean, the Classic Mickey that we sculpted
for Disney Infinity 3.0 is clearly a very playful, spunky character. But at the
same time, he's obviously got eyes for Minnie," Bunker concluded. "So
in the end, we were able to come up with Classic versions of these characters
that will work well within the creative confines of Disney Infinity 3.0 but at
the same time please those Disney fans who just collect these figures because
they like the way the Disney Infinity characters look."

So now that this particular design project is over, does
Jeff regret that Mouse House upper management was so hands-on when it came to
making sure that the Classic versions of Mickey & Minnie were specifically
tailored to fit the look & style of gameplay found in Disney Infinity 3.0?

"To be blunt, we go through this every time we add a new character to the
game. The folks at Lucasfilm were just as hands-on when we were designing the
versions of Darth Vader and Yoda that will also soon be appearing in Disney
Infinity 3.0," Bunker laughed. "So in the end, if the character's
creators AND the fans are happy, then I'm happy."

This article was originally posted on the Huffington Post's Entertainment page on Tuesday, June 9, 2015