First up, Michael F. writes in to ask:
Jim —
Do you know if the Walt Disney Company ever has plans to release the Oswald the Lucky rabbit shorts on DVD? As a Disney history buff, I’d love to be able to take a look at Walt’s pre-Mickey work. See of there are any hints of the greatness yet to come.
Have you heard anything about Disney putting together an Oswald collection, Jim? And if so, when can I expect to see this set of DVDs available for purchase in stores?
Michael F.
Dear Michael F.
I’m sorry to have to tell you this, Michael. But I doubt that you’re ever going to see the Walt Disney Company release the “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit” shorts on DVD.
Why for? Well, you have to remember that the Disney Company doesn’t actually own the “Oswald” character and/or the 26 shorts that Walt & Ub Iwerks produced. The rights to those films (and — indeed — the “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit” character itself) actually belong to Universal Studios.
To explain: It was Carl Laemmle himself (I.E. The then-head of Universal Studios) who reportedly told film distributor Charles Mintz in early 1927 that he wanted a new cartoon series for Universal. To be specific, Carl wanted a cartoon that starred a rabbit.
As luck would have it, Mintz’s wife — Margaret Winkler Mintz — had been the producer of Walt’s “Alice” comedies. And given that that series of shorts (which cleverly mixed live action & animation) had pretty much run their course, Disney was now looking for a new project to tackle. Which is why Margaret suggested that Walt might be the perfect guy to make Carl’s wish come true.
Given that he was still really just getting started in Hollywood, Disney was grateful for the work. So Walt quickly signed the contract that Mr. & Mrs. Mintz were offering and immediately got to work on the “Oswald” series.
Of course, if Walt had read the fine print in his contract, he might have been not so quick to sign the deal that Charles & Margaret had offered him. For it turned out that — in spite of all the time & effort that he had poured into the creation of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit — Disney didn’t actually own the rights to that character. The Mintzs did. Why is why Charles & Margaret were able to successfully wrestle Oswald away from Walt in 1928.
Mind you, turnabout is fair play. It seems that the Mintzs didn’t read the fine print of the contract that they’d signed with Universal. And — when it came right down to it — Charles & Margaret didn’t own the rights to Oswald the Lucky Rabbit either. Universal Studios did.
Which is why — in 1929 — the Mintzs got squeezed out entirely. With Walter Lantz (who would later become known as the “father” of Universal Studios’ most popular cartoon character, Woody Woodpecker) then taking over as that studio’s in-house supervisor for the “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit” shorts.
Anyway … Getting back to Walt now …
Obviously, that was a hard lesson that Walt Disney had to learn back in 1928. That — in order to maintain control over the characters that you create — that you have to make sure that you retain all rights to your creations. But clearly Walt did learn something from the “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit” debacle. For Disney made sure to retain all of the rights on the next character that he created: Mickey Mouse.
And the rest of that story … I think you know.
Getting back to “Oswald” now: If you’d really like to see those shorts available for purchase on DVD, Michael, then the people you need to talk with are over at Universal Studios Home Entertainment. Perhaps if someone were to start an on-line petition and gather enough signatures, USHE might eventually consent to making a DVD of these early Walt Disney cartoons available to animation history buffs. Hey, it’s worth a shot …
Before I move onto my next “Why For” question, I think that it’s also worth mentioning that — while the Walt Disney Company doesn’t actually own the rights to the “Oswald the Lucky Rabbit” character — that doesn’t stop the Mouse from occassionally paying tribute to the Rabbit. Acknowledging Oswald’s important role in Disney Company history.
Of course, because of all the rights issues involved here, these tributes usually have to be done on the sly. My personal favorite is the mural that’s used to decorate the ceiling area of the studio store. You know, that retail establishment that’s located right on the Disney lot in Burbank?
Anywho … If you look over this mural, you’ll see Mickey & Minnie strolling up Mickey Avenue …
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
… The Three Little Pigs and Daisy Duck helping out with the studio’s prop and costume department (Please note that Mickey arch nemesis, Pete, now seems to be working with Disney Security and making life very difficult for Donald).
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
While over by the studio’s cafeteria, some of the Seven Dwarfs has sitting down for a snack. Pinocchio is going off for a stroll with a pair of the enchanted broom from “Fantasia” (Little wooden boy pals around with little wooden brooms. Makes sense to me). Jose Carioca is chatting with Panchito.
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
But who’s that sharing a park bench with Snow White?
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
You guessed it. It’s Walt Disney’s first cartoon star, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. Reading the sports page.
Here’s hoping that the folks at Universal are good sports when they learn that there’s an unauthorized image of Oswald on display in Disney’s studio store.
Next up, Richard T. writes in to ask:
Dear Jim,
Please, oh please tell us anything you know about Disney’s decision to release Studio Ghibli’s Pom Poko to the home market in the U.S. I just (unsuspectingly) bought it at Target (it was in the KIDS’ section, by the way) and took it home ready for another magical Ghibli experience.
What I got was two hours of magical transforming raccoon testicles. Literally. That’s what the movie’s about.
What a surreal, hilarious, appetite-killing experience! I’m never gonna watch this film again, but I’m definitely keeping it for the sheer collector value. I mean, it’s got Disney’s name on the cover…it starts with a preview of Cinderella…and then…WHAM!
Okay, as you probably know, there’s much more to the story than…pouches. Warring tribes of raccoons make peace and band together to try to stop the devastation of their forest, brought on by the ever-expanding human population. It’s a sad tale, beatifully drawn.
But, within the first coupla minutes, you can’t help but notice that all the male raccoon warriors are drawn anatomically correct. And it’s not long after that an elder takes them aside and demonstrates how they have the power to…um…enlarge and transform…their…um…organic family jewel pouch.
Soon after, they start using these magic scrotums as weapons, attacking the construction workers. And nothing can prepare you for the tragic final battle in which…it literally starts raining Volkswagen-sized…um…
And I don’t even want to try to describe an elder’s final act of having the whole tribe stretch his…uh…and turning it into…er….
Now, I’m a bit of a prude, but I try to be open-minded. There’s an important, sad environmental tale here. But this has got to be the most weird-ass movie I’ve seen since Eraserhead. Chalk up another huge East/West cultural barrier, I guess.
So, I gotta know, did Disney WANT to release this to the U.S. market or is it a contractual obligation tied to the acquisition of the other Ghibli films? I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during corporate discussions on the content. The movie’s rated PG, by the way. No mention of magic scrotums on the box.
What I really missed was a documentary on the U.S. dubbing. I wanna see this cast laughing their heads off and staring in open-mouthed shock!
So, please, Jim, can you enlighten us on any behind-the-scenes info on the release of the strangest film ever to have Disney’s name attached?
Thanks! Keep up the great work!
– Richard
Richard —
Aw, come on. “Pom Poko” isn’t nearly as shocking as you make it out to be here. Okay, sure. The raccoon “pouches” portion of the story is a little bizarre. At least from the western point of view.
But when you get right down to it, the whole raccoons-using-their-testicles-to-attack-construction-workers is a relatively minor portion of the picture. The rest of the film is this rather sad tale about what happens to the native wildlife when man comes into the forest and then levels the animals’ habitat to make room for more housing.
Interestingly enough, Dreamworks currently has a new animated feature in the works — “Over the Hedge” — that features this exact same storyline. It even stars a raccoon. Though — when I saw some work-in-progress footage from that movie earlier this month — I don’t recall R.J. using his “personal area” to frighten away any suburbanites. But — then again — maybe that scene will turn up as an extra feature on the “Over the Hedge” DVD … So who knows …
Anyhow … As for your main question, Richard: “Did Disney WANT to release this (film) to the U.S. market?” … My understanding is yes. You see, all of the other Studio Ghibli titles that Walt Disney Home Entertainment has released (to date) have been pretty solid sellers. Which is why the company also wanted to bring “Pom Poko” to the marketplace too.
Copyright The Walt Disney Company / Studio Ghibli
Of course, Walt Disney Home Entertainment knew that there was some risk involved here. That there would undoubtedly be parents out there who would pick up “Pom Poko” sight unseen, just because the Disney name was on the box. And then these same people would pretend to be outraged because the Mouse had released a DVD where raccoons could magically inflate their scrotums. As if the very sight of such a thing would be enough to permanently scar their children.
So going into this DVD release, WDHE officials knew that that sort of reaction to “Pom Poko” was a very real possibility. But even so, they still went ahead and sent this Studio Ghibli film out into stores uncut (If you feel compelled, insert your own circumcision joke here).
So (forgive me for being somewhat impolite here) but it really took balls on Disney’s part to release a DVD that so prominently features … Well … balls. And while this Isao Takahata film may not be the strongest or most magical thing that Studio Ghibli ever produced, it’s still a pretty entertaining two hours. So if you’re looking for something different to slap in your DVD player, then I recommend that you pick up a copy of this new Walt Disney Home Entertainment release.
Next up, Carl writes in to ask:
After visiting Walt Disney World several times, I recently made my first trip to Disneyland. It was great! It seems like they have pretty much maxed out what the can do in the available space, but a tour bus driver (non-Disney) said that they are acquiring nearby land and plan to build one more theme park and one or two more hotels. Is this true? I never heard about these plans.
Ooh, there’s actually a couple of greats stories out there about that piece of property that that bus driver was referring to. Here. I’ll let Scott Liljenquist of Mouseketrips fill you in on the particulars. Scott?
Thanks, Jim. Hello to Carl, and thanks for the great question. Disneyland, situated on its 116 acres, certainly is more space constrained than Walt Disney World on it 47,000 acres. Space has always been at a premium at the Anaheim resort, and that has caused no end of problems for TDA (Team Disney Anaheim) as they have tried to find ways to move from the original one-park Disneyland to the two-park-plus-entertainment-district Disneyland Resort. Lack of space has necessitated such projects as North America’s largest parking garage, which had to be constructed when the former Disneyland parking lot was converted into Disney’s California Adventure.
One solution to the space problem has long been the strawberry farm located kitty-corner to Disneyland on the opposite corner of Katella and Harbor Boulevards. This property, originally owned by the Fujishige family, has long been sought after by Disney for future expansion.
Unfortunately, Disney did little to develop a friendly relationship with the Fujishige family. Various purchase attempts were made over the years, but mutually agreeable terms could never be reached. However, that didn’t stop Disney from listing the strawberry field in various Disney publications as a “future development site” which served only to further anger the property’s owner. Things got so bad that Carolyn Fujishige sent a not-so-pleasant letter to Disney in June of 1993 which stated, in no uncertain terms, that her family “would never sell [its] property to the Disney Company or to anyone that is affiliated in any way to the Walt Disney Company.”
Apparently Carolyn and her family forgot the old adage to never say never, as they finally gave in after decades of pressure from the Mouse and sold their 52+ acres to the Walt Disney Company in August 1998 for an estimated $90 million. Combined with the 28 acres or so of land adjacent to the old strawberry farms that Disney already owns (it’s currently used as Cast Member parking), a prime location for an additional theme park was finally available for planning and construction.
Copyright Anaheim / Orange County Visitor & Convention BureauBut, as we all know, the strawberry field sits vacant and Cast Members are still parking their cars on some of the most valuable real estate in California. Why For? It all has to do with the last new theme park Disney built on an old parking lot.
Disney’s California Adventure, which consumed the old Disney main parking lot, was, from the outset, considered by the suits at TDA to be a slam-dunk, no-brainer cash generating machine. Why, there was no way that visitors to the California resort wouldn’t flock to the second gate after spending a day or two at Disneyland. Disney was sure that they finally had the beginnings of a multi-day vacation destination similar to that other company property in Florida. Once the tourists flocked to the new Disneyland Resort, and the new resort hotels were filled to overflowing, well, there would be no choice but to build yet another theme park to handle the crowds.
Only it didn’t work out that way.
Disney’s California Adventure, built on an impossibly tight budget and with overly modest standards and objectives, has failed to pull the number of visitors that were originally planned. In fact, various sources report that the park has never, since its opening day, met its expected daily visitor count as it was originally designed. Only since that visitor count goal has been revised drastically downward has the park been able to be considered a “success” of any kind.
Faced with this meager reception to its costly (about $1.4 billion) new theme park, Disney quickly shelved any plans for a third gate. The focus now, according to those inside the company, is on continual and gradual improvements to try and salvage DCA. The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, the new Block Party Bash, and the upcoming Monsters, Inc.- themed attraction are all a result of this emphasis on improving the overall visitor experience and driving the attendance numbers to more acceptable levels.
So, Carl, that’s the long answer to your question. The short answer is that, although Disney does indeed own the old strawberry field property, and although they would love to put that land to use as a third gate for the Disneyland Resort, there just isn’t any budget right now to do so with all of the emphasis ear-marked for DCA.
As for what is/was/has been planned for the old strawberry fields – I know a guy who knows a whole lot about that subject. Someone who has lots of rumors and inside info on the various concepts that have been batted around at WDI. Maybe we could convince Jim to further enlighten us. Well, after he finishes his Light Magic series, of course. And after he finishes his Star Tours series. And after he finishes his Tower of Terror series. And after…..oh, never mind.
Hey! I am actually working on completing that “Star Tours” series (See the bottom of this article for details). Anyway …
Next up, Buzz Lightbeer writes in to say:
Jim —
My family and I just got back from Disneyland. This was our first trip to the park since “Country Bear Jamboree” got torn out to make room for that new “Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” ride. What a disappointment. To be honest, after hearing all about Tokyo Disneyland’s “Pooh’s Hunny Hunt,” I was expecting something pretty amazing from the Disneyland version of this attraction. But what I got instead was a standard dark ride.
I know Disneyland’s version is basically a clone of Disney World’s “Winnie the Pooh” ride. But why did the Anaheim theme park get the cheapo Orlando version rather than the super-cool Tokyo version? Doesn’t Disneyland deserve E-Ticket rides anymore?
Love the site. Keep up the good work.
Buzz Lightbeer
Dear Buzz —
Well, here’s the thing. The Imagineers actually did want to bring “Pooh’s Hunny Hunt” to Disneyland. But Paul Pressler, the then-President of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, vetoed WDI’s proposal. Opting instead to put a clone of the more affordable Orlando version into the Anaheim theme park.
Don’t believe me? okay. Then let’s take a look at Bruce Gordon & Jeff Kurtii’s “The Art of Disneyland” book. Which features early concept art for a number of rides, shows and attractions that have been constructed at the Anaheim theme park over the past 50 years. Below, you’ll find an early presentation image for Disneyland’s “Winnie the Pooh” ride. (“How early?,” you ask. The book lists this painting as being created back in 1998. Which means that the Imagineers were talking about putting a “Pooh” attraction into Disneyland before WDW’s “Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” ride even opened at the Magic Kingdom back in June of 1999).
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
“Big deal,” you say. “I see an attraction just like the one that was eventually built at Disneyland. It’s in the same location. It seems to feature some of the same show scenes. What’s so significant about this concept painting?”
Well, as they say, the devil’s in the details. If you look at this close-up of the painting …
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
And this close-up …
Copyright The Walt Disney Company
You’ll notice that the Disneyland version of this attraction doesn’t have the exact same vehicles that the WDW version has. Or even the “bee-hicles” that the Anaheim version of “Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh” eventually ended up with. But — rather — the hunny pots that guests ride in as they do through Tokyo Disneyland’s “Pooh’s Hunny Hunt” ride.
So you see what I’m saying here, folks. The Imagineers tried to get “Pooh’s Hunny Hunt” built at Disneyland. Only to have Pressler shoot that idea down. Insisting that this E-Ticket be trimmed back to a more affordable (and much less exciting) C-Ticket.
The end result is … Disneyland is now stuck with a virtually brand new attraction that is already a walk-on. People just aren’t all that excited about a plain vanilla version of a “Winnie the Pooh” dark ride. Which is why they no longer hustle all the way out to Critter Country in order to get on line for “Many Adventures.”
Would Disneyland guests have still been excited if the Imagineers had built “Pooh’s Hunny Hunt” instead? An attraction that featured a state-of-the-art ride system, full blown AA figures as well as elaborate special effects? To be honest, it’s hard to say. But I can’t help but think that that sort of attraction would have be a lot more appealing to tourists than what Disneyland actually ended up with.
And speaking of “appealing to tourists,” our last question this week comes from Soshanna C. Who writes in to say:
Jim —
I just received the September issue of Arthur Frommer’s “Budget Travel” magazine in the mail. And I noticed that the cover mentions an article where “Two ‘Disney Dweebs’ spill their juiciest secrets.” Since I only know of one person on the planet (You!) who calls people “Disney Dweebs,” I quickly opened up the issue and found your & David Koenig’s article.
Congratulations! I really enjoyed that story and hope that it will be the first of many that you write for “Budget Travel.” Though I have to wonder why you haven’t yet told JHM readers about your appearance in this pretty prestigious publication. Are you embarassed by the article for some reason?
Just wondering,
Soshanna
Dear Soshanna
The reason that I haven’t mentioned the Frommer’s article (’til now, anyway) is that … Well … I’m not actually embarassed by the article. It’s more like I’m shy.
Look, I know. It seems somewhat bizarre that a guy whose website prominently features his own name is somewhat reluctant when it comes to self-promotion. But the fact of the matter is that I’m really kind of a goon when it comes to stuff like this.
I mean, it always feels like I’m bragging if I say something on the site like “Hey, I’m in ‘Budget Travel’ this month” or “I just wrote a new set of ‘Behind the Scenes with Jim Hill’ inserts for the 2006 Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World.” Which is why I tend to keep my mouth shut about my outside gigs.
I figure that people come to JHM not to hear me boast about what newspaper I’ve just been interviewed by and/or what documentary I’ll soon be appearing in. The way I see it, people come to this website for stories. Not stories about me, mind you. But stories about the Walt Disney Company, films that they’re working on, attractions that they almost built, interesting bits of history, etc. You get the idea, right?
Which is why I try and keep the self promotion stuff to a minimum around here. Though — what with that JHM unauthorized Disneyland history CD finally going on sale next month — I imagine that Cory & Nancy will want me to start doing some promotion for that product soon. Hopefully though we’ll be able to keep that from getting too obnoxious.
Anyway … I’m glad to hear that you like that “Budget Travel” article, Soshonna. Though — truth be told — I think that David Koenig did a much better job with his Disneyland story than I did with my Disney World piece. But hey, what are you gonna do?
Well, what I hope you folks are gonna do is have a great weekend. But be sure and come back on Monday for the start of a week-long look back at Disneyland’s 50th anniversary celebration. And — if you’re lucky — who knows? Maybe a new installment of my long overdue “Star Tours” series. Or two. Or possibly even three.
That’s it for today. Talk to you later, okay?
jrh