Connect with us

Film & Movies

Will “Chicken Little” be Disney’s next big hit? Or a swing & a miss?

JHM guest writer Josh Edwards used baseball as a metaphor for where Disney Feature Animation finds itself right now. Where WDFA struggles to make its upcoming CG projects stand out on an increasingly cluttered playing field?

Published

on

Baseball plays a significant role in Walt Disney Feature Animation’s summer 2005 release, “Chicken Little.” And, being a loyal New Englander, I still have baseball on the brain after my Boston Red Sox won the World Series last month. So I think it’s only fitting that I use baseball as an analogy for the impending computer animation glut.

The new trailer for “Chicken Little” came out before “The Incredibles” the other week. You probably saw it. Unfortunately for Disney it was overshadowed by the first trailer for Pixar’s “Cars,” their final film under the current deal with Disney. That trailer seemed to get all of the buzz.

I was lucky enough to see both in front of the screening of “The Incredibles” I went to over the weekend. But as the feature started and the Disney castle logo flew in towards the blue background, as only Pixar can make it do, I was briefly saddened that I didn’t see another trailer, one for DreamWorks’ “Madagascar.”

Now I’m one of those annoying Disney elitists. I dislike everything DreamWorks does just on principle (even though they have given us lots of ugly movies to dislike). I laugh at Don Bluth’s sad attempts at feature animation. I mock theme parks such as Universal Studios Hollywood and Knotts Berry Farm, even if down the road Disney’s own California Adventure is the worst thing this side of Lester’s Possum Park. I poo-poo Harry Potter and shrug off The Lord of the Rings. I have a problem, I know, and really should look into getting help for it.

So when I realized that I was bummed out after not seeing “Madagascar” ‘s trailer on the big screen … Well, that was huge.

And then it hit me, feature animation is a lot like baseball.

As Major League Baseball’s free agency is in full bore this week, sixteen of the World Champion Boston Red Sox have become free agents. To be a “Free Agent” means simply that the player is done with his contract to a specific team and is free to sign with any major league club.

That means that the makeup of, say, the World Champion Boston Red Sox (man, I love saying that), will vary from year to year based on free agency. Each year a baseball team can be radically different. When you hear the name “Roger Clemens” do you think of his time with Boston? Toronto? New York? Houston?

Animation has become a lot like that. The forefathers of animation free agency, if you might call it that, were the Bluth Thirteen who left Walt Disney Productions back in 1979. But unlike baseball pitcher Catfish Hunter leaving Oakland to sign a lucrative deal with the New York Yankees in 1974, Don Bluth just started his own studio in his garage. No, it wasn’t until studio head Jeffrey Katzenberg left Disney in 1994 to form DreamWorks that the modern era of stuidio-hopping artists and production staff started.

Many artists and production staff, especially those who got rich in the subsequent bidding wars, think that this proliferation of animation is good for the industry. But as many sports fans would tell you, free agency isn’t always good.

First off, the price of everything goes up. Now, I’m not saying the people who bring beloved, evergreen characters to a multi-national company shouldn’t be making money. But the cost of animation rose exponentially in the mid-1990s. Some might say that cost of traditional animation was one of the final nails put into its own coffin. With box office receipts down after 1994’s record breaking “The Lion King,” and costs up, well, I’m not a fancy accountant, but the scenario doesn’t look good from here.

Sports fans across the board will also quote team loyalty as another problem with free agency. Not just in baseball, but hockey and basketball, as well. Players can take a “hometown” discount to keep playing for their current team, or take whatever astronomical price another team might offer. Is it A-Rod’s fault that the Yankees want to pay him so much money? It makes economic sense for players to go with the best asking price. But then Texas Rangers fans get upset when he leaves. Upset with him and upset with the Rangers.

It’s like that, to a certain extent, with animation. Except the fluid movement of artists between studios isn’t hurting their own recognition, as many to this day still go unrecognized. It is, however, hurting the studios. Team loyalty, in this case, means brand loyalty. And brand loyalty is very important to the studios.

Remember when most consumers thought that anything traditionally animated was Disney? Poor Don Bluth. “An American Tail,” “The Land Before Time,” “All Dogs Go to Heaven,” “Anastasia?” The majority of consumers think that Disney made those movies. I’ve been to Disney theme parks and overheard people looking for Fievel. At Disney Stores I’ve seen confused patrons asking about Anastasia dolls. Disney owned animation, in their minds.

Warner Brothers had the right idea by building their Studio Stores in malls across America – they built brand recognition. On the front lines of the brand battle consumers connected with Thumbelina, Batman, Tweety Bird, Wile E. Coyote, et al.

DreamWorks, with their first traditional films, didn’t have that recognition. And that hurt them. I bet you any money right now you can go on eBay and type “Prince of Egypt” and “Disney” and find some mislabeled VHS tapes or DVDs for auction. DreamWorks’ “Shrek,” on the other hand, came out early enough in the computer animation craze and looked and felt different enough that most people seemed to separate it from the only other rival at the time, Pixar.

Pixar, of course, built brand recognition the hard way. By making good product. True, they got people into the seats for 1995’s “Toy Story” with the Disney name, but from then on out it was “from the creators of ‘Toy Story’ “. “From the creators of ‘Toy Story’ and ‘a bug’g life’ “. “From the creators of ‘Toy Story,’ ‘a bug’s life’ and ‘Monsters, Inc.’ “”From the creators of ‘Toy Story,’ ‘a bug’s life,’ ‘Monsters, Inc.’ and ‘Finding Nemo.’ ”

And that’s why Pixar is on the top of the heap right now.

But the heap is going to get more crowded with the addtion of Walt Disney Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation in the next two years.

Disney’s “Chicken Little” comes out the first of July. We’ve already seen a clever teaser trailer – a point-of-view of animal reporters chasing the little rooster around. Sadly this little trailer was originally longer. It was trimmed by a few seconds, a few funny seconds of Zach Braff’s Chicken Little stammering and stuttering after the reporters cornered him and before he pointed off-camera towards the blurred out pedestians. I have no idea why it was shortened, it’s much jumpier and spastic now. And no, that’s not a good thing.

The more tongue-in-cheek trailer for “Chicken Little” came out last week, attached to “The Incredibles”. The trailer starts out with all manner of live-action shots, pulling a very X-Files vibe. Then the animated character runs at the screen. It’s too bad, as that kind of trailer would play better before a live-action movie, such as National Treasure, than in front of an animated movie, such as The Incredibles. The joke is funnier if you’re not expecting animation. Like that trailer for the “South Park” movie that evokes the memory of Walt Disney through the old-time footage, and then Cartman pops up on screen.

Either way, Disney is going to have an uphill battle promoting “Chicken Little.” DreamWorks can say “from the creators of ‘Shrek’ and ‘Sharks Tale’ ” and Pixar can just say “Pixar Pixar Pixar”. But there is nothing “Disney” about “Chicken Little.” There are no princesses, no fairy tale elements, no big Broadway melodies. And the voices are less a who’s who than a simple ‘who?’ “Scrubs” and “Garden State” ‘s Zach Braff leads the group, followed by Amy Sedaris, Steve Zahn, Joan Cusack and Don Knotts. Not a whole lot for the marketing folk to work with. (Creatively, however, big name actors and actresses don’t necessarily make the movie, look at the smaller name cast of “The Incredibles” that were, quite frankly, incredible …)

So Disney faces a huge risk opening “Chicken Little.” If this movie doesn’t open with huge numbers, what will happen? Is there any chance that “Chicken Little” can open like the three computer animation movies of 2004? “Shrek 2,” “Sharks Tale” and “The Incredibles” all set records. If the little rooster doesn’t perform in line with these films, you can only assume there will be lots of unhappy Mousketeers in Burbank next July.

DreamWorks’ “Madagascar,” on the other hand, has everything going for it. First off, it looks like it’ll be the first good looking DreamWorks Animated picture. Also the trailer throws in “From the creators of ‘Shrek’ and ‘Sharks Tale’ “. I’m sure that won’t hurt. Lastly, DreamWorks has stunt cast the heck out of the picture, with names like Chris Rock, Ben Stiller, Jada Pinkett-Smith and David Schwimmer.

And look for Fox to do pretty much the same thing with their next animated film, “Robots,” which is due in theaters in March of 2005. Because “Blue Sky” ‘s first project for that studio, “Ice Age,” did so well  (That film — during its initial domestic release — grossed $176 million. Earning significantly more money than Disney’s most successful traditionally animated films of the past five years — 1999’s “Tarzan” [$171 million] & 2002’s “Lilo & Stitch” [$145 million] — did), they can now promote this Chris Wedge movie as being “From the makers of  ‘Ice Age.’ ” Plus — when it comes to promoting “Robots” — Fox is sure to mention that Ewan McGregor, Halle Berry & Robin Williams are doing voices for the film.

So — when it comes to hatching “Chicken Little” — the Mouse clearly has its work cut out for it. That said, Disney doesn’t have it as tough as Sony Pictures Animation.

Sony Pictures Animation, a division of Sony Pictures Digital, might have the most uphill battle of them all. They seem to be going the DreamWorks route of big name stars for their first movie, “Open Season,” set to open in 2006. Martin Lawrence, Ashton Kutcher and Debra Messing provide voices for the main characters (a bear, a deer and a human), all inspired by the humor of syndicated cartoonist Steve Moore (In the Bleachers).

Because Sony didn’t have a feature animation division to pilfer talent from, it has had to acquire artistic “free agents” from the other major studios. They’ve signed Jill Culton away from Pixar as director on “Open Season.” Culton was head of story on “Monsters, Inc.” and worked on the story team for “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2.” Anthony Stacchi, co-Director of “Open Season,” was recently part of the development team on the traditionally animated “Curious George” at Universal. The next film from Sony, the mock-umentary “Surf’s Up,” scheduled for a 2007 release, is being directed by Ash Brannon, who co-developed and co-directed “Toy Story 2” and Chris Buck, who directed Disney’s “Tarzan.” Sony definitely has pilfered the top talent from their competitors, but is 2006 a few years too late?

All of the talent flowing from one studio to the other means that each film will be more similar to the next in Production Design, Storytelling, and Technology. No studio will stand out with a specific “house style” at all. And sadly Fox’s “Robots,” DreamWorks’ “Madagascar,” Disney’s “Chicken Little” and Pixar’s “Cars” all coming out in 2005 is the tip of the iceberg. 2006 has “Wallace and Gromit” creators Aardman Animation joining the game with “Flushed Away,” their first computer animation feature. Also coming out is Sony’s “Open Season,” Fox’s “Ice Age II: Meltdown,” Disney’s “A Day with Wilbur Robinson” and some movie called “Shrek 3” from DreamWorks. Pixar might have a movie in there, but, as usual, they’re extremely tight-lipped about what happens post- “Cars.”

So what happens next? I doubt Disney, DreamWorks, Fox, Sony, Pixar, Aardman can all stay in the animation game releasing a movie or two each year. Who will hit a home run? Who will leave the park before the nine innings are up?

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. Required fields are marked *

Film & Movies

Before He Was 626: The Surprisingly Dark Origins of Disney’s Stitch

Published

on

Hopes are high for Disney’s live-action version of Lilo & Stitch, which opens in theaters next week (on May 23rd to be exact). And – if current box office projections hold – it will sell more than $120 million worth of tickets in North America.

Stitch Before the Live-Action: What Fans Need to Know

But here’s the thing – there wouldn’t have been a hand-drawn version of Stitch to reimagine as a live-action film if it weren’t for Academy Award-winner Chris Sanders. Who – some 40 years ago – had a very different idea in mind for this project. Not an animated film or a live-action movie, for that matter. But – rather – a children’s picture book.

Sanders revealed the true origins of Lilo & Stitch in his self-published book, From Pitch to Stitch: The Origins of Disney’s Most Unusual Classic.

From Picture Book to Pitch Meeting

Chris – after he graduated from CalArts back in 1984 (this was three years before he began working for Disney) – landed a job at Marvel Comics. Which – because Marvel Animation was producing the Muppet Babies TV show – led to an opportunity to design characters for that animated series.

About a year into this gig (we’re now talking 1985), Sanders – in his time away from work – began noodling on a side project. As Chris recalled in From Pitch to Stitch:

“Early in my animation career, I tried writing a picture book that centered around a weird little creature that lived a solitary life in the forest. He was a monster, unsure of where he had come from, or where he belonged. I generated a concept drawing, wrote some pages and started making a sculpted version of him. But I soon abandoned it as the idea seemed too large and vague to fit in thirty pages or so.”

We now jump ahead 12 years or so. Sanders has quickly moved up through the ranks at Walt Disney Animation Studios. So much so that – by 1997 – Chris is now the Head of Story on Disney’s Mulan.

A Monster in the Forest Becomes Stitch on Earth

With Mulan deep in production, Sanders was looking for his next project when an opportunity came his way.

“I had dinner with Tom Schumacher, who was president of Feature Animation at the time. He asked if there was anything I might be interested in directing. After a little reflection, I realized that there was something: That old idea from a decade prior.”

When Sanders told Schumacher about the monster who lived alone in the forest…

“Tom offered the crucial observation that – because the animal world is already alien to us – I should consider relocating the creature to the human world.”

With that in mind, Chris dusted off the story and went to work.

Over the next three months, Sanders created a pitch book for the proposed animated film. What he came up with was very different from the version of Lilo & Stitch that eventually hit theaters in 2002.

The Most Dangerous Creature in the Known Universe

The pitch – first shared with Walt Disney Feature Animation staffers on January 9, 1998 – was titled: Lilo & Stitch: A love story of a girl and what she thinks is a dog.

This early version of Stitch was… not cute. Not cuddly. He was mean, selfish, self-centered – a career criminal. When the story opens, Stitch is in a security pod at an intergalactic trial, found guilty of 12,000 counts of hooliganism and attempted planetary enslavement.

Instead of being created by Jumba, Stitch leads a gang of marauders. His second-in-command? Ramthar, a giant, red shark-like brute.

When Stitch refuses to reveal the gang’s location, he’s sentenced to life on a maximum-security asteroid. But en route, his gang attacks the prison convoy. In the chaos, Stitch escapes in a hijacked pod and crash-lands on Earth.

Earth in Danger, Jumba on the Hunt

Terrified of what Stitch could do to our technologically inferior planet, the Grand Council Woman sends bounty hunter Jumba – along with a rule-abiding Cultural Contamination Control agent named Pleakley – to retrieve (or eliminate) Stitch.

Their mission must be secret, follow Earth laws, and – most importantly – ensure no harm comes to any humans.

Naturally, Stitch ignores all that.

After his crash, Stitch claws out of the wreckage, sees the lights of a nearby town, and screams, “I will destroy you all!” That plan is immediately derailed when he’s run over by a convoy of sugar cane trucks.

Waking up in the local humane society, Stitch sees a news report confirming the Federation is already hot on his trail. He needs to blend in. Fast.

Enter Lilo

Lilo is a lonely little girl, mourning her parents, looking for a pet. Stitch plays the role of a “cute little doggie” because it’s a means to an end. At this point, Lilo is just someone to use while he builds a communications device.

Using parts from her toys and a stolen police radio, Stitch contacts his old gang. But Ramthar, now the leader, isn’t thrilled. Still, Stitch sends a signal.

Then he builds an army.

Stitch Goes Full Skynet

Stitch constructs a small robot, sends it to the junkyard to build bigger robots. Soon, he has an army. When Ramthar and crew arrive, Stitch’s robots surround them. Ramthar is furious, but Stitch regains command.

Next, Stitch sets his robotic horde on a nearby town. Everything goes smoothly until a robot targets the hula studio where Lilo is dancing. As it lifts her in its claw, Stitch has a change of heart. He saves her.

From here, the plot begins to resemble the Lilo & Stitch we know today. Sort of.

The Ending That Never Was

In Sanders’ original version, it’s not Captain Gantu who kidnaps Lilo, but Ramthar. And when the Grand Council Woman comes to collect Stitch, Lilo produces a receipt from the humane society.

“I paid a $4 processing fee to adopt him. If you take Stitch, you’re stealing.”

The Grand Council Woman crumples the receipt and says, “I didn’t see it.”

Nani chimes in: “Well, I saw it.”

Then Jumba. Then one of Stitch’s old crew. Then a hula girl. And finally, Pleakley pulls out his CCC badge and says:

“Well, I am Pleakley Grathor, Cultural Contamination Control Agent No. 444. And I saw it.”

Pleakley saves Stitch.

How Roy E. Disney Made Stitch Cuddly

Ultimately, this version of Lilo & Stitch was streamlined. Roy E. Disney believed Stitch shouldn’t be nasty. Just naughty. And not by choice – he was designed that way.

Which is how Stitch became Experiment 626. A misunderstood creation of Jumba the mad scientist, not a hardened criminal with a vendetta.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Ricardo Montalbán’s Lost Role

Here’s a detail that even hardcore Lilo & Stitch fans may not know: Ricardo Montalbán—best known as Mr. Roarke from Fantasy Island and Khan Noonien Singh from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan—was originally cast as the voice of Ramthar, Stitch’s second-in-command in this early version of the film. He had already recorded a significant amount of dialogue before the story was reworked following Roy E. Disney’s guidance. When Stitch evolved from a ruthless galactic outlaw to a misunderstood genetic experiment, Montalbán’s character (and much of the original gang concept) was written out entirely.

Which is kind of wild when you think about it. Wrath of Khan is widely considered the gold standard of Star Trek films. So yes, for a time, Khan himself was supposed to be part of Disney’s weirdest sci-fi comedy.

Stitch’s Legacy (and Why It Still Resonates)

Looking back at Stitch’s original story, it’s wild to think how close we came to getting a very different kind of movie. One where our favorite blue alien was less “ohana means family” and more “I’ll destroy you all.” But that transformation—from outlaw to outcast to ohana—is exactly what makes Lilo & Stitch so special.

So as the live-action version prepares to hit theaters, keep in mind that behind all the cuddly merch and tiki mugs lies one of Disney’s strangest, boldest, and most hard-won reinventions. One that started with a forest monster and became a beloved franchise about found family.

June 26th is officially Stitch Day—so mark your calendar. It’s a good excuse to celebrate just how far this little blue alien has come.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

How “An American Tail” Led to Disney’s “Hocus Pocus”

Published

on

Over the last week, I’ve been delving into Witches Run Amok, Shannon Carlin’s oral history of the making of Disney’s Hocus Pocus. This book reveals some fascinating behind-the-scenes stories about the 1993 film that initially bombed at the box office but has since become a cult favorite, even spawning a sequel in 2022 that went on to become the most-watched release in Disney+ history.

But what really caught my eye in this 284-page hardcover wasn’t just the tales of Hocus Pocus’s unlikely rise to fame. Rather, it was the unexpected connections between Hocus Pocus and another beloved film—An American Tail. As it turns out, the two films share a curious origin story, one that begins in the mid-1980s, during the early days of the creative rebirth of Walt Disney Studios under Michael Eisner, Frank Wells, and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

The Birth of An American Tail

Let’s rewind to late 1984/early 1985, a period when Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg were just getting settled at Disney and were on the hunt for fresh projects that would signal a new era at the studio. During this time, Katzenberg—tasked with revitalizing Disney Feature Animation—began meeting with talent across Hollywood, hoping to find a project that could breathe life into the struggling division.

One such meeting was with a 29-year-old writer and illustrator named David Kirschner. At the time, Kirschner’s biggest credit was illustrating children’s books featuring Muppets and Sesame Street characters, but he had an idea for a new project: a TV special about a mouse emigrating to America, culminating in the mouse’s arrival in New York Harbor on the same day as the dedication of the Statue of Liberty in 1886.

David Kirschner
David Kirschner (IMDb)

Katzenberg saw the patriotic appeal of the concept but ultimately passed on it, as he was focused on finding full-length feature projects for Disney’s animation department. Kirschner, undeterred, took his pitch elsewhere—to none other than Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg’s production partner. Kennedy was intrigued and invited Kirschner to Spielberg’s annual Fourth of July party to pitch the idea directly to the famed director.

Spielberg immediately saw the potential in Kirschner’s idea, but instead of a TV special, he envisioned a full-length animated feature film. This project would eventually become An American Tail, a tribute of sorts to Spielberg’s own grandfather, Philip Posner, who emigrated from Russia to the United States in the late 19th century. The film’s lead character, Fievel, was even named after Spielberg’s grandfather, whose Yiddish name was also Fievel.

Disney’s Loss Becomes Universal’s Gain

An American Tail went on to become a major success for Universal Pictures, which hadn’t been involved in an animated feature since the release of Pinocchio in Outer Space in 1965. Meanwhile, over at Disney, Eisner and Wells weren’t exactly thrilled that Katzenberg had let such a promising project slip through his fingers.

Not wanting to miss out on any future opportunities with Kirschner, Katzenberg quickly scheduled another meeting with him to discuss any other ideas he might have. And as fate would have it, Kirschner had just written a short story for Muppet Magazine called Halloween House, about a boy who is magically transformed into a cat by a trio of witches.

The Pitch That Sealed the Deal

Knowing Katzenberg could be a tough sell, Kirschner went all out to impress during his pitch. He requested access to the Disney lot 30 minutes early to set the stage for his presentation. When Katzenberg and the Disney development team walked into the conference room, they were greeted by a table covered in candy corn, a cauldron of dry ice fog, and a broom, mop, and vacuum cleaner suspended from the ceiling as if they were flying—evoking the magical world of Halloween House.

Katzenberg was reportedly unimpressed by the theatrical setup, muttering, “Oy, show-and-tell time” as he took his seat. But Kirschner knew exactly how to grab his attention. He started his pitch with the fact that Halloween was a billion-dollar business—a figure that made Katzenberg sit up and take notice. He listened attentively to Kirschner’s pitch, and by the time the meeting was over, Katzenberg was convinced. Halloween House would become Hocus Pocus, and Disney had its next big Halloween film.

A Bit of Hollywood Drama

Interestingly, Kirschner’s success with Hocus Pocus didn’t sit well with his old collaborators. About a year after the film’s release, Kirschner ran into Kathleen Kennedy at an Amblin holiday party, and she wasted no time in expressing her disappointment. According to Kirschner, Kennedy said, “You really hurt Steven.” When Kirschner asked how, she explained that Spielberg and Kennedy had given him his big break with An American Tail, but when he came up with the idea for his next film, he brought it to Disney rather than to them.

Hollywood can be a place where loyalty is valued—or, at least, perceived loyalty. At the same time, this was happening just as Katzenberg was leaving Disney and partnering with Spielberg and David Geffen to launch DreamWorks SKG, which only added to the tension. Loyalty, as Kirschner found out, can be an abstract concept in the entertainment industry.

A Halloween Favorite is Born

Despite its rocky start at the box office in 1993, Hocus Pocus has gone on to become a beloved part of Halloween pop culture. And, as Carlin’s book details, its success helped pave the way for more Disney Halloween-themed projects in the years that followed.

As for why Hocus Pocus was released in July of 1993 instead of during Halloween? That’s a story for another time, but it has something to do with another Halloween-themed project Disney was working on that year—Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas—and Katzenberg finding himself in the awkward position of having to choose between keeping Bette Midler or Tim Burton happy.

For more behind-the-scenes stories about Hocus Pocus and other Disney films, be sure to check out Witches Run Amok by Shannon Carlin. It’s a fascinating read for any Disney fan!

And if you love hearing these kinds of behind-the-scenes stories about animation and film history, be sure to check out Fine Tooning with Drew Taylor, where Drew and I dive deep into all things movies, animation, and the creative decisions that shape the films we love. You can find us on your favorite podcast platforms or right here on JimHillMedia.com.

Continue Reading

Film & Movies

How Disney’s “Bambi” led to the creation of Smokey Bear

Published

on

When people talk about Disney’s “Bambi,” the scene that they typically cite as being the one from this 1942 film which then scarred them for life is – of course – the moment in this movie where Bambi’s mother gets shot by hunters.

Which is kind of ironic. Given that – if you watch this animated feature today – you’ll see that a lot of this ruined-my-childhood scene actually happens off-camera. I mean, you hear the rifle shot that takes down Bambi’s Mom. But you don’t actually see that Mama Deer get clipped.

Now for the scariest part of that movie that you actually see on-camera … Hands down, that has to be the forest fire sequence in “Bambi.” As the grown-up Bambi & his bride, Faline, desperately race through those woods, trying to find a path to safety as literally everything around them is ablaze … That sequence is literally nightmare fuel.

Source: Economist.com

Mind you, the artists at Walt Disney Animation Studios had lots of inspiration for the forest fire sequence in “Bambi.” You see, in a typical year, the United States experiences – due to either natural phenomenon like lightning strikes or human carelessness – 100 forest fires. Whereas in 1940 (i.e., the year that Disney Studios began working in earnest of a movie version of Felix Salten’s best-selling movie), America found itself battling a record 360 forest fires.

Which greatly concerned the U.S. Forest Service. But not for the reason you might think.

Protecting the Forest for World War II

I mean, yes. Sure. Officials over in the Agricultural Department (That’s the arm of the U.S. government that manages the Forest Service) were obviously concerned about the impact that this record number of forest fires in 1940 had had on citizens. Not to mention all of the wildlife habitat that was now lost.

But to be honest, what really concerned government officials was those hundreds of thousands of acres of raw timber that had been consumed by these blazes. You see, by 1940, the world was on the cusp of the next world war. A conflict that the U.S. would inevitably  be pulled into. And all that now-lost timber? It could have been used to fuel the U.S. war machine.

So with this in mind (and U.S. government officials now seeing an urgent need to preserve & protect this precious resource) … Which is why – in 1942 (just a few months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor) – the U.S. Forest Service rolls out its first-ever forest fire prevention program.

Which – given that this was the early days of World War II – the slogan that the U.S. Forest Service initially chose for its forest fire prevention program is very in that era’s we’re-all-in-this-together / so-let’s-do-what-we-can-to-help-America’s war-effort esthetic – made a direct appeal to all those folks who were taking part in scrap metal drives: “Forest Defense is National Defense.”

Source: Northwestern

And the poster that the U.S. Forest Service had created to support this campaign? … Well, it was well-meaning as well.  It was done in the WPA style and showed men out in the forest, wielding shovels to ditch a ditch. They were trying to construct a fire break, which would then supposedly slow the forest fire that was directly behind them.

But the downside was … That “Forest Defense is National Defense” slogan – along with that poster which the U.S. Forest Service had created to support their new forest fire prevention program didn’t exactly capture America’s attention.

I mean, it was the War Years after all. A lot was going in the country at that time. But long story short: the U.S. Forest Service’s first attempt at launching a successful forest fire prevention program sank without a trace.

So what do you do in a situation like this? You regroup. You try something different.

Disney & Bambi to the Rescue

And within the U.S. government, the thinking now was “Well, what if we got a celebrity to serve as the spokesman for our new forest fire prevention program? Maybe that would then grab the public’s attention.”

The only problem was … Well, again, these are the War Years. And a lot of that era’s A-listers (people like Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable, even Mel Brooks) had already enlisted. So there weren’t really a lot of big-name celebrities to choose from.

But then some enterprising official at the U.S. Forest Service came up with an interesting idea. He supposedly said “Hey, have you seen that new Disney movie? You know, the one with the deer? That movie has a forest fire in it. Maybe we should go talk with Walt Disney? Maybe he has some ideas about how we can better capture the public’s attention when it comes to our new forest fire prevention program?”

And it turns Walt did have an idea. Which was to use this government initiative as a way to cross-promote Disney Studio’s latest full-length animated feature, “Bambi.” Which been first released to theaters in August of 1942.

So Walt had artists at Disney Studio work up a poster that featured the grown-up versions of Bambi the Deer, Thumper the Rabbit & Flower the Skunk. As this trio stood in some tall grasses, they looked imploring out at whoever was standing in front of this poster. Above them was a piece of text that read “Please Mister, Don’t Be Careless.” And below these three cartoon characters was an additional line that read “Prevent Forest Fires. Greater Danger Than Ever!”

Source: USDA

According to folks I’ve spoken with at Disney’s Corporate Archives, this “Bambi” -based promotional campaign for the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention campaign was a huge success. So much so that – as 1943 drew to a close – this division of the Department of Agriculture reportedly reached out to Walt to see if he’d be willing to let the U.S. Forest Service continue to use these cartoon characters to help raise the public’s awareness of fire safety.

Walt – for reasons known only to Mr. Disney – declined. Some have suggested that — because “Bambi” had actually lost money during its initial theatrical release in North America – that Walt was now looking to put that project behind him. And if there were posters plastered all over the place that then used the “Bambi” characters that then promoted the U.S.’s forest fire prevention efforts … Well, it would then be far harder for Mr. Disney to put this particular animated feature in the rear view mirror.

Introducing Smokey Bear

Long story short: Walt said “No” when it came to reusing the “Bambi” characters to promote the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program. But given how successful the previous cartoon-based promotional campaign had been … Well, some enterprising employee at the Department of Agriculture reportedly said “Why don’t we come up with a cartoon character of our own?”

So – for the Summer of 1944 – the U.S. Forest Service (with the help of the Ad Council and the National Association of State Foresters) came up with a character to help promote the prevention of forest fires. And his name is Smokey Bear.

Now a lot of thought had gone into Smokey’s creation. Right from the get-go, it was decided that he would be an American black bear (NOT a brown bear or a grizzly). To make this character seem approachable, Smokey was outfitted with a ranger’s hat. He also wore a pair of blue jeans & carried a bucket.

As for his debut poster, Smokey was depicted as pouring water over a still-smoldering campfire. And below this cartoon character was printed Smokey’s initial catchphrase. Which was “Care will prevent 9 out of 10 forest fires!”

Source: NPR

Which makes me think that this slogan was written by the very advertising executive who wrote “Four out of five dentists recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.”

Anyway … By the Summer of 1947, Smokey got a brand-new slogan. The one that he uses even today. Which is “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.”

The Real Smokey Bear

Now where this gets interesting is – in the Summer of 1950 – there was a terrible forest fire up in the Capitan Mountains of New Mexico. And over the course of this blaze, a bear cub climbed high up into a tree to try & escape those flames.

Firefighters were finally able to rescue that cub. But he was so badly injured in that fire that he was shipped off to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. and nursed back to health. And since this bear really couldn’t be released back in the wild at this point, he was then put on exhibit.

And what does this bear’s keepers decide to call him? You guessed it: Smokey.

Source: USDA

And due to all the news coverage that this orphaned bear got, he eventually became the living symbol of the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program. Which then meant that this particular Smokey Bear got hit with a ton of fan mail. So much so that the National Zoo in Washington D.C. wound up with its own Zip Code.

“Smokey the Bear” Hit Song

And on the heels of a really-for-real Smokey Bear taking up residence in our nation’s capital, Steve Nelson & Jack Rollins decide to write a song that shined a spotlight on this fire-fightin’ bruin. Here’s the opening stanza:

With a ranger’s hat and shovel and a pair of dungarees,
You will find him in the forest always sniffin’ at the breeze,
People stop and pay attention when he tells them to beware
Because everybody knows that he’s the fire-preventin’ bear

Believe or not, even with lyrics like these, “Smokey the Bear” briefly topped the Country charts in the Summer of 1950. Thanks to a version of this song that was recorded by Gene Autry, the Singing Cowboy.

By the way, it was this song that started all of the confusion in regards to Smokey Bear’s now. You see, Nelson & Rollins – because they need the lyrics of their song to scan properly – opted to call this fire-fightin’-bruin Smokey THE Bear. Rather than Smokey Bear. Which has been this cartoon character’s official name since the U.S. Forest Service first introduced him back in 1944.

“The Ballad of Smokey the Bear”

Further complicating this issue was “The Ballad of Smokey the Bear,” which was a stop-motion animated special that debuted on NBC in late November of 1966. Produced by Rankin-Bass as a follow-up to their hugely popular “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” (which premiered on the Peacock Network in December of 1964) … This hour-long TV show also put a “THE” in the middle of Smokey Bear’s name because the folks at Rankin-Bass thought his name sounded better that way.

And speaking of animation … Disney’s “Bambi” made a brief return to the promotional campaign for the U.S. Forest Service’s forest fire prevention program in the late 1980s. This was because the Company’s home entertainment division had decided to release this full-length animated feature on VHS.

What’s kind of interesting, though, is the language used on the “Bambi” poster is a wee different than the language that’s used on Smokey’s poster. It reads “Protect Our Forest Friends. Only You Can Prevent Wildfires.” NOT “Forest Fires.”

Anyway, that’s how Disney’s “Bambi” led to the creation of Smokey Bear. Thanks for bearin’ with me as I clawed my way through this grizzly tale.

Continue Reading

Trending