Jungle Cruise - The Criticism is Intense!

 This week's best clickbait.  It landed in a Google feed.

"Fan-Favorite Magic Kingdom Attraction Now Facing Intense Criticism"

Spoiler Alert! It's Jungle Cruise.

The photo featured with the article shows kids with balloons in front of Cinderella castle. Not an elephant or tiger in sight.  It takes five whole paragraphs before it even identifies Jungle Cruise as the subject. Classic clickbait tactics. Shameful editorial guidelines.

So the Jungle Cruise is now facing intense criticism.  From who?  It would appear that said criticism is coming solely from the author of the post.  The article is clearly an opinion piece where the writer projects very contrived  observations and conclusions on unnamed and unattributed sources. It generalizes the consensuses of whole demographics (i.e. "teens find it tame, "younger children lose focus").  The criticisms articulated are generally mild and certainly at no point intense.  It's as if the headline was written before the article.  Disguising hollow conjecture as objective journalism is a dishonest and sad way of generating attention.

As to the supposition itself - In my subjective (and clearly identified) opinion, Jungle Cruise is a perennial theme park attraction that has endured for over seven decades and will likely be around for at least seven more.  To say that it is suddenly facing intense criticism is nonsensical.  It transcends comparisons to thrill rides and other new tech attractions by way of brilliant and detailed designs (right down to its wonderful queue elements) and a legacy of historical significance and sentimental nostalgia.  It is important to also recognize that the perceptions of the very vocal but largely insubstantial coalition of influencers, lifestyle bloggers and clickbait journalists do not in fact represent the opinions of the vast majority of Walt Disney World visitors.  Most guests will likely experience Jungle Cruise once every few years, not two or three times every week. That degree of repetition is bound to inspire boredom and cynicism in even the most devoted Disney enthusiast. 

Professional Disney Adult Driven to Begging!

This week's best clickbait.  And trust me, I don't search for this stuff.  

"I’m a Professional Disney Adult. Here Are 9 Things I’m Begging You to Bring to Your Disney World Hotel in 2026"

Okay, what is a Professional Disney Adult?  I recognize that influencers have strategically spun the term Disney Adult from a negative into a perceived positive, but I thought Disney Adult-ism related more to extreme and potentially dysfunctional fandom.  The author here seems to be defining it as a respected vocation and clearly not a non-profit one.  I get it, from an editorial standpoint, Disney Adult is likely more palatable in a clickbait headline than the more honest "influencer."  But "professional?"  Where does one get their Disney Adult degree?  Or their influencer degree for that matter?

The premise of the post is that you spend so much time in your Disney hotel room that you absolutely need among other things, a humidifier ($28), white noise machine ($15), portable hanging shelves ($33) and a laundry hamper ($8).  Who spends that much time in their hotel room??? I mean it's Disney World, not a remote cabin in the backwoods.

The supposed subtle pitch (I'm Begging You to Bring . . . ) translated means "I'm begging you to buy any or all of these 9 things so we can earn a nice commission.  Why would you be begging otherwise?  Sure, all the necessary disclaimers are there, but it all seems just so . . . insincere.  The trend in clickbait headlines is to personalize, but if your best friend talked to you this way, you'd probably cock an eyebrow and quickly change the subject.

Sadly, this type of click-driven, revenue generating online journalism has become a shameful standard.  And too many once reputable news and information sites have tragically adopted these editorial practices and replaced journalists, historians and travel writers with self serving influencers selling you anything and everything you don't need.

The Life and Times of the . . . Hyperion Kid?

About ten years ago, I began a writing project that was largely inspired by Bill Bryson's very entertaining memoir The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid.  Bryson chronicled his growing up in the Midwest and in doing so, created both a vivid portrait and historical encapsulation of post-war Baby Boom America.  I wanted to do the same, albeit frame my early life's journey as a very personal reflection of Disney entertainment in the popular culture.  I knocked out a few chapters, but as it always seems to happen, family and work soon pushed it to the back burner, and I declared that frequently repeated mantra, "I'll get back to it eventually."

Well, hopefully, eventually is now here.  Retirement has arrived, creating the opportunity for me to return to 2719 Hyperion on a more consistent basis.  It's a very different world from when I launched this site close to twenty years ago.  Finding readers in the current online environment will be a challenge.  Social media and influencers  have, in my opinion, soured and trivialized what was once a healthy community of Disney journalists and historians.  It may be tilting at windmills, but I want to give it a go.

My intention is to publish my aforementioned memoir in installments here on 2719 Hyperion.  I also intend a return to Addressing the Many Worlds of Disney Entertainment when possible.  If you are new to my endeavors here, welcome!  If you were a regular visitor in past, welcome back!  Comments are always welcome.  Talk to you soon!

Apple Every Day

I will be listening to an audiobook on my iPod as I drive my son to school.  I've already read the latest news via my iPad and will be falling into a Raymond Chandler novel later on one of the iPad's e-reader apps.  At some point in the day, someone in my family will likely stream a Netflix movie by way of Apple TV.  And then of course there is Pixar.

Thanks, Steve.  You have significantly improved my quality of life on many levels.  You will be missed.

Found Imagineering: A Mine Train and Storybook Circus

The most interesting new component of the redrawn Walt Disney World Fantasyland plans is certainly the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train.  This indoor coaster will supplant the Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty venues that were part of the original expansion plans.  According to Disney sources, this new Snow White-themed attraction will, " . . . take you on a rollicking, musical ride into the mine,” and, " . . . feature a first-of-its kind ride system with a train of ride vehicles that swing back and forth as they whisk along the track."

The existing Snow White's Scary Adventures will be no more, replaced with the Princess Fairytale Hall, an elaborate meet-and-greet featuring all the Disney Princesses.  I found this bit of news particularly disappointing.  While I am not in any way opposed to the elimination of the Snow White's Scary Adventures due to its evolution into a wholly new attraction, it is disheartening to learn that it will be replaced with yet another meet-and-greet location instead of a brand new dark ride.  When you consider that Disneyland is overflowing with unique Fantasyland dark rides (Pinocchio, Toad, Alice), what would be so difficult about creating another D-Ticket level attraction in Florida?

Surviving the revisions are the Beauty and the Beast restaurant and attraction venues that were previously announced.  These include the Be Our Guest Restaurant, Gaston's Tavern, Belle's Village and the Enchanted Tales with Belle interactive show.  The Dumbo-centric circus grounds also remain and have been formally named the Storybook Circus.  Details about this area are still somewhat ambiguous, although it has been confirmed that the Barnstormer coaster will be re-themed and feature Goofy as the "Great Goofini."  The existing Toontown Fair tents will be recycled and re-purposed as circus tents and contain, " . . . fun-filled interactive experiences for kids of all ages."  And of course, The Journey of the Little Mermaid, perhaps the project's most high profile attraction, remains in place.

The Fantasyland expansion at Walt Disney World is due for overall completion sometime in 2013.

The Legacy of Tron

My regular profession is Christmas-intensive and so it was yesterday before I finally had the opportunity to see Tron: Legacy, and even now I only have time for a brief expression of my thoughts on the film.  The sequel to the nearly three-decades old original Tron is sparking both critical debate and the usual box-office over-analysis.  Like its predecessor, it is being lauded for its dynamic visual style and technical prowess, but just as quickly dismissed (as was the original Tron) for what many call a slight and often incomprehensible story.  I will without shame admit to having been a wide-eyed, arcade game-enthralled youth of the era that spawned the first film.  Tron holds a very special place in my vault of movie memories and I am very happy to say that Tron: Legacy, in my very subjective opinion (that is certainly influenced by history and nostalgia), lives up to the legacy of Tron.  It's a fun and entertaining ride, and has a great deal more substance to it than you might be lead to believe.

The Tron mythology, not unlike the complicated digital science that inspired it, is not always easy to decipher and digest.  Make no mistake, Tron: Legacy is a sequel, and perhaps Disney's effort to market it as more of a standalone entity has done it a disservice.  I would disagree with those who found it lacking in plot and story, but it does owe much to what went before and director Joseph Kosinski chose to spend little time on retro-expository.  Original Tron fans are not left lacking, but its easy to see how more regular viewers could walk away with some pronounced head-scratching.  There has been a subtle but still distinct disconnect between filmmaker and corporate Disney, and the decision to withhold the original film from DVD release has raised many eyebrows (and conspiracy theories as well).  But I do give the corporate execs credit for allowing Kosinski to fashion a somewhat less accessible sequel rather than a complete and more mainstream-friendly re-imagining.

Tron: Legacy is many parts; fantasy, analogy, philosophy.  But one thing it is not is science fiction.  You can hold its setting of the Grid no more credible than Oz, but unfortunately, many individuals have trouble moving past what they consider the silliness of its concept.  I had no problem doing so, and in turn found the film intriguing and thought-provoking, and most certainly dazzling and technically amazing.  Multiple viewings on Blu-Ray DVD will likely inspire me to write a more lengthy and comprehensive discourse in the future, as I am still eager to explore the Tron universe in much more depth and detail.  Stay tuned.

Disney Comics Go Boom! . . . and Fall Down

I had high hopes when I first heard that Disney Comics would be making a comeback via publisher Boom! Studios.  I even wrote about it here at 2719 Hyperion back in July of 2008.  It is two years later and I have to say that my disappointment in the endeavor is substantial.

At the time I noted:

"BOOM! Studios and Disney will most certainly need to somehow reach beyond the current comic book industry distribution status quo to reach those younger and hopefully receptive new readers."

Sadly, this has not happened.  And worse, Boom! has chosen to follow editorial and marketing plans modeled after superhero and adult fare, which I believe are strategies wholly ineffective in attracting the desired young readers they are looking for.

It's a distinct and undeniable fact--comic books directed at younger readers have declined dramatically over the last four decades or so.  To a baby boomer of the 1950s or 1960s, comic books were an integral part of your daily life.  You ate.  You slept.  You attended school.  You read comic books.  Four-color publications were cheap, enormously entertaining and ridiculously accessible.  And Disney comics were among the most popular on the market.

Jump ahead to 2010 and what do we have?  The younger generation of today has largely abandoned the medium.  Let me clarify just slightly--the younger generation defined primarily as kids aged 6-16; the medium being non-superhero, humor-centric comics marketed specifically at that younger demographic.  What is behind this dramatic decline of kiddie comics, of which Disney was always a major player, when other four-color genres, most notably superheroes, have continued to endure and often thrive?

The most common explanation:

There is simply too many other new and exciting forms of entertainment for young kids to enjoy.  Comic books cannot compete with all that is offered to children today.

Most definitely.  The playing field has changed dramatically for young consumers, especially in the last two decades.  Video games, computer technology, cable television, home entertainment, cell phones and portable devices all compete for the attention of that younger demographic.  How can a simple mundane comic book compete?  However, as valid as this argument appears to be, I feel that it tends to be greatly overstated and too quickly accepted.

Examine regular books for a moment.  Though they face the same types of competition as comic books, their decline has not been so measured and significant.  In fact, you could argue that the juvenile book market has enjoyed a sustained resurgence of sorts since J.K. Rowling introduced the world to her boy wizard a little over a decade ago. Kids still read books.  Kids still want to read books, despite a world filled with electronic and high-tech alternatives.

It is also important to note that superhero-based comics remain popular, viable and culturally significant, despite the fact that they compete similarly with other entertainment media as well.  In fact, the 16-30 age-group that drives the current comic book and graphic novel industry, are also the primary consumers of all the previously mentioned competitive media--i.e. video games, computers, portable devices, etc.

So then, what are the truly significant factors that have essentially diminished the kiddie comics market?

Accessibility

It used to be, comic books were everywhere.  You could find them at newsstands, drug stores, five and tens, grocery stores and mom-and-pops, just to name a few.  And that's not even considering the second-hand markets of yard sales, flea markets and your friends next door.  It was rare that a kid did not live within walking distance of a venue that sold comic books.  Thanks to what is known in the industry as the direct market, that is no longer the case.

Prior to the 1980s, comic books were handled by the same regional wholesale companies that  distributed magazines and paperback books to local retailers.  With the growing sophistication of superhero comics and the emergence of specialty comic book retailers, a new distribution system came into being--a direct market wherein specialty distributors such as Capital City and Diamond Comics sold directly to comic book retailers, notably on non-returnable terms, but at more attractive discounts.  

Unfortunately, this  dramatic shift signaled the decline and near-complete fall of kiddie comics.  Comic book retailers gradually and effectively eroded the market share of the wholesalers.  But being super-hero centric, those same retailers abandoned kiddie comics for more lucrative, fanboy-driven material.  They were appealing to a new comic book-buying demographic that what skewing to a more older teen, young adult composition.  Wholesale distribution of comics has all but disappeared in the last twenty years and where it has remained, it is greatly diminished. And even though wholesalers may have still have had some viable markets for kiddie comics, many chose to drop comics books altogether and effectively throw the baby out with the bath water.

Numerous comic book retailers attempted to keep the kiddie genre alive, but simply could not reach the kids they needed to support that category of business.  Today, for the most part, kiddie comics are largely ignored and unsupported by comic book specialty stores.

Editorial and Marketing Mismanagement

Here's where I will likely offend quite a few industry professionals who I otherwise admire and respect.

It's a simple observation.  You simply can't create, produce and market kiddie comics in the same manner as mainstream superhero comics and graphic novels.  Yet, that is what is happening today, especially in regard to Disney Comics that are being produced by BOOM! Studios under their Boom! Kids imprint.  To illustrate some of the points I'm about to make in this argument, let's compare two comic books--one published in 1954, another that was just released recently by Boom! Kids.

Casper the Friendly Ghost #23

Publication date: August 1954

Retail price: 10¢

Total pages:36

Total pages of content: 25

Average panels per page: 8

Content: 4 stories, 2 1-page gags, 2 text features

Toy Story #7

Publication date: September 2010

Retail price: $2.99

Total Pages: 28

Total pages of content: 22

Average panels per page: 3-5

Content: 1 story

First, let's get some basic premises out of the way:

1. For nearly all young kids, comics are disposable entertainment.  They are without a "collector's" mentality in this regard.  They just want the fun and entertaining diversion that the content itself provides.  Kids are very content to read and re-read their comic books without worrying about maintaining them in mint condition and keeping them stored in plastic bags.
2. Kids perceive and  appreciate value, though not entirely from a monetary standpoint.  Thus a comic book with multiple stories and features is considered a better offering than a comic with just one longer story.
3. Kids prefer self-contained content to serialization.  They want to pick up a comic book that is free from prerequisite reading.  Kids do not have the patience to track down and purchase issues #1-3, just to be able to read #4.  Unless it's incredibly compelling and attractive, they'll simply toss #4 back on the shelf and look for something different.

Returning to our comparison between Casper #23 and Toy Story #7, the first thing that is striking is the difference in price.  Toy Story at $2.99 represents an astounding 2900% increase over Casper's humble 10¢ price point.  While it is easy enough to excuse this fact due to the effects of inflation over the course of fifty years, it's not quite that clear cut.  If you compare the prices of newspapers, magazines and paperback books in the same manner, you discover average increases on these publications to be between 1300%-1500%.  The price of a comic book today should be more in the neighborhood of $1.50.  This would certainly put it back in the "affordable" column as perceived by both children and their parents.

But wait, you're going to say that the production values of comics today are far superior to the cheap newsprint of Casper's day and thus justify the higher prices.   I can certainly concede that point, but in doing so, must raise another.  Why do kids comics, disposable and content-driven, require such high production values in the first place?  Do kids really care about high quality glossy paper?  Do collector-market incentives such as variant covers and zero issues  possess any real appeal for young kids?  What matters to an older, collectible-savvy  fanboy does not necessarily make good marketing sense when applied to a more practical 10 year-old consumer.

When you pick up Toy Story #7, or any other Boom! Kids comic, it is noticeable how slight and flimsy it is.  Well, it is in fact 22% smaller than what has long been the 36-page size for normal comics.  While it may come closer to Casper in page-count content (three pages less), it still doesn't exactly make a great first impression when you lift it off the store shelf.

But let's also consider how art style and presentation can devalue the product.  Toy Story #7 if chocked full of artistic and design bells and whistles, but its actual story content is considerably less than Casper #23.  By maintaining an average of 8 panels per page, Casper #23 provides almost twice the story and a longer reading experience than Toy Story #7.  While it's not immediately noticeable due to the page count, a kid reading the book will find himself finished with it in very short order, again diminishing the value of his $2.99 investment.  In fairness, panel counts vary across all of the Boom! Kids titles, but in general still tend toward less content than more.

While Toy Story #7 did present a self-contained story, numerous other Boom! Kids titles seem to be serialized on a consistent basis.  As an experiment, on a recent trip to the comics shop, I arbitrarily picked up two Boom! comics, Donald Duck and Friends #350 and The Incredibles #4.  Both contained serialized chapters that required the reading of previous and/or subsequent issues.  I was disappointed and I can't help but feel that many kids would be similarly frustrated. 

What becomes clear from this comparison is the previously stated tenant: You simply can't create, produce and market kiddie comics in the same manner as mainstream superhero comics and graphic novels.  But that is clearly the approach that Boom! Kids has taken with its line of Disney Comics.

Boom! Kids Editor-in-Chief Mark Waid (recently promoted to Chief Creative Officer) is one of the most respected individuals in the comics industry.  And rightly so.  I have long enjoyed his contributions to the superhero and adult comics market.  But unfortunately in applying the superhero/comic collecting marketing dynamic to the Disney line of comics, he and his fellow Boom! executives continue to contribute to the diminishing state of kiddie comics.  For a viable business plan in regard to Disney-based comics, Waid should instead focus on successful kiddie comics publishers of the past, rather than emulate contemporary adult market publishing strategies.   I chose to use the Casper comic book for good reason; Harvey Comics is truly an excellent model to follow in regard to both editorial direction and marketing strategies.

Take Advantage of Your Large Canon of Characters 
Harvey Comics certainly did this.  Characters were interchangeable throughout the various titles.  Wendy stories appeared in Casper titles.  Richie Rich comics also featured Little Dot.  This cross-pollinating was both shrewd and highly successful.  Dell was similarly successful with its Disney Comics by employing the same strategy to titles like Walt Disney Comics and Stories and its various Disney Dell Giants.  Apply these same ideas to the current Disney/Pixar canon.  Mix it up.  Be character focused rather than brand focused.  Imagine some of the possibilities for giant-size anthology titles in a Disney line, similar to what Harvey successfully marketed back in the day.  Woody's Round-Up, Lightning McQueen's Road Rally, Mike and Sully's Laugh Factory, Donald Duck's Duckburg, are just a few suggestions.  And for heaven's sake, why hasn't Boom! produced any Disney Princess comic books?  Juvenile book publishers have certainly exploited this lucrative brand.  Methinks the very entrenched male-bias of comic book publishing may be a factor here.

Produce Short, Self-Contained Stories.  Avoid Serialization. 
Realize that serialization is potentially more damaging than it is beneficial.  You are looking to appeal to the broadest audience possible and you can do this with self-contained stories and issues.  Kids do not support subscription-driven marketing that is prevalent among older fanboy consumers.  Create, promote and sell each comic individually, much in the way that Harvey, Archie, and even DC did in the old days.  The closest that Boom! has come to this type of editorial direction has been its Muppet Show series which has proven to be one of its more critically-celebrated titles.

Trade High Concept Presentation for Value
Don't worry about fancy paper, high concept art and variant covers and zero issues.  Squeeze as much content into 25 pages as you possibly can.  Multiple stories per issue.  More panels per page.  One-page gag stories.  Activities and special features.  Make kids feel like they are getting a lot for their money!  Kids do not require top-of-the-line print quality.  It would be no sin to return to (gasp!) newsprint and reduce prices appropriately.  Your products would be more affordable and desirable to the readers in your target demographic.

Think Outside the Direct Comics Market
Go Beyond Comic Book Specialty Stores
This is certainly the tough one.  Earlier Disney licensees Gladstone, Gemstone and even Disney Publishing itself have all desperately tried to step outside these very restrictive and too narrowly focused distribution and sales channels, but with little to no success.  But perhaps there is indeed a light at the end of the tunnel.  Digital comics are quickly becoming very viable, especially in regard to the very comic book-friendly iPad.  Boom! does in fact have an iPad Comixology-driven app, but it is currently only focused on their adult titles.  Archie Comics is very aggressively pursuing the digital platform with their own iPad app, and significantly, they are maintaining very kid-friendly prices of 99¢ an issue.  That is half of what the mainstream superhero publishers are typically charging per digital comic issue . 


Think this is all pretty questionable?  Well, one contemporary comics company has employed many of these editorial and marketing strategies with great success.  Upon examining Bongo Comics, it is remarkable how similar its line of Simpson Comics is in design and presentation to Harvey Comics and other vintage kiddie comics publishers.  And they have maintained success  in a difficult environment for nearly twenty years.  Bongo has managed to expand beyond the direct comics market by creating trade paperbacks (the equivalent of old school "giant" issues that distinctly remind us of the old Harvey and Dell giants) and making them available at large chain book stores and other retailers. Though nothing has been officially announced, I can't help but feel we'll being seeing a Bongo iPad app sometime in the near future.  Bongo's approach has always been decidedly retro, yet they are perhaps the most mainstream of all the major comic book publishers. 

A recent Simpsons Comic:

Simpson's Comics and Stories #170

Publication date: 2010

Retail price: $2.99

Total pages: 36

Total pages of content: 25

Average panels per page: 6-8

Content: 1 story

In fairness to Boom!, I must also criticize the $2.99 price on regular size Bongo issues.  But like the older Harveys, Bongo delivers more page content and more panel-per-page story content.

Similar to Bongo, Boom! also produces trade paperbacks of its Disney line that have been stocked at mainstream retailers such as Borders and Barnes and Noble and online with Amazon.  They are however slighter in size and page counts than comparably priced Simpsons editions.  (Boom! titles are typically $9.99 and non-discounted on Amazon; Bongo trades average around $12.99-$14.99 on Amazon but are typically discounted down to around $10.  Bongo trades also usually contain about 50% more content than their Boom! counterparts.)

On a related note, here is another example of publishing kiddie comics with a mistaken adult market mentality.  The Incredibles: City of Incredibles collected Mark Waid's own four-issue arc into a 112-page $24.95 hardcover.  Huh?  It appears that Boom! consistently publishes $25 hardcover editions of its trade paper compilations.  Why?  I'm not familiar with many young kids willing drop that kind of cash on an item that costs more than twice the sum of its parts.  I guess the easy answer is that this item is solely directed at the adult collector.  (In comparison, Bongo Comics published the oversize 208-page Simpsons Futurama Crossover Crisis hardcover for the exact same $24.95 price.  In design and size. their product was much more substantial and worthy of the price point and could smartly appeal to both kids and adults.  It made it onto the shelves of mass merchants such as Borders and Barnes and Noble.  Boom Kids! hardcovers--don't typically make that cut.)


But wait, let's add even more insult to injury.  Here's what a quick scan of the Boom! Kids online store revealed:

Toy Story: Tales from the Toy Chest #1 (Cover C) - price: $9.99
Darkwing Duck #4 (Cover C) - price $9.99


$10 for single-issue comics normally priced at $2.99?!?  Is Boom! applying questionable back-issue markups on what they are advertising on their site as new releases?  Sadly, this is a company clearly mired in collectible market dogma and is in turn squandering the potential of some of this generation's most popular and beloved entertainment properties.

All of this ultimately begs one primary question:  just who is Boom! Kids wanting to sell comic books to?  Mr. Waid, with all due respect and courtesy, there is no shame in creating and selling comic books to a strictly younger demographic.  And if you do it smartly enough, you can still reach adult buyers without having resort to direct market gimmicks and $25 hardcovers.  You do not need to oblige adult buyers in regard to this material at the expense of properly marketing to your younger readers.

C'mon, kiddie comics should be for kids.  Quit letting specialty retail, fanboy-driven marketing hijack this still high potential genre of four-color fun.

The Lake Buena Vista Story, Part Four: Postscript

The Lake Buena Vista Story, Part Four: Postscript
By FoxxFur

So why should we care about Lake Buena Vista, in the end? Americans have never been particularly sympathetic to the creations of just a generation or two past, and it’s doubtful that too many of the people who approved the demolition of the Villas in 2002 saw much value in their outdated design, only in the land they stood on. While it’s true that the Villas were not yet old enough to be considered “cool retro” and perhaps, outside of the Treehouses, most average guests would agree that they were not very memorable, to point out the reasons why those little wooden apartments and condos and townhomes were important we should return to Dick Nunis in that 1982 issue of Eyes & Ears:

“I don’t think Walt ever intended to have a permanent resident population. I think he wanted to have a large tourist population and an area where people from all walks of life could come and learn.

I can remember when we got the final big parcel of our land which included Bay Lake. It was in the summer of 1966, and Walt called me up to his apartment in Disneyland, and he was really happy. He said, “Just think Dick, we own 43 square miles. That’s like getting on top of the Matterhorn and looking 7 miles one way and 11 miles the other. We’re going to be able to have our own Disneyland, our own Knott’s Berry Farm, our own Marineland and a couple of cities to boot.”

In Married to the Mouse, Richard Foglesong recounts how a memo found in the desk of Walt Disney following his death in 1966 pertaining to the development of the EPCOT city had every mention of “20,000 residents” and “voting rights” crossed out in red pen. It was these 20,000 residents that Disney dangled in front of the Florida legislature in 1967 to get their two municipalities – Bay Lake and Reedy Creek (later Lake Buena Vista) approved, as well as a total independence from all local government oversight. Perhaps most erroneous of all, from Florida’s perspective, a small passage in one of the three bills specified that these powers would remain in spite of any past or future legislation, freezing Disney’s powers in time at the moment when Orlando needed Disney most but Disney needed Orlando least (indeed, they had been threatening to pack up and move north to Ocala).

As a result Disney today exercises total control over their two towns through the independent Reedy Creek Improvement District government, with no need to move through the local planning and zoning boards. Disney can spend money and go out tomorrow to start shoveling dirt. This is how The Disney-MGM Studios beat Universal’s opening in 1989 by a year – the same amount of time it took Universal’s construction project to be approved by the local Orlando government.

But this is what made Lake Buena Vista, and all of Walt Disney World, extraordinary, was their total lack of oversight from local governing bodies, allowing their creations to be geared towards maximum effectiveness and aesthetic quality, something no mere housing development outside of the 27,000 square mile Florida property can hope to achieve. In his book Foglesong indicates that Disney likely never intended to build their EPCOT City. I’m not so sure that’s true, but I’m also not so sure that that Lake Buena Vista wasn’t the evolved version of the EPCOT City. For the last several years of Disney’s life WED Enterprises had more or less been doing their own thing, with Disney in a largely ceremonial role. At a 1966 lunch meeting with local Florida policymaker Billy Dial, Dial bluntly asked Disney:

“What would happen to this project if you walked out and got hit by a truck?”

“Absolutely nothing”, said Walt. “My brother Roy runs this company. I just piddle around.”

So the question becomes whether Walt Disney, had he lived another five or ten years, would’ve become just another Lake Buena Vista townhouse owner.



Where it’s hard to prove that the company ever seriously considered building a 20,000 person City of Tomorrow once they got their 1967 charter from the State of Florida, especially one that would’ve required the cooperation of dozens of American companies to make it successful, it is comparatively easy to prove that Disney did plan on building a 30,000 person vacation town. In his EPCOT film Walt Disney calls EPCOT a “showcase for American free enterprise” and accounts of what was planned for his EPCOT city involve errie images of nonpermanent residents with no voting or property rights being shuffled around on Disney controlled peoplemovers and living in houses where things like major appliances are constantly being replaced with the new prototype models by the companies that own them. Who wants to live in a house where you don’t even own your own computer?

But Disney could and did build a substantial portion of their “vacation city” project entirely on their own, using their own land and their own powers. And so in a way, that absurd old publicity line of Disney’s is true - Walt Disney World is EPCOT, it is a demonstration of American Free Enterprise – Disney’s Free Enterprise. Whether Disney knew it or not until a decade or so later, their Reedy Creek charter doomed EPCOT back in 1967. Now they didn’t need the rest of American Free Industry to build their model city. It’s hard to argue that the billions of people who have visited Walt Disney World in the last forty years and found it to be inspiring, artistic and unique wouldn’t attribute that to Disney’s free hand and total control of their kingdom. There is no more compelling argument for the effectiveness of a privately owned and controlled master planned community anywhere in the United States.

Lake Buena Vista was important because it was the one time, the single time, that Disney went out and put down in the soft Florida soil the few steps they took towards accomplishing their city, the stated reason for coming to Florida to begin with. Whether or not the Company ever took Walt Disney’s city concept seriously, they took their mission in Florida as community building very seriously. They wouldn’t succeed in actually opening a residential city and fulfilling their long ago promise to the State of Florida until the city of Celebration would open in 1996, Eisner’s nostalgic version of any anytown America of a half-century before. If one traces the evolution of the concept from Walt Disney to Michael Eisner, a fascinating irony becomes apparent: Disney’s city was forward thinking, revolutionary, fascinating, and scary. Disney’s heirs’ city was modern, ecologically sophisticated, adult and sedate. Disney’s heirs’ heirs’ city was backward-thinking, nostalgic, comforting… middlebrow. But still control-freak. Remember those stories of Celebration residents waiting until nightfall to paint their front doors a forbidden color as a form of protest?

Pointedly, Celebration also required Disney to de-annex their land from the Reedy Creek Charter since it would require residents with voting powers to be a successful draw. This led to a series of ugly public showdowns between residents and majority landowner Disney over the issue of public schools which eventually led to Disney’s removal of their trademark mouse ears from the Celebration water tower and the cessation of internal Walt Disney World promotion of Celebration as a tourism destination.

Lake Buena Vista simply got lost in the fold. But while it’s fun to talk about and think about things like Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride and If You Had Wings and the Main Street Wonderland of Wax, those lost components are just the nutshell. The real meat of the nut – the chewy center, the real thing – was the entire lost community of Lake Buena Vista, and the tendrils of influence the radiate outward from that development reach into nearly every area of the entire property – it’s the true story of Walt Disney World, impossible to ignore. So never mind EPCOT. EPCOT was a model, a dream, Disney’s El Dorado. Lake Buena Vista was out there, being planned, being built.

It’s still there if you know where to look. The back of the Lake Buena Vista Club still faces a shimmering lagoon… maybe not the one that diners there would’ve enjoyed in 1980, with stands of cypress and moonlight playing across the waves. It faces a golf course, a parking lot, and the back of the House of Blues. But she’s still there, waiting for you, a part of history which has escaped detection, demolition. Walk through her and see if you can guess where that couple sat long ago sipping wine, silhouetted by a 1975 Florida sunset, while a string quartet played their tune.



Go downstairs and walk through her pro shop and adjoining offices, and feel the 1970’s still alive down there. Go find the square patch of grass where once there was a pool, the Clubhouse overlooking her tranquil blue water. Go to the tennis courts, not moved since then, and imagine you’re winding up for a swing in the heart of the river and lake country of Central Florida, out away from it all.



That wooden bridge over Club Lake is still there too, by the way. Walk out across the bridge one foggy morning or breezy evening and tell me what you see. Maybe you’ll see those low little brown bungalows again too. I know I did.

Come find me!

--

Thanks very much to the following for their help in this article: Michael Crawford, Fee Doyle, Mike Lee, Martin Smith, Steve Russes, George Taylor.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Chronology of Walt Disney World”, by Ken Polsson http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/wdworld/
“Disney News” Vol. 16 No. 3, Ed. Margaret Lee, June 1981
“Disney’s Village Resort Guest Atlas”, property map, Walt Disney World Co., 1989
“Eyes and Ears of Walt Disney World”, May 1982
Flickr.Com, user “Russes” http://www.flickr.com/photos/russes
“Lake Buena Vista Peoplemover” 1976
“Lake Buena Vista Village News”, Vol. 2 No. 5, June 1976
“Married to the Mouse”, by Richard Foglesong, Yale University Press: New Haven, 2001
Mouse Planet, “Villas at Disney Institute” internet resource. http://mouseplanet.com retrieved Jan 20 2010
“Realityland”, by Davis Koenig. Bonaventure Press: Irvine, CA. 2007.
“Since the World Began”, by Jeff Kurtti, Hyperion: New York, 1996
“Treehouse Villas II: Electric Bugaloo” by Michael Crawford http://progresscityusa.com
Walt Dated World, http://waltdatedworld.bravepages.com/index.htm
"Walt Disney World", promotional magazine, Walt Disney World Co., 1978
"Walt Disney World, 20 Magical Years", hardcover book, Walt Disney Productions, 1991
"Walt Disney World: the First Decade", hardcover book, Walt Disney Productions, 1982
“Walt Disney World Resort Guide”, promotional booklet, Walt Disney World Co. 1977
“Walt Disney World Vacationland”, Vol. 3, No. 2 ed. Jo Jac Bludworth, Spring 1974
Widen Your World, http://www.omniluxe.net/wyw/wyw.htm
"The World News", Vol. 6 No. 5, ed. Barbara Stuart, June 1976
“World Magazine”, promotional magazine, Walt Disney World Co., 1976

…and too many flyers and brochures to list!

Multi-Dimensional Thinking

Almost a year ago, animation journalist and historian Jerry Beck made a rather stringent pronouncement on his Cartoon Brew blog:

"3-D is a fad."

Beck, a self-proclaimed 3-D fan, was quite harsh in his then assessment of the future of 3-D presented films.  He made this arguement:

" . . . the studios are promoting 3-D films right now in an effort to convince the theaters to convert to digital projection. Once all theatres go digital, there will be no need for the studios to create expensive 35mm prints, they’ll be no more costs for reels and cans; the cost of transporting 100 pound film canisters coast to coast, the cost of storing prints in film depots and later, the cost of destroying worn prints will be eliminated. The savings to the studios will be enormous."

He concluded:

"  . . . as soon as all theaters (or a majority of them) eliminate film and go completely digital, I predict the current 3-D fad will end."

Other well known film historians and critics have weighed in with similar harsh assessments of the current wave of 3-D movies.  Roger Ebert commented in 2008, "The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake."

But this current wave of 3-D is showing no real signs of abating any time soon.  The movie-going public has apparently embraced the process and are enjoying the enhancement.  It is by no means everyone's cup of tea.  But at least at my local multiplexes, customers are given a choice of 3-D or 2-D; no one is being slighted in the movie-going process.

So returning to Mr. Beck's seemingly adamant statement of 3-D being a fad, he and others of similar persuasion will need to bring a lot more to the argument before I myself am wholly convinced.

The previous high-water mark for 3-D movie exhibitions extends all the way back to the general debut of process back in the early 1950s.  It's ultimate mainstream demise by 1955 related not so much to a public rejection of the principle of 3-D movies, but an inability to refine the process enough on a technical level to overcome issues of eye strain, picture quality and compatibility with theater venues that were more and more expanding to accommodate widescreen presentations.  Today's digital projection technologies have dramatically overcome these prior hurtles.  Sure, there are still occasional criticisms relating to eye strain and picture quality, but they have been very, very minimal and do not seem to pose any type of threat to the long-term viability of current 3-D digital processes.

More notable is, that beyond the backlash from a very vocal but distinctly small minority of critics and moviegoers, both the public and the film industry seem to have accepted 3-D and moved on.  So much so that the average moviegoer seems to have no problem ponying up the extra $ surcharge that theater owners attach to 3-D tickets.  And a 3-D connection to a film no longer necessarily comes with any critical baggage, as all the various awards and accolades for both Avatar and Pixar's Up would indicate.

Relating this discussion to " . . . the many worlds of Disney entertainment," as our tag-line suggests, is fairly obvious.  The Walt Disney Company has been one of the leading proponents of Digital 3-D, and has very much been reaping the box-office benefits thereto.  My first exposure to a digital 3-D film was Disney's Meet the Robinsons back in 2007 and I was extremely impressed with both the movie and the 3-D process.  I have since enjoyed Bolt, Up and Alice in Wonderland in 3-D presentations; I regret that I was not able to see the converted 3-D versions of The Nightmare Before Christmas and the Toy Story films.  I personally find that animated movies are far more compatible with 3-D, but cannot deny that Avatar was stunning in its 3-D presentation.  I found the picture for Alice in Wonderland to be a tad bit murky and dark, but I'm not sure whether to attribute that to the quirks of my own vision, Tim Burton's vision, or to the fact that the film was converted to 3-D in post-production.

Speaking for myself at least, the intention on the part of Hollywood to draw people back to movie theaters via the enticement of 3-D, is in fact effective.  Since last year, I have been quite content to see movies for the first time via my own high-definition home theater set-up, but a 3-D presentation of a movie I particularly want to see will send me out to a big-screen venue.

In the end, current digital 3-D is simply an enhancement to the movie-going experience.  It appears that most enjoy it, some do not.  It is not an essential component of any particular film; I have thoroughly enjoyed movies such as Up, Coraline and Meet the Robinsons in non-3-D presentations.  At the same time, I do not think that seeing Monsters Vs. Aliens in 3-D would have redeemed it for me on any level.   Three-dimensional mediocrity is still, well . . . mediocre.

With all due respect to Jerry Beck, who I have long followed and admired (and Roger Ebert to some extent as well), making predictions is a dangerous way to gamble with your own credibility.  Is it really worth the potential "I told you so" payoff that, at least in the case of digital 3-D, may not materialize any time soon?

Song of the South: A Slightly Different Perspective

Editor's Note:  At this week's shareholder meeting, Disney CEO Robert Iger made a rather harsh and firm statement about the potential home video release status of Song of the South.  Hollywood Reporter noted that Iger called the film "antiquated' and “fairly offensive," and said there are no plans for releasing Song of the South on DVD.  I addressed previous statements by Iger concerning Song of the South in a commentary from 2007 that I am re-publishing today.  I cannot tell you the last time I watched Song of the South; I know that I have not viewed it in the three years since I wrote this commentary.  I remain as generally indifferent to it now as I did then.  I have retained the original comments to the post left by readers in 2007.

Song of the South: A Slightly Different Perspective
By Jeff Pepper

There are any number of hot button topics out there that ignite the Disney faithful to debates both passionate and contentious. I typically only enter into these discussions if I feel I can provide a unique perspective of the issue at hand. I have lately come to realize that I might have a decidedly different view than most on Song of the South.

Long a subject of blogs, forums and the occasional mainstream media article, the film’s secure-in-the-vaults status has been a disappointment to American Disney enthusiasts for quite a number of years. As far back as the early 1990s, this 1946 mix of live action and animation has been deemed a potential powder keg of political incorrectness and racial insensitivity and considerations for a domestic release have always quickly died on the vine. But while Disney CEO Robert Iger seemed to send a generally discouraging message about a Song of the South release at his first stockholders meeting in 2006, recent comments at this year’s New Orleans conference seemed to indicate a softening on the subject. When again asked about the status of the situation, Iger responded:

"The question of 'Song of the South' comes up periodically, in fact it was raised at last year's annual meeting. And since that time, we've decided to take a look at it again because we've had numerous requests about bringing it out. Our concern was that a film that was made so many decades ago being brought out today perhaps could be either misinterpreted or that it would be somewhat challenging in terms of providing the appropriate context."

For any animation fan and student of Disney history, those are encouraging words indeed. Yet I have to say that I personally feel surprisingly indifferent to a Song of the South release. A decidedly different point of view from an individual who has long decried the suppression of Disney history in the name of political correctness.

In fairness, I have to say that I have for quite some time been able to view Song of the South at my convenience. Japanese and British editions have made this possible for close to a decade and a half. So in that regard I do not have the basic frustrations of inaccessibility that many possess.

Disney last made the movie available to American audiences when they re-released it to theaters in 1986. In the twenty years since, issues of content have escalated into a controversy that has ultimately overshadowed the film itself. In essence, Song of the South has by and large become greater than the sum of its parts. For at its core, and despite having provided the now-iconic strains of "Zip-a-dee Doo-dah" and vivid and colorful animated sequences, it does little to truly distinguish itself from other Disney films of the same time period. And thus comes forth my previously indicated indifference; the film is simply not worthy of all the “legend” it has come to be associated with.

As entertainment, much can be said for the film’s energetic music and well realized animated characters. Yet taken as a whole, it is an uneven, and at times disjointed endeavor. The live-action sequences tend to be slow and without spirit, marked especially by very annoying overacting on the part of its juvenile players, most notably Bobby Driscoll. And while its racial stereotyping is generally benign and without malice, it severely dates the film in a manner that will likely undermine any lasting endearment current and future audiences might have developed for it. In much the same manner that the stature of Gone With the Wind, with its similar racial undertones, has diminished over the past two decades, so likely will Song of the South ultimately become classified more as film history than timeless entertainment.

While I certainly would welcome a DVD that featured a restored Song of the South and included comprehensive supplemental material, I could make the same request for numerous other Disney feature films from the studio’s first three decades. There are other Disney productions much more deserving of either the Treasures or Legacy brand and treatment that Song of the South would likely receive should it be released in the near future.

In the end the question becomes this: Is the desire by many to own Song of the South based on an actual love of the film, or simply the result of being denied access to it? Often times it’s not so much about the cookie as it is about the fact that Mom said “No!”

 Originally published April 14, 2007.

The Legacy of 23

What do I like most about the new Disney twenty-three?

That it is, in fact, twenty-three.

It is not D71, nor D55, nor even the most obvious D28. It is D23. It properly acknowledges that the long held mantra, "it all started with a mouse," is not necessarily canon when applied to the life of Walt Disney and the history of the Walt Disney Company.

In 1923, Walt and Roy opened the Disney Brothers Studio in the back of a real estate office on Kingswell Avenue in Los Angeles, just west of Hollywood. It is refreshing and extremely satisfying that the creators of D23 chose this particular moment in time to be the icon of their initiative. They could have easily chosen any one of the many Disney-associated buzzwords such as magic, fantasy, dreams, wonder, or something incorporating the ever popular mouse. But by selecting a somewhat more obscure, but still incredibly significant reference, they demonstrated an appreciation of a heritage that extends far beyond theme parks, teenage pop stars and cross-platform branding. Whether all the various aspects of D23 will live up to this historical legacy is yet to be seen. On a recent conference call with the press, Steven Clark, Dave Smith and Marty Sklar, each claimed that D23 is not just another marketing ploy. Based on those statements, and a very attractive, professionally produced, and content-rich magazine, the signs are very, very encouraging.

Disney fan communities, at least in my very subjective opinion, tend to be be far too compartmentalized. There is an often especially distinct disconnect between theme park enthusiasts and studio and animation students and scholars. Here's hoping that Disney twenty-three will continue to build that much needed bridge of connectivity, and do it with the entertaining flare and educational undercurrent that we have long enjoyed from the Walt Disney Company.

Too Much Stuff?

If you've spent any amount of time at Walt Disney World, chances are pretty good that you've either seen or been one of these people: the crazed tourist, charging headlong through a crowd, fastpasses fluttering, stroller wheels locking up, shouting at their family in a mad headlong dash to "fun" at Splash Mountain, Space Mountain or wherever. Immediately upon arrival, the alpha male of the group will whip out the park map and begin madly planning the next "fun" of the day, oftentimes utterly missing the attraction he ran so far to get on. The Disney parks reward a leisurely pace and attention to detail, something many guests miss out on on their madcap dash through the parks. I used to chalk it up to personality types, but after many years of visiting those parks under various states of duress, I have another idea.

Between 1989 and 1999 - let's say, give or take, the bulk of the "Disney Decade" - Walt Disney World was expanded at a merciless rate. This short ten year time period saw the opening of two theme parks, something like fifteen hotels, two shopping districts, two water parks and two miniature golf complexes. By any standard that's a huge expansion, but when taken into account with the already existing two theme parks, one water park, zoological exhibit, shopping village and five-plus hotels, in ten short years Walt Disney World expanded from a big balloon to an overfilled zeppelin. She hasn't stopped yet.

Now, realistically for a moment, let's speak about clientele. Chances are very good that 50 - 60% of the people at Walt Disney World at any one time (except for that one crazy week in December, but that's besides the point here..) are utterly unlike you, the dear reader, who has made her or his way to this site - this sentence! - through your unwavering devotion to Disney. Many of Walt Disney World's annual visitors are people who come here sporadically, rarely, or perhaps just once in their whole lives. They are not devoted to Disney, and many of them have only the vaguest inclination of why the place has Walt Disney's name on it anyway, and some of them are still wondering why there aren't any roller coasters sitting out in asphalt parking lots like they have back at Six Flags over Texas. But most of them do know this: they've got about ten days to see it all because they're not planning on coming back for a long long time, if ever.

It's an expensive proposition, and when you factor in a potential desire to see the other Orlando attractions like Universal, Sea World, or even more minor excursions like the Orlando Premium Outlets, the time at Disney does begin to take on the air of a national emergency. Magic Kingdom was designed in 1971 to take two days to see, and it's only gotten bigger since. It's total insanity to try to realistically devote a single day to EPCOT, although if factors like operational hours and crowd levels were on your side it would be possible to get pretty satisfactory experiences at MGM Studios and Animal Kingdom in a single long day. That's still five "best case scenario" days, and that's only taking into account the physical parks themselves, without the hassles of transportation, hydration, eating and so on. It's a big pill to swallow.

One could argue that by stacking Walt Disney World with far too many things to possibly do in one trip, they are encouraging repeat trips, which is probably true. How many people honestly take advantage of any one of the four 18-hole miniature golf courses on property on any given day? How many trips have they already taken to Walt Disney World before the thought even occurred to them? On one hand this encourages the building of unique vacations, on the other it kind of excludes the once-in-a-lifetime tourist who will concentrate her efforts on seeing as many of the theme parks for as long as possible. Disney's practices of offering more than can possibly be done in the average length of the American vacation, and feeding the fires of the naturally resulting planning obsession with their 180-day booking window and FastPass itineraries is not only unfortunate, but in some ways actively irresponsible. Albeit, their only responsibility is making money, but where is the balance that you can pack into your vacation?

The original idea of Walt Disney World was just that: balance. The Magic Kingdom was the biggest draw and as such had the largest capacity, but even in the early days there were a variety of activities meant to encourage a vacation spent outside of that theme park. Golf was a heavy emphasis, and a whole resort catering to golfers coexisted with four golf courses around property. The Polynesian Luau and Top of the World were effectively onsite nightclubs, and a variety of rental craft plowed the waters of the Seven Seas Lagoon. There was the World Cruise, a narrated tour of the lagoon, and the Electrical Water Pageant, and even a ski show. In fact, once that Disney-made lagoon was the real heart of Walt Disney World. Now it's more like an epic inconvenience between your car and that theme park. The point that you weren't parking for the Magic Kingdom, but for the entire resort, has been lost in the shuffle. It's a subtle point but it is the difference between a more varied experience and that crazed run towards "fun".

EPCOT was finally added ten years later to only then extend the length of the tourist experience, but in the Eisner regime the expansion got totally out of control. Certain things did seem to be responding to tourist demands, such as budget hotels, although these were used mostly as an excuse to make the original hotels even more expensive. If EPCOT was the right expansion at the right time for fairly sound reasons, sometimes it seems like Eisner was building things just to placate his construction fetish. Walt Disney World is now home to something like 20,000 rooms, which admittedly is a fraction of the people that, say, Magic Kingdom can house at any one time, but that's a huge number nonetheless.

All of this is to ask the question: has Disney expanded themselves right out of any sort of reasonable proportion in Orlando? Although other countries have different standards of what an acceptable vacation is, American employers and - perhaps more importantly - American schools - demand increasingly that the family be present and available. Two weeks is about what the length of what a vacation is expected to be, and for many guests Walt Disney World is pretty close to too much. It's too much to take your time with, at least, and is sufficiently overwhelming to cause as much stress and anxiety as the job it is supposedly relieving. In some ways it can be said that the "Vacation Kingdom" has become the true taskmaster's paradise, the workaholic's week off where the differences become negligible.

The funny thing with this sort of complaint is that it's simply not addressable in any way. Once Disney builds something, they should go right on keeping it up. There are both good and bad things about the expansion after all. Perhaps the absolute realistically worst thing about it is that it has necessitated the spreading thin of Disney's resources; their ability to maintain any one park well is directly related to how many other parks need a slice of the profits. But there are good things too. Eisner's personal kink for hotels resulted in the Grand Floridian, Wilderness Lodge and the Boardwalk, three Disney properties which are so great they they stop being above average hotels and become actually good for the soul. I'm not sure I would trade a 1978 Walt Disney World for a 2008 Walt Disney World, but I know I would miss those properties. Perhaps it's a generational thing. The difference between the two eras is like having a single drink at a friend's house and binge drinking in Times Square.

If I Created the Disney Treasures . . .

With the recent announcement of this year's wave of Disney Treasures DVDs, I thought I would revisit my own wish list of future Treasure sets and also expand on it as well. In a post from January of 2007, I outlined three potential collections; none have yet to be realized and they remain at the top of my request list. For readers of that prior post, please forgive my redundancy in repeating the details of those particular items.

One of the true lost treasures of Disney’s laserdisc era is the Exclusive Archives Collection of The Three Caballeros and Saludos Amigos. Laserdisc special editions were the real precursors to whole “special features” DVD phenomenon, and the Caballeros/Amigos set was a shining example of the best that format could produce. Beyond the films themselves, the set was filled with an overabundance of supplemental material that would be perfect a Treasures DVD. The documentary South of the Border With Disney, screen tests, radio broadcasts, storyboards, concept art, and publicity materials, are among its many highlights. But the real gems of the collection are reconstructions of two abandoned short subjects: “A Brazilian Symphony: Caxanga,” and “The Laughing Gauchito.”

Marry this material with a complete set of the studio’s “south of the border” themed shorts, such as Clown of the Jungle, Pueblo Pluto, Pluto and the Armadillo, The Pelican an the Snipe, and Contrary Condor, and even throw in the Blame It on the Samba sequence from Melody Time for good measure. Then add a healthy dose of Disney’s Latin American public service films, such as the long unseen The Amazon Awakes and the Careless Charlie series, and you have the makings of a terrific Treasures product. Unfortunately, the recent mainstream release of the Caballeros Collection DVD makes a Treasures release unlikely any time in the near future.

I continue to advocate for the release of what is a mostly forgotten chapter in the Studio’s history: the People and Places series of documentary short subjects. Similar in style and format to the True-Life Adventures, these travelogues employed many of the same talented individuals and earned a number of Oscar accolades as well. People and Places began with The Alaskan Eskimo in 1953 and concluded in 1960 with the films Japan and The Danube. Studio and animation veteran Ben Sharpteen directed nearly all of the titles in the series. The most famous entry, Disneyland USA, was released as part of last year's Treasures entry Disneyland: Secrets, Stories and Magic.

I am a huge fan of the Disneyland-themed Treasures sets, but I feel it's time the focus shifted a bit to the east. An examination of both the concepts and realization of EPCOT would be a wonderful place to start. Starting with the original EPCOT film that appeared on the Treasures Tomorrowland title, the set could also include the various souvenir videos, and also many of the now long gone attraction films. It would be great to again be able to see items such as the Earth Station film, Symbiosis, The Water Engine from World of Motion, and the various original Energy films, including some type of recreation of the now famous Emil Radok designed Energy: You Make the World Go Round. Other great pieces of obscure EPCOT: the Choose Your Ending sequences from Horizons; the original Seas introductory film, the two animated vignettes also from the Living Seas--The Animated Atlas of the World and Suited for the Sea; and the animated educational short Harold and His Amazing Green Plants, that featured characters from Kitchen Kaberet. Highlights from the numerous EPCOT Educational Media films, and clips from The Disney Channel’s EPCOT Magazine program would also be great inclusions.

Among the darkest moments in the history of Walt Disney Home Entertainment were the releases of Make Mine Music and Melody Time. During the company's pre-Treasures era, its primary focus was pleasing the soccer-mom demographic, resulting in some of the most outrageous and unnecessary censorship ever visited upon classic Disney animation. An entire segment, The Martins and the Coys, was removed from Make Mine Music, and the Pecos Bill sequence in Melody Time was clumsily re-edited and digitally altered to remove cigarette smoking references. A Disney Treasures restoration of these two films would go a long way to righting those earlier wrongs. There is no doubt an abundance of material residing in the archives to provide for supplemental features, especially relating to such notable segments as Peter and the Wolf, The Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met, Johnny Appleseed and Pecos Bill. A feature profiling the various popular music personalities who participated in the films--among them the Andrews Sisters, Roy Rogers, Jerry Colonna, Nelson Eddy, Dinah Shore and Dennis Day--would also be a welcome addition. And throw in the 1954 sequel to Casey at the Bat, Casey Bats Again, for good measure.

If the Treasures series can bring us such notable Disney television-based characters as Davy Crockett, the Swamp Fox and the Scarecrow of Romney Marsh, why for heavens sake not Ludwig Von Drake. He is one the studio's most entertaining personalities yet has long been terribly underrepresented on video and DVD. In his first appearance on September 24, 1961, he, along with Walt Disney, introduced Disney television programing to color, and would go on to be the shows premiere animated character during the 1960s. In addition to that first episode, An Adventure in Color/Mathmagic Land, the set could include other Von Drake tour de forces such as Carnival Time, Fly With Von Drake, Inside Outer Space, Von Drake in Spain and The Hunting Instinct. An extended profile of Von Drake's alter ego, veteran voice artist Paul Frees, would make a great supplemental feature.

Explore the 2719 Hyperion Archives:

Caxanga!
Melody Time