What was the Purpose of Disney's Latin Package Films?

[Pluto Region1]

Ok, I was reading up on the "44 Disney classics" and came across the reviews for Saludos Amigos and Three Caballeros. My husband and I are trying to figure out why Disney made these 2 package films focusing on Latin America. Theories we're throwing out there are: 1) It was a response to the zoot suit riots. 2) They did it because they were worried about the communists taking over Latin America or Latin America attacking us. Did this have anything to do with a directive from the US military to make propaganda films? The review does not fully explain why Disney felt the need to do these 2 packages on Latin America. The review goes like this:

After releasing five largely wonderful feature films within a span of just 5 years, Walt Disney and company changed gears altogether with 1943's Saludos Amigos, the first of the so-called "anthology films." Whereas the first five Disney films were conventional and generally-praised cinematic adaptations of stories, Saludos is a mixture of musical, comical animation and cultural documentary of Latin America. Believe it or not, the theatrical releases of beloved classics like Fantasia and Pinocchio were not overwhelmingly profitable ventures for the studio. So changing formats and turning to Latin America served a number of purposes. The trip of Disney's artists was a regional goodwill tour, at the time of the onset of World War II. Also, lower costs made Saludos more likely to be profitable, which it was."

[Lars Vermundsberget]

You're pretty much on the right track, but they weren't particularly worried about communists, but rather nazis or fascists taking over in Latin American countries. Quite some of these countries apparently had rather German-friendly populations or governments.

Walt Disney and a group of his artists went on a tour of Latin America sponsored by a US government agency (forgot its name).

As for for the package films in general (not just the "Latin" ones), they were a cheaper alternative during a time when Disney really no longer could afford the extravaganza of films such as Pinocchio or Fantasia. It was important to have something in the theaters.

[Loomis]

Well, primarily all of the package films were made for their cost - or more precisely their lack of cost.

As Lars pointed out, the Latin American aspect of the films was due to the "activities of Walt Disney and his artists on their trip" to South America (link). The "good-will tour" was sponsored by Nelson Rockefeller's Office of Inter-American Affairs

Saludos Amigos was popular enough for a sequel, The Three Caballeros, to be produced two years later.

Here is a particularly good short article on the film/ideas in the film:

http://screened.blogspot.com/2005/10/sa ... migos.html

[Kenai]

Yeah, it was all part of "good-will" relations between our country and Latin/South America.

And it produced José Carioca. *sighs* Poor Zé, so ignored in the Disney pantheon.

[Pluto Region1]

....you're pretty much on the right track, but they weren't particularly worried about communists, but rather nazis or fascists taking over in Latin American countries. Quite some of these countries apparently had rather German-friendly populations or governments. ....
As for for the package films in general (not just the "Latin" ones), they were a cheaper alternative during a time when Disney really no longer could afford the extravaganza of films such as Pinocchio or Fantasia. It was important to have something in the theaters.

Wow that is facinating (and thanks for the link Loomis!) Well I guess my next question is why could they no longer afford to make the big feature-length animation films?

I know from reading the review for "On the Front" Treasure series that Disney was busy making propaganda and educational films for the US gov't during the war years.... did they not get paid good money for that or just not alot and Disney could not afford resources to be spent on the big productions like Bambi and Pinnochio or.... it was because the later big 5 of the early features didn't generate enough profit vs. cost so the studio could no longer afford to do the big-feature length animations?

So the next question would be if they were hurtin' for cash during the 1940s, how did they get out of the financial hole to making big feature animation films in the 1950s, and within 5 years, he was opening up Disneyland so he much have been financially recovering somehow in order to have Disneyland in the planning and execution stages?

[Disney Princess Ariellen]

So the next question would be if they were hurtin' for cash during the 1940s, how did they get out of the financial hole to making big feature animation films in the 1950s

Because Walt Disney was the sort who would gamble everything on one project. After watching the features on Cinderella, it seems that Cinderella was similar to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in terms of what a risky undertaking it was...this is another movie where, if it failed, it likely would have been the end of feature animation at Disney. Cinderella was successful, so I'm sure that accounted for some of the money that was used for the other features of the '50s, as well as Disneyland. I'd have to double check a few biographies before I can say more, because I don't want to give out info that's wrong.

[Pluto Region1]

I read that blogspot opinion piece on the animator's trip to South America. This is fascinating:

"...But this exoticism is tamed and made familiar as it is animated and integrated into Disney's own prexisting narratives and cast of cartoon characters. For the wildlife are, equally, discussed as though they were candidates in a Hollywood screen test: Disney is searching for characters who can dance, play, sing, and interact with his established (and trademark) stars of Pluto, Donald, and so on.

Disney goes Latin (as Donald takes up an Andean pipe or plies a balsawood craft on Lake Titicaca) only to the extent that, and on the condition that, Latins (a llama or a Brazilian parrot) can go Disney. Here's the exchange implicit in good neighbourliness: Latin America is to open itself up as a market for US cultural exports, and in return, well, in return the North will give legitimacy to some of the region's less savoury regimes."

Basically they are saying that the elements encorporated from Latin America become "Disneyfied". Since I have never seen these package films I can only speculate on how the content must be perceived today. Upon reading the fine reviews here at this website of Three Caballeros and Saludos, I was thinking to myself, these films would probably smack of stereotyping of Latin people, if seen today. And I would imagine that then-Latin-American audiences must have noticed the stereotyping, yet the review says Saludos was a big hit and thus Disney went ahead and did Three Caballeros. Makes one wonder if Latin Americans did not care about the stereotyping or they thought it was cute or thought this is the best we can expect from the USA on how they view us, or perhaps they were just so happy to have ANY recognition, they didn't care in what form? Perhaps I am grossly misjudging the 2 Latin package films and they are not that racist or stereotypical?

when I was a kid in the 1960s I remember having dolls from around the world. Each doll was dressed in a historic dress/costume from that country. That was my only introduction to foreign countries outside of the USA. This is how we perceived anyone from outside the USA - they were some sort of cutesy foreigner expected to walk around in these exotic costumes... perhaps that is the treatment Latin Americans get in these films?

[Pluto Region1]

So the next question would be if they were hurtin' for cash during the 1940s, how did they get out of the financial hole to making big feature animation films in the 1950s

Because Walt Disney was the sort who would gamble everything on one project. After watching the features on Cinderella, it seems that Cinderella was similar to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in terms of what a risky undertaking it was...this is another movie where, if it failed, it likely would have been the end of feature animation at Disney. Cinderella was successful, so I'm sure that accounted for some of the money that was used for the other features of the '50s, as well as Disneyland. I'd have to double check a few biographies before I can say more, because I don't want to give out info that's wrong.

I know there is a page on the website somewhere (I just need to poke around again) that gives the release dates of each of his animation classics. If there was a page that mentions how successful the films were, it would be possible to piece the financial story together pretty quickly.

It makes one realize there was a day and time when Walt did not know whether the studio would make it or not. Hard to imagine in this day and age, isn't it? He apparently was willing to risk all because he must of believed in the product, like a true entreprenuer that he was.... There's probably a good book on all of this (I just don't have the time to read one right now), so I appreciate all your patience with these pestering questions. If anyone wants to recommend a good book on this subject, please do!

[Escapay]

Well I guess my next question is why could they no longer afford to make the big feature-length animation films?

During the 40s, animators were drafted as well, and since it took time to learn to animate, they had to do things quicker than they really wanted, essentially doing it just to get a product out there. That's why the package films were the meat-and-potatos films. It was enough to keep the business afloat. Also, as DPA said, the animated feature takes a long time to come to fruition. I think in Walt Disney: An American Original, it mentions that one of the problems with Pinocchio was it seemed like 3 different movies, because over the course of 3 years, they had 3 sets of directors, one director for each "third" of the movie. The time it took to go from pre-production storyboards, to the actual drawing and animating, to post-production was always about 3 years minimum. They didn't have that much time during the war years, so reduced themselves to the war propoganda shorts, the regular theatrical shorts, and the package features.

did they not get paid good money for that or just not alot and Disney could not afford resources to be spent on the big productions like Bambi and Pinnochio or....

IIRC, Disney was given a budget by the government for the propoganda features, and they actually produced and finished them UNDER budget. But like I said before, with the war going on, they couldn't afford to be committed to a big picture, only to what would keep food on the table and money in the paychecks.

So the next question would be if they were hurtin' for cash during the 1940s, how did they get out of the financial hole to making big feature animation films in the 1950s,

By the late 40s, things were looking up, and Disney started to concentrate on his big pictures again (Cinderella, namely). Cinderella, Peter Pan, and Alice in Wonderland all were in progress during the wars years, but put on the backburner until they could concentrate on them again. Cindy also seemed the "safest" so to speak of the three to pitch first to the audience, which is why it came out in 1950. As for the financial hole, we could also look into Disney's foray into live-action films. Disney had a LOT of money in the European markets from their shorts and films, but couldn't reach it because of the war, essentially they could only use it in Europe. In 1950, they released Treasure Island, shot on location in England (using their assets and money there). That's probably where their income came from.

and within 5 years, he was opening up Disneyland so he much have been financially recovering somehow in order to have Disneyland in the planning and execution stages?

IIRC, Disneyland was co-financed by ABC, who co-owned the park (and eventually Disney would buy ABC's portion of Disneyland, and eventually again, Disney would buy ABC), and they also had the Disneyland TV Show. Disney was looking ahead, and knew that TV would be the medium he'd need to reach the people faster than movies.

Escapay

[banjoboy]

Interesting thread! As far as I can tell, most of the usual explanations given in Disney literature have already been stated in it. Just one more thing - it is often mentioned that WW2 blocked Disney from transferring revenue from Europe to the U.S. This is what ultimately led to the making of the European live-action movies (see post above), but the more immediate effect was to make the studio short on cash during the war - another reason for making the cheaper package films.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

This is what ultimately led to the making of the European live-action movies (see post above), but the more immediate effect was to make the studio short on cash during the war - another reason for making the cheaper package films.

WW2 gave Disney an immediate money problem as it effectively cut off access to big world markets, the European one first and foremost. If there'd been no war, a lot of things would have been different, needless to say.

As for Disney animation, I suspect marvellous things could have been done. Walt Disney left us a marvellous body of work in animation as it is, of course. But at the time of Fantasia Walt supposedly said: "We have worlds to conquer here", or something to that effect. He had visions for animation beyond the fairy-tales. If there'd been no war (or the 1941 strike, but that's another story), it's possible that Walt could have gone further in the direction I suspect he envisioned.

Instead he made the package features and did a lot of work for the army and the government during the 40s.

By the early 50s Disney got into live-action moviemaking and television and was probably able to make easier money that way.

I tend to think that, by the 50s, Walt's mind was no longer in animation, although his heart probably always was, somewhat. Animation was his venture from the 20s, during the marvellous 30s and up until what I consider the end of the Golden Age in the early 40s. Then, IMO, Walt Disney realised that he couldn't really get any "further" in animation and he eventually turned his attention elsewhere. He opened Disneyland in the mid-50s and by the time of his death in 1966 he was planning and preparing for a much bigger project in Florida.

Up until the 40s Disney WAS animation. By the 50s animation was just one of the things they were doing and they weren't really breaking new ground in that field any longer, IMO. By the 60s they weren't really doing much animation at all.

I guess I digress here, but this is in my opinion roughly the big picture that opens up when there's a question about what's the "point" of the Latin American package features.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

(...) Makes one wonder if Latin Americans did not care about the stereotyping or they thought it was cute or thought this is the best we can expect from the USA on how they view us, or perhaps they were just so happy to have ANY recognition, they didn't care in what form? Perhaps I am grossly misjudging the 2 Latin package films and they are not that racist or stereotypical? (...)

I don't know, really. But, although it's good that people are sensitive about these things, I also guess it's very easy to get overly sensitive. Just because there are no doubt stereotypes in these films, I'd say there's no reason to see "ghosts" everywhere.

In "psychological linguistics" or whatever it's basically possibly to argue that stereotypization (is that a word?) is even a necessity for thought.

Bottom line: Don't worry about stereotypes unless they're dangerous. At least I'm not aware of any real critisism against Latin American stereotypes in these films.

As for books, I've read quite a lot on the subject and I could recommend several. What would you be interested in? Little books that are quickly read, "bricks" with hundreds of pages, books with a lot of pictures or few pictures?

[Pluto Region1]

During the 40s, animators were drafted as well, and since it took time to learn to animate, they had to do things quicker than they really wanted, essentially doing it just to get a product out there. That's why the package films were the meat-and-potatos films. It was enough to keep the business afloat. Also, as DPA said, the animated feature takes a long time to come to fruition. I think in Walt Disney: An American Original, it mentions that one of the problems with Pinocchio was it seemed like 3 different movies, because over the course of 3 years, they had 3 sets of directors, one director for each "third" of the movie.....

As for the financial hole, we could also look into Disney's foray into live-action films. Disney had a LOT of money in the European markets from their shorts and films, but couldn't reach it because of the war, essentially they could only use it in Europe. In 1950, they released Treasure Island, shot on location in England (using their assets and money there). That's probably where their income came from..... Escapay

Wow, well I don't know where to start! You guys are like walking historians on Disney and I do appreciate all your responses! Such amazing wealth of info from all of you, but I had a couple further questions on your answers so I'll start with Escapay's response here.

So you are saying that because there was a high turnover in animation due to the draft, Disney couldn't keep the same animators and directors around long enough to produce a feature length. Thus he had the situation occur with Pinocchio, where he has 3 different sets of directors and animators? Pinocchio came out in 1940 so it was probably underway just as USA got involved in the war and Disney just went ahead with it? Then he also must have had some of these same turnover problems with the crew who worked on Bambi as Bambi was released in 1942. And if he didn't have the money anymore I would assume then that Pinocchio and Bambi might be the later earlier animated classics that were referred to as not having such good box office receipts? So then he starts in with the meat and potatoes package films....?

Banjoboy also tried to expand on this, but I am still not clear: What do you mean he had alot of his money tied up in European markets - what shorts and films? I went to this website's page for pre-1980 life action but I don't see a list of films from the late 1930s that would fit this category. What films or shorts and why was he prevented from getting his revenue out of Europe? Was it revenue in Axis country banks or something? What are the European shorts or films?

Lars:

I'd be interested on reading any books about the history of the studio/Disney that goes into these topics specifically. I am just fascinated by the whole issue of how the studio made it from one film to the next on the financial seat of their pants, how Disney got so involved making propaganda films and how he was able to finance everything finally to become the success with Disneyland. Any books you might have read that focus on these issues?

As for the Latin stereotype issue, I myself would not have any problems with the films, but living in the USA today where you have to be soooo careful about offending anyone, I could easily picture a situation where the films came on the radar screen of some of the liberal professors here in USA who would make great political hay out of the portrayl of Latin Americans and/or their customs. It is interesting that this has not happened.

FYI, I just bought Saludos Amigos and Fun and Fancy Free, today. The store didn't have the Three Caballeros, but I think I saw it at the local Best Buy along with Make Mine Music when I was looking for the Disney tins last week. (They are also in stock with Amazon - no problem to obtain these and they don't come in dentable tins!)

[Lars Vermundsberget]

By the time Pinocchio was finished (early 1940) there was war in Europe, but America was not yet heavily involved. So I doubt the war made any problems for the actual production process at that time. But the European market was pretty much lost. Even more so with Fantasia that came out later that same year.

Bambi was a very difficult film - simply put because of great problems animating deer and other animals in a somewhat believable and naturalistic fashion. If it hadn't taken any longer than planned from the start, Bambi could have been Disney's second animated feature - not the fifth. By the time they finished it (1942), the problems were all there and they were in effect forced to go no further. Classic as it may be, they weren't able to make Bambi quite what they wanted it to be.

As for not so good box office receipts, all of the features from this period after Snow White somewhat suffered from that problem because of the market situation caused by the war. Compared to all this Dumbo (1941) was a financial success because it was technically simpler and cheaper to produce.

About money tied up in European markets: There were no "European" Disney films at this time, but a lot of money had been made in the European market. I don't know the details, but there was money, I'd guess first and foremost in banks in Great Britain, that suddenly was no longer allowed to be transferred out of the country because of the war effort. That situation lasted for several years after the war. Disney's solution was to start making live-action movies in Great Britain around 1950, such as Treasure Island, thus supporting the post-war re-building of Great Britain.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

As for the Latin stereotype issue, I myself would not have any problems with the films, but living in the USA today where you have to be soooo careful about offending anyone, I could easily picture a situation where the films came on the radar screen of some of the liberal professors here in USA who would make great political hay out of the portrayl of Latin Americans and/or their customs.

I understand that - I see where you're coming from, so to speak.

FYI, I just bought Saludos Amigos and Fun and Fancy Free, today. The store didn't have the Three Caballeros, but I think I saw it at the local Best Buy along with Make Mine Music when I was looking for the Disney tins last week. (They are also in stock with Amazon - no problem to obtain these and they don't come in dentable tins!)

The problem is that some of the package features have been more or less "mangled" on DVD. Worst of all MMM where a complete segment is missing.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

As for books, you may have a look at my Disney bibliography. I had a quick look and I can't really say that any of them deal specifically with the things we've discussed here. I guess I've found some pieces of info here, some there. One I'd like to recommend for most purposes is this one:

Watts, Steven. The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American way of life. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

It's 400+ pages, not a lot of pictures, "serious" book, well worth reading. One part with several chapters deals with the problems of the 1940s.



Disney Bibliography


Allan, Robin. Walt Disney and Europe. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Bell, Elizabeth, Lynda Haas and Laura Sells (editors). From Mouse to Mermaid: the Politics of Film, Gender and Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995.

Canemaker, John. Before the animation begins. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Canemaker, John. Paper Dreams: The Art and Artists of Disney Storyboards. New York: Hyperion, 1999.

Canemaker, John. Treasures of Disney Animation Art. New York: Abbeville, 1982.

Canemaker, John. Walt Disney’s Nine Old Men and the Art of Animation. New York: Disney Editions, 2001.

Cotter, Bill. The Wonderful World of Disney Television. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Culhane, John. Fantasia 2000: Vision of Hope. New York: Disney Editions, 1999.

Culhane, John. Walt Disney’s Fantasia. Reprint. Originally published: New York: Abrams, 1983.

Eisner, Michael D. (foreword). Walt Disney Imagineering. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince. New York: Birch Lane Press, 1993.

Fanning, Jim (text). The Disney Poster: From Mickey Mouse to Aladdin. New York: Hyperion, 1993.

Feild, Robert D. The Art of Walt Disney. New York: Macmillan, 1942.

Ferraiuolo, Perucci. Disney and the Bible. Camp Hill, PA: Horizon Books, 1996.

Finch, Christopher. The Art of The Lion King. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Finch, Christopher. The Art of Walt Disney. New York: Abrams, 1973.

Finch, Christopher. The Art of Walt Disney. Updated edition. New York: Abrams, 1995.

Fjellman, Stephen M. Vinyl Leaves: Walt Disney World and America. Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview, 1992.

Giroux, Henry A. The mouse that roared: Disney and the end of innocence. Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Grant, John. Encyclopedia of Walt Disney’s Animated Characters. New York: Hyperion, 1993.

Green, Howard E. The Tarzan Chronicles. New York: Hyperion, 1999.

Hiaasen, Carl. Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World. New York: Ballantine, 1998.

Holliss, Richard and Brian Sibley. The Disney Studio Story. London: Octopus, 1988.

Hurter, Albert. He Drew As He Pleased. Intr. Ted Sears. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948.

Iwerks, Leslie and John Kenworthy. The Hand behind The Mouse. New York: Disney Editions, 2001.

Johnston, Ollie and Frank Thomas. The Disney Villain. New York: Hyperion, 1993.

Koenig, David. More Mouse Tales: A closer peek backstage at Disneyland. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1999.

Koenig, David. Mouse Tales: A behind-the-ears look at Disneyland. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1994, 1995.

Koenig, David. Mouse Under Glass: Secrets of Disney Animation and Theme Parks. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1997.

Krause, Martin and Linda Witkowski. Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: An Art in Its Making. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Kurtti, Jeff. The Art of Mulan. New York: Hyperion, 1998.

Kurtti, Jeff. Since The World Began: Walt Disney World – The First 25 Years. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Lambert, Pierre. Mickey Mouse. New York: Hyperion, 1998.

Lambert, Pierre. Pinocchio. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Maltin, Leonard (forord). Disneys samlede filmplakater. Oslo: Damm, 2003.

Maltin, Leonard. The Disney Films. 3rd edition. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Marling, Karal Ann (editor). Designing Disney’s Theme Parks: The Architecture of Reassurance. Paris and New York: Flammarion, 1997.

Merritt, Russell and J. B. Kaufman. Walt in Wonderland. Gemona (Italy): Le Giornate del Cinema Muto / La Cineteca del Friuli, 1993.

Mosley, Leonard. Disney’s World. Lanham, MD: Scarborough House, 1990.

Rebello, Stephen. The Art of Pocahontas. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Rebello, Stephen. The Art of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Rebello, Stephen and Jane Healey. The Art of Hercules: The Chaos of Creation. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Schickel, Richard. The Disney Version. 3rd edition. Chicago: Elephant Paperback / Ivan R. Dee, 1997.

Schweizer, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer. Disney: The Mouse Betrayed. Washington, D. C.: Regnery Publishing, 1998.

Sherman, Robert B. and Richard M. Sherman. Walt’s Time: from before to beyond. Santa Clarita, CA: Camphor Tree Publishers, 1998.

Smith, Dave. Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Solomon, Charles. The Disney That Never Was. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Taylor, Deems. Walt Disney’s Fantasia. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940.

Thomas, Bob. The Art of Animation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958.

Thomas, Bob. Building a company: Roy O. Disney and the creation of an entertainment empire. New York: Hyperion, 1998.

Thomas, Bob. Disney’s Art of Animation from Mickey Mouse to Hercules. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Thomas, Bob. Walt Disney: An American Original. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Thomas, Frank and Ollie Johnston. Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life. New York: Abbeville, 1981.

Thomas, Frank and Ollie Johnston. Too Funny for Words. New York: Abbeville, 1987.

Thomas, Frank and Ollie Johnston. Walt Disney’s Bambi. New York: Stewart, Tabori and Chang, 1990.

Watts, Steven. The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American way of life. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

[Escapay]

So you are saying that because there was a high turnover in animation due to the draft, Disney couldn't keep the same animators and directors around long enough to produce a feature length. Thus he had the situation occur with Pinocchio, where he has 3 different sets of directors and animators? Pinocchio came out in 1940 so it was probably underway just as USA got involved in the war and Disney just went ahead with it?

[snip]

So then he starts in with the meat and potatoes package films....?

The high turnover in animation due to the draft did effect the studios, but eventually that's what prompted the meat and potatoes films of the mid/late 40s. I can't quite remember the specifics, but essentially they were training people in animation, some got very good, but were drafted and their talent lost in the war. So rather than train new-and-draftable animators for the big pictures, they were put on package features, since those were short enough to get done within a year as opposed to full-length pictures which took 3 years minimum. The non-draftable animators who were still at the studios, though, were assigned to the bigger pictures.

As for Pinocchio's production woes, I probably should have been more clear. Pinocchio, a great film, was divided essentially into three parts during production. The first third of the movie, the second third, and the final third, essentially. To get the entire film done, Disney had three different production teams working solely on the part they were assigned, with a director for each team. Pinocchio itself went through many changes during pre-production, at one point they dropped it all and started from scratch again. Also, 1940 was simply the year it came out, much of its production was in the late 30s, most likely in pre-production while Snow White was in post-production. Watching Pinocchio, it's noticeable to see how the film is 3 stories in one movie. Each production team concentrated only on their "third" of the movie.

Zulu, King of the Dwarf People

[Pluto Region1]

The high turnover in animation due to the draft did effect the studios, but eventually that's what prompted the meat and potatoes films of the mid/late 40s. I can't quite remember the specifics, but essentially they were training people in animation, some got very good, but were drafted and their talent lost in the war. So rather than train new-and-draftable animators for the big pictures, they were put on package features, since those were short enough to get done within a year as opposed to full-length pictures which took 3 years minimum. The non-draftable animators who were still at the studios, though, were assigned to the bigger pictures.

That clears it up, thanks Escapay. Makes perfect sense to put the guys who might go to war on short turn-around projects and non-draftable personnel on the long-term projects. It must have been a crazy deal living through thos times and essentially for Disney not knowing when he was going to loose someone to the war effort, and at the same time the studio was putting out all the war cartoons etc.

Thanks Lars for that long list of books! After I had posted here asking for any recommendations, I poked around this website and there's a page here that discusses Disney books so between your list and the likely reviews of some of them, I am sure I'll be able to find the book that will help in this area.

Thanks again!

[Escapay]

Koenig, David. More Mouse Tales: A closer peek backstage at Disneyland. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1999.

Koenig, David. Mouse Tales: A behind-the-ears look at Disneyland. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1994, 1995.

Koenig, David. Mouse Under Glass: Secrets of Disney Animation and Theme Parks. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1997.

Thomas, Bob. Walt Disney: An American Original. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Those four I highly recommend, mainly because I own them, lol.

Walt Disney: An American Original should quite simply be required reading for anyone who is a Disney fan. Kram has my copy, grr, and I wanna read it again just as a refresher course.

Zulu, King of the Dwarf People