"The Rescuers Down Under" - The Unfortunate, Actual Disney Sequel That Was Hampered By Not Being Pulled Up From It's Ground

Hi folks! Welcome to My Own Personal Nerdy Scrutinizing Disney and Animation Analyses blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are meant to be my analyses only. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries is meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies. 

Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.

And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I  hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize. 

 

Since I've pretty much have written entries about all of the Disney animated features from the 1990's, I thought I could write for one overlooked movie that happens to have a synergy with it's title (no offense, Australians). As I've written several entries about cheapquels, this entry will be a redemption for those entries :)

Yes, they're so tiny that they're so down below that they can't even be seen :)

Here we have The Rescuers Down Under! It's needless to cite it`s history and position in Disney history, but here we go; It's the overlooked movie from what's technically been the actual Disney Renaissance. Released between the two Disney fairy tale adaptations that broke themold and invigorated the way (there's no need to mention which ones, haha), Rescuers Down Under was unfortunately hampered by badcircumstances. It made little on it's initial opening ($ 5 million), which is why Jeffrey Katzenberg decided to take off it's advertising (to the dismay to director Mike Gabriel and producer Thomas Schumaker). 

Just look at them 
and don't eat them :)

Why is mostly why Resuers Down Under is rarely credited among the Renaissance Fabulous Four, nor promoted amongst them in advertising or trailers (both at it's time and afterwards). For those who've
read my previous entries, I've said that I preferred Down Under growing up (at least pre-The Lion King), Mostly since it appealed to me more than the others (despite that I'll confess that I was a guy that had a fetish for girly things). And as a kid I thought it unfair that Down Under never received the same amount of praise and attention.

We've changed our gender
traits, since the female is
supposed to be scared :)

Down Under was also the very first picture made by then new-Florida Animation Studios, who contributed ten minutes of the film (the rest was completed in Burbank). Mark Hehn was thrilled to animate the two tiny leads (alongside with Dave Pruiksma). As well as the villain Percival McLeach, who he looked at voice actor George Scott performance in Dr. Strangelove for inspiration (though Frank Welker did his singing). Though it's rumored that Clint Eastwood and John Mahoney were considered for the part of McLeach.

The Rescuers Down Under`s Sequel Position and How It Shaped the Non-Sequel Policy

 

We were cloned by witchcraft :)

It's needless to say that The Rescuers Down Under was a rarity in the 90's lineup and in Disney animation in general. It was a rare full-length sequel to a Disney animated movie at the time (yet according to the directors, they didn't perceive it as a sequel and rather saw it as it`s own movie, according to Animation Magazine Fall 1990 edition).  

It's needless to summarize Walt Disney's aforementioned policy against sequels, so we'll leave it at that. Of course the unfortunate reception of it was a major factor why Disney decided to not make more theatrical full-length sequels afterwards. However, it's needless to say we've had actual full-length sequels to a couple of the Revival hits.  

But since we're talking about Disney sequels, at least Down Under has a higher ratings than the general Disney cheapquels and is perceived to be superior to them (for obvious reasons, duuh, since Down Under is more polished and better made). So fortunately it doesn't have a dud stamp. Yet unfortunately Down Under is still rated below it's Renaissance counterparts. 

Down Under was also released with The Prince and the Pauper short. Chosen by Katzenberg in order to release Down Under with something else (which coincidentally enough was the final film to use the traditional ink and paint and camera process). But for some reason Pauper wasn`t in my screening when I saw the movie theatrically.

 

  

Behind the Scenes Information 

 

Among the 1990's canon, The Rescuers Down Under is a departure. For being a straight foward action-adventure movie (and therefore non-musical). And not relying too much on the components that the rest of the Disney Renaissance would blatantly recycle. The epic scope was a conscious choice, inspired from live actions filmmakers as Alfred Hitchock, Orson Welles and David Lean (apparently Gabriel was urged to reduce his enthusiasm by Premiere Magazine when he described it's epic scale in their Fall 90's edition of Premiere Magazine). 

And also inspired by the multilevel effects from Bambi. As the usual production schedule of animation, Down Under had a four year-production (the muted colors were a conscious choice, for it's setting. The characters were put some texture to them by tone mats and shadows. For blending them with the backgrounds). Since Down Under has been semi-ignored, it would be easy to assume that it was the very first non-musical film from the Disney. But it wasn't (The Black Cauldron was). But at least Down Under was the only one among the 90`s (while the domestic release didn't have an end credit single, the French version had one). 

The score was conducted by Bruce Broughton, who was chosen for his work in Silverado. It's rumored that Broughton turned down the already scheduled Home Alone to Down Under. He recorded three or four cues before scoring session, while also scoring for another animated property at the time; Tiny Toons Adventures. Broughton would later on score for the Rhapsody in Blue sequence in Fantasia 2000. The non-musical choice was made before Broughton came alon). He would also score for another Disney property, the 1993 remake of Homeward Bound; The Incredible Journey. Katzenberg wanted the score to have an ethnic Australian feel, while instruments from other continents were used.

Without them, I couldn't 
have lifted my hair :)

It's funny to think that the following animal movie, The Lion King, would actually be a musical. And being hugely successful, but also being the second animal movie in that era. Yet at least three following films after Down Under would rely on outdoors settings; Pocahontas (who Mike Gabriel also directed. While he initially turned down Down Under, since he didn't found it appealing and disliked doing a sequel, according to Animation Magazine) and Tarzan. 
The Disney crew went to Australia for research, suggested by Thomas
Schumaker (who claims in The Art of Mulan book that he practically invented those research trips). Yet the crew still used the San Diego Zoo of California and Peregrine Fund in Boise, Idaho for research. And the mice the Florida team used for reference became the studio's pet mouses. 1. million drawings was made on this picture and Joe Ranft, who would later on become a Pixar storyboard guy, was one of the storyguys.

Comparisons to It`s Renaissance Counterparts and It`s Predecessor

 

Nice try to hide it, 
I wasn't born yesterday :)

The genre made The Rescuers Down Under probably even more invigorating than it's 90's counterparts. But perhaps it could've blended with the features released in the 80`s, since they were mostly animal-movies. It would be easy to compare Down Under to other non-Disney properties at the time (The Land Before Time, An American Tail), but we'll leave it at that. Down Under lives up to it's genre, but actually gives plenty of room for comedy as well. Mostly slapstick and situational comedy. Mostly by Joanna, McLeach's pet lizard and Orville`s replacer, Wilbur. 

And sure guys, it's inevitable to compare Down Under to it's predecessor (preceded 13 years earlier). But Down Under is indeed a departure from it. Whereas the original The Rescuers was somber and gloomier both visually and in tone, the sequel is more breezier, sweeping and fun. It's remarkable that few of the characters from the original movie returned to the sequel. With the exception of our titular love and the Chairmouse from Rescue Aid Society (funny enough, one of the random mice among the crew is named Esmeralda, haha). 

Of course I know they're not
pillows. But I was forced to try
them ;)

Orville is replaced by John Candy's Wilbur, since Orville's voice actor, Jim Jordan, died in 1988 (twhile a unsuccessful mimic of Orville was made). Roy Disney suggested Wilbur, since he and Orville were named after the Wright brothers (whil Steve Martin, Art Carney and Dan Aykroyd were considered for the part). Of course the gender roles of the villain and the child have been switched (duuh), though we could assume that it wasn't a coincidental choice, though. To balance the differences between the two films more.

The Plotlines, Characters & An Original Storyline Which Wasn`t Based From The Original Rescuers Stories

I'm forgetting that we're not in the 
Victorian era, so forgive my manners :)

The story of Down Under is a simple and conventional one. It's about a rescue mission of two characters, the Australian lad Cody and his majestic eagle friend Marahute from McLeach (despite how George Scott was an animal lover in real life). Alongside with the archetypal "kid bonds with an animal" plotline.  

Down Under also has the subplot of Bernard trying to propose to Miss Bianca (something that the storyteam from the original The Rescuers wanted, which was a subplot which was given to Kristoff in Frozen II). And having Bernard to compete with their guide in the outbacks, the kangaroo rat Jake. 

Voiced by Tristan Rogers, the second actual Aussie actor on the film, besides an voice over (Rogers had to train to get his Aussie accent back again after having lost it). Our titular duo are just as protagonists as Cody (voiced by Norwegian Adam Ryen, who also provided the Norwegian dub). Yet it's remarkable that our tiny leads appears late in the film. The subplot of Bernard's failed attempts to propose is more conventional and straightforward than their epic mission and frankly less engaging (in my opinion).

But it's not the only subplot; They also competes with the one of Wilbur escaping the hospital. And the  parts of with the animals captured in McLeach's dungeon, among them the restless Frank (apparently this movie, alongside with other Disney properties, have a blend of naturalistic and anthropomorphized animals. But also having a difference between who gets to talk and who don't).

 

The rare-giant Marahute was supervised by Glen Keane, who was initially oblivious about birds. And studied about six eagles and worked about a year on those scenes with her. He animated the flying scenes to Aaron Copland's Fanfare To The Common Man. But at least Cody and Marahute's relationship is affectionate and sincere (obviously Disney have incorporated artistic license with creating an jumbo eagle). The same can be said about the heroic trials of the timid Bernard, who saves the day (the crew wanted the acting to be the most sincere ever made at Disney Animation Studios). 

Brag about this Midas 
feather to your friends :)

Of course one thing purists could whine about (don't thank me for thatidea, guys, haha) is why Disney made up an entirely new storyline and didn't adapt one from the existing Margery Sharp stories. We could ponder about this forever, but let's have a civil time here, shall we? It's rumored that Disney wanted a third film in the lineup in 1996. But was scrapped when Eva Gabor died in 1995 (Bob Newhart cited that his new takes weren't going to be different when he was actually asked to re-record them in Down Under).

 

The Rescuers Down Under`s Position in Disney History & Technical Innovations

Of course the underperformance of The Rescuers Down Under's is a major reason for why there's so little trivia about it. And why Disney historians gives it little credit and recognition. Unfortunately Disney have a tendency to give less attention to their lesser known pictures (it's a logical choice, guys, but of course an unfortunate one). And it's certainly a challenge to write an entry about a film which has minimum information about it. But hey, I`ve decided to take the risk.

However, Down Under is still credited by Disney historians for being the very first feature to be made entirely on CAPS (which worried Schumaker, since CAPS was not used to make a short prior to make a full-length feature). CAPS was made from the crew at Pixar at the time. Down Under was the very first digital movie ever made in Hollywood. It was first used as a test on The Little Mermaid, but just on some parts.  

But the 3D effect and sweeping camera is clearly evident on this movie. As in the breathtaking opening titles and the flying sequences (the first one being a tight collaboration between composer Broughton and Glen Keane, where they considered to use a boys choir on the sequence) Which even Mulan would (mostly unconsciously) try to emulate with the Hun charge scene on the snowy mountains. And yes, I know this is a shallow anecdote, but I'll say this; The introductory scene with Pocahontas on the cliff, when the camera swoops up on her, actually made me immediately think that Pocahontas was made by the same directing team as Down Under when I saw Pocahontas theatrically.

Epilogue

I'm a modern 
version of Scream :)

It would be tempting to make this entry about the exact reason why The Rescuers Down Under underperformed (besides it's low initial grossing and undermarketing). And sure, it would've fueled an interesting debate, but I think that I'll leave it for now. Some theories have been that it faced much competition, with Home Alone and Rocky V. However, it's still a pity that Down Under underperformed and that it never managed to gain a huge audience on it's initial release. Even the soundtrack was drawn back from the market afterwards. Yet it`s still highly regarded by it's relatively small fangroup, who praises the film for what it is. And deservedly so.   

Perhaps nostalgia has tricked with my memories for my fondness for the film. But it's good film, nonetheless. It's a film that genuinely deserves the recognition that it deserves and it's a worthy addition to the Disney Renaissance. I remember seeing it theatrically during it's release and highly enjoying both the action and the comedy. And I gave it various rewatches when I finally received it on VHS a couple of years later after it`s Theatrical release. 

So in the end, The Rescuers Down Under is stuck with two underwhelming stamps; For being a sequel and a Box Office failure. But at least the former isn't a negative stamp, as it doesn`t prevents it for being a fine and engaging movie. It would be tempting to quote Doug Walker's (aka Nostalgia Critic) words about it; That it should've been elevated to a greater success. So that's really the best we can do about it and let's hope that this sequel will someday receive a bigger audience in the future.

Of course we can't duck completely under, we're instructed by the title. Duuh :)

 

 

 

Rescue my updates on https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100035703494050 and https://twitter.com/NerdyLunada.

References:
The Art of Walt Disney; From Mickey Mouse and to the Magic Kingdoms and Beyond. (Christopher Finch)
Disney's Art of Animation; From Mickey Mouse to Hercules (Bob Thomas).
Animation Magazine Volume 4, Fall 1990. 
Waking Sleeping Beauty DVD
The Rescuers Down Under DVD (The Making of The Rescuers Down Under).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince_and_the_Pauper_(1990_film)#cite_note-1 
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-rescuers-down-under/39174/the-rescuers-down-under-the-lost-film-of-the-disney-renaissance
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rescuers_down_under/reviews/?type=user 
http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32040
http://animatedviews.com/2009/oliver-co-animator-dave-pruiksma/
animatedviews.com/2015/animation-visionary-glen-keane-talks-about-nephtali/
http://animatedviews.com/2009/the-princess-and-the-frog-supervising-animator-mark-henn-part-1-it-all-started-with-a-mermaid/
http://animatedviews.com/2012/down-under-with-rescuers-composer-bruce-broughton/
https://moviechat.org/tt0100477/The-Rescuers-Down-Under
http://web.archive.org/web/20030402025523/http://www.animated-movies.net:80/TheRescuersDownUnder.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100477/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100477/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_2
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Rescuers-Down-Under-The#tab=summary
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-fully-digital-feature-film/
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-11/entertainment/ca-8259_1_animated-character
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-21/entertainment/ca-406_1_rescue-aid-society
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4027283.html
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-11-19/lifestyle/9011180479_1_rescuers-bernard-and-miss-miss-bianca
http://www.animationmagazine.net/features/mike-gabriel-talks-oscar-nominee-lorenzo/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rescuers_Down_Under
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmSYuIJ_txw
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/The_Prince_and_the_Pauper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4gG55L_mpY 
https://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Meet-Margaret-Kerry-The-Woman-Who-Gave-Tinker-Bell-Wings-189451441.html