Animation Source Forums

This is a little something I've noticed. And I'm not the only one, I'm sure!

Now, is it just me, or is this not right? Some cartoonists try to make the cartoon form resemble the "original" specimen at least a little. Let alone, I was told by several people who researched the "Real" Balto that he didn't have any wolf blood in him at all.



There, we have, the "real" Balto. Now, compare this to the "Cartoonish" Balto:



I, literally, don't see an ounce of differences. What, yes, he does have the leg marks, but does that mean anything? A lot of canines have marks upon their legs/toes. I guess you can say the "eye-marks" are similar.

Honestly, why I think Universal animated Balto this way, was to stress the fact of the wolf in him. Let alone, to make him look more "wolfish".

What is your opinion? Was Universal right to "alter" the true Balto, or should they have left him as he was when they animated him?

Well, the cartoons aren't meant to resemble reality, really. Also, Balto was drawn differently because if you are to draw all animals anatomically correct, a cartoon could just as well be a movie featuring dogs barking instead of talking (so we watchers can undertsand though). However, I agree they don't look a lot alike, but the story is still the same.

Sounds like Universal Studios might have called some trouble. Can you imagine what would happen if Jack London saw the movie and recognized it?

I don't think they look anything alike. The real Balto's fur was black, but after time his fur turned brown. Balto was of corse much smaller then the animated Balto.

I think it would be just fine that they made changes if they had made it clear that those changes were not to be taken as historically accurate. The place where they crossed the line as far as I see it was putting on the box, "The True Story of an American Hero." They should have thrown in a feature on the DVD telling the real story or something.[/i]

I like Balto the way he his and the movie wouldn't be the same if he wasn't half wolf, but I do wonder what he would be like his original look. But here are some reasons that I think they made Balto half wolf;

First, Possibly to make the story more "interesting", though he would be as interesting the way he is some may complain, but we wouldn't have the same story or conflict towards Balto really.

The real Balto is pure black with patches of white. Black would be hard to get right for the film. Balto is quite a dark film and the colour black wouldn't stand out, so another colour would have to be choosen and I guess the easiest way without changing Balto's husky look entirely, they just made him a wolf dog. I think that would be the main reason really, but I could be wrong, we will never really know the reason why they made Balto half wolf.

I love White Fang, book and film, and I can happily say I see hardly any resemblence between Balto and White Fang except for the fact that they are both half wolf. When it quotes in Kessies post,

This is completely different from the way Balto has trouble finding his place, completely different. I know both quite well and I can say there is not many similarities there, sorry. If Jack London was alive to see Balto, I very much doubt he would find much alike to his own book.

okay, They didn't use the real balto as a model but, this dog right here is balto's model for the movie.

Could you give some evidence to this? A link? Thanks
You could be right as the orginal Balto sketchs and storyboards have those markings or "Alue" face markings but they were changed. Though you would think they would use the real Balto anyway...

Holy Moly.
That is so true.
I've always seen that.

Well, no, the cartoon Balto looks nothing like the real Balto. In real life, he was black with a white chest and white legs. (His stuffed body is brown today because of aging and because of sun bleaching. The staff at the Cleveland Museum tried to keep him black, but they couldn't) The reason why the cartoon Balto looks so different is because they had to make him look like he was half wolf.

Anyway, about your question. I've wondered quite a few times on whether they should have made him half wolf or not, and really, i'm not sure. I mean, i guess i would have liked it if they at least acknowlaged the real Balto for who and what he really was, but then again the plot might not have been as interesting. Besides, i like the movie just as it is. It's been one of my absolute favorites since it came out when i was only five years old.

Nobody knows why Balto was made half wolf, but the film scripted "Based on a true story", that means the main plot line is mostly real (Diptheria hit Nome, 1925 ect.), but a lot is made up. It actually discribes at the very end of the credits that a lot is fictional. But I totally agree, I don't know what it would be like if it was more like the real story, but I love it the way it is!

If you are wondering about 'achnowledge-ments', there are other "hidden" similarites between the true story and the film. You can read about it in BaltoSeppala's topic here on the board, feel welcome to discuss or ask questions there if you like:
http://baltosource.timduru.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=13985
Or an article I did some time ago on what things in the film might have been based on the true story, take a look if you are interested: http://baltosource.timduru.org/balto-act-b1articles-ong-1-deb-20-display-20-numg-619.html

Yeah, these images are from, Timduru.org