Animation Source Forums

I get that they inserted a lot of fictional characters like boris, muk & luk, jena, etc. to appeal to children and all that, but what about the real characters?

was steele being portrayed as an antagonist necessary? the film already had nature as the antagonist. what was steeles purpose? was he just a glory hound? we see later that he tried leading balto and the sled dogs to a lost path. did he not care what happened to his village? was his care for "getting the medicine back to the children" act in front of jenna just a facade to hook up with her?

I digress. I honestly think the polar bears and jenna were unnecessary. not that I don't like jenna because I do, I just think its a little disrespectful that they threw in card board cut outs to replace the real heroes. like the musher, and all the other dogs that helped during the run. not just balto.

so my question is; why? why not have togo and fritz in there? fritz and togo would replace star or katlaang and be the supporting dogs who would try and keep the others in cheek, togo would be more of the fictional balto (the one in this movie) and be the buddy/rival/mentor of balto, and balto would be the unconfined but hard worker who'd grow and change in the end.

what do you think?

That's a nice thought and all, and I see where you are going. But really, why further disrupt the historical facts by misrepresenting Fritz and Togo's roles in the real events by adding them to the fictional Balto's team? I mean, I know your intent is in the right place here, and I appreciate that. But Universal Studios and Amblimation already did enough to botch the actual historical events and their record with the existing movie. They would have done an even greater disservice to the facts, and to the dogs represented, by throwing Togo and Fritz haphazardly into the mix in historically-inaccurate roles. Don't you think?

It would have been far better had they not screwed with the timeline, the musher, the dogs, and the rest of the facts. Granted, there would have been no value in making an animated documentary, but there would have been plenty of room for paying service to the real history, in an animated cartoon for children, without throwing the proverbial book out the door.

Or, as the late, hilarious comedian Mitch Hedberg said on the last CD of his material ever released ("Do You Believe In Gosh?"):

"I like when they say a movie is inspired by a true story, because that's weird; it means the movie is not a true story, it was just inspired by a true story. Like, hey Mitch, did you hear the story about that lady who drove her children into the river and they all drowned? Yes I did, and it inspired me to write a movie about a gorilla!"

You two have a good argument.

you bring up excellent point cap. granted the movie did make me want to read more into the history and of course was flabbergasted by the absence of jenna and steel. then I grew to love the real story than the movie. togo was a lot like fictional balto, and when I heard he was the one who ran the most I immediately thought "steel". I honestly think they replaced togo with steel. while fictional balto WAS togo with the name balto.

perhaps I misplaced togo and fritz in my main post. the main thing that would help the dogs get through the blizzard would be teamwork. not just "part wolf dues ex machina derp", i get what the movie was trying to say to the kids. the dogs made fun of balto because he was different. ok sure. but that difference shouldn't have mattered, instead it treats this balto's like some power up that got him out of a pinch. which brings me to my next question; why did they make balto part wolf? the original story had nothing to do with wolves so why make that connection? simple. to make balto relate to some kids who've been bullied because they're different. am I correct?

again, i enjoy the movie, and I appreciate it for not shoehorning in any musical numbers, but the majority of the characters and the supporting cast seem forgettable.

I loved the character Steele in the movie (not the first time someone compared Steele to Togo), but JerseyCaptain has a point with Amblimation/Universal trying to be historically accurate. Often times, historically correct films do not necessarily make compelling stories, and therefore are not always very profitable. There are exceptions to the rule but I do not believe it would have worked out in this case. Besides, the true story of Balto w Either way, the film is based more on fiction than on fact.

Well, firstly let me say that one thing I DO like about "based on a true story" movies, no matter how badly they botch the history they are allegedly "based upon", they do often inspire people to check out that true story after the fact. Just as it did with you and, believe it or not, just as it did with me (I found this movie before I ever knew a scrap of information about the real history of the 1925 Nome serum run or the Alaska Gold Rush which preceded it).

The aspect of Balto being the shunned stray living on the fringes of Nome, being teased by the other dogs, I think, reflects upon the historical Leonhard Seppala's anger and frustration over the real historical Balto gaining all of the attention in the newspapers and newsreels following the events of the serum run and, worse still, being credited with Togo's accomplishments as a racing and hard-working legendary lead dog. And that, before the serum run, the historical Balto was never viewed as worthy of much beyond hard freighting work and drudgery on Seppala's "scrap team"...his slower, less perfectly-built dogs. Seppala himself made mention of Balto being relegated to that role well before the serum run and that he really wasn't much of a sled dog (a viewpoint which Gunnar Kaasen, the musher of Balto's team, strongly disagreed with, proving so when he gave Balto the chance to lead without having had any such experience).

Your theory as to why they made Balto part wolf is interesting, as the real dog most certainly WAS a Siberian husky. However, yours seems to be the only time I have ever seen that theory tossed into the mix. Usually it comes down, for most people, to simply trying to give the character a source for the conflict with which he is saddled during the movie (and the subsequent sequels as well). I don't know if the real reason was ever stated conclusively, but it sure has created a belief, among many people who had seen the movie (even some authors of childrens AND historical books, sadly) that the real Balto was a wolfdog, which he most certainly was not. He didn't even look anything like the fictional Balto. (My fan character on here comes the closest, so far as I can tell, to the historical Balto: http://www.animationsource.org/balto/en/chars/Balto_JerseyCaptain/18952.html)

As to the merits of not shoehorning in any musical numbers, you certainly won't get any argument from me there. I HATE when production companies do that with cartoon movies! (With but a pitifully-few exceptions. And NEITHER of the Balto sequels would qualify!)


Well, while I agree with that point of view, that was not the point I was trying to make. And actually, if anything, Universal and Amblimation didn't seem to try very hard at all to be historically-accurate. At least, that's how I interpreted what you said. Unless you meant to say that I was saying they weren't trying. It wasn't very clear from what you typed.

What I think was going on was that the crew said something along the lines of, "Ok, so in real life there's a dog named Balto considered to be the hero of Nome in Serum Run. That could make a good movie."

And so from there, they proceeded to make all the characters and the plot and blah.

Like JerseyCaptain mentioned in his first post, being inspired by a true story doesn't mean the movie IS a true story.

The movie was aimed towards a younger audience. They had a clear character antagonist and a "love interest" for Balto because that's what kids are used to in movies and that interests them much more than just a plain retelling of the facts. They needed to take the ideas of the real story and morph them into an enjoyable movie plot with connectable characters.

Yes, they could have used Togo and Fritz had they wanted to, but it would have led to a different movie. The reason they added characters such as Steele, Jenna, Boris, Muk and Luk, etc., was to add a more friendly, even typical approach to the story and to better appeal to kids, which the movie was aimed towards. It's a little bit like some of the Disney fairy tales--if you go and read the actual tales, many of them are much more gruesome than the animated versions. Disney changed and edited them as desired in order to appeal to younger viewers. The biggest difference is that Balto was based off a true story rather than an existing fairy tale.

They made him part wolf for the same reason: to make it more appealing, as well as to add a sense of conflict to the movie. One of the common struggles for protagonists in films is to get past being different and being bullied about it, and it often gives the audience a sense of sympathy for that character, making the character overall more likeable. Adding the wolf heritage was their way for doing that for Balto.



...Basically, they made the changes they did in order to make the story more interesting as a children's movie.

I think you guys are misinterpreting the context of my first post, as is evident in this second comment of this kind. Allow me to clarify my first post so that it is crystal clear.

I said:


In the first paragraph, the overriding point is that it would have been preferable, in my point of view, if Amblimation and Universal Studios had not screwed with the timeline, the musher, the dogs and the rest of the facts. In simpler language, had they not screwed with history so badly in this story. Some tweaking and bending of the facts is one thing...what they did in this movie is quite another, as the resulting movie only has the vaguest passing resemblance in its storyline to what actually occurred, and to the players involved.

In the second paragraph, I sort of drive that point home using Mitch Hedberg's pointed but tongue-in-cheek criticism of how Hollywood uses the "inspired by" ("based on") a true story as a means of eggregious dramatic and poetic license for the sake of the writer, the director and the actors. It's not something I hold in very high regard (in fact, generally-speaking, I think it stinks).

Not to seem rude, but are we all clear on this now?

To continue...



And yet, while there certainly were a couple of isolated cases of serum run teams encountering difficulties with tangled lines and even scuffles between dogs (which is not terribly uncommon when you have dogs tied up in close quarters together), and even a few injuries and even deaths of dogs (and injuries of mushers) during the actual serum run...all due to the exigencies of the climate and terrain (and the handling of a team by a musher in one or two cases), there was no case of one dog actively hostile to any other dog in any team (be it his own or any other), as was the case with Steele and his hatred towards, and treatment of, Balto. Or of his active efforts to mislead his own team when Balto was leading it. That aspect of the Balto movie demonstrated more callousness and violence by a character than was ever evident in any participant in the real serum run.


I don't get this view that some people have that making the Balto character a wolfdog somehow made him "more appealing" (and I have seen that said before on this fan site). The conflict angle I get. And I agree with that. But anyone who isn't indifferent to learning the real history, or doesn't have a "couldn't be bothered" approach TO learning it, would find that the real story has as much of an appealing and compelling series of events and players as anything cranked out in the fictional movie. In fact, in many instances, it was more fascinating and tense than the movie. Just as the real Balto is quite an appealing dog...and has had his own ups and downs in his life.

Sooner or later, Balto fans in general ought to come to terms with this. Granted, I have seen many Balto movie fans walk down that road...but so many don't, and would rather cling to the notions and misinformation perpetrated by (or "inspired by") the movie. And that is unfortunate.

"a dog cannot make this journey alone" -boris

that one sentence said it for me.

in my opinion, everyone involved in that serum sled team were heroes. NOT just balto, not just togo. yet this movie portrayed balto as the end all be all hero who did everything by himself. I know, the movie couldn't set up all the team as characters for the audience to care about them. but thats why I think the polar bears were unnecessary. give some to take some you know?

now I don't remember saying this was supposed to be telling the real story. I get the concept of "inspired by", if that was directed at me that is.

I feel that Togo and Fritz were not included in the movie simply because the producers considered them too minor. There was almost nowhere they could appear in the story, as it mainly centered around Balto, so the producers just ignored the dogs' existence.
All the dogs were heroes, but Balto received all the credit simply for being the first one to cross the "finish line." He didn't run the farthest; he was not the only dog in the run--or even in his team. He wasn't even the first lead dog on his team, but he is the most well-known. Had it been Fox or Sye--or even Montoc for that matter--Balto would have become little more than a name.

I think I agree with Origamist here. Balto IS the hero afterall (even though the real one wasn't part wolf).

I don't know that anyone accused you of that. I certainly didn't.


I doubt very much the producers considered them too minor. Frankly, I think, to the general public, Fritz was an unknown quantity. Togo would have been otherwise. But that he was "too minor"? I think you're dismissing this way out of hand and far too easily.

Actually, historical evidence clearly indicates that Gunnar Kaasen selected and went with Balto from the very beginning. Only some unsubstantiated newspaper account, allegedly, makes reference to him starting with another dog (probably Fox) and then switching to Balto during the run. No. Not so. Newspapers are notoriously unreliable sources.

Actually, had Gunnar Kaasen stopped at the Point Safety Roadhouse and knocked on the door, no matter the hour and regardless of whether or not (as he said it) the windows were dark at the time, both Balto and he would have been relegated to a back seat, at best, in the historical record. Or forgotten almost entirely, whereas the lead dog of musher Ed Rohn (who was waiting for Kaasen at the Point Safety Roadhouse, and who may or may not have been asleep at the time), a dog whose name is entirely unknown in the publicly-accessible historical record, would have been "the hero dog of Nome", and who would have topped the monument in Central Park in New York City, and who would have eventually had an animated movie named after him...after it turned him into a wolf dog.


Absolutely, positively incorrect. Nor did Origamist say that. Balto was just one of about 150 dogs, each of whom, in their own way, was equally a canine hero.

my mistake then.