A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
And how right they were. However, the vault still exists for a core group of films, even with online retail being so big now. My married friends just borrowed my Aladdin blu-ray, and a coworker has possible dibs on it, because the online prices are so expensive (which is also why I got a new copy of the Lion King. Has to do it now before it disappeared for 5 years.
We've been known to track down new, sealed copies of DVDs that are currently in the vault on e-bay for not much more than we'd pay in the store. (If you're careful and check seller ratings, you can get some really good deals on out-of-production and difficult-to-find toys, too. My boys love watching youtube videos of their favorite fandoms, and we've had some weird requests for things like Thomas the Train toys that were only sold in Japan, etc.) There was also a pretty long stint in which our youngest became known as the "DiscDestroyer" because if it was a movie he liked, you can bet your butt that he'd break the disc eventually. It killed me when Disney discontinued their replacement DVD program.
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
From the looks of it, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, and Robert Downey Jr. have unfollowed Gunn on social media. I totally get it as a self-preservation move likely pushed by their publicists, but at the same time, if ANYONE should be championing a story of redemtion, it's RDJ.
 

Rodan75

Well-Known Member
From the looks of it, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, and Robert Downey Jr. have unfollowed Gunn on social media. I totally get it as a self-preservation move likely pushed by their publicists, but at the same time, if ANYONE should be championing a story of redemtion, it's RDJ.
I wonder if any of them manage their own Twitter. Their accounts seem a bit more managed than folks like Chris Evans.

But the rest of the Avengers have been quiet on Gunn, which I thought was weird.
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
I wonder if any of them manage their own Twitter. Their accounts seem a bit more managed than folks like Chris Evans.

But the rest of the Avengers have been quiet on Gunn, which I thought was weird.
Very well could be. And yes, I've been thinking about the Avengers cast myself.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm more likely to follow the accounts of celebrities or public figures who manage their own accounts - even better if they personally respond to their followers.
 

briangaw

Active Member
There's actually more to the quote.

"... But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. Our only objective may be to make money, but in order to make money, we must always make entertaining movies. And if we make entertaining movies, at times we will make history, art, a statement, or all three. We may even win awards."
If there is ever a more illustrative example how editorial even quoting someone can become. But when quoted in entirety Eisner is spot on. Businesses have to make money and yes that should be their prime focus as that is why they exist. Period.

Now the important caveat being that having a long view and being innovative instead of relying on moats can be the best strategy for making money in the long term. Walt Disney understood this. And some of the great creative and enterprising minds of today understand this such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others. They have become household names not only because they are making history through innovation, but they are doing it while making money (okay yes I know Tesla is the elephant in the room, but it is young give it time). While there are a few reasons, there is one major reason Edison was a much more well known name than Tesla (until recently). Edison very successfully commercialized his inventions. It is a mute point having tons of innovation and making history, art etc as a company, if you are a quick flash of innovation that dies out because you have no more money.

I would agree that Disney in probably most of its business lines has become reliant on the moat that is their current brand, too risk adverse, and too focused on the short term gains. Parks and resorts is a microcosm of this. However, thank goodness for the good side of capitalism and the current "little guy" Universal was able to capitalize on some of this and now Disney has been forced to make some large investments and hopefully some innovative offerings, see Flight of Passage and the things to come.
 

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
I wonder if any of them manage their own Twitter. Their accounts seem a bit more managed than folks like Chris Evans.

But the rest of the Avengers have been quiet on Gunn, which I thought was weird.
RDJ and Hemsworth are possibly the only two who worked with Gunn, if at all, for Infinity War (since both Thor and Iron Man have sidequests with various Guardians), so I don’t think it’s too surprising that we haven’t heard anything (also Cumberbatch & Holland, but idk if they have active Twitters). I agree that it’s probably their publicists who run their twitters (btw, Hemsworth has an A+ Instagram).

Hiddleston probably has had a publicist revamping his image after whatever the heck happened a couple years ago with him and Taylor Swift. That... that was all just really weird.
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
RDJ and Hemsworth are possibly the only two who worked with Gunn, if at all, for Infinity War (since both Thor and Iron Man have sidequests with various Guardians), so I don’t think it’s too surprising that we haven’t heard anything (also Cumberbatch & Holland, but idk if they have active Twitters). I agree that it’s probably their publicists who run their twitters (btw, Hemsworth has an A+ Instagram).

Hiddleston probably has had a publicist revamping his image after whatever the heck happened a couple years ago with him and Taylor Swift. That... that was all just really weird.
HAHAHA...I just read up on that. I'm really not a fan of hers. I've gotten the impression over the years that if things don't go her way, watch the heck out.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
If there is ever a more illustrative example how editorial even quoting someone can become. But when quoted in entirety Eisner is spot on. Businesses have to make money and yes that should be their prime focus as that is why they exist. Period.

Now the important caveat being that having a long view and being innovative instead of relying on moats can be the best strategy for making money in the long term. Walt Disney understood this. And some of the great creative and enterprising minds of today understand this such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and others. They have become household names not only because they are making history through innovation, but they are doing it while making money (okay yes I know Tesla is the elephant in the room, but it is young give it time). While there are a few reasons, there is one major reason Edison was a much more well known name than Tesla (until recently). Edison very successfully commercialized his inventions. It is a mute point having tons of innovation and making history, art etc as a company, if you are a quick flash of innovation that dies out because you have no more money.

I would agree that Disney in probably most of its business lines has become reliant on the moat that is their current brand, too risk adverse, and too focused on the short term gains. Parks and resorts is a microcosm of this. However, thank goodness for the good side of capitalism and the current "little guy" Universal was able to capitalize on some of this and now Disney has been forced to make some large investments and hopefully some innovative offerings, see Flight of Passage and the things to come.
From everything I've read about Walt, though, he wanted to make money so that he could continue to explore and innovate and pursue his passions. The company came close to insolvency several times because, well, innovation is expensive and risky. Luckily, Walt was right more often than he was wrong and was a good judge of what would be popular with the masses. It was Roy's job to find the money to fund Walt's ambitions. It's a miracle Roy outlived Walt. It was a privately-held company while Walt was alive, so there wasn't the same kind of pressure to consistently increase the value of the company. It just turned out that Walt and Roy were really good at not only keeping the company going, but growing it along the way. Once it was no longer a family business and went public, it became all about creating things in the service of making money as opposed to the other way around.

I don't see that there was any way they could have avoided going public as Walt was the company and, once he was gone, the company started a downhill slide. The parks continued to make money, but by then Disneyland had been a success for over a decade and WDW was being built and would, in many ways, copy what had already been done out in Anaheim. The movies quickly began to lose money because they were not adapting to the changing culture and Walt wasn't there to help them evolve. EPCOT Center was amazing and successful, but expensive. Revenue from the films was no longer enough to shore up the foundation of the company. Love him or hate him, but Eisner (and Frank Wells) saved Disney. To do so, however, Disney had to become Disney®. There was no going back. I'm just glad I was able to experience WDW when the dreamers were still in charge, even if they were rapidly fragmenting and heading towards a brick wall. I just want the current company to actually care about what they're doing. It seems like fewer and fewer of those with any sort of power in the company do.
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
From everything I've read about Walt, though, he wanted to make money so that he could continue to explore and innovate and pursue his passions. The company came close to insolvency several times because, well, innovation is expensive and risky. Luckily, Walt was right more often than he was wrong and was a good judge of what would be popular with the masses. It was Roy's job to find the money to fund Walt's ambitions. It's a miracle Roy outlived Walt. It was a privately-held company while Walt was alive, so there wasn't the same kind of pressure to consistently increase the value of the company. It just turned out that Walt and Roy were really good at not only keeping the company going, but growing it along the way. Once it was no longer a family business and went public, it became all about creating things in the service of making money as opposed to the other way around.

I don't see that there was any way they could have avoided going public as Walt was the company and, once he was gone, the company started a downhill slide. The parks continued to make money, but by then Disneyland had been a success for over a decade and WDW was being built and would, in many ways, copy what had already been done out in Anaheim. The movies quickly began to lose money because they were not adapting to the changing culture and Walt wasn't there to help them evolve. EPCOT Center was amazing and successful, but expensive. Revenue from the films was no longer enough to shore up the foundation of the company. Love him or hate him, but Eisner (and Frank Wells) saved Disney. To do so, however, Disney had to become Disney®. There was no going back. I'm just glad I was able to experience WDW when the dreamers were still in charge, even if they were rapidly fragmenting and heading towards a brick wall. I just want the current company to actually care about what they're doing. It seems like fewer and fewer of those with any sort of power in the company do.
Walt had the advantage of having been a "hungry artist" as well. A creative personality with financial hardship can combine to forge a person who not only has the desire to create, but who also possesses the drive to never be hungry again.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
Some woman claimed to have “resurfaced” memories about him assaulting her a few years back. Nothing ever came of it that I know of.
If you had been assaulted by one of the biggest celebrities in Hollywood, I have my doubts that you would have forgotten about it unless you had some form of traumatic brain injury and, if that was the case, I don't think your memory can be considered reliable.
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
If you had been assaulted by one of the biggest celebrities in Hollywood, I have my doubts that you would have forgotten about it unless you had some form of traumatic brain injury and, if that was the case, I don't think your memory can be considered reliable.
If I recall, "resurfaced" memories are inadmissable in court. There must be a reason for that.
 

Phil12

Well-Known Member
From everything I've read about Walt, though, he wanted to make money so that he could continue to explore and innovate and pursue his passions. The company came close to insolvency several times because, well, innovation is expensive and risky. Luckily, Walt was right more often than he was wrong and was a good judge of what would be popular with the masses. It was Roy's job to find the money to fund Walt's ambitions. It's a miracle Roy outlived Walt. It was a privately-held company while Walt was alive, so there wasn't the same kind of pressure to consistently increase the value of the company. It just turned out that Walt and Roy were really good at not only keeping the company going, but growing it along the way. Once it was no longer a family business and went public, it became all about creating things in the service of making money as opposed to the other way around.

I don't see that there was any way they could have avoided going public as Walt was the company and, once he was gone, the company started a downhill slide. The parks continued to make money, but by then Disneyland had been a success for over a decade and WDW was being built and would, in many ways, copy what had already been done out in Anaheim. The movies quickly began to lose money because they were not adapting to the changing culture and Walt wasn't there to help them evolve. EPCOT Center was amazing and successful, but expensive. Revenue from the films was no longer enough to shore up the foundation of the company. Love him or hate him, but Eisner (and Frank Wells) saved Disney. To do so, however, Disney had to become Disney®. There was no going back. I'm just glad I was able to experience WDW when the dreamers were still in charge, even if they were rapidly fragmenting and heading towards a brick wall. I just want the current company to actually care about what they're doing. It seems like fewer and fewer of those with any sort of power in the company do.
You have fallen for the myth of Walt Disney. In reality TWDC went public in 1940. They had to go public because they lost so much money on Pinocchio and Fantasia. And Walt liked the idea of using the money of other people to finance his projects so that he could insulate himself from the risks. By 1952 he created WDI (later known as WED and then RETLAW) which was his private company. He used his private company (which he kept secret from all shareholders) to siphon off money from the public company and enrich himself and his immediate family members. Roy never participated in the deal because of its illegality. And Roy was later proved right when Walt was forced to settle up (or potentially go to jail) with the public company. The settlement came just about a year before Walt's death. Roy and Walt had a bitter dispute about Walt's unethical and illegal behavior for about two years prior to the settlement. They didn't speak to one another during this time period!

But make no mistake about the fact that Walt was amassing a huge fortune for himself. Had either the production company or Disneyland failed (or both), Walt and his family members were completely insulated against monetary loss. The key for Walt was his absolute identification with the company. Had any scandal gone public about Walt, it could have very well brought down the entire public part of the company. That's why Walt Disney Productions (public company) was willing to settle with Walt rather than go to court to sue him. Any court battle would have been on the public record. Walt's huge diversion of money from the public company to his private company (and other unethical practices) would have been in all the newspapers. Instead, they conducted a private settlement so as not to blemish Walt's name. And, after all, Walt's name is at the heart of the company. Therefore it has also been a top priority to keep Walt's memory alive as a genius saint rather than document his underhanded and unconscionable business practices.
 

geekza

Well-Known Member
You have fallen for the myth of Walt Disney. In reality TWDC went public in 1940. They had to go public because they lost so much money on Pinocchio and Fantasia. And Walt liked the idea of using the money of other people to finance his projects so that he could insulate himself from the risks. By 1952 he created WDI (later known as WED and then RETLAW) which was his private company. He used his private company (which he kept secret from all shareholders) to siphon off money from the public company and enrich himself and his immediate family members. Roy never participated in the deal because of its illegality. And Roy was later proved right when Walt was forced to settle up (or potentially go to jail) with the public company. The settlement came just about a year before Walt's death. Roy and Walt had a bitter dispute about Walt's unethical and illegal behavior for about two years prior to the settlement. They didn't speak to one another during this time period!

But make no mistake about the fact that Walt was amassing a huge fortune for himself. Had either the production company or Disneyland failed (or both), Walt and his family members were completely insulated against monetary loss. The key for Walt was his absolute identification with the company. Had any scandal gone public about Walt, it could have very well brought down the entire public part of the company. That's why Walt Disney Productions (public company) was willing to settle with Walt rather than go to court to sue him. Any court battle would have been on the public record. Walt's huge diversion of money from the public company to his private company (and other unethical practices) would have been in all the newspapers. Instead, they conducted a private settlement so as not to blemish Walt's name. And, after all, Walt's name is at the heart of the company. Therefore it has also been a top priority to keep Walt's memory alive as a genius saint rather than document his underhanded and unconscionable business practices.
Aside from the dates, which I fully admit I had incorrect, I think you're coloring things a bit. Nothing Walt did was illegal. Yes, WED and RETLAW (they were separate companies) were set up as Walt's private companies so that he could pursue his projects without being beholden to Disney stockholders (which, at that time, weren't a huge number of people because the stock was only sold on a limited basis; not like the huge public offering that came later). The work that was done by these companies were then licensed back to Walt Disney Productions for use in the parks and other projects. He did this so that he could maintain control over his projects because, after what he went through with Charles Mintz and Oswald, he wasn't about to let anyone else have a say. Totally understandable. He also did this so that he could ensure that his family fortune, which he absolutely earned, would remain separate from whatever outside forces might affect Walt Disney Productions. Yes, those companies made a lot of money from it. No, Roy wasn't a fan. None of it was illegal or unethical. It was smart.
 
Top Bottom