A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
geekza said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

geekza

Well-Known Member
Phil12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Pixieish said:
So...we've got conflicting sources on Variety - in one saying that there is a growing feeling that Gunn will be re-hired, and in the other saying that they don't think it will happen.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-cast-james-gunn-support-1202889736/

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/james-gunn-disney-wont-rehire-guardians-of-the-galaxy-1202892424/
Click to expand...
We’re seeing people inside Disney fighting in the press. So this firing must be very contentious internally.
 
Pixieish

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Forgot to mention Disney is continuing to argue in various courts it had no role in enabling Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse of women while at Miramax, under Disney.

Or would we like to keep talking about pedophile jokes?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...ss-action-harvey-weinstein-misconduct-1130622
Click to expand...
Because they live in a media black-out? Because none of them ever saw him act like a sleazebag at events? (Please note - those questions are pure sarcasm.) Why do they think people will believe they didn't know anything? They hired "handlers" to keep Lasseter in line.
 
TalkingHead

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Pixieish said:
So...we've got conflicting sources on Variety - in one saying that there is a growing feeling that Gunn will be re-hired, and in the other saying that they don't think it will happen.
Click to expand...

I just don't see how that happens. I know in our little echo chambers we think "well, everyone is for him coming back, he shouldn't have been fired" but there are an awful lot of people who would disagree. People who have never seen a GoG film and don't give a crap about them but who do very much care about "jokes" saying how women should enjoy being raped and "joking" with actual pedophiles about watching kiddie together.

People are so focused on who lit the match, though, to really see this.

If Disney hires him back, they are going to get a lot of questions about their sudden reversal and now "approving" of those types of things. I just don't see how they undermine themselves in that way.
 
Princess Leia

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
I think we’re beginning to see a huge movement in calling people out who may have seen questionable behaviors in action. Taking Gunn out of the equation (because that’s a different matter), but it is an important discussion to have (though this thread is probably the wrong spot for it). While it’s definitely getting a moment in the film/tv world (Weinstein, Lasseter), it’s gaining traction in the sports world as well (started with Sandusky & Paterno, then everyone linked to Nassar last year, now it’s having a pretty big moment at OSU with Jim Jordan and Urban Meyer). Oh, for the record about the Urban Meyer thing- ESPN was one of the last new sites to cover what came out today.
 
Pixieish

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
I just don't see how that happens. I know in our little echo chambers we think "well, everyone is for him coming back, he shouldn't have been fired" but there are an awful lot of people who would disagree. People who have never seen a GoG film and don't give a crap about them but who do very much care about "jokes" saying how women should enjoy being raped and "joking" with actual pedophiles about watching kiddie **** together.

People are so focused on who lit the match, though, to really see this.

If Disney hires him back, they are going to get a lot of questions about their sudden reversal and now "approving" of those types of things. I just don't see how they undermine themselves in that way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, who lit the match is kind of important in this case - it's cyber-bullying and a targeted attack at its worst, purposely done in the aim to quiet an opposing political viewpoint.

I think Disney will definitely get questions should they choose to reverse their decision, but with all the discussion going on in social media, the big issues aren't being missed - LOTS of people are covering the same points we've all discussed - and that's a good thing. There are lots of ways Disney could gracefully handle bringing him back into the fold. Would it off some extremists? Probably. But I'm sure Disney is aware that extremists on either side of the fence aren't a target demographic for any of their studios.

Personally, I'd love to see them rehire him and launch an anti-bullying/anti-cyber attack campaign. I'm not holding my breath, but it would rock.
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Pixieish said:
Unfortunately, who lit the match is kind of important in this case - it's cyber-bullying and a targeted attack at its worst, purposely done in the aim to quiet an opposing political viewpoint.
Click to expand...

That's just where I disagree. I don't believe in treating a situation one way versus another because of the politics behind them. It is really cut and dry for me. It worries me that this seems like such a strange idea. If he were a conservative taken down by the far-left, we wouldn't even be having the discussion of them "taking it back".

I also think reversing this decision would bring out more than just "crazy right wingers" who objected - it happened so "quickly" from our view that they didn't get time to weigh in. Had Disney let this go on longer than they did, the outrage very likely would have spread to the other side, as well.
 
Pixieish

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
That's just where I disagree. I don't believe in treating a situation one way versus another because of the politics behind them. It is really cut and dry for me. It worries me that this seems like such a strange idea. If he were a conservative taken down by the far-left, we wouldn't even be having the discussion of them "taking it back".

I also think reversing this decision would bring out more than just "crazy right wingers" who objected - it happened so "quickly" from our view that they didn't get time to weigh in. Had Disney let this go on longer than they did, the outrage very likely would have spread to the other side, as well.
Click to expand...
See, I don't care which side someone falls on. If this whole thing were perpetrated by someone on the alt-left, I would be just as angry that Disney caved.

EDIT: Caved is the wrong word here...I should have said "allowed themselves to be manipulated".
 
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Princess Leia said:
Why I’m still pessimistic about the odds of Gunn being rehired- The average moviegoer has zero idea who James Gunn is, and probably don’t care that he is the screenwriter as well. If I wasn’t such a huge nerd, I wouldn’t either.
Click to expand...

There is that, too. With all due respect to the work he did on the GoG films (and I am aware of how much he is responsible for), in terms of the bigger picture, I think they risk more reversing the decision than just letting this slide away.

I may be totally wrong. They could decide in an hour to announce they are hiring him back. I've learned that with this stuff, you can never say never about anything. But I just don't see how they walk this back - if they had started with an "investigation" or something, or a leave of absence, maybe, like they tried with Lassetter - but he was fired, full stop.

Most of all, because it would undermine all the past and future decisions they make in regards to situations like this.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom