A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Disneyhead'71]

But, but,.....but he's Jim Hill. I mean, like, THE Jim Hill. Why wouldn't Disney capitulate in the face of that kind is media influence?

The guy's like a legand or something. Or so I'm told.

 

[jakeman]

I know, but usually anything remotely "Disney" seems to make the news. It always looks like the news even tries to connect any kind of story to Disney in some way, even if its inconsequential.
In this case its directly involving Disney.

I get where you are coming from but the headline "Shoplifter and kind of bully from a generation ago quoted on back of Disney DVD" doesn't seem to inspire the clicky-clicks.

Now, to @PhotoDave219's point "Online Disney personality charged with shoplifting at Walt Disney World today" has more punch.

I just don't think holding someone morally accountable for something minor (i.e. not a felony) they did 20 years ago is newsworthy. It's not like it's Iger. It's just some dude that I bet 95% of the people in this thread (including me) couldn't pick out of a line up.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Oh, it was a bit more serious than that. There was jail involved.

And only twenty years ago. Meaning that Disney has, knowing all of this, done business with him for twenty years.

Even innocents have 'jail involved' too. From what I read in the public records, Jimmy was not sentenced to any gaol time. He got fined $200 and $100 for three misdemeanors, two of which appear to be the same incident. Although you are the lawyer, and American, and have a better understanding of what this means:

5/30/1995 Sent:
Comments: SENTENCE OF 6 MTHS S/P; FINE/CC DUE 08-28-95; DO NOT RETURN TO PLACE OF ARREST; COMPLETE IMPULSE CONTROL BY 08-28-95;


Why shouldn't one do business with someone convicted for a misdemeanor? If somebody is a threat, keep them incarcerated. If they have paid their due, they can move around and act like other citizens.
Natural persons may carry a grudge, but not multinational behemoths. Surely it is unprofessional, petty, and self-defeating for a large corporation not to conduct business with somebody or something because of an inconsequential misdemeanor to the tune of $200, twenty years ago,

17 Disney Stars With Criminal Records: http://stars.topix.com/slideshow/15383

 

[Cesar R M]

More thoughts later

love this darn actor so much! XD

 

[PhotoDave219]

I get where you are coming from but the headline "Shoplifter and kind of bully from a generation ago quoted on back of Disney DVD" doesn't seem to inspire the clicky-clicks.

Now, to @PhotoDave219's point "Online Disney personality charged with shoplifting at Walt Disney World today" has more punch.

I just don't think holding someone morally accountable for something minor (i.e. not a felony) they did 20 years ago is newsworthy. It's not like it's Iger. It's just some dude that I bet 95% of the people in this thread (including me) couldn't pick out of a line up.

I tend to agree. However I do think that it's rather indicative of how Disney's PR department does business.

On the flipside… When somebody pays for their crime, the slates wiped clean, right?

At the end of the day? I really don't care. I never put much weight into what Mr. Hill said in the first place. I hope that if he has had a compulsion to shoplift that he has somehow managed to fix and rectify that problem and get the help he needed.

I'm not defending Mr. Hill. I'm not defending the company. I just need a lot more information about what occurred before I'm going to crucify somebody for something they did 20 years ago.

 

[Cesar R M]

I'm going to interrupt the day's discussion of movies and whatnot to liven things up a bit.
I've got a little something that should lead to some interesting discussion that is worthy of a Spirited thread.

Imagine my surprise when I opened my email this week and found some rather startling information about a well known personality in the Disney fan community. It immediately took me back to Spirit's epic post on LP a few years back, and a topic we have discussed here, about how Disney needs to be careful about the sort of people they associate with. What if one day one of their favorite lifestylers was exposed as a criminal of some sort? (If you haven't read that thread over there, go and do so now. I'll wait.)

Ok, so....into my inbox has arrived information regarding the criminal past of a very prominent figure in the Disney fan community. You all know his name and his reputation. What you don't know is that, back some years ago, he was repeatedly prosecuted for crimes....wait for it...against Walt Disney World.

wow.. really?? (())

 

[Lee]

That's the thing.
I'm not trying to crucify the guy for crimes of the past.
(Which, best I can tell involved scavenging for old bags and receipts which he could then match with an item to "return" to a merch location. Repeatedly. Theft which was pled down to a lesser offense.)

I'm simply asking:
Why, of all the reputable writers and fans out there, would Disney embrace one who they repeatedly prosecuted and had jailed?
Do the different organizations inside the company know the story?

 

[Lee]

Even innocents have 'jail involved' too. From what I read in the public records, Jimmy was not sentenced to any gaol time. He got fined $200 and $100 for three misdemeanors, two of which appear to be the same incident. Although you are the lawyer, and American, and have a better understanding of what this means:

5/30/1995 Sent:
Comments: SENTENCE OF 6 MTHS S/P; FINE/CC DUE 08-28-95; DO NOT RETURN TO PLACE OF ARREST; COMPLETE IMPULSE CONTROL BY 08-28-95;

But there is more...

OFFENSE 2:

TRESPASS, Second Degree, Statute: 810.08(2)(A) / "Reduction in Sentence Plea" of guilty.

Sentenced to probation and then to 49 days in the Orange County Jail for VOP (see below cases) served concurrently with 96-18224 and "NO RETURN TO SCENE FOR 6MOS."

(Date of crime: 6/1/95.)

OFFENSE 3:
PETIT THEFT, Second Degree, Statute: 812.014(3)(a) / "Reduction in Sentence Plea" of guilty.

(Date of crime: 12/21/95.)

OFFENSE 4:

BATTERY, First Degree, Statute: 784.03(1)(a)(1) / "Reduction in Sentence Plea" of guilty.

(Date of crime: 12/21/95.)

He was sentenced to jail, to be served on work release, and probation.
Later, he violated probation and was taken into custody. It seems he actually served at least 110 days in jail stemming from all of this.

Why shouldn't one do business with someone convicted for a misdemeanor? If somebody is a threat, keep them incarcerated. If they have paid their due, they can move around and act like other citizens.
Natural persons may carry a grudge, but not multinational behemoths. Surely it is unprofessional, petty, and self-defeating for a large corporation not to conduct business with somebody or something because of an inconsequential misdemeanor to the tune of $200, twenty years ago,

17 Disney Stars With Criminal Records: http://stars.topix.com/slideshow/15383

Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't want someone that I prosecuted and jailed promoting my DVDs, acting as media at my events, etc.

 

[Cesar R M]

BRB gotta grab popcorn

you welcome!

 

[Cesar R M]

For @WDW1974

"Forum Wars, the Spirit Awakens"

In my past I had a job that required I do background checks on volunteers - it is a very simple process and a negligible cost. Something of the scope that you described would have easily shown up on a report. How can a company with so many resources and a reputation, or "brand", that they value so highly not pay attention to something like this? Are the various groups so isolated from each other and operating in silos as @Lee suggests? Are they simply lazy? And, as Lee pointed out this is broader than just Disney - doesn't Huffington Post and other outlets publish his articles? A lot of questions and not a lot of answers.

I guess they value reach/money opportunities more than reputation...

 

[The Empress Lilly]

It seems he actually served at least 110 days in jail stemming from all of this.

Fair enough.

 

[Cesar R M]

Again, as I stated earlier, it isn't about what he did, or how severe it may or may not be. (Theft, battery, trespass, probation violations, etc. I know we aren't talking Fogle level crimes here.)

It's about the fact that Disney today continues to associate closely with someone who they once prosecuted for these crimes. The fact that a person who was a repeat offender, that you banned (more than once) from your property, is now used to moderate D23 panels, quoted on DVD packaging, and used as a PR outlet for the parks, products, etc.

How can it be that in the entire lifestyler/blogger/Disney expert community they can't find anyone qualified for those duties who they haven't sent to jail?

And does today's Celebration Place even know about this history?

perhaps its a way to control him to prevent him doing more messups?
Ie, he has a severe Disney addiction that he cant stop. So the best is let him "have his fix".
It would be between hilarious and scary if Disney thinks this guy might snap if they stop giving them his fix and go full columbine.

 

[Cesar R M]

The issue with The Good Dinosaur is the "legs" -- it had a significant drop from its opening weekend, much more of a drop than a typical Pixar film. The opening weekend over Thanksgiving was subpar for Pixar, but would have been fine with good legs, but indications at this point is that the film won't maintain a very steady/good box office in upcoming weeks. Obviously, we won't know for sure until the actual results are in, but the trends are not good.

Ant-Man is actually the opposite on that point. It had fantastic "legs", better than more Marvel films. It's opening weekend was less than most previous Marvel films, but it had such good staying power that it's final box office ended up doing quite well.

That's not to say that The Good Dinosaur is a bomb. Just that the it probably won't make a profit based on box office. It might still do fine with merchandise and DVD/Blu Ray sales and not be a money lose but it's not going to be a big hit. It happens.

There is still the possibility that the Good Dinosaur will recover via DVD/BluRay.
Look at Rise of the Guardians.
It tanked.. BAD (writeoff) for Dreamworks, yet recovered more than they expected via DVD/Blurays if I remembered correctly.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Perhaps theft on property isn't that bad, in relative terms. But let's say for the sake of argument another Celebration Place endorsed Lifestyler did something worse and the company knew about it yet they still had a relationship with this person. What if a Lifestyler was pulled over for a DUI with a child onboard?

Wouldn't big name actors be more of a news story than some blogger? Robert Downey Jr. doesn't have the best past but he's still the face of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

[truecoat]

17 Disney Stars With Criminal Records: http://stars.topix.com/slideshow/15383

Not sure of the correlation on the Disney Stars angle here. I understand they committed crimes and we are talking about crimes but most of the examples are child actors who had DUI's as adults. Really doesn't seem to be similar at all.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not sure of the correlation on the Disney Stars angle here. I understand they committed crimes and we are talking about crimes but most of the examples are child actors who had DUI's as adults. Really doesn't seem to be similar at all.

Tim Allen is a convicted drug trafficker but he is still a Disney Legend who continues to be hired by the company.

 

[Lee]

Tim Allen is a convicted drug trafficker but he is still a Disney Legend who continues to be hired by the company.

But he wasn't selling coke on Main St.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Perhaps theft on property isn't that bad, in relative terms. But let's say for the sake of argument another Celebration Place endorsed Lifestyler did something worse and the company knew about it yet they still had a relationship with this person. What if a Lifestyler was pulled over for a DUI with a child onboard?

And, and what if they opened the trunk and found 25 people cut up in 4 inch cubes, each tied up in colorful ribbons with little bells attached to them. What then? Huh?

Listen I wouldn't know Jim Hill if he ran into me on the street, I don't know what he looks like, I don't follow him on any media that I am aware of and I especially like to think that I have enough mental capacity to not just flat out believe anything anyone has ever said. How many of us never did anything that we might later regret? I'm not denying that this is THE Jim Hill, but, nothing convincing has been said that makes me say... damn that's him alright. It might be correct or it might just be another discussion board witch hunt. It doesn't really matter. Is he currently advocating or influencing others to do the same things he may or may not have done wrong in the past? Are we saying that anyone that ever made a mistake two decades ago, as minor as these seem to be, should never have the opportunity to make something of themselves and use their abilities to make their living? Or should they be forced to go back to stealing things to survive? Isn't it time we grew up and became able to identify what is important and what is just interesting gossip. Ironic it is... if he is currently advocating for the very people that he once victimized, but, other then that... nothing!

In short, even if it is him, I couldn't be less interested in it. Let me know if he made a habit of mass killing people dressed up as cartoon characters and perhaps you'll get my attention.

 

[DisneyOutsider]

Wow, this is really flying over people's heads here. I don't think @Lee could possibly explain this in clearer terms than he already has, but you have to admit that it's, at the very least, VERY unusual that Disney would so closely associate with someone who has committed various crimes against DISNEY and its personnel.

This isn't about judging him or getting on a moral high-horse. It's more about putting the pieces together of why Disney would hold out as a representative of their brand someone who has stolen from them and more (and served HARD TIME for said offenses).

I don't know the specifics any more than anyone else here, and it very well could be a far more complicated/complex situation than any of us understand, but this is absolutely worthy of discussion and not even remotely comparable to an actor who has a crime-ridden past.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But he wasn't selling coke on Main St.

So what? He is a far bigger name and it's a much bigger offense.