A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Next Big Thing]

Try telling this to the IRS. I doubt they would agree with your definition of "not paid."

Even if the payment isn't in the form of a paycheck, it's still COMPENSATION for services rendered. He's not doing these activities out of the goodness of his heart for free. The quid pro quo relationship between consultant and company is just as significant as the employer-employee arrangement in the workplace. Trying to downplay Hill's role in Disney's social media by implying that only positions receiving pay checks are valid is quite ignorant, especially regarding the entertainment industry.

Hill is just as much in the employ of TWDC as a spec screenwriter whose script is optioned by Burbank. And as such, is also subject to the same level of scrutiny.

I'm not here to defend or argue against this situation. I more am just wanting to say how stupid this entire conversation is

And if you think TWDC is the only company that doles out free gifts, throws parties and has some skeletons in it's closet, then you're sadly mistaken.

 

[PhotoDave219]

But the weather is going to poo for my stay

It's been humid and icky....

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

Tough ****. I've been around the block working for theme parks and everyone is replaceable below management (and even lower level management is easily that). If you can prove to the company you're irreplaceable, then they may overlook a few transgressions. If you're just a lowly custodian on Main Street or attractions at Epcot... well, good luck keeping that job if you screw up.

My previous example was of someone who would be considered irreplaceable because of professional management experience and formal university training. And this individual's past did not involve an arrest record, just a termination with lifetime no rehire status.

Said individual was eventually hired by Disney's competition to that other studio's delight, so it would seem that TWDC is hamstrung by poor hiring practices that have hampered their business. But I would expect this from an organization which fails to fully vet their most visibly public representatives and which willfully broke Federal labor law for years by deliberately minimizing their artists' and animators' careers through anti-poaching agreements with other studios.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

I'm not here to defend or argue against this situation. I more am just wanting to say how stupid this entire conversation is

And yet you continue to participate in it.

And if you think TWDC is the only company that doles out free gifts, throws parties and has some skeletons in it's closet, then you're sadly mistaken.

I never implied any such thing. But given that this is primarily a DISNEY discussion board, it would make sense that we would naturally gravitate towards those business practices involving the Mouse over other entertainment conglomerates.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

TFA is currently at 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, 82 on Metacritic. Trying to go into tomorrow night with no expectations. But it is already one of the best reviewed films of the year. Ok, just need to not get to excited, yet.

Just want to point out that Star Trek Into Darkness had a 88-89% rating on RT and it has gone on to be amongst the most disliked Star Trek movies.

 

[Next Big Thing]

And yet you continue to participate in it.

Only because I keep getting quoted. It's one thing to say i'm done, but naturally I have an opinion what you are saying.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Disney Transportation needs fundamental, cultural change l. They need to get back to a guest service focus, given that we are forced to schedule the heck out of our trips.

It takes entirely too long to get from point A to point B.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

There are unsubstantiated accusations being made about him. The characterizations of him by the CM as someone who over the last year has grown insufferable is the original accusation. The accusations made by you that Jim directly called you on that you haven't addressed are another.

The reason the CM's record is relevant is because that person works or has worked for Disney. Lee, you and the dreamfinder are saying that Disney needs to vet their social media messengers and dissolve all relationships with those that are not up to some mythical standard. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you get to judge Jim's record then why not the record of the person making the accusations?

This is about Jim. This is personal. Lee made it that way. And maybe Disney values what Jim does? Maybe Jim brings something to the table that those former CM's can't, don't or won't. And since Jim didn't work for Disney at the time of his arrest and since he doesn't work for them now I doubt Disney's conduct policies for CM's have any bearing on delineating their relationship going forward.

Basic English lesson for you: it's not an "accusation" when irrefutable evidence exists to support the charge being levied. Lee presented the evidence of prior criminal activity which is part of the permanent county record. Hence, it is not an accusation.

And refusing to rehire former cast members with arrest records is Disney SOP. That's what we're discussing here, that there should not be a double standard for some representatives of TWDC over others when it comes to "acceptable" past behavior which directly involved Disney.

It should not matter if that representation is compensated with a paycheck or a perk. That representation is being compensated for, which creates a professional relationship between the company and that representative. Doesn't matter whether that representative is sweeping trash on Main Street or speaking on a D23 experts panel. That individual has a professional relationship with the company and should be treated as such.

If Disney deems that prior criminal activity involving their property is automatic grounds for dismissal and a lifetime no rehire ban, then this should apply to ALL individuals who represent Disney in a professional capacity, especially those who are more visible in the public eye. Attempting to draw the distinction between representatives who are "irreplaceable" and those who are corporate cannon fodder is moot. Ethically managed organizations do not split such hairs in the treatment of the individuals representing them. And given the two active lawsuits against TWDC from both former employees and select investors, it's not wrong to accuse Disney of acting unethically with regard to their labor practices. They arrogantly do not care how they achieve their success as long as they achieve it. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE ARE CURRENTLY ADDRESSING.

 

[flyerjab]

It's been humid and icky....

Much like this current conversation.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Basic English lesson for you: it's not an "accusation" when irrefutable evidence exists to support the charge being levied. Lee presented the evidence of prior criminal activity which is part of the permanent county record. Hence, it is not an accusation.

And refusing to rehire former cast members with arrest records is Disney SOP. That's what we're discussing here, that there should not be a double standard for some representatives of TWDC over others when it comes to "acceptable" past behavior which directly involved Disney.

It should not matter if that representation is compensated with a paycheck or a perk. That representation is being compensated for, which creates a professional relationship between the company and that representative. Doesn't matter whether that representative is sweeping trash on Main Street or speaking on a D23 experts panel. That individual has a professional relationship with the company and should be treated as such.

If Disney deems that prior criminal activity involving their property is automatic grounds for dismissal and a lifetime no rehire ban, then this should apply to ALL individuals who represent Disney in a professional capacity, especially those who are more visible in the public eye. Attempting to draw the distinction between representatives who are "irreplaceable" and those who are corporate cannon fodder is moot. Ethically managed organizations do not split such hairs in the treatment of the individuals representing them. And given the two active lawsuits against TWDC from both former employees and select investors, it's not wrong to accuse Disney of acting unethically with regard to their labor practices. They arrogantly do not care how they achieve their success as long as they achieve it. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE ARE CURRENTLY ADDRESSING.

Simply put: You'd be surprised the amount of CMs that have a criminal background that get hired.

 

[VJ]

Not to interrupt the drama and stuff, but...

The Force Awakens European premiere streaming in a few minutes.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Disney Transportation needs fundamental, cultural change l. They need to get back to a guest service focus, given that we are forced to schedule the heck out of our trips.

It takes entirely too long to get from point A to point B.

It certainly doesn't help that the resort wasn't designed for the volume of busses they use.

 

[lebeau]

I don't recall it being like this at all. Phantom menace was absolutely terrible and hard to sugarcoat, but yes some did manage to do it..but i feel like that was more the exception than the rule

@Quinnmac000 is correct. The initial reaction to The Phantom Menace was largely positive. The first reviews were very much of the "Star Wars is back!" variety. Critical reaction was very strong with a few exceptions. I think Time Magazine was the first negative review I read and it was definitely a minority opinion at the time. This happens a lot. Star Trek Into Darkness opened to mostly rave reviews before fans eventually voted it the worst Star Trek movie ever made. Both Superman Returns and Man of Steel opened to very strong reviews before distance soured everyone on them.

The opposite is also true. Blade Runner opened to mixed reviews but is now regarded as a masterpiece.

 

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

Simply put: You'd be surprised the amount of CMs that have a criminal background that get hired.

And what percentage of those cast members with criminal backgrounds were engaged in illegal activity against Disney? A very small and insignificant percentage, I would imagine.

That's the distinction many of us have been trying to get across. We're specifically singling out those criminal activities conducted against TWDC involving Disney property. An important distinction.

If your background includes that particular flavor of legal strike against you, good luck getting rehired in any capacity. The odds will never be in your favor.

 

[John]

SO like the rest of you I have been reading along and something came to me. I know my opinion doesn't mean much but I wanted to just throw my two Lincolns worth in the ring. Honestly at first I was extremely sympathetic to Mr. Hill. Then I started to think about some of the wrong choices I have made in my life and the price I have paid for making those choices. I come to realize that if this is a part of the penalty for making a bad choice no matter how long ago, then with much sympathy Mr. Hill.........it is what it is. What I don't understand is if the conversation has more to do with Disney and its relationships with some people why does it look so much like a personal hit?

Would I have done it? No. My next question is for those who really are upset with Disney and the relationship they have with people like Mr. Hill. Why do you continually patronize the company? I ask this seriously. By the passionate postings here and the venom displayed why on earth would you want to give that company any of your time or money. As long as the company continues to make record profits nothing will change. No matter how much we squawk on a fan forum. Another thing I would like to know if those who are so riled up over this issue have you contacted Disney? Their response?

I don't have a dog in the race, I really couldn't care less. I wouldn't know Jim Hill from Benny Hill......only what I have learned here. Another question....seriously, should I care? Because Disney portrays itself to be squeaky clean? Wholesome? We all know that was fabricated from the beginning. Why are we surprised that these types of business practices exist?

Lastly, it seems that Judge Flynni always comes around and puts everything in perspective. Judge Flynni for President!

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

@Quinnmac000 is correct. The initial reaction to The Phantom Menace was largely positive. The first reviews were very much of the "Star Wars is back!" variety. Critical reaction was very strong with a few exceptions. I think Time Magazine was the first negative review I read and it was definitely a minority opinion at the time. This happens a lot. Star Trek Into Darkness opened to mostly rave reviews before fans eventually voted it the worst Star Trek movie ever made. Both Superman Returns and Man of Steel opened to very strong reviews before distance soured everyone on them.

The opposite is also true. Blade Runner opened to mix reviews but is now regarded as a masterpiece.

I must have some amazing taste or something because I thought Phantom Menace sucked the first time I saw it. Into Darkness was just alright, never need to see it again. Man of Steel was also garbage on round 1 for me. I'm some kind of movie oracle.

 

[asianway]

Try telling this to the IRS. I doubt they would agree with your definition of "not paid."

Even if the payment isn't in the form of a paycheck, it's still COMPENSATION for services rendered. He's not doing these activities out of the goodness of his heart for free. The quid pro quo relationship between consultant and company is just as significant as the employer-employee arrangement in the workplace. Trying to downplay Hill's role in Disney's social media by implying that only positions receiving pay checks are valid is quite ignorant, especially regarding the entertainment industry.

Hill is just as much in the employ of TWDC as a spec screenwriter whose script is optioned by Burbank. And as such, is also subject to the same level of scrutiny.

I often wonder how many of these bloggers are properly reporting their taxes.

 

[tokengator]

I really don't want to start a new thread about this and perhaps this isn't the place to ask this question (but this thread seems to run the gambit of topics) and I will gladly take it somewhere else if someone can direct me...

I've seen "celebration" referenced a few times on this board. I've also heard a few times in passing over the years. I finally did a brief google search and see that it is a community of some sort -- with houses and a town square and so forth. Is this a vacation rental area or place people actually buy homes and live?

I can't wrap my head around the idea of Disney community and what it must entail. Anyone with any knowledge, stories, etc I would be interested in anything you have to share.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I really don't want to start a new thread about this and perhaps this isn't the place to ask this question (but this thread seems to run the gambit of topics) and I will gladly take it somewhere else if someone can direct me...

I've seen "celebration" referenced a few times on this board. I've also heard a few times in passing over the years. I finally did a brief google search and see that it is a community of some sort -- with houses and a town square and so forth. Is this a vacation rental area or place people actually buy homes and live?

I can't wrap my head around the idea of Disney community and what it must entail. Anyone with any knowledge, stories, etc I would be interested in anything you have to share.

Are you asking purely in reference to Celebration or Celebration Place, the office park where Disney still maintains offices?

The community itself is not a Disney community. Disney left their role in the management several years ago, something that was always planned but did happen sinner than planned. It is a development that was conceived to avoid threats of increased property taxes imposed by Osceola County. The design is mostly based in New Urbanism (which does coincidentally share a lineage with EPCOT) and allowed Michael Eisner to play architectural patron by hiring some big names to be to be involved.

Celebration Place is an office park. It gets referenced a lot because of the publicity/marketing offices that are still there.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Remember that guy that was apologetic and humble when he first replied to this topic? Clearly he's gone... your new tact of "you can't hurt me..." boasting is really bad taste. So maybe there is nothing such as 'bad publicity' -- but that doesn't mean you come out looking GOOD... just more well known. Aka TRUMP

This has nothing to do with anything. The original post was to point out that Disney was lax in the manner that they utilize outside people to promote their product. However, it stopped being that as soon as a specific person was singled out and used as an example. The problem was two fold, one... the infraction is not of a substance that alters the work and reputation of the accused, because it has nothing to do with the current Disney or the influence that he might have over the public. If they would have come on and said that he was molesting children, then there might be an argument. Second... and the part that I find most deplorable is to make an (even unintended) individual a target of long past transgressions and seem to take joy from something that could have ruined the livelihood and reputation of a respected, in his field, person, that is and became due to the reality of it, the issue. Do we morally take the low road at somebody else's expense to make ourselves look clever? I think not!

I don't think that Lee's intention was to do harm to Jim, but, because it wasn't thought out as to the possible problems that such an action might bring, it became that and only that. It did show a total lack of concern over another human being and I find that to be disgusting. Even if I was of the train of thought that Disney was doing anything out of the ordinary in their marketing, the bigger problem became the mean, giddy way that outing this fellow was handled. As someone said, like a bunch of kindergarten kids on a playground tattling on someone. Just because someone hates the way Disney does things is absolutely no excuse for intentionally destroying an individual that isn't employed by Disney just to get back at Disney. Neither Disney nor Jim were harmed at all, as far as I can tell. However, I didn't always agree with Lee on everything, but, I at least respected him. That has been severely damaged.

As far as boasting is concerned... as far as I can see he is absolutely right. The reason is because it was totally unnecessary to bring out his skeletons just to sound like the big man on campus. Who the source was is irrelevant because it isn't the source that made it public. Lee, on the other hand, is a victim that was used to present a case that he didn't have first hand knowledge of. I feel sorry for him on one level, but, he always seemed smart enough not to be somebodies scapegoat. He should have known better.