A Spirited Perfect Ten

[lazyboy97o]

Now you're just evading the very simple question I've posed.

Name me examples of successful (in your words "thriving") themed entertainment that is also educational. It's a simple question that doesn't seem to warrant this cat and mouse game you're playing. If educational entertainment is so popular, such that it's "thriving", there should be examples of it, right? That's it. That's all I'm asking. Name a few. Name a few thriving examples of educational entertainment.

And to take it a step further, you said this: "Education entertainment is dead at Disney but thriving in the industry," which implies that Disney's peers ("the industry") are succeeding at educational entertainment (thriving at it, even). I'd love to know which of Disney's peers are doing such.

You have already been directed towards examples and rejected them.

 

[bakntime]

You have already been directed towards examples and rejected them.

Fantastic argument to support your point.

 

[jakeman]

Um....guys?

It's edutainment...

If you are going to argue about it, at least use the approve corporate synergy terminology.

Thanks.

 

[Phil12]

Nostalgia and the passage of time are great at sugar-coating history. There are very few people around here who were adults when Walt built Disneyland. Most of us were either not born yet or were still children, so we have the disadvantage of not being wise to the contemporary economics of Disneyland in 1955. And most of those who visited the park back then were only children, and are naturally going to remember the place as far less of a commercial endeavor than it really was. Not that Walt wasn't a dreamer, because he was, but he was also a salesman.

There's a lot more to the story that the company has swept under the rug. Back in 1953 Walt created "Walt Disney Inc." and he assigned the rights to his name and likeness to the company. The company was formed to divert money from Walt Disney Productions directly to Walt's family. It was clearly an unethical business practice and Walt's own brother Roy was disgusted by Walt's unscrupulous business behavior. As a matter of fact, there was a time of about two years during which Walt and Roy didn't speak to one another due to their disagreements about Walt's deceitful business behavior.

Interestingly enough most biographies of Walt don't even touch on the matter because TWDC has always had a rather heavy pixie dust hammer that biographers have wisely avoided. It's clear that Walt was all about the money. And there's really nothing wrong about being greedy. It's just that Walt clearly engaged in dishonorable and sneaky methods to amass his fortune.

And of course, TWDC to this day still paints Walt in the most favorable light possible. It obviously would not be in the best interest of the company to tell the truth about Walt and expose all of his many unsavory business practices. After all the founder's name must be kept pure, even though it's pure fantasy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There's a lot more to the story that the company has swept under the rug. Back in 1953 Walt created "Walt Disney Inc." and he assigned the rights to his name and likeness to the company. The company was formed to divert money from Walt Disney Productions directly to Walt's family. It was clearly an unethical business practice and Walt's own brother Roy was disgusted by Walt's unscrupulous business behavior. As a matter of fact, there was a time of about two years during which Walt and Roy didn't speak to one another due to their disagreements about Walt's deceitful business behavior.

Interestingly enough most biographies of Walt don't even touch on the matter because TWDC has always had a rather heavy pixie dust hammer that biographers have wisely avoided. It's clear that Walt was all about the money. And there's really nothing wrong about being greedy. It's just that Walt clearly engaged in dishonorable and sneaky methods to amass his fortune.

And of course, TWDC to this day still paints Walt in the most favorable light possible. It obviously would not be in the best interest of the company to tell the truth about Walt and expose all of his many unsavory business practices. After all the founder's name must be kept pure, even though it's pure fantasy.

The biography that probably goes the most into the argument over WED is published by Disney.

 

[zooey]

There's a lot more to the story that the company has swept under the rug. Back in 1953 Walt created "Walt Disney Inc." and he assigned the rights to his name and likeness to the company. The company was formed to divert money from Walt Disney Productions directly to Walt's family. It was clearly an unethical business practice and Walt's own brother Roy was disgusted by Walt's unscrupulous business behavior. As a matter of fact, there was a time of about two years during which Walt and Roy didn't speak to one another due to their disagreements about Walt's deceitful business behavior.

Interestingly enough most biographies of Walt don't even touch on the matter because TWDC has always had a rather heavy pixie dust hammer that biographers have wisely avoided. It's clear that Walt was all about the money. And there's really nothing wrong about being greedy. It's just that Walt clearly engaged in dishonorable and sneaky methods to amass his fortune.

And of course, TWDC to this day still paints Walt in the most favorable light possible. It obviously would not be in the best interest of the company to tell the truth about Walt and expose all of his many unsavory business practices. After all the founder's name must be kept pure, even though it's pure fantasy.

If I had just put everything on the line to do Disneyland and had great success I might secure my family with such a deal too. I don't blame him for that. Roy wasn't mad that walt did it he was mad he did it without him. It's also a misconception that Disney was wildly successful since Mickey or Snow White which is not true. The company struggled over and over again until Cinderella in 1950 and Disneyland in 55. Walt wasn't wildly wealthy until the last 10 years of his life.

 

[Funmeister]

Here's a fun observation… And one I noticed a crime scene the other day…

ABC IDs look darn near identical to WDW Cast IDs. Same Mickey on them and seem blue background.

Those were implemented a while back shortly after "Project Tomorrowland" was complete merging various HR departments in the company a few years back.

 

[Phil12]

The biography that probably goes the most into the argument over WED is published by Disney.

And it d

If I had just put everything on the line to do Disneyland and had great success I might secure my family with such a deal too. I don't blame him for that. Roy wasn't mad that walt did it he was mad he did it without him. It's also a misconception that Disney was wildly successful since Mickey or Snow White which is not true. The company struggled over and over again until Cinderella in 1950 and Disneyland in 55. Walt wasn't wildly wealthy until the last 10 years of his life.

The unethical behavior continued right up until his death. It then continued after his death with his family repeating the rewards. And he did not "put everything on the line to do Disneyland". You're falling for the pixie dust version again. You might want to research the house that Walt mortgaged to build Disneyland. It will help you understand the true nature of the deal.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Seeing arguments when one side of it is on ignore is priceless.

 

[zooey]

And it d

The unethical behavior continued right up until his death. It then continued after his death with his family repeating the rewards. And he did not "put everything on the line to do Disneyland". You're falling for the pixie dust version again. You might want to research the house that Walt mortgaged to build Disneyland. It will help you understand the true nature of the deal.

Ive done my research. Probably too much research. I'm not writing an essay here. I simplified the point. I'm just saying that to think Walt did everything for the money is to undermine his drive and intentions. There are so many instances within the films and park where he spent far more than he needed to elevate the art forms he was working in. Those aren't the actions of a greed driven person like you're describing. Allow people their complications and contradictions. The deal to sell his own name to his company is smart in my opinion. Secured his family would be taken care of long after him. I don't even see it as greedy honestly. But again, I'm a capitalist.

 

[zooey]

Seeing arguments when one side of it is on ignore is priceless.

Aww man am I being sucked in? I've never posted on here as much since I got my new phone. Didn't know.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Aww man am I being sucked in? I've never posted on here as much since I got my new phone. Didn't know.

Not talking about you… I enjoy what you post. You don't cause arguments and split every single hair.

And I post a lot from my phone while stopped at red lights. I had a lot of red lights.

 

[bakntime]

I think it's safe to say that the "real Walt" lies somewhere in the gray area between godlike saint and ruthless robber baron. History has no doubt glossed over the negative, just like it has done for most prominent figures in American history. We want to elevate them to a place that's above the normal person. We want to believe they were perfect. Obviously the truth is that most heroes and legends had plenty of flaws and ugly character traits, but I think we feel better when we pretend they didn't.

 

[Phil12]

Ive done my research. Probably too much research. I'm not writing an essay here. I simplified the point. I'm just saying that to think Walt did everything for the money is to undermine his drive and intentions. There are so many instances within the films and park where he spent far more than he needed to elevate the art forms he was working in. Those aren't the actions of a greed driven person like you're describing. Allow people their complications and contradictions. The deal to sell his own name to his company is smart in my opinion. Secured his family would be taken care of long after him. I don't even see it as greedy honestly. But again, I'm a capitalist.

Indeed, but who paid for those cost overruns? Not Walt Disney! Walt spent the money of other people and other companies to make his dreams come true. He charged back all of his expenses to the publicly held company, Walt Disney Productions. The stockholders got stuck with the bill, not Walt. Don't you understand that Walt Disney's money was separate and apart from Walt Disney Productions?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Indeed, but who paid for those cost overruns? Not Walt Disney! Walt spent the money of other people and other companies to make his dreams come true. He charged back all of his expenses to the publicly held company, Walt Disney Productions. The stockholders got stuck with the bill, not Walt. Don't you understand that Walt Disney's money was separate and apart from Walt Disney Productions?

That's the whole point of incorporation. Big whoop.

 

[Phil12]

I think it's safe to say that the "real Walt" lies somewhere in the gray area between godlike saint and ruthless robber baron. History has no doubt glossed over the negative, just like it has done for most prominent figures in American history. We want to elevate them to a place that's above the normal person. We want to believe they were perfect. Obviously the truth is that most heroes and legends had plenty of flaws and ugly character traits, but I think we feel better when we pretend they didn't.

But I know that the public relations machine has done an excellent job for Walt Disney. Most people simply don't know about his unethical business practices and dismiss any talk of such behavior as lies. They want to believe in Walt as being a creative genius with a heart of gold. I suppose it's because they must reserve all of their contempt for Darth Iger.

 

[Phil12]

That's the whole point of incorporation. Big whoop.

But the company Walt created was kept a secret from the stockholders. It was only known to the BOD (Board of Directors). "Walt’s brother and co-founder, Roy, strongly opposed Walt’s creation of the company and thought that it was a crooked, selfish move designed to drain the coffers of the main business."

 

[zooey]

But the company Walt created was kept a secret from the stockholders. It was only known to the BOD (Board of Directors). "Walt’s brother and co-founder, Roy, strongly opposed Walt’s creation of the company and thought that it was a crooked, selfish move designed to drain the coffers of the main business."

Pretty sure everyone turned out just fine.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the company Walt created was kept a secret from the stockholders. It was only known to the BOD (Board of Directors). "Walt’s brother and co-founder, Roy, strongly opposed Walt’s creation of the company and thought that it was a crooked, selfish move designed to drain the coffers of the main business."

What you are quoting is rather iffy in its understanding of Disney history, conflating concepts that were not one and the same and born out of contemporary views.

 

[Phil12]

Pretty sure everyone turned out just fine.

After Walt was successfully sued. Walt tried to hide behind Walt Disney Productions: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/127/213.html