Rumor Bye Bye (Tiki) Birdies?

[Pixieish]

That's a bit of a myth. While much Disney lore comes from the public domain, many movies from the Walt era were from copyrighted works: Mary Poppins, Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, Old Yeller, Zorro, Pollyanna, One Hundred and One Dalmatians - just to name a few.

I didn't say they all were...you can actually see when Walt's financial footing started to stabilize because that's when he started using stories that weren't in the public domain.

 

[Phil12]

such as?

Walt was the head of Walt Disney Productions which was owned by the shareholders. In 1952 Walt created his own private company called Walt Disney, Inc. (which later became WED Enterprises). The shareholders knew nothing about his private company yet WED was operating rent free on the Disney studio lot.

As head of Walt Disney Productions, Walt chose his own private company to create, design and construct Disneyland. It was an unethical deal because Walt personally profited from the money invested in the project. Walt didn't worry about cost overruns because the money spent went directly to him!

In the process of building Disneyland Walt retained ownership of several Disneyland attractions some of which included the monorail, the railroad, the Main Street street cars and the Viewliner. The employees of these attractions did not work for Disneyland. They worked for and were paid by WED Enterprises. Between 1955 and 1981 Walt Disney Productions paid WED Enterprises (and later Retlaw) 75 million dollars for the use of Walt's "private" attractions. All that money came directly out of shareholder's pockets.

Walt intended to do the same at EPCOT. He would use shareholder money to build the city and the primary contractor would be WED (i.e. his own private company). Walt would personally profit from all construction (as he did with Disneyland) and he would retain ownership of the monorail. the people mover and other profitable venues within the city. The investors and shareholders would one again make little or no money while Walt made the profits due to his unethical business practices.

And for the record, Walt's brother Roy knew that Walt's creation of WED was designed to siphon money away from Walt Disney Productions and into Walt's pockets. Roy was upset with Walt but unfortunately let his little brother get away with this scam.

 

[Phil12]

No, it was no blessing at all. Walt and Roy were a team comprised of their two opposite personalities that complimented each other and they compromised to build Disneyland and they, together are what made the places we all love to this day. That Disney has been unable to form such a team since Walt's passing is why we are all complaining about lack of maintenance, new ideas, etc. etc.

Your statement is proof positive that the Disney public relations department has done their job!

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Phil still up to his usual, I see ... ignore is your friend

Ignore him. He’s not known for his input.

Wow, that is harsh. It was a blessing that the founder died?

I would hope by now that people would see this for what it is and always has been- a troll account. It was obvious before, even with the less offensive but still stupid and absurd nonsense (GOTG belongs in Frontierland, theming is bad, etc).

If all of that didn't already set off the troll alarm for everyone, now it's "Walt Disney's death was a wonderful thing, i'm glad the evil fraud is dead". I mean, Jesus Christ people, it doesn't get any more obvious than that...

 

[Phil12]

I would hope by now that people would see this for what it is and always has been- a troll account. It was obvious before, even with the less offensive but still stupid and absurd nonsense (GOTG belongs in Frontierland, theming is bad, etc).

If all of that didn't already set off the troll alarm for everyone, now it's "Walt Disney's death was a wonderful thing, i'm glad the evil fraud is dead". I mean, Jesus Christ people, it doesn't get any more obvious than that...

 

[fractal]

Walt was the head of Walt Disney Productions which was owned by the shareholders. In 1952 Walt created his own private company called Walt Disney, Inc. (which later became WED Enterprises). The shareholders knew nothing about his private company yet WED was operating rent free on the Disney studio lot.

As head of Walt Disney Productions, Walt chose his own private company to create, design and construct Disneyland. It was an unethical deal because Walt personally profited from the money invested in the project. Walt didn't worry about cost overruns because the money spent went directly to him!

In the process of building Disneyland Walt retained ownership of several Disneyland attractions some of which included the monorail, the railroad, the Main Street street cars and the Viewliner. The employees of these attractions did not work for Disneyland. They worked for and were paid by WED Enterprises. Between 1955 and 1981 Walt Disney Productions paid WED Enterprises (and later Retlaw) 75 million dollars for the use of Walt's "private" attractions. All that money came directly out of shareholder's pockets.

Walt intended to do the same at EPCOT. He would use shareholder money to build the city and the primary contractor would be WED (i.e. his own private company). Walt would personally profit from all construction (as he did with Disneyland) and he would retain ownership of the monorail. the people mover and other profitable venues within the city. The investors and shareholders would one again make little or no money while Walt made the profits due to his unethical business practices.

And for the record, Walt's brother Roy knew that Walt's creation of WED was designed to siphon money away from Walt Disney Productions and into Walt's pockets. Roy was upset with Walt but unfortunately let his little brother get away with this scam.

genius!

 

[montyz81]

Point to Walt Disney’s bank accounts so you can show us the “facts” please?

 

[Phil12]

Point to Walt Disney’s bank accounts so you can show us the “facts” please?

I'll do better than that. Here's a detailed analysis of how Walt used WED Enterprises to defraud shareholders:
http://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-enterprises-inc-the-private-family-holding-company-of-walt-disney/
http://www.joshuakennon.com/walt-disney-ipo/

 

[Phil12]

genius!

Yes indeed he was a creative genius and also a genius crook.

 

[montyz81]

I'll do better than that. Here's a detailed analysis of how Walt used WED Enterprises to defraud shareholders:
http://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-enterprises-inc-the-private-family-holding-company-of-walt-disney/
http://www.joshuakennon.com/walt-disney-ipo/

That isn't even close to 1 better! As I said, give us access to Walt Disney's personal bank accounts. That would make it easy to believe. Don't you know that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the internet?

 

[Phil12]

That isn't even close to 1 better! As I said, give us access to Walt Disney's personal bank accounts. That would make it easy to believe. Don't you know that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the internet?

I'd like to see the accounts. Do you have access to Walt Disney's personal bank accounts?

Here's another interesting thing about WED. You get to see Walt's real signature rather than the phony "cartoon" signature that is so often passed off as his signature:

And here's an authentic signature from his passport in 1965:

 

[smile]

Walt was the head of Walt Disney Productions which was owned by the shareholders. In 1952 Walt created his own private company called Walt Disney, Inc. (which later became WED Enterprises). The shareholders knew nothing about his private company yet WED was operating rent free on the Disney studio lot.

As head of Walt Disney Productions, Walt chose his own private company to create, design and construct Disneyland. It was an unethical deal because Walt personally profited from the money invested in the project. Walt didn't worry about cost overruns because the money spent went directly to him!

In the process of building Disneyland Walt retained ownership of several Disneyland attractions some of which included the monorail, the railroad, the Main Street street cars and the Viewliner. The employees of these attractions did not work for Disneyland. They worked for and were paid by WED Enterprises. Between 1955 and 1981 Walt Disney Productions paid WED Enterprises (and later Retlaw) 75 million dollars for the use of Walt's "private" attractions. All that money came directly out of shareholder's pockets.

Walt intended to do the same at EPCOT. He would use shareholder money to build the city and the primary contractor would be WED (i.e. his own private company). Walt would personally profit from all construction (as he did with Disneyland) and he would retain ownership of the monorail. the people mover and other profitable venues within the city. The investors and shareholders would one again make little or no money while Walt made the profits due to his unethical business practices.

And for the record, Walt's brother Roy knew that Walt's creation of WED was designed to siphon money away from Walt Disney Productions and into Walt's pockets. Roy was upset with Walt but unfortunately let his little brother get away with this scam.

in your story of walt vs. teh shareholders, gonna side with walt.
eh, good for him. the finance industry in general has been borked for quite some time

not speaking to the veracity of your tale...
but in getting your gist, i would have preferred some huxley there

 

[Phil12]

in your story of walt vs. teh shareholders, gonna side with walt.
eh, good for him. the finance industry in general has been borked for quite some time




not speaking to the veracity of your tale...
but in getting your gist, i would have preferred some huxley there

I like your Huxley quote! Some Walt Disney fans tend to ignore or gloss over the greed and unscrupulous behavior exhibited by Walt during his career. I think this is largely because they are victims of the well-oiled Disney public relations machine which has worked tirelessly to maintain a clean corporate image for both Walt and the company. After all, the stock and trade of Disney is fantasy so it's only natural for some fans to go all in and reject that which doesn't enhance their belief system.

As for "the veracity of your tale...", it's not my tale at all. All the information I presented has been independently verified by multiple sources and is well known. I haven't revealed any secrets or new information. Of course, the story hasn't ended because Dianne Disney Miller learned well from her father: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walt-disney-family-feud-inside-706029

 

[Magenta Panther]

Phil's accusations about Walt are crap, period. If you guys want to read the real story, check out Bob Thomas' excellent biography which covers the topic. Thomas knew and interviewed Walt and had access, without restriction, to the Disney archives and conducted interviews with Walt's workers and family. His biography is impeccable and has never been challenged as to credibility, as have some others ("Hollywood's Dark Prince", for example.) Bottom line, Walt wanted to get more financially out of HIS company, plus he wanted more creative freedom. His desire was not to defraud stockholders. He had been through a hell of a lot, financially and emotionally, and he wanted some security. Here's another source, Joshua Kennon, who's talked about the topic, and here is one of his comments when someone asked him if Walt was a thief:

See? That's the problem. No, he wasn't (a thief). At least, technically. Everything he did was legal. And, you might even argue, he deserved it given that he was the creative and business genius behind the empire. It was certainly less lucrative than if he had just used a hedge fund compensation agreement, so he makes today's contracts look positively quaint.

But it looks bad. Maybe that doesn't matter. After all, in the article about the Disney IPO, a single block of 1,000 shares bought in 1957 for $13,880 ended up growing to somewhere between $26,672,640 and $40,000,000. How can an investor complain? It is literally one of the best performances in the history of the world. If anything, Walt was underpaid.

I think it was about control. If you look at what happened to him early in his career, and his psychology profile, I think he wanted to intertwine himself with his business so much that it was impossible for anyone to take it away from him again, or for him to ever suffer through loses as a result of an artist strike, like happened with his animators in the past. He always had a kill switch following those painful early life lessons; mechanisms of power that would make it practically inconceivable that he would ever be at a disadvantage to any other stakeholder and that there was no doubt it was his playground and you were along for the ride, for better or worse.

Part of it could be too that he wanted to be well paid, and executive compensation was pathetic back then compared to today. By structuring it this way, not only did he enjoy much more lucrative pay checks, but he put together a family portfolio of assets that continued generating cash after he died so that his family still enjoyed great wealth even when he wasn't around to mint capital.

Strategically, it was brilliant. It's up for personal interpretation about the morality of his actions.

https://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-enterprises-inc-the-private-family-holding-company-of-walt-disney/

 

[Magenta Panther]

There was already a handful of Alice movies and another handful of TV adaptations before Walt also grabbed her for himself.

There were a bunch of theatrical and audio version of Winnie the Pooh before Walt gobbled that up.

Peter Pan likewise had theatrical versions and a film before Walt bought him.

Sure, what was done before wasn't bought by Walt, but it does show that you can take something that has had previous versions and then what you do with it from there is uniquely yours... just like when Disney bought Marvel, there was only two movies in the MCU: Hulk and Iron Man. Everything that happened from there was a Disney-stamped "new interpretation" as you put it. A signature Disney version and therefore immortal.

Yes, of course versions of Snow White existed prior to Walt's version (he actually saw a film version of one of them himself, as a newsboy in Kansas City), and Peter Pan was a play before it was even a book, and there were various versions of Alice films (all dreadful), before Walt adapted them. But it was HIS artistry that made HIS versions canon. When people think of Pinocchio or Alice or Peter Pan, they think of Walt Disney's version first, because they were the best developed and most enjoyable versions. He added elements to those properties, and others, that expanded their appeal a million times over. That's what makes those versions immortal.

Kindly inform me of what Disney could do to Marvel's stuff that would make them more immortal than they already were before the sale? Tons of TV shows and movies and comic books and toys already existed prior to the purchase. The brand was well-known as a movie entity, already had an audience, and was merchandised heavily and successfully. This is what Iger found appealing. Little risk and a pretty-much guaranteed financial reward. Walt's use of IPs always involved a lot of risk; his "Snow White" movie was called "Disney's Folly" before it premiered to great success. That success was the result of artistry. Iger's purchase of Marvel was the result of deep pockets and an aversion to risk. No comparison.

 

[GCTales]

The problem with some fans is that they turn a blind eye toward Walt's greedy nature and the way he cheated the shareholders out of millions of dollars. Had he lived, he intended to repeat the same dishonest practices in his new EPCOT project. Only this time around he planned to legally insulate himself to head off lawsuits.

Thankfully Walt passed and Roy (who forced him to come clean on his previous scams) was honest and unwilling to follow through with Walt's EPCOT dystopia. And everyone lived happily ever after (although Walt's estate was still undeservedly sucking money out of TWDC until 1982). Even Roy E. Disney objected to the overvalued price TWDC ended up paying to buy the Retlaw rights.

However, if it makes you feel better to believe in the fantasy that Walt was honest in his business practices, it's your right. But you're only fooling yourself.

 

[Phil12]

Phil's accusations about Walt are crap, period. If you guys want to read the real story, check out Bob Thomas' excellent biography which covers the topic. Thomas knew and interviewed Walt and had access, without restriction, to the Disney archives and conducted interviews with Walt's workers and family. His biography is impeccable and has never been challenged as to credibility, as have some others ("Hollywood's Dark Prince", for example.) Bottom line, Walt wanted to get more financially out of HIS company, plus he wanted more creative freedom. His desire was not to defraud stockholders. He had been through a hell of a lot, financially and emotionally, and he wanted some security. Here's another source, Joshua Kennon, who's talked about the topic, and here is one of his comments when someone asked him if Walt was a thief:

See? That's the problem. No, he wasn't (a thief). At least, technically. Everything he did was legal. And, you might even argue, he deserved it given that he was the creative and business genius behind the empire. It was certainly less lucrative than if he had just used a hedge fund compensation agreement, so he makes today's contracts look positively quaint.

But it looks bad. Maybe that doesn't matter. After all, in the article about the Disney IPO, a single block of 1,000 shares bought in 1957 for $13,880 ended up growing to somewhere between $26,672,640 and $40,000,000. How can an investor complain? It is literally one of the best performances in the history of the world. If anything, Walt was underpaid.

I think it was about control. If you look at what happened to him early in his career, and his psychology profile, I think he wanted to intertwine himself with his business so much that it was impossible for anyone to take it away from him again, or for him to ever suffer through loses as a result of an artist strike, like happened with his animators in the past. He always had a kill switch following those painful early life lessons; mechanisms of power that would make it practically inconceivable that he would ever be at a disadvantage to any other stakeholder and that there was no doubt it was his playground and you were along for the ride, for better or worse.

Part of it could be too that he wanted to be well paid, and executive compensation was pathetic back then compared to today. By structuring it this way, not only did he enjoy much more lucrative pay checks, but he put together a family portfolio of assets that continued generating cash after he died so that his family still enjoyed great wealth even when he wasn't around to mint capital.

Strategically, it was brilliant. It's up for personal interpretation about the morality of his actions.

https://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-enterprises-inc-the-private-family-holding-company-of-walt-disney/

Actually Walt did defraud shareholders. The evidence is clear. Walt was successfully sued by Clement Melacon in 1953 because Walt was illegally siphoning off money from Walt Disney Productions (the public company owned by shareholders) to Walt's private company, Walt Disney Incorporated (which later became WED).

Walt had his legal team quickly settle the case in January, 1955 so that the results of the settlement could be hidden from public view and Melacon was forced not to disclose any details of the settlement. Although Walt's legal team originally attempted to stop the Melacon lawsuit by asking the court to require Melacon to post a security deposit of $65,000. The ruse didn't work.

Walt knew that had the case gone to trial his unethical and illegal business practices would be made public therefore a quick settlement was certainly in his best personal interest and in the best interest of Walt Disney Productions.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/127/213.html

Walt's brother Roy feared that this scenario would again occur and he urged Walt to clean up his act. And sure enough in 1965 under threat of a shareholder lawsuit, Walt was forced to sell parts of WED to TWDC. In that case lawyers from both sides (TWDC and WED) got together and worked out a private deal to avoid bad public relations for both parties. And precisely because of the WED fiasco, Roy and Walt did not speak with each other for several years, although they did reconcile after Walt finally agreed to divest part of WED to avoid another lawsuit.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/10/books/tales-from-the-fable-factory.html?pagewanted=all

Also I'll point out that when Walt proposed the WED deal to Walt Disney Productions Board of Directors, three members of the board resigned in protest because they knew the deal was dishonest.

Here's a quote from the Bob Thomas book, Building a Company – Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire:
"Even talk of family squabbles and arguments is brought to light, including a time in the early 60’s, where Walt and Roy stopped talking to each other for several years."

This is all public information which is well documented. It's not a matter of interpretation or debate.

 

[mikejs78]

[

Kindly inform me of what Disney could do to Marvel's stuff that would make them more immortal than they already were before the sale? Tons of TV shows and movies and comic books and toys already existed prior to the purchase. The brand was well-known as a movie entity, already had an audience, and was merchandised heavily and successfully. This is what Iger found appealing. Little risk and a pretty-much guaranteed financial reward.

Eh, that's not quite accurate. If Disney had bought Marvel and just milked the existing licensing deals and thrown a few cartoons into the mix, I'd agree with you. But the purchase of Marvel by Disney allowed the MCU to really take off and create this universe of interconnected Movies, something that hasn't been done before. Whether you like the MCU or not it's creation in it's currently form is rather remarkable, and it likely wouldn't be what it is today if Disney hadn't come along. So I wouldn't call this laziness.

 

[Pixieish]

[


Eh, that's not quite accurate. If Disney had bought Marvel and just milked the existing licensing deals and thrown a few cartoons into the mix, I'd agree with you. But the purchase of Marvel by Disney allowed the MCU to really take off and create this universe of interconnected Movies, something that hasn't been done before. Whether you like the MCU or not it's creation in it's currently form is rather remarkable, and it likely wouldn't be what it is today if Disney hadn't come along. So I wouldn't call this laziness.

And if anything, Disney has increased the fanbase by quite a lot.

 

[Whatsthegoodword]

So enough of all this. Is the Tiki Room safe??