Rumor Bye Bye (Tiki) Birdies?

Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

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

Give me a break, of course it is. Your interpretation is that Walt was a dirty crook, which is your way of getting attention around here, whereas Joshua Kennon disagrees; therefore, a debate. As per Kennon, everything Walt did in that event WAS LEGAL. His intent was NOT to defraud shareholders, it was to get a fair share of the profit his company was generating. And as Kennon pointed out, Walt's actions ended up BENEFITING shareholders. There was indeed a rift between Roy and Walt over WED, and Roy had good reasons to be upset over the arrangement; but in the end, they settled the matter and reconciled when Walt gave Roy a peace pipe for his birthday and wrote him a heartfelt letter ending with "I love you."

https://www.disneyavenue.com/2017/02/the-time-walt-disney-passed-peace-pipe.html

You may have some of the legal particulars of this matter right, but your desire to paint Walt as an evil money-grubber is where you blow your credibility, dude.

You appear to be quoting from the thoroughly discredited Walt Disney "biography" "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince", which tells me a lot. You also say a lot of ridiculous things to rile people up around here, which also blows your cred. You've wasted enough of my time on such stuff, I can tell you, and while I won't ignore you (something I don't do on principle), you're not getting any more attention from me; your sourcing from "Dark Prince" clinched that. Have a nice day.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
mikejs78 said:
[


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.
Click to expand...


I respectfully disagree. Any studio could have bought Marvel and done the same thing. I don't see anything remarkable about keeping an already-successful franchise going, and that success, BTW, was built by others, especially Stan Lee, not Disney. I will offer a caveat, however, in regards to Big Hero 6. That is a case where Disney looked at an obscure published work, adapted it, added changes that greatly enhanced its appeal, and made a successful film out of it. Big Hero 6 is more in the style of traditional Disney adaptation, and nobody who loves traditional Disney creativity could object to it IMO.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
Magenta Panther said:
I respectfully disagree. Any studio could have bought Marvel and done the same thing. I don't see anything remarkable about keeping an already-successful franchise going, and that success, BTW, was built by others, especially Stan Lee, not Disney. I will offer a caveat, however, in regards to Big Hero 6. That is a case where Disney looked at an obscure published work, adapted it, added changes that greatly enhanced its appeal, and made a successful film out of it. Big Hero 6 is more in the style of traditional Disney adaptation, and nobody who loves traditional Disney creativity could object to it IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes to all your comments re Big Hero 6, that's an awesome film. But I have to respectfully disagree about the rest of Marvel and the MCU based on history. Yes, Stan Lee and Marvel built the love for their characters over many years. But I don't think the MCU, 24 films that are interconnected and tell a cohesive narrative, would have happened the way it did with anyone else.

The MCU is the brainchild of Kevin Feige. He conceived of it right around the time Disney bought Marvel. Yes, there had been successful Marvel franchises with other studios with the better known Marvel characters (Spider Man, XMen) but these were standalone or trilogy affairs.

Feige had lesser known characters to work with. Iron Man, Guardians, Thor... Yet he crafted a universe that would span many films and produce quality film after quality film. (it's not a given that a Marvel character will translate into a good movie - see Daredevil (the movie, not the show), or the Fantastic Four for examples.

It is unlikely Feige would have been able to pull it off without Disney. First, if Marvel had remained standalone, it's likely Feige would have run into major problems with beancounter Isaac Perlmutter at some point (the fact that he eventually did, and then got the support of Iger and company to be independent of Perlmutter probably saved the MCU). Second, given that no one had ever done anything like the MCU before in movies, I suspect any other studio would have considered it too much of a risk. But Disney has a culture of support for creativity, pushing the envelope when it comes to story telling, etc, and I believe it is that culture that allowed the MCU to unfold as it did.
 
2

2351metalcloud

Active Member
mikejs78 said:
Yes to all your comments re Big Hero 6, that's an awesome film. But I have to respectfully disagree about the rest of Marvel and the MCU based on history. Yes, Stan Lee and Marvel built the love for their characters over many years. But I don't think the MCU, 24 films that are interconnected and tell a cohesive narrative, would have happened the way it did with anyone else.

The MCU is the brainchild of Kevin Feige. He conceived of it right around the time Disney bought Marvel. Yes, there had been successful Marvel franchises with other studios with the better known Marvel characters (Spider Man, XMen) but these were standalone or trilogy affairs.

Feige had lesser known characters to work with. Iron Man, Guardians, Thor... Yet he crafted a universe that would span many films and produce quality film after quality film. (it's not a given that a Marvel character will translate into a good movie - see Daredevil (the movie, not the show), or the Fantastic Four for examples.

It is unlikely Feige would have been able to pull it off without Disney. First, if Marvel had remained standalone, it's likely Feige would have run into major problems with beancounter Isaac Perlmutter at some point (the fact that he eventually did, and then got the support of Iger and company to be independent of Perlmutter probably saved the MCU). Second, given that no one had ever done anything like the MCU before in movies, I suspect any other studio would have considered it too much of a risk. But Disney has a culture of support for creativity, pushing the envelope when it comes to story telling, etc, and I believe it is that culture that allowed the MCU to unfold as it did.
Click to expand...

Yes the Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America weren't really that popular before movies featuring them were released recently.

It seems like Disney might have had some interest in Marvel at certain points in time before purchasing them in 2008. This has possibly been since around when Marvel was airing shows on Fox Kids (which Disney would eventually purchase after it was renamed Fox Family), when Marvel went bankrupt, and when they were included at Universal Studios parks.

www.comicmix.com/2008/07/17/interview-greg-weisman-talks-gargoyles/
There was actually a mandate from Disney to create an action universe on the level of DC or Marvel comics.
Click to expand...

David Maisel worked at Disney before joining Marvel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios#Licensing_films
In 2003, David Maisel approached Arad about earning Marvel more for their films. Maisel, Arad and Perlmutter met leading to Maisel being hired in as President and COO. The studio's office, then on Santa Monica Boulevard, were small with a dozen or so staff members. Kevin Feige was a junior executive generating script notes to the licensed studios.[36]

Partnering with Lionsgate in 2004, Marvel Studios plan to enter the direct-to-DVD market with eight animated films with Lionsgate Home Entertainment handling distribution.[38][39] The line was a proof of concept for Maisel's later plan.[36] Eric Rollman was hired by Marvel as Executive Vice President, Home Entertainment & TV Production for Marvel Studios to oversee the deal with Lionsgate.[40]

In 2004, David Maisel was hired as chief operating officer of Marvel Studios as he had a plan for the studio to self-finance movies.[41] Marvel entered into a non-recourse debt structure with Merrill Lynch that was collateralized by certain movie rights to a total of 10 characters from Marvel's vast vault. Marvel got $525 million to make a maximum of 10 movies based on the company's properties over eight years, according to the parameters of the original deal.

Initially Marvel Studios was in talks with Universal Studios as a possible distributor. Negotiations dragged on, so the studio began talks with Paramount Pictures. In October 2005, Michael Helfant joined the studio as president and chief operating officer.[44]

In November 2005, Marvel gained the film rights to Iron Man from New Line Cinema. Marvel revealed that it had regained the film rights to The Incredible Hulk in February 2006.[45] In April 2006, Thor was announced to be a Marvel Studios production.[46] Lions Gate Entertainment subsequently dropped the Black Widow motion picture project it had since 2004 giving the rights back to Marvel.[47]

Maisel and Arad fought over the rate of movie releases and strength of characters in the movie line up. Perlmutter supported Maisel and thus, in May 2006, Arad quit as studio chair and CEO.[41] In March 2007, David Maisel was named Chairman and Kevin Feige was named President of Production as Iron Man began filming.[48]
Click to expand...

Phil12 said:
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:

More-WED-Enterprises-Share.png


And here's an authentic signature from his passport in 1965:
Click to expand...

You can see this on the variety of things that Walt Disney autographed.
 
Pixieish

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
mikejs78 said:
Yes to all your comments re Big Hero 6, that's an awesome film. But I have to respectfully disagree about the rest of Marvel and the MCU based on history. Yes, Stan Lee and Marvel built the love for their characters over many years. But I don't think the MCU, 24 films that are interconnected and tell a cohesive narrative, would have happened the way it did with anyone else.

The MCU is the brainchild of Kevin Feige. He conceived of it right around the time Disney bought Marvel. Yes, there had been successful Marvel franchises with other studios with the better known Marvel characters (Spider Man, XMen) but these were standalone or trilogy affairs.

Feige had lesser known characters to work with. Iron Man, Guardians, Thor... Yet he crafted a universe that would span many films and produce quality film after quality film. (it's not a given that a Marvel character will translate into a good movie - see Daredevil (the movie, not the show), or the Fantastic Four for examples.

It is unlikely Feige would have been able to pull it off without Disney. First, if Marvel had remained standalone, it's likely Feige would have run into major problems with beancounter Isaac Perlmutter at some point (the fact that he eventually did, and then got the support of Iger and company to be independent of Perlmutter probably saved the MCU). Second, given that no one had ever done anything like the MCU before in movies, I suspect any other studio would have considered it too much of a risk. But Disney has a culture of support for creativity, pushing the envelope when it comes to story telling, etc, and I believe it is that culture that allowed the MCU to unfold as it did.
Click to expand...

I would add Elektra right alongside Daredevil. Those were just awful.
 
Phil12

Phil12

Well-Known Member
2351metalcloud said:
You can see this on the variety of things that Walt Disney autographed.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of Walt Disney autographs were not signed by Walt. They were in fact "secretarial signatures". Walt Disney Productions authorized a few people at the studio to sign Walt Disney autographs. Hank Porter was one of those people and he worked in the promotions department. Porter did thousands upon thousands of Walt Disney autographs. These types of autographs are essentially worthless.

The two autographs I supplied are indisputably authentic since they come from official documents. And the information I've supplied comes from legal documents and sources that have incontrovertible provenance.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
AJH219 said:
Live from Magic Kingdom. I thought this attraction was a flop?
Click to expand...

Today is packed at the MK.

7DMT - 110
SpMt - 75
Pan - 75
Jungle - 70
Buzz - 60
Tinker - 55
Princesses - 55
Mickey - 55
HM - 55
PotC - 50
Belle - 50
Dumbo - 50
BTMR - 50
Barnstormer - 50

So, packed is packed. Every nook and cranny gets filled. You can't judge the popularity of a ride by packed park conditions... everything's at maximum.

I have never ever seen Tiki Room that crowded. I go at times when Dumbo and Barnstormer are only 5-10 minutes and SpMt is under an hour. At those times, there's only about a dozen people per show. It's at low crowd levels that you really get to see what's popular and what's not.

Is there a 50 minute line outside of the Tiki Room waiting to get in?
 
discos

discos

Well-Known Member
We did Tiki Room at 4:30 last Tuesday and I'd say the theatre was about half full. Same went for crowd size when we did Country Bears and COP, although COP seemed to have been a little less. It seems like that this style of attraction doesn't draw huge crowds regularly and although most people wouldn't consider these popular rides, people are still watching them and it does help the parks capacity. Could the tiki room get new animatronics to bring it up to today's standards? Sure but removing the ride completely would be a bad move imo
 
W

Whatsthegoodword

Member
discos said:
We did Tiki Room at 4:30 last Tuesday and I'd say the theatre was about half full. Same went for crowd size when we did Country Bears and COP, although COP seemed to have been a little less. It seems like that this style of attraction doesn't draw huge crowds regularly and although most people wouldn't consider these popular rides, people are still watching them and it does help the parks capacity. Could the tiki room get new animatronics to bring it up to today's standards? Sure but removing the ride completely would be a bad move imo
Click to expand...

I'd support improving some of the animatronics in the Tiki Room. I'd even support changing up the show a little, as long as it continued in the same spirit as the traditional show (like an early '60s lounge show). ...but adding other IPs or "updating" it would be (another) disaster. If they do that, they might as well scrap it and put in simulators.
 
rreading

rreading

Well-Known Member
Whatsthegoodword said:
...and if there's anything in the MK that is screaming for a makeover, it's the Carousel of Progress - not the Tiki Room.
Click to expand...

Eventually these entertainments have become a kind of history lesson (which the COP was originally). I'd say that the original intrigue of the Tiki Birds for our kids was the fact that it was the way it has been for such a long time; the music is classic; and the atmosphere classic Disney. As we get older we enjoy the wit more and develop nostalgia for it as well. But the COP is a window in the past as originally conceived and now is also a window into the manner things were created years ago. It still tells it's story well just as The American Adventure does or Hall of Presidents does. Sure it's dated. But I want it continue to function well and look good, I would not want to change its content. Even it's dated "future" room is - to me - appropriate. I'd rather not pull a George Lucas and try to make it seem more timely - it is what it is.
 
John park hopper

John park hopper

Well-Known Member
There are some things WDW should not replace update yes but not replace, they are a connection to many who went as kids or took our own kids to see. The Tiki Birds is one of them. My 2 granddaughters will be old enough soon to appreciate WDW and Tiki Birds will be one attraction I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they see it for the first time. Sure the Tiki Birds most likey don't appeal to the older kids, however as an adult it still brings a smile to my face and it will bring a smile to my granddaughters. When they are adults it will bring a smile to them (if it's still around)
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom