Eurodisney and Michael Moore

[that_L_do_pig]

Have you seen this nugget? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136143,00.html

 

[Captain Hank]

Wow, that's a new one on me.

 

[timoteo]

Another example how the relationship between the US and the Saudi's is a real menace. The relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia is corrupt and hypocritical on so many levels. Both sides manipulating the world for their own greed. I only hope that one day my country wakes up and changes tact.

 

[that_L_do_pig]

hey keep this apolitical - the forum rules say no politics (there are other places for that)

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Well then why did you start this thread? This IS about politics. It's funny how this has surfaced only on the Fox News website. Wonder why we don't hear about it in the mainstream media?

And yeah Farenheit 9/11 is factual. (Rofl)

 

[that_L_do_pig]

it's about disney and INVOLVES politics - at least keep the replies disney-related so it does not get locked...

 

[HennieBogan1966]

So they can lock a thread, just because someone is offended by the direction of the conversation? Forgive me, but isn't that against freedom of expression?

 

[that_L_do_pig]

what does freedom of expression have to do with a monitored forum? The constitution has no bearing here - somebody pays to allow this to exist... his or her rules are law...

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Okay, so on here, because someone PAYS THE BILLS they get to set the rules. Hmm, but when we talk about DISNEY themselves, ..........Interesting.
(SEE UNIONS)!!!

 

[HennieBogan1966]

I just find it very interesting that someone can bring up a figure like Michael Moore, ( a VERY polarizing political figure you must admit). Then you expect us to not discuss the political connections that he brings to a subject. So, he can be part of the title of a thread, even a part of the story, but can't be discussed, unless it entertwines with Disney. By the way, what was the connection that he shared with Michael Eisner and the Saudis? Was it the fact that a Saudi family bailed out EuroDisney? Did EuroDisney somehow have some connection with the release of Farenheit 9/11? If so, what is Disney doing getting involved in politics? Why is it their place to do so? If so, how is it that they believe that they would/could speak for everyone employed by Disney on ANY political issue? Now, you may say, well they don't speak for everyone at Disney, rather for the leadership (i.e. Michael Eisner). But when the mention his name, they don't just say Micheal Eisner, they say Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney. So, like it or not, the connection is made.

I don't like discussing politics when it comes to Disney. But let's be honest. Politics has become and has always been, a part of the fabric of our lives. It is more so now than ever I believe. And it seems to polarize the nation at times. And when you mention someone (MMoore) in this story, you can't help but discuss politics.

It would be akin to talking Disney, but saying, but you can't mention Mickey Mouse, or Cinderella's Castle.

 

[that_L_do_pig]

dude, relax...

I was just surfing the news sites, saw disney pop up in the mainstream news and posted it here.

Now I wish I never had...

 

[ritchie56]

I, for one, am glad you did post it. I would never have seen it on the Fox site, and I'm glad I did. The article makes so much sense. And I can keep the discussion about Disney and apolitical, because the article is apolitical. It isn't for or against anything--it just points out some facts. Was it Eisner's motivation? Maybe. Makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure I blame him from Disney's perspective. From a citizen's perspective it scares the bejeezes out of me.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Wait a minute, you're going to say that Michael Eisner involving Disney with a rich Saudi family makes sense? You can't be serious. (I hope you are, cause I got a truckload for you on this one.) Please tell me you aren't serious? (please be serious.)

 

[ritchie56]

Wait a minute, you're going to say that Michael Eisner involving Disney with a rich Saudi family makes sense? You can't be serious. (I hope you are, cause I got a truckload for you on this one.) Please tell me you aren't serious? (please be serious.)

Michael Eisner DID involve Disney with rich Saudi's a long time ago, way before 9/11. It's a fact. What makes sense is his decision now to protect Disneyland Paris from being flushed, rather than distributing a film that might insult his investor. From a business stand point, that makes sense. Do I like it? No, but I understand it. Makes a whole lot more sense than the reasons that were publiclly given at the time.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Okay. This is going to be called "off-topic" and unrelated, and political, but it's not. What it will be is PROOF of hypocrysy. (I really need spellcheck I think.)

Why is it okay for Disney to associate themselves with Saudi families to "save" the business which they have mis-managed, instead of paying the piper? They should either make major cutbacks, or shut the park down. I find it just laughable that people conveniently find this okay, but not with anyone in our government. And you KNOW who I'm talking about. Whether the connections are real or IMAGINED. I know, it's all about our security. Funny that same person has been saying that for over a year now. So don't try that one either. And here's the tie-in. If you CLAIM that it's all about security; please tell me how it isn't important when the man of the most powerful theme park company in the entire world, who entertains millions of guests per year in their parks, connects himself with a Saudi family, that it isn't a little concerning to any of you?

 

[ritchie56]

Why is it okay for Disney to associate themselves with Saudi families to "save" the business which they have mis-managed, instead of paying the piper? They should either make major cutbacks, or shut the park down. I find it just laughable that people conveniently find this okay, but not with anyone in our government. And you KNOW who I'm talking about. Whether the connections are real or IMAGINED. I know, it's all about our security. Funny that same person has been saying that for over a year now. So don't try that one either. And here's the tie-in. If you CLAIM that it's all about security; please tell me how it isn't important when the man of the most powerful theme park company in the entire world, who entertains millions of guests per year in their parks, connects himself with a Saudi family, that it isn't a little concerning to any of you?

I never said it was Okay--I believe I said it scared the bejeezes out of me. I don't find it okay for our goverment either. BUT I do UNDERSTAND it. I can see logical reasoning behind it. Face it--the Saudi's have invested lots of money in lots of companies all over the world. While it may be preferable from a moral standpoint to suddenly turn down their cash, from an economic standpoint it would be a disaster. You really want a global recession? I don't. I would like to see a gradual weaning--and I would definately prefer it if I didn't feel like my government was beholden to a foriegn power--any foreign power.

 

[lebernadin]

Have you seen this nugget? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136143,00.html

FAIR, specifically Peter Hart, broke this story 6 months ago. Corporations dictate foreign and domestic policy. We can name, or not name in the case of this board, politicians and point fingers all we like, but they're all culpable.

I'm still trying to figure out what Eisner had in mind though. There's no doubt he was fully aware that the Weinstein's were producing F911, regardless of the attempted spin that he was oblivious. So was he naive to the possibility that the House of Saud would become a focal point, given what the broad scope of the film had already alluded to? I doubt it. So if he was aware that such connections would be illustrated in the film, which would eventually come into conflict with a major investor, what was he hedging his bet on? That DLP would crawl out of debt to the point where the Prince's stake could be marginalized? Doubtful considering DLP's financial standing at the inception of the F911 project versus this past spring when the storm began.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

In the end, the fact is, Eisner has mis-managed things to the point, that he somehow felt compelled to connect himself, and by extension, the company to this Saudi family, and summarily, Michael Moore. Now, again I say, it's NOT okay with me that he has done this for very good reasons. I also agree our country shouldn't do it. But here's the thing. In a lot of cases businesses, and governments are forced into thinking outside the box when it comes to high finance and business. Wanna take a guess as to why that is? Hmmm. Government (over)regulation and taxation. You need look no further than that answer. Which is why we need less government and NOT more. Just take a look at all the movie production studios who now go to Canada for filming. Know why? The lack of or lower TAXES!!!

Now back to the issue at hand. It SHOULD disturb all of us that this has happened and should further cement the most important reason as to WHY Michael Eisner isn't fit to run the company. He's NOT a good leader. In the end, the captain has to fall on the sword. And he's the Captain of this ship.
I don't ever want to see a day where Disney has to rely on a Saudi family to bail out ANY arm of, or park, belonging to Disney. I'm just counting the days to when there is new leadership at the top.

 

[lebernadin]

The initial infusion of Saudi cash was in the mid-90's though, right? So the way the Saudis are viewed by certain parts of the world right now is a new revelation and the fact that DLP didn't work off these bailouts between then and now is a subject all in itself. But Eisner basically had his hands tied since buying off the Saudi investment would have cost a ridiculous amount of money that the stockholders would not have approved of in any way shape or form. It would be to what result; moral objections to the newfound enlightement on the House of Saud in films and press? While this might have been perceived as noble by some, money is why any company exists and it will trump morals any day.

Also, to play devils advocate for the Prince, is there anything unsavory that can be directly connected to him that would warrant severing ties suddenly?

 

[Legacy]

The whole situation is business. Politics (except the business kind) have nothing to do with the Prince's connection with Eisner. China is a Communist country. Should we not have relations with them?

It's business and money. Nothing more. Don't try to rile people up, because most of the people here are above it.