Lasseter Taking Leave of Absence

Hatbox Ghostbuster

Hatbox Ghostbuster

Well-Known Member
"Two sources recounted Lasseter’s obsession with the young character actresses portraying Disney’s Fairies, a product line built around the character of Tinker Bell.

At the animator’s insistence, Disney flew the women to a New York event. One Pixar employee became the designated escort as Lasseter took the young women out drinking one night, and to a party the following evening."

Still sure you like that better??

EDIT: Curses, SSG beat me to it.
 
TROR

TROR

Well-Known Member
Silver lining: At least there was someone there to protect the women so nothing bad actually happened to them. Hopefully.
 
Rich T

Rich T

Well-Known Member
Dr. Hans Reinhardt said:
Agreed, but I think at this point, some 34 years after Eisner arrived at Disney and 18 years into Iger's tenure as CEO, it's time that everyone accept that the Walt Disney Company is mostly a content distribution company, not the boutique creative enterprise that it was at Walt's passing. The point I'm making is that you can forget about Disney as it stands being that kind of company again, no matter who holds the CEO position.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Disney is (was) a unique company, formed by a visionary man during an amazing period of growth and invention in the entertainment industry. Many, many of us who have grown up with Disney in our lives have just assumed it would always be there, never changing. In an alternate universe, Michael Eisner never became CEO and the studio dissolved in 1984 as its departments were sold off to the highest bidder. Eisner saved the company, and one could say we've been fortunate the studio has retained any kind of creative identity for this long.

I have no hope at all that the next CEO will have any love for the company's legacy and heritage, but Classic Disney will live on through its timeless films and music. The parks will keep changing, and a lot of us fans will hate many of the changes. But a changed Disneyland is better than a closed, extinct Disneyland. We all know the danger is that some day they'll kill the Golden Goose in their chase for more profits. We can't expect a miracle, but we can hope for good business sense that recognizes the most important thing: Without the art, there is nothing to sell.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Hatbox Ghostbuster said:
lol, I don't know that I would ever have categorized Walt-era Disney as "boutique", but that's just me.
Click to expand...

OK, that might have been a bit of an exaggeration, but in 1967 Disney was basically comprised of a single theme park and a movie studio that specialized in family films. The company didn't appear on the NYSE until 1957, 2 years after Disneyland opened.

Hatbox Ghostbuster said:
Also, ugh, I don't want you to be right about this...despite all the current and future evidence pointing to it.
I think the correct CEO could turn it around...it just surely won't be Chapek.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see it as "turn it around", especially when the company has been so successful under Iger's leadership. Of course there'll be changes, but I expect that both the public and investors want more of the same from whoever takes the reigns.

Frankly I'm more bothered that Lassetter's antics were permitted to continue for years apparently with knowledge from other executives within the company. Also the recent reports on Disneyland's backroom political influence and subsequent LAT boycott gave me pause. Rather than change its content output I'd prefer to see the company put some effort into better aligning its internal corporate culture with its reputation as a respected global brand.

Hatbox Ghostbuster said:
edit: my math is a bit fuzzy, but didn't Iger become CEO in 2005? That would only give him 12 years at the helm not 18.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right. My mistake. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
21stamps

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Dr. Hans Reinhardt said:
To be fair a lot of celebrities and famous people with busy schedules have a handler. What's crazy about this story is that he had one whose job was to keep him in line with women and protect them from him. :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Do you guys seriously think that the handler was there because they were in fear that he would assault a group of women?

More likely, the handler was there to make sure that he didn’t do anything that would cause harm to his reputation, and in turn, the studio.
Women aren’t as delicate and helpless as a few of you appear to think.

IF he did need that kind of babysitting, then there are a lot more people who should be punished.. but it never really works out that way.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

21stamps said:
Do you guys seriously think that the handler was there because they were in fear that he would assault a group of women?

More likely, the handler was there to make sure that he didn’t do anything that would cause harm to his reputation, and in turn, the studio.
Click to expand...

What's the difference?
 
21stamps

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Dr. Hans Reinhardt said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Huge difference.

If the reports are true- The handler wasn’t assigned as a bodyguard for the women. He was assigned to protect a reputation because of sleazy tendencies.

One is for protection, one is strictly to avoid any potential negative press. The motives for the handler are not the same between the former and the latter. Which means people higher up are just as guilty.
 
DisneyDoctor

DisneyDoctor

Well-Known Member
21stamps said:
Huge difference.

If the reports are true- The handler wasn’t assigned as a bodyguard for the women. He was assigned to protect a reputation because of sleazy tendencies.

One is for protection, one is strictly to avoid any potential negative press. The motives for the handler are not the same. Which means people higher up are just as guilty.
Click to expand...
So a bodyguard meant to prevent a man from inappropriately touching and interacting with women isn't protecting the women? I think I understand what you're implying, though. Disney didn't care that he was doing it, they just wanted to cover there arses best as possible.
 
21stamps

21stamps

Well-Known Member
DisneyMedStudent said:
So a bodyguard meant to prevent a man from inappropriately touching and interacting with women isn't protecting the women? I think I understand what you're implying, though. Disney didn't care that he was doing it, they just wanted to cover there arses best as possible.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that a group of women need a bodyguard from one man.
I have a little more faith in women than that.

But yes, if the reports are true then the position was about saving their prize possession, not really about the women at all. They could have told him “No” to the requests for the parties in the first place, instead they went along with it...providing a babysitter.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
clearly the company cared - they were trying to balance it vs just dumping him. They thought the gain was still better than the cost.

Remember... sexual harassment laws do not require a company FIRE someone - they require controlling the work environment to ensure all employees can operate without fear of harassment.

Now a days, the fear of repercussions and liability mean that frequently people are just jetison'd vs trying to fix the problem. Here, the company was trying to keep the problem from reoccurring... without just removing him outright.

At the basic level... there is nothing wrong with that. It may not be the most socially popular opinion... but it's reality. Behavior doesn't necessarily lead to being fired automatically.

Where the company opens itself to greater liability from civil matters is if the company doesn't follow through with it's own policies and treats people differently. So if you let the VP slide... but you fire the department manager on first offense... then they are going to open themselves up to lawsuits from the fired employee.
 
DisneyDoctor

DisneyDoctor

Well-Known Member
21stamps said:
I don’t think that a group of women need a bodyguard from one man.
I have a little more faith in women than that.

But yes, if the reports are true then the position was about saving their prize possession, not really about the women at all. They could have told him “No” to the requests for the parties in the first place, instead they went along with it...providing a babysitter.
Click to expand...
I'm not in the place to say what a group of women working at the world's most premier animation company need, and neither are you. Faith is nice, but when there is no mechanism to report these kinds of wrongdoings or an atmosphere conducive to sexual harassment report, having someone there to stop the actions in the first place doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
 
Darkbeer1

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Disney is currently talking to John Lassiter's lawyers, working out what Disney must pay Mr. Lassiter to exit his contracts. Then also offer to let Mr. Lassiter to make the announcement/apology that he is retiring from the entertainment business, or let Disney announce that they have severed all ties to Mr. Lassiter, especially in how NBC/Universal/Comcast handled Mr. Lauer's firing.

My bet, sometime in the next two weeks before the Holiday slowdown that happened in corporate offices everywhere.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom