Walt ...

Buck

Active Member
Original Poster
Mods, please move if necessary. I'm watching the Walt Disney
Documentary "the man behind the myth" and am simply in awe. Will there ever be a visionary the likes of Walt again? The only one I can think that has come close is Steve Jobs, but I think even that comparison is apples and oranges. Your thoughts?
 

Nemo14

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Mods, please move if necessary. I'm watching the Walt Disney
Documentary "the man behind the myth" and am simply in awe. Will there ever be a visionary the likes of Walt again? The only one I can think that has come close is Steve Jobs, but I think even that comparison is apples and oranges. Your thoughts?
Wouldn't that be "Apples" and oranges?
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
Walt, The Man Behind The Myth is not a documentary. It's a warm and fuzzy biography that shows Walt with all the rough edges and unethical business practices hidden from view.
 

ThankstoMOM

Active Member
I've seen that special like 15 times. Love it, Walt was deffinatley one of a kind and I highly doubt in this day and age we will ever see another visionary like him. Love the relationship with Roy, I have basicly the same relationship with my lil brother, So I can relate to that bond.
 

Buck

Active Member
Original Poster
It isn't. The documentary showcases Walt's essential character and achievements, and that part is legit. "Unethical business practices" is a bogus smear job by Clever Name, who also thinks that the Country Bear Jamboree should be changed to Hip Hop Bear Jamboree. Make of that what you will.
I know, I was being 100% sarcastic. I also question the motives of someone who posts on a site like this and doesn't admire Walt.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
Premium Member
There will be more Walt like visionaries... Sure. However likely not in his industry, at least for a long time. There are so many bright people out there and all one of them needs is a chance.
 

WED99

Well-Known Member
I don't think Steve Jobs is like Walt that much. Although both claim to be constantly pushing the boundaries of technology and creativity, Walt would have been smart enough to realise if you can make something a millimetre smaller and twice as fast then you make it a millimetre bigger and 4x as fast. It was never about the money for Walt, ever. I don't think the same can be said for Jobs.
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
I know, I was being 100% sarcastic. I also question the motives of someone who posts on a site like this and doesn't admire Walt.
No doubt that Walt Disney was a genius and major pioneer in Hollywood. Making movies (then and now) is a cutthroat business and Walt was well suited to the task. Walt Disney defrauded shareholders for years and without the sage advise and help from his brother Roy, Walt would have been ruined financially and most likely thrown in jail. Roy was finally able to make his little brother walk the straight and narrow.

The aforementioned movie is a fairy tale. The Disney company has a huge stake in keeping the memory of Walt as clean and polished as possible but historical facts belie that image.
 

Buck

Active Member
Original Poster
No doubt that Walt Disney was a genius and major pioneer in Hollywood. Making movies (then and now) is a cutthroat business and Walt was well suited to the task. Walt Disney defrauded shareholders for years and without the sage advise and help from his brother Roy, Walt would have been ruined financially and most likely thrown in jail. Roy was finally able to make his little brother walk the straight and narrow.

The aforementioned movie is a fairy tale. The Disney company has a huge stake in keeping the memory of Walt as clean and polished as possible but historical facts belie that image.
Thanks for clarifying.
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying.
In 1953 a small (500 shares) Walt Disney Productions shareholder by the name of Clement Melancon, sued Walt Disney and WED Enterprises (a privately held company owned by Walt Disney) because he (Melancon) had not gotten any dividends from his stock since 1947. Melancon alleged that Disney had siphoned off profits from Walt Disney Productions to enrich WED Enterprises (solely owned by Walt).

When Disney lost their motion to require the plaintiff (Melancon) to furnish $65,500 in security in order to proceed with the lawsuit, Disney decided to sweep this case under the rug as quickly as possible:

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/127/213.html

You'll notice that the case was reversed in August, 1954 and Disney settled the case 5 months later (January, 1955). Facts are stubborn things.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying.
It's really not all that clear. Walt wanted some creative control over his own company back and also wanted decent remuneration - which, when put in perspective, he never really got, especially when you look at the big fat golden parachutes CEOs like Eisner and Iger were and are getting. It's true that the methods he chose were illegal, but his intent was never "screw the shareholders and line my pockets because I'm a greedy thief". He'd scraped by and sacrificed for years to build his company, and felt he deserved better than he was getting. He felt he just wanted his fair share of both control and profit. Walt had a naive view of shareholders anyway - he avoided stockholder meetings, except for one, during which he read a letter from a stockholder who told him that he didn't care if he, the stockholder, earned one dime - he just wanted to help Disney keep up the good work. Money, to Walt, was primarily to be used to do great things with, not to build up a pile of it and live like a king. Clever Name likes to cast Walt as an evil corporate crook - which is not true. Period.
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
It's really not all that clear.
To the contrary, it is all very clear. Walt Disney diverted money that belonged to the shareholders to WED Enterprises. The company wisely settled the Melancon case because they knew that if it went to trial they would lose. Walt Disney Productions, WED Enterprises and Walt himself (personally) would then have to repay thousands of shareholders for all the stock dividends that Walt diverted between the years 1947 through 1953 (6 years). Had they gone to trial it would have resulted in complete financial ruin for the entire Disney empire including Walt's personal fortune.

A summary reversal of an order or judgment "is limited to situations where the proper resolution is so obvious and without dispute that briefing would nor serve any useful purpose. Such a remedy allows for speedy determination of the appeal." (Melancon v. Walt Disney Productions (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 213,215.).

Instead of going to trial they settled the case to gag Melancon. Under the terms of the agreement, Melancon was not allowed to reveal any terms of the deal. These are indisputable historic facts. We also know that Roy Disney forced his little brother Walt in 1965 to sell WED Enterprises to Walt Disney Productions (owned by the shareholders) for the sole purpose of making sure that shareholders would not sue Walt for fraud and diversion of funds.

I am not casting Walt as an evil corporate crook. He was undeniably a corporate crook and his brother Roy saved him from getting caught. Regardless of Walt's intent, his actions were illegal and fraudulent.
 

Buck

Active Member
Original Poster
It's really not all that clear. Walt wanted some creative control over his own company back and also wanted decent remuneration - which, when put in perspective, he never really got, especially when you look at the big fat golden parachutes CEOs like Eisner and Iger were and are getting. It's true that the methods he chose were illegal, but his intent was never "screw the shareholders and line my pockets because I'm a greedy thief". He'd scraped by and sacrificed for years to build his company, and felt he deserved better than he was getting. He felt he just wanted his fair share of both control and profit. Walt had a naive view of shareholders anyway - he avoided stockholder meetings, except for one, during which he read a letter from a stockholder who told him that he didn't care if he, the stockholder, earned one dime - he just wanted to help Disney keep up the good work. Money, to Walt, was primarily to be used to do great things with, not to build up a pile of it and live like a king. Clever Name likes to cast Walt as an evil corporate crook - which is not true. Period.
I agree with you, I meant thanks for clarifying his opinion.
 
Top Bottom