Welcome to Jim Hill Media - Entertainment News : Theme Parks Movies Television

Why For returns !

Jim Hill

Jim's musings on the history of and rumors about movies, TV shows, books and theme parks including Disneyland, Walt Disney World. Universal Orlando and Universal Studios Hollywood.

Why For returns !

Rate This
  • Comments 76

First up, Rich writes in to say:

Hello, Jim,

I was hoping you could answer this Disney related riddle for me since you seem to be the Disney Go To Guy. A friend, knowing I am a huge fan of both Dave Steven's The Rocketeer, as well as of the Disney film, once told me that in the summer of 1991, Disneyland replaced Tinkerbell flying over the part during the fireworks with the Rocketeer.

Do you know if there is any truth to this? And if so, what information can you tell me about this?

Thanks in advance for your help,

Rich

Dear Rich --

Well, your friend is of sort kind of right. While Disneyland has occasionally allowed someone other than Tinkerbell to slide down the wire that used to stretch from the top of the Matterhorn to just behind the Village Haus Restaurant (I.E. During the 1960s, at the height of "Mary Poppins" popularity, the world's first Supernanny used to fly over Fantasyland. And during the summer of 1995, right after "The Indiana Jones Adventure" opened, Dr. Jones also zoomed through the sky over that theme park), the Rocketeer never made any regularly scheduled flights over Anaheim.

However, 3000 miles to the east, this Dave Stevens character did (for a short while, anyway) have a featured spot in Disney-MGM Studios theme park's nighttime fireworks extravaganza, "Sorcery in the Sky." During the Summer of 1991, a stuntman wearing a Rocketeer-like jetpack would make a brief flight around the Chinese Theater's forecourt area as a snippet from the film's soundtrack played.


Copyright 1991 Disney Enterprises, Inc.

Ironically enough, Danny Bilson & Paul De Meo's original screenplay for "The Rocketeer" featured an action sequence that was actually set at the really-for-real Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. Unfortunately, due to budgetary reasons, this witty little scene was cut out of the picture just prior to production.

Lucky for you folks, I have a copy of that film's original script in my research library. And -- for those of you who are familiar with "The Rocketeer" -- this scene would have come right after Cliff Secord & Peevy Peabody have escaped from Eddie Valentine's goons. Since he's just learned that his girlfriend Jenny is in danger, Cliff once again straps on Howard Hughes' experimental jetpack and makes ready to take to the skies.

EXT -- BULLDOG DINER -- NIGHT

Cliff stands precariously on the Bulldog's "head." He takes a deep breath and poises his thumb over the ignition button.

CLIFF:
Here goes nothing.

He presses the switch. The enormous dog is briefly crowned with fire as the Rocketeer blasts off into the darkness.

EXT -- HOLLYWOOD -- NIGHT

Like a shooting start, Cliff streaks through the night, the lights of the city brilliant below.

Circling like a hawk, Cliff looks down at the confusing swirl of illuminating streets and rooftops.

He fumbles in his jacket for a map of the city. As he attempts to open it, the wind plasters the map to his helmet, blinding him. Cliff tears at the map. It flies off and bursts into flames as it passes through the rocket's exhaust.

As the Rocketeer passes over Hollywood Boulevard, he is suddenly illuminated by a spotlight.

Startled, he looks down to see Grauman's Chinese Theatre, a gala movie premiere is in progress.

EXT -- CHINESE THEATRE -- NIGHT

On the theatre's roof, an excited SPOTLIGHT MAN is attempting to track Cliff across the sky.

SPOTLIGHT MAN:
What the heck ... ?

He swings the heavy light on its pivot. Then, the operator's foot slips over the edge of the roof. He stumble and rolls over the brink, hands clawing. His fingers seize on a gutter and he hangs precariously over the forecourt.

Down below, however, all attention centers on a roped-off pad of wet cement.

Theatre owner SID GRAUMAN stands at the microphone, trying to get the attention of the crowd, who are transfixed by the beautiful blonde walking up the red carpet. Flashbulbs pop like fire works.

GRAUMAN:
Ladies and gentlemen, please ... Please welcome the lovely Ginger Rogers.
Who will become part of Hollywood history by leaving the prints of her hands
and feet in our world famous --

A panicked voice interrupts Grauman.

ONLOOKER (o.s.)
Oh my God! Look up there!

All attention shifts to the Spotlight Man dangling from the theatre's main tower. The other searchlights sweep over to illuminate him. Women scream as the unfortunate employee vainly attempts to pull himself up. Helpless, Ginger Rogers, her tuxedoed escort, and the pack of spectators hold their breath.

Then, the man's fingers loose their desperate grip. The crowd gasps in horror as he drops to the pavement.

An explosive roar thunders down from above. Cliff's path is drawn by the rocket's fiery trail as he scoops up the falling man just before impact. Barely managing the extra weight, Cliff circles above the crowd then drops the man safely into a group of policemen.

The crowd goes bezerk. Every spotlight, camera, and eye is on Cliff. He executes a loop and lands proudly, feet spread, hands on his hips.

It is his best landing yet -- but for his feet planted firmly in the wet cement.

Flashbulbs flare blindingly as recognition ripples through the crowd.

SPECTATORS:
It's him! It's the Rocketeer!

FIRST REPORTER:
Lemme through ... Press ... move it!

SECOND REPORTER:
Mr. Rocketeer! Who are you? Where do you --!

Cliff's moment of glory is short lived. The excited crowd surges forward. As Cliff blasts off into the night sky, thrust craves a crater in the cement between his footprints.

Thinking like a true showman, Sid Grauman grabs a pencil from a reporter. He reaches down and quickly etches "THE ROCKETEER" in the cement.

FIRST REPORTER:
Miss Rogers! Miss Rogers!

GINGER:
(turning with a smile) Yes?

FIRST REPORTER:
Would you step aside, please?

Flustered, the actress moves to one side. The reporters aim their cameras. Flashbulbs explode as the cement slab is photographed.

That's a fun little scene, don't you think? Not entirely crucial to the plot. But still, it would have been fun to see this sequence actually make it into the finished picture.

Anywho ... Next up, Darren checks in to ask:

Jim,

The closest I'd ever been to my hero Walt was through a friend who was the niece of Pinto Colvig. He is best known for being the original Bozo the Clown. In the world of Disney, he was the original voice of Goofy and contributed heavily to the song "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" I've heard that he and Walt had a falling out of sorts. Do you know what happened or have any other interesting tidbits about this little known connection to Walt?

Dear Darren,

Yeah, I've heard the same thing about Colvig. That sometime in the early 1950s, Pinto supposedly did something something that really upset Walt. Which is why eight years passed (I.E. From 1953 "Father's Day Off" to 1961's "Aquamania") before this Mouse House veteran (His connection to the studio dated back to the old Hyperion days) was invited back on the lot to voice a new Goofy cartoon.

To be fair, this eight year absense was during a period when Walt Disney Studios was significantly cutting back on the number of animated shorts that it produced annually. So perhaps there's a more innocent way to explain Pinto's prolonged absense. That Colvig wasn't invited back to the Burbank lot for such a long time because there just wasn't any work.


Clarence "Ducky" Nash, the original voice of Donald Duck (left)
and Pinto Colvig, the original voice of Goofy (right)
Copyright Disney Enterprises, Inc.

But -- that said -- Walt did tend to run hot & cool when it came to the studio's staff. Even talented veterans like Bill Peet & Ward Kimball wound up doing things that unintentionally earned Disney's ire. And Walt then punished these animation legends by taking away plum assignments (In Ward's case, he lost out on the chance to direct "Babes in Toyland") and/or giving them demeaning tasks (In Bill's case, he was demoted from working on story for "Sleeping Beauty" to creating storyboards for Peter Pan Peanut Butter commercials).

Given Disney's history of being very quick to anger and extremely slow to forgive ... I have to admit that I tend to lean toward the Pinto-must-have-done-something-that-really-offended-Walt explanation as to why Colvig didn't work for the Mouse Factory for eight long years.

But let me make a few phone calls and see if someone who's much more knowledgable about Disney animation history than I am has a different take on this particular tale. Which I'll then try & post as part of next week's "Why For" column.

And -- finally -- in response to yesterday's "Could cashing in on Pixar now be a whole lot harder than Disney officials had originally thought ?" article, Dory Defender writes in to say:

Why do you always have to be so f*cking negative about Pixar? What has John Lasseter ever done to you? You are such an *sshole. I hate your website. I hope that you & your entire family get cancer and die !!!

Advertisement
 
   
Gee, Dory Defender. Why don't you tell me how you really think?

To be honest, e-mails like kind of amuse me. Who'd have ever thunk that someone could get that emotionally overwrought over something that they've read here on JHM?

I mean, it's not like I made up that Disney Brand Management report. That's why the Walt Disney Company isn't stepping forward to deny yesterday's story. That document really does exist. More importantly, it actually does say that there's been significant erosion in the value of the characters from "A Bug's Life," "Monsters, Inc.," "The Incredibles" and "Finding Nemo." Which is seriously going to hamper the corporation's efforts to get a speedy return on that $7.4 billion it spent to acquire Pixar.

So why -- because I dared to post that story yesterday -- am I now the bad guy? Isn't that sort of like getting mad at your local weatherman because he tells you that it's going to rain over the weekend? I mean, that guy doesn't control the weather anymore than I control the news.

And yet -- because I choose to write about the Walt Disney Company as if it were an actual business, rather than some magical kingdom that's loaded with beautiful princesses & talking mice -- I continually get slapped with the "you're being far too negative about Disney" label. Which (to my way of thinking, anyway) just seems ... Well ... a trifle bizarre.

Make no mistake, folks. The Mouse really does want to make serious money off of Pixar. And the sooner, the better. Which is why -- after "Cars" under-performed (And it did, folks. No amount of whining or complaining by JHM readers is going to convince me or senior Disney officials or key industry observers otherwise. Initial financial projections suggested that Mickey had a "Finding Nemo" -sized hit on his hands. But "Cars" stalled out at $244 million during its domestic run, which is $95 million less than Andrew Stanton's movie earned stateside. Which is why this John Lasseter film is now considered to be something of a disappointment. End of story) and then this Brand Management report shows up ... Well, that's the sort of thing that really upsets Disney's board of directors. After all, they're the guys who okayed that $7.4 billion payout for a studio that had only produced 7 films. And they don't like being thought of as the boobs who got played by Steve Jobs, the suckers who paid at least a billion (or two ... or three ... ) too much for Pixar Animation Studios.

Which (The way I hear it) is making for some pretty awkward moments in the boardroom. Given that Steve now has a seat on Disney's board of directors. Which only makes sense, given that -- thanks to all those shares of Disney stock that Jobs acquired as a result of the Pixar acquisition -- He's now this corporation's largest individual shareholder.

Anyway, that's the story that is currently making the rounds in financial circles. Increasing discontent about the Pixar situation at the uppermost reaches of the Team Disney Burbank building.

But JHM readers ... Based on most of the talkbacks that were tacked onto yesterday's article said, you guys don't seem to want to hear any more stories like that. Reading between the lines here, it sounds as if what a lot of you really want to read here is some sort of fairy tale about how everything is sweetness & light back in Burbank. How -- now that John Lasseter & Ed Catmull are in charge of WDFA -- everything there is running as smooth as silk and everyone who works in animation at Disney is just happy-happy-happy.

If that's honestly the sorts of stories that you want to read on this website ... I'm thinking that maybe you should probably stop coming by JHM.

You know how Bill O'Reilly has his "No Spin Zone"? Well, here at JimHillMedia.com, we try & keep things Pixie Dust-free. We make an effort not to get sucked in by all of that talk about Dreams & Magic & Wishes & Wonder that the Walt Disney Company always does. I mean, just because virtually every movie that the Mouse makes ends with a " ... And they lived happily ever after" ... Well, that doesn't mean that that actually happens in real life at Disney. Just ask Chris Sanders.

So -- to answer Dory Defender's question (I.E. Why am I so f*cking negative about Pixar?) ... The way I see it, it's not that I'm being negative. It's just that everyone else seems to be looking at the Pixar / WDFA situation through rose-colored glasses. Which is why they print Disney's press releases as written. They believe what they're being told.

Which perhaps explains why this incredibly complex story (I.E. The melding of two distinctly different animation enterprises) has been so under-reported lately. Particularly the negative stuff.

So if it seems as though JHM is the only place where you're reading somewhat downbeat reports on Pixar ... Well, there's a reason for that. I don't have the standard weenie's take on the Walt Disney Company. I try to write about the Mouse as if I'm some reporter who's covering the automotive beat in Detroit. And the tone that I'm going for here is informed but dispassionate.

Mind you, sometimes it's extremely hard to remain dispassionate. Take -- for example -- my current dilemma when it comes to Pixar's next picture.


Brad Bird, director of "The Iron Giant," "The Incredibles" & "Ratatouille"
Copyright Disney / Pixar

As an animation fan, I really can't wait to see "Ratatouille." Given that Nancy & I are such huge Brad Bird fans, this is probably the film that I am most looking forward to seeing in 2007. Simply based on Brad's history (Plus what I've seen so far of the film's characters from various books & the trailer as well as the voice talent that Pixar has tapped to work on this picture), "Ratatouille" looks like a thoroughily delightful movie. Something that I'll probably see two or three times while it's in theaters this summer.

But that's just Jim Hill, animation fan, talking. When I put my reporter hat on, I then to admit that there's still some very weird buzz swirling around this film. That those within the company who have already seen the work-in-progress version of "Ratatouille" will first tell you that they absolutely love this movie, that it's some of Bird's best work ... But then they'll go on to say that they still expect this Pixar film to do only 2/3rds of the business that "Cars" did. Which means that this Brad Bird movie -- just like the John Lasseter film that preceded it -- will get tagged with the "Pixar disappointment" label.

Now I'm assuming that JHM readers would actually like to know about something like that. That -- in spite of the recent assurances that were posted here on this website that Disney has this situation well in hand -- there are still those in-house who are very concerned about this Brad Bird movie.

But then when I read the 40+ talkbacks from yesterday (Plus -- of course -- Dory Defender's delightful note), where JHM readers go on & on how they don't want to read any more negative Pixar-related stories. And then I think: "Well, it's not like I commissioned that report. Disney Brand Management did. All I did was report its findings."

I mean, is that what you really want? That I not report stories like this? Are you honestly saying that you'd prefer not knowing about stuff like this? That we all should just pretend that bad news never happens at the Walt Disney Company? Because I'm not sure that I can do that, folks.

That said, I'd be willing to consider some editorial guidance from JHM readers. So what it is exactly that you want to see at this website? What do you want to see more of? More importantly, what do you want to see less of?

Mind you, I make no promises that I actually follow any of the suggestions that you folks post in the talkback section of today's column. But I will make a point of reading through each of your comments this coming weekend. And -- if a strong enough pattern emerges -- maybe we'll make a few changes at the site. Maybe.

Soooo ... Your thoughts?

Blog - Post Feedback Form
Your comment has been posted.   Close
Thank you, your comment requires moderation so it may take a while to appear.   Close
Leave a Comment
  • * Please enter your name
  • * Please enter a comment
  • Post
  • Jim,

    I think what you’re missing here is that most fans do not judge the success of a film by whether or not it meets the expectations of Disney executives. And, for those same executives to judge Cars by the financial success of Finding Nemo is silly. First off, Nemo and the Toy Story movies came out at a time when computer animated films were not only red hot, but very, very rare. From 1995 to 2003, Pixar was pretty much the only studio putting out CG films, and they’d release one every couple of years. After Nemo came out in 2003, there were about 15 different CG films released between 2004 and 2006. So, suddenly, as far as the movie going public was concerned, seeing a CG film wasn’t such an event anymore. In fact, eight of those films were released in 2006 when Cars debuted. Now, I don’t know about you, but I’d consider that a complete over-saturation of a very specific market. So, I don’t think Disney execs can realistically judge the success of a film by the standards of a few years ago when Pixar had the market cornered when it came to computer animation. Look at it like this, if I owned the only McDonalds in town, I’d probably make a fortune. But, it’d be foolish to think that revenue wouldn’t do down if Burger King, Taco Bell, and Wendy’s opened up across the street. Most fans realize this, and therefore could care less is Disney doesn’t meet unrealistic financial goals set by fat cat execs. The film made quite a bit of money at the theaters, in dvd sales, and it will go on making money through merchandising. It’s high time Disney and everyone else for that matter realized that the fad of CG animation is over. Good films will still be successful, but for the regular movie going public the novelty has worn off and they’ll be more selective about what they buy a ticket to see. After having sat through Robots, I know I am.

    So, that’s why it’s hard for me to take stories about Disney execs concerned about maximizing profits seriously. Just sounds like a bunch of uptight, whiny, pompous jerks upset that they’ll have to settle for a Lexus instead of a Mercedes-Benz. Geez…It’s been less than a year since they acquired Pixar, and they’re already getting antsy that Pixar hasn’t paid for itself yet. And, let us not forget, if Disney remembered how to make a halfway decent animated film to begin with, they wouldn’t have had to purchase a studio that was cranking them out once a year.

    In summation, Jim, I don’t mind reading bad news pieces on Pixar. The minute they crank out a bad film with a weak story and substandard animation, I’ll be the first to proclaim that Disney may have a problem on its hands. But, a market survey based on who-knows-what factoring in statistics from who-knows-where, doesn’t even register to me as news when I’m still seeing kids gobbling up Cars merchandise. After all, statistics can be used to prove just about anything.

    As for what I’d like to see in your columns, more stories about attractions that were never built, behind the scene details on the ones that did, stories about attractions currently in the works, and, last but not least, stories concerning the making of our favorite Disney feature length cartoons. Thanks.

    P.S. Whoever said your family should die of cancer is just classless.

  • You know what I F***ing want to see?

    More F***ing swearing.

    And more of the long multi-part historical pieces that got me hooked on your writing in the first place, many websites ago.

    And just because Paul Pressler's long-gone, doesn't mean you can't point out that he just got s***-canned at the Gap.

    And ignore the Pollyannas who say you can't write anything negative.

  • I like reading the financial articles.

    What annoys me is the writing devoted to arguing with responses in the talkbacks, the "I told you so" attitude (which is probably even more annoying to those who agree that Cars was a financial disappointment to the suits), and especially the strawman "dialogue" of putting words in the mouths of hypothetical readers (at least this time you stuck with debating actual comments).

    If you really want to defend yourself and argue with readers, why don't you just post your responses in the comment section and let the articles read like articles?

    Stick to reporting the facts, and less spin (especially when the spin amounts to "look, I was right").

  • Excellent article.  I, for one, want to hear the raw news.  Keep it coming.  I'd love to get a Muppet update sometime soon too.  

  • >>>I mean, it's not like I made up that Disney Brand Management report. That's why the Walt Disney Company isn't stepping forward to deny yesterday's story. <<<

    He says that, as if they really CARE what this obscure little site has to say.

  • Jim, I have been visiting your site for a long time, but I have never written before. I want to say thank you for your great job reporting. You always have things that interest me from all aspects of the entertainment industry. Please continue to keep up the much appreciated work.

  • Could this article be any more whinier? My god.

    Anyways, so Pixar had one film that "underperformed" meaning it only made $244 million. Oh. My. God. What a failure. That must mean Pixar is going down the tubes!

    Are we going to forget the fact that every company has movies that don't do as well as others, including Disney? And are all of these companies automatically labeled as failures, destined to never make any money ever again because they had an off-production?

    Gimme a break.

    Normally I'm upset at all the Jim Hill bashers, and generally think that they're a little too vigilant in attacking Jim. But this article...this is just ridiculous.

  • I don't mind the news articles, I just think that all these Disney reports and attitudes are just unrealistic.  They seem to expect that every Pixar film will make $350 million plus, when that just isn't the case.  Yes, Disney did pay a lot for Pixar, but in the long run, it will pay off.  Just look at all the Pixar attractions coming to the parks, not to mention more films in the future which will all make a good chunk of change.  I don't fault you for reporting this, I just think that the people in the "Mouse House" have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to stories like the one yesterday.  I just don't understand why they all feel to put negative spins on Pixar-related projects.  I mean, it's not like WDFA has put out anything close to Pixar films lately, so I just can't understand all the negativity.  

  • I come to JHM for the breaking Disney news with your commentary. I come for interesting stories about the past, exciting stories about the future, and sad stories about the unbuilt. I also DO come here to find out about the the Disney suits are thinking about their financial performances. I come here for informative series (which often GO UNFINISHED!!). I don't really come here for articles that aren't tied to Disney (although I'd love to know more about what the Muppets are up to these days!!). I certainly come here for "Why For"s... so STOP stopping them!

    I think it's important to remember, Jim, that people are allowed to differences in opinions. And while you're entitled to say things that tend to always get the readers rowdy (Disney overpaid for Pixar, Cars underpeformed, etc.), the readers are entitled to their opinions.

    I agree with some of the above posters that you became a broken record with the Cars articles... I honestly found the comments more interesting than the actual article. I would say you could do a commentary on the box office the weekend after it came out, then maybe once it closed. I know you were writing to respond to the notes, but it became too much.

    Again, Jim, I really love your site and I say that although some notes on here have validity, ignore the rest. It's your site and go on, be honest! I'll keep reading! :)

  • Well, I for one say it's your site, Jim, and you can therefore write about anything you please. I find lots of great stuff to read here and I enjoy this site very much. My only comment regarding the Pixar story was - why on earth is Disney worried about Pixar, which has a proven track record and a high profile with the public, and NOT worried about that Muppet franchise that Eisner foolishly bought, just because he was obsessed with it? How come you're hearing grumbling about the former but not about the latter? I'm not saying the story you posted isn't true - how would I know? - but if Disney's worried about Pixar, surely it's sweating bullets over the big bucks it spent on a bunch of puppets, since sadly, today's audiences would rather watch pixels than puppets any day...I'm just saying...

  • "But JHM readers ... Based on most of the talkbacks that were tacked onto yesterday's article said, you guys don't seem to want to hear any more stories like that. Reading between the lines here, it sounds as if what a lot of you really want to read here is some sort of fairy tale about how everything is sweetness & light back in Burbank. How -- now that John Lasseter & Ed Catmull are in charge of WDFA -- everything there is running as smooth as silk and everyone who works in animation at Disney is just happy-happy-happy.

    If that's honestly the sorts of stories that you want to read on this website ... I'm thinking that maybe you should probably stop coming by JHM."

    Hmmm ... let me throw a word your way, Jim:

    Condescending, adjective - Patronizing, disdainful, supercilious.

    The issue I with these stories has absolutely NOTHING to do with the tone of the article. Go check out some of my posts over at INTERCOT ... I routinely SLAM Disney when I think it's appropriate. I am not some "pixie dust" nerd who thinks everything Disney does is just hunky dory. Frankly, I think TWDC has more warts these days than a two dollar toad!

    My issue is that the stories are CLEARY written with a bias and that is NOT something I tolerate in any form of journalism (even Disney-fanboy journalism). You only present articles that support your position. As someone else mentioned, you have never once addressed the fact that, overall, Cars was an extremely successful and popular film. You've never once mentioned that, while the box office numbers were less than projects, the Consumer Products sales FAR exceed expectations and more than made up for the box office shortfall.

    Don't patronize us, Jim. We're not stupid (well ... not all of us, anyway). If you SERIOUSLY think that ANYONE reading these stories month after month after month doesn't see right through your, "Who? Me?" act, you're fooling yourself.

    Quite frankly, if you'd just admit that your writing biased stories and stop trying to pass them off as legit news I'd have a lot more respect for you and your site. Call it a blog ... call it a fan site ... just don't call it news, because news is fact-based and unbiased (unless it's coming from CNN or Fox, that is). What you're doing is dredging up any shred of evidence you can find to support your shaky point of view. You did it with Save Disney and now you're doing it with Pixar.

    It's tiring and it's old, Jim. How come you aren't covering the What's New? What's Next? press conference?? Weren't you invited??

  • Regarding Walt running hot and cold, a few of the most talented people did find themselves out of work (temporarily), especially during the lean years of the 1950's.

    In fact, Ward Kimball not only was pulled off of Babes In Toyland, but was fired, He  begged to be rehired, and was put on a menial project.  For me, reading the truth about Disney (and Walt) is preferential to only seeing "happy" stories.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  It pleases me to see that JHM allows ALL feedback, both supportive and dissenting.

  • Ok, here's my beef(s) regarding the previous story:

    1. Didn't Disney actually own the rights to these Pixar characters before the merger anyway? Disney didn't pay for the existing franchises - they already owned those. That's why there was the falling out between Pixar and Disney over the Toy Story 3 fiasco. Omitting this fact (which you have mentioned many times before) smacks of bias. Disney paid for the braintrust and potential future franchises.  (This also brings up the point that b*tching about Cars performance as a sign of a lack of return on investment is kind of silly - even if Pixar and Disney had parted ways, Cars was contractually owned by Disney anway. Yes it may be a sign of the potential loss of future returns, but the returns on it really aren't part of the $7 billion pricetag for Pixar - Disney would have owned Cars anyway, just like it owned the other other Pixar characters.)

    2. Did this study also look at the diminished worth of other Disney characters? Time passes, trends and characters fade. Other than the princesses, Mickey and Friends, and Pooh and Friends, what Disney characters are worth what they used to be? Even one of the Mouse House's greatest achievements of recent memory, The Lion King, doesn't have anywhere near the power that it used to. I don't really understand why this is a big deal, it is to be expected. And the point remains that the "fading" Pixar characters are still worth about a million times more than the characters from Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Atlantis, etc. Again, did this report reference non-Pixar characters?  Even if it didn't, the focus on just the Pixar characters is again, biased.

    What it all boils down to for me is that you are not simply "a reporter" like you wrote above, you are opinionated and overly biased. Is it possible to be completely neutral and unbiased?  No, of course not.  But by "reporting" these anti-Pixar stories and leaving out relevant facts and discussion, you have created incredibly one-sided articles that lose any credibility. You've gone beyond taking off the rose colored glasses to putting on the scowl of doom (ok, I made that up - I can't come up with the opposite of rose colored glasses).

    The point is, I come here to get scoops on WDFA and WDI, as well as some interesting history and behind the scenes looks. I don't mind the fact the financial topics are discussed, but when it comes to Pixar, John Lasseter, Cars, etc., the "reporting" is intentionally misleading to the purpose of proving your point, and I have no interest in reading that...

  • Okay. I understand your frustration Jim.  Everytime you choose to do an article that PICKS ON Disney, everyone gets upset.  No one wants to read bad news about Disney. We all want the fantasy. But as you say, it doesn't exist. And frankly, if you write an article that I know  will annoy me, or I won't like, I just don't read it.  I move on and come back another day. I would hate for you to start pandering to us. Write what you want, it's your site. However, since you asked, I would have to ask for two thing. Number one, please actually finish some of those great articles that you started so long ago and keep promising you're going to finish.  And two, make WHY FOR a weekly event.  Actually, I have one more thing I'd like.  Finish that CD we've all been waiting for!  As far as content I don't want to see, I pretty much stick by my earlier statement. Write what you want. Just don't write the same story over and over. Really, did we need you kicking CARS down the steps so many times? Once was really enough.  We believe you.  It wasn't as big a success as everyone wanted it to be.

  • I don't mind getting the bad news. I like knowing whats really going on at Disney and you are my number one place to find it. My only suggestion is to write more stories about the way Disney was when Walt was alive. I love reading articles about Disney's failed Oz movie or about abandoned park concepts. Those stories are what interest me the most.

Page 2 of 6 (76 items) 12345»