Talk about touching a nerve.
Yesterday’s column — “Erasing Roy” — set off a firestorm here at JimHillMedia.com. Traffic-wise, it was one of the best days that the site has ever had. As people from around the globe chimed in with their thoughts about the latest development in the Roy / Michael / Stanley situation.
Mind you, not everyone agreed with my conclusions. For example, take this message from noted film critic / Hollywood historian Leonard Maltin (which was forwarded to me late yesterday afternoon):
Hi…
I am not a spokesperson for the Walt Disney Company… but I can give you my personal reaction to this article. Jim Hill has it wrong. The answers he got from BVHE are NOT inconsistent. The “vendor problem” was that they ran out of tins for those collectible Treasures boxes… and it came at the worst possible moment, when their duplicators were swamped with orders for NEMO and PIRATES. That’s the reason they postponed the Treasures. Nothing to do with Roy. Nothing.
That said, I can’t predict what will happen from this point forward, given the current situation with Roy and the company.
cheers,
Leonard Maltin
Or how about this note from loyal JHM reader A Non Amouse. Who points out that there may be a perfectly logical reason that the Walt Disney Company is reportedly taking Roy’s name off of the packaging for Wave 3 of the “Disney Treasures” DVDs.
Jim:
I really enjoy reading your well-researched articles and have followed you from site to site over the last several years. I am glad you seem to have found a home.
As an intellectual property attorney, I need to point out (rather anonymously) that there may be valid legal reasons why The Walt Disney Co. needs to pull Roy’s signature off of the DVD packaging and, perhaps, remove his likeness from some video materials.
As an employee/officer/director of WDC, Roy likely had one or more contracts regarding the use of his right of endorsement, right of publicity, and the like. Issuing a DVD using Roy’s right of endorsement and right of publicity after his departure from WDC could give Roy grounds to bring claims against WDC. California Courts take these rights very seriously as you might imagine — and while Roy has to be careful how he uses the “Disney” name so as to avoid creating trademark claims against himself (why did you think his investment company is called Shamrock as opposed to Disney — and there’s no way he could found a company called Disney Productions without inviting a trademark suit), you have to believe that WDC is going to be very careful not to give Roy an easy claim to bring.
Just my 2 cents worth.
A Non Amouse
And I have to say that I genuinely appreciate that both Leonard Maltin and A Non Amouse took the time to chime in on this matter.
But — as reasonable as the two above explanations may seem — I have to tell you, folks: This ISN’T what I’ve been hearing coming out of Burbank over the past few days. Based on what Disney insiders have repeatedly been telling me, Michael Eisner is reportedly taking this whole Roy and Stanley situation ‘way too personal. Which is why Disney’s CEO is supposedly doing whatever he can to undermine and undercut these guys.
The only problem is … erasing all mention of Roy Disney from today’s Walt Disney Company is going to a lot harder than it looks. Take — for example — the “Golden Mickeys” stage show that just debuted earlier this month on the Disney Cruise Line. Walt’s nephew is all over that show (supposedly joining in on the festivities via a live feed directly from Disney Studios). I’m told that it’s going to take at least six months for the cruise line to remove the “offending” footage from that new stage show.
What Michael Eisner might really want to start worrying about is NOT how to get rid of images of Roy, but — rather — how to improve his own image. During last week’s trip to Walt Disney World, I was repeatedly told by cast members who work at Disney-MGM about how the guests have begun booing Eisner’s appearances in the film portion of that theme park’s “Walt Disney: One Man’s Dream” exhibit. Said one WDW vet:
“It’s really weird, Jim. That show’s been in there since September 2001. And — up until last week — no one’s ever said a peep whenever Eisner appeared on screen. But now the guests are cat-calling or saying stuff like ‘That man does not belong in this movie.’
And it’s not cast members who are doing this, Jim. Just your garden variety tourists. People who’ve heard that Roy was forced out of the Walt Disney Company by Eisner’s actions. Which is why they keep saying nasty things whenever Michael appears on the screen.”
This story just gets weirder and weirder as every day goes by, doesn’t it?
Since Mr. Maltin’s comments really do concern me, I’m going to spend the upcoming weekend trying to get some sort of definitive answer about the whole “Disney Treasures” situation. Try to find out — once and for — whether Roy’s resignation really did factor into Disney’s decision to push back the sales of these highly anticipated DVDs ’til May of 2004.
Mind you, my sources back in Burbank still insist that Eisner allegedly ordered that all of the packaging for the “Disney Treasures” DVDs had to redone to remove Roy’s name. But if Leonard Maltin (the film historian who wrote two of the very first reference books that I added to my film library, “Movie Comedy Teams” and “The Disney Films) says that I’m wrong … well, I think I’d better go check it out.
I’ll let you guys know what I find out come Monday. Til then, you all have a great weekend, okay?