Disney getting it's ass kicked! :)

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-09-12 05:09am

I just love this news

The evil empire getting it's ass kicked

From Buisnessweek

Why Is Christopher Robin Sobbing?
Disney is in a bear of a fight over Pooh's lucrative honey pot

The 100 Aker Wood may look like a dark, forbidding place these days for Michael D. Eisner. That's where Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, and Eeyore live, and the cartoon characters--which represent at least $1 billion a year in revenues for Eisner's Walt Disney Co. (DIS )--are in full revolt. A 12-year-old lawsuit, sealed in a Los Angeles court until January, has come to light, and a series of court rulings threaten the media giant with hundreds of millions in overdue license payments and possibly the loss of one of its most lucrative properties.

How large a hit Disney will take is still in dispute. Disney is appealing two rulings, including one alleging that company executives knowingly destroyed important papers related to its licensing deals. The Pooh affair may seem minor at a time when Eisner is under attack for Disney's chronically weak stock price and ABC's anemic ratings, but the Disney chairman hardly needs more jostling from a Silly Old Bear. What's more, the impact could be significant. After acknowledging to the Securities & Exchange Commission on Aug. 9 that "damages could total as much as several hundred million dollars" or the loss of the licensing agreement, Disney was hit with new shareholder lawsuits.

Disney wants to keep its grip on that bear and his honey jar. Pooh is Disney's single largest property, says Martin Brockstein, executive editor of The Licensing Letter. That adds up to about $100 million in operating earnings from royalties on Pooh T-shirts, backpacks, and other merchandise, figures Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co. analyst Jeffrey Logsdon. Last year, Disney paid $352 million to one pair of heirs of Winnie-the-Pooh author A.A. Milne. But the family of Stephen A. Slesinger, a New York literary agent who bought the U.S. rights in 1930, says Disney owes them $200 million on licenses for T-shirts and other merchandise and has cut them entirely out of the lucrative videocassette and DVD arena. Headed by Shirley Slesinger Lasswell, an 80-year-old widow who travels with a Winnie-the-Pooh bear everywhere, the family contends it is owed close to $1 billion, say its lawyers. Disney, which says it pays the Slesingers $12 million a year, insists the $1 billion figure is a publicity stunt. "The 1930 contract says they get royalties on merchandise alone, not all exploitation," says Disney attorney Daniel J. Petrocelli.

The Slesingers also charge that Disney lost documents related to merchandise sales and destroyed others that extended the accord to DVDs and videotapes. On June 18, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige rejected the audit by a forensic accountant he thought unduly favored Disney and found that Disney "misused the discovery process" by hiding the fact that it destroyed documents that might have expanded the licensing agreement to tapes and DVDs.

Absent those documents--which include the papers of the late Disney Consumer Products chief Vincent Jefferds--the case may hinge on the "mommy memo." That memo, written in 1983 by Slesinger daughter Patricia to her mother, Shirley, describes a meeting with Jefferds at the Beverly Hills Hotel at which Jefferds allegedly told Patricia "that videos and all these new things were covered and to shut up about it," according to court documents. Because Disney destroyed Jefferds' letters, Judge Hiroshige ruled that Disney is barred from "introducing evidence disputing" the family's contention that they were entitled to royalties on videocassettes. Disney is appealing the ruling.

Settlement seems unlikely among the parties. One obstacle: the still-simmering animosity toward Slesinger lawyer Bertram Fields, who won a $250 million settlement for former Disney studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg in a hypercharged 1999 case. This time, the character may be soft and fuzzy, but the payout could be bigger. For Eisner, Pooh is becoming one Very Big Bother.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-09-12 06:32am

Whoa! This is interesting...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-12 12:46pm

Good. The bastards deserve it, for their relentless lobbying against the computer industry and its customers.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-09-12 02:03pm

Darth Wong wrote:Good. The bastards deserve it, for their relentless lobbying against the computer industry and its customers.

Not to mention the fact that they fucked over the family be renigging on the deal and then attempted to cover it up illegally.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-09-12 02:14pm

Heh, good on them.

Someone in my college got an Xmas card for their computing tutor only to have it thrown back since it was Disney's Pooh bear. He said that this bastardised version was a money making scheme and that A.A. Milne's was the only true version.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-12 04:13pm

Lol I did not know people cared that much about such things Valdemar

(Though hey everyone is a bit insane)

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-09-12 04:52pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Heh, good on them.

Someone in my college got an Xmas card for their computing tutor only to have it thrown back since it was Disney's Pooh bear. He said that this bastardised version was a money making scheme and that A.A. Milne's was the only true version.

Whadda looser?
Who cares? I remember watching Disneys Winnie the Pooh when I was little I don't want anyone slagging my childhood memories.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-12 04:58pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Heh, good on them.

Someone in my college got an Xmas card for their computing tutor only to have it thrown back since it was Disney's Pooh bear. He said that this bastardised version was a money making scheme and that A.A. Milne's was the only true version.
Whadda looser?
Who cares? I remember watching Disneys Winnie the Pooh when I was little I don't want anyone slagging my childhood memories.

Damn right

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-12 05:06pm

SCORE!

RadiO · Post by **RadiO** » 2002-09-12 05:13pm

I actually like Disney's version of Winnie the Pooh. I can't remember the last time I saw a kid's TV show where the message it's okay to be crap, or actually clinically insane was followed though with quite such vigour. Look at the role models Disney are setting our children:

Pooh: Is either stupid, retarded or simply not trying as hard as the rest of us. His fixation for honey has to be constantly slaked, with little regard for logic, common sense or his own personal safety.

Piglet: Highly strung, introspective. Shows fear, indecision and nervousness over the simplest difficulties.

Rabbit: Suspicious, paranoid bastard, frequently adversarial even with his own close friends.

Owl:A total space cadet.

Tigger: Hyperactive extrovert, has a benign sense of himself and other Tiggers as the adored centre of the universe.

Eeyore: Depressive, fatalistic; perpetually sees the glass as half-empty. If liquor existed in the Hundred-Acre Wood, he'd be on first-name terms with Mr. Jack.

Kanga: Conspicuously the normal one out of the lot, and hence frequently drowned out by line-noise from the others. Level-headed and kind. Possible influence for the character of Marge Simpson.

Roo: Clearly has ADD. Also hyperactive, but not quite to the same
deleterous level as Tigger.

And all that was demonstrated in one 20-minute episode! Gosh.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-12 07:48pm

RadiO wrote:I actually like Disney's version of Winnie the Pooh. I can't remember the last time I saw a kid's TV show where the message it's okay to be crap, or actually clinically insane was followed though with quite such vigour. Look at the role models Disney are setting our children:

Pooh: Is either stupid, retarded or simply not trying as hard as the rest of us. His fixation for honey has to be constantly slaked, with little regard for logic, common sense or his own personal safety.

Piglet: Highly strung, introspective. Shows fear, indecision and nervousness over the simplest difficulties.

Rabbit: Suspicious, paranoid bastard, frequently adversarial even with his own close friends.

Owl:A total space cadet.

Tigger: Hyperactive extrovert, has a benign sense of himself and other Tiggers as the adored centre of the universe.

Eeyore: Depressive, fatalistic; perpetually sees the glass as half-empty. If liquor existed in the Hundred-Acre Wood, he'd be on first-name terms with Mr. Jack.

Kanga: Conspicuously the normal one out of the lot, and hence frequently drowned out by line-noise from the others. Level-headed and kind. Possible influence for the character of Marge Simpson.

Roo: Clearly has ADD. Also hyperactive, but not quite to the same
deleterous level as Tigger.

And all that was demonstrated in one 20-minute episode! Gosh.

Good breakdown.

I'd like to add that Kanga is also a single mother which I suppose can be taken as good or bad example depending on
your point of view. She does seem to be the most "normal" of the characters.

I also think there is a gopher or something that's always digging holes. He appears to be a workaholic though.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-12 09:13pm

Tsyroc wrote:Good breakdown. I'd like to add that Kanga is also a single mother which I suppose can be taken as good or bad example depending on your point of view. She does seem to be the most "normal" of the characters.

All cartoon characters seem to have single mothers nowadays. Damned if I know why.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-12 10:00pm

I don't hate Disney the way a lot of people do, but I also cannot sympathize with companies that attempt to steal intellectual property. Plus their latest few movies have looked so unbelievably crappy that I have not gone to see them, nor recommended them to anyone. What the hell were their executives thinking when they approved "Lilo and Stitch?" How the hell can a movie like that exist? Don't they cost money to make?

Raziel · Post by **Raziel** » 2002-09-12 11:17pm

They're scraping the barrel because they've run out of classics to bastardise, and any that they haven't done are going to remain that way because they aren't PC.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-12 11:35pm

Oh, bother. :)

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-13 11:08am

Darth Wong wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:Good breakdown. I'd like to add that Kanga is also a single mother which I suppose can be taken as good or bad example depending on your point of view. She does seem to be the most "normal" of the characters.
All cartoon characters seem to have single mothers nowadays. Damned if I know why.

At least she's been a single mother for a long time, so it's not a bandwagon thing. Right now I think it is "in" to have single mothers partially because of feminism and also it is really okay to slam men right now, especially if they are lousy fathers.

There is a cartoon called "Static Shock" on Saturday mornings and the main family on that show is a widowed man with his two children (one of whom is a superhero

).

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-09-15 12:34am

Isn't that the show where pop-stars make guest appearances? *shudder*

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-15 11:13am

Darth Yoshi wrote:Isn't that the show where pop-stars make guest appearances? *shudder*

Now that you mention it, Shaq and a boy band member named Lance (I don't know which band) have both been on. I also think that the Animated Series version of Batman has been on as well.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-15 04:07pm

Tsyroc wrote:
Darth Yoshi wrote:Isn't that the show where pop-stars make guest appearances? *shudder*
Now that you mention it, Shaq and a boy band member named Lance (I don't know which band) have both been on. I also think that the Animated Series version of Batman has been on as well.

You know, Lance Bass from N'suck? He wanted to go into space, but it seems he doesn't have the money? It's a shame, because if he does go into space, he's bound to screw up and kill everyone on the shuttle. And if he can't get the money, why doesn't he just cut another crappy album?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-15 04:21pm

They're scraping the barrel because they've run out of classics to bastardise, and any that they haven't done are going to remain that way because they aren't PC.

Do'nt be so sure. To date, they've been able to fuck up and PC:

-Hercules. Guess that bit about him murdering his wife and children kinda got forgotten, eh? Don't even get me started on the cartoon.

-The Hunchback of Notre Dame. This is really pathetic, as, in the book, Quasimodo dies. How then, did Disney manage to make a sequel?

-The invasion of China by the Huns. Let's forget that Atilla(who is strangely absent from the movie) actually *won*, as did Ghengis Khan after him. Although, the movie was actually rather good.

-The Little Mermaid. As with HoND, in the story, Ariel dies. Of course, this has no relevance to Disney, as they go on to make a sequel.

-Arabian Nights. Admittedly, the first Aladdin was a decent movie, but two sequels butchered it with an oversized cleaver.

-Peter Pan. WTF did they do a sequel? Why?

I could go on. Mulan and Aladdin were not terrible movies, true, and at least Mulan has not been milked with sequel after sequel after animated television show. But Tarzan, Hercules, Aladdin, all have suffered under the Disney Marketing Department of Doom. I mean, they even killed Toy Story by turning Buzz Lightyear into a shitty little animated series.

Don't get me started about ABC. 'Recess'? What dreck is this? While Disney regurgitates these nasty, PC, 'family-fun' shows, real, inventive, fun cartoons like Samurai Jack and Invader Zim are being made.

The only reason to spare ABC is Who's Line is It Anyway.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-09-15 06:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:All cartoon characters seem to have single mothers nowadays. Damned if I know why.

It's more Disney propaganda! Disney is just trying to teach us all that traditional parenthood is bad, men are unnecessary, and that it's okay to be gay! And talking animals are of the DEVIL!

/cries as he realizes that some people actually believe that crap

une · Post by **une** » 2002-09-15 07:15pm

I could go on. Mulan and Aladdin were not terrible movies, true, and at least Mulan has not been milked with sequel after sequel after animated television show. But Tarzan, Hercules, Aladdin, all have suffered under the Disney Marketing Department of Doom. I mean, they even killed Toy Story by turning Buzz Lightyear into a shitty little animated series.

Don't get me started about ABC. 'Recess'? What dreck is this? While Disney regurgitates these nasty, PC, 'family-fun' shows, real, inventive, fun cartoons like Samurai Jack and Invader Zim are being made.

The only reason to spare ABC is Who's Line is It Anyway.

Buzz light year is actually pretty good, as is Recess.

Whose line is it anyway sucks ass by the way, as does Samurai Jack. But Invader Zim kicks ass.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-15 07:44pm

You dare deny that bastion of hilarity that is Who's Line Is It Anyway? Prepare to be burned!

As for Samurai Jack, that's understandable. It's not for everyone. Certainly not people who think Recess is a good show.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-09-15 07:50pm

Cyril wrote:-The invasion of China by the Huns. Let's forget that Atilla(who is strangely absent from the movie) actually *won*, as did Ghengis Khan after him. Although, the movie was actually rather good.

Er, Attilla invaded the Roman Empire hundreds of years after the story of Mulan. The Disney version of Mulan is probably the only good movie they've produced in years, and it keeps to the actual Chinese legend pretty well.

-Peter Pan. WTF did they do a sequel? Why?

To make money.

cartoons like Samurai Jack and Invader Zim are being made.

Samurai Jack sucks. It would be an allright action cartoon if all the episodes were more like the premier, and he didn't go around killing robots all the time. Mercenaries just don't exist in the future.