Merryl Streep goes on anti Walt Disney Rant

[Borishack]

I didn't bother to read the whole article, stopping six words into the first sentence (where the grandniece is labeled "filmmaker/social activist.")

That told me everything I needed to know about the her world view and credibility.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Seems no one is paying any attention to her various efforts, so just ignore the factual history and beat the man down, make up her own facts, the name Walt Disney is always a easy target.

Seems she is the one who needs forgiveness. Typical Hollywood type today, they believe their own press releases.

The man was not perfect no one is, but the known history speaks for it self, he was a loving husband, father and a genius at his craft. He has brought smile and joy to millions of people young and old.

He tried to show us all the little bit of child still within us all.

AKK

 

[Disney Von Drake]

Seems no one is paying any attention to her various efforts, so just ignore the factual history and beat the man down, make up her own facts, the name Walt Disney is always a easy target.

Seems she is the one who needs forgiveness. Typical Hollywood type today, they believe their own press releases.

The man was not perfect no one is, but the known history speaks for it self, he was a loving husband, father and a genius at his craft. He has brought smile and joy to millions of people young and old.

He tried to show us all the little bit of child still within us all.

AKK

You forget the part about how Walt Disney stole millions of dollars from shareholders to fill his own pockets as well as those of his family:

http://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-ent...holding-company-of-walt-disney/#disqus_thread

 

[larry_poppins]

Very disappointed in Meryl Streep. Certainly changed my opinion of her.

 

[Borishack]

You forget the part about how Walt Disney stole millions of dollars from shareholders to fill his own pockets as well as those of his family:

http://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-ent...holding-company-of-walt-disney/#disqus_thread

"Stole" is incorrect. A case of an entrepreneur who was very aggressive at retaining a portion (which sounds large until you compare it to the gross) of the value of his creation when it went public. Nothing he did was illegal, which is why you can't call it stealing. Unethical? From a fiduciary perspective perhaps, but there are plenty of similar examples out there where the "damage" was a lot worse. The growth of Disney as a corporation wasn't impacted by what Walt did and he certainly did a great job at leaving a legacy for his heirs (hopefully, the wack-job grandniece referenced above wasn't a beneficiary).

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

You forget the part about how Walt Disney stole millions of dollars from shareholders to fill his own pockets as well as those of his family:

http://www.joshuakennon.com/wed-ent...holding-company-of-walt-disney/#disqus_thread

What a joke!....... Another case of a blogger looking to make a name for himself, to get attention!

Was there ever any legal charges?......and government investigation? The suit mentioned, was only a limited number of stockholder and it failed in the end.

Even the blogger agreed there was nothing illegal, (yet you throw out that word steal real easy like!) he in his limited opinion just doesn't like the way it was done.

Seems that if you build a company your entitled to the rewards.

AKK

 

[Disney Von Drake]

What a joke!....... Another case of a blogger looking to make a name for himself, to get attention!

Was there ever any legal charges?......and government investigation? The suit mentioned, was only a limited number of stockholder and it failed in the end.

Even the blogger agreed there was nothing illegal, (yet you throw out that word steal real easy like!) he in his limited opinion just doesn't like the way it was done.

Seems that if you build a company your entitled to the rewards.

AKK

There was a civil lawsuit filed in 1953 by shareholder Clement J. Melancon. Mr. Melancon had not received any dividends on his Disney stock from 1947 until 1953 (six years). He accused Walt Disney of siphoning off money from Walt Disney Productions into Walt's private company WED Enterprises.

Disney first attempted to sidestep the lawsuit by requiring Melancon to post a security bond of $65,500.00. When that was reversed by a higher court, Disney quickly settled the lawsuit to gag Melancon.

As part of the settlement, Melancon had to agree not to reveal the terms of the deal. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/127/213.html

The case was reversed in Melancon's favor in August, 1954 and Disney wisely settled the case five months later in January, 1955.

We also know that Walt and his brother Roy were at odds over WED Enterprises for many years. Roy feared that other shareholders would discover the illegal funds diversion.

After a bitter feud between the two brothers over the fraud being perpetrated, Roy forced Walt to sell WED Enterprises to Walt Disney Productions in 1965.

Read chapter 24 of Building a Company: Roy O.Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire (Hyperion, 1998). Bob Thomas is the author.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

There was a civil lawsuit filed in 1953 by shareholder Clement J. Melancon. Mr. Melancon had not received any dividends on his Disney stock from 1947 until 1953 (six years). He accused Walt Disney of siphoning off money from Walt Disney Productions into Walt's private company WED Enterprises.

WED was created to protect Disney intellectual properties and protect patents, copyright etc. owned by Walt and approved by Roy and the lawyers. in the beginning.


Disney first attempted to sidestep the lawsuit by requiring Melancon to post a security bond of $65,500.00. When that was reversed by a higher court, Disney quickly settled the lawsuit to gag Melancon.

All legal maneuvering and as often happens in corporate waring, it was cheaper to settle. Their is always the shuffling and exchanging of funds in corporate sister companies., it happens all the time and its debated all the time.


As part of the settlement, Melancon had to agree not to reveal the terms of the deal. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/127/213.html

The case was reversed in Melancon's favor in August, 1954 and Disney wisely settled the case five months later in January, 1955.

We also know that Walt and his brother Roy were at odds over WED Enterprises for many years. Roy feared that other shareholders would discover the illegal funds diversion.

Very true, Roy wanted to put it to bed and Walk wanted to protect what he developed and he felt he owned. However do you really think the other shareholders were not aware of the case. The fact that they didn't join in or file their own shows the case was not that strong.

After a bitter feud between the two brothers over the fraud being perpetrated, Roy forced Walt to sell WED Enterprises to Walt Disney Productions in 1965.

Fraud???, were was it handed down in court as Fraud??? settling out of court is not proof of any guilt.

Read chapter 24 of Building a Company: Roy O.Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire (Hyperion, 1998). Bob Thomas is the author.

That illegal, fraud, terms people can throw out there, but they don't stick. If it was what you claim it would have been criminal................no mention of any thing like that here!

As your own words say.........the suit was not awarded, but to prevent more issues, is was settled . A very big difference from fraud,illegal or stealing! There was no cover up, the funds going to WED was fully accounted for and acknowledged. It question was if it was proper or not.

These things happen in corporate cases all the time . I wonder how many accountants and lawyers were saying Walt was right?

I know the history, but you can believe as you want

AKK

 

[Disney Von Drake]

I know the history, but you can believe as you want

AKK

No criminal charges were brought against Walt for fraud for one reason, money. Walt Disney’s name was so inextricably linked to all studio, merchandise and theme park projects that any scandal involving Walt would have resulted in a financial catastrophe for all entities. Both the public company and the private company to which Walt Disney was illegally diverting and redirecting money would have been financially ruined. Had it not been for his brother, Roy O. Disney, Walt would most likely have been criminally charged.

At Roy’s behest, Walt reluctantly agreed to sell part of WED Enterprises to Walt Disney Productions. A team of attorneys representing the shareholders of Walt Disney Productions and another group of attorneys representing WED Enterprises sat down together in late 1964 to work out the details. Attorneys for the studio threatened to file criminal charges against Walt for embezzlement because they were astounded at the amount of money that Walt had redirected from Walt Disney Productions to WED.

Roy Disney was upset at the prospect that Walt might go to jail. To protect his little brother Roy interjected himself into the negotiations and reminded the legal teams that if it wasn’t for Walt, all of them would be out of a job. Roy insisted that Walt needed to be treated with more respect and that his reputation had to remain untarnished.

The deal was handled without besmirching Walt and RETLAW Enterprises was born!

The suggested reading material in my previous post might help.

 

[middlechild]

An important point, I think. How many of us have taken the time to read ALL of M Streep's remarks, as opposed to just knee jerk reaction to the quote?
I personally have not, but the reminder is valuable. Don't judge until you have all the facts.

 

[middlechild]

An important point, I think. How many of us have taken the time to read ALL of M Streep's remarks, as opposed to just knee jerk reaction to the quote?
I personally have not, but the reminder is valuable. Don't judge until you have all the facts.

 

[swarlock]

It's my understanding that they tried to reach her and she wasn't available.

Guess she thought she had the part just because she's a star.

Never bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[swarlock]

My reaction to this: Walt Disney may have been sexist and racist back in the 60s?? Say it isn't so! While there may be evidence that he may not have been, I'd also like to think that if he lived longer, he too would have evolved just as most of our society has.

Exactly.

 

[Borishack]

An important point, I think. How many of us have taken the time to read ALL of M Streep's remarks, as opposed to just knee jerk reaction to the quote?
I personally have not, but the reminder is valuable. Don't judge until you have all the facts.

No one is having any knee Jerk reactions on this and nothing was taken out of context . Did you read my original post and read the report on the link? If you had, you would have seen the report with the full quotes of her completely incorrect, erroneous and hateful comments.

If you are truly interested in having "all the facts," the below can help:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/10/Meryl-Streep-Vilifies-Walt-Disney-as-Racist-Sexist-Anti-Semite

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/the-truth-behind-meryl-streep-s-disney-rant-162444398.html

 

[Disney Von Drake]

My reaction to this: Walt Disney may have been sexist and racist back in the 60s?? Say it isn't so! While there may be evidence that he may not have been, I'd also like to think that if he lived longer, he too would have evolved just as most of our society has.

What you say is undoubtedly true. The jokes and characterizations in some of his cartoons were outlandish racial and cultural stereotypes that the audiences of the time appreciated. Of course they were low brow, insensitive and cheap attempts to get a laugh. Walt Disney pandered to the audience to make money and so did the other cartoon studios.

The last thing he wanted to do was offend his audience.

 

[CaptainAlex]

Back to the Ms. Streep rant...

She basically take urban legend and turns it into something just ugly.

Now excuse me as I have some pop rocks with my soda......

 

[ToddS]

My reaction to this: Walt Disney may have been sexist and racist back in the 60s?? Say it isn't so! While there may be evidence that he may not have been, I'd also like to think that if he lived longer, he too would have evolved just as most of our society has.

Very well said!