Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Roy Disney has passed away at 79

This is topic Roy Disney has passed away at 79 in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005989

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-16-2009, 02:34 PM:

Roy Disney has dead of cancer at 79. He was the nephew of the studio founder Walt Disney and son of Roy O. Disney.

Roy Disney Dec. 16th, 2009
Roy O. Disney Dec. 20th. 1971
Walt Disney Dec. 15th. 1966

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-16-2009, 03:20 PM:

Not a good time of year for the ol' Disney family! Are there any Disneys left at Disney? I read he had 16 million shares of their common stock at the time of his death. Being worth a half billion dollars just because your uncle was a visionary doesn't suck. In any case I wish the best for his family.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-16-2009, 04:31 PM:

What terrible news. Certainly an inspirational man and the catalyst for the much needed change at the top of the Disney company in 1984, and then again only a few years ago, change which has just started to bear fruit. I'm very pleased he got to see (just barely) the third resurrection of 2-D animation at Disney before he passed.

On a side note, adding to the coincidence Bill noted in his first post, Lillian Disney, Walt's wife, also passed away in December.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-16-2009, 04:42 PM:

My concern is that as the Disneys depart the Disney company is going further down the tube. I'm sure Walt has been turning in his grave for years. RIP Roy.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2009, 08:37 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
My concern is that as the Disneys depart the Disney company is going further down the tube. I'm sure Walt has been turning in his grave for years.

I admire Walt Disney as much as anyone -- God knows, we've made scads of money off of his movies. But if the company had continued on the path it was on, it probably would have been bankrupt eventually. He was only catering to the G-rated kiddie crowd and the company was getting less and less relevant. Today's Disney caters quite nicely to just about every age bracket, which has enabled them to grow exponentially since Walt's time.

While I don't agree with everything they do (and I'll always wonder what Epcot would have become under his direction), I think Walt would be glad they are still doing quite well as an independent company, as opposed to getting taken over by a conglomerate, the way every other entertainment-based company did.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-16-2009, 09:43 PM:

I dunno...I think Walt would have adapted his business with the times...seeing as he often pushed for adoption of new things/ideas. However, I don't think the greed factor would have been there as much. They still would be a pricey company but not quite as over-the-top.

Of course, this is all speculation.

Steve

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-17-2009, 12:06 AM:

Di$ney IS a conglomerate now.

I read that Walt thought commercials on TV were "bad showmanship"- sad that ABC doesn't at least present its shows with good showmanship (meaning NO stupid logos on the screen!) since his company owns it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2009, 01:50 AM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
I read that Walt thought commercials on TV were "bad showmanship"

Maybe so, but his shows always had commercials in them. He probably thought commercials were a "necessary evil." He was a smart businessman, not just a great showman.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-17-2009, 05:25 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Maybe so, but his shows always had commercials in them.

I'll go one further, his shows WERE commercials! The "Disneyland" series got people to his park, as well as the infamous live broadcase of the part opening.

Those programs definitely combined Disney's skill at showmanship as well as business.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2009, 11:02 AM:

Hillary - correct of course. I don't know why I didn't think of that. He used his show to promote Disney World and Epcot too.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-17-2009, 12:57 PM:

Walt's in a GRAVE !?

I thought he was just waiting in cryo somewhere.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-17-2009, 03:12 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
He was only catering to the G-rated kiddie crowd and the company was getting less and less relevant.

Here's where you and I part company Mike. You do not have to have nudity, profanity, sex or blood and gore special effects to be relevant. I started in this business in 1950 and for many years after that the studios served the entire movie going public without any of that. They have since created an appetite in SOME of the public for that garbage and in doing so have limited their audience.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2009, 06:17 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
You do not have to have nudity, profanity, sex or blood and gore special effects to be relevant.

Very true. But have you seen ANY of the Disney movies from the last 30 years? You make it sound like they haven't done anything good since Walt died. Have they dabbled in areas where he might not have? Yes. But they also haven't slapped the Disney name on anything containing the qualities you listed.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-17-2009, 07:06 PM:

Of course, you know, Disney has had specialty divisions. Touchstone for the PG-13 -type material, and of course, Miramax was part of Disney (from 1993 onwards; not from its inception in 1979). Ironically, though, Miramax is now gone as a seperate studio...

--jhawk

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-17-2009, 07:55 PM:

Not forget Disney also had Hollywood Pictures.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-17-2009, 08:38 PM:

My point exactly guys. They push the envelope with the Disney name then go even further with their other labels.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-17-2009, 08:44 PM:

And this is bad...why? What is wrong with diversifying? There are over 250 million people in the country ...why settle for one demographic when you don't have to?

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-18-2009, 02:23 PM:

It is possible to make films that appeal to more than one demo Mike. I'm saddened by what I see our industry doing to this country. We used to feel a responsibility to the community not to pollute it with garbage. Today it seems there is a "it's not our responsibility" and "buyer beware" attitude among exhibitors as they throw on their screens any piece of trash Hollywood puts out. The only company I've heard of that seems to have any moral backbone is Fridley Theatres in Iowa who refused to run "Brokeback Mountain" in any of their theatres.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-18-2009, 02:59 PM:

I remember being approached out on the drive-in field one day, by a man who was with a group protesting "The Last Temptation of Christ". He said (in so many words) he was hoping they weren't planning on showing it at the drive-in, and that the group had been setting up organized protests in front of theatres to make sure they didn't.

I told him he had nothing to worry about, as long as he just left it alone. There was no way the guy who owned the drive-in was going to play that movie, because it simply wouldn't do any business in that venue. However, I cautioned that if he insisted on setting up a picket line or whatever in front of the theatre, that would be a sure way to guarantee that the movie PLAYED there. Because the owner would've done it purely out of spite.

That was the last I heard of the protest group. In my own way, I suppose I kept that movie out of the theatre. [Razz]

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-18-2009, 03:19 PM:

Good job, Tim [thumbsup]

Makes one wonder why others can't see the bleedin' obvious.
You saved a lot of grief and also dissipated a potential drama from unfolding. It seems all so easy.