A Hippie in the House of Mouse (Jim Henson at Disney, 1980)
- Thread starter Geekhis Khan
- Start date
- Status
Could Brooks voice a character? It'd allow him to break type and play a character that wasn't purely comedic.
This is of course untrue. For a trivial example Tesla spent 17 years losing money and yet had a growing share price pretty much all that time. On the flip side there are companies that post amazing short term profits but see the price fall. Sure quarterly earnings influence the price, but only to the extent that they differ from expectations. Hence the existence of very large investor relation departments in big companies to try to keep those expectations "correct" and minimise surprises. As long as low earning are expected, and as long as they are low for a 'good' reason (like massive investments or whatever) it is all fine.
Disney's theme parks are a good example, they cost a fortune and will cause a few quarters of lower earnings (because of all the investment) but they are popular with shareholders, because in general in a few years time the Parks will be printing money and making huge profits. Of course sometimes shareholders think that a future investment is a bad idea and Managers blame 'short term' thinking because that is easier than saying "the shareholders think my idea is crap". Sometimes the shareholders are wrong and the investment pays out, but sometimes management push ahead and you end up with the money pit that was Disneyland Paris.
Shareholders should know about depreciation, intangibles and goodwill (if not they really shouldn't be investing). They will be aware that Reputations need topping up, that you cannot just coast on past glories and that if you want good staff to say they need motivating. Shareholders happily support companies spending fortunes on advertising and sponsorship, because they know those things are important and this sort of things is similar. I would be prepared to bet the money donated from these films is a tiny fraction compared to Disney's advertising budget and probably gets more attention and positive results than most of their actual ad campaigns. I'm also sure there are people on the business side of Disney making exactly that assessment, how often can they/should they do this to get maximum benefit. Can't do it all the time or it loses impact (and costs too much) but it is obviously worth doing occasionally.
So for the occasional film I suspect Disney can give away the profits and probably not attract any negative comment or pressure from shareholders at all.
It would be an interesting film to explore, but probably not as something as substantial for live-action or animation as A Tale of Sand or a novel adaptation like Manzanar, which are either more impactful and/or less controversial than Moki. I do expect at least some queer stories to fall into the Signature Series, though, especially for the late 90s or 00s before LGBTQ representation becomes mainstream among younger audiences.
I"ve long thought Slytherin itself should have a redemption arc, or at least a redemption scene.
My idea was that the Slytherin students and their parents, instead of standing apart in the final battle, turn on the Death Eaters and join Harry enthusiastically to "reclaim the good name of their house". After the victory there would be one last Hogwarts dinner -- and instead of being separate, one house for each table, the students are all mingling together, and the Sorting Hat sings a rhyme about how the houses are finally truly united after a thousand years apart.
To be fair there were at least some signs that Snape wasn't a complete asshole early on. Like him muttering the counter-curse when Quirrell made Harry's broom go berserk. Having Snape be more complex than the mostly one-dimensional nasty teacher he was could help make the "he was good all along" reveal feel more natural.
I like that. Not every pure-blood in Slytherin is a Death Eater-in-training. Especially since only a couple of Death Eaters had kids at Hogwarts. Most, while having nasty notions about muggle-born wizards, wouldn't be Death Eater sympathizers. Maybe Harry could end up befriending a Slytherin student and his/her character arc would be unlearning what his parents taught him/her. And it'd help keep the house from being the one-dimensional nasty house.
Last edited:
I knew that and still typed "wand". Having him be a prickly asshole in the first book made him the perfect red herring to throw suspicion off of Quirrell. Maybe the books get published by Disney and that creates butterflies that affect how the characters progress through the series.
Though arguably the dearly departed Alan Rickman did too good of a job portraying Snape as an asshole. He wasn't quite so petty and violent in the books. At least so I remember Dominic Noble teaching me.
Cursed Child explains it a bit more. Lions are more likely to charge straight in, while snakes prefer to run and get help; note how Slughorn and some of the House came back with reinforcements near the end of the battle.
Me, I'd like to just have more House interaction - has anybody noticed that Harry really only interacts with the Gryffindors in his year, plus Luna? And surely not all Slytherins are asshats, social climbers or outright Voldemort Youth?
I don't know if anything would change regarding Harry Potter since I am not sure if anything would change in Rowling's life to basically factor in those sort of things. It sounds kinda like fanfictiony stuff.
Though surprised on with the Maus thing. Definitely quite fascinating.
I wonder what stuff will be coming next.
Though surprised on with the Maus thing. Definitely quite fascinating.
His entire beef with Harry boils down to "your dad made me look like an idiot, me a clever and powerful wizard, so I'm gonna take it out on you." His outing of Lupin was pretty much a jerk move and so on.
I wonder what stuff will be coming next.
This might be true with the first book but with a different publisher/editor I imagine the following books may have butterflies in them.
I know I commented on Harry Potter earlier, and I could have said a lot more.
But I think we're also presuming that Disney Publishing does pick up the American distribution for Harry Potter ITTL. Maybe we should stay out of this rabbit hole unless Geekhis Khan asks for ideas, considering we were already derailing the thread over Medusa?
The man has used several suggestions that I and others have posted here without any prompting so as long as the suggestions don't completely hijack the thread I think it's will be okay to continue doing so. Suggestions like these sometimes spark inspiration for @Geekhis Khan.
The thing is, it's much harder for Disney to lose Harry Potter ITTL than it was for OTL. Harry Potter just checks so many boxes for Jim Henson and Disney in general, that I would be very surprised if Disney Publishing does not accept the American publishing rights outright or Jim personally ignores HP (which would be weird because he is much more connected to the British audience than Eisner was so he would know of HP's popularity in Britain and its latent potential), so it's not completely out of the blue that people are assuming that HP will be a Disney IP.
I'm fairly neutral of story changes aside from the lycanthropy-HIV/AIDS comparison, because that's probably one thing that Disney would absolutely change with JK Rowling in the aftermath of The Song of Susan, but it's inevitable that at least some changes would occur as a result of Disney's partnership with JK Rowling.
It'd be hilarious if Disney does not change the title for The Philosopher's Stone and there's literally no negative change in readership as a result of that.
DC Comics had already been using the Philosopher's Stone since 1958, and no-one complained besides the Flash.
Last edited:
Plus, the last time Disney would have used a Sorcerer's Stone, it made Mickey Mouse into a drug addict.
You tell me if Yen Sid's magic couldn't be an allegory for hard drugs. You tell me.
PNWKing
Banned
Two words. Freddie. Mercury. I was going to say that was the 80s, but I just searched it up on Bing and he died in 1991. Heck, Queen's last album with Freddie was on Hollywood Records, a Disney-owned label IOTL, so it wouldn't surprise me if Henson here convinces Queen to sign with a Disney record arm. (Since Bernie Brillstein is already mentioned as setting one up.)
Also, I had an idea for the Hera as a jealous wife plot if @Geekhis Khan wants to go for that way. Have Marisa Tomei voice Hera. I came up with this at random because I thought of how Lorena Bobbit wanted Marisa to play her in what she thought was the inevitable movie about her life. So, in terms of who should voice a jealous wife type character, I decided to concur with Lorena Bobbit and have Marisa Tomei voice her.
Wasn't Freddie Mercury confirmed to be alive ITTL, if I recall?
Maybe Anthony Perkins could be alive but I doubt it.
There is a grave misunderstanding here about how publishing and books work. The Philosophers Stone came out in the US a year after the UK, by the time international distribution rights were sold the book had been edited and finalised. Disney Publishing would be looking to get the rights to sell an existing book in the US, not to go back and re-edit it. There is some allowance for translation, so the US version could be translated into American (remove 50% of the 'u's, that sort of thing) but this is small copyedits at most, not fundamental re-writes.
Of course Disney Publishing could buy the rights and propose the changes, but the author retains veto so Rowling can just say No. And why wouldn't she, at this point her original is selling well and there is even a lively trade importing the UK version into the US. These sort of deals also have a 'use it or lose it' clause, if Disney stamp their little feet and refuse to publish because Rowling refuses to bow down then they lose the rights and they can be sold on again to someone who will publish what is obviously a very hot property. If anything that would be a fun scene, Disney publishing person trying to explain why they refused to publish the book while the board look on in angered bafflement because they, like 99% of all HP readers, just cannot see the problem. (This idea of closely reading a book desperately looking for problems is a very niche activity and a recent one too).
And once past the first book, who is going to dare risk challenging Rowling and risk disrupting the money train?
- Status