A Hippie in the House of Mouse (Jim Henson at Disney, 1980)
- Thread starter Geekhis Khan
- Start date
- Status
Can't wait! I'm curious whether you took up on that Round City idea for Baghdad or better yet...that idea where Aladdin becomes an early bisexual icon thanks to his feelings towards Abbi (who reveals herself as a girl in the last act, posing as a tomboy beforehand). Regardless, this version of Aladdin might be even more magical than OTL, so we'll see how it fares with the box office. It might even redeem Henson for the shareholders.
Just saying, Proud of Your Boy is gonna be an iconic song for the ITTL 90s. If only Ashman was there to see its success
Disney could use him for the 96 Olympics, assuming Henson owns the character as part of the Muppets. Also, why not use him for Disneytown San Antonio?
Yeah, I can see Disney use its sports complex as a training ground for many Olympians for the Atlanta Olympics (maybe even making a show recording their progress and documenting the events leading up to the Olympics) along with an animated show about sports.
I definitely agree that Goofy and Gonzo are better hosts for this kind of show, given their previous works. I'm actually interested to see how their chemistry would play out in this kind of show, not gonna lie. It's something completely unique from Mickey and Kermit.
Well, my second idea was Goofy and Fozzie Bear, but it looks like the Galactic Golf series of games has cemented the idea of pairing the Goof with the Great.
Proud of Your Boy would've been a fucking classic if it was still included in the final film.Just saying, Proud of Your Boy is gonna be an iconic song for the ITTL 90s. If only Ashman was there to see its success
The overt Confederate references?
And meet and greets with high school athletes to inspire and maybe scout future Olympians.
How we mix things up a little and have Mickey & Gonzo and/or Kermit & Goofy.
Hi everyone, sorry I haven’t posted in the last 2 months life got in the way.
I’m a little disappointed Meryl Streep didn’t get a chance to shine in spider man but I can live with it.
Interactive movies and Disney
Since we’re entering the 1990s an Interesting topic could be how a Disney more interested in computer science, video games and the incorporation of video-game mechanics into movies or vice versa would affect things.
I could easily imagine someone with power in Disney being enthusiastic/excited about interactive movies and wanting to experiment with them.
This passion could leave them vulnerable to be caught up in the moral panic about violent video games in the early 90s (in part triggered by the interactive movie Night Trap).
How would Disney being drawn into this furore affect game ratings and/or the perception of video games in the wider community?
In terms of the development of a theme park in the UK about British mythology/pop culture/lore I have three suggestions:
A Narnia theme park/stunt could have as a front a big coat shop and lead on to an icy forest* with a streetlamp at the centre. It would be cheap and potentially very profitable to have a small Disney town type experience in the UK.**
A theme park designed around the book “The once and future king”. You could look at the political and cultural philosophy behind the authors descriptions of the mindset/thought processes of the animals Wart turns into (eg Geese not seeing national boundaries).
Additionally, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy hasn’t been adapted into movies in New Zealand so one could imagine a hobbit town being built in the UK or experiments in creating Gondor.
Finances
If Disney wanted to be really smart in terms of making money right now, they could outbid Oligarchs to buy the vouchers/shares of industries from people in Eastern Europe and Russia. This competition could have the potential benefit of getting Russian/ Eastern European people higher prices for these vouchers and/or to realise the potential value of these shares and keep them leading to less economic inequality in Russia and Eastern Europe.
Aladdin
In terms of the movie Aladdin there’s huge potential here for Disney to show of Baghdad’s architecture and history and get people to be emotionally attached to it in the same way people are emotionally attached to Notre-Dame.
* Perhaps perpetually icy with a snow machine/air conditioning.
** I've racked my brain but I can't think of something else Narnia themed you could put in the little park so it doesn't feel like a rip off.
I’m a little disappointed Meryl Streep didn’t get a chance to shine in spider man but I can live with it.
Interactive movies and Disney
Since we’re entering the 1990s an Interesting topic could be how a Disney more interested in computer science, video games and the incorporation of video-game mechanics into movies or vice versa would affect things.
I could easily imagine someone with power in Disney being enthusiastic/excited about interactive movies and wanting to experiment with them.
This passion could leave them vulnerable to be caught up in the moral panic about violent video games in the early 90s (in part triggered by the interactive movie Night Trap).
How would Disney being drawn into this furore affect game ratings and/or the perception of video games in the wider community?
In terms of the development of a theme park in the UK about British mythology/pop culture/lore I have three suggestions:
A Narnia theme park/stunt could have as a front a big coat shop and lead on to an icy forest* with a streetlamp at the centre. It would be cheap and potentially very profitable to have a small Disney town type experience in the UK.**
A theme park designed around the book “The once and future king”. You could look at the political and cultural philosophy behind the authors descriptions of the mindset/thought processes of the animals Wart turns into (eg Geese not seeing national boundaries).
Additionally, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy hasn’t been adapted into movies in New Zealand so one could imagine a hobbit town being built in the UK or experiments in creating Gondor.
Finances
If Disney wanted to be really smart in terms of making money right now, they could outbid Oligarchs to buy the vouchers/shares of industries from people in Eastern Europe and Russia. This competition could have the potential benefit of getting Russian/ Eastern European people higher prices for these vouchers and/or to realise the potential value of these shares and keep them leading to less economic inequality in Russia and Eastern Europe.
Aladdin
In terms of the movie Aladdin there’s huge potential here for Disney to show of Baghdad’s architecture and history and get people to be emotionally attached to it in the same way people are emotionally attached to Notre-Dame.
* Perhaps perpetually icy with a snow machine/air conditioning.
** I've racked my brain but I can't think of something else Narnia themed you could put in the little park so it doesn't feel like a rip off.
I didn't consider that. Alternatively, we can go beyond the mascots of the companies and choose something really bizarre, like Jiminy Cricket and Sweetums.
Eh, the Confederacy references in the ads are more tongue-in-cheek and lighthearted in tone, in my opinion. The character probably wouldn't get cancelled if it ever was used in the Atlanta Olympics or DTSA in the 90s if it wasn't controversial now.
Speaking of Southern Bread, imagine if the Southern Colonel was used in a restaurant that served Texas Toast in DTSA?
Texas toast - Wikipedia
Not a bad idea. I think Disney would profit heavily from promoting the Atlanta Olympics with the IOC by having the athletes train in the WDW sports complex, with the show being used for publicity or recruitment.
For a show like this, I'm still sticking with Goofy and Gonzo as a personal preference, but I'd like to see Mickey and Kermit have guest appearances.
That is because modern Geothermal uses techniques developed by the oil/gas fracking industry to create new locations with Geothermal potential. As I can't see fracking being as prevalent in this TL that's another big cost Geothermal would have to cover, developing that knowledge and skills themselves. Makes it even less attractive to invest in.
Also keeping the athletes in one place makes it easier to hide all the steroids when WADA come calling.
So I'm Still Here but 100% Ashman/Menken. Add an orchestra, and that's definitely going places.Just saying, Proud of Your Boy is gonna be an iconic song for the ITTL 90s. If only Ashman was there to see its success
Meta-Discussion; Hollywood Finance & Accounting
Meta-Discussion: Hollywood Accounting and the Bizarre Financing of Movies
Over the course of this timeline, I’ve shown you bits and pieces of the wild and wacky way in which Hollywood does business. I’ve made mentions of “Hollywood accounting” and the strange ways in which a film that makes hundreds of millions in box office receipts can “officially” still lose money.
I’ve also followed the standard practice of showing the gauge of a film’s success as Box Office vs. Budget, the general assumption being that “Profit” = Box Office - Budget. Various characters in this timeline have also used this shortcut, in particular Bernie Brillstein (particularly when using it to buff his own accomplishments). But it’s not that simple.
(Image source “giphy.com”)
So how does this all really work? How can a movie make more at the box office than the cost to make it and still be considered a “flop”? How can a blockbuster still “not make a profit”?
Let’s start with the former question. First off, the studio does not get the full box office as revenue. Instead, that “gross” is shared between the many stakeholders, in particular the theaters playing the film, but also shared with other contractual stakeholders, such as cast and crew who have wisely negotiated a share of the box office gross. Stakeholders also include outside investors (e.g. Silver Screen Partners or banks), partnering production teams (e.g. Amblin), or foreign distribution partners. So, the total revenues for the studio = gross - shares to other stakeholders.
And in the case of theaters, this is particularly complicated, since the “share” of the box office is typically based on the time after initial release. The studio typically negotiates a higher percentage of the box office returns up front, and this tapers off as the weeks continue. For example, MGM makes a contract with the major chain Big Ass Movies Cinema Corp. (BAM!) such that MGM claims 70% of the box office on the opening week, 50% over weeks 2-3, and 30% after that, with BAM claiming 30%, 50%, and 70% respectively. Perhaps MGM makes a different deal with the small, local Styk E. Flores Cinema Duplex, claiming 75% on opening week, or what have you. It depends on the contract and depends on the film. Recently in our timeline Disney played super hardball with Rise of Skywalker, demanding a full 100% of the opening week’s box office, which theaters willingly (if grudgingly) agreed to, since the real money for the theater is not in the box office, but in the concessions[1] (e.g. popcorn and cola).
So, the profit that the studio makes varies highly based on how well the cast, crew, investors, production & distribution partners, and cinema chains have negotiated, and whether the film is a big hit up front or a “sleeper” that makes money over time. The former benefits the studio the most while the latter benefits the theaters the most. But as a general rule of thumb, the studio and the stakeholders typically share about ½ of the total gross box office with the theaters, plus additional revenue from merchandise, tie-ins, product integration, and other peripheral sources of income.
As such, while on paper a film making a box office of $30 million against a $20 million budget would look like a good profit for the studio, in reality they lost money on the deal. They probably spent $1-2 million in distribution, another $5-10 million in promotion, and then split that $30 million box office with the theaters and other stakeholders such that the “true” studio revenue is more like $10 million gross minus their share of the costs to make it minus distribution and promotion. In the end they likely lost about $10-15 million on the deal!![2]
And then you have the scam that is “Hollywood accounting”. That $600 million blockbuster film? Yep, massive failure. Lost tens of millions. How? Well, because the Shell Company that made it made no money.
You see, when a producer and studio make a film, they don’t officially make the film, they subcontract to the startup Shell Company that makes the film.
Wait, what?!?
Ok, so you’re making a film, a period melodrama called The Wind Cries Westward. First thing the producers do when they get the greenlight is that they create a shell company, let’s say it’s called TWCW, LLC. It’s usually that on the nose. Well, TWCW then “hires” producer Joe Mutter’s Bad Mutter Films to produce (for a large share of the gross) and “partners” with Hugh Jazz Studios to distribute (for a large share of the gross) and accepts investments from various investors such as Tah-Xritoff Investment Partners, LLC (for a large share of the gross) until TWCW has only a tiny share of the gross to claim for itself (if any!).
As such, while officially TWCW spent $30 million and the total box office was $600 million, $300 million went to the theaters, Bad Mutter Films claimed $100 million, Hugh Jazz Studios claimed another $100 million and Tah-Xritoff claimed $70 million while the director, A-list cast, and the writer with a good agent claimed another combined $20 million, leaving TWCW LLC with only $10 million in revenue against their $30 million investment, a $20 million loss, so they claim bankruptcy and close their doors forever, a “failed” filmmaking start-up. Any investors like Tah-Xritoff may even try to claim a loss on their taxes, and may even get away with it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
"I negotiated a share of the profit!" (Image source Huffington Post)
And the poor bastard who negotiated a share of the profits with TWCW gets nothing (You lose! Good day, sir!). On a film that made $600 million at the box office.
And that’s a super-simplified case. Actual contracts are often a labyrinthine mess of legalize, subclauses, and exceptions all engineered to allow for “creative accounting” by the studios and major investors. Lawyers have fought for years to unravel the tangled mess in an often-Quixotic quest to get their client their fair share of the deal. Stan Lee, for example, had to fight for years just to gain a pittance out of Disney for the massive juggernaut that is the MCU.
This is how people like Forrest Gump novel author Winston Groom, promised a share of the profits, can make nothing from a massive blockbuster like the Forrest Gump movie, because the “Forrest Gump Production Company, LLC” (or whatever) that officially made it managed to lose money.
And somehow all of this is legal, or at least not enforced.
So, the moral of the story is: take every financial thing stated in this timeline with an unhealthy dose of salt.
And if you ever work with Hollywood, get a good agent and a share of the box office gross.
[1] They’re essentially overpriced snack bars that play movies as bait.
[2] In the case of Jim Henson’s Toys, on paper it made $68 million box office against a $62 budget, but roughly $20-25 million of that went to the theaters playing it (it burned out quickly, but played when most of the box office was going to MGM), there was another $20-25 million spent in marketing and another $2-3 million in distribution, and some of that gross went to Silver Screen Partners, Robin Williams, and Terry Gilliam (though Silver Screen will also have fronted some of that budget as investors and absorb some of that loss). As such, MGM will lose about $40-45 million on the theatrical release of Toys, and write it off as a loss. This will be mitigated by product integration deals, though merchandise will be a net loss, but the silver lining is that home video sales will help it turn a profit after a few years.
Over the course of this timeline, I’ve shown you bits and pieces of the wild and wacky way in which Hollywood does business. I’ve made mentions of “Hollywood accounting” and the strange ways in which a film that makes hundreds of millions in box office receipts can “officially” still lose money.
I’ve also followed the standard practice of showing the gauge of a film’s success as Box Office vs. Budget, the general assumption being that “Profit” = Box Office - Budget. Various characters in this timeline have also used this shortcut, in particular Bernie Brillstein (particularly when using it to buff his own accomplishments). But it’s not that simple.
(Image source “giphy.com”)
So how does this all really work? How can a movie make more at the box office than the cost to make it and still be considered a “flop”? How can a blockbuster still “not make a profit”?
Let’s start with the former question. First off, the studio does not get the full box office as revenue. Instead, that “gross” is shared between the many stakeholders, in particular the theaters playing the film, but also shared with other contractual stakeholders, such as cast and crew who have wisely negotiated a share of the box office gross. Stakeholders also include outside investors (e.g. Silver Screen Partners or banks), partnering production teams (e.g. Amblin), or foreign distribution partners. So, the total revenues for the studio = gross - shares to other stakeholders.
And in the case of theaters, this is particularly complicated, since the “share” of the box office is typically based on the time after initial release. The studio typically negotiates a higher percentage of the box office returns up front, and this tapers off as the weeks continue. For example, MGM makes a contract with the major chain Big Ass Movies Cinema Corp. (BAM!) such that MGM claims 70% of the box office on the opening week, 50% over weeks 2-3, and 30% after that, with BAM claiming 30%, 50%, and 70% respectively. Perhaps MGM makes a different deal with the small, local Styk E. Flores Cinema Duplex, claiming 75% on opening week, or what have you. It depends on the contract and depends on the film. Recently in our timeline Disney played super hardball with Rise of Skywalker, demanding a full 100% of the opening week’s box office, which theaters willingly (if grudgingly) agreed to, since the real money for the theater is not in the box office, but in the concessions[1] (e.g. popcorn and cola).
So, the profit that the studio makes varies highly based on how well the cast, crew, investors, production & distribution partners, and cinema chains have negotiated, and whether the film is a big hit up front or a “sleeper” that makes money over time. The former benefits the studio the most while the latter benefits the theaters the most. But as a general rule of thumb, the studio and the stakeholders typically share about ½ of the total gross box office with the theaters, plus additional revenue from merchandise, tie-ins, product integration, and other peripheral sources of income.
As such, while on paper a film making a box office of $30 million against a $20 million budget would look like a good profit for the studio, in reality they lost money on the deal. They probably spent $1-2 million in distribution, another $5-10 million in promotion, and then split that $30 million box office with the theaters and other stakeholders such that the “true” studio revenue is more like $10 million gross minus their share of the costs to make it minus distribution and promotion. In the end they likely lost about $10-15 million on the deal!![2]
And then you have the scam that is “Hollywood accounting”. That $600 million blockbuster film? Yep, massive failure. Lost tens of millions. How? Well, because the Shell Company that made it made no money.
You see, when a producer and studio make a film, they don’t officially make the film, they subcontract to the startup Shell Company that makes the film.
Wait, what?!?
Ok, so you’re making a film, a period melodrama called The Wind Cries Westward. First thing the producers do when they get the greenlight is that they create a shell company, let’s say it’s called TWCW, LLC. It’s usually that on the nose. Well, TWCW then “hires” producer Joe Mutter’s Bad Mutter Films to produce (for a large share of the gross) and “partners” with Hugh Jazz Studios to distribute (for a large share of the gross) and accepts investments from various investors such as Tah-Xritoff Investment Partners, LLC (for a large share of the gross) until TWCW has only a tiny share of the gross to claim for itself (if any!).
As such, while officially TWCW spent $30 million and the total box office was $600 million, $300 million went to the theaters, Bad Mutter Films claimed $100 million, Hugh Jazz Studios claimed another $100 million and Tah-Xritoff claimed $70 million while the director, A-list cast, and the writer with a good agent claimed another combined $20 million, leaving TWCW LLC with only $10 million in revenue against their $30 million investment, a $20 million loss, so they claim bankruptcy and close their doors forever, a “failed” filmmaking start-up. Any investors like Tah-Xritoff may even try to claim a loss on their taxes, and may even get away with it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
"I negotiated a share of the profit!" (Image source Huffington Post)
And the poor bastard who negotiated a share of the profits with TWCW gets nothing (You lose! Good day, sir!). On a film that made $600 million at the box office.
And that’s a super-simplified case. Actual contracts are often a labyrinthine mess of legalize, subclauses, and exceptions all engineered to allow for “creative accounting” by the studios and major investors. Lawyers have fought for years to unravel the tangled mess in an often-Quixotic quest to get their client their fair share of the deal. Stan Lee, for example, had to fight for years just to gain a pittance out of Disney for the massive juggernaut that is the MCU.
This is how people like Forrest Gump novel author Winston Groom, promised a share of the profits, can make nothing from a massive blockbuster like the Forrest Gump movie, because the “Forrest Gump Production Company, LLC” (or whatever) that officially made it managed to lose money.
And somehow all of this is legal, or at least not enforced.
So, the moral of the story is: take every financial thing stated in this timeline with an unhealthy dose of salt.
And if you ever work with Hollywood, get a good agent and a share of the box office gross.
[1] They’re essentially overpriced snack bars that play movies as bait.
[2] In the case of Jim Henson’s Toys, on paper it made $68 million box office against a $62 budget, but roughly $20-25 million of that went to the theaters playing it (it burned out quickly, but played when most of the box office was going to MGM), there was another $20-25 million spent in marketing and another $2-3 million in distribution, and some of that gross went to Silver Screen Partners, Robin Williams, and Terry Gilliam (though Silver Screen will also have fronted some of that budget as investors and absorb some of that loss). As such, MGM will lose about $40-45 million on the theatrical release of Toys, and write it off as a loss. This will be mitigated by product integration deals, though merchandise will be a net loss, but the silver lining is that home video sales will help it turn a profit after a few years.
There's no particular reason to think that fracking would be less prevalent than IOTL...and in any case the relevant technology does exist by 1991. Actually, by that point fracking was rather old hat in oil and gas applications--it had been done commercially since the 1950s and on a pretty wide scale in the 1980s. The modern fracking boom has to do with applying the technology to shale formations specifically, which was only just getting started in the 1990s on a commercial scale but had been the subject of experimentation since the mid-1970s. It took off later more because of high oil and gas prices making it economical, not because the technology was unknown.
Additionally, the enhanced geothermal systems you're thinking of had, like shale fracking, been the subject of experimentation since the early 1970s; by 1991 the application of hydraulic fracking to geothermal systems was pretty well demonstrated and there wasn't really any further need of contact with the oil and gas industry to learn how to do that. AFAICT the main thing that was lacking at that time was...money. Investment money, specifically. Can't really build projects like that with no financing...
Last edited:
Of course it's legal, why wouldn't it be? If the studios tried to use it for tax dodging then the law would be all over them, as we've discussed the original version of Silver Screen Partners got prosecuted for that very reason. The authorities also take a dim view of trying to hide behind it for liability purposes - if an accident happens and the project is 'self insuring' then the studio behind it will end up paying out, in general the studios are bright enough to do this before official action is required as they really don't want an investigation into the contractual arrangements.
But a purely commercial contract is not really their concern. The courts tend to take the view that it is not their job to rescue people from making a poor bargain, particularly if both parties had professional advice/representation.
Make sure it is a good agent though, a mediocre agent is worse than no agent at all. If you have no representation then you at least have a shot at contract rectification "I thought the contract meant xxx as that is the normal meaning of the words, I didn't know there was a lawyer/accountant meaning". That's pretty much how Art Buchwald got his payout from Living in America (after proving the studio had stolen the idea from him), the definition of 'net profit' in his contract didn't match the one in US accounting law and he got a court to agree that a reasonable person (him) would assume the US accounting law definition applied, the studio panicked and paid him off to settle before the case was officially decided. The studios tightened up the contracts after that and made sure that even under honest accounting rules the LLC still doesn't make a profit, not least because of all those partners.
If you have a crap agent then you are supposed to have been advised about all that, even if you weren't, and so all you can do is sue your agent for being an idiot and badly advising you. And a bad agent probably has even less money than you do.
This might explain why Marvel will not green-light a solo Hulk movie in the MCU given the distribution deal with Universal- they will not make all the money themselves.
Very interesting discussion. It also show how smart Lucas' decision to keep all the Merch rights for Star Wars actually was.
Lucas and Hollywood accounting, you say? Hmmm, @Brainbin, ever think about something like that?
I think even Mark Ruffalo even straight put admitted that and why Bruce Banner's/Savage Hulk's character arc stood out over several movies.
- Status