When you Wish Upon a Frog (Book II of the Jim Henson at Disney saga)
- Thread starter Geekhis Khan
- Start date
Well that figures.
Marvel: "Audiences won't accept a movie with a female lead."
Also Marvel: "Our next film stars Bradley Cooper as a raccoon and Vin Diesel as a tree."
Yup - and Captain Marvel, too.
(Anyway, we don't want to be cluttering up the thread).
Diz War Coverage
Defiant Jim Henson Defends Disney Record
The Wall Street Journal, August 25th, 1998
Burbank – James M. “Jim” Henson has had a long and complicated career, starting with seven-minute puppetry interludes on a local Washington, DC, television station in the 1950s and working his way up to become the Chairman of the Walt Disney Entertainment Company, a Fortune 100 company with a market capitalization currently over $50 billion. His own creations, meanwhile, from The Muppets to The Dark Crystal, have become cultural icons the world over. It’s the stuff of the American Dream. So why is he being attacked as an out-of-touch “hippie” socialist literally hell-bent on destroying America? The answers say more about the current state of American social politics than they do about the man himself.
The entire thing started when Nelson Peltz of Trian Holdings, one of the emerging new breed of so-called “Activist Investors”, assembled the “Good Shepherd Group”, a coalition of financiers, broadcast networks, politicians, and conservative leaders, to include Liberty University chairman Jerry Falwell, in an effort to grab a stake in Disney (NYSE: DIS) with the intent of shaking up management and instilling “market discipline” into a corporation that is still, in many respects, run like a family company.
“Disney has numerous structural weaknesses driven by nostalgia and sentimentality,” Peltz told the WSJ. “They have a P:S Ratio in the two-point-five range and are due for a correction if inefficiencies and devotion to underperforming IP aren’t weeded out.”
And when asked about the source of the “structural weaknesses” as he sees them, there’s one name always at the top of the list: Chairman Jim Henson.
“Henson is a good man,” Peltz said, in direct contradiction to the literally demonizing depictions Henson receives from other parts of the Good Shepherds, principally Falwell and fellow evangelist Pat Robertson. “He’s done a lot of impressive work as a creative artist. But as Chairman he has failed the shareholders because he can’t stop thinking like a creative artist rather than a proper corporate head. As such, he has failed to properly unite the board, allowed his sentimental attachments to The Muppets and other underperforming IP to blind him to his responsibility to the shareholders, and most egregiously he has bungled his two biggest business deals, the questionable stadium partnership with the LA Rams, which was also built upon sentimentality, in this case former CEO Ron Miller’s, and more recently the NBC acquisition, which has struggled in the ratings since the merger.”
Other Shepherds have been more pointed in their criticisms than Peltz. Partners Newt Gingrich and Roger Stone have lambasted Henson as an out-of-touch “hippie dreamer” and suggested that his left-wing politics and focus on non-market-driven concerns like charitable causes and renewable energy promotion have blinded him to his duties as Chairman. Both went further to accuse Henson of pushing a “socialist agenda” and “politicizing” Disney. Gingrich has even specifically called Henson “Unamerican”.
Henson, however, has taken this latter accusation largely in stride. “They call me a “hippie dreamer,” Henson told the WSJ. “Well, I am a hippie dreamer. And I’m perfectly happy to admit it. And not to toot my own horn, but I’m also a man who built up a multimillion-dollar company from my mother’s old coat and a man who has managed a multi-billion-dollar entertainment company with a global reach that makes billions of people around the world happy, including our very wealthy shareholders, who have seen a nearly twenty-five hundred percent increase in valuation over the last decade and a half. I see no reason why I can’t be both a hippie dreamer and a successful entrepreneur. I mean, Ben & Jerry are tie-dyed-in-the-wool Woodstock-era hippies that make me look practically Nixonian by comparison, and yet nobody is questioning their business acumen.”
WSJ analysts agree that Disney does have several inefficiencies, though remain divided on how much Henson is personally to blame for decisions made in consensus with CEO Stan Kinsey, President Richard Nunis, and the board of directors. Take the recent LA Rams deal: the board passed the deal 8-to-2 with only Roy Disney and his brother-in-law Peter Dailey dissenting. Some analysts agree with Peltz that this reflects a failure to unify the board or consider dissenting opinions while others call it the sign of a healthy board that can still function despite disagreement, free of the Groupthink that has come to plague so many modern companies. The continued split between the roles of Chairman and CEO at Disney, which runs contrary to the overwhelming trend of combining the two roles at most major companies, could likewise be seen as a sign of healthy separation of powers.
But on the other hand, Henson’s seeming devotion to the goals of former CEO Ron Miller vis-à-vis the Rams could be seen as a lack of real independence. “If the board sees Henson as favoring the aims of one side of the Disney family over the other,” one said, “Then it could cost him dearly in what is sure to be a nasty proxy fight at this October’s Shareholder’s meeting.”
“I love and appreciate Roy,” said Henson. “I don’t take his disagreement personally. It shows that he’s considering the facts before he makes a decision, just as we all have here at Walt Disney, even if we can come to differing conclusions. Mr. Peltz is a man who believes in Shareholder Democracy. So do I. So do Diane [Disney-Miller] and Roy. All opinions are welcome and differing ideas are not just tolerated, but encouraged. And I’ll be happy to listen to any financial opinion that doesn’t call for discarding the core values of Walt Disney Entertainment or undermining its long-term health and solvency in the name of short-term greed.”
At the moment, the Powers That Be at Disney appear to have the upper hand. Combined, the Shepherds and their presumptive ally Ted Turner of Columbia are on track to gain a roughly 13% stake, while the combined Disney and Henson families control just over 45%. To command the company, the Shepherds will have to either win over all of the non-Disney/Henson major stakeholders (which seems unlikely, even though many of our analysts predict that GE in particular will be amenable to some of their arguments) or, more likely need to win over one of the two Disney factions, which would presumably bring one or more of the other major stakeholders with them. And this latter option increasingly appears to be the strategy.
Peltz has approached both sides of the Disney family, sources tell us. Roy Disney in particular is seen as vulnerable, carrying, as he does, lingering resentments for the treatment that he received while working for Disney in the 1970s. His opposition to the Rams deal is being interpreted by Peltz as the tip of the iceberg, and the Shepherds are likely to hammer on that deal again and again, hoping to pry him away from Henson and Disney-Miller.
Other sources are more sanguine. “Peltz is walking a fine line here,” said one. “[Roy] Disney in particular is very close to Henson, so Peltz’s best strategy might be to focus on [Diane] Disney-Miller. Her earlier opposition to the NBC deal may be the key there.”
Alternately, Peltz could “go up the middle” as one source put it. “If I were him, I’d exploit the division [between the two sides of the Disney family] and play to the suspicions of both sides. If you can get either side to believe that the other is about to sell them out, then they’d be more likely throw their lot in with Peltz out of self-preservation. In other words, let them come to you.”
Peltz also faces a public relations challenge. Despite continuing condemnation of Henson from the political right, a majority of Americans like Henson, with a recent Marist poll putting him at 63% favorability with the general public, with a margin of 3%. However, that’s down sharply from five years ago when his rating was 76% favorable and also doesn’t account for the dramatic shift in opinions away from “Very Favorable” (from 33% to 15%) and towards “Somewhat Favorable” (from 24% to 35%) in that Favorability band, nor for the surge in “Very Unfavorable” ratings from 3% to 13% over that same timespan. Peltz reportedly enlisted Falwell and the rest of the so-called “Faith Faction” with the specific aim of giving a voice to the growing dissent, and with luck help neutralize or at least blunt Disney’s PR counteroffensive. To this end, however, the results have been mixed, with numerous gaffes by Falwell in particular making Peltz’s play look more like a political or religious move than financial one, and some sources report that Peltz has been growing increasingly disillusioned with his nominal allies.
“Yea, the insults are pretty heinous,” Henson told the WSJ. “I mean, we can respectfully disagree on things like solar power, but the personal attacks against my character and my faith are truly uncalled for.”
And when asked about Falwell’s headline-grabbing accusations that Disney was permitting “a climate of child abuse,” which he based upon unsubstantiated claims alluded to by talk show host Geraldo Rivera based upon the 1994 arrest of actor Kevin Spacey and the 1997 firing of Jive Records producer R. Kelly, Henson showed real anger for the first time. “I’ll let the Legal Weasels [the Disney corporate lawyers] do the talking, but suffice it to say that these false and defamatory attacks will not be tolerated. Disney has spent millions protecting and supporting our underage actors and musicians, far exceeding what other studios provide. Millions that the Shepherds themselves have proposed slashing as an, in their words, ‘unnecessary expense’, I might add. Disney is a safe space and always will be for as long as I am here.”
But even if Peltz can’t completely dominate the board, he’ll still be in position to make a lot of trouble for Henson. “The Shepherds could build small, by-the-issue alliances,” our analysts say. “They could do some horse-trading on, say, hotels in order to win over Marriott on a specific goal of theirs, such as killing the WED-Signature line of films or kneecapping the unions. Or presumably alliances of convenience could be exploited to replace Henson with another Chairman from among the existing board members.”
Henson, however, seems to have predicted this strategy, reaching out publicly to Peltz himself. Henson has openly called on Peltz to sever his ties with the rest of the Shepherds and expressed a willingness to hear his proposed improvements “in good faith”. Peltz has, so far, not acknowledged the overture and analysts are divided on whether Peltz would or even could betray his allies.
“In the end, it looks like it will be a matter of which alliance breaks first, the Henson-Disney one or the Peltz-Turner-Falwell one.”
The Wall Street Journal, August 25th, 1998
Burbank – James M. “Jim” Henson has had a long and complicated career, starting with seven-minute puppetry interludes on a local Washington, DC, television station in the 1950s and working his way up to become the Chairman of the Walt Disney Entertainment Company, a Fortune 100 company with a market capitalization currently over $50 billion. His own creations, meanwhile, from The Muppets to The Dark Crystal, have become cultural icons the world over. It’s the stuff of the American Dream. So why is he being attacked as an out-of-touch “hippie” socialist literally hell-bent on destroying America? The answers say more about the current state of American social politics than they do about the man himself.
The entire thing started when Nelson Peltz of Trian Holdings, one of the emerging new breed of so-called “Activist Investors”, assembled the “Good Shepherd Group”, a coalition of financiers, broadcast networks, politicians, and conservative leaders, to include Liberty University chairman Jerry Falwell, in an effort to grab a stake in Disney (NYSE: DIS) with the intent of shaking up management and instilling “market discipline” into a corporation that is still, in many respects, run like a family company.
“Disney has numerous structural weaknesses driven by nostalgia and sentimentality,” Peltz told the WSJ. “They have a P:S Ratio in the two-point-five range and are due for a correction if inefficiencies and devotion to underperforming IP aren’t weeded out.”
And when asked about the source of the “structural weaknesses” as he sees them, there’s one name always at the top of the list: Chairman Jim Henson.
“Henson is a good man,” Peltz said, in direct contradiction to the literally demonizing depictions Henson receives from other parts of the Good Shepherds, principally Falwell and fellow evangelist Pat Robertson. “He’s done a lot of impressive work as a creative artist. But as Chairman he has failed the shareholders because he can’t stop thinking like a creative artist rather than a proper corporate head. As such, he has failed to properly unite the board, allowed his sentimental attachments to The Muppets and other underperforming IP to blind him to his responsibility to the shareholders, and most egregiously he has bungled his two biggest business deals, the questionable stadium partnership with the LA Rams, which was also built upon sentimentality, in this case former CEO Ron Miller’s, and more recently the NBC acquisition, which has struggled in the ratings since the merger.”
Other Shepherds have been more pointed in their criticisms than Peltz. Partners Newt Gingrich and Roger Stone have lambasted Henson as an out-of-touch “hippie dreamer” and suggested that his left-wing politics and focus on non-market-driven concerns like charitable causes and renewable energy promotion have blinded him to his duties as Chairman. Both went further to accuse Henson of pushing a “socialist agenda” and “politicizing” Disney. Gingrich has even specifically called Henson “Unamerican”.
Henson, however, has taken this latter accusation largely in stride. “They call me a “hippie dreamer,” Henson told the WSJ. “Well, I am a hippie dreamer. And I’m perfectly happy to admit it. And not to toot my own horn, but I’m also a man who built up a multimillion-dollar company from my mother’s old coat and a man who has managed a multi-billion-dollar entertainment company with a global reach that makes billions of people around the world happy, including our very wealthy shareholders, who have seen a nearly twenty-five hundred percent increase in valuation over the last decade and a half. I see no reason why I can’t be both a hippie dreamer and a successful entrepreneur. I mean, Ben & Jerry are tie-dyed-in-the-wool Woodstock-era hippies that make me look practically Nixonian by comparison, and yet nobody is questioning their business acumen.”
WSJ analysts agree that Disney does have several inefficiencies, though remain divided on how much Henson is personally to blame for decisions made in consensus with CEO Stan Kinsey, President Richard Nunis, and the board of directors. Take the recent LA Rams deal: the board passed the deal 8-to-2 with only Roy Disney and his brother-in-law Peter Dailey dissenting. Some analysts agree with Peltz that this reflects a failure to unify the board or consider dissenting opinions while others call it the sign of a healthy board that can still function despite disagreement, free of the Groupthink that has come to plague so many modern companies. The continued split between the roles of Chairman and CEO at Disney, which runs contrary to the overwhelming trend of combining the two roles at most major companies, could likewise be seen as a sign of healthy separation of powers.
But on the other hand, Henson’s seeming devotion to the goals of former CEO Ron Miller vis-à-vis the Rams could be seen as a lack of real independence. “If the board sees Henson as favoring the aims of one side of the Disney family over the other,” one said, “Then it could cost him dearly in what is sure to be a nasty proxy fight at this October’s Shareholder’s meeting.”
“I love and appreciate Roy,” said Henson. “I don’t take his disagreement personally. It shows that he’s considering the facts before he makes a decision, just as we all have here at Walt Disney, even if we can come to differing conclusions. Mr. Peltz is a man who believes in Shareholder Democracy. So do I. So do Diane [Disney-Miller] and Roy. All opinions are welcome and differing ideas are not just tolerated, but encouraged. And I’ll be happy to listen to any financial opinion that doesn’t call for discarding the core values of Walt Disney Entertainment or undermining its long-term health and solvency in the name of short-term greed.”
At the moment, the Powers That Be at Disney appear to have the upper hand. Combined, the Shepherds and their presumptive ally Ted Turner of Columbia are on track to gain a roughly 13% stake, while the combined Disney and Henson families control just over 45%. To command the company, the Shepherds will have to either win over all of the non-Disney/Henson major stakeholders (which seems unlikely, even though many of our analysts predict that GE in particular will be amenable to some of their arguments) or, more likely need to win over one of the two Disney factions, which would presumably bring one or more of the other major stakeholders with them. And this latter option increasingly appears to be the strategy.
Peltz has approached both sides of the Disney family, sources tell us. Roy Disney in particular is seen as vulnerable, carrying, as he does, lingering resentments for the treatment that he received while working for Disney in the 1970s. His opposition to the Rams deal is being interpreted by Peltz as the tip of the iceberg, and the Shepherds are likely to hammer on that deal again and again, hoping to pry him away from Henson and Disney-Miller.
Other sources are more sanguine. “Peltz is walking a fine line here,” said one. “[Roy] Disney in particular is very close to Henson, so Peltz’s best strategy might be to focus on [Diane] Disney-Miller. Her earlier opposition to the NBC deal may be the key there.”
Alternately, Peltz could “go up the middle” as one source put it. “If I were him, I’d exploit the division [between the two sides of the Disney family] and play to the suspicions of both sides. If you can get either side to believe that the other is about to sell them out, then they’d be more likely throw their lot in with Peltz out of self-preservation. In other words, let them come to you.”
Peltz also faces a public relations challenge. Despite continuing condemnation of Henson from the political right, a majority of Americans like Henson, with a recent Marist poll putting him at 63% favorability with the general public, with a margin of 3%. However, that’s down sharply from five years ago when his rating was 76% favorable and also doesn’t account for the dramatic shift in opinions away from “Very Favorable” (from 33% to 15%) and towards “Somewhat Favorable” (from 24% to 35%) in that Favorability band, nor for the surge in “Very Unfavorable” ratings from 3% to 13% over that same timespan. Peltz reportedly enlisted Falwell and the rest of the so-called “Faith Faction” with the specific aim of giving a voice to the growing dissent, and with luck help neutralize or at least blunt Disney’s PR counteroffensive. To this end, however, the results have been mixed, with numerous gaffes by Falwell in particular making Peltz’s play look more like a political or religious move than financial one, and some sources report that Peltz has been growing increasingly disillusioned with his nominal allies.
“Yea, the insults are pretty heinous,” Henson told the WSJ. “I mean, we can respectfully disagree on things like solar power, but the personal attacks against my character and my faith are truly uncalled for.”
And when asked about Falwell’s headline-grabbing accusations that Disney was permitting “a climate of child abuse,” which he based upon unsubstantiated claims alluded to by talk show host Geraldo Rivera based upon the 1994 arrest of actor Kevin Spacey and the 1997 firing of Jive Records producer R. Kelly, Henson showed real anger for the first time. “I’ll let the Legal Weasels [the Disney corporate lawyers] do the talking, but suffice it to say that these false and defamatory attacks will not be tolerated. Disney has spent millions protecting and supporting our underage actors and musicians, far exceeding what other studios provide. Millions that the Shepherds themselves have proposed slashing as an, in their words, ‘unnecessary expense’, I might add. Disney is a safe space and always will be for as long as I am here.”
But even if Peltz can’t completely dominate the board, he’ll still be in position to make a lot of trouble for Henson. “The Shepherds could build small, by-the-issue alliances,” our analysts say. “They could do some horse-trading on, say, hotels in order to win over Marriott on a specific goal of theirs, such as killing the WED-Signature line of films or kneecapping the unions. Or presumably alliances of convenience could be exploited to replace Henson with another Chairman from among the existing board members.”
Henson, however, seems to have predicted this strategy, reaching out publicly to Peltz himself. Henson has openly called on Peltz to sever his ties with the rest of the Shepherds and expressed a willingness to hear his proposed improvements “in good faith”. Peltz has, so far, not acknowledged the overture and analysts are divided on whether Peltz would or even could betray his allies.
“In the end, it looks like it will be a matter of which alliance breaks first, the Henson-Disney one or the Peltz-Turner-Falwell one.”
Ha! You tell 'em!
"The problem is either that everyone doesn't agree, or that people who disagree don't get heard, we haven't decided yet."
And well he should. "This is the studio which has most publically and consistantly dealt with abusers, therefore it must be the one where it's worst. All those other companies where you never hear about anything like that -- that must be because it doesn't happen there."
Oh, interesting. I don't imagine Peltz would take this at face value (which I'm sure it's at least 85% intended as), but he doesn't need to; he just needs to see it as a better option than what he's doing at the moment.
To be honest, it's becoming more likely Peltz and Henson are going to have a settlement in order to end this feud and it would be stupid for him not to consider the offer. The only one that will fail is Falwell and his cronies, who are arguably a bigger threat to Disney and American society at large than a soulless greedy businessman.
Rapprochement might be in the works if Falwell & Co. in the 'Faith Faction' manage to burn themselves in the public eye (with any luck in some idiot stunt they'll try to blame on Henson that fools absolutely no one because their fingers are all over it).
Those incriminating photos Henson rejected are still floating around, or copies of them maybe. I doubt the Khan would tease that little nugget without turning it into a Chekhov's Photo Album.
I think it'll end with something where everybody's not entirely happy, but they can live with it - except Falwell, who won't be able to live with it at all.
And with that, I'm off to see how Way of Water turns out...
And with that, I'm off to see how Way of Water turns out...
That might be done in response to Peltz becoming interested in that settlement (maybe a large share of the stocks + a position on the board). Peltz could be initially hesitant only to dive straight into the agreement once Falwell does something so heinous (perhaps an anti-semitic remark or just straight-up hate) that he could lose the opportunity if he continues being with the Good Shepherds.
Personally, I don't think they'll be in circulation until far after this crisis ends and someone inevitably leaks it (like his wife). The dude paid big bucks to keep those photos hidden, after all.
Begun the Proxy War Has
Chapter 6: The Battle Lines are Drawn
From Dis-War Two: The Great Disney Proxy Culture War of 1998, by Taylor Johnson
August saw the continued consolidation of positions by both the Disney Round Table and the Shepherds. While the press went insane, Arbs, Wall Street insiders, and day traders watched from the sidelines with curiosity, but few saw much advantage in participating in anything beyond transient day trading as the stock price rose in the scramble. Bemused in his home in “exile” in Monaco, former “King of the Arbs” Ivan Boesky called the whole thing “amateur hour”, and “the thrashings of activist investors and posers with no real understanding of the game.”
But for the participants, it was an existential fight, and each looked for advantages.
Henson worked to unify the board and assuage external shareholders while casting doubt on the aims of the Shepherds. The two sides of the Disney family continued to look upon each other with distrust, even as they publicly continued to support Henson. The Shepherds continued their messaging and honed their strategy for the September shareholders’ meeting.
Even as the last shares fell into place, the fight went on.
The Shepherds, or at least the Faith Faction, attempted to spin the fight as an inherently moral one, a Crusade by the Children of God attempting to chase the serpents from the Castle in the name of God. The members used their media platforms to encourage their followers to send money directly to them to support the fight, notably not asking them to directly invest themselves, though many did. Some accountants have since implied that some of the funds thus raised were diverted to other purposes, including, allegedly, the members’ own pockets, with some believing that the group could have claimed an extra 1-3% of the Outstanding Shares had the money all gone to where it was supposed to.
And yet even if one takes the embezzlement claims at face value, the Shepherds were making incredible progress. Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network openly encouraged their viewers to support the Shepherds, which earned condemnation and a lawsuit by Disney to stop the tactic, though the courts would refuse to order a temporary injunction and the case would be dropped. By contrast, Turner’s CNN remained neutral despite its founder and CEO having a vested interest in the outcome, which confused Disney and enraged the Shepherds.
In contrast to the Shepherd’s morality claims, Disney spun the whole thing as political maneuvering by a biased and partisan special interest group with the intention of “turning Disney into an overt political mouthpiece.” They contrasted this with their own internal ban on supporting partisan causes with Disney corporate resources, in particular a ban on making direct political contributions to politicians by the company, though individual employees and shareholders, the Disneys included, could and did make campaign contributions or support political causes and campaigns with their own money (Henson was, ironically given the accusations, the only one who didn't give to campaigns). Disney advertised themselves as a company “for all people, not just a chosen few,” and insinuated (but never claimed outright) that the Shepherds would effectively take Disney away from anyone but a small minority of Americans who thought and believed like they did (and suggested to the Fiscal Faction that this would amount to fiscal suicide by alienating large segments of the customer base).
Henson himself, in an interview with Time, also specifically noted how Disney was encouraging direct investment by individuals in Disney stock, the resurrected “Knights Errant” campaign, contrasting the tactic with the Shepherds’ pleas to send money straight to them, “fleecing their own flock” to their own personal financial benefit. He also made no promises of “salvation” for supporting Disney, in direct contrast to overt claims made by some televangelists about God looking favorably upon those supporting the Shepherds, but he did point out the numerous special benefits that shareholders, even minor shareholders, could claim from Disney.
“Do we want a Disney that’s only for the few,” he asked, “Or a Disney that’s for everyone, like Uncle Walt intended?”
And in a final play at undermining the cohesion of the Shepherds, and one presumably carefully scripted by the Legal Weasels, Henson openly told the Wall Street Journal that he’d be willing to work directly with Peltz and other “reasonable shareholders” willing to act “in good faith” in order to improve corporate efficiencies, “as long as the core values of Disney are preserved.”
Nelson Peltz, meanwhile, began to seriously regret partnering with Falwell and Robertson, whose noisy news-making was undermining his fiscal plans. They’d provided plenty of liquid funds, but had failed to live up to their promises to play things with professionalism and subtlety. Instead, their highly-public “crusade” was weakening his hand. His attempts to browbeat Falwell in particular back into line using the force of his investment failed as Falwell ignored him at every turn.
“I made a deal with the devil,” he lamented to Peter May, “and now he’s taken over the show.”
Disney, meanwhile, considered a direct lawsuit against Turner, citing the obvious financial conflict between NBC and his own CBS, but the Legal Weasels determined that the litigation would outlast the conflict and likely antagonize a man whose true interest remained unknown to them. It was also unknown exactly how Turner would respond to such an offensive, conceivably just selling his share to the Shepherds in revenge for the challenge. They decided to let sleeping dogs lie for the moment.
By September 1st, only 8.1% of shares remained unaccounted for, but the number of daily trades shrank to a trickle, indicating that those who had shares had no desire to sell them. CFO Richard Nanula presumed that the remaining 8% were Institutional Investors whose legal obligation would be to support moves they believed would benefit their clients financially. In total, the Henson Family had 19.6% of Outstanding Shares, Roy Disney’s side 13.1%, the Disney-Miller side 13.2%, Apple had increased its stake to 1.3%, Lucasfilm, flush with cash thanks to Star Wars, was up to 1.7%, and Amblin up to 1.4%. Marriott retained their original 5.7% stake, Bass his 8.7%, and GE their 10.5%, with each up about 0.1-0.15% due to the corporate stock buyback (which ironically also put additional shares in the Shepherd’s hands). Turner still claimed 5.2% and The Shepherds had amassed 8.3%, with 4.9% of shares believed to be in the hands of Knights Errant.
The skirmishes were over. The battlelines had been drawn. The Great Disney Proxy War was set to begin.
Stocks at a Glance: Walt Disney Entertainment (DIS)
September 1st, 1998
Stock price: $112.42
Major Shareholders: Henson family (19.5%), Roy E. Disney family (13.0%), Disney-Miller family (13.1%), General Electric (10.6%), Bass Brothers (8.7%), Bill Marriott (5.8%), Apple Comp. (1.2%), Amblin Entertainment (1.3%), Lucasfilm Ltd. (1.0%), Suspected “Knights Errant” (4.9%), Shepherd Group (8.3%), Columbia Entertainment (5.2%), Other (7.4%; assumed to be primarily Institutional Investors)
Outstanding shares: 498.6 million
"Begun the Proxy War Has" (Image source Cinema Blend)
From Dis-War Two: The Great Disney Proxy Culture War of 1998, by Taylor Johnson
August saw the continued consolidation of positions by both the Disney Round Table and the Shepherds. While the press went insane, Arbs, Wall Street insiders, and day traders watched from the sidelines with curiosity, but few saw much advantage in participating in anything beyond transient day trading as the stock price rose in the scramble. Bemused in his home in “exile” in Monaco, former “King of the Arbs” Ivan Boesky called the whole thing “amateur hour”, and “the thrashings of activist investors and posers with no real understanding of the game.”
But for the participants, it was an existential fight, and each looked for advantages.
Henson worked to unify the board and assuage external shareholders while casting doubt on the aims of the Shepherds. The two sides of the Disney family continued to look upon each other with distrust, even as they publicly continued to support Henson. The Shepherds continued their messaging and honed their strategy for the September shareholders’ meeting.
Even as the last shares fell into place, the fight went on.
The Shepherds, or at least the Faith Faction, attempted to spin the fight as an inherently moral one, a Crusade by the Children of God attempting to chase the serpents from the Castle in the name of God. The members used their media platforms to encourage their followers to send money directly to them to support the fight, notably not asking them to directly invest themselves, though many did. Some accountants have since implied that some of the funds thus raised were diverted to other purposes, including, allegedly, the members’ own pockets, with some believing that the group could have claimed an extra 1-3% of the Outstanding Shares had the money all gone to where it was supposed to.
And yet even if one takes the embezzlement claims at face value, the Shepherds were making incredible progress. Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network openly encouraged their viewers to support the Shepherds, which earned condemnation and a lawsuit by Disney to stop the tactic, though the courts would refuse to order a temporary injunction and the case would be dropped. By contrast, Turner’s CNN remained neutral despite its founder and CEO having a vested interest in the outcome, which confused Disney and enraged the Shepherds.
In contrast to the Shepherd’s morality claims, Disney spun the whole thing as political maneuvering by a biased and partisan special interest group with the intention of “turning Disney into an overt political mouthpiece.” They contrasted this with their own internal ban on supporting partisan causes with Disney corporate resources, in particular a ban on making direct political contributions to politicians by the company, though individual employees and shareholders, the Disneys included, could and did make campaign contributions or support political causes and campaigns with their own money (Henson was, ironically given the accusations, the only one who didn't give to campaigns). Disney advertised themselves as a company “for all people, not just a chosen few,” and insinuated (but never claimed outright) that the Shepherds would effectively take Disney away from anyone but a small minority of Americans who thought and believed like they did (and suggested to the Fiscal Faction that this would amount to fiscal suicide by alienating large segments of the customer base).
Henson himself, in an interview with Time, also specifically noted how Disney was encouraging direct investment by individuals in Disney stock, the resurrected “Knights Errant” campaign, contrasting the tactic with the Shepherds’ pleas to send money straight to them, “fleecing their own flock” to their own personal financial benefit. He also made no promises of “salvation” for supporting Disney, in direct contrast to overt claims made by some televangelists about God looking favorably upon those supporting the Shepherds, but he did point out the numerous special benefits that shareholders, even minor shareholders, could claim from Disney.
“Do we want a Disney that’s only for the few,” he asked, “Or a Disney that’s for everyone, like Uncle Walt intended?”
And in a final play at undermining the cohesion of the Shepherds, and one presumably carefully scripted by the Legal Weasels, Henson openly told the Wall Street Journal that he’d be willing to work directly with Peltz and other “reasonable shareholders” willing to act “in good faith” in order to improve corporate efficiencies, “as long as the core values of Disney are preserved.”
Nelson Peltz, meanwhile, began to seriously regret partnering with Falwell and Robertson, whose noisy news-making was undermining his fiscal plans. They’d provided plenty of liquid funds, but had failed to live up to their promises to play things with professionalism and subtlety. Instead, their highly-public “crusade” was weakening his hand. His attempts to browbeat Falwell in particular back into line using the force of his investment failed as Falwell ignored him at every turn.
“I made a deal with the devil,” he lamented to Peter May, “and now he’s taken over the show.”
Disney, meanwhile, considered a direct lawsuit against Turner, citing the obvious financial conflict between NBC and his own CBS, but the Legal Weasels determined that the litigation would outlast the conflict and likely antagonize a man whose true interest remained unknown to them. It was also unknown exactly how Turner would respond to such an offensive, conceivably just selling his share to the Shepherds in revenge for the challenge. They decided to let sleeping dogs lie for the moment.
By September 1st, only 8.1% of shares remained unaccounted for, but the number of daily trades shrank to a trickle, indicating that those who had shares had no desire to sell them. CFO Richard Nanula presumed that the remaining 8% were Institutional Investors whose legal obligation would be to support moves they believed would benefit their clients financially. In total, the Henson Family had 19.6% of Outstanding Shares, Roy Disney’s side 13.1%, the Disney-Miller side 13.2%, Apple had increased its stake to 1.3%, Lucasfilm, flush with cash thanks to Star Wars, was up to 1.7%, and Amblin up to 1.4%. Marriott retained their original 5.7% stake, Bass his 8.7%, and GE their 10.5%, with each up about 0.1-0.15% due to the corporate stock buyback (which ironically also put additional shares in the Shepherd’s hands). Turner still claimed 5.2% and The Shepherds had amassed 8.3%, with 4.9% of shares believed to be in the hands of Knights Errant.
The skirmishes were over. The battlelines had been drawn. The Great Disney Proxy War was set to begin.
Stocks at a Glance: Walt Disney Entertainment (DIS)
September 1st, 1998
Stock price: $112.42
Major Shareholders: Henson family (19.5%), Roy E. Disney family (13.0%), Disney-Miller family (13.1%), General Electric (10.6%), Bass Brothers (8.7%), Bill Marriott (5.8%), Apple Comp. (1.2%), Amblin Entertainment (1.3%), Lucasfilm Ltd. (1.0%), Suspected “Knights Errant” (4.9%), Shepherd Group (8.3%), Columbia Entertainment (5.2%), Other (7.4%; assumed to be primarily Institutional Investors)
Outstanding shares: 498.6 million
"Begun the Proxy War Has" (Image source Cinema Blend)
And there it is. Disney might have people that struggle to work together on an ordinary day, but they have Jim Henson as a unifying force. The Good Shepherds don't have that kind of public figure, and as the fundamentalists continue to increase their efforts to berate and demonize Jim, it's only going to drive a wedge between them and Peltz/Turner.
Now I have the idea for a story about a stockbroker who makes a deal with Old Scratch for success in buying out another corporation stake but surprise, surprise, comes at a terrible price.
Time is a Terrible Thing to Waste
Mad About Muppets in: The Nick of Time (1998)
From Mad About Muppets with Mad Molly Moolah Netsite, February 21st, 2008
Hi, I’m Molly and I’m Mad for Muppets, and so are you, or why would you be here?
Seriously, why would you? It’s all that I talk about.
Mad Molly Moolah (Image by @nick_crenshaw82)
And today, it’s Muppets in a sea of TTTIIIIIIMMMMMEEEEEE!!!! (whooo-WEEEEE-Yooooo!!!!)
Yes, today I talk about Muppets in: The Nick of Time, where Nick has a double meaning for like “steal” in Brit-slang and is the villain’s name, because it’s The Muppets and bad puns are required by Henson’s Law and would you or me really have it any other way? Of course not!!! (Blasphemy!!
)
Well it started from a crazy idea that Jim had in a dream where he’s like lost in time and trying to grab the strands of his life as they slip away and he’s beset by swarms of “time flies” because even in his nightmares he has bad puns and so he got up in the middle of the night and wrote a quick idea for a film based on the dream that he later realized should be a Muppet film because of course it should. He sent the idea to Jerry Juhl and the rest as they say is history.
(Image source Nick P on Pinterest)
And that of course became 1998’s Muppets in: The Nick of Time. (well duh right?)
So, it starts in the 1890s where Kermit Frogg, the famous inventor, has developed, with the help of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker, a Time Machine exactly like the one in the H.G. Wells book. Of course in a Deep Cut old Sci-Fi pun people keep calling him Phileas Frogg and he’s like, “No, I’m Kermit Frogg. Phileas is my cousin, you see, with the, um, hot air balloons.”
And just before he and his nephew Robin can explore the Future (“I really hope that blue toe-boots aren’t in fashion”) he’s visited by a future version of himself, who is borderline hysterical, saying, repeatedly, some version of “Parsley…Sage! Rosemary! ……TIME!!!”
“Are we going to Scarborough Faire?” asks Robin.
When Kermie calms himself down future him tells him that Nick Parsley, the Sage of Time, who is played by Rowan Atkinson, is “Taking Time” and bottling it up, hoping to “Make some Time” for his lost love Rosemary (A picture and later spectral cameo by Susan Sarandon). The problem, of course, is that these plans will backfire, “Killing Time” and resulting in “A Complete Waste of Time” or essentially the end of the universe which would probably be bad.
But Kermit asks how he could be the one to tell himself about the event. “Doesn’t that create an, um, paradox?”
“That would be us,” says Dr. Bunsen with Beaker, “Your pair-of-docs!”
“You can blame the writers for that one,” Kermit tells the camera.
But in order to avoid A Complete Waste of Time, Kermit Frogg and Robin set out through time enlisting other helpers, like Piggy and Gonzo and Pepe and the like, to track down Nick Parsley and stop him from Wasting Time. Nick of course sends his “Time Flies” (Muppets) after them, with Doc Brown warning that they are “strongly attracted to powerful emotion, particularly joy.”
“So, you’re saying Time Flies when you’re having…”
“Just stop, please.”
Having Fun Yet? (Image by Filfury)
Oh, did I forget to mention that they also run into various other time travelers like Bill & Ted (Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves), Doc Brown and Marty (John Lithgow and Michael J. Fox), and even Neil Patrick Harris, who shows up as the 8th Doctor, which I will talk about because a lot happens here.
See, the Tardis shows up and everyone’s excited at first, and then NPH steps out and most of the assembled Muppets are like disappointed and angry. “Oh, come on! We get the worst Doctor?” asks Pepe.
“Hey, I like the 8th Doctor, he’s my favorite!” says Robin.
“Thank you, Robin,” says the Doctor. “Glad to see someone who appreciates the work I do around here.”
But they all help out, the Doctor helping out a lot because NPH loves the Muppets almost as much as I do (is that even possible?!?), and they try to track down Nick Parsley. But he’s, like, totally relatable since he’s trying to save his lost love Rosemary and it’s actually kind of sad. There’s a scene where he’s singing Jim Croce’s “Time in a Bottle” and it’s just heart-wrenching! Particularly given the real story behind that song and Jim Croce and all.
The saddest Muppets Performance ever, if you know Jim and his internal fears
Because for all of the silliness in this film, there’s a lot of real sad stuff with Kermit helping Nick come to terms with the loss of his love and his inability to control time. And yeah, you can really see Jim Henson coming to terms with his own time issues here. He even said so:
“It was strangely therapeutic for me. Nick Parsley is really me, you see. Always trying to take control of time, not just living in it.”
Yea, if you’ve ever seen his weird Timepiece, you totally get it. It’s like he started expressing his time fears there and then really came to terms with them in this movie. This and I guess What Dreams May Come from the same year. 1998 was a strange and important year for Jim, I guess.
But even though Muppets in the Nick of Time is, like, one of the more sad and serious Muppets films, it’s still a Muppets film and a lot of fun. The music isn’t original this time, being Muppet performances of classic songs, always about Time in some way (“If I could Turn Back Time”, “Time is on my Side”, “Too Much Time on my Hands” …you get it).
Yes, this…with Muppets!! (Image source Funk’s House of Geekery)
Like, I mean, there’s even a full Muppet Chorus of “The Timewarp” from The Rocky Horror Picture Show complete with cameo by Tim Curry, though as the guy at the board narrating the dance (“It’s just a jump to the left…”) not as Rocky because it’s a PG film and they cover over the whole naughty…pelvic part by having non-verbal waste-up Penguin Muppets sing that line and all, but still, so fun!!
And when things get all…Time Warped as Nick approaches Taking All the Time He Needs, they have a psychedelic dream-like sequence where The Electric Mayhem sing Pink Floyd’s “Time” all fading in and out of visibility as they sing and play. Apparently, Jim had to physically meet with Roger Waters and the rest to convince them to let them do the piece since they usually don’t like their songs to be used in movies or anything, but he showed them the script and they were sold.
“Tickin’ away…” (Image sources YouTube and Talk Bass)
So, yea, Muppets in the Nick of Time is possibly the deepest, most meaningful Muppets movie at least since the original or maybe Muppet Christmas Carrol and it even got some Oscar noms including Best Original Screenplay for Jim and Jerry and won a BAFTA for it. Rowan Atkinson even got a BAFTA acting nom. Jim kind of mixed his silly side and his serious side, his traditional child-friendly side and his old Experimental side all into a single film. It also ended up making a good amount of money ($84 million against a $24 million budget) since it got great reviews and a lot of buzz, which really helped given all the drama of 1998, if you recall.
So yea, you totally HAVE to see this movie, assuming that for some strange reason that you haven’t (in that case why are you here?!?!).
In fact, I think that I’ll make some time to see it again tonite. It’s definitely NOT a complete waste of time.
(Image source Tenor)
Like, fer surely?
From Mad About Muppets with Mad Molly Moolah Netsite, February 21st, 2008
Hi, I’m Molly and I’m Mad for Muppets, and so are you, or why would you be here?
Seriously, why would you? It’s all that I talk about.
Mad Molly Moolah (Image by @nick_crenshaw82)
And today, it’s Muppets in a sea of TTTIIIIIIMMMMMEEEEEE!!!! (whooo-WEEEEE-Yooooo!!!!)
Yes, today I talk about Muppets in: The Nick of Time, where Nick has a double meaning for like “steal” in Brit-slang and is the villain’s name, because it’s The Muppets and bad puns are required by Henson’s Law and would you or me really have it any other way? Of course not!!! (Blasphemy!!
)Well it started from a crazy idea that Jim had in a dream where he’s like lost in time and trying to grab the strands of his life as they slip away and he’s beset by swarms of “time flies” because even in his nightmares he has bad puns and so he got up in the middle of the night and wrote a quick idea for a film based on the dream that he later realized should be a Muppet film because of course it should. He sent the idea to Jerry Juhl and the rest as they say is history.
(Image source Nick P on Pinterest)
And that of course became 1998’s Muppets in: The Nick of Time. (well duh right?)
So, it starts in the 1890s where Kermit Frogg, the famous inventor, has developed, with the help of Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker, a Time Machine exactly like the one in the H.G. Wells book. Of course in a Deep Cut old Sci-Fi pun people keep calling him Phileas Frogg and he’s like, “No, I’m Kermit Frogg. Phileas is my cousin, you see, with the, um, hot air balloons.”
And just before he and his nephew Robin can explore the Future (“I really hope that blue toe-boots aren’t in fashion”) he’s visited by a future version of himself, who is borderline hysterical, saying, repeatedly, some version of “Parsley…Sage! Rosemary! ……TIME!!!”
“Are we going to Scarborough Faire?” asks Robin.
When Kermie calms himself down future him tells him that Nick Parsley, the Sage of Time, who is played by Rowan Atkinson, is “Taking Time” and bottling it up, hoping to “Make some Time” for his lost love Rosemary (A picture and later spectral cameo by Susan Sarandon). The problem, of course, is that these plans will backfire, “Killing Time” and resulting in “A Complete Waste of Time” or essentially the end of the universe which would probably be bad.
But Kermit asks how he could be the one to tell himself about the event. “Doesn’t that create an, um, paradox?”
“That would be us,” says Dr. Bunsen with Beaker, “Your pair-of-docs!”
“You can blame the writers for that one,” Kermit tells the camera.
But in order to avoid A Complete Waste of Time, Kermit Frogg and Robin set out through time enlisting other helpers, like Piggy and Gonzo and Pepe and the like, to track down Nick Parsley and stop him from Wasting Time. Nick of course sends his “Time Flies” (Muppets) after them, with Doc Brown warning that they are “strongly attracted to powerful emotion, particularly joy.”
“So, you’re saying Time Flies when you’re having…”
“Just stop, please.”
Having Fun Yet? (Image by Filfury)
Oh, did I forget to mention that they also run into various other time travelers like Bill & Ted (Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves), Doc Brown and Marty (John Lithgow and Michael J. Fox), and even Neil Patrick Harris, who shows up as the 8th Doctor, which I will talk about because a lot happens here.
See, the Tardis shows up and everyone’s excited at first, and then NPH steps out and most of the assembled Muppets are like disappointed and angry. “Oh, come on! We get the worst Doctor?” asks Pepe.
“Hey, I like the 8th Doctor, he’s my favorite!” says Robin.
“Thank you, Robin,” says the Doctor. “Glad to see someone who appreciates the work I do around here.”
But they all help out, the Doctor helping out a lot because NPH loves the Muppets almost as much as I do (is that even possible?!?), and they try to track down Nick Parsley. But he’s, like, totally relatable since he’s trying to save his lost love Rosemary and it’s actually kind of sad. There’s a scene where he’s singing Jim Croce’s “Time in a Bottle” and it’s just heart-wrenching! Particularly given the real story behind that song and Jim Croce and all.
Because for all of the silliness in this film, there’s a lot of real sad stuff with Kermit helping Nick come to terms with the loss of his love and his inability to control time. And yeah, you can really see Jim Henson coming to terms with his own time issues here. He even said so:
“It was strangely therapeutic for me. Nick Parsley is really me, you see. Always trying to take control of time, not just living in it.”
Yea, if you’ve ever seen his weird Timepiece, you totally get it. It’s like he started expressing his time fears there and then really came to terms with them in this movie. This and I guess What Dreams May Come from the same year. 1998 was a strange and important year for Jim, I guess.
But even though Muppets in the Nick of Time is, like, one of the more sad and serious Muppets films, it’s still a Muppets film and a lot of fun. The music isn’t original this time, being Muppet performances of classic songs, always about Time in some way (“If I could Turn Back Time”, “Time is on my Side”, “Too Much Time on my Hands” …you get it).
Yes, this…with Muppets!! (Image source Funk’s House of Geekery)
Like, I mean, there’s even a full Muppet Chorus of “The Timewarp” from The Rocky Horror Picture Show complete with cameo by Tim Curry, though as the guy at the board narrating the dance (“It’s just a jump to the left…”) not as Rocky because it’s a PG film and they cover over the whole naughty…pelvic part by having non-verbal waste-up Penguin Muppets sing that line and all, but still, so fun!!
And when things get all…Time Warped as Nick approaches Taking All the Time He Needs, they have a psychedelic dream-like sequence where The Electric Mayhem sing Pink Floyd’s “Time” all fading in and out of visibility as they sing and play. Apparently, Jim had to physically meet with Roger Waters and the rest to convince them to let them do the piece since they usually don’t like their songs to be used in movies or anything, but he showed them the script and they were sold.
“Tickin’ away…” (Image sources YouTube and Talk Bass)
So, yea, Muppets in the Nick of Time is possibly the deepest, most meaningful Muppets movie at least since the original or maybe Muppet Christmas Carrol and it even got some Oscar noms including Best Original Screenplay for Jim and Jerry and won a BAFTA for it. Rowan Atkinson even got a BAFTA acting nom. Jim kind of mixed his silly side and his serious side, his traditional child-friendly side and his old Experimental side all into a single film. It also ended up making a good amount of money ($84 million against a $24 million budget) since it got great reviews and a lot of buzz, which really helped given all the drama of 1998, if you recall.
So yea, you totally HAVE to see this movie, assuming that for some strange reason that you haven’t (in that case why are you here?!?!).
In fact, I think that I’ll make some time to see it again tonite. It’s definitely NOT a complete waste of time.
(Image source Tenor)
Like, fer surely?
Is Mad Molly Moolah the crazy bald guy from Channel Awesome photo edited as a female
as far as we know, she hasn't created a toxic work environment for anyone, so no