Return to 50 Webs.

Disclaimer#1: All images, characters and material is (C) 1990/1991 Walt Disney Company and is being used without premission. The webmaster has made sure that no money was made in the creation of this webpage and that all material used here is used with the upmost affection and respect to the Walt Disney Company and the Tale Spin Team.

Disclaimer#2: The views expressed here are solely the views of the webmaster and no one else's. The webmaster has no intentions to change anyone's minds about a particular subject and respects the views of the viewers. Comments about this and other editorial can be E-Mail at or signing the Cloudkicker guestbook.

The Allegory of WDTVA - Why It Must Be Defended & Shunned!

By: Gregory Weagle

Hey; it's better than Fox & Family Devalued Part Trois isn't it? (2015 Gregory Weagle Says: Ummmmm....yip.) Okay; I'm probably going to get flamed anyway about that beef I had with Disney a year or two ago; but guess what?!


However; my beef towards Michael Esiner has lessened over the last year. Not because Michael Eisner has in fact done any better but because of Roy Disney continuing whining about Michael Esiner's continuing mismanagement and while I have no problem with people saying that Esiner should resign at face value (Well; he finally did resign and Bob Iger took his place. While Bob Iger did a much better job than Michael Eisner in pretty much everything, Bob also got a hell of a lot more heel heat from the old farts due to his decision to do lots of live action shows, which ironically; Disney did in abundance during the 1960's and 1970's. So much so; that many people were in fact DEFENDING Michael Eisner. Apparently; they welcomed their new Quackstreet Boy overlords. ) ; it's just that Roy Disney has failed to realize that he waited one year too late to say enough is enough. Before I was making such dire warning (ABC Family anyone? (Yeah; that was a great move Michael, not! Changing Toon Disney to Disney XD was a much smarter move.)) Sure; Roy Disney probably did this under good intentions; but the road to hell is paved under good intentions isn't it? Isn't it Roy? (Sure; but Roy got what he wanted in the end. I always wondered if Merlin Jones/Roy Disney really meant it when they were attacking DTVA; or were just using it as a human shield to stick it to Michael Eisner and hiding their own insecurities about the consequence of accepting Disney as a pure arthouse, which is completely against Walt Disney's own beliefs? You know; the ones that Roy was suppose to champion?!) The problem with Roy's run to get Michael Eisner out of Disney's famed office is that he's not much better than Esiner when it comes to the creation of sequels (Fantasia 2000 anyone? (Bob Iger did manage to keep the sequelitis contained to PIXAR for the most part. Although Bob Iger is the only CEO to allow a DTVA property to be rebooted on television after claiming that he would do original stuff for DTVA. To be fair; Iger has only rebooted three DTVA productions before this; and all of them can be discribed as brand new takes.); so you can see the creditability from him go out the door right there. Sure his cause might me noble and all; but what can he offer as an alternative to Michael Eisner?

Still; considering that Michael Eisner's record is so awful that the question of Roy's creditability might not even matter at this point. (It didn't because Michael Eisner did resign in the end.) The recent box office live-action film The Alamo took in only $9 million in ticket sales (as of it's first week's release (It was a box office bomb overall as just $25.82 million on a budget of $107 million dollars. So this editorial was written sometime after April of 2004. Good to know.).) That should expose the theory that people do not want to see 2D hand drawn animation for what it is: a complete red letter lie (It didn't expose it because CGI and Flash/Toon Boom was the main reason hand-drawn animation was on the rocks in terms of creditability.) . Home On The Range (The last 2D animated film) did poorly at the box office; but at least it did better in one week than The Alamo did (about $20 million (Yip; it totalled $104 million overall on a $110 million budget. A bomb; but not so much compared to Alamo.)). I should note that the highest grossing film for the Easter weekend (the week of The Alamo release) was Mel Gibson's R-rated film The Passion of the Christ with $17.5 million which was a lackluster showing considering that it grossed $100 million in one week and over $400 million in ticket sales so far as of this writing (It did $612 million on a $30 million budget. The reason for the success is simple: Passion was a mainstream Christian film that everyone was talking about regardless of how offensive the film is. It was basically the movie version of Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas in terms of heat.) . I didn't say ultra-violent since it had only 24 scenes of violence compared to the PG-13 movie The Lord of The Rings which had over 90 according to the Christan Science Monitor; and the blood is no more than seen in an unedited version of Dragon Ball Z (There is one major problem with this "ultra-violent" thing: Context. You can have only 24 scenes of violence and still be ultra-violent compared to Lord Of The Rings, if Passion's 24 scenes are more brutal and pointless than the 90 scenes of Lord Of The Rings. It's like the Left Behind video game. Hutson from Talk2Action wasn't comdemning violence per se; he was condemning the context of the violence that was done on anyone who wasn't a WASP and thought of that as a "how to manual" on par with "How to be a Hitman". Which of course I have to ask: When is 1984 going to be sued out of existance for being a "how to manual" to create a theocracy according to raven from Dispatches From The Culture Wars?! I'm waiting.) . When an R-rated film is considered family-friendly even in the loosest sense; you know that Disney is in trouble (No it's not. Again; when you are a $80+ billion company who takes ZERO risks (although rebooting Ducktales is in fact taking a risk) it's NEVER in trouble. Sue the company for $100 billion and win outright, and then maybe we'll talk. Not going to happen.). Eisner's own peers are showing discontent too; as Eisner's re-election bid showed a 43%+ withheld vote (which is equal to voting No.) and it is increasing. Roy and Goldman are suing Disney for the actual results which are rumored to be much higher (in fact; a recent update from states that the vote has actually reached 45% withheld now.). The Comcast vote is pretty much dead right now. (A 2% difference that is not a majority vote. Yeah; that was well worth suing over. NOT!) Now to be perfectly fair to Michael Eisner; international sales of Finding Nemo did do well as expected. However; this also exposes Disney the same way that 4Kids Entertainment is being exposed right now; that they depend on third-party sources to prop themselves up (Of course; Nintendo is doing the exact same thing now with their buying out of Monolith Software and other smaller companies, so there you go.) . However; unlike 4Kids Entertainment; Disney has ended it's relationship that kept them even breathing at this point and that is PIXAR!! (No they didn't end it. PIXAR and Disney are still partners even today. You must have meant that the contract has not been signed yet and took it as an admission that they weren't resigning. Why would you not resign PIXAR when PIXAR is the reason your company has some success during this period? That makes no sense!) 4Kids Entertainment at least has good relationships with their third party sources despite the fact that 4Kids has screwed many an anime dub since the faithful Pokemon dub. (Not anymore! See the 4Kids/Yu-Gi-Oh! debacle over the last couple of years as 4Kids came really close to bankruptcy due to screwing over NAS and company over the dubbing of Yu-Gi-Oh! shows.) The Disneyland theme park business hasn't preformed since 9/11 and the quality keeps getting worse (along with the overkill of Political Correctness and revisionist history. (I can understand the problems with revisionist history (See Pocahontas); but 2004 Me has still not learned that Political Correctness is a bigoted dog whistle yet. ) And finally; the ABC Network is fourth (Read: last) place in the ratings which I have to admit is quite strange considering that the quality of ABC's programming is better than the other three (they were in third place as of March 22nd, 2015 by the way. However; television ratings don't mean much anymore since most ratings do not reveal viewership and retained viewership which mean a lot more to me than ranking, rating and share since it doesn't account for today's technological realities.), but then again; I say the same thing about Nintendo too and they haven't exactly been rosy sales-wise (although they are the only ones showing actual growth) (Oh just wait until they reveal Wii 2004 Me! Hindsight 20/20; Nintendo today is much more rosier than it was before the Nintendo DS was even revealed.). I guess the public still believes that mature equals indecent. Please prove me wrong, for goodness sake; prove me wrong!! (Only two portions of the general public do believe that mature equals indecent. One of them is boys between 12-18 who need to grow up soon; and the infamous asshole demographic who won't grow up because marketing managers have rendered the term mature meaningless. Kind of like most people are doing with the word censorship, now that I think about it. Again; this is why context was invented: It's a safety valve when words are rendered meaningless. Context is your savior. Use it; and you'll rarely ever be fooled.)

Now that I've finished my moral self-rightous indignation of the Disney company again (Way to admit that you are just an angry little man there 2004 Me!); I started to ask myself this question: Why hasn't anymore talked about the Walt Disney Television Animation Division yet? Every article I read; it's always about the animation by committee in the feature animation division. It's always been about ABC which shouldn't be put into the same breath as Disney (because it's not independent (anymore and hasn't been since around 1991).) and it's always been about the degradation of the theme parks. Why does everyone seem to forget about the Walt Disney Television Animation Division? Why do they treat it like it doesn't exist?! However; for some odd reason; I believe I know the answer and it is not good for the division. While I give them kudos for creating my favorite show TaleSpin, there is no doubt in my mind that Disney's decline in quality can be linked back to the decision to have the Disney Television Animation do the first movie back in 1995 to direct video: Aladdin: The Return of Jafar (Actually; this anger has been around since the dawn of the television division and it got worse when Eisner decided to allow spin-offs of feature productions against the wishes of feature. Ironically; Eisner in his own way basically told them to pound sand and admit that they are scared of DTVA because it was the future and feature was really nothing. If feature really was the future of the company; then feature would have nothing to worry about when TaleSpin and Rescue Rangers were made. But they were pissed off instead! If Michael Eisner is protecting feature; then why be so hostile about DTVA? Because they knew that DTVA was good enough for kids and adults. That makes more sense considering how Disney feature got crushed into almost nothingness later on. Feature demanded Disney be an arthouse which was completely against how Walt Disney operated. It's a big example of people listening to what Walt Disney said and not realizing that people lie and stretch facts in order to paint themselves a rosy picture. And this isn't even the worst of Walt actually.). It was in the eyes of Disney fans as the real start of the diluation of the Disney brand and the beginning of Eisner's downward spiral after the death of Frank Wells (Actually; Eisner winning divine rights from that death actually killed the Disney brand as early as 1995! Eisner between 1984-1994 was actually an evil genius in hindsight; and even I can respect what he did in giving us animation on free television that was actually good. That was the whole point of the division: to make television animation respectable and Eisner makes some big money out of it. And it worked almost to perfection actually. Without Gummi Bears and Ducktales; TaleSpin doesn't exist. Tiny Toons doesn't exist, The Simpsons don't exist, the television animation in general dies a slow death. Get the picture?! Again; this was a case of Eisner actually observing what Walt did and not what he said like feature was doing. And you would think feature would know better?). So how could this have happened?

The History of Walt Disney Television Animation

In order to understand why the division has become the allegory of hatred from Disney fans; we must go back in time and recall the history of the Walt Disney Television Division (well; the matchbox version of it since Tim Van Hal is working on the "War & Peace" version of the first ten years starting the Fall of 2015). The division all began in 1984 under the helm of Gary Krisel as a response to the efforts of Hanna Barbera and other developers like Sony, Marvel, Claster and Filmnation onto the television stage of animation. Although HB is hardly a king for anything animated when it comes to quality; they were very popular with the kids though and that's what counts, I guess. (Hanna Barbera's quality control had little to do with their limited animation skills. Hanna knew how to use those limited animation techs perfectly to make the animation look good in spite of those limitations. This was something anime learned a lot from; only they had their own stylish way of animation. HB's biggest problem was knockoff--ism where they took three ideas and did them over and over again without much variation. Keep in mind; this was around the 1970's. Modern cartoons are for the most part; smart enough to avoid this, but not all. Although you wouldn't know from the negative reviews on IMDB and Anyhow; Disney's first production under that division was The Wuzzles which was a show about fused animal beast living in a village called Wuz. It was also the debut of Ken Koonce and David Weimers as staff writers when they were actually good writers. (Read: David Weimers has since retired to the UK (No he didn't retire in the UK; he is back working on productions in California, none of them are cartoons to the best of my knowledge.) while Ken sadly went to work with the creators of The Cramp Twins. As much as I think that The Cramp Twins is the worst show on earth; I don't blame Ken Koonce for that. Blame it on 4Kids for buying this piece of trash. (Wrong! It was extremely bad writing and animation that caused it. So you can blame Ken for it. Of course; not close to all of it, and blaming 4Kids for buying it doesn't make them blameless either.).) Sadly; the show has become an allegory for hatered of kiddie shows, because otherwise there were a lot of great ideas presented and the execution was decent enough in the 13 episodes that it was in (Heck; I felt that they had a great universe and I'm not the only one because Kevin Johnston wants this show to be rebooted. I wouldn't be too upset of the Wuzzles being rebooted.). Hey; it was their first series and it would get a lot better in the next year when Disney vaulted to number one with Adventures of The Gummi Bears. This show took place in medieval times and features a bunch of colorful bouncing bears who bounced after drinking an elixir known as Gummiberry Juice. The show also debuted the work of Art Vellito (who has since moved out of Disney after this) and Jymn Magon (who created TaleSpin) who were trying to outdo each other and the result was a great series that did very well on boardcast television and got Disney noticed as a great television series animation machine. (This is not as simple as you make it out 2004 Me! Gummi Bears ratings were higher than the Wuzzles; but the show struggled until the end of the first season where they actually did a great angle that assured the show would go on for a long, long time to come. As in six years of new episodes long!) That started a trend of great animation which the family actually enjoyed with Carl Barks/Don Rosa's comic book series coming to television in the form of Ducktales in 1987 (which went 100 episodes); Winnie The Pooh went from the big screen to the television screen in 1988 and both Chip & Dale went from the Donald and Pluto Disney shorts to a spin-off P.I. series known as Rescue Rangers in 1989. (You conveniently forgot Fluppy Dogs 2004 Me; which also bombed and didn't make it past the pilot stage. It turns out Eisner's decision to turn on feature to save his investment and make Ducktales was a genius decision in hindsight. Feature wanted Eisner to do what Walt says; not what Walt actually did. Because he's a god as I mention later on.) These programs did very well and brought some actual quality that Disney was looking for and was lacking everywhere else. Sure it is true that the animation was outsourced; but when compared to the animation of American made animation of HB and Filmation, it was actually slightly better. (Slighty?! TMS Entertainment was leagues better than anything HB and Filmation were doing at this point and it forced them to be bought out by Warner Brothers and Westing House during the 1990s.) Oddly enough; Disney's only apparent failure was a 1987 series called Fluppy Dogs which was based on the Care Bears and that didn't make it past the pilot stage (Oh; I'm sorry. I thought you forgot about it like an old fart. Of course; feature didn't care about them being succesful simply because they saw DTVA as a threat to their viewpoint of Disney being an arthouse; which it never was.). Then came 1990 and Disney then had enough good shows to create a block of animation which was going into syndication. So Disney did the next logical step; they created an animation block called The Disney Afternoon and centered it around their next Disney production: A little action/adventure/drama/flying series called TaleSpin which was created by Jymn Magon (Gummi Bears) and Mark Zaslove (Winnie The Pooh). It was not only a monster hit in syndication (If you believe the numbers; it even beat out newcomer Tiny Toon Adventures (Not quite; but the numbers were monster and TaleSpin's numbers actually improved as the year went on while Tiny Toons number were awesome (consider that this was Warner Brothers first real kick in the can and you can understand why a lot of fans respect Tiny Toons as a trailblazer for WB.) but same around the same); it was the also considered as the only Disney show not to have a bad episode in terms of quality (their comic books and video games are another matter though. When your lowest rated episode is ** 1/4; that's a great show.). It also had the honor of not only be the biggest example of overuse of freelancing artists (No kidding! And many of them are uncredited and that's before you talk about the overseas studios who animated this show.); it was also one which caused disgust among Disney purists since TaleSpin was the first show to actually use character from the Feature Animation Division (The Jungle Book.(This is the show that sticks in the cawl of most feature animators because it shows that when push comes to shove; lots of people are willing to watch a more than good enough product on free television instead of paying $7 to see it. Ironically; this kind of thinking now sticks in the cawl of Disney itself and it's partner the MPAA over copyright issues.) I'll talk about that later. Disney then continued to build on the formula of diversity and quality with their next Disney Afternoon release which was the comedy/crime-fighting series Darkwing Duck and that was a monster hit in syndication as well. (Yeah; but it didn't age nearly as well as TaleSpin did because most of Darkwing's humor was basically a low rent version of Tiny Toons. The execs seem to have forgotten that being like everyone else is only good if you do it better. People love TaleSpin now because it's an alternative to shows like Tiny Toons. And it's not the fault of the creators of TaleSpin that Disney execs were acting like a bunch of children and bashing Warner Brothers for no real reason other than they can. They had their weapon RIGHT THERE and didn't use it. You wonder why the toy sales were lackluster? You wonder why the marketing was not good for this show? Sheer force of will is the only explaination for TaleSpin's monster success. Imagine if the weapons were actually used...) Things were looking up for Disney Television Animation until something happened at around this time.....

It was around 1990 that Walt Disney Television Animation decided that it was ready to actually take on a Feature Presentation. So with the help of Walt Disney Animation France (who also did the first two acts of TaleSpin's Plunder and Lightning) they released a Ducktales movie. While the quality wasn't as high as the television series in terms of storyline; the overall presentation was good enough that the experiment would be considered something that Disney would do and that's when the problems of the Disney Television Animation started to rear it's ugly head.(Ducktales The Movie basically broke even with their budget; but the budget was so low; it made no real money, so future DTVA movies were scrapped. The funny thing is that if they had Plunder and Lightning plugged as the movie instead of another glorified Ducktales episode; it would have been profitable. Sure; it probably wouldn't reach blockbuster status or anything; but it would make it's money back and then some. Why? Because P&L was a fresh production. We've see Scrooge 100 times already. The story of Kit screwing his former pirates over to save his own life and his dream? That's MONEY, MONEY, YEAH, YEAH! Another Scrooge McDuck plot? Opposite of money!) In 1992; Disney continued to diversify and created the sitcom-type series starring Goofy called Goof Troop which was popular due to Home Improvement; followed by the Roger Rabbit-type series Bonkers and the Disney Short-type series Raw Toonage. However; despite these new ideas, these shows didn't do so well and the quality suffered greatly. (a seven minute segment of TaleSpin cost $133,333. A seven minute segment of He's Bonkers: $50,000 and dropping. I can fully see Kevin Johnston's claim of DTVA spreading itself too thin at this point.) I've already explained the problems behind this in: Kim Possible Does The Impossible & Other Things editorial. In the case of Bonkers there was a change in the overall direction of the series for no reason whatsoever (Duane Capizzi left in midstream and Robert Taylor (Goof Troop) took over.) and that upset the entire show and turned it into garbage as a result. Compare that to TaleSpin where there was little doubt where it was going and you can see the difference. (And THAT ONE was the rush job!) In Raw Toonage's case; someone forgot to tell the creators that one of the characters was in fact a direct rip-off, which caused a massive lawsuit to occur as a result. I think the original creators of the character won that because that character is never talked about by the Disney staffers ever again. At any rate; the end result was that Disney panicked as Warner Brothers was overtaking Disney share with Batman: The Animated Series (the other show without a bad episode) and Animanics. Can you say response to TaleSpin and Darkwing Duck folks? (Oh yeah!) Then Disney Television Animation made the big mistake; instead of looking from within and realizing that they made the mistake of not giving their mealtickets (TS and DW) their due they looked at the Feature Department and saw that it was doing very well with The Lion King, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid. So they decided to take the features of Aladdin & The Little Mermaid and create television series out of them. (Don't get me wrong; the television episodes of these shows were good; but still, it was admitting their guilt that they were running out of ideas when they basically take their movies wholesale and turn them into television; instead of TaleSpin where they basically did a parody of the Jungle Book (no one is buying your comments Jymn; even more so when you have admitted that you don't even know what you did in 1990.) and doing crazy stuff with it.) The ratings started to stablize along with the quality; but that was mostly due to the high quality of the Feature Division. That's when there was concern by critics and Disney fans alike that this was a sign that the division was running out of ideas.....

However; Greg Weisman was not impressed with this turn of events and has his own ideas in order to rescue the Television Division. That's when he created Gargoyles in 1994 and that show hit another high in terms of quality. It also was a response to show that Disney can be original and be more than just dancing animals (they can kick butt when needed.) and singing. The show won many hearts (they are more organized than Rescues Rangers and TaleSpin); but it made the mistake of sounding like a Batman response. (It's also not a really fun show to watch and it turned into an exercise in trying to get the angles over and not the characters over to make me care about watching the show. Granted; it's not from a lack of trying, but they focused way too many times on stuff they didn't need to focus on.) Also; by Disney standards this was a dark, violent and gritty show even though anywhere else it would be very tame. (Outside of slightly more blood, one reference to hell and one or two gruesome deaths, it wasn't much different from a DTVA show. Plus; I cannot take anyone seriously trying to get this over as a gritty masterpiece when Batman was still along and the original plan for Gargoyles was much more comical.) However; it was also around this time that Walt Disney Television Animation decided to take another kick in the can when it came to Feature Animation and developed the first two sequels of Aladdin to Direct-To-Video with The Return of Jafar and The King of Thieves. (They were fine actually and direct-to-video was a big thing at the time, so there you go.) They did so well after they were released that Michael Esiner give the Television Division the green light which would set in motion the future of the Disney Television Animation Divison. They would be known in the most polite terms as the Disneytoon Movies. To everyone else; it was Disney Crap/Cheap-quel. This brought various sequels such as Lion King 1 1/2 and Lion King 2, Return to Neverland (Peter Pan 2), 101 Dalimations 2: Patch's London Adventure, Jungle Book 2, Cinderella 2, and about ten Winnie The Pooh sequels (although to be fair; Feature did sequels of Winnie long before Disney Television Animation did.) to name just a few. (None of them were godawful; but none of them were good enough. I don't mind sequels nearly as much as most people do. I explain that later.) Interestly enough; Fantasia 2000 and The Rescuers Down Under were created by Feature (and were much better in quality) so this wasn't just a Television Division thing that Eisner did. Anyhow; the show of panic from Disney was on as the huge backlash was set in motion by Disney fans. Even the television work by Disney Television Animation was showing a similiar pattern with shows such as Timon & Pumbaa (comedy (Why is that bad? T&P lasted a long time and it's wasn't horrible by any means.)), Jungle Cubs (prequel to Jungle Book) (I still stand by my claim that Jungle Cubs was created as an olive branch to feature fans. It failed badly.), 101 Dalmatians: The Series (this was bad), Buzz Lightyear of Star Command (of Toy Story fame), Hercules: The Animated Series, Tarzan: The Animated Series & even Lilo & Stitch: The Animated Series. All were directly based on the Feature Animation in the same vein as Aladdin.(Again; Disney didn't know how to create an original idea nor how to create a parody of a feature movie and get it monster over. This is why TaleSpin was so special in the eyes of DTVA fans.) There also was an animated series based on the live-action movie The Mighty Ducks (Oh; the pain that was!). Ducktales got a sequel with Quack Pack (which was horrible because Jymn Magon got so disgusted and left in mid-stream; and was replaced by Toby Shelton who clearly had no idea where to go with this series. (Toby Shelton was a jerk and knew what he was doing; even though he poisoned the well as a result. The execs wanted humans instead of dognoses and wanted Donald Duck shorts instead of Ducktales. Toby got his wish and Duck Daze was delayed for a year to make those changes; killing any hope for Quack Pack right out of the starting gate.). Even Mickey Mouse wasn't safe as Mickey's Mouseworks and The House of Mouse were created (giving us the Quackstreet Boys. The less said the better. (No matter how screwy Bob Iger gets; remember, if Michael Eisner was still in power, the Quackstreet Boys return as the Quackas Brothers. Believe that!) and then things got even worse for Television Animation because they clearly didn't like the FCC three hour education rule that was in place in 1997 when Disney started creating two new block called One Saturday Morning and One Too. Between 1996-2001 Disney released Recess (Hogan's Heroes deadringer (Once season three started; this show stablized into a decent show)), Pepper Ann (most self-centered (At least it was something new and Pepper Ann is actually a good character. She's just the biggest star of the show. Nothing wrong with that as long as she is likable and people care about it.)), The Weekenders (Dull), Teacher's Pet (only good cartoon in that era.), Teamo Surpremo (worst Disney cartoon ever) and shorts such as Genie's Great Minds Think for Themselves (which disgusts me because that's Michael Esiner's excuse to pushing this block in the first place. (I love how contradictory this segment was to Michael Eisner's vision at that time. That's the disgusting part.)) This was the lowest point for Disney as the quality hit rock bottom and their handling of school was very poor. All the heart of Disney was gone and replaced with unjustified attitude; which was sad because Disney heart is needed to create a convincing show about school. (Irony being lost on them is nothing new; because that would imply that Michael Eisner is not a scoiopath disguised as a human being.) Despite the hard efforts of Filmore, Kim Possible, Proud Family and even to a (much) lesser extent Dave The Barbarian the flood of sequels wasn't changing hearts enough for Disney fans. The damage was done as the box-office was swelling with Disney Television Animation sequels that just shouldn't be created by them. Walt Disney Television Animation went from being a savior to the cause of all Disney's trouble Post-Frank Wells era. The Television Division was hated like a plague and many purists just wanted to see them cut their losses and kill the Television Division so that the diluation of Disney brans would just stop. Sadly; the Television Division was moving on with Mulan 2, Oliver & Company 2, Bambi 2 and the ultimate insult; a sequel to Walt Disney's juggarnaut of animation Snow White (Insult to the old farts maybe; but I think Snow White & Oliver & Company were scrapped completely; probably due to the sequelitis backlash. I'll have to check and get back to you on that.). The backlash was on and has no end in sight and that's the story of Disney Television Animation up to this point. (And then Disney decided to stop doing it altogether and DTVA was mostly dealing with third parties in animation; although Phineas & Ferb, Gravity Falls and Wild Over Yonder did great inhouse. So DTVA is sort of back in terms of quality; and that's really all I can ask for at this point.)

Now I'm about to write an eassy that will once again take what you believe; turn it upside down; kick it in the pants and whack it silly until it confesses that it is not what it seems. (That's torture 2004 Me! I realize that you are merely taking the arguments to the woodshed and not the actual people who were foolish enough to say such bad arguments. But still...) What I'm saying is that the Disney Television Animation Division doesn't deserve the condemnation that it is getting. Disney Television Animation shouldn't be killed off. (Actually; it deserves criticism for hurting the reputation of what the product was supposed to do; but it shouldn't be killed off because it wasn't a bad division overall.) This is not a in praise of the Television Division (because it has not earn that; make no mistake (No; it deserves praise, just not as much as anyone would like.)); but a mere defense of it. Michael Eisner in my opinion is the culpit behind what I call the degradation of the division and the Disney brand itself with it's misuse of the television division. However; in order to defend Walt Disney Television Animation Division, I must make several statements that will get me into trouble and will cause anger to those Disney purists (who are no better than anime purists I might add); but must be made:

[a.] It is okay to make sequels!
[b.] It is okay to make parodies!
[c.] Walt Disney is NOT the God to end all Gods!

(TESTIFY~!) Here; let me explain each point one by one and you will see why Eisner is creating sequels and why Disney purists are pretty much hypocritical now.....

[1.] You Cannot Top Pigs With Pigs. - Walt Disney

Yes folks; I'm starting my arguing my point with that famous line. It has been considered a statement to justify hating Disney's recent parade of sequels from the Television Animation Division. While I agree with a lot of things that Walt Disney said for various reason; in this case what Walt Disney said after doing some soul searching of my own and research on him, I can safely say that this statement is full of crap! (TESTIFY~! I am so sick of that quote. It's a classic example of myopia on the purists part because they refuse to see what Walt Disney actually did. Be thankful that I'm only criticizing his work ethic as an entertainer. You do not want to hear the observations of people of Walt Disney; "human being". Even Michael Eisner is much better in that department.) Now I could show the most clear-minded evidence of this by showing the quality, bliss and box office ticket sales of Toy Story 2 from PIXAR animation to prove what a load of crap that statement is. But I won't; because I can nail you fans out there with the fact that Walt's own statement is vague and abstract. You know what; you can top pigs with pigs, if you know what kind of pig it is (Nintendo has done it FOR DECADES with actual success. See Mario Kart Wii. Dreamworks did it with Shrek. It can be done. It has been done and it is successful. The vast majority of the public doesn't mind sequels as long as they are good enough. Originality is overrated because most people who champion originality are ignoring the consequences of doing something completely new. Like "Will people like it? Will it make sense?" Again; it's okay to do something original as long as it makes sense. Great sequel over poorly done original. Guess what the public typically picks?). I've got one question to ask all you Disney fans out there: How good is Walt Disney when it comes to original content? Outside of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy and the other Disney shorts; when it comes to original, fresh and entertaining content, well; Walt Disney sort of sucks actually. (TESTIFY~!) Walt Disney has been at his best in the Feature Animation Division when he uses content from the public domain. So what is the public domain you may ask? It is content that can be used by the public after the copyright expires; more or less (not to be confused with trademark which doesn't expire by the way) (Copyright/Trademark/Patent Law is so messy at this point that no one involved in it looks good. Killing it and letting it become reborn anew like Christ would in fact be a better start.). The public domain contains such novels as The Jungle Book, Alice In Wonderland, and Snow White. Look at every Walt created film: Alice In Wonderland, Snow White, Jungle Book see a pattern here? In fact; nearly every single film Walt Disney created was based on material that was created by someone else and yet didn't have the same copyright protection anymore as the most recent original content. All public domain material. Fantasia uses Mickey Mouse as a basis; so it doesn't count as an original film, even if Walt did create Mickey Mouse. While Walt did create new characters such as King Louie (which didn't exist in the Jungle Book novel) and the doorknob from Alice In Wonderland; he wasn't exactly a powerhouse in originality (TESTIFY~!). Now don't get me wrong; I love Walt Disney's work. When it comes to executing his ideas onto various mediums there was no one better (Sorry Mr. Miyamoto. (Don't be; because Shigeru Miyamoto is much better as a human being than Walt Disney was. In fact; Iwata can be put in the same boat. Most of their "evil stuff" is business related and questionable abuse of copyright (although they are tame compared to most corporations.). I would rather have dinner with Miyamoto than with Walt. I like his work based on life experiences because at least it's different and interesting. And they do make money in the end. Maybe not Wii Sports numbers; but still enough to be profitable. And many of them are in fact good. )). He is a great leader in animation and captures fantasies like no one else can. However; it's time for people to realize that Walt has been topping fairy tales (public domain material) with fairy tales (public domain material) for years on end and thus proving his own analogy false. The real question that should be debated is should you top pigs with pigs? That is a great question; but if the answer is no, that would also put Disney fans in a bind over Walt's use of fairy tales as well. It's a no-win situation here and that why Walt's famous statement shouldn't be used as a mantra anymore. (TESTIFY~!)

[2.] You Cannot Top Pigs With Piglets.

Okay; I made that statement up, however the same thing applies here. Basically; it means that you cannot top a fairy tale with a parody of a fairy tale, also known as topping Jungle Book with TaleSpin. Yeah; you knew this debate would be coming in the end and it's time to discuss this. While Walt Disney never said this on the record (maybe because he knew better with Fantasia. (Yeah; and ever notice that critics of DTVA never say this outright and try to bop & weave around it just to make their point?! It's because they realize how stupid the argument is. Plus; they hate parodies of their god, even if their god (Walt in case you didnt' read argument #3.) tops fairy tales with fairy tales and tones them down until they because unintentional paroides of themselves. That's quite a feat of mind gymnastics if you ask me.); it has been used to decry the use of the Jungle Book characters in this series. Disney purists believe that TaleSpin is a disgrace to the Jungle Book and was an ill-thought idea. One user (who shall remain nameless to protect the poor user's fragile mind (It's Poisony Britt 2004 Me! And there is no real person under that user name; it could be anyone. Considering what I found out about Poisony Britt on IMDB and other such sites; this makes the user's statements even more laughable and childish!).) went further to say that TaleSpin dilutes The Jungle Book (huh? (If anything hurt the reputation of the Jungle Book it was live-action Jungle Books and Jungle Book 2. I hope PB was talking about the Nippon Animation version of Jungle Book; because he would have a very weak argument, which would be an improvement over the argument he was making.) ) and that this is an allegory (in a series of them) as to why we should be more discriminate in our taste for animation. (Here's a general rule of thumb I learned when reviewing productions: Never order someone to discriminate their tastes because (A) Discriminate is a negative word and a bigoted dog whistle. (B) 99% of kids and half of the adults will read that and do exactly that; and basically research this man's tastes and instantly discriminate against them! Short version: PB basically told everyone that their opinions don't matter. Poisony just buried himself! ) In other words; parodies (which are legal under copyright law by the way) are evil in their eyes. (If a parody causes offense like TaleSpin actually did, unintentional or not; it usually means that it has done it's job and should be loved and respected for doing such a job; intentional or not.) That is also full of crap considering that if that statement were true 90% of Walt Disney's material would have to be shunned right there (because he uses material from novels and fairy tales that aren't protected by copyright law). Ooops! (TESTIFY~!) On another angle; Walt Disney has in fact been parodized a lot over his career with Fantasia (and he is well within his rights to do so; as he created Mickey Mouse.) being a very prime example of this. I'll never forget the Smokey The Bear appearance in one of his animated shorts and various other parodies which I would watch more of if they were available. (That was the segment where Humprey The One Joke Bear tried to make a bonfire in the forest and Smokey put it out. It wasn't even a parody. It was a PSA in the middle of the cartoon. Which as long as Disney got the proper premission for; it's fine.) So Walt Disney is no stranger to topping pigs (fairy tales/public domain) with piglets (parodies of public domain); so to speak. Where's the outrage for that? (It's not there because that kills the argument dead to rights.) In response to the comment about diluting of a brand (How insulting is that to the original writers? (Not much; since they are deceased and therefore cannot be insulted anymore. Their estates on the other hand; very insulting. See the Prima Estate/Louis Prima/Jim Cummings/Louie debacle.); I find that stupid and misguided since Walt Disney has done the exact same thing to the original fairy tales and novels. Much of the public domain material Walt used (not stolen since copyright laws don't exist for it) was actually not made for children. It was made for adults and contained a lot of naughty stuff like sex and execssive violence which would have caused shock and outrage if Walt hadn't diluted and watered down the material. (TESTIFY~! And Walt is well within his rights to tone down the Jungle Book for his production if he feels that it were generate more business.) The Disney producers do the same today; although most of the watered down is complete overkill on their part. (TESTIFY~! But what can they do?! They need more money.) I ask this question: Why isn't there outrage right there? Don't the original creators matter anymore? (Again; if they don't leave these pesky facts out, then their argument dies.) I think that this is proof of jealousy on the part of the Disney purists who basically hate anyone who manages to "one-up" Walt Disney or anyone who create a parody for that matter like TaleSpin did with the Jungle Book which by the way was the worst film Walt Disney ever created in his career. (The main babyface in The Jungle Book is Mowgli. Unless it's Nippon animation, he is a boring character. The reason why Jungle Book was successful was because of Baloo. Kit Cloudkicker is an original character and he's better than every DTVA character ever made and probably better than most of feature. He doesn't even need Baloo to get over; he can get over by himself. Jealousy indeed! You can blame Michael for milking Baloo for money instead of milking the new stars; but you cannot say Disney didn't make any new characters.) That may not be saying much compared to others; but even he can have an off day in Feature Animation. (Everyone has that day where nothing goes right. I had them; I almost quit a job because of one before some of my workers talked me out of it.) Can't he have at least that?! (No; because he's their god. Gods are supposed to be beyond perfection and not have off days. It's based on insecurities more than anything else.) The bottom line is that TaleSpin was not really an ill-thought idea at all. It was a really great idea which sadly took me three years to understand and love. (TESTIFY~!) There are few series live or animated that have what TaleSpin has to offer: 1930's setting, tropical paradise, Air Pirates, airplane technology and cute furry animals who can dance and kick butt at the same time and that's just for starters. (And it does something Gargoyles didn't for me: Be fun to watch. For all the drama that the show has; it was fun drama. It wasn't done to try to gain an audience that they lost because they BS'ed them way too many times. Gargoyles failed because Batman was the competition and it had street cred and it came from a company that wasn't insulting people's IQ's. Short version: TaleSpin was the real Disney and it was great. Gargoyles was a great Warner Brothers wannabe.) The only reason why purists hate it is because it so happens that three of the characters names are Baloo, Louie and Shere Khan. I can only say what I said in my editorial about Plunder and Lightning editing: SPARE ME YOUR EXCUSES PURISTS!! I'm not buying your sob story! (No one should be buying their sob story anymore. It's basically snobbery combined with old fartism that occurs at least 10-20 years too soon. Not to say that Eisner is great because he was not. But it's comparing soft serve ice cream to hard ice cream. It's not all that different.)

(Too Long; Don't Care Version: Walt Disney sucks at sequels and original material. Walt Disney is at it's best raiding the public domain and diluting the product enough so all ages could watch it. TaleSpin at least did a better job of raiding public domain and making something fresh and compelling out of it. Most Disney purists cannot. I need a drink.)

[3.] Walt Disney Is God.

I think we can all agree that this statement is blasphemy and taking God's good name in vain. (You say that as if it is a bad thing 2004 Me?! Doesn't defeat your TESTIFY~ argument in anyway; but let's face it. God's good name is far worse than anything Hitler has ever done. And that's assuming God is in fact real.) However; there is more to this since the above statement can also be considered codeword for Walt Disney being a very moral man in the same vein as Fred Rogers; even through Rogers is a former minister himself and therefore has more creditability of morality on his part. I know that Jim Baylo stated this in a previous editorial as well (It's All About School [Cartoons]). (I'm sorry Jim; but I have to call this out when you say stupid stuff like this.) Well; maybe it is just me; but Walt Disney is not that moral at all. He is no stranger to the world of the vice so to speak. It has been well documented that Walt has actually used unfriendly cuss words (dammit) and that he smoked. While his cussing is tame by today's standards and he kept it under control for the most part (thank goodness); he did manage to slip smoking and drinking into his animation. Sleeping Beauty even had the word hell in it. There were worser than today black stereotypes in film (although at times it seems like there's little difference compared to today; if you believe the NAACP. (Yeap!)) Even early into the life of Mickey Mouse (considered the most friendly prankster in animation history); he had suicidal thoughts although I considered people who call that having a personality as human-hating sadists. But that's just me. There are a couple more vices in both Walt's life and film career (still tame by today's coarse standards mind you); which pretty much explain why I think calling Walt Disney an absolute role model is asking for way too much. (And that's just when he is in public. Imagine him in private and you'll see why a lot of people think he's the worst human being imaginable.) Sure; he's better than 90% of the entertainers out there today. However; let's not make him an idol. Walt was smart enough not to fall into that trap thank goodness; but I wish the Disney fans wouldn't fall in it either. (I wish everyone would just pound sand instead because that might in fact be more useful than pounding on a 1990 show with arguments that a layperson could see as stupid.) Walt Disney is not God. (Exactly! And treating him as one is making you look like a horrible person with no ability to actually think for yourself.) He is probably the non-cooking equalivant of the Urban Peasent's James Barber; but without the massive changing of professions that James underwent in his life. (Well; Jame's is deceased now and he had marriage problems like most entertainers. At least it didn't end up like what happened to Phil Hartman.)

[4.] The Real Solution To A Simple Problem

Okay; that is enough of defending Walt Disney Television Animation, sequels, prequels and parodies everywhere. It is now time to condemn Disney Television Animation (sort of anyway) and expose what should be done to turn Disney's fortunes around. Recently Disney's release list was revealed and it was loaded with sequels (Read: Almost every single production was a sequel or a parody) I'm sure that this was cause the sequel-fest backlash to continue without fail. However; fans must understand that these low-budget productions are still making money for the company even if they don't bring in tons of it. In other words; until they lose money off of the sequel-fest, the backlash serves little purpose other than a moral one. (TESTIFY~! This doesn't mean that they are critic-proof. It just means that when we watch these that we do a better job in pointing out the actual flaws instead of simply going for the "I don't like" card. People will like you as long as you don't insult them.) The reason that these sequels sell is because parents who both of them work while allowing children to be babysat by these sequels on the premise that they are designed for kids only and that they serve their purpose (even through these sequels are for the most part worse then the originals and are no safer to show than more quality original animation out there.). They also denounce critics who speak their mind on IMDB (for example) for the same reason and believe that they are just shouting in the wildrness and therefore aren't free to speak their mind freely at all. I can go on about freedom of speech and expression; but I won't because I can nail these misguided parents by telling them that they are a bunch of hypocrites. (Yes; but, most reviewers on the negative side are much worse than the positive side. At least the ones who defend crap try their best to prove that these productions are at the least, not as bad as the negative reviews claim they are. Plus; while neither side of the coin really thinks that the other cannot speak freely (because they know better that it works against them to do that.); the negative reviewers tend to insult the IQ's of the defenders. It's okay to point out stuff that the other side got wrong. In fact; it needs to be pointed out. The problem is; in a subjective thing as entertainment, it's hard to do an objective review. I can understand the problem; but insulting your audience only buries yourself. Remember; everyone has a right to not buy into stuff (although I admit that when it comes to vaccination; that is a dangerous statement to make; so it's best to use with entertainment because there's little consequence in not buying into it.).). It is hypocritical for these parents to criticize other people for being critics when the parents themselves are acting exactly like critics themselves. Oops! (Sure; but when the negative reviewers are insulting the audience defending these shows for literally no good reason, false equalivance fallacy says, the parents are not shouting in the wind and being hypocrites. That said; liking Johnny Test because you relate to Johnny because he's 11 years old is really bad thinking. If that reviewer had basically come out and admit that he wants to be a jerk like Johnny Test, it would be horrible, but at least he would be honest about it. Being dishonest about it really shows that no one should take anything you say seriously; and you need help.) Maybe you parents are shouting in the wind as well too. On the other hand; I can understand parents saying the same thing about Nick or Warner Brothers since most of the stuff nowadays is designed for kids only. I know it's sad; but it is true. (Are you kidding me 2004 Me?! Nickelodeon is the only one doing kids only cartoons and even then that's questionable.) However; that doesn't apply to Walt Disney entertainment in this case. Walt Disney Entertainment is for families; which means that it must appeal to both kids and adults (Read: Parents are adults too in you didn't realize it already. (Ummm; some parents certainly don't act like adults. See the anti-vax group.). In order to be successful (like Walt has been) the entertainment must not insult the intellegence of both the child and the adult. (TESTIFY~! But it is a bigger risk, so that's why they go to demographics. They want a sure thing and they'll take making less profit over higher risk that turns into much higher payoffs in the end; because they want a sure thing because they don't run the company anymore. Shareholders do; and most of them don't know how products work. They are like Dixie Carter in that they are money marks and no more.) It cannot be one or the other; it must be both. I know this is putting Disney to a different standard; but that's the price you pay for being beyond excellence at this point. I wish Michael Eisner would realize this right now.

Okay; my train of thought was going off-track on that tangent. Doesn't anyone notice that most of these sequels (Fantasia 2000 and Rescuers Down Under notwithstanding) are created through the Walt Disney Television Animation Division in which many either go to home video or the box office? Please note the key word here: Television Animation. That should indicate that something is wrong here. I've realize now that the problem with Disney is not the sequels pre se (if it was then it renders the whole point of defending the Television Animation Division pointless (Actually; it was about the sequels per se; but it's wasn't due to being sequels as much as it was the horrible toned down writing and cheap animation that caused a lot of the problems. Doesn't change your argument about the television division much though.).); but the fact that it's an animation division doing it; a division that was only designed to do television animation shows and television movies. Television is a different breed of animal altogther compared to the box office/direct to video and putting the weight of work for these sequels on the fragile shoulders of the Television Animation Division pretty much sabotages both the Feature Division and the Television Division in terms of creative focus since TV Animation cannot perform box-office miracles (unless it was TaleSpin; then all bets are off!) and it gives the Feature Division a undeserved bad rap as a result of the former. Let alone dilute the Disney brand in the process. (Sadly; this is true.) It also shows that Michael Eisner is lacking of new ideas as a result of this mismanagement since there are way too many sequels on the slate right now. I might not mind sequels per se; but too many sequels is simply asking for trouble and simply telling consumers that they have nothing left. (They got the message 2004 Me; you don't need to flog the dead horse anymore.)

So what can the Disney company do to re-enhance the brand back into something that is respected again? (Since former glory is pretty much impossible at this point. (Well; it was 11 years since I wrote this and Disney is as close to their former glory when WALT was around as it it going to be. That's a success story!)) I suggest doing the only logical thing (besides filing for bankruptcy of course (Which would never happen because they had lots of money and time to turn the ship around. It was having any will and killing their myopia that was hurting them.)) which doesn't require much in terms of thinking (firing Michael Esiner since the people considered to replace aren't much better and Mel Gibson is still unknown as an animation guy at this point. (Mel Gibson would have hurt Disney beyond repair to the point where they never would come back from it. It would send the company into hell for a long time. Christian movies sell; but many Christian productions are either really bad quality wise; or really dispicable in the case of Left Behind. Michael Eisner was an idiot at his job; but at least he knew television well. Gibson doesn't. ) or spending a lot of time and/or money (like the quality of theme parks) and that solution is to demote the Walt Disney Television Animation Division back to what they do best: Television Animation and Television Movies. (This would have helped; but not nearly as much as you think 2004 Me. Disney's problem is also the fact that they rely on their brand way too much and don't create new stars. At least in TaleSpin; they did just that, but that wasn't Michael's vision. He wanted to milk Baloo; and he succeeded in doing so. It stopped being successful when people noticed that he was doing it to every production.) They should stop making box-office sequels and direct-to-video at once. They simply cannot do it properly without screwing it up. If Disney wants to make sequels and/or remakes (2D/3D; it doesn't matter) then the Feature Division should be doing it since they actually take the time to create an actual half-decent film. See Fantasia 2000, Rescuers Down Under. If you really want to get cute; create a separate animation division for Direct-To-Video release so that it would allow for ideas to actually grow and not be half-baked like it is now under the Television Division. (Actually; I think they did exactly that and it worked.) Not to mention that this would also have the interesting side effect of reducing the number of sequels and thus reducing the backlash from Disney fans. If you are worried about those parents who buy sequels; don't. They don't care anyway. They will eat it up regardless; as long as it pleases the child then there are no problems with this solution. (It's okay to raise your standards parents of the world. It's also okay to lower your standards snobby reviewers of the world. Only reset your standards when you cannot stand everyone's work because if every new work sucked in your eyes, that is usually a sign that your standards are way too high. Conversely; if you think every work you see is awesome; that is usually a sign that your standards are way too low. Adjust according to those two principals and you should be all right. Failure to do so will destroy your creditability as a reviewer. And be objective and don't act like stuff in bad cartoons doesn't happen in good cartoons. It almost always does happen in good cartoons.) I would also recommend that Disney remove shows like Teamo Surpremo (Recess, The Weekenders and 101 Dalmatians: The Series for example) and reduce the showing of other shows that show multiple episodes per day to one. In Teamo's case; it is considered by many to be an allegory for what's wrong with Disney Television Animation: Bad animation (applies to the other examples), bad dead-ringer for Powerpuff girls (only to Teamo) and forced education down the throats of viewers (applies to the other examples) which basically give the impression that the show was only designed for please the three hour minimum requirement of the FCC. (What? You forgot the dreaded lasso 2004 Me? I cannot take anything you say seriously. Not saying that the lasso did it in sucks!) Hey; I expect more than low-brow entertainment from Disney; what did you expect? (Geez; your standards of low-brow entertainment are way too high 2004 Me! Kick Buttowski is all you need to know about low brow humor in the modern age of DTVA.) Most so when school already exists in the real world. (Still hasn't taken the hint on that one; but whatever. Still better than Eisner 1994-2004 inclusive.) That's another thing that they can fix (both of them) without a lot of money or time; but that's another matter for another time. However; the question is will Eisner do this simple solution? Probably not; since Eisner doesn't even realize the fact that no one wants him at Disney anymore. He's even worse than Bill Goldberg; as least Goldberg left the WWE after WrestleMania XX. Sure it took a year; but he did leave. Michael Eisner thinks like one of those parents who criticize critics; as a shout in the wind and thus doesn't deserve to by heard and heeded. Can you say influence to the drug of Esiner? I think so but that's another tale for another time too... (Actually; my analogies in 2004 were horrible, but what's done is done.)

Now to end my editorial; I want to talk about who might be the successor to the Disney fortune if Michael Eisner resigns (Read: Good luck fools (you won!)) more to the point; the possability of Mel Gibson being CEO of Disney. The creator of the most popular film of this year: The Passion of The Christ has been in the rumor mill recently; that Mel will become the CEO of Disney. Now let me state this before someone takes my statements out of context: Mel Gibson is a brilliant actor and he's an excellent producer. Hey; when you manage to create a wonderful film that both Christians and human hating sadists love then you have done something special (and they better bring it out on television unedited. I know CBC will considering that the CRTC cannot do anything about it. (Did CBC run the movie on television? If so did they actually edit anything out? If they did; what was the reason?!). ). However; I question people who think that Mel Gibson is the perfect replacement for Michael Esiner. Now Mel Gibson is a huge fan of 2D animation (hey he wanted Chicken Run to be 2D instead of Clay animation) which is a huge plus for him to get the job. On the other hand; I'm wondering if he can separate his religious agenda from film (something Walt was successful in; unlike Michael Eisner who cannot separate his PC'ness agenda (again with the dog whistle 2004 Me?!) from film and not allowing Michael Moore's film F 911 (sorry Michael) to be released by Miramax doesn't count as separating someone's agenda from film. (Mockumentary causes offense; what a shocker?!)). That is something else that Disney fans don't like is a certain agenda and values being forced down the throats of the audience. (Do you realize how this can be translated as a hatred of gays 2004 Me?! Fear the dog whistle!) What I fear is that we will see Mel Gibson revise history from the right side of the spectrum as much as we see Michael Esiner revise history from the left side of the spectrum. I guess the absolute in life is that history is written by the winners is true; isn't it? Not to mention that Mel Gibson seems to love Pocahontas and the way it was protrayed; which is the allegory of a bad film in Walt Disney's Feature Animation Division and the allegory of revisionist history. (TESTIFY~!) Unless Mel Gibson learns the lessons of Walt Disney (by keeping the violence and vice to a minimum; which is something Mel Gibson has problems with considering Braveheart and to a much lesser extent Passion (less?! You need to watch both movies again 2004 Me!) plus keep his agenda out of films and let the story run as free as morally possible.) then Mel Gibson will be no better than Michael Esiner is and Disney will be further driven into the ground. (Too Long; Don't Care version: Mel Gibson is a moronic crazy person who killed his career to protect an indefensible type of religion. Quite frankly; that is all we need to know about Mr. Gibson.)

Which returns me to the man who brought this whole issue of Disney's demise to ahead: Roy Disney. He should be counting his lucky stars that Michael Eisner is so bad because the sucessors aren't much better. (Bob Iger proves that statement wrong 2004 Me!) I wish that Roy would stop whining and create his own animation company because then he wouldn't sound like he's crying foul and would actually sound like he is actually interested in the actual process of animation and innovation. (Nepotism? From Roy Disney? That's unpossible!) Maybe it's time for Roy to stop crying a river and start admitting that he allowed Esiner to get out of control with the company since Frank Wells death. (While this is victim blaming on 2004 Me's part; it is also accurate. If Roy was so angry with Eisner making TaleSpin when he promised feature that he wouldn't be using feature's characters and then broke that promise; why didn't he just start SaveDisney right there? Oh; it's because Michael Eisner was making money hand over fist; that's why. Even a nepotist needs to eat you know.) Walt Disney is indeed spinning in his own grave in double speed (No he's not; but I would pay good money to see it; make no mistake. I'm a sadist and a slimebag; and reputation counts in this world.) with Michael Eisner running his faithful company into the ground quicker than Baloo at a All You Can Eat One Dollar Special At Louie's and at the same time spinning at the thought that successor isn't any better or even rightous to the Disney name for that matter. (Hey; Roy Disney won! Eisner's gone and Bob Iger proved to be much better than Michael. Everyone got what they wanted. Heck; we got Ducktales rebooted for 2017; so that's progress in a big way!) That's the allegory of Disney in general in this new era of animation; now weep in sorrow as it can only get worse. (Until Eisner was replaced by Bob Iger and then Disney came back even though that took 500 live action shows, Toon Boom and CGI to pull it off. At least Bob tried to adhere to tradition; but it was too late because most fans realized that it was better for their health to not buy into it anymore and it forced Disney to be like everyone else because they BS'ed the fans way too many times to be forgivable at that point.) That's my opinion; I welcome yours. See you next time.

Return to Editorial Index

Return to the Unofficial Kit Cloudkicker Home Page!

Special Thanks to 50 Webs for providing space for this webpage. Click here to find out how to get your free homepage and 500 Megabytes of webspace.