Your thoughts on Jim Hill

[pap64]

What are your thoughts on Jim Hill and his website? I ask because it seems that while has some great info on Disney projects the site also sparks a lot of controversy, especially when it comes to Pixar.

I also ask because on the Enchanted Tales thread it was mentioned that Jim said the series was going to be discontinued after the first volume, but then it was confirmed that a second volume was in the works, leading me to believe that the site also carries some misinformation.

So, what are your thoughts? Anything I may have missed about the website and its creators?

[AwallaceUNC]

Jim Hill is one of the most interesting people in the world of Disneydom and his website is almost always fascinating. I interviewed him on Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod and found him to be very friendly and approachable. His historical articles are generally quite reliable and always both interesting and informative. His editorials and prediction pieces, however, aren't always as easy to buy into. Some of them seem valid enough, others seem clearly designed to deride Disney where derision may not be due (perhaps for entertainment's sake). I think it's best to look at his predictions and "scoops" as something that may or may not come to pass, never taking them with more than a grain of sour-but-tasty salt.

-Aaron

[MagicMirror]

He seems rather intent on proving that Ratatouille isn't a success - I haven't even given an opportunity to support it; Ratatouille isn't out in this country yet.

Whether or not Ratatouille is an immediate financial success, I'm confident that it will pay off in the long term, and, whatever happens, it seems to have been an artistic success.

Let's not forget that several of Walt Disney's greatest films - Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi - didn't make a profit on their first release. But where would Disney or, indeed, animation in general, be without them?

The other thing I really hate.

Is when he fragments his sentences.

Because it isn't.

Gramatically.

Correct.

[ichabod]

Whilst Jim Hill isn't always known for his reliability, and has been known in the past to present rumour as something more substantial, I have to say I check his site every day and usually read with intent.

He gets exclusive news now and then and also presents anecdotes and material from Disney's past that I've never even heard of. Take for example the recent post about the theme park for dogs!

Another reason why I like Jim (and probably why a lot more hate him) is that he isn't afraid to call a spade a spade.

There are very few who are unwilling to suggest that things aren't always rosy, particularly when it comes to Pixar. The thing that gets me is that people accuse him of badmouthing Pixar when if you actually read his posts, he has a lot of praise for Pixar. But because he takes industry reports, financial projections etc regarding worrying figures with Pixar, he gets abuse thrown at him. It's a case of the messenger being shot. It isn't Jim Hill's fault that Cars didn't shift as much merchadise as he wanted, it isn't his fault Ratatouille had not made as much as past Pixar projects, yet he still gets blames for pointing this out.

Well I for am glad he can bring us such insightful posts about the history of the Mouse House and that he isn't afraid to shy away from the stuff no one wants to hear.

[blackcauldron85]

I've been a Jim Hill Media reader for many years- I'm a huge fan of his site. Saying that, though, I get annoyed when he brings the numbers into play, especially with all of his "Cars" articles last year. The movie was not a "flop". I guess I just am not a fan of Wall Street, since it's the people on Wall Street who make a big deal about how much money a movie makes, which makes Jim Hill write about it, which angers the people who read his site.

But, all in all, I check out his site every day (except the past few days when we didn't have Internet service )...my favorite articles are the ones about Disney animation, but I like the ones about the theme parks, too!

[2099net]

Jim Hill.
Is a bitter pill
to swallow.
He is hollow.
Credibility: nil*.

*Actually I think his credibility is probably 50/50.

[Jules]

Why is he a bitter pill to swallow Netty? Do you reckon a lot of people simply cannot take his rather negative views concerning Disney and Pixar? I, for one, don't see what everyone whines about. It's quite obvious that Disney can't all be shiny and glossy and housed in a cabin full of cans of Pledge (duster not included). I mean, you get it with any company, and if anyone denies that until recently WDAS was going through rough times, all I have to say to him/her is "Get real!"

Although I have no proof, I'd say that in the articles in which Mr. Hill's neutrality is debatable, some people simply make a mountain out of a mole hill. I don't think Jim would dare say blatant lies. He simply exaggarates - perhaps somewhat subtly. He manipulates your mind through his glossed over prose. His ideas are valid. They simply make reality sound worse than it perhaps is. And, interestingly, he seldom seems to use words such as "probably" or "perhaps" or "maybe". His careless prophecies, though sometimes proven to be true, are certainly his weakness. And maybe that reveals a certain arrogance?

Who knows?

Anyway ... how old is this Jim Hill and does anyone have a pic of him? I assume he's American, no?

[blackcauldron85]

Anyway ... how old is this Jim Hill and does anyone have a pic of him? I assume he's American, no?

http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=ms031219ms
6th picture down. It's not a front-view of Jim, but it gives you an idea! And, he is American- he lives in New Hampshire.

[toonaspie]

interesting...quite interesting

that's all i got

[Big Disney Fan]

He has quite an interesting way of writing and punctuation usage (like hyphens where commas would work every bit as good). And he refers to Disney as "The Mouse". And, oh yeah, he says "Why for?" a lot.

Just curious, shouldn't this thread be in the "General Discussion" page? Since most of his articles are about Disney?

[pap64]

He has quite an interesting way of writing and punctuation usage (like hyphens where commas would work every bit as good). And he refers to Disney as "The Mouse". And, oh yeah, he says "Why for?" a lot.

Just curious, shouldn't this thread be in the "General Discussion" page? Since most of his articles are about Disney?

It was on the general discussion forums, but the mods moved it here.

[PatrickvD]

mr Hill twists facts for his convenience.

For example. on tuesday he said something about the Simpsons Movie outgrossing Ratatouille in 10 days. well I'd hate to disappoint him, but The Simpsons Movie is sinking like a stone at the Box Office. He conveniently fails to mention its second weekend was a few million below Ratatouille's second weekend despite opening with nearly $30 million more.

He has also already decided that Ratatouille will make less than Cars worldwide. Once again conveniently forgetting that the $80 million it has made from the international market is from only South America and a few European countries. It has yet to open in Germany, UK, Australia, Spain, China and Italy. According to Box Office Mojo it is tracking on par with The Incredibles in most countries and looks to be headed for $300 million.

Also, in France it had the biggest opening day for an animated film and the second biggest Pixar weekend behind Finding Nemo.

But he only points out how Ratatouille supposedly underperformed domestically (any studio would kill for a $200 million film)

My take on this is that Mr Hill is upset with Pixar. He used to have someone inside WDFA that would update him on changes. But when Pixar took over they brought in a new policy: any one who reveals studio secrets is fired immediately no questions asked.

Wich sounds right, considering he hasn't reported anything on Frog Princess or Rapunzel in months. So I say he has a little grudge going.

[Disney Duster]

My take on this is that Mr Hill is upset with Pixar. He used to have someone inside WDFA that would update him on changes. But when Pixar took over they brought in a new policy: any one who reveals studio secrets is fired immediately no questions asked.

Wich sounds right, considering he hasn't reported anything on Frog Princess or Rapunzel in months. So I say he has a little grudge going.

Good theory. I think I could tell he had a problem with Pixar when he called it the "favorite animation studio" of it's fans. He could be saying that people are blind for thinking Pixar is perfect and that's why Pixar is their favorite...but Pixar's nobody's favorite (I'm kidding, I know it has fans that like it that much). But he was clearly being sarcastic and wouldn't say such a thing if he really did like Pixar.

But I'll be honest, I think another part of his grudge with Pixar is simply that they run the risk of out-doing Disney (or did run the risk, now they seem to be going downhill a bit), and they are a computer animation company that does well, when Jim Hill obviously wants hand-drawn animation to return.

Anyway, I read Jim Hill for articles of interest to me, like the alternate Beauty and the Beast opening, news on Disney Theatrical stuff, etc. His rumours and predictions I really enjoy. I don't believe them fully, but they give me hope, and I just take them with grains of salt, like everyone else should.

[2099net]

Why is he a bitter pill to swallow Netty? Do you reckon a lot of people simply cannot take his rather negative views concerning Disney and Pixar? I, for one, don't see what everyone whines about. It's quite obvious that Disney can't all be shiny and glossy and housed in a cabin full of cans of Pledge (duster not included). I mean, you get it with any company, and if anyone denies that until recently WDAS was going through rough times, all I have to say to him/her is "Get real!"

My little poem was just a bit of fun really, but it does sort of explain how I feel about "The Hill" (as nobody, but I, call him).

Jim Hill is clearly a passionate man, and good luck to him. It's good for people to have a little passion in their lives. But I feel it clouds his judgement.

Basically, fans of anything are their own worst enemies. I think fan mentality is, if they love something so much, they feel that they "own it" and could manage it better. And I do have a feeling Jim Hill falls into this category, which does somewhat lower his credibility.

I have no doubt things at WDFA are/were bad, but I doubt that they were as bad as Jim Hill has made out in the past. He was quick to report on sackings, meetings and decisions, but only really reported one side of the story - again the inference being "he could do things better". Perhaps he could, but perhaps he couldn't, because Jim Hill doesn't have corporate shareholders breathing down his neck. Jim Hill doesn't have to justify every drop in Disney's share price. Jim Hill (most likely) has never had to sack anybody in his entire life.

I also do think that relationships between WDFA employees and Pixar's Management are probably as bad as he makes out - presumably Chris Sanders didn't leave American Dog/Bolt for jolly japes after all. But, does it serve any purpose to report these problems to the public? Will reporting them make things better or worse? I know which action I expect it to have (the latter). Why can't he just wait until some films from this (possibly) disharmonic melding come out and let them speak for themselves?

Jim Hill and others will probably justify their actions as "I'm a journalist, and its my job to report what I hear and let the public decide". I would buy that if he uncovered a child labour factory making Disney products in some third world country; or insider trading; or safety at the theme parks being compromised. I can quite easily buy it for the "Save Disney" campaign and the dismantaling of handdrawn animation (and it's subsequent return).

But I can't buy it for personality clashes between creative people when making a movie. Because, quite frankly, if there wasn't personality clashes to some extent, I would have to question how creative the people making the movies are. (And yes, that does mean I expect there's been some arguments of note at Pixar before now).

As for Pixar's record post Disney-purchase as many people may know, I'm hardly Pixar's biggest fan as I do find a lot of their work derivative of their other work. I also think Pixar was bought for too much money and I also predicted it would cause some problems fitting Pixar into the Disney environment. But I'm not that bothered about reading about it to be honest.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Here is a picture of him and Dick Van Dyke:

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/images/a ... ed-005.jpg