DVDizzy Forum

I read over on Muppet central that Jim Henson wanted to buy Disney in the early 80's. Anyone know the details on that or why it didn't happen? I think that one of the greatest tragedies in Disney history is the death of Jim Henson because out of all the people there since Walt's passing he really seemed like he could have been a leader after the old mousetro. I like John Lasseter just fine but there is just some aspect Henson shared with Walt that John just doesn't have. I know Jim wasn't as squeaky clean as Walt was (not that Walt was perfect but Jim had plenty of vices that remain unknown to the general public to this day) but he had the imagination, the leadership, and the personality where he could have turned Disney into an innovator again instead of just one of the crowd.

Anyone else know anything about this or have any thoughts to share?

UncleEd wrote:I read over on Muppet central that Jim Henson wanted to buy Disney in the early 80's. Anyone know the details on that or why it didn't happen? I think that one of the greatest tragedies in Disney history is the death of Jim Henson because out of all the people there since Walt's passing he really seemed like he could have been a leader after the old mousetro. I like John Lasseter just fine but there is just some aspect Henson shared with Walt that John just doesn't have. I know Jim wasn't as squeaky clean as Walt was (not that Walt was perfect but Jim had plenty of vices that remain unknown to the general public to this day) but he had the imagination, the leadership, and the personality where he could have turned Disney into an innovator again instead of just one of the crowd.

Anyone else know anything about this or have any thoughts to share?

I didn't know about this, but it's been a while since I've been to Muppet Central and tend to rely on their e-mails. Anyway, personally, while I'm a huge fan of Jim's and definitely of the Muppets, I'm glad he didn't take the reigns. Jim produced some amazing and wonderful stuff in his life, but some of it was a bit too weird for my tastes, and I'd wonder if he would have taken Disney too far in that direction. I feel that Lasseter's style/taste is more fitting for Disney. I'm not saying I have total confidence in him yet, but I just see him as a better match. Outside of the Muppets, Jim Henson was something of a precursor to Tim Burton, in my opinion. Love Jim and Tim, but I wouldn't want either running Disney. They have their own style and legacies that are only occasionally fitting for the Disney style.

It does make some sense. Ron Miller had driven Disney into the toilet in the early 80s and their stock was worth very little. The Muppets may have been at their high value at that point, making it financially viable.

Kind of feels like irony that Disney eventually bought the Muppets.
But I guess Disney would be different if Henson had bought it, maybe more subversive.

I'd disagree that Henson would have led Disney into darker stuff only. Remember he did the lighter stuff, the Muppet stuff, and the kiddie stuff along side his darker works. I'm sure he could keep the tones appropriate for each division. Tim Burton is different though. He's the same style in everything he does. Jim and Walt could be diverse, Burton can't. He often uses the same themes in each project as well. Burton is very talented but some of his stuff feels like it's reworked from before or just hacked out.

Everything I've read about Henson at Disney in the late 80's has been good. His work with the imagineers and many of them comparing him to Walt, his longing to bring in CGI animation, developing hand drawn projects. I really think Henson could have been a Walt like figure. He would have done his dark stuff but there'd be a lot of light and happy too.

Now I find it hard to watch Fraggle Rock as an adult because many of the episodes seem like propaganda. I talked to a friend about this and he said it was written to be that way. It's supposed to reflect Jim's Christian Science or Scientology views. I know every artist puts themself into their work bu the trick is to know when to pull before it becomes too preachy no matter what you're into.

Didn't know Jim was into Scientology, which I find a little offputting. Anyway, the impression his work and interviews/behind the scenes views always gave me were that his passion was moving more towards the darker stuff rather than keeping the mix going, and even his "lighter" stuff was a bit odd compared to Disney's more traditional stuff.

Jim Henson was a Christian Scientist when he was younger, not a scientologist. Quite a difference. It's also generally believed he left the religion as he got older.

I have a Timeor a Life Magazine from after Jim died that says he was a scientologist after he died. I knew he was into Christian Science earlier in life and I've ever read he used to travel doing a puppet shows for that group in his Sam and Friends days. Regardless it's because of these two "religions" that he's dead today. It is where he got the belief to not go to doctors and had he gone even a few hours sooner than his daughter made him he would have lived.

Something else you may not know. Jim Henson was a nutorious womanizer and an addicted gambler. He was even separated from his wife for 5 years when he died. At the time of his death this was discussed in the articles of his life so it's not tabloid trash. The book the Henson Family commissioned and later killed touched on this part of his life but they didn't like how it changed the public perception of this easy going hippy who never got angry so it was squashed.

I admire much of Jim Henson's work but he's not a man I think I would have enjoyed meeting. As human beings we would clash in ever respect. I'd much rather have met Walt. But I find it odd how two men with very different personal lives could have been so similar in their creative endeavors.

I was always under the impression that it was Disney that was trying to buy the Muppets and they were actually working out a deal the weekend Jim Henson died or something like that.

rexcrk wrote:I was always under the impression that it was Disney that was trying to buy the Muppets and they were actually working out a deal the weekend Jim Henson died or something like that.

Well, that happened too but that was 10 years or so after this supposedly happened (which could have but since there is little proof there is some doubt).

UncleEd wrote:I have a Timeor a Life Magazine from after Jim died that says he was a scientologist after he died. I knew he was into Christian Science earlier in life and I've ever read he used to travel doing a puppet shows for that group in his Sam and Friends days. Regardless it's because of these two "religions" that he's dead today. It is where he got the belief to not go to doctors and had he gone even a few hours sooner than his daughter made him he would have lived.

Something else you may not know. Jim Henson was a nutorious womanizer and an addicted gambler. He was even separated from his wife for 5 years when he died. At the time of his death this was discussed in the articles of his life so it's not tabloid trash. The book the Henson Family commissioned and later killed touched on this part of his life but they didn't like how it changed the public perception of this easy going hippy who never got angry so it was squashed.

I admire much of Jim Henson's work but he's not a man I think I would have enjoyed meeting. As human beings we would clash in ever respect. I'd much rather have met Walt. But I find it odd how two men with very different personal lives could have been so similar in their creative endeavors.

Frankly, even if Jim was messed up I still prefer him over Disney (as much as I enjoy his work). He just seemed pretty honest with his work. He always acknowledged his friends and co-workers and was rather humble when talking about his projects. Disney, on the other hand, seemed to love tooting his own horn whenever he did something. Something about that doesn't rub well with me.

You forgot to mention one similarities: Both have secret personal lives that clashes with their creative persona.

Disney wasn't squeaky clean either. He outright dismissed some of his animated classics (Fantasia and Alice being two of them), he was a heavy smoker and has created tons of myths and urban legends (like how he was frozen and that he hated Jewish people).

pap64 wrote:You forgot to mention one similarities: Both have secret personal lives that clashes with their creative persona.

I tend to think that the "secret life of Walt" is somewhat overrated, but I guess others might want to fill me in on that...

pap64 wrote:Disney wasn't squeaky clean either.

True.

pap64 wrote:He outright dismissed some of his animated classics (Fantasia and Alice being two of them)

Is that so? As far as I remember he acknowledged that Alice had its weaknesses (lack of "heart"), while he was somewhat sorry that Fantasia was far from the success he hoped it'd be during its initial run.

pap64 wrote:he was a heavy smoker

True.

pap64 wrote:and has created tons of myths and urban legends (like how he was frozen and that he hated Jewish people).

I guess there were really other people who created those...

I think the real Jim Henson "secret" life is a lot darker than Walt Disney's secret life. Chain smoking and swearing isn't really that dark compared to some of Henson's vices. The biggest difference is this. The Jim Henson company and family know this to be a problem, else why keep it under wraps, whereas Walt's family and company have shared the real Walt with the World. And don't say that it's different because it was after Walt died that all was disclosed. Walt died in 1966, Bob Thomas' company and family endorsed book where the real Walt was first touched upon came out in the early to mid 70's. That's about 10 years later. Jim has been dead for almost 20 years and we still have no book or film on the man authorized or unauthorized. There is probably a reason for that.

It's little known that Walt apologized for making Fantasia once but you'd never hear that from Disney today. It's really quite understandable from where he stood. His company was on the verge of collapse and it was such a collosal failure that it's only natural he doubted himself.

Alice IS a weak movie. Sure it has some fun sequences but it's not the strongest story in their canon.

Yes, that stuff is a bit unfair to hold against Walt. He came from an age when they were telling people smoking was healthy. He didn't "outright dismiss" Fantasia and Alice, even if he was disappointed in the results or receptions (as we all know, he never wanted to make Alice, though I like it, as many of us do). And all that other stuff is just baloney rumor! How can that be held against him?

I'm a big fan of Jim's work, but he always struck me as much darker, and the more I find out about him, ha, the darker he seems. I wouldn't have wanted him running Disney, though he seems to have been the only man capable of running the Muppets.

Well, the anti-semitism is almost uncontested at this point. I like Disney as much as any of you, but you can't whitewash something he possibly did/felt.

I have yet to see proof that Disney was racist or anti semitic. As for it being uncontested, there are PLENTY of black and Jewish people who KNEW and WORKED WITH Walt who refute the claims he was racist or anti semitic. If you look to where these stories originated, most came out of a slander campaign during the studio strike of the 1940's. Art Babbit is often quoted for saying these things but let's look at Babbit's history with Walt. After he joined the strike he went wild with spreading this stuff and really took a leading role in this strike. Walt fired him but Babbit sued to get his job back. Walt was forced to hire him back but he was shunned by the studio employees so Babbit finally quit. Babbit had an axe to grind with Walt. Of course he has a motive to say bad things about the man. And I can understand why Walt would have a hard time forgiving him for it. Wouldn't you in Walt's shoes?

Now I do believe Walt would enjoy the occassional ethnic joke or use terms that aren't politically correct today but that's how people used to be. If you grew up in a town where a lot of immagrants settled like I did you would understand what I mean. There is a great sense of ethnic pride amongst these people and they were always telling jokes about their groups or other groups and they refered to each other in terms that many would have a problem with today. But this is how things were. Calling someone a "Jew Boy" or a "Pollack" was no different than today's terms like "African American", or "Native American" and those who belonged to these groups took no offense. They always told me that you could tell when something was said out of hate and when something was said out of every day just surviving. When Walt used terms like this or made comments like these I don't see it as racist and neither did those who were at the studio at the time. If these people, many of them belonging to the ethnic groups in question, had no qualms with it then why should we? I mean they were actually THERE when such comments were made and knew the tone of how things were meant or to be taken. It's easy to sit here in 2007 and read a transcript and say "Oh my word, Walt called someone a "Jew Boy"! That anti semitic racist!" Why not take the word of people who were actually there and knew the man? They're retired now, what do they have to gain by white washing him? Please...

This is almost as silly as that guy who says Walt and Hitler were cut from the same cloth.