(Thanks to Dave Blumenstein for the nice graphic work.)
- This is a message that’s been circulated around Disney Animation. The author is unknown. He or she sent it to NewsAskew and since I like to keep things as honest as possible by presenting both sides of an issue, I asked Brad and Chris to run with it. It’s printed in its entirety (IN RED), interrupted from time to time by my thoughts and corrections (IN BLUE). Here now, the ravings of someone with an ax to grind and way too little correct information…
In a message dated 3/3/00 3:12:44 PM, The Anonymous Loon writes:
Disney may or may not be many evil things, but let’s face it, the “screwing” was done primarily by the inflated egos of the writers,producers and director of the “Clerks” animated series.
For the record, the writers are myself, Dave Mandel, Scott Mosier, BrianKelly and Steve Lookner. The producers are me, Dave and Scott. Thedirector is Chris Bailey. Chris is the supervising director, overseeing all the shows, as well as directing shows one and three. Nick Fillipi directed shows two and five, and Steve Loter directed shows four and six.Being that we have no power of the scheduling of the show, it wasimpossible for us to do any “screwing” ourselves. Remember: my complaint was thesummer slot we were given, as opposed to the March debut we were told we’d be getting.
Nowhere in Mr. Smith’s “rant” was it mentioned that this show was over three months late getting into production due to the writer’sdilly-dallying with the scripts.
It’s true that we were late with the scripts. I was knee-deep in ‘Dogma’and collectively, Dave, Scott and I were trying to find the show beforeshowing anyone the work-in-progress script. It was, after all, the pilot – theshow that would set the tone for the rest of the series. We felt it importantto get the script to a place that would satisfy both ourselves andTouchstone/ABC. Remember: if either Touchstone or ABC didn’t like thescript, it’d be bounced back to us for rewrites anyway. We wanted to makesure that wouldn’t happen by presenting the best submission draftpossible.
Meanwhile, it’s not like we were holding up production during this period.Chris and his team were busy sketching backgrounds they knew we’d beneeding, as well as coming up with character designs for the four characters weknew were in the show.
But all this “dilly-dallying” did not prevent us from airing in March, aswe were informed was the plan. We have four shows ready to air, and twothat’ll be ready next week, that all the “dilly-dallying” in the world wouldn’thave interfered with their airing of. No – the decision not to air in Marchwas ABC’s, and our lateness with the pilot script (which was not three month’sas this Anonymous Loon has alleged) had nothing to do with it as – like Ijust explained – the finished show was ready to go in January (it was editedand pre-mixed by mid-January, to be precise – a full two months before ourproposed mid-March debut).
Nowhere was it mentioned that when that first script came in it wassomewhere in the neighborhood of ninety pages. This is the page length of a featurescript folks
Wow. Someone in the know. This may be splitting hairs, but most featurescripts are 120 pages.
not the page length for a twenty-two minute animated television episode.
It was a FIRST draft, sir (or madam). We never intended to animate all ofit. We threw the fattest version out there to a very small, trustedcircle (which, apparently, wasn’t 100% kosher, as Anonymous Loon here must’vebeen privy to it, or at least privy to someone who informed him or her that itwas ninety pages) so we could get their input as to what did and didn’t work.By three days following the initial read of the ninety page draft, we had athirty page draft.
Obviously, that script had to be rewritten which caused even more delaysin the show starting preproduction.
Again – not true. Chris Bailey had access to even the fattest draft ofthe script, and he and his team were coming up with sketches and thumbnailsfrom it that we saw, even at the aforementioned first ninety page script read.I distinctly remember Chris showing me sketches of Quick Stop, LeonardoTower, and the town itself.
In the end, the show was expected to be produced on one of the shortestschedules ever attempted by the Walt Disney Television Animation unit,(the studio that was used to do the preproduction and post production work).
Sounds like someone from TV Animation is trying to cover their ass here. Yes – the schedule was short. But at the end of the day, did it matter.The stuff we got back from Korea was gold (with the exception of show one).Chris and Producer John Bush were able to travel over there and sit downwith the animators. illustrating in person what they were looking for. Westill had time for retakes. We still would’ve made the March date, and the showlooked phenomenal.
When production was begun in earnest, it experienced even more delays dueto the producer’s, writer’s, and director’s constant changes.
There were delays in character design approval, I’ve gotta admit. Dave isa stickler for perfection, and sometimes sent design sheets back four andfive times. There’s nothing wrong with that. The show is better for it. Andwhen it came dangerously close to holding up production beyond reason,Dave would relent.
Me? I approved shit pretty quickly. But I’m not as demanding as Dave.And Dave had (has) every right to be demanding, as he was one of theCreators/Executive Producers on the show. It was his baby as much as mine(well, almost as much as mine), and his name was all over it. Touchstonesigned the guy to a three year, nine million dollar deal following hisstint on ‘Seinfeld’. Obviously they felt he was worth the cash because of thequality product he was responsible for. In my estimation, Dave was justearning the phat cash Touchstone was paying him, by insuring thateverything was as top-notch as possible (including character designs) and meeting hisexacting standards (the ones he was getting paid a mint for).
The designs for Dante and Randall, the two main characters, had not beenfinalized until after most of the episodes had already shipped overseasfor animation.
Again – not entirely true. Dante was locked way early on inpreproduction. Granted, we never settled on a Randal we loved until close to EpisodeOne’s ship, but we found him in time. And it wasn’t just me or Dave or Scottnot happy with Randal. Chris, too, thought we could get a lot closer to Jeff.After he sat in on a few show records with Jeff, Chris and his team wereable to craft a Randal design everyone thought was dead-on.
Can you imagine the turmoil that causes animators and artists trying toget a product out, when the scenes they are working on have to be done over and over and over again because someone can’t make their mind up and settle on a final design? Do you honestly think the final work will look good, much less be delivered on time?
They did look good. In fact, they look great. And they were delivered ontime for what was supposed to be our March debut.And again – Anonymous Loon here really sounds like a disgruntled animator.Maybe one that got kicked off the show early on due to work that didn’tmeet with the standards we were trying to create?
The budgets for each of these episodes was almost $800,000, a staggering sum for an animated series, especially one as simple to animate and execute as this one.
Actually, it was $750,000 per episode, and that’s hardly a staggering sum.John Bush, our Producer who also worked on ‘Family Guy’ said that show wasaround $750,000 per episode, below the line (meaning not inclusive ofproducer fees). ‘The Simpsons’ is reportedly one to one and a halfmillion dollars per episode. As it stands, we were one of the least expensive (ifnot the least expensive) animated shows in prime-time.
I have heard that the first show received for post production was returnedoverseas for an almost complete reworking, over 90% retakes were called.Apparently over 60% of the retakes were “creative.” A creative retake, intelevision animation parlance, means that someone in charge on the”producer/director” end either made a mistake and it was transferred intothe final film through no fault of the artists or overseas studios, or, theproducers/directors decided, upon seeing the final film, that they wouldlike to change something in the particular scene that they are calling a retakeon. In either case, the production (the show’s budget) has to pick up theadded costs of ANY and ALL creative retakes.
We were told that ‘The Simpsons’ threw out their entire pilot and startedover. ‘Family Guy’ also had close to 90% retakes of their pilot. Thishappens in animation. The first episode is the first footage you’reseeing from the overseas animation house you’re working with (or in our case,being forced to work with, as our low budget limited our options in choosing ananimation house). When we saw that footage, it was apparent that theoverseas animators didn’t get the jokes and didn’t use the model sheetscorrectly. Again – massive retakes on first episodes (whether throughanimator error or creative choices) is standard, from what John and Christell me. And they’ve been doing it for years.
Obviously a few creative retakes are called on all shows from time totime, and there is a variance built into the budget for that, but no variancecan cover an entire redo on an episode.
See above two examples for what must be rare exceptions to AnonymousLoon’s rule.
The added extra expense of this is staggering, and the bill is paid by theWalt Disney Company, not the producers, writers, and directors. Yes, because they own the show. Hey man – if I was making all the majorcash from the show, shit I’d pay for the added expenses, as well as the budget.But Disney owns the show, silly. They opted to make the show. It comesout of their wallet. Do you think then Disney President Jeff Katzenberg madethe ‘Lion King’ directors pony up if that flick went over budget? Does Harveycharge Scott and I personally if one our flicks goes over budget? Thispoint Anonymous Loon is trying to make is inane.
I say this just to let you know once more how the company has bent overbackwards for the “Clerks” project. The company has every right to secondguess creative retakes and kill them if they deem the retakes frivolous orunnecessary. Once again, the company chose to defer to the creativepeople behind the “Clerks” series and quietly swallow the bill, as they swallowedthe exorbitant budget and shortened production schedule.
The “exorbitant budget”. Sure – if you’re including ‘Pepper Ann’ and’DuckTales’ in the equation. Again: ‘The Simpsons’ costs over a millionper. ‘Family Guy’ was more expensive than ‘Clerks’ as well. And Disney “swallowing” the costs shouldn’t break anyone’s heart. It’s theirshow. They stand to profit from it the most if it works. And deferringto the creative team’s decision to do a hefty amount of retakes is no moreunusual than deferring to the creative team on what is and isn’t funny, orhow the characters should look. We were hired to create a show for them.If they (the Execs) had a creative bone in their body, they wouldn’t needfolks to provide them with shows; they’d just make them up themselves. Butbeing that their jobs consist mainly of covering their own asses and fearing fortheir jobs, they have no time to create new shows. So they ask others(like me, Scott, Dave and Chris) to do it for them. And if it’s the opinion ofthe folks you’ve hired to create a new show that the show – not thempersonally – needs more cash to fix a perceived problem, then why on earth wouldn’t youback their call? That’s not generosity or the kindness of the Disneyheart; that’s just sound business practice.
This does not mean that the retakes are wrong, per se
Gee. Thanks.
but why, in a medium where average production time from start to stop issix to nine months per episode, would you not think of your creative changesbeforehand?
Because we’re not fucking mind-readers. That’s like saying “Why edit afilm? Why is there cut footage? Shouldn’t you just shoot what you know you’regoing to need?” What works on paper doesn’t always work in the execution. You can’t knowwhat does and doesn’t work until you actually see the animation completed.And when you finally see the animation and things don’t work, they getaxed or altered.
Can you believe how unreasonable and naive Anonymous Loon is?
It is not like live action where you can just go out and shoot a sceneover if you don’t like the dailies. In animation it can take weeks to draw (orredraw) a single scene!
No shit. But, again – how is one supposed to know how the show’s lookingif it’s being animated overseas. Had we a ‘Simpsons’-like budget, wecould’ve done at least half the shows (primarily the pilot) in L.A., and kept aclose eye on it, calling for retakes during animation, or correcting mistakes wecaught while they were being drawn. That wasn’t the case.
Mr. Smith states that his show is “screwed” because of the airdate beingpushed back to summer by ABC/Disney. I suggest that Mr. Smith and hiscohorts take a long look at their own attitudes and admit to themselvesthat their constant “noodling” and time/money wasting are the causes for the delay.
And I suggest you get your facts straight before you attempt to correctthe heinous injustice of calling ABC (hence Disney) out on bullshit. Me andmy “cohorts” delivered the shows on time for a March bow. ABC – eager to winthe season – opted to go with ‘Millionaire’ twenty nights a week instead,pulling out of their stated intention to air the show in March. That’s mybeef. That’s the “screwing” in question, and all your Empire-defendingdoesn’t alter that fact.
He has nobody to blame but himself. You cannot call 90% retakes onepisodes (especially the first episode) and expect them to air on the originalairdate, it just is not going to happen.
The only reason it “just is not going to happen” is because ABC optedagainst letting it happen. Regardless of the retakes, the shows were ready to goin March. That they’re not airing is not our fault, but ABC’s (hence Disney’s).
Perhaps if the producers/writers/director had taken the time to actuallyresearch the procedure for production of an animated television series
Long before preproduction began, we sat down with a woman who’d worked on’Family Guy’ and had her explain the hectic TV animation schedule to us.When Chris Bailey and John Bush came on board shortly thereafter, theybrought with them years of experience in the field. I’d say we coveredour research fairly well.
they would have done things differently…although I suspect not,according to reports I heard of the utter disdain for production procedure, and the company ingeneral, that they showed throughout the show’s creation.
Is that what you heard? Hearsay doesn’t count for shit in a court of law,and it counts for less here. Wait a second… This is the ‘net. What am I talking about? Hearsay iseverything here. Regardless, as you aren’t intimately acquainted with the show, you’veobviously proven you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, andwhat you’ve heard doesn’t amount to jack squat.
I also feel that a comment should be made about the content of the show.Perhaps it will shed some light on why the test audience didn’t seem to gofor it. The scripts were rife with “in-jokes” that nobody in themainstream audience would even come close to understanding. They seemed to bewritten for the writer and his “cool” friends, you know, the ones who are in onthe joke.
That would be everybody reading this right now, and everybody who saw anyof our flicks, and anybody who’s ever seen a movie, a TV show, or ‘TheSimpsons’. If ‘The Simpsons’ is too rife with “in-jokes”, then we’reguilty as charged.
And the show aired before its core audience at UMass in Amherst. You everhear 1800 college kids laughing in unison at a joke you’ve written orloudly appreciating something you’ve created? It’s very satisfying. And not aone of ’em complained that the show was “rife with in-jokes”. In fact, theyjust complained that Disney/ABC must not have an inkling what audiences want tosee if they’re trying to shitcan this show.
The shows were loaded with caricatures of celebrities, many of whom thegeneral public have never heard of, much less would recognize. The listwas endless of the caricatured comedians, athletes, and has-been actors thatappear in this show. Some of these characters were so obscure that theartists designing them didn’t have a clue as to who they were, or why thejoke was “funny.”
Here’s a list of the caricatures in question: Judge Reinhold (who alsovoiced); Eddie Murphy; Charles Barklay; Gwyneth Paltrow; Matt Damon; MayorMcCheese; Big Mac; Samuel Jackson; Elton John; Martin Scorcese; GeorgeLucas; Steven Spielberg; Odd-Job (from ‘Goldfinger’); Patrick Swayze. All chosenfor their relative obscurity, as you can see.
About the only inside ref I’d say that may be over some folks’ heads isour utilization of the short-lived UPN show ‘The Secret Diary of DesmondPfeiffer’. In ‘Clerks’, we maintain that the show was a massive successof ‘Seinfeld’-ian proportions, and from time to time, Dante or Randal referto it as such (there’s even a fast-food joint called ‘Desmond Pfeiffer’sCivil War Burgers’). It may be way-inside, but that’s what makes it funny. Andit’s not like it’s crucial to understanding the show. It’s just an addedbonus for people up on their failed TV shows.
Sure, Mr. Smith thinks that his show got a poor rating from the testaudience, but his reasoning is way off. It wasn’t because the audiencewas “55 to 80”, it was because the show was BORING, UNEVEN, and VERY UNFUNNY.
Ah – the agenda is clear. You’re not a fan. It’d been a lot better hadyou not included your opinion of the show. It further invalidates youralready invalid points by proving that you have an agenda. Not very bright.
However, I should clear up the test screening thing. ABC had two sets oftest screenings in Ohio and San Diego, for which they recruited audiencesfor a completely different show, and instead showed them ‘Clerks’. Our bigcomplaint was that because they recruited for a different show, our keydemographic was not represented (18-25). And I never said they screenedit for 55-80 year olds (obviously, Anonymous Loon here can’t read). Ilikened these test screenings to test screening ‘Dogma’ to an audience of 55-80year old priests.
But we held test screenings of our own in L.A. at the Miramax screeningroom. Two sets of audiences: one comprised of View Askew fans, the other madeup of mainstream TV views not necessarily familiar with the stuff View Askewhas done. Most importantly – both audiences contained our crucial 18-25 yearolds, and both screenings scored substantially higher than the ABCrecruited test screenings.
The show isn’t boring, uneven, and unfunny (well, maybe it’s uneven inplaces, but what TV show or movie isn’t?). It just wasn’t shown to theright folks.
It is typical of this egotistical creative team to blame the audience fortheir failings.
You, sir, do NOT know me, then. I always assume blame when my stuffdoesn’t work. Haven’t you heard? I even apologized for ‘Mallrats’.
Maybe the audience was not the prime demographic for this program, butface it, the cream always rises to the top,
Not when you present cream to someone with a lactose intolerance fordairy.
and any audience knows quality when it sees it, and they also know crap. Remember, Mr. Smith, your show is going on a mainstream network and will be beamed nationwide into millions of homes. You are not on MTV or anyother “specialized” broadcaster with a set demographic. This is ABC, and your program will have to appeal to a wider set of viewers than a few comic book fans in New Jersey if it is to have any success.
Oh, okay. I’ll try to remember that. And, as stated, we screened the show for everyone but comic book fans in NewJersey, and it went over like gangbusters. Ask anyone at UMass Amherst.Ask anyone at our test screenings. Any other lessons you’d care to impart, oh wise one? I mean, you’reobviously someone with their finger on the pulse who believes in what he’s(or she’s) saying – which is why you’re posting anonymously, of course. That’s what really bugs me about this prick. He (or she) takes me to taskfor taking Disney to task, but at least I had the common courtesy to signmy own name to my complaint. This cowardly fart would rather snipe from theshadows, for fear of reprisal (ie – getting fired, getting blacklisted,getting made fun of). Show some sack, sir (or madam): tell me who youare.
The ultimate slap in the face, to me
Which matters, right? Because you’re fucking Walt Disney himself, aren’t you?
is not to the audience or the company, but to the diligent, hard working artists and designers who sweated blood for months on this abomination.
Abomination? That’s a bit harsh. I can see you not liking the show. Hell – no show or movie is everyone’s cup of tea. But abomination? It’s not like we did a cartoon about violent second trimester fetal extractions.
And in terms of the folks who worked on the show, look my heart breaks for them too. But not as much as it breaks for me. This was a show based on my baby; my first film. I wanted this show to work more than anyone involved. The animation cats at Disney TV have other shows to work on besides this. The folks who jumped on board did so knowing we had only a six episode commitment from Disney/ABC, and knew, too, that there was a chance the network wouldn’t pick the show up. The are professionals, folks; big boys and girls who freelance hoping to hook up with a show that’ll last for years. They’re no strangers to a show being nixed by a network. Just ask the folks at the David Spade cartoon.
They live from series to series, and when a screwed up mess like this comes along, it drags their morale down with it.
Again – maybe you’re a relative neophyte to what’s apparently the lay of the land, but the adults who joined up knew it wasn’t a sure thing, and know, also, that whatever happens to the show wasn’t their fault. Their morale will be just fine.
Unless you, yourself, worked on the show, Anonymous Loon, and considered yourself so integral to the proceedings that you’re taking this all very personally.
The best news an animation artist can hear is that the show they are involvedwith is a success and that there will be another season of shows to do.
Holy shit – you must’ve spent years in the field to know such inside dope firsthand. You know what else I’ve heard? The best news anyone involved in the production of a motion picture can hear is that the flick did well at the box office. The best news anyone involved in any TV show can hear is that the ratings are huge and they’ll be getting renewed. The best news anyone involved with a pro baseball team can hear is that they’re going to win the World Series. Hell – the best news anyone involved with a Little League Girls softball team can hear is that they’re going to win a trophy.
Animators don’t corner the market on wanting to hear good news. But like the rest of us, sometimes what you want and what you’re given are two different and shitty things.
That means his or her bills will be paid, their families fed, and their specialized skills utilized for another year. When the network sees a train wreck like “Clerks” coming down the pipe there is no way they are going to green light a second season. This means the artists counting on that pick up aren’t going to be employed after season one wraps.
They’re not alone.
And “train wreck”? As most who’ve seen the show can attest to, ‘Clerks’ is far from a train wreck. Your agenda – some half-assed imagined personal vendetta – is showing pretty clearly now.
Indeed, most of the “Clerks” staff was laid off with very little chance of a call back.
Months ago, when all the shows were already shipped overseas. Why? Because we had only a SIX EPISODE COMMITMENT from the network, you clod. There’s no conspiracy there, man; if there are no more shows to animate, how the fuck are we supposed to employ people? Do the animators who worked on ‘Mission Hill’ still get paid, even though the show’s not airing, and no new episodes have been produced? For that matter, does the cast of ‘Diff’rent Strokes’ (or what’s left of them) still get paid for a show that’s no longer in production.
Fucking numbskull, I swear.
As a matter of fact, a failure of one animated series resounds companywide (and industrywide) and quite often shakes the corporate confidence in any new product.
Sure. Like the flopping of any given motion picture threatens the foundations of the movie biz. Or the cancellation of any given TV show rocks all six networks to their core.
Or the failure of the animated ‘King and I’ or ‘Rock-a-Doodle’ ruined feature animation for everyone else.
Silly, melodramatic bastard.
The company has experienced massive layoffs in the TV Animation unit.
I suppose I caused the Great Chicago Fire as well.
Sure, there have been other failures besides “Clerks” that have caused this
Whew. I was worried it was just ‘Clerks’ for a second there.
but “Clerks” is a huge straw on this broken backed camel called Disney TV Animation.
And being that we’re the first prime time effort to come out of Disney TV Animation in, say, decades, how are we responsible. Disney TV Animation predominantly makes stuff like the ‘Hercules’ cartoons, the aforementioned ‘Pepper Ann’, ‘Recess’ (or ‘Detention’ – I confuse the two shows), etc. – all stuff that airs after school or on Saturdays. If there are problems there, they existed long before the ‘Clerks’ cartoon was a glint in my eye.
And if we were supposed to be the saviors of Disney TV Animation, then you’re far more clueless than you sound. Prime time animation is a risky game if you’ve got cold feet about attempting it at all (like Disney/ABC). Fox has succeeded largely because 1) the shit they do is mostly good, and b) they’re willing to take a chance on what isn’t necessarily a sure thing, and keep it on the air for awhile to see if it picks up. I only wish we’d been shown that much confidence.
I have seen “Clerks” the movie, and consider it interesting, funny, unevenin parts, but very well written in other parts. It is a film I would watchmore than once and recommend to certain friends.
Hey – you’re not such a bad guy after all. Let’s be friends.
I have also seen the animated version and cannot say one positive thing about it.
D’oh! You fucked up again.
And if you’ve seen anything, you’ve seen one episode, which obviously wasn’t your cup of tea. That’s not enough to judge all six by.
I would not suggest for anyone to watch it
They will now – if for no other reason than to see if you’re as full of shit as I’m telling them you are.
And you are.
and I am glad there are only six episodes in existence, and if they air at all, it will most likely be only once.
Anymore predictions for the future, Karnak? I’ve got a prediction for you: my foot plants itself firmly up your ass if you ever grow the sack enough to come forward and tell me who you are, you gutless, clueless, whiney… hiney.
I hope News Askew will print this, I feel the other side of the story should be told, if for no other reason than to support the artists, designers, and corporate managers who worked so hard on this show to no avail, and for no thanks.
Um… the thanks was they got paid. Nobody worked on this show out of the goodness of their heart. It was a job. It could’ve been a cool, ongoing job if the network wasn’t so hell-bent on shit-canning it.
And in terms of NewsAskew printing it…
Well I certainly saw to that, didn’t I? Where’s that ferocious ego I’m supposed to have?
They know who did the real “screwing.”
If they have half a brain in their heads, they agree that it was ABC. Again – my complaint (and it was “got fucked” not “screwing”) was that we were told we’d air in March, we got ready for March, Eisner and Bob Iger saw the exact same shows we pitched them and they bought, shrugged their shoulders and said they didn’t get it, and opted to move us into the summer so they could win the season over NBC and CBS with many, many airings of ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire’. How on earth can I or anyone involved in the production of the show then be responsible for what you refer to as “the real screwing”, being that we have no power over scheduling? Disney/ABC were given the show that was pitched to them, and that they gleefully bought – telling us that UPN wouldn’t last another year, and that going there instead of ABC was a bad move. When we gave them that same show they bought, they seemed surprised. They then surprised us in turn by scheduling us in the summer, and letting us find out about it in Variety, as opposed to telling us themselves.
You’ve got the slave-mind when it comes to the Mouse, my friend. Everything they do is good and just, and we must be crazy actually objecting to their not living up to their end of the deal. Well I’m a free man. I calls it like I sees it. And I see red. Red and brown – because I caught an ass-fucking like you wouldn’t (and seemingly don’t) believe.You just keep on lapping up the scraps the master tosses you from the table, Anonymous Loon. I’ll be making a break for the Promised Land.
Oh, yeah, and another thing, I wouldn’t leave the drawing up of the Mouse andBob too long, Disney has a nasty habit of coming down VERY strong on illegaluse of copyrighted material, especially when it comes to their corporate icon.
I may not be very political, but I’m also not dumber than a bag of hammers. That genius but lawsuit-worthy image was taken down weeks ago – taken down faster than your pants when I just publicly bitch-slapped you for all to see, you little snake.
Give me your name, Gutsy Gus (or Gutsy Gail). Let’s see how much courage you have in your convictions.
A Concerned Reader…
Yeah, I thought so. ‘A Concerned Reader’ my ass. ‘A Disney Employee’ is more like it.
PS…..Well, I assume that someone has informed News Askew that they could get into a load of trouble for that picture of Mickey bouncing against Bob. I see that it has been removed from the site. Was it YOUR suits or Disney suits that suggested it be removed?
Covered above.
Trust me…the “right” people have already viewed it.
I hear the “right” people so enjoyed it that they saved it to their desktop.
Got Something To Say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.