A Good Read ...

[HMButler79]

Financial or critical? Because some would say that time between Lion King and say Meet the Robinsons was the lowpoint of Disney Animation. The time when Eisner had he iron grip and forcing direct to video sequels down the throats of everyone

More delusionment. The lowpoint was WAAAAY before your time during the Rescueers-Cauldron period. Actually that was a low point for the whole studio. Hunchback, Herc, Mulan etc are all cult films now that, ARTISICALLY, are better than the CGI crap touched by Lasseter at WDFA. But you wouldn't know about such things since you think Tangled is on par w/ Snow White and Pinoc, which.....it's not.:brick:

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

But the idea that it was all bad after Frank died just isn't the case ... and the same with animation ... a lot of fanbois make it seem that animation died at Disney after the Lion King, which is total bull (expletive deleted). The Lion King set a high watermark at the BO. But plenty of wonderful AND successful films came out after that. As a matter of fact, the first bomb (and it still made some money) would have been Dinosaur in 2000. Films like Hunchback, Mulan and Tarzan were all hits ...

You do know that movies like Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, possibly even Mulan all probably had some input given by Frank Wells before he died. I'd wager the first major project which had nothing to do with him, or Katz for that matter, would probably be Tarzan.

Eisner was nothing good on his own, evident by the projects he ran with from the get-go. Without other people's creative input the guy was hopeless. Do I really need to bring in quotes of him saying Lost is doomed to be an "epic failure" or that Nemo probably won't fare all that well at the BO. Eisner was a lot of good things, but an artistic leader that manages to head the ship solo he was NOT.

 

[WDW1974]

Katzenberg really does not get enough credit. If you have ever watched "Waking Sleeping Beauty" it shows how much he really did to help the company

The man gets PLENTY of credit ... and while Waking Sleeping Beauty is a very interesting look at Disney FA during that period, it isn't unbiased either. By any stretch ...

~Kingdom of the Sun~

 

[WDW1974]

Financial or critical? Because some would say that time between Lion King and say Meet the Robinsons was the lowpoint of Disney Animation. The time when Eisner had he iron grip and forcing direct to video sequels down the throats of everyone

You are talking far too big a period of time there ... one when Disney had major hits (both creatively and financially ... everything from Hunchback to Mulan to Tarzan to Lilo & Stitch) and abject failures (Dinosaur, Treasure Planet) and mixed stuff as well ... and you did have the (mostly) crappy direct to video cheapquels that Disney began pumping out (some actually aren't that bad, but none were needed).

So, not really sure what the point is.

~Hades rocked!~

 

[AvengersWDW]

The man gets PLENTY of credit ... and while Waking Sleeping Beauty is a very interesting look at Disney FA during that period, it isn't unbiased either. By any stretch ...

~Kingdom of the Sun~

Oh yeah i felt it was pretty biased but it was a nice film

 

[AvengersWDW]

You are talking far too big a period of time there ... one when Disney had major hits (both creatively and financially ... everything from Hunchback to Mulan to Tarzan to Lilo & Stitch) and abject failures (Dinosaur, Treasure Planet) and mixed stuff as well ... and you did have the (mostly) crappy direct to video cheapquels that Disney began pumping out (some actually aren't that bad, but none were needed).

So, not really sure what the point is.

~Hades rocked!~

Just saying that Eisner did reign over a great portion of Disney Animation history but also a big low point too.

P.S. I agree with your "signature", Hades was pretty cool

 

[WDW1974]

It's hard to take Eisner seriously at that point (at least from my own personal knowledge of him) and he would have tried to throw anyone under the bus. I don't think Iger was a step up in the least; I'll give Michael credit there.

I will say there's no doubt he loved the Disney company, perhaps it was his heart attack that changed him. But some of the shady stuff he as doing (that I know of) in the early 90's and before the heart attack could have really hurt Disney. There's some inside stuff as to why people didn't trust Eisner, feared him and targeted him that goes way, way, way beyond Roy or anyone else having an ego. Roy saved that company as far as I'm concerned, both bringing Eisner in and helping getting him out.

I'm curious as to what you are speaking of when you say 'shady stuff' ...

And while I liked Roy personally and thought he did a lot to save the company, I'll also tell you that Roy was not loud about having any issues in Michael's last 6-7 years at the company UNTIL he was about to be forced off the board and he saw his own wealth shrink.

He had his own agendas too.

I agree about Katz. A world class jerk :lol:

But again, these were the personalities that meshed. And, again imho, Frank was the stone that held it all together.

I'm not a fanboi, but once the projects that Frank was part of (well after he died) were complete, and Eisner was left alone, I don't see a whole lot of positives with him.

Eisner and Wells made a big mistake with both their management team and Wall Street ... they largely were a victim of their own success ... and they thought they could expect (and then promise) that shareholders would see 20% growth annually. And they were doing it the REAL way, not the Ponzi Scheme/Wall Street way we've become used to of late.

When they had exploited all they could, the answer was to start cutting quality and that sent the company down a spiral that it absolutely still hasn't recovered from.

~Jeff PUT your (blanking) nametag on -- ME to JK at Disney-MGM opening!~

 

[WDW1974]

You do know that movies like Hunchback, Pocahontas, Hercules, possibly even Mulan all probably had some input given by Frank Wells before he died. I'd wager the first major project which had nothing to do with him, or Katz for that matter, would probably be Tarzan.

I can pretty much say with confidence that Frank had no input whatsoever in Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan and very little on the others. Just being at the company at the time and sitting in on meetings where something was discussed doesn't equate with him giving story notes to the producers (something neither he nor Michael really should have been doing anyway).

Eisner was nothing good on his own, evident by the projects he ran with from the get-go. Without other people's creative input the guy was hopeless. Do I really need to bring in quotes of him saying Lost is doomed to be an "epic failure" or that Nemo probably won't fare all that well at the BO. Eisner was a lot of good things, but an artistic leader that manages to head the ship solo he was NOT.

Everyone is going to make a mistake ... especially in show business. But to base an opinion on his leadership on examples where he was wrong (yet allowed others to prove him that and create the products) is being short-sighted.

~I'd like a pony~

 

[AvengersWDW]

I'm curious as to what you are speaking of when you say 'shady stuff' ...

And while I liked Roy personally and thought he did a lot to save the company, I'll also tell you that Roy was not loud about having any issues in Michael's last 6-7 years at the company UNTIL he was about to be forced off the board and he saw his own wealth shrink.

He had his own agendas too.



Eisner and Wells made a big mistake with both their management team and Wall Street ... they largely were a victim of their own success ... and they thought they could expect (and then promise) that shareholders would see 20% growth annually. And they were doing it the REAL way, not the Ponzi Scheme/Wall Street way we've become used to of late.

When they had exploited all they could, the answer was to start cutting quality and that sent the company down a spiral that it absolutely still hasn't recovered from.

~Jeff PUT your (blanking) nametag on -- ME to JK at Disney-MGM opening!~

In your opinion do you think the effects of 9/11 are still be felt at WDW? I just say that since until last year you had the golden years at POP century just being stagnant and with lines never being as bad as their were pre-9/11

 

[HMButler79]

I'm curious as to what you are speaking of when you say 'shady stuff' ...

And while I liked Roy personally and thought he did a lot to save the company, I'll also tell you that Roy was not loud about having any issues in Michael's last 6-7 years at the company UNTIL he was about to be forced off the board and he saw his own wealth shrink.
He had his own agendas too.



Eisner and Wells made a big mistake with both their management team and Wall Street ... they largely were a victim of their own success ... and they thought they could expect (and then promise) that shareholders would see 20% growth annually. And they were doing it the REAL way, not the Ponzi Scheme/Wall Street way we've become used to of late.

When they had exploited all they could, the answer was to start cutting quality and that sent the company down a spiral that it absolutely still hasn't recovered from.

~Jeff PUT your (blanking) nametag on -- ME to JK at Disney-MGM opening!~

That and having Animation Florida close. The downsizing of animation to the point of ending 2-D is what really set him off along with being forced off.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

I can pretty much say with confidence that Frank had no input whatsoever in Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan and very little on the others. Just being at the company at the time and sitting in on meetings where something was discussed doesn't equate with him giving story notes to the producers (something neither he nor Michael really should have been doing anyway).

But if we're going to credit these as Eisner successes, surely they should also be partially considered Frank successes?

Everyone is going to make a mistake ... especially in show business. But to base an opinion on his leadership on examples where he was wrong (yet allowed others to prove him that and create the products) is being short-sighted.

~I'd like a pony~

Never ever will you find me stating that the guy did only bad. His ambition is both what drove the company out of the mess they were in it but it also drove them back into a whole new mess. His last decade in office was poorly handled, any way you slice it. The guy did a whole lot of good - sometimes more than people are willing to remember because the way things ended - but surely between the pick between Iger of present day and Eisner of 95'-05' you'd pick Iger?

 

[misterID]

I'm curious as to what you are speaking of when you say 'shady stuff' ...

Not saying over an open forum...

[

And while I liked Roy personally and thought he did a lot to save the company, I'll also tell you that Roy was not loud about having any issues in Michael's last 6-7 years at the company UNTIL he was about to be forced off the board and he saw his own wealth shrink.

He had his own agendas too.

Of course, but what good business man doesn't? Unless Roy was an idiot, he'd definitely know to be wary of everyone and I'm sure, just having that Disney last name, he had his own vision of what Disney should be. It was one of the things Frank was great at in keeping Eisner reeled in.

And Roy didn't just become disgruntled when he was forced out. There was open tension about the way things were going and the decisions that were made. I never had the insight into Roy I did Esiner, but even I know that there were problems way before that and Roy wasn't shy about letting it be known... At least, in front of the people that mattered, perhaps. It was pretty well known there was a problem there long before he was forced out and it was one of the reasons he was forced out.

:shrug:

Eisner and Wells made a big mistake with both their management team and Wall Street ... they largely were a victim of their own success ... and they thought they could expect (and then promise) that shareholders would see 20% growth annually. And they were doing it the REAL way, not the Ponzi Scheme/Wall Street way we've become used to of late.

When they had exploited all they could, the answer was to start cutting quality and that sent the company down a spiral that it absolutely still hasn't recovered from.

~Jeff PUT your (blanking) nametag on -- ME to JK at Disney-MGM opening!~

But when you're CEO and you're in that position, you don't panic, you don't make drastic decisions before you need to and you don't run around like your hair's on fire. You deal with it, roll with it and fix it.

Eisner didn't handle what you stated above very well at all. Again, perhaps the heart attack did change him, but his reactions were not good, as you pointed out. And I really don't know how you can throw Wells into that scenerio for those bad decisions when things got tough, as he died before that...

 

[WDW1974]

In your opinion do you think the effects of 9/11 are still be felt at WDW? I just say that since until last year you had the golden years at POP century just being stagnant and with lines never being as bad as their were pre-9/11

Asked and answered in another thread ... but again, no.

9/11 effects on WDW roughly lasted until 2005.

POP was a question of Disney overbuilding ... a lesson they still haven't learned.

 

[WDW1974]

I can pretty much say with confidence that Frank had no input whatsoever in Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan and very little on the others. Just being at the company at the time and sitting in on meetings where something was discussed doesn't equate with him giving story notes to the producers (something neither he nor Michael really should have been doing anyway).

But if we're going to credit these as Eisner successes, surely they should also be partially considered Frank successes?

Absolutely. No one does it alone. Team effort.

Everyone is going to make a mistake ... especially in show business. But to base an opinion on his leadership on examples where he was wrong (yet allowed others to prove him that and create the products) is being short-sighted.

Never ever will you find me stating that the guy did only bad. His ambition is both what drove the company out of the mess they were in it but it also drove them back into a whole new mess. His last decade in office was poorly handled, any way you slice it. The guy did a whole lot of good - sometimes more than people are willing to remember because the way things ended - but surely between the pick between Iger of present day and Eisner of 95'-05' you'd pick Iger?

That's very tough for me to say. I admit I have a bias for Michael. And I don't buy the line that his second decade was just a total disaster. ... I think what I'd like if given those two options is a third.

Iger just can't even fake sincerity and that's the first lesson you learn in the business ... take a look at how stiff he was today in PR pics taken for the Disney Parks Propaganda and Spinning Blog while 'enjoying' Carsland.

 

[Bolna]

I have been reading along for the ongoing discussion and am somewhat surprised how this thread suddenly has become yet another one of those discussions about "Was Eisner the best or worst thing that ever happened to Disney?".

I find it interesting that a thread about the current state of TWDC and about a recent criticism of the current CEO ends up bringing the previous CEO. Maybe that is a sign of the current state of TWDC and of the lack of success of Iger that he still hasn't been able to step out of the shadow of the predecessor. If Iger were as wonderful as some people claim he is, wouldn't we discuss his achievements instead of constantly comparing him with Eisner?

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Bolna, I must admit that you have a point. Eisner was always at one side of the spectrum, either great or a failure depending on the period discussed. He always had a flavor to his management, something you could point to and say that's distinctly Eisner, whereas Iger seems vanilla a lot of time - nothing amazing but easy to stomach. I guess as someone who, as a fan, lived and breathed Eisner's last years I just prefer me some vanilla at the moment and not more of that hot mess which was the early 2000s.

 

[devoy1701]

I have been reading along for the ongoing discussion and am somewhat surprised how this thread suddenly has become yet another one of those discussions about "Was Eisner the best or worst thing that ever happened to Disney?".

I find it interesting that a thread about the current state of TWDC and about a recent criticism of the current CEO ends up bringing the previous CEO. Maybe that is a sign of the current state of TWDC and of the lack of success of Iger that he still hasn't been able to step out of the shadow of the predecessor. If Iger were as wonderful as some people claim he is, wouldn't we discuss his achievements instead of constantly comparing him with Eisner?

I think it is just that Eisner made THAT big of an impact on the company. And his decisions and leadership are still felt and talked about today. It also helps that his ouster from the company was perhaps one of the biggest CEO plunders of all time. It's just crazy that he went from being loved by all to being hated by so many during his tenure (or perhaps the love for Roy and the name Disney is what won out?)

Bob just hasn't made that big of an impact with TWDC. And the successes that HAVE been made within the company over the last 8 years, he hasn't aligned his name and face with them. He lets his department executives run things and doesn't seem to be comfortable with being the face and name of the company, or maybe he doesn't think it's important (I wrote a thesis on exactly why it is VERY important).

Simply put, Eisner was The Walt Disney Company. People knew who he was, recognized his face. The same cannot be said for Bobby...and he's 8 years into his tenure. I think that is why we still talk about Eisner and little is said of Iger.

 

[flynnibus]

Not every company exec is going to be a recognized face/brand/persona. There are many many many insanely successful ones people have no idea who they are, even if they know the products and company. The big difference is those that have a persona known by the MEDIA - and become something to report about or tell stories about.

Some want to be that larger than life person.. who with the stroke of their hand.. makes great things happen. Or at least tell the world that's what is happening. The other 99.9% are focused on their credibility and inspiration at the employees and the investor circles.

People fall into the trap that companies require a flambouyant persona at the helm. That really isn't true and more often than not 'news' about the CEO is typically distracting rather than complimentary.

You don't want a cold stiff at the helm.. because even internally no one will believe in their agenda.. but you don't need a Steve Jobs persona where people want to stalk him or write news about every minutia of his life.

Execs tend to fall into 4 categories...

• The sales guy - slick, spins anything, can't find anything bad to say unless its about his compensation
• The ops guy - the stiff numbers guy who is all about performance of business metrics and focusing on those.. and how to move those first.. products are to move the metrics.. not products move the company
• The creative guy - idealistic, form over function, doesn't care how it gets done, believes good things will come regardness.. etc
• The entrepreneur - the 75hr a week guy who built the thing from scratch knows what he wants and resists conforming to big business demands

Often what type of leader you want depends on your products and where your company is in it's growth vs mature stable phase, etc.

I don't have a problem with Iger not being the happy face introducing things to me on ABC Sunday nights.. I don't need that. They have people like Lasseter, Baxter, and others that can do that.

CEOs do not NEED to be the product innovators.. and generally they shouldn't be in large stable companies. They should be setting direction, priorities, and ensuring execution. Not micro-managing the talent they pay to do actually do the creative job.

CEO is a business position - not a creative one.

 

[devoy1701]

Not every company exec is going to be a recognized face/brand/persona. There are many many many insanely successful ones people have no idea who they are, even if they know the products and company. The big difference is those that have a persona known by the MEDIA - and become something to report about or tell stories about.

Some want to be that larger than life person.. who with the stroke of their hand.. makes great things happen. Or at least tell the world that's what is happening. The other 99.9% are focused on their credibility and inspiration at the employees and the investor circles.

People fall into the trap that companies require a flambouyant persona at the helm. That really isn't true and more often than not 'news' about the CEO is typically distracting rather than complimentary.

You don't want a cold stiff at the helm.. because even internally no one will believe in their agenda.. but you don't need a Steve Jobs persona where people want to stalk him or write news about every minutia of his life.

Execs tend to fall into 4 categories...

• The sales guy - slick, spins anything, can't find anything bad to say unless its about his compensation
• The ops guy - the stiff numbers guy who is all about performance of business metrics and focusing on those.. and how to move those first.. products are to move the metrics.. not products move the company
• The creative guy - idealistic, form over function, doesn't care how it gets done, believes good things will come regardness.. etc
• The entrepreneur - the 75hr a week guy who built the thing from scratch knows what he wants and resists conforming to big business demands

Often what type of leader you want depends on your products and where your company is in it's growth vs mature stable phase, etc.

I don't have a problem with Iger not being the happy face introducing things to me on ABC Sunday nights.. I don't need that. They have people like Lasseter, Baxter, and others that can do that.

CEOs do not NEED to be the product innovators.. and generally they shouldn't be in large stable companies. They should be setting direction, priorities, and ensuring execution. Not micro-managing the talent they pay to do actually do the creative job.

CEO is a business position - not a creative one.

I respectfully disagree, which was the whole point of my thesis. I won't get into the specifics, but believe that in certain industries and companies it is vitally important to have a recognizable face with a certain set of personality and moral traits at the helm to help personify the company and its offerings.

 

[NoChesterHester]

I respectfully disagree, which was the whole point of my thesis. I won't get into the specifics, but believe that in certain industries and companies it is vitally important to have a recognizable face with a certain set of personality and moral traits at the helm to help personify the company and its offerings.

Agree. I believe a lot of the fan backlash against this regime is because they have de-humanized the company somewhat. Where is that personality we can gravitate toward?