All this Eisner stuff...........

G

General Grizz

New Member
Originally posted by turkey leg boy
And Disney never lost money after 2001. They still made a good profit, especially Eisner. CMs got laid off, hours cut. Now that money's coming back in, Eisner will probally get another huge bonus, while CM get nothing.
Click to expand...

. . . and thus a chain reaction with Cast Member dissatisfaction and long-term decrease of "magic."

(Leads to mass guest complaints, as seen in Guest Relations and even these WDWMagic Boards, and the accident brought up here earlier.)

As for the rest of your argument. . . Agreed, Brent.
 
G

General Grizz

New Member
Originally posted by MillVillDavid
So Disney security was more stringent pre-Eisner??

MillVillDavid
Click to expand...

I am saying that Disney Security is NO WHERE where it should be, considering our current situation and terror status.

Kinda funny, you know? Caring about the money and all. . . and putting the biggest money-maker - and its hundreds of thousands of guests - at risk.
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by MillVillDavid
Nice to hear my friend! Disney has an emotional attachment for me, as I am sure it has with many others on here. DisneyWorld will always be there, it doesn't matter who is in charge. It's far to big for it not to be.

I guess people need to air their frustrations, but at least money is being spent on the parks to keep the Magic fresh. Everytime I go there, which admittedly isn't that often (every 2 years) I get the same feeling in my belly as I did the first time I went. Nobody, not even Mr. Eisner's alleged mis-management can take that feeling away from me.

MillVillDavid.
Click to expand...

I want to say, despite the tenor sometimes, welcome to the boards. I honestly understand your view, and I definitely welcome it.

I still enjoy going to Disney World for the same reason. It reminds me of all the hopes and dreams that it represented (futurism, building your dream, etc.) for me growing up. That will never change, I hope, at least for ME.

The problem, as I see it, is that management decisions that seem small today, often eat away at the core that built that experience. The emotional attachment is informed by how we grow up perceiving Disney, at least in part. I grew up seeing references to Walt's dream of a place like EPCOT where innovation was to be built and heralded. I also grew up with the Disney films that were clean and fun, that didn't mix the association with a naughty image (such as was done with Nelly's sexy video related to The Haunted Mansion film). I also grew up with the idea that the Disney parks were innovative in design and top-notch in maintenance. And mostly they still are, but this needs to be kept true. As a kid I was amazed by the imagineering and the awe-inspiring detail. It truly inspired me. And, through TV, it inspired others.

When these things are eroded, it may not happen overnight, but something begins to change and over time "something" will seem wrong, as it has to some already.

I think it is fair to say that most of us still enjoy Disney, but we get concerned sometimes when the direction from the top seems to erode the foundation that built it all.

It is always better to fix a crack than to let it break the foundation. And some on this board see cracks that are becoming significant. We want to protect that very same emotional attachment that you and others have found.

Sometimes the tone get shrill around here, but it is a good place for Disney fans. And, for the record, I agree with the significance of Griz's early post here about the support among Disney legends for Roy's mission. It says something. No a revolution, but an attention to detail and a course correction.

Thank you for reading.
 
MouseRight

MouseRight

Active Member
Make up your own minds on some of tehse issues. HEre are some articles on both sides of teh discussion:

Michael Eisner, Disney Chairman and CEO, Speaks at Smith Barney Entertainment, Media and Telecommunications Conference After you link into this, page down past teh financial #;s and a full transcript of Eisner's remarks are shown.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040106/65895_1.html

Roy Disney keeps pressure on Eisner

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yho...o&guid={3B91C859-6676-4403-8054-D6D3F0B312D0}

Reuters
UPDATE - Disney chief wants Pixar deal at right price

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040106/media_disney_3.html


Jim Hill With Disney Management Angle on Deature Animation Issues. Jim prints the unnamed executive's story but leaves it hanging with an "I don't Buy everything ...." Very unprofessional (I guess I shoudln't expect more from him). Woudl have been more balanced to read Jim's unbiased (Yeah Right) opinion.

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/main/index.htm


Happy Reading!
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Thanks, MouseRight, for posting those articles.

Lots to read, and somewhat long, but Michael Eisner's comments show that subtle problem. Yes, the company still shines in lots of ways, but look at how he characterizes the cheap sequels and TV animation that has come to overwhelm the public perception of Disney animation (as opposed to, say, Pixar's reluctance to do it)....

Here are two paragraphs from Michael's comments....

Perhaps our most stellar long-term example of producing cost-effective entertainment is our TV Animation business. This unit is committed to extending the life of Disney animated franchises by producing direct-to-video sequels and TV series, utilizing less expensive development and production techniques. We have produced a total of 15 animated direct-to-video sequels since 1994. With healthy double-digit returns that sometimes rise to triple digit, these films are expected to contribute profits of more than $1 billion over their lifetime. This enormous value creation does not take into account the fact that the life of these assets are extended in the hearts and minds of consumers, allowing our characters to have continuing merchandise appeal.

Consider "Lilo & Stitch." The original theatrical film was the first to be produced under the new cost management regime at Walt Disney Feature Animation. Going forward, the direct cost of production for Disney animated films is being reduced significantly. With $263 million in worldwide box office and more than 18 million video units sold, the "Lilo & Stitch" feature film was a major popular, and bottom line, success.


Note use of the words "regime" and "cost management" to characterize the new philosophy at Walt Disney Feature Animation. Quality and story were never mentioned in this context.

Pixar does not follow the "cost management regime" and delivers solid hits (evidence is in TV reports of the way that they build wonderful, creative work environments that animators use for inspiration, and trying new ideas as Disney Feature Animation is formerly known for).

The cheap animation that he is championing provides diminishing returns, as people begin to associate Disney with cheap, TV animation. And overuse of certain "franchises" in other ways also dimishes future projects. I believe that the saturation of "Lion King," along with a cheapened expection of Disney films in general hurt "Brother Bear" box office.

Finally, I note that it is ironic that Michael cited "Lilo and Stitch" as an example of the way to go, when it was developed by the Florida Feature Animation studio that he has put on hiatus and is rumored to lay off.
 
MouseRight

MouseRight

Active Member
prberk - Good thoughts. Let's remember that this was a Wall Street audience he was speaking to. Though I would like to see him show the creative community that he has as much passion for that side of the business as he did in the 80's and 90's. I do suspect that he still does is. I believe Roy to an extent, but if you have read about Eisner and followed his career, it doesn't seem possible that he can so easily forsake the creative side of his personality. I belive that Wall Street, with its quarterly performance mentality makes it harder to run a creative business like Disney and when people complain and say that Walt didn't run it that way, it was a different time and place. There isn't a coporate executive in the world who doesn't say that Wall Street's focus on the short trem gain makes it very difficult for them to focus on the long term.

As to your feature animation comments, the Jim Hill article speaks to those. The Exec says they know what's broken and are going to make radical changes to focus the effort and products. Contrary to Jim, I tend to believe him and have guessed that thsi was waht they were going to do when the cuts were announced. I have said that with regard to Feature Animation less will equal more, particularly in Quality. Sounds like that's what the focus will be. I also assume when I read Jim's article that when that exec says "we" that Eisner is a big part of the team he is calling "we" Can't see it being any other way. Let's hope it works.
 
MouseRight

MouseRight

Active Member
Originally posted by grizzlyhall
Didn't he send a VERY similar letter to the Disney Cast Members in December - with a bunch of the same money money, etc.? http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31435

(P.S. Great links! The Roy link looks broken.)
Click to expand...

The letter to the cast members was similar but not as extensive or far reaching as this speech. I actually think this speech tries to subtlely address some of the criticisms. He will not address them directly, at least not yet. He will take actions (New Hire at Disneyland, focus on feature animation, abc ratings, etc and that will serve as his response. GIven that he has teh board's and teh institutional shareholders on his side now, he has the luxury of time to fix the problems (opportunities) and go out in a blaze of glory.

I have tried to fix the Roy link. It won't work. Do a search in any NEws search engine for Disney and you will find several articles where Roy repsonds to Esiner's speech.
 
Woody13

Woody13

New Member
Well, in my part of the world, it is still Wednesday. And we all know what that means right? That means it's "Anything Can Happen Day!". :animwink:
 
strobe

strobe

New Member
Originally posted by andre85
I’d recommend you ignore most of the members here as the majority of them seem very bitter; they certainly do not reflect the core of Disney’s audience. Half of the people here have no idea what they’re talking about, and are unable to structure basic thoughts (as evidenced by the abundance of emotions). Do not let them ruin your opinion of Disney as these people have some of the most unbalanced viewpoints I've ever witnessed.


MillVillDavid, I'm glad you enjoy Disney (as most do). The problem the people on this forum have is that they're constantly analyzing, scrutinizing and essentially poring over the micromanagement of Disney and are otherwise convinced that they could run the Disney corporation better than Eisner. Which as we know, ic clearly not the case (otherwise they would be in such a position).

Note: Not everyone here is as described, but the most vocal ones certainly are.
Click to expand...


You know what - if you don't like the board or its members, then why don't you take your 48 posts and go elsewhere??

I don't mean to be rude, but why come here to fight? If you don't like the site, don't come here. :D
 
M

MouseMadness

Well-Known Member
Aside from some initial, erm, turbulence, this has been one of the better discussions I've seen on here! Awesome research, everybody! Soon, perhaps I'll overcome my simple-mindedness :lookaroun and read ALL those articles. But for now I'm contempt to just read what you've all quoted.
 
prberk

prberk

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by MouseMadness
But for now I'm contempt to just read what you've all quoted.
Click to expand...

"Contempt"? Did you mean, "content"?
Or was that a Freudian slip? :lookaroun
:animwink:

Anyhoo, yeah it is a good discussion. I have respect for Michael in many ways, but I do think that he has forgotten his creative energies. I think it said something that he spoke in Wall Street-ese to the employees earlier this year.

I also really strongly believe that this trendy business-school emphasis on "branding" that Michael likes so much is hurting the company. The Disney "brand" is useful to identify certain products, but it meant more when it was broader. It was a reliable name that had many things to offer and inspire (such as family films, vacation places, yes; but also futuristic dreams, educational films, and live things from Disney World on the Disney Channel). It truly represented family (as in whole family) entertainment that had heart and soul; NOT the demographics-driven, soulless "franchise machine" that Michael described the Disney Channel as in his speech.

I just realize that you can be current and market-ready without selling your soul or just plain losing it to bland market-segmentation strategies.

The company needs to remember why the Magic Kingdom (or Disneyland) was designed as it was, and why it is still the most effective park design in the world: it balances a reverence for the past (Frontierland) with an excitement for the future (Tomorrowland), bound together by the symbol of our dreams (Fantasyland/Castle) that can only be accessed by first walking up Main Street, USA. Throughout the park, the emphasis is families, not just kiddie stuff; but things to experience together.

My point is just that the company benefits best from the same balance, and from an emphasis on families, not just market segmentation.

In the end, the Disney name (or, ech, "brand") will only keep its "magic" when it is understood to stand for something real, like Walt's ideals, not just kiddie "branding."
 
ogryn

ogryn

Well-Known Member
In response to the original comment:

I have been to WDW in '91, '94, '97, '00, '02 and I will continue to go every few years because it is still *magical*. On the last visit though, it just felt different. When I was there I didn't really know the root cause, but on return and some thought, the parks were just not upto the standard that they were in '91 and '94.

Things weren't as clean (in '91 everytime you turned round you would see a sweeper behind you, last time I hardly saw any). Upkeep wasn't as good.

Older attractions were shuttered (Timekeeper), newer attractions were cheap (ie not to the Disney standard. This holiday costs about £1000 just for me, I want something different to what Alton Towers/Thorpe Park can provide me. Points in direction of Dino-Rama).

Re-Done attractions were botched (Imagination) and re-botched with a better budget (Imagination).

Now, how does all this relate to Eisner? Well, he's the one cutting the budgets to keep the bottom line up. All those points which made me question my holiday could just vanish with a few more $$$ thrown that way.

I don't want to have to question what's wrong with WDW, I want to come home having experienced the time of my life (which each previous holiday had provided). That's why I have quoted one specific part of Roy's letter in my sig. That's why I think some new blood with some fresh impetus should head up the WDC, someone who will speculate to accumulate, not play it safe.
 
Shaman

Shaman

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by andre85
I’d recommend you ignore most of the members here as the majority of them seem very bitter; they certainly do not reflect the core of Disney’s audience. Half of the people here have no idea what they’re talking about, and are unable to structure basic thoughts (as evidenced by the abundance of emotions). Do not let them ruin your opinion of Disney as these people have some of the most unbalanced viewpoints I've ever witnessed.
...

Note: Not everyone here is as described, but the most vocal ones certainly are.
Click to expand...

A few things....when you say bitter do you realize that a "bitter" tone is reflected in your own posts

Also, when you say that the members here do not reflect the core of Disney's audience, how do you know for certain what disney's core audience is? (please provide evidence)

I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize for the people who have no idea what they're talking about and can not structure a basic thought...cause you know we don't write, think, post the same things you do...(what a crime I know)...:rolleyes:

Finally when you note that not everyone is as described. Are you telling us that you are among the vocal ones...cause it seems you have alot to say....

WDWMAGIC.COM is a great place full of people with different ideas...it is within everyone's right to take on whatever belief they wish without fear of persecution from people who may think their opposing belief is the right one...and it is not right for people to ridicule those who post their beliefs or those who accept them...if you find the WDWMAGIC.COM enviroment beneath you, I guess you're welcomed to leave...
 
MouseRight

MouseRight

Active Member
Originally posted by prberk
"Contempt"? Did you mean, "content"?
Or was that a Freudian slip? :lookaroun
:animwink:

It truly represented family (as in whole family) entertainment that had heart and soul; NOT the demographics-driven, soulless "franchise machine" that Michael described the Disney Channel as in his speech.
Click to expand...

I think us devoted Disney fans who want to see all "Walt Disney" all the time, have to realize that a Disney Channel focused on classic Disney did not work. TV is a business and when the people don't watch, the programming must change. Sorry, that's a fact of life in the real world. After the poor performance, Disney made a strategic decision to reach a child/teen demographic. While us Walt devotees are frustrated, the channel has done an excellent job of creating some great shows, that are not "Nickelodeon light" (a complaint heard on these boards). The Live action shows (Lizzie McGuire, Even Stevens, So Raven), original movies (the drag race movie with teen girl becoming a drag race champ was a good example), and animated shows like Kim Possible are really good (From a parent's perspective) and have reached the target demographic very well. Doing so, helps Disney reach a new generation who are pelted with cleverly disguised promo after promo for Theme Parks, Disney Movies, etc. My pre-teen watches many hours of the Disney channel and so do her friends. It has respectability in their world.

Time for us old folks (Age 19 to ?) to get over it and let the Disney Channel be what it has become.

Now let's talk about the ABC Family Channel...........
 
Heyyall

Heyyall

New Member
Originally posted by objr
A few things....when you say bitter do you realize that a "bitter" tone is reflected in your own posts

Also, when you say that the members here do not reflect the core of Disney's audience, how do you know for certain what disney's core audience is? (please provide evidence)

I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize for the people who have no idea what they're talking about and can not structure a basic thought...cause you know we don't write, think, post the same things you do...(what a crime I know)...:rolleyes:

Finally when you note that not everyone is as described. Are you telling us that you are among the vocal ones...cause it seems you have alot to say....

WDWMAGIC.COM is a great place full of people with different ideas...it is within everyone's right to take on whatever belief they wish without fear of persecution from people who may think their opposing belief is the right one...and it is not right for people to ridicule those who post their beliefs or those who accept them...if you find the WDWMAGIC.COM enviroment beneath you, I guess you're welcomed to leave...
Click to expand...

Very Well Said! Thank You!:sohappy:
Especially the providing evidence part:animwink:
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom