Attention all Eisner haters...

[mac388]

If people don't understand why Guests don't like Chester and Hester's....it's because it's just plain uhhhhggggllly! It doesn't fit in with the rest of the park and its philosophy.
I personally don't like All-Star or Pop Century either...I think that there is a better way to make value resorts look good without being borderline Hwy. 192/Gatorland type.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by WDWKat26


Think about it too, Treasure Planet was Roy's movie, and it got amazing reviews, yet it wasn't advertised at all...hmm I think that's a no brainer as to why. :hammer:

I thought Treasure Planet was a good, but not great movie. However, do you have facts to support your comments above. I seem to remember that the reviews were mixed, at best and that the pre-release advertising seemed to fit the standard level of all animated movies over the last few years. My memory - After its release, the poor reviews hurt. The movie was quickly shunned by the movie going public and Disney scaled back the remaining advertising campaign and wrote off the movie (A standard practice in the movie/TV business when you release a dud). This happens in all movie companies - there is hope for a great reaction and large crowds and something, somtimes not explainable, kills the film. e.g., Matrix sequels, Couplings on NBC, Pearl Harbor (All the advertising in the world couldn't save that one), Skin on Fox (Great reviews, big advertising during the World Series, bad ratings), etc. etc. etc.

TP was a victim of bad timing, not a great movie, the public had something else they wanted to watch, etc. S- - T happens in this business. You pick yourself up and start all over again. I am not sure I believe these stories that Eisner was out to get Roy so he went above and beyond to kill "his" movie. Sorry, just don't buy it.

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by Lee
Ya wanna know my problem with Eisner?

Here's a quote from his letter to the Cast, dated 12/03/03:

"And we will not be distracted from what has been and must remain our sole focus — delivering growth and shareholder value."

Big F***ing deal! Roy O. Disney (Walt's brother, Roy's father) would have said the same thing! This is not a new argument within the company. There has always been this debate within two camps of opinions within the company. The creative people were called the "Walt" camp, and the business people werew called the "Roy" (Sr.) camp.

The Walt camp cared about ideas and imagination over pratical business principles. The Roy camp cared more about practical sound business principles over new ideas and innovations.

Eisner came into the company claiming to be from the Walt (creative) camp. As it turned out, he was also a great business person. So the creatives who brought him into the company felt betrayed. Of course the Roy (Sr.) camp people felt good with having Eisner, but also thought he was too creative.

So who's right? BOTH. You need a good balance of creativity and business. And as long as this argument continues throughout the company and there are checks and balances, then the company is better off. If the creatives (i.e. the "Walts") have there way, the company could see the most imaginative and expensive attractions, but at a price that could whet the appetite of corporporate raiders. If the accountants (i.e the "Roys") have there way, Disney would lose its magic.

So, the company best be creative but be business savvy at the same time.

 

[PeterAlt]

Re: Re: Attention all Eisner haters...

Originally posted by Dash_Riprock
Eisner completely destroyed Disneyland.

He destroyed Disneyland? Actually, it was Paul Pressler who actually "destroyed" DL in recent years with the cheapness of their new Tomorrowland and California Adventure. Thank God EISNER forced him out.

But, EISNER actually built a BETTER DL (pre-Pressler). How?

Can you say...

Splash Mountain ?
Indiana Jones Adventure ?
Toontown w/ Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin?
Fantasmic! ?
Star Tours ?

Have we forgotten about these?

And after Pressler, Eisner approved...

Twilight Zone Tower of Terror
Space Mountain Version 2.0
Buzz Light Year

In conclusion, Eisner has built a better DL, with the except of short period of time he allowed Paul Pressler to make decisions. With Pressler out, he is again building a better DL.

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by mac388
Walt Disney specifically said that he never wanted to build anything that resembled a carnival.

He might have said that. But look at WALT's original plans for WDW. If you watch the movie he produced before his death outlining HIS plans for Disney World, you will see an area near EPCOT (the city that was never built) with... FERRIS WHEELS, COASTERS, CARNI RIDES!

Yes, that's true. Walt Disney planned a carnival area for Walt Disney World from the very beginning!

 

[MouseRight]

Wow - I don't feel so alone anymore. Looks like the folks who are on the fence or not fully on Roy's side are starting to voice their opinion more on these threads. Good. Just what we need - a Healthy Debate.

I think all of us need to be careful how we quote Walt and how we claim we know for a fact exactly what Walt would have wanted or done. He died many years ago in a different time and place in America's history. Much has happened since then. For example, just because he opposed alcohol back then in a Magic Kingdom setting, doesn't mean that he woudn't eventually have recognized that a park like EPCOT or MGM, with their fancy restaurants lend themselves to it's sale and use. No one knows - so those in charge today make the best dam decision they can and hope that it is right. Oh yeah, EPCOT - wow Walt had alot to say about what EPCOT was suppossed to be. Reality set in and it wasn't built. Based on some of the WWWD (What Would Walt Do) arguments we have been hearing lately, we shoudl hate EPCOT because it is not the EPCOT he wanted. Now we have people on these threads saying that Walt never woudl have killed one of teh EPCOT Dark Rides (e.g., Horizons). Well those dark rides and EPCOT as we know it would never have been built because it wasn't what Walt wanted. They were built because someone took the bold step to modify Walt's vision for teh realities of the current world. The people today are doing thier best to stay true to Walt's legacy but as we get further away from those days and time, the best they will be able to do is create and build the best dam ideas they have and hope that today's world accepts them and finds them fun to attend, watch, particpate, etc.

Finally, as much as the purists insist that "Money be dammed - Do it anyway because its teh right thing to do" Sort of a "Build It and They Will Come" scenario. Well again reality sets in, you can do that only so long before teh moeny runs out. That is why over teh last few years in tough economic times, strategic decisions were made - some like M:S and Expdition Everest are signifiacnt and will push teh envelope the way a new classic ride should. Others like Alladin and Triceratops spin are done for more short term reasons. The parks have always been a mix of E-Ticket and other rides and all they are doing is slowly adding to AK to provide more rides and a better mix. For someone to announce that Walt never woudl have built these rides or cloned his rides (by the way MK is a clone of Dl andwas deisnged by Walt himself) or put them in the setting they are in or not allowed somthing to be done is pure speculation. I am willing to bet that not even Roy is the keeper of that knowledge - quite frankly no one is.

 

[lebernadin]

Great post, Mouseright. :sohappy:

 

[mac388]

Hey Mouseright-
Great debate. From when I was a CM through the Disney Institute, we learned a lot about what Walt did that was great, and ALSO how he had these weird ideas that no one could really understand. I seem to remember one of the historians saying that Walt envisioned EPCOT as being a place where people around the world would live and tourists could watch them! Now really, who would want to take part in that?
I think that there is a lot at Disney that Walt may have agreed upon. However, I definitely doubt that he would have been as bottom line concerned as Eisner is. It's definitely true-it's Eisner's main job to please the shareholders. However, he's really not doing a great job of this either. Stock prices were at their low last week since 1994. Plus, as Roy stated, many people in the industry don't like him. We can't ignore any of these facts.
:sohappy:

 

[Lee]

Only have a second, but I have to jump in...

Walt never said he didn't like carnival rides. His problem with carnivals was 1-the lack of upkeep, and 2-the shady characters who ran them.

Call me crazy, but I sort of like DCA. The problem for me is not what it has, but what it doesn't. (Major dark ride, something to do in Pacific Wharf, etc.) I LOVE Cali Screamin', it's one of the best, and most beautiful coasters I've seen, and I've seen plenty. Soarin' is a classic. Their ToT is going to be excellent.

As for the quote of Eisner's I posted...yes it is a big f.....g deal. Every new CM is told the keys to the kingdom. Efficiency (money)is last in line, far behind Show. True, the financial performance is important for the company, but NEVER at the expense of the magic. Walt knew this, it was his guiding principle. Roy knew it, even though he was primarily the money guy. Eisner KNEW it, but lost it somewhere after DLP.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by mac388

Stock prices were at their low last week since 1994. Plus, as Roy stated, many people in the industry don't like him. We can't ignore any of these facts.

Must correct your stock price reference. Price on Friday is higher than it was in 1994. Check out thsi chart.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DIS&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

The stock price is about where it was in 1996/1997, but much higher than 1992-1994. 2001 to early 2003 were tough years for the price but it has recenttly turned up. The stock price has not been below 1994 levels since then.

 

[brisem]

Mouseright and Peteralt --both of you have some good post. I've never been a CM but I am a shareholder. I have 5k shares for the last 7 years. As far as the stock price, I'm pleased considering the economy right now.

As I stated earlier, the bad choices of sports teams and the Disney Stores are being dealt with right now; (Angels being sold, the Ducks are up for sale, as are the Disney Stores). This frees up some capital.

If anything, this is Eisner make or break year. Those three were money losers. In hindsight we see them as bad investments, but if the succeed, you would be praising him. He took a risk, didn't succeed and is now correcting it. It's a positive step.

My major complaint against Eisner is after Wells passed, he hasn't really "groomed" anyone to succeed him.

As for all the CM complaints about wages. As it was stated earlier--you know when your hired what your pay and responsibilities are. If you take the job-you accepted all terms.

In a perfect world, Disney would allocate the capital from those three sales to upgrading the parks and hiring more CM's.

 

[prberk]

Originally posted by PeterAlt
Big ... deal! Roy O. Disney (Walt's brother, Roy's father) would have said the same thing!

Roy would not have said that growth and shareholder value was the SOLE focus. That is the difference.

How do we know? He spent the last five years of his life getting his little brother Walt's biggest dream, Walt Disney World, off the ground. And spending a lot of money on expensive detail (such as researching the actual type of historical glass used in Colonial Williamsburg for the glass in the Liberty Tree Tavern; and getting Congress to approve the use of the Presidential Seal in the Hall of Presidents -- built with all presidents as Walt had wanted the original Lincoln to be) to get it done.

You were right to emphasize balance, but growth for growth's sake, as Eisner's comment implies, does not nurture a real foundation; and ultimately (and ironically), it causes long-term growth to stall... as the company loses sight of the basics, which brought customers and inspired loyalty in the first place.

Growth should be measured and purposeful. But most of all, a company that trades so heavily on goodwill, must demonstrate it daily or the foundation will crack no matter how many ventures it begins.

Smart growth recognizes valuable investment; and stops "investment" in short-term gains that erode the product and company name overall.

 

[prberk]

Disney Stores

As for the Disney Stores, I still believe in them. I just think they need to be special again:

1. Only one or two per market. They should be a destination location. Few and far between, but accessible in most markets with a little drive.

2. Back to the original product mix, the one that actually worked: adult, collectible merchandise highlighted. Wal-Mart can carry the kiddie stuff. I want to go to the Disney Store to find nice Mickey watches, collectible stuff, and limited editions. You should be able to find most classic Disney DVDs, books, and jewelry, along with shirts, and especially interesting kid stuff. And yes, park passes. People want to buy NICE stuff here as presents for Disney fans; but most of my friends this Christmas found nothing but cheap plush and stupid, unpopular toys....

So, I think Eisner was right to open them, but just like with everything else, he went too far and overextended it. And he made it cheap, in a short-sighted emphasis on short-term profit margin (plush) over return customer loyalty.

 

[JLW11Hi]

Originally posted by brisem

As I stated earlier, the bad choices of sports teams and the Disney Stores are being dealt with right now; (Angels being sold, the Ducks are up for sale, as are the Disney Stores). This frees up some capital.

If anything, this is Eisner make or break year. Those three were money losers. In hindsight we see them as bad investments, but if the succeed, you would be praising him. He took a risk, didn't succeed and is now correcting it. It's a positive step.

I have a feeling that this whole Eisner vs. Roy debate will be a win/win situation in the end...

...If Eisner does step down, then as planned, we might get better management of the company. However, if Eisner does stay, there will be reason for it, and hopefully that with all the success the company has been having lately will bring in enough money for them to start expanding on the animation departments and theme parks.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

well, before i state my opinion, i first have a question for lee. now lee, lemme tell ya right off hand that this is all from what i've seen and read on the net, k? i just don't want to offend you or anyone else with this. but, what makes you say that DCA's ToT will be 'excellent'? from the jpeg photos i've seen on the net, the building doesn't look creepy enough and, well, ugly, imo. and from what i've read, the horizontal room won't even be included in DCA's version (which, imo, was the best part of the ride). now, i'm not trying to get anyone upset...i just want to know if what i've read is true, and what's going to make this version unique in comparison to WDW's version (other than having 3 elevators rather than 2)

now, on to my opinion, for what's it's worth.
i want to see Eisner out. some people on these boards (no one in particular, mind you) complain that things at Disney tend to run their course within 4 - 5 years...and look how long Eisner has been in office. i'd say that he's well past his time to go. yeah, he was great for Disney when he first stepped in, but now he's totally lost the Disney vision. he has definately had a negative effect on the parks, maybe indirectly, maybe directly, who knows? all i know is that he's the boss of the company and he has the power to fix the company...now, whether he'll do it or not is a completely different thing.

i could go through a whole list of stuff that need to be changed, such as merchandise in Disney Stores (less, cheap kiddie stuff, more quality 'older folks' stuff), line-ups for tv stations, attractions in parks, parks in general....but all of that comes down to one thing. quality. i want to see a change in that area of the company. i simply want more of it. that's one of the many differences between Walt and Eisner. Walt didn't concern himself with cost. he was completely focused on his instincts and how to give his audience something they would never forget. he left all the money matters up to his brother. and you know what? Walt let us know verbally that we, the guests, were his major concern, and we believed him because we knew he was a man of his word and we believed in his vision. find any Disney fan and i'd bet that they'd be able to spit out at least one Walt quote! Eisner? i don't have a clue about anything he's ever said...and even if he promised us something 'grand', i wouldn't believe him. here's a comparison for you Lord of the Rings fans out there...to me, Eisner is a mixture of Grima Wormtongue and Lord Denethor. But mostly Lord Denethor :animwink: like Denethor, Eisner is completely greedy for power. while the Disney Company, especially the parks, would be playing the part of the neglected son, Faramir.
anyway...bottom line - quality; we need to see more of it in all departments of the Disney Company. i truely believe that with quality comes results. plain and simple. Walt proved this time and again, and i believe it's timeless.

but the numero uno thing i want to see done for the Disney Company is.... *drum roll please* .......i want to see Walt himself brought back to life and appointed CEO for all eternity...or until the world's end...which ever comes first. boy, i'd love to see the look on Eisner's face when Walt busts through his office doors! :lol: yeah, i know it's only a dream, but what's wrong with dreaming?
and i was only kidding, so if you were thinking about reminding me that Walt isn't frozen and can't be brought back to life, please, spare yourself the trouble. i already know. :animwink:

 

[wdwforus]

Originally posted by niteobsrvr
I don't want to offend anyone here but since I usually manage too anyway .........

If you saw WDW from my perspective you might think quite a number of CM's were over paid given the tiny amount of work they actually accomplish.

There are many great CM's out there who worked their rears off to get the "job" done. But there also quite a number who think Disney owes them the job they have and more and fail to earn an honest days pay.

That is the way it is with most big companies nowadays. I run a crew of 21 for a major defense contractor and of those 21 I have about 6-7 that "carry" the work load. I have 6 newbies who try awful hard and the others I have to spend 75% of my day trying to get some sort of production out of them and prevent them from infecting the the rest with the "this company owes me " attitude.

 

[wdwforus]

Originally posted by grizzlyhall
As for Roy's age...

LAY OFF MICKEY! HE'S 75!

. . . and I believe it doesn't count if you're some type of director or head of a department.

Michael's actions to Roy alone show the weakness of the CEO, not to mention the other damages to the Disney image we've put up with for years.

I dont think the age thing matters...one guy who works in the same area I do at my company just retired last month at 70 and he was the hardest working person in the shop. His supervisor has 23 people working for him and he said that he just lost half his work force. With age comes experience and wisdom.

 

[wdwforus]

Originally posted by SIR90210
Pull out Dino Rama (replace it with a time machine indoor themed launch roller coaster), do whatever needs to be done to makes the CMs happier, they just seemed so depressed and almost angry last time I was at WDW, bigger budgets, and most importantly LESS CLONES!!!

When we went in 2002 I dont think we had one bad experience with a CM other than when we visited the first aid station. We were frustrated at their lack of help but thats not too uncommon with the medical profession these days.

 

[wdwforus]

Originally posted by lebernadin
Great post, Mouseright. :sohappy:

Agreed.

 

[General Grizz]

Originally posted by Dizknee_Phreek
here's a comparison for you Lord of the Rings fans out there...to me, Eisner is a mixture of Grima Wormtongue and Lord Denethor. But mostly Lord Denethor :animwink: like Denethor, Eisner is completely greedy for power. while the Disney Company, especially the parks, would be playing the part of the neglected son, Faramir.

LMAO! Good one! :lol:

Originally posted by prberk
You were right to emphasize balance, but growth for growth's sake, as Eisner's comment implies, does not nurture a real foundation; and ultimately (and ironically), it causes long-term growth to stall... as the company loses sight of the basics, which brought customers and inspired loyalty in the first place.

Growth should be measured and purposeful. But most of all, a company that trades so heavily on goodwill, must demonstrate it daily or the foundation will crack no matter how many ventures it begins.

I couldn't agree more, mes ami.