Bob Iger: "‘We’ve got some pretty exciting things that we’ll be announcing over the next few months"

[Tony Perkis]

Actually it is correct. TWDC ended up paying more for Pixar due directly to the interference created by Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold. Let's not forget that the Comcast hostile takeover attempt was inspired by the idiot nephew as well.

Twenty years earlier Gold and Disney used the same playbook to get rid of Ron Miller and install Eisner. TWDC had to pay greenmail to Saul Steinberg but Roy E. Disney conveniently had resigned from the Disney BoD . Only eleven days after the greenmail was given to Steinberg, the idiot nephew rejoins the Disney BoD.

Roy E. Disney followed in the footsteps of his Uncle Walt in that they both drained as much money from the shareholders as they could. Perhaps Roy wasn't such an idiot nephew after all!

It is absolutely well documented that Eisner believed that Disney did not believe Pixar, and with the value of hindsight looking at the quality and revenue generated from Disney's animated efforts at the time sometime after Hercules, he was wrong. Very wrong. It is further documented that Eisner actively tried to convince the Disney board against the acquisition due to its price and the idea that Pixar's time had passed them by. Both of those holdups proved to be either overinflated or incorrect.

What you are providing is speculation. What I am presenting has been documented or told by first or third party accounts. None of what I'm saying ever originated in my own head.

 

[Admiral01]

If I'm not mistaken, I think Walt himself had the idea for the Utilidors because he didn't want to see cowboys walking through Tomorrowland. Obviously Walt was all excited about the EPCOT City of Tomorrow when it came to the Florida project, but there must have been some indications somewhere that a bigger version of Disneyland was going to be part of the Florida Project while Walt was alive. I don't recall reading that Roy made an utterly autonomous decision to build the Magic Kingdom, but I imagine that's possible. Instead, I assume Walt had told some people somewhere that a new Disneyland should also be included within the 40 square miles of the Florida Project, if for no other reason than that it would bring in huge money to fuel the cutting-edge EPCOT project.

In short, Walt had constant ideas about how to improve Disneyland, and many of those ideas were well documented. Roy and the gang then took those ideas, as well as a bunch of other people's ideas, and incorporated them into the Magic Kingdom after Walt died. No, I don't think there are any artifacts about Walt's specific plans for the Magic Kingdom, but I assume he would have had plenty of ideas once it started getting built, and I certainly think that a new Disneyland was always going to be part of the Florida Project so that people east of the Mississippi River would have a closer Disneyland-type park that was so tremendously successful on the west coast.

Walt's major focus constantly shifted in his career. He was always moving on to the next thing while the old things provided the money to keep the overall organization going through the new frontier. Mickey and Donald made the money to fund Snow White, that then led to the later movies. Those movies then provided the money and characters to fill Disneyland. Disneyland and a few more choice movies like Mary Poppins then provided the money to fund the Florida Project. Throughout all of that later stuff, corporate sponsors at Worlds Fairs provided the opportunities and knowledge for the audio-animatronics and story-telling that permeate all of the parks.

Yet even after he moved on to completely new things, he still kept an eye on the old. During and after Snow White, he still had some involvement in the shorts. During and after Disneyland, he still had some involvement in the movies. During and after the World's Fair animatronics, he still had interest in the movies and Disneyland. During and after Epcot, he would still have had some involvement in the other things, including "Disneyland East", aka, The Magic Kingdom. Remember, during that last broadcast, Walt says that Epcot was "the most exciting part" of the Florida Project, not the entirety of it.

Indeed, had Walt not died, there assuredly would have been a Florida Magic Kingdom that incorporated parts of his Disneyland improvement lists, and his vision would have been all over it.

Quite the opposite. Walt was TOLD by the board of directors that if he wanted Disney Co funding for his E.P.C.O.T. he would NEED to include an east coast version of Disneyland. This was against Walt's wishes. He didn't want to repeat what he already had. However, seeing that the board of directors did infact control his company's money, he included the park that became The Magic Kingdom on later versions of his Florida Project plan. This was obviously all behind closed Disney Co doors. Publicly everyone was all happy with the way the project was planned - hence the 1966 video update for the Florida Plan that showed a carbon copy of Disneyland in the northwest corner of the property.

So, Walt didn't tell anyone he wanted a new Disneyland included in Florida. Conversely, he was told that he would have to build Disneyland East in order to secure company funding for E.P.C.O.T. Certainly E.P.C.O.T. was only to be a piece of the Florida Project, but the Magic Kingdom piece was forced by the board of directors. Walt Disney did not want an east coast version of his beloved Disneyland.

As I said before, the way Walt Disney World turned out was nothing like Walt Disney had ever planned. He wanted a city where he could demonstrate future technology and cultural living. The addition of Magic Kingdom was forced, and was seen by Walt Disney as a means to an end. Nothing more. Then he died...and the rest is re-written, romanticized Disney history.

 

[Viget]

And that's something coming from Jobs considering he was quite the narcissist himself.

Heh, guess it takes one (Jobs) to know one. Jobs was so famously in love with his own ego that when he developed low-grade neuroendocrine cancer of the pancreas (islet-cell tumor), he was in denial about the diagnosis and chose to pursue "alternative treatments" when a simple surgery (partial pancreatectomy) might have cured him. Eventually he had to have a Whipple procedure (what we do for "real" pancreas cancer) which takes the pancreas, the duodenum, part of the stomach, the gall bladder and the bile duct and a bunch of lymph nodes as well, and then reconstructs the upper GI tract. Perhaps that might have been curative, or perhaps it was done because he was Steve Jobs, as a Whipple implies that the cancer likely had spread beyond the pancreas at that point.

What is even MORE galling, is that when the islet cell tumor metastasized to his liver as they are wont to do left untreated, and he continued to refuse standard therapies, that in order to prolong his life, he got a liver transplant. A liver transplant IS NOT a curative option for metastatic low grade neuroendocrine tumor, WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DONE where *I* work, and essentially robbed a person who actually might have benefited from a transplant from a life saving surgery. But I guess when you have the money and prestige as the CEO of Apple did, you get what you want.

So yeah, Steve Jobs had a bit of an ego too. No wonder he and Eisner clashed. I personally agree with those who say that Iger did the right thing here. Yeah, he paid a premium, but without Pixar and Lasseter, Disney would likely be all ESPN and the theme parks might have already been spun off by now.

Oh, and don't take my word for it as a cancer physician, here's a Daily Beast article about Jobs' cancer:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...odox-treatment-for-neuroendocrine-cancer.html

 

[Viget]

Yes, but if anyone had a right to be narcissistic, it was Jobs.

You'd be right in calling I'm every negative name under the sun, but, in the end, he got things done beyond what anyone thought was possible and made people exceed well beyond what they considered to be their own limitations.

If Steve was an a-hole when dealing with Eisner, I'm sure there was good reason and Eisner very obviously undervalued Pixar – what it had meant to TWDCo and what it could mean to it in the future. I'd be ed, too.

See my previous post. Jobs got his comeuppance in the end. He really believed he could warp reality to his vision, unfortunately, cancer does not agree.

I'm not saying the man wasn't a visionary, he was, almost as much as Walt was. Difference was, Walt knew how to work with others and how to relate to the masses, Jobs on the other hand lived in a bubble of his own creation.

He was a task master and I don't think a good mentor. Walt was a task master too, but the people who worked with him loved him and respected him. A few at Apple respected Jobs too, but I think Jobs rankled a lot more the other way.

Also, Walt was a utopian, he yearned for his vision to fundamentally change society, Jobs was in it for himself, a true narcissist. He wanted things done his way, inconvenience to others be damned. Walt, at least, saw the TWDC as more of a family and treated people the right way. At least that's what all the public evidence suggests, perhaps there was a dark side to Walt as well, we'll probably never know.

 

[billDozer]

idt wdi is going to announce anything for awhile cause its seems like if they were to announce something soon they would have done it at d23

 

[HMF]

perhaps there was a dark side to Walt as well, we'll probably never know.

Nearly every human being has a dark side. Walt's dark side in my opinion emerged during the aftermath of the Studio strike. The testifying before HUAC was a rather embarrassing black mark. I can sympathize with why he did that but it was entirely the wrong thing to do.

 

[Clever Name]

It is further documented that Eisner actively tried to convince the Disney board against the acquisition due to its price and the idea that Pixar's time had passed them by.

There is no doubt Disney paid too much for Pixar. 7.4 billion was more than 40 times earnings and Disney all ready owned 85% of the Pixar property. Pixar could not have gone out on its own as some people have suggested nor had any other studio or distributor shown any interest in buying Pixar at such an inflated price. I understand your desire to believe in dreams but facts are stubborn things.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/disney-magic-may-not-have-worked-on-pixar/?_r=0

 

[Ignohippo]

There is no doubt Disney paid too much for Pixar. 7.4 billion was more than 40 times earnings and Disney all ready owned 85% of the Pixar property. Pixar could not have gone out on its own as some people have suggested nor had any other studio or distributor shown any interest in buying Pixar at such an inflated price. I understand your desire to believe in dreams but facts are stubborn things.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/disney-magic-may-not-have-worked-on-pixar/?_r=0

Of course it could have gone out on its own. Please show me where anything states that they couldn't have. Not only could they, but they were more than prepared to.

Also, your opinion piece really shouldn't be the basis for your argument. Even with that piece, they value Pixar at $5.2 billion based on the time that Disney has owned the company.

What about the dividends over the next 20 years?

What about the success of Tangled, and the almost certain success of Frozen (which are both helmed by Lasseter at a rejuvenated WDA)?

And how about the dividends of Lasseter-led WDA over the next 20 years?

What about video games?

What about the $350 million per year Netflix is paying for the broadcast rights to the Disney movies? Do you really think that deal would be worth anything close to that amount without the success of the recent/upcoming Pixar and WDA movies?

 

[Ignohippo]

See my previous post. Jobs got his comeuppance in the end. He really believed he could warp reality to his vision, unfortunately, cancer does not agree.

I'm not saying the man wasn't a visionary, he was, almost as much as Walt was. Difference was, Walt knew how to work with others and how to relate to the masses, Jobs on the other hand lived in a bubble of his own creation.

He was a task master and I don't think a good mentor. Walt was a task master too, but the people who worked with him loved him and respected him. A few at Apple respected Jobs too, but I think Jobs rankled a lot more the other way.

Also, Walt was a utopian, he yearned for his vision to fundamentally change society, Jobs was in it for himself, a true narcissist. He wanted things done his way, inconvenience to others be damned. Walt, at least, saw the TWDC as more of a family and treated people the right way. At least that's what all the public evidence suggests, perhaps there was a dark side to Walt as well, we'll probably never know.

Yes, Jobs was so hated that that's why the people around the Apple campus were seen balling their eyes out the day he came in for his last visit. That's why Lasseter hated him so much. You could just sense the hate during his speech accepting Jobs' award for Disney Legend.

Jobs was brash, no doubt about it. But nearly everyone who incurred his wrath has said that he was right and that they and their product were better because of it.

As for his cancer, he had a right to peruse whatever treatment he wished. It may have been stupid, but that was his right. You have no way of knowing the details of his case or what procedures he did or did not have. People can speculate, but no one knows for sure besides his doctor and his family.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Steve Jobs was an imaginer (not imagineer). Walt Disney was an imaginer AND imagineer. He could and did created what he imagined. Yes, he had talent extenders like Ub Iwerks, but Walt could draw and had a wealth of artists around him. That created the world that Walt imagined. In that way Steve Jobs was like Mr. Disney with the exception that he could only imagine what he wanted, he didn't have the ability to actually engineer or build. Ub Iwerks left, more than once, but Disney continued to survive. Ub was the artistic machine that helped transfer Disney's ideas on paper and enhance them. If it wasn't for Steve Wozniak, right now we would be saying...Steve who? Steve was the front man, the idea man and he had a talent for it, but, like Eisner he was nothing without the quality staff that surrounded him. Like Disney he was able, by accident of birth, to be intuitive about what the public wanted and if they didn't want it, he had the ability to convince them that they did. Worlds greatest salesman might be one of their trophy's.

Yes, Steve brought us a lot of things and created, in mind, many systems that we use today. Eisner only carried on what was started long before him. As the current CEO of Apple is doing now. The two weren't close to being on the same level (Eisner & Jobs). Jobs had sort of a right to have the ego he had...I'm not sure Eisner qualified. Walt Disney himself would have had them both on their knees yelling..."I'm not worthy!

 

[Clever Name]

Of course it could have gone out on its own. Please show me where anything states that they couldn't have. Not only could they, but they were more than prepared to.

Jobs announced in 2004 that he was seeking partners other than Disney. Almost two years went by and Pixar didn't even talk to another studio or distributor. It was clearly bravado on the part of Jobs. Jobs had no serious interest in distributing his own films nor striking a deal with another film distributor. His lack of action after declaring he was seeking new partners proves it was all a not so clever ruse on his part.

Also, you opinion piece really shouldn't be the basis for your argument. Even with that piece, they value Pixar at $5.2 billion based on the time that Disney has owned the company.

Excellent point! Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Disney owned all the movies (characters, sequel rights, etc.) that Pixar made up to and including Cars. That is the crux of the deal. Why should Disney have to pay for what they all ready owned?

Clearly Iger paid a premium for Pixar. At the time of the purchase several hedge fund managers stated that the price Disney paid for Pixar was too high. But they also said it was the right thing to do because otherwise Pixar might be purchased by another studio. In the "wrong hands" Pixar would become a powerful competitor for Disney.

The problem with that scenario is that no other studio had expressed any interest in buying Pixar for such as inflated price. After all, what would they get for 7.4 million dollars? They wouldn't get any of the seven previous films made by Pixar because Disney owned all of them. They'd get a piece of Ratatouille and the joy of having to work with Steve Jobs. It's no wonder that no other studio was interested in a deal with Pixar.

 

[JimboJones123]

"We've got some pretty exciting things that we'll be announcing in the 21st Century!"

 

[Magenta Panther]

It is absolutely well documented that Eisner believed that Disney did not believe Pixar, and with the value of hindsight looking at the quality and revenue generated from Disney's animated efforts at the time sometime after Hercules, he was wrong. Very wrong. It is further documented that Eisner actively tried to convince the Disney board against the acquisition due to its price and the idea that Pixar's time had passed them by. Both of those holdups proved to be either overinflated or incorrect.

What you are providing is speculation. What I am presenting has been documented or told by first or third party accounts. None of what I'm saying ever originated in my own head.

I hate to get personal, but frankly, Clever Name's hobby seems to be to hate on Disney. It's like a personal vendetta. He takes anecdotes, speculation and partial facts to spin everything about Walt into a downward spiral. To him, Walt was a sleazeball thief and Roy Jr. is the "idiot nephew". He's this site's Seth McFarlane. I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with him.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Nearly every human being has a dark side. Walt's dark side in my opinion emerged during the aftermath of the Studio strike. The testifying before HUAC was a rather embarrassing black mark. I can sympathize with why he did that but it was entirely the wrong thing to do.

Well, there's this: Communists really were trying to infiltrate and influence Hollywood. In the book "Son of Groucho", Arthur Marx, Groucho's son, told of the time Communist Party members tried to get Groucho to join - they'd had success recruiting other stars. Dorothy Parker, the famous writer, also talked about Communist infiltration and recruiting. The Red Menace was not made up; it really happened. The HUAC was a reaction to reality, but yeah, it turned into a witch hunt and hurt innocent people. As for Walt, his ire was mostly directed at Herb Sorrell, a Union bully who was a real piece of work. He always maintained that he was not a Communist - but admitted that he did accept money from the Communist Party. You can read the transcript of Walt's testimony before HUAC here. It's pretty interesting - and informative. http://cla.calpoly.edu/legacies/rsimon/rsimonsite/Hum410/DisneyHUAC.htm

 

[TP2000]

As for Walt, his ire was mostly directed at Herb Sorrell, a Union bully who was a real piece of work. He always maintained that he was not a Communist - but admitted that he did accept money from the Communist Party. You can read the transcript of Walt's testimony before HUAC here. It's pretty interesting - and informative. http://cla.calpoly.edu/legacies/rsimon/rsimonsite/Hum410/DisneyHUAC.htm

Thank you! Walt's testimony when called before Congress and the House Un-American Activities Committee is a really enjoyable and interesting read for students of history and students of Walt Disney.

It's easy for us to say 65 years later "Oh, Walt shouldn't have testified when the government asked him to.", but at the time it was exactly the right thing for Walt to do and his testimony on the influence of Communists in Hollywood was useful. It also helps to remember that Walt was a life-long staunch Republican who abhorred Communism, so of course he would want to share about his personal experiences when his government asked him to.

And honestly, what American citizen would willingly disobey an instruction by the federal government to testify before a House committee? And what public citizen, like Walt Disney or Bill Gates or Elon Musk, would be able to publicly refuse that request at the time?

 

[FrankLapidus]

Jobs announced in 2004 that he was seeking partners other than Disney. Almost two years went by and Pixar didn't even talk to another studio or distributor. It was clearly bravado on the part of Jobs. Jobs had no serious interest in distributing his own films nor striking a deal with another film distributor. His lack of action after declaring he was seeking new partners proves it was all a not so clever ruse on his part.

He didn't need to, he just needed to sit tight and wait for Eisner's outsized ego and arrogance to seal his downfall at Disney.

Jobs met with Roy E. Disney in 2002 and told him that he would never agree to another deal while Eisner was in charge. They had to meet in secret because of Eisner's paranoia; I'm sure you're aware that by this point anyone within Disney who spoke to Roy had to report the details of the conversation back to Eisner and he was forcing the removal of board members like Andrea Van de Kamp who dared to speak against him. Jobs and Roy were pretty much in agreement that Eisner had to go.

Its worth noting that Roy and Stanley Gold were surprised at the terms that Pixar had wanted in a new deal with Disney but Eisner could have prevented that if he had done a deal earlier. He didn't and so the Pixar hits began to mount up (Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo) along with Disney animation's failures (Treasure Planet, Atlantis), leading Pixar to want more because they recognised their worth to TWDC. The only person who couldn't see this was Michael Eisner. While 'Treasure Planet' had been written off and cost the company millions, 'Finding Nemo' had earned nearly a billion dollars and been nominated for four Academy Awards.

Jobs told Dick Cook that he was breaking off negotiations with Disney and then called Roy, telling him that Disney and Pixar were logical partners but a deal was not possible while Eisner was in charge. Roy promised that the two companies would do a deal once "the Wicked Witch is dead" and so all Jobs and Pixar had to do was wait for the ouster of Michael Eisner and then they would get everything that they wanted and more. Eisner's arrogance played straight into the hands of SaveDisney and the breakdown of the relationship with Pixar only accelerated his removal.

You can take all the snide little digs at Jobs and Roy that you want, when all is said and done who played their hand the best and came out of this situation smelling of roses: them or Michael Eisner?

 

[Clever Name]

Well, there's this: Communists really were trying to infiltrate and influence Hollywood. In the book "Son of Groucho", Arthur Marx, Groucho's son, told of the time Communist Party members tried to get Groucho to join - they'd had success recruiting other stars. Dorothy Parker, the famous writer, also talked about Communist infiltration and recruiting. The Red Menace was not made up; it really happened. The HUAC was a reaction to reality, but yeah, it turned into a witch hunt and hurt innocent people. As for Walt, his ire was mostly directed at Herb Sorrell, a Union bully who was a real piece of work. He always maintained that he was not a Communist - but admitted that he did accept money from the Communist Party. You can read the transcript of Walt's testimony before HUAC here. It's pretty interesting - and informative. http://cla.calpoly.edu/legacies/rsimon/rsimonsite/Hum410/DisneyHUAC.htm

You might also want to read about how Walt Disney hired a known mobster, racketeer and blackmailer (Willie Bioff) to "settle" the 1941 strike:

http://babbittblog.com/2013/05/18/technicolor-sides-with-strikers/

http://deneroff.com/blog/2011/06/22...-a-picket-the-disney-strike-70-years-later-2/

 

[TP2000]

You can take all the snide little digs at Jobs and Roy that you want, when all is said and done who played their hand the best and came out of this situation smelling of roses: them or Michael Eisner?

Bingo.

What is also quite telling is the public divorce of Eisner and Disney. Eisner is alive and well and still working in Hollywood. But he is unseen and unheard from in the Disney universe.

10/6/2005 - BURBANK, Calif. (AP) — Michael Eisner, who stepped down as chief executive of The Walt Disney Co. (DIS) last week, has resigned his seat on the company's board of directors, the company said in a document filed Thursday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In a surprise move, Eisner and the company have cut all ties. Eisner will not serve as a consultant as he had been entitled to do under his employment agreement. Eisner "no longer provides any services" for Disney, the filing said.

 

[Clever Name]

He didn't need to, he just needed to sit tight and wait for Eisner's outsized ego and arrogance to seal his downfall at Disney.

Jobs met with Roy E. Disney in 2002 and told him that he would never agree to another deal while Eisner was in charge. They had to meet in secret because of Eisner's paranoia; I'm sure you're aware that by this point anyone within Disney who spoke to Roy had to report the details of the conversation back to Eisner and he was forcing the removal of board members like Andrea Van de Kamp who dared to speak against him. Jobs and Roy were pretty much in agreement that Eisner had to go.

Its worth noting that Roy and Stanley Gold were surprised at the terms that Pixar had wanted in a new deal with Disney but Eisner could have prevented that if he had done a deal earlier. He didn't and so the Pixar hits began to mount up (Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo) along with Disney animation's failures (Treasure Planet, Atlantis), leading Pixar to want more because they recognised their worth to TWDC. The only person who couldn't see this was Michael Eisner. While 'Treasure Planet' had been written off and cost the company millions, 'Finding Nemo' had earned nearly a billion dollars and been nominated for four Academy Awards.

Jobs told Dick Cook that he was breaking off negotiations with Disney and then called Roy, telling him that Disney and Pixar were logical partners but a deal was not possible while Eisner was in charge. Roy promised that the two companies would do a deal once "the Wicked Witch is dead" and so all Jobs and Pixar had to do was wait for the ouster of Michael Eisner and then they would get everything that they wanted and more. Eisner's arrogance played straight into the hands of SaveDisney and the breakdown of the relationship with Pixar only accelerated his removal.

You can take all the snide little digs at Jobs and Roy that you want, when all is said and done who played their hand the best and came out of this situation smelling of roses: them or Michael Eisner?

You have made my point for me. As I stated, it was the intervention of Roy E. Disney and Stanley Gold that directly caused the Pixar terms and price to become unreasonable. They undermined TWDC in the same fashion as their company Shamrock Holdings specialized in weakening other companies in pursuit of hostile takeovers.

There was certainly a tenacious struggle for power between Eisner and Roy E. Disney and of course the idiot nephew won in the end. TWDC ended up paying the price by having to pay a high premium for Pixar.

You say its all Eisner's fault. I say the fault is shared among all players and that the idiot nephew shares a larger burden of the blame. Let's not forget that the shareholders ended up paying the price for this entire little game.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

It also helps to remember that Walt was a life-long staunch Republican

Read Who's Afraid of Song of the South to learn more about that topic. You'll find out the while he later would say that, in parctice, he himself wasn't always one, and certainly not his dad.