BREAKING NEWS Eisner Is Out!!!

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by joefox97

That being said, I have to give my two cents on the topic of shareholder value. Personally, I don't give a damn about shareholder value. I think that should be of secondary concern, if it's a concern at all. The profits the company make should be re-invested back into making the company more profitable. People who hold Disney stock should hold it as a long-term valuation stock, not a short-term money-making profiteering stock. This company was founded on principles of making magic, not money. That should be why people hold it. Does that mean institutional investors like CalPERS and others should ditch their stock? Not necessarily -- but they need to understand that Disney isn't any other company. It's not a Microsoft, Apple or Dell. It's a public company, but with a largely private-company mentality (or at least it used to be). When Walt made a decision -- that was the decision. The shareholders trusted him to make the decision that was ultimately in their best interest. Obviously, the same can't be said about Michael... the shareholders have demonstrated their mistrust of his management.

Those are my two cents... take them for what they're worth, and feel free to challenge me on any points.

Okay, as someone in investment banking, I have to point out that what you posted makes no sense. If... and I emphasize IF... Disney did not want to have to focus on Shareholder value as a primary concern, they should never have gone public... NEVER!

And seeing as no one could take a beast this size private, shareholder value will remain the primary concern.

As for the expectation of shareholders holding the stock for reasons other than making money... it's absurd!

First off, Disney stock pays a very low dividend -- therefore, we can assume the plowback ratio is high... leading to the growth of the company. No one will try to make short term gains on Disney stock. It's so non-volitile. With a Beta value barely greater than 1, the lack of strong movement means you can only make money in the long term.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by Disney2002
Okay, as someone in investment banking, I have to point out that what you posted makes no sense. If... and I emphasize IF... Disney did not want to have to focus on Shareholder value as a primary concern, they should never have gone public... NEVER!

And seeing as no one could take a beast this size private, shareholder value will remain the primary concern.

As for the expectation of shareholders holding the stock for reasons other than making money... it's absurd!

First off, Disney stock pays a very low dividend -- therefore, we can assume the plowback ratio is high... leading to the growth of the company. No one will try to make short term gains on Disney stock. It's so non-volitile. With a Beta value barely greater than 1, the lack of strong movement means you can only make money in the long term.

Disney went public many many many years ago, before Wall St. made its focus short term. Wall St.'s "What have you done for me this quarter" focus is fairly recent in Disney's and the Market's long history.

Joefox wasn't saying that they should hold for other reasons. I belive Joefox was saying that a Company like Disney needs a different focus - long term asset appreciation and not short term gains.

I don't agree with you that no one will try to make short term gains on Disney. With today's online computer & program trading it is very easy for large and small shareholders to make money on short term gains and losses. Someone is trading Disney stock every day and it's not just those selling their long positions.

Plain and simple - Investors today want gains in value every day/quarter, not just over the long haul. Disney should be viewed as a long haul company.

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by MouseRight
Disney went public many many many years ago, before Wall St. made its focus short term. Wall St.'s "What have you done for me this quarter" focus is fairly recent in Disney's and the Market's long history.

Joefox wasn't saying that they should hold for other reasons. I belive Joefox was saying that a Company like Disney needs a different focus - long term asset appreciation and not short term gains.

I don't agree with you that no one will try to make short term gains on Disney. With today's online computer & program trading it is very easy for large and small shareholders to make money on short term gains and losses. Someone is trading Disney stock every day and it's not just those selling their long positions.

Plain and simple - Investors today want gains in value every day/quarter, not just over the long haul. Disney should be viewed as a long haul company.

First, find me a day trader who works off Disney stock and who isn't living in a barrel, and I'll be amazed.


Also, speaking of Wall Street as an entity that independently determined longitude of focus is foolish. We're talking about markets here. Markets have one concern. Making money. A company goes public and starts trading on these markets... guess what... your focus becomes money.


All this talk about "Isn't it a shame that shareholders don't care about the magic" is totally unrealistic. If you own a couple thousand shares for the 'magic' -- great... if that does it for you. However, it's like sticking your money in a pretty mattress.

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by Disney2002

Also, speaking of Wall Street as an entity that independently determined longitude of focus is foolish. We're talking about markets here. Markets have one concern. Making money. A company goes public and starts trading on these markets... guess what... your focus becomes money.


All this talk about "Isn't it a shame that shareholders don't care about the magic" is totally unrealistic. If you own a couple thousand shares for the 'magic' -- great... if that does it for you. However, it's like sticking your money in a pretty mattress.

What island do you live on? You are taking my comments too literally. Am I the first one in your career as an invetsmet banker that has described Wall St in this way? Why, you can't watch CNBC or read the paper without someone talking about the Markets as an entity. "What will Wall St do in reaction to....? "Wall St. has already anticpated the increase in EPS in the share price." "Wall St will not accept Disney not firing Eisner immediately" Give me a break.

Now that I got that out of my system, I'll be more polite. I believe, you're missing our point. The investment community in general (is that better?) has a focus on what the company did today or this quarter. They are absorbed in daily and minute changes in stock prices. Look at the ticker on the bottom of the TV Screen. Read all of the press releases. Listen to the questions at the press conferences. I have been on the Corporate side for 28 years. The perception on this side is exactly what I have said. You can't explain a bad quarter away by telling them how these investments will take 2 years to show results. They then ask - so what are you gonna do in the mean time to get the EPS up? If you try to tell them that it will take time they go on TV and tell everyone how you are screwing up. Forget about economic impacts on a company's earnings - like 9/11. During the last 2 years all you heard was how many people are you gonna lay off, what cuts are you gonna make, what products (read this as sequels) can you get out quickly to offset it and increase the EPS. In Disney's case this attitude and the Company's reaction to it was devastating to the long term focus, vision and growth of the company (read this as "Magic"). Cause without the "Magic" there isn't a Disney Company. Magic is its product.

 

[daksimba]

Originally posted by Disney2002
First, find me a day trader who works off Disney stock and who isn't living in a barrel, and I'll be amazed.

:wave: :wave:


Why the hell do you think we want Eisner out? :hammer:

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by daksimba
:wave: :wave:


Why the hell do you think we want Eisner out? :hammer:

You want Eisner out to increase the volatility of Disney stock relative to market indexes? You sure about that? :brick:

 

[amejr999]

Anyone have the results for the remainder of the proposals? (the independent auditors and the 3 shareholder proposals)

Thanks.

 

[joefox97]

Originally posted by Disney2002
Okay, as someone in investment banking, I have to point out that what you posted makes no sense. If... and I emphasize IF... Disney did not want to have to focus on Shareholder value as a primary concern, they should never have gone public... NEVER!

And seeing as no one could take a beast this size private, shareholder value will remain the primary concern.

As for the expectation of shareholders holding the stock for reasons other than making money... it's absurd!

First off, Disney stock pays a very low dividend -- therefore, we can assume the plowback ratio is high... leading to the growth of the company. No one will try to make short term gains on Disney stock. It's so non-volitile. With a Beta value barely greater than 1, the lack of strong movement means you can only make money in the long term.

I agree with you 100% that Disney should never have gone public. Had Disney remained a privately-held company, they could've stuck with their core values and not gone the way of all other public companies: whoring themselves out for the almighty dollar.

As far as people not owning Disney stock for reasons other than financial, you are wrong. I provide ancedotal evidence to the contrary: If I held Disney stock, it would be because it means I own a piece of the Magic and that I can cast my vote about MY company is going to do business. The only reason I don't is because I can't afford it at the moment... but the time will come. And I've had the opportunity in the past several days to speak with several like-minded individuals who hold the Disney stock for the same reason. One person specifically said, "I don't hold Disney stock for money. I have an entire other portfolio for that. My Disney stock is special because it's Disney." So on that point, you're wrong. This is a different company, and the "normal" investors can take it or leave it.

To your last point, I think that's exactly how the Disney stock should work. Low dividends means you will get the type of investors who are interested in a long haul. You don't get day trader types as often (but there are some) trying to turn a quick buck. But the message goes farther than that. The ideal is that Disney should reinvest the money they make from doing business into doing business and their community better. They haven't been doing that -- no public company has. They've been working to keep the shareholders happy. My point is -- the shareholders should be last concern.

When you go to Walt Disney World, there are four quality standards. They are Safety, Courtesy, Show and Efficiency. They are put in order of importance. Above all else is (or should be as Cynthia Harriss, et al. learned in cutting Disneyland's maintenance budgets and personnel too short) Safety. Courtesy is an important second. Show is imperative. The show must go on, and it must be awesome. To quote Lee Cockerell "Show is defined as: 'We deliver flawless and professional presentations every day, for every Guest.'" That means spending the money to make sure that that is there.

The very last quality standard is efficiency. There's a reason for it being last. As long as we're doing the other three, we'd like for as many people to experience it as possible. There are revenue reasons for this, but also practical reasons -- no one wants to stand in line for 3 hours to ride Space Mountain, so we need to do our job expediously while maintaing the quality of the other three standards.

I propose a similar system for the managing of the company. It seems very simple and it may be oversimplifying things -- but in the end, it really all is simple. Keep the customer satisfied and they keep coming back. The first tier would be re-investing back into the company to keep it working and innovating. No more cutbacks just to keep shareholder value up. If cuts are necessary due to business reasons like they aren't pulling their weight (i.e. executive management), then you cut them and do what's necessary to fix it.

Second is investing back into the community. Disney has long been a good steward to the communities they operate in donating volunteer time -- but there is always more to be done. Also, there are still concerns about child labor and other labor violations of Disney products being made in unsafe conditions -- these are business AND community issues -- Disney needs to be a good steward of the good fortune they've received and not exploit anyone or anything.

Heritage should be third. Disney, as a company, should do nothing to decrease the value of it's image. Perhaps this one might even ought to be first. It's value to the company is real and long-term. It can't be bought or sold. This is a moral imperative if Disney wants to stay "Disney."

LAST should be the stockholder value. If all the rest are working, then by all means, let's turn some money back to the people who are making it happen. If they get a few pennies back a year, that's great. If they do much better, that's awesome too -- because it means everything else is working like it should be... and it means the company is successful. The important thing is that the company will be successful without sacrificing the quality of the show. That's what's important. Money is of secondary concern.

Thoughts?

 

[Mr. Tom Morrow]

Someone earlier asked about the total number of shares owed by the Board of Directors. According to the companies proxy statement, as of Jan. 16, 2004 the following board members owned ……

Bryson, John E 1,500
Chen, John S 5,793
Eisner, Michael D 13,933,808
Estrin, Judith L 24,616
Iger, Robert A 44,905
Lewis, Aylwin B 1,100
Lozano, Monica C 1,057
Matschullat, Robert W 8,000
Mitchell, George J 5,100
O’Donovan, Leo J 0
Wilson, Gary L 3,000

The total number of shares owned by directors and executive officers (16 people) is 15,753,085 which represent less than 1% of the total outstanding stock.

Interesting fact, no one individual including institutional and mutual fund holders own more than 5% of the companies stock.

Here are some other fun facts from the shareholders meeting. Approximately 87% of the outstanding shares were voted on at the meeting, a very high percentage. The following are the approximate percentage of no votes for each Director….

43.4% Eisner, Michael D
22.5% Mitchell, George J
22.5% Estrin, Judith L
22.3% Bryson, John E
15.9% O’Donovan, Leo J
15.8% Lozano, Monica C
15.8% Matschullat, Robert W
15.3% Wilson, Gary L
15.8% Iger, Robert A
14.2% Chen, John S
12.9% Lewis, Aylwin B

Approximately 93.4% voted in favor of retaining Price Waterhouse. 1,668,407,159 votes
Approximately 5.3% voted in favor of proposal #3. 93,563,930 votes
Approximately 21.1% voted in favor of proposal #4. 375,172,466 votes
Approximately 6.8% voted in favor of proposal #5. 121,176,296 votes

 

[Disney2002]

Originally posted by joefox97
I agree with you 100% that Disney should never have gone public. Had Disney remained a privately-held company, they could've stuck with their core values and not gone the way of all other public companies: whoring themselves out for the almighty dollar....

.......LAST should be the stockholder value. If all the rest are working, then by all means, let's turn some money back to the people who are making it happen. If they get a few pennies back a year, that's great. If they do much better, that's awesome too -- because it means everything else is working like it should be... and it means the company is successful. The important thing is that the company will be successful without sacrificing the quality of the show. That's what's important. Money is of secondary concern.

Thoughts?

Kudos! That's the argument I've been waiting for!

 

[MouseRight]

Originally posted by joefox97


Thoughts?

Joefox that was a very well thought out and insightful analysis of what Disney means to us and what it should strive to be. As to Wall St. (Oh no there I go again) buying into it, I repeat what I said earlier - "Not gonna happen anytime soon" - for all of the reasons I have stated above. However, you did a wonderful job of making our case.

Here's an interesting artcile from AP which is I believe shows what has been fundamentally wrong with this entire Save Disney Campaign. It also frustrates me that the people who supported Roy think that because Wall St/Investment funds/pension funds backed Roy and voted No, that they are on Roy's side and see it the way Roy does. They don't. Some used it for political purposes - State Treasurer's, CALPERS, etc. Listen to teh pundits on CNBC, they don't talk about teh Disney legacy or Magic. They have differnet priorities than the ones you mention above. Basically one - money and how quick and how much you can make it for them.
---------------------
Associated Press
Eisner Focus May Mask Bigger Disney Issue
Friday March 5, 4:23 pm ET
By Gary Gentile, AP Business Writer
Focus on Eisner May Have Masked Bigger Issue: Does Disney Need to Be Fixed?


NEW YORK (AP) -- At least 1,000 shareholders gathered in Philadelphia this week stood and cheered when Roy E. Disney called for the removal of Disney Co. boss Michael Eisner. But during the nearly three hours senior Disney executives took to outline their plans for growth, many shareholders abandoned the hall to sip coffee and wait for what they came for -- to see how many people would withhold their votes from Eisner as Roy Disney had asked them to.

That disconnect is frustrating to Disney executives who feel the campaign to oust Eisner is clouding what should be the real story -- the company's strength in film, theme parks, cable TV and even its ABC television network, where sports, soap operas and kids shows are thriving despite the notable lack of success in prime time.

"Lost in the circus in Philadelphia were some truly substantial theme park numbers" from Disney's most recent quarter, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Tom Wolzien wrote in a research note.

Theme park attendance is up 14 percent this quarter from the same time a year ago, Disney chief financial officer Tom Staggs reported.

However, while the company wants to challenge what it sees as distortions coming from the anti-Eisner camp, it is extremely reluctant to take on Roy Disney directly because of his iconic name and loyal following. (He is Walt Disney's nephew.)

Even Eisner, who was stripped of his chairman's title this week and could still lose his job as CEO, has been careful to emphasize his company's recently rising stock price and earnings instead of directly attacking Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, another ex-board member who campaigned to oust Eisner.

Disney's stock has risen about 60 percent since January 2003, although it still is far below the highs reached in the mid 1990s, closing Friday at $26.48. It has continued to rise in the wake of an unsolicited bid by cable television giant Comcast Corp., an all-stock offer originally valued at $54 billion on Feb. 11.

Disney Co. has predicted earnings per share to rise 30 percent in 2004 and double digit earnings growth through 2007.

But critics say that even if those goals are achieved, earnings will still be below where they were eight years ago.

While Gold and Roy Disney have been prolific in pointing out what is wrong at the company, they have offered few concrete suggestions for change, other than Eisner's dismissal.

Roy Disney in particular often urges his supporters to help him "restore the magic," a phrase rich in nostalgia, but lacking in detail.

"We need to install a new management team, one that understands and believes in the enormously valuable legacy that's been entrusted to us," Roy Disney said at the shareholders meeting.

But Roy Disney himself is not interested in taking on a management role, despite the fact that an early version of a bumper sticker produced by his "SaveDisney" campaign read: "Goodbye Michael -- Bring Back Roy."

When asked who should be leading the company, both Roy Disney and Gold say they have some people in mind, but decline to name them.

"If Mr. Eisner were to resign from the company, the line for this job would be around the block," Gold said this week.

At the same press conference, Gold also alluded to the underlying personal animosity between Eisner and Roy Disney, which is as much a part of the current debate as the company's financial performance.

"In November, they fired the boss," Gold said when asked what precipitated the "SaveDisney" campaign. "They fired Roy."

The 74-year-old Roy Disney resigned Nov. 30, a few weeks after learning he would not be renominated for another board term because he was past the mandatory retirement age of 72.

That animosity also came through when Roy Disney, asked at a rally of his supporters how they could help the cause, quipped, "If we had enough rifles, this would have been over a long time ago."

After a few seconds of nervous laughter and some gasps from the crowd, Disney countered: "I didn't say that."

The reluctance of the "SaveDisney" campaign to get specific has also frustrated financial analysts, many of whom say that Disney's underlying businesses are sound.

"Emotion or hard facts, or does it really matter at this point?" wrote Paul Kim, an analyst at Tradition Asiel Securities, after attending the Disney shareholders meeting.

Kim said Disney's real problem is the cyclical nature of its businesses, operating in a competitive environment with other large media companies.

"The `dirty little secret' is that the company did a lot of things right," Kim wrote. "The `we can run it better' argument still rings hollow to us as it is easy to point out fault using perfect hindsight."

Ultimately, the call to "restore the magic" may hold more sway with Roy Disney's supporters than any financial argument the company can make. Supporters such as 22-year-old Jen Dziekan of Longmeadow, Mass., who owns four shares of Disney stock.

"I didn't buy it for the five cents you gave me, the 33 cents you gave me or the $1 you're going to give me in the future," she said when she got the chance to question Eisner at the company's annual meeting.

"I love feeling the magic."

 

[prberk]

MouseRight, I understand your concerns and the arguments in the article you posted.

But I want to point out what I think that author did not see, especially concerning Roy and Stan's "lack of specifics."

Roy and Stan's specifics have been about the series of management decisions that Eisner directly made that cost the company lots of money (Katzenburg, Ovitz, Roth, etc.), but more important, made the company into an expensive training ground for talent that gets trained and leaves. This is hard to quantify, it IS SPECIFIC to why Michael Eisner's management style has become a problem. He has developed a track record of being hard to work for, and the best talent will not necessarily want to work for him.

They have also pointed out, specifically, the long-term diminution of value that comes from sacrificing long-term investment in characters and quality film products by producing so many cheap sequels. The name begins to lose its lustre, and the return business is slowly eroded from new product. It is short-term gain that effects long-term erosion. This point was also made with the concept of squeezing every dime out of park guests, while not keeping up the high quality and maintenance: they will spend it that time, but are less likely to return over time if they do not sense value for their dollar. Roy and Stan referred to this as Walt's idea of "sending them home with a dime in their pocket." The specific value and idea here is that the return business is infinitely more valuable than getting the last dime on their first (and possibly last) visit. Repeat customers are cheaper to keep than new ones are to allure.

They have also pointed out, specifically, the "institution think" that has come to put "branding" (a business school concept) over character and production of goods and services. This marketing concept, good on one level, can be taken too far and once again cause erosion in long-term value. Marketing should not drive, but rather ACCOMMODATE the true goods and services of the company. Roy was pointing out that the concept of "branding" is meant for otherwise nondescript commodities (like cattle, his specific example), and that instead the marketers at Disney need to study and treat the products and services of this company as the special and UNIQUE products that they either ARE or are perceived to bring to people. The continued value of the Disney name is what is eroded here when treated too straightforwardly like a cheap commodity.

And one final specific: Names for a successor. Roy and Stan said on "Nightline" that they had 5-10 specific names that they would be willing to share with the board if asked; but not outwardly in public. This is obviously the only way to "be specific" on names. You do not recruit people publicly.

So, that is why I do not like the arguments saying Roy and Stan have not been specific with their criticisms or vision. They have been, but not just in a quantifyable way.

The company is doing well, but could be better. And they saw some rotting in the foundation. They are trying to fix it BEFORE it falls down. No good way to do this, but everyone should agree that when people see a problem, the best time to fix it is when things are relatively strong, BEFORE it makes anything worse.

 

[JediDisney]

Originally posted by MKCustodial

Personally, I like Katzenberg, cause he's been part of Disney so he knows how stuff is supposed to work. [/B]

I've been a shareholder for 24 years and was in Philly on Wednesday, which was interesting to say the least. I personally voted against Eisner because of his performance since Wells' death in 1994. The team in of Eisner and Wells worked so well for ten years because Wells remined Eisner that he had a heart.

As far as putting Katzenberg in, that would be like replacing Eisner with Eisner. Not a good idea.

 

[lebernadin]

Originally posted by prberk

But I want to point out what I think that author did not see, especially concerning Roy and Stan's "lack of specifics."

Roy and Stan's specifics have been about the series of management decisions that Eisner directly made that cost the company lots of money (Katzenburg, Ovitz, Roth, etc.), but more important, made the company into an expensive training ground for talent that gets trained and leaves. This is hard to quantify, it IS SPECIFIC to why Michael Eisner's management style has become a problem. He has developed a track record of being hard to work for, and the best talent will not necessarily want to work for him.

I think the Ovitz, Katzenberg situations were a mess, plain and simple. Seeing the packages they were given.....ugh.
But as far as your point that Disney has become a training ground for talent that eventually leaves, what company/firm DOESN'T suffer from this? Its also presumptious to blame it all on the CEO. Most people leave for better offers elsewhere. My mother's firm recruits MIT grads to work as technology specialists and reimburses them while they go to Harvard Law. Many of them leave the firm for greener pastures within a year of passing the bar. They are well-compensated as junior associates, but some people just see where they sowed their oats as just a step in the chain.

And one final specific: Names for a successor. Roy and Stan said on "Nightline" that they had 5-10 specific names that they would be willing to share with the board if asked; but not outwardly in public. This is obviously the only way to "be specific" on names. You do not recruit people publicly.

This is anything but a typical corporate recruiting situation. These are former board members of a corporation who are lobbying for new management. The current board isn't the camp that wants new management, they're confident in Eisner. Therefore the author in this article was correct in pointing out this lack of progression in the savedisney campaigns argument. The board isn't obligated to entertain their supposed list of 5-10 names. As a result, it would behoove them to make that list public and put the, now, public ball in the board's court. What is the purpose of vailing it in secrecy as if its a wild card of sorts? The only thing i can think of is that the list includes some names that would damage the solidarity of the savedisney campaign if those who support Roy and Stan don't see eye to eye with their suggestions.

 

[Pat X]

Great article Mouseright, thanks for posting it.

The lack of specifics offered by Roy and Co. is definitely hurting their case with me. There comes a point when you need to hear specifics or they both just start to sound like whiners.

Here is an example of what I want to know from Roy: A lot of Disney fans complain about the animated sequals, direct to video and otherwise, would Roy discontinue them? If so, would he layoff all of those animators? If he does want to end the sequals (which I am for) what will be his answer to Wall Street when the insitutional investors demand to know how he will replace the lost cash flow from those titles that are actually very profitable for the company?

Unlike the CEO question, this is a topic he could address if he wanted to.

Additionally, a lot of Disney fans dislike former theme park chief Paul Pressler because of his budget cuts and for supposedly building DCA "on the cheap." This was one of Roy's main complaints about the current Disney company. HOWEVER, Roy includes Paul as a critical executive lost as part of the "brain drain" from Disney. So, there seems to be a conflict with Roy's argument on this point that he should clear up. If he feels Paul was a significant loss to the company, then he also must of liked what Paul accomplished when he was at Disney?

These are just a few items that he should clear up.

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by Pat X
Here is an example of what I want to know from Roy: A lot of Disney fans complain about the animated sequals, direct to video and otherwise, would Roy discontinue them? If so, would he layoff all of those animators? If he does want to end the sequals (which I am for) what will be his answer to Wall Street when the insitutional investors demand to know how he will replace the lost cash flow from those titles that are actually very profitable for the company?

Unlike the CEO question, this is a topic he could address if he wanted to.

Additionally, a lot of Disney fans dislike former theme park chief Paul Pressler because of his budget cuts and for supposedly building DCA "on the cheap." This was one of Roy's main complaints about the current Disney company. HOWEVER, Roy includes Paul as a critical executive lost as part of the "brain drain" from Disney. So, there seems to be a conflict with Roy's argument on this point that he should clear up. If he feels Paul was a significant loss to the company, then he also must of liked what Paul accomplished when he was at Disney?

These are just a few items that he should clear up.

Let's see... About the animation part, if they ever stop cashing on the sequels (which are not as bad as people make them to be; just like any other movie, some of them are pretty cool), they can use the staff to work on the same stuff they used to work on before the sequel-mania started, meaning tv series or movie adaptations, like DuckTales The Movie. Can anyone say that was a bad move on Disney part? That flick is AWESOME.

As for the Pressler part, maybe when Roy says he was a good executive, he meant he was good on his area, which was retail? Cause I think Prassler used to manage the Disney Stores and I don't remember hearing anything bad about him then.

 

[BeachClub]

Lets hope that cause of ALL of this brew-ha-ha...they dont decide to accept the Comcast proposal!!!! That would be just terrible!
Thinking that will make things all better.....grrr

 

[MouseRight]

A little off topic. But something I have been dying to say for a while.

All this talk of Disney not creating their own Animated classics has to be tempered with the fact that the pipeline is probably too full already. A distribution company can only afford to distribute so many movies a year. With Disney committed to big time distribution (read as lots of money and resources) of a Pixar movie each year and for 2 more years, that only leaves so much resources (money & people) to promote and distibute more animated classics. I believe this is one of the reasons that Disney has neglected to focus on producing its own feature length animation classics over the last few years and why getting out of the Pixar deal will force it to focus back on creating their own. e.g., if you know that you already have one movie in the can (Movie talk for a completed film) to distribute from Pixar then their is less creative force or energy to produce your own. Hard to follow up or compete on Pixar blockbusters (that you own a large piece of) no matter how good your film is. Also, in spite of what Jobs says, a lot of creative energy had to be used up by Disney over the last few years working with Pixar to get those films produced, promoted and distributed.

 

[lebernadin]

:sohappy:

This is something the savedisney camp has conveniently ignored.

You can't have it both ways. You can't rely on Pixar productions for all these years and then when they're gone complain that animation isn't what it was prior to the Pixar agreement and that Pixar is gone.

You can either 1) be disgruntled that Pixar is gone and realize that in-house productions aren't going to be what they used to be during that period.
-or-
2) Wish that Pixar never happened and Disney stuck to making classics in-house.

The writing was on the wall, with re to Pixar the minute they signed these agreements.

Pixar was an insult to the animation studios. Its a "you did well for us but we're going to focus on new technology but not even in house, we're going to distribute someone else's product instead."

Which is why its hypocritical to be saying, as the majority of these boards do, that they should have never let Pixar go, Roy wouldn't have, and yet at the same time complain that Eisner has closed the FL Animation studios and that the quality of in house productions has gone down.

Pick a fight. You can't fight both, Roy.

 

[Pat X]

I agree...I don't want Disney relying on other studios to supply animated features for them anymore. 'Cause, its not really Disney, is it? I'd rather Disney focus on creating and distributing their own films, not someone else's creations.