-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Cynthia Harris Leaving Disneyland Resort
- Thread starter mkt
- Start date
Lee
Adventurer
My two cents:
Eisner, along with Frank Wells, saved the company in the 80s,
Eisner was the "Roy" of the two, Frank was the "Walt".
After Frank died, Eisner became a lapdog for Wall Street investment firms. He's lost his pixie dust. I'll be quite surprised if he makes it to the end of his contract.
PeterAlt, you need to read "Storming the Magic Kingdom" and "The Disney Touch". Your information is not completely inaccurate, but is a little bit distorted. If you don't mind, I'll address some of your points here:
It is inaccurate to say that "growth has really never slowed down". In fact, it has slowed down tremendously in the past several years, particularly in the area of expansion at the resorts as well as new attractions at the parks, much to the chagrin of many on these boards...myself included.
Where are you getting your information when you say, "NO construction or rehabs were done at all at the Magic Kingdom"?? This is simply not true. To name just a few of the post-Roy O. Disney projects at the Magic Kingdom: Space Mountain, Main Street Electrical Parade, Country Bear Jamboree, ....all of which became Disney classics. The CEO's who "almost brought the company into bankruptcy" were Card Walker and Don Tatum. And they did not bring the company anywhere near the point of bankruptcy. They made bad business decisions based on the guiding principle of "What would Walt have done?". This was good in concept, but they overlooked the fact that Walt was an innovative thinker who was always on the cutting edge. In the 70's and 80's they were still making decisions they thought Walt would have made in the mid-60's. This was their primary mistake. These bad decisions brought the stock price of Disney to a level that made it a target for corporate raiders. But to say that they "almost brought the company to bankruptcy" is a gross overstatement of the facts.
Touchstone was created under the leadership of Ron Miller, Walt's son-in-law who became CEO after Card Walker stepped down. Miller was in the position for barely a year, and by then, Walker and Tatum's business decisions had already put the company in a vulnerable position. Although Miller became the scapegoat for this, Disney's stock and the company's performance had already begun to turnaround under Miller's leadership. I'll agree that Miller did not demonstrate the business acumen of Eisner, but please don't give Eisner credit for Touchstone. He monopolized on it, and generally TAKES the credit for it, but Touchstone was NOT his creation. As far as Roy Disney, Jr. is concerned, he merely fought to keep the animation division alive. Eisner actually wanted to shut it down when he first arrived at Disney. The person who truly deserves the credit for the animation division's tremendous success is Jeffrey Katzenberg. He was a hands-on leader in the animation division while Roy was enjoying his days relaxing in his castle in Ireland.
No disagreement here. On these points, your information is accurate.
For starters, corporate raiders don't "buy pieces" of a company. They buy the ENTIRE company and then sell off the pieces to make more money. The two corporate raiders who tried to take over Disney were Saul Steinberg and Irwin Jacobs. They both had planned to sell off the movie division to one buyer, the existing film library to someone else, the hotels to yet another entity (one of the two raiders was actually in talks with Marriott to sell Disney's hotels), and to keep the theme parks to run themselves (since those were the "cash cows" of the company at the time).
To your second point, it is absolutely true that Eisner is responsible for making "the company strong again". I don't think anyone in their right mind could debate that point. But I'm puzzled as to why you would point out the ABC acquisition as an example of one of his good business decisions. Many analysts believe they overpaid for ABC and that this acquisition is a large part of why Disney has NOT been performing as well lately. Disney blames their poor performance on 9/11 (which I find incredibly tacky). In truth, they had already been performing badly for some time prior to 9/11. Eisner made some phenomenal decisions in the mid-80's and early 90's which turned Disney into a major player in Hollywood and a creative powerhouse, not to mention a jewel on Wall Street. But that has changed. He's no longer the performer he once was.
It is inaccurate to say that "growth has really never slowed down". In fact, it has slowed down tremendously in the past several years, particularly in the area of expansion at the resorts as well as new attractions at the parks, much to the chagrin of many on these boards...myself included.
Where are you getting your information when you say, "NO construction or rehabs were done at all at the Magic Kingdom"?? This is simply not true. To name just a few of the post-Roy O. Disney projects at the Magic Kingdom: Space Mountain, Main Street Electrical Parade, Country Bear Jamboree, ....all of which became Disney classics. The CEO's who "almost brought the company into bankruptcy" were Card Walker and Don Tatum. And they did not bring the company anywhere near the point of bankruptcy. They made bad business decisions based on the guiding principle of "What would Walt have done?". This was good in concept, but they overlooked the fact that Walt was an innovative thinker who was always on the cutting edge. In the 70's and 80's they were still making decisions they thought Walt would have made in the mid-60's. This was their primary mistake. These bad decisions brought the stock price of Disney to a level that made it a target for corporate raiders. But to say that they "almost brought the company to bankruptcy" is a gross overstatement of the facts.
Touchstone was created under the leadership of Ron Miller, Walt's son-in-law who became CEO after Card Walker stepped down. Miller was in the position for barely a year, and by then, Walker and Tatum's business decisions had already put the company in a vulnerable position. Although Miller became the scapegoat for this, Disney's stock and the company's performance had already begun to turnaround under Miller's leadership. I'll agree that Miller did not demonstrate the business acumen of Eisner, but please don't give Eisner credit for Touchstone. He monopolized on it, and generally TAKES the credit for it, but Touchstone was NOT his creation. As far as Roy Disney, Jr. is concerned, he merely fought to keep the animation division alive. Eisner actually wanted to shut it down when he first arrived at Disney. The person who truly deserves the credit for the animation division's tremendous success is Jeffrey Katzenberg. He was a hands-on leader in the animation division while Roy was enjoying his days relaxing in his castle in Ireland.
No disagreement here. On these points, your information is accurate.
For starters, corporate raiders don't "buy pieces" of a company. They buy the ENTIRE company and then sell off the pieces to make more money. The two corporate raiders who tried to take over Disney were Saul Steinberg and Irwin Jacobs. They both had planned to sell off the movie division to one buyer, the existing film library to someone else, the hotels to yet another entity (one of the two raiders was actually in talks with Marriott to sell Disney's hotels), and to keep the theme parks to run themselves (since those were the "cash cows" of the company at the time).
To your second point, it is absolutely true that Eisner is responsible for making "the company strong again". I don't think anyone in their right mind could debate that point. But I'm puzzled as to why you would point out the ABC acquisition as an example of one of his good business decisions. Many analysts believe they overpaid for ABC and that this acquisition is a large part of why Disney has NOT been performing as well lately. Disney blames their poor performance on 9/11 (which I find incredibly tacky). In truth, they had already been performing badly for some time prior to 9/11. Eisner made some phenomenal decisions in the mid-80's and early 90's which turned Disney into a major player in Hollywood and a creative powerhouse, not to mention a jewel on Wall Street. But that has changed. He's no longer the performer he once was.
This is absolutely true, and the key phrase here is, "along with Frank Wells". I sincerely feel that when Eisner does eventually leave the company, that some sort of permanent recognition would absolutely be in order, something much more prominent than simply a window on Main Street. However, unlike many on these boards, I don't think that means we should continue tolerating his poor leadership now simply because he did great things for the company back in the 80's.
I suppose it boils down to simply being a matter of opinion, but generally this analogy is expressed as being the other way around. Eisner is usually referred to as the "Walt" because of his child-like approach and his creativity. Wells was usually called the "Roy" because he had considerably more business experience than Eisner and was a proven businessman. I'm curious as to why you see it as being the other way around (or was it just a typo)?
I agree. I'm sure it would cost the company a bundle to buy him out of his contract, and that may be why it hasn't happened yet. But I would think it would still be a smart long-term business decision to bite the bullet and pay whatever it would cost to do just that.
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
MERLIN -- YOUR REPLY!
Where do I start? Okay, I'm not going to go through quoting you tit for tat becaue I I really don't for the time or energy for it, so I will make some general points:
(1) When I wrote that, I was tired from a long day at work and did not spend too much time writing it to check for any inaccuracies. I was not expecting people as knowledgable on the subject like you to be reading it. Rather, I wrote it for a more general audience to get certain points accross. Most of the inaccuracies you pointed out are correct, and had I spend some time on it, I might have caught it. For example, I MEANT "corporate raiders wanted to dismantle and sell the company peice by peice", not buy it peice by peice, as I wrote.
(2) As for the Magic Kingdom -- After Big Thunder Mountain opened (in 1980), there was no construction there for almost a decade! This was because ALL the company's construction money was tied up building EPCOT Center. The company couldn't even build Tokyo Disneyland, so had the Oriental Land Company build (and in return own it, with licensing fees) for them! I'm really shocked the company found money to rennovate Fantasyland at Disneyland in 1983!
Yes, Disney continued its build-out of the Magic Kingdom throughout the 70's, but I give Roy (and Walt, to some degree)Disney credit for this. Space Mountain took TWELVE years to develop! So, if it opened in 1975, that means that development began in 1963, when Walt was still alive. So, after 1967, it would have been Roy's decision to keep development going on it, including all the designs. Roy oversaw detailed design work to completion of classics such as The Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean.
I'm getting a little side-tracked here, but why not... I think this is interesting... So if Roy was in charge during those years, then he is more creative than most people give him credit for! (Unless, the Imagineers were just taking advantage of Roy, knowing that under Walt, projects would stay under scope and not increase in scope as development continued). Does anyone know what decisons at WDW were actually made by Walt, followed by those made by Roy?
Getting back to the subject at hand... The construction during the 70's were built after Roy, but they were planned and designed DURING Roy's tenure. No Magic Kingdom designs or plans were done after Roy and before Eisner. In fact, the way of thinking during this time period was "Magic Kingdom is finished" and {the following is sarcasm with a dash of seriousness} "now we have to screw up Walt's ideas for EPCOT (as a city) and design and build EPCOT (the multi-billion World's Fair)." Would Walt have ever thought of Disneyland as being "finished"?
The leadership after Roy, though they built what was on the drawing boards for the Magic Kingdom, they didn't even do that all the way! Look at all the hotels that were planned for the Seven Seas Lagoon that they never built (by the way, hotel construction, resumed under Eisner, has hasn't really stopped). At the Magic Kingdom, the best Disney attraction of all time was never built, The Western River Expedition. The management after Roy decided to use money that was budgeted for it to build Pirates instead, because of guest complaints that there was no Pirates ride at WDW at the time. Not only did the management stop the greatest Disney attraction of all time from being built, but the attraction they built in its place was built on the cheap! They could have AT LEAST made WDW's Pirates of the same scale as Disneyland's! Talk about cheap CEO's, and they say Eisner is cheap? Did Eisner build WDW's Splash Mountain on the cheap? They did not have to use Western River's budget to build Pirates. They could have built Pirates later, and do it right!
(3) Yes, growth had its slower moments. But the nation went through two recesions so far under Eisner. Those two recesions were when growth slowed, but it really never stopped, or reversed itself for that matter. Take hotel construction at WDW, for example. Since 1988, at least one hotel has always been under construction. Like now, Pop Century is about to open, and they are building Saratoga Springs. Since 1988, at any theme park, an E-ticket ride has always been in a state of construction. Granted, when Paul Pressler was in charge of attractions, this construction was reduced in scope, but Jay Rusolo (sp?) is bringing it back up and beyond what it was before Pressler.
(4) About Eisner's creativity... I could go into length about this, but I don't have all my sources of where I got this information from in front of me, other than my memory, but he is famous for ideas he created. I could go into a long laundry list of them, but I really don't remember, but I will give one example. When he the head of programing at ABC (before Disney and Paramount), he invented such new concepts, such as the "mini series". Also, during this time period, he programmed such shows for ABC as Mork and Mindy, Lavern (sp?) and Shirley, The Love Boat, Fantasy Island, and Happy Days.
(5) Yes, Ron Miller did create Touch Stone Pictures. At least, he had a sense that the studio needed restructuring. That's a good business sense, but when it comes to picking out the hits from losers (as far as what films to produce), Ron Miller did not have this knack. Almost all the films produced under his leadership were box office bombs. The ONLY exception to this that I could think of was Splash! And (from what I read) was "toned down" from what it was supposed to be.
There may be other points that I wanted to mention, but that's all I'm going to bring up now. I like having these conversations and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who's been following the inner workings of Walt Disney Co.!
Where do I start? Okay, I'm not going to go through quoting you tit for tat becaue I I really don't for the time or energy for it, so I will make some general points:
(1) When I wrote that, I was tired from a long day at work and did not spend too much time writing it to check for any inaccuracies. I was not expecting people as knowledgable on the subject like you to be reading it. Rather, I wrote it for a more general audience to get certain points accross. Most of the inaccuracies you pointed out are correct, and had I spend some time on it, I might have caught it. For example, I MEANT "corporate raiders wanted to dismantle and sell the company peice by peice", not buy it peice by peice, as I wrote.
(2) As for the Magic Kingdom -- After Big Thunder Mountain opened (in 1980), there was no construction there for almost a decade! This was because ALL the company's construction money was tied up building EPCOT Center. The company couldn't even build Tokyo Disneyland, so had the Oriental Land Company build (and in return own it, with licensing fees) for them! I'm really shocked the company found money to rennovate Fantasyland at Disneyland in 1983!
Yes, Disney continued its build-out of the Magic Kingdom throughout the 70's, but I give Roy (and Walt, to some degree)Disney credit for this. Space Mountain took TWELVE years to develop! So, if it opened in 1975, that means that development began in 1963, when Walt was still alive. So, after 1967, it would have been Roy's decision to keep development going on it, including all the designs. Roy oversaw detailed design work to completion of classics such as The Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean.
I'm getting a little side-tracked here, but why not... I think this is interesting... So if Roy was in charge during those years, then he is more creative than most people give him credit for! (Unless, the Imagineers were just taking advantage of Roy, knowing that under Walt, projects would stay under scope and not increase in scope as development continued). Does anyone know what decisons at WDW were actually made by Walt, followed by those made by Roy?
Getting back to the subject at hand... The construction during the 70's were built after Roy, but they were planned and designed DURING Roy's tenure. No Magic Kingdom designs or plans were done after Roy and before Eisner. In fact, the way of thinking during this time period was "Magic Kingdom is finished" and {the following is sarcasm with a dash of seriousness} "now we have to screw up Walt's ideas for EPCOT (as a city) and design and build EPCOT (the multi-billion World's Fair)." Would Walt have ever thought of Disneyland as being "finished"?
The leadership after Roy, though they built what was on the drawing boards for the Magic Kingdom, they didn't even do that all the way! Look at all the hotels that were planned for the Seven Seas Lagoon that they never built (by the way, hotel construction, resumed under Eisner, has hasn't really stopped). At the Magic Kingdom, the best Disney attraction of all time was never built, The Western River Expedition. The management after Roy decided to use money that was budgeted for it to build Pirates instead, because of guest complaints that there was no Pirates ride at WDW at the time. Not only did the management stop the greatest Disney attraction of all time from being built, but the attraction they built in its place was built on the cheap! They could have AT LEAST made WDW's Pirates of the same scale as Disneyland's! Talk about cheap CEO's, and they say Eisner is cheap? Did Eisner build WDW's Splash Mountain on the cheap? They did not have to use Western River's budget to build Pirates. They could have built Pirates later, and do it right!
(3) Yes, growth had its slower moments. But the nation went through two recesions so far under Eisner. Those two recesions were when growth slowed, but it really never stopped, or reversed itself for that matter. Take hotel construction at WDW, for example. Since 1988, at least one hotel has always been under construction. Like now, Pop Century is about to open, and they are building Saratoga Springs. Since 1988, at any theme park, an E-ticket ride has always been in a state of construction. Granted, when Paul Pressler was in charge of attractions, this construction was reduced in scope, but Jay Rusolo (sp?) is bringing it back up and beyond what it was before Pressler.
(4) About Eisner's creativity... I could go into length about this, but I don't have all my sources of where I got this information from in front of me, other than my memory, but he is famous for ideas he created. I could go into a long laundry list of them, but I really don't remember, but I will give one example. When he the head of programing at ABC (before Disney and Paramount), he invented such new concepts, such as the "mini series". Also, during this time period, he programmed such shows for ABC as Mork and Mindy, Lavern (sp?) and Shirley, The Love Boat, Fantasy Island, and Happy Days.
(5) Yes, Ron Miller did create Touch Stone Pictures. At least, he had a sense that the studio needed restructuring. That's a good business sense, but when it comes to picking out the hits from losers (as far as what films to produce), Ron Miller did not have this knack. Almost all the films produced under his leadership were box office bombs. The ONLY exception to this that I could think of was Splash! And (from what I read) was "toned down" from what it was supposed to be.
There may be other points that I wanted to mention, but that's all I'm going to bring up now. I like having these conversations and it's good to know that I'm not the only one who's been following the inner workings of Walt Disney Co.!
Lee
Adventurer
Yep, a typo.
Worse, because it screwed up what I was going for with the next part.
Also, as for Eisner making it through to the end of his contract...
there are rumors that he will step down before 2006. I doubt it, though. I see him staying long enough to get through the 50th at DL and all the accompanying hoopla, then stepping down.
Re: MERLIN -- YOUR REPLY!
I agree! And hopefully you didn't think I was ragging on you for your statements. It is just that I often read a lot of incorrect remarks on these boards that are just opinions, but stated as facts. When this happens, I try to provide the CORRECT information and support it with data without coming across as a know-it-all. This isn't always received in the manner I intend and so I appreciate that you didn't seem to take it that way.
Having said that, I agree with you regarding the Western River Expedition. Of all the early planned attractions that never got built, this is the biggest disappointment. It would have been awesome! And building a cheaper version of Pirates instead was just adding insult to injury. I do like the queue for WDW's Pirates better than the DL version though.
I agree! And hopefully you didn't think I was ragging on you for your statements. It is just that I often read a lot of incorrect remarks on these boards that are just opinions, but stated as facts. When this happens, I try to provide the CORRECT information and support it with data without coming across as a know-it-all. This isn't always received in the manner I intend and so I appreciate that you didn't seem to take it that way.
Having said that, I agree with you regarding the Western River Expedition. Of all the early planned attractions that never got built, this is the biggest disappointment. It would have been awesome! And building a cheaper version of Pirates instead was just adding insult to injury. I do like the queue for WDW's Pirates better than the DL version though.
