Eisner to become Chairman of Parks?!

[LoisMustDie]

An interesting article chronicling the "Disney sues Disney" story on O-Meon.com has turned up a rather interesting assessment:

"In the absence of comment from the SaveDisney camp as to why they are taking such drastic action at time when the Disney Company is doing relatively well, and Eisner appears to be heading for the exit, I fell back on that journalistic staple, 'the informed source.'

A prominent local industry analyst, currently active in the entertainment industry and who subsequently asked not to be named, speculated the timing of Disney and Gold's announcement might have something to do with Eisner and Iger's recent trip to India to commemorate the launch of the Disney Channel in that nation of over a billion souls and consumers,

What might have really agonized Disney and Gold was the recent leak (from WDI? but seemingly uncontested from the board) of the company considering a theme park in India

A theme park (any Disney theme park) in India will surely drag down current and future Disneyland Paris income. For that park to lose any percentage (even 1%) should enrage all of the current investors. Roy and Stanley would be well advised to press this matter to anyone concerned.

Hearing these remarks, a long time Disney observer reminded me that current parks and resorts head honcho Jay Rasulo had not yet been named Chairman of Disney Theme Parks and Resorts, a title held by his predecessor Paul Pressler. 'That means that technically the position of chairman of that division is open,' he said. 'And, Eisner, who lord knows loves to build things, never promised he wouldn't seek the chairmanship of one of Disney's divisions.'"

(All emphasis is mine)

Now, I am fully aware that this is just a rumor, and I admit to being the first one who would pass off such things as silly...but the fact that Rasulo, after almost three years of becoming President of Parks and Resorts, has not yet become Chairman has really got me worried. What are they waiting for, exactly? The answer may be perhaps more than what we are willing to hear. Of course, this could also just be some paranoia on my part, but still...I don't want to be blindsided by an announcement such as this. I guess we'll have to stay tuned...

 

[Thrawn]

This wouldn't be a bad thing ...

 

[Captain Chaos]

I would like to know how Eisner as chairman of the parks would be a good thing?

 

[Thrawn]

I would like to know how Eisner as chairman of the parks would be a good thing?

Lets take a look at what has been built under him, and then I think you have your answer.

All of MGM and AK.
DCA.
Mission: Space.
EE.
Test Track.
Splash Mountain.
Heck, most of Epcot.

And thats just scratching the surface.
Thinking Eisner was bad for TWDC is like thinking Walt was. He has made some people upset in the past few years, but the expansion in the parks has continued.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Hmmm... Eisner in any role is bad, IMHO. He has outstayed his welcome as-is.

Eisner did not build all of Epcot, don't know if that's a correction at the bottom of your list or not. I wouldn't crow about DCA. What about DLP, or the Studios over there? And SGE? And that great... area... where 20K was? And Pressler/Harriss were *great* choices for DL, weren't they?

My point is, you can't just pick out his "successes" to make a complete argument.

 

[Thrawn]

Hmmm... Eisner in any role is bad, IMHO. He has outstayed his welcome as-is.

If he's so bad, then why did you buy DVC, which he enacted?

 

[HauntedPirate]

I didn't say that everything he's done is bad. I have readily and publicly stated that with out Eisner and Wells, these forums probably wouldn't exist today. I also point out what I see as failures or flaws.

 

[Thrawn]

My point is, you can't just pick out his "successes" to make a complete argument.

His question is "how would it be a good thing?"

I answered that.

Edit: You're right, I meant to put "All of MGM and AK" not "All of MGM and Epcot"

 

[HauntedPirate]

His question is "how would it be a good thing?"

I answered that.

Edit: You're right, I meant to put "All of MGM and AK" not "All of MGM and Epcot"

LOL, answering a slanted question with the appropriate slanted answer. Ok, I understand your answer now. :lol:

 

[Captain Chaos]

Lets take a look at what has been built under him, and then I think you have your answer.

All of MGM and AK.
DCA.
Mission: Space.
EE.
Test Track.
Splash Mountain.
Heck, most of Epcot.

And thats just scratching the surface.
Thinking Eisner was bad for TWDC is like thinking Walt was. He has made some people upset in the past few years, but the expansion in the parks has continued.

Ok, let's see..

MGM - not a great park.. terrible layout, not enough rides, average park at best.. Not a terrible park, i like MG, just not on par with Disney...

AK - half a park... budget cut, not complete, projects dropped under Eisner..

DCA has been a disaster....

EE isn't open yet... Mission: SPACE was done with help from HP and NASA, not strictly Disney.... If Disney was to build MS by itself, no doubt Eisner would have cut budget down to nothing and the attraction would not be as good. (STITCH for example)

The only ones that are decent are Test Track and Splash Mountain...

Eisner is responsible for the budget cuts and therefore Imagineering not making rides up to par with Disney standards. And yes it is EISNER.... So, no, Eisner will not be good as chairman of the parks... Sorry Thrawn your argument is over...

 

[bhg469]

i agree this would not be a horrible thing, he did alot for the parks. if he was chairman of the parks alone he couldent screw anything else up, like ties to pixar for example.

 

[brich]

Lets take a look at what has been built under him, and then I think you have your answer.

All of MGM and AK.
DCA.
Mission: Space.
EE.
Test Track.
Splash Mountain.
Heck, most of Epcot.

And thats just scratching the surface.
Thinking Eisner was bad for TWDC is like thinking Walt was. He has made some people upset in the past few years, but the expansion in the parks has continued.

I think you forgot the addition of Alladin and Stitch in MK...

 

[imagineer boy]

Ok, let's see..

MGM - not a great park.. terrible layout, not enough rides, average park at best.. Not a terrible park, i like MG, just not on par with Disney...

AK - half a park... budget cut, not complete, projects dropped under Eisner..

DCA has been a disaster....

EE isn't open yet... Mission: SPACE was done with help from HP and NASA, not strictly Disney.... If Disney was to build MS by itself, no doubt Eisner would have cut budget down to nothing and the attraction would not be as good. (STITCH for example)

The only ones that are decent are Test Track and Splash Mountain...

Eisner is responsible for the budget cuts and therefore Imagineering not making rides up to par with Disney standards. And yes it is EISNER.... So, no, Eisner will not be good as chairman of the parks... Sorry Thrawn your argument is over...

I agree! Eisner would be worse than Paul Pressler. I perfer Jay Rasulo thank you very much!

 

[Bravesfn1]

Here is why it would be a bad thing for him to be in charge of parks. For one his ego and inability to work cooperatively with others. (See his legendary battles with Pixar and Miramax) Also, the fact that he tends to treat fellow co-workers like garbage. I don't know why anyone involved in the Disney organization would want this jerk around anymore.

 

[MiRi]

I agree with you, Thrawn. I am not an Eisner fan but I do agree that this can't be that bad.

 

[Captain Chaos]

i agree this would not be a horrible thing, he did alot for the parks. if he was chairman of the parks alone he couldent screw anything else up, like ties to pixar for example.

No, he can just screw up the company's biggest money maker, the parks...

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I have to totally disagree. While he may be fine for other roles, the Parks are the LAST place into which he should be placed. As of recently, he created the Strategic Planning situation which was horendous, and there is nothing to stop him recreating it in theparks if he took charge. He is notorious for overbuilding before restoring. He is NOT a parks person at all. Doing things on the quick and cheap and focusing off training, all of which happened directly from his regime, is what has caused the parks to slip. The parks are a lot more than building things. They, even more so than many of the business divisions, require a strong desire to work together. There is so much red tape and unnecessary management in the parks hierarchies, and Eisner's micromanagement style will certainly not aid that. The Parks are the one division, IMHO, that should require someone at the helm that rose the ranks from the parks. There are far too many people that have showed the dedication, drive, and skills to have this role to give it to Eisner (Rasulo and Oimet both come to mind). I really hope this is nothing more than a bad analysis, because it gravely spells trouble to me.

 

[Disneyfan1981]

I find it interesting but also Eisner has got to know as the rest of the Disney company that all eyes will be on him if he takes another position within the company (Even though Eisner has been quoted in saying that when he steps down he'll pack up "his Mickey Mouse backpack and head for the next adventure"). I don't think Eisner taking on this position will be as bad as everyone fears. Not to mention EE looks like it will turn the Theme Park world on its ear so the bar is set high, investors and fans will not settle for less and I don't think the imagineers will either. I'm not worried

 

[Laura]

Ok, let's see..

MGM - not a great park.. terrible layout, not enough rides, average park at best.. Not a terrible park, i like MG, just not on par with Disney...

AK - half a park... budget cut, not complete, projects dropped under Eisner..

DCA has been a disaster....

EE isn't open yet... Mission: SPACE was done with help from HP and NASA, not strictly Disney.... If Disney was to build MS by itself, no doubt Eisner would have cut budget down to nothing and the attraction would not be as good. (STITCH for example)

The only ones that are decent are Test Track and Splash Mountain...

Eisner is responsible for the budget cuts and therefore Imagineering not making rides up to par with Disney standards. And yes it is EISNER.... So, no, Eisner will not be good as chairman of the parks... Sorry Thrawn your argument is over...

Wow - why don't we just go back to the days when there was only Magic Kingdom, and while we're at it we can remove Splash Mountain. Heaven forbid you actually enjoy anything that Eisner did for Disneyworld. Disney has become a really truly awesome vacation destination under Eisner's leadership. I get so sick of the Eisner bashing, it's ridiculous. Can't anyone just be appreciative of the WDW we have today instead of pointing out every measly thing that it lacks. This "average, not great park" called MGM Studios is way greater than any Six Flags I've ever visited.

 

[MiRi]

Wow - why don't we just go back to the days when there was only Magic Kingdom, and while we're at it we can remove Splash Mountain. Heaven forbid you actually enjoy anything that Eisner did for Disneyworld. Disney has become a really truly awesome vacation destination under Eisner's leadership. I get so sick of the Eisner bashing, it's ridiculous. Can't anyone just be appreciative of the WDW we have today instead of pointing out every measly thing that it lacks. This "average, not great park" called MGM Studios is way greater than any Six Flags I've ever visited.

Exactly. I am so tired of reading so many negative posts towards the parks. It's just annoying already. It really is. People are so quick to criticize.