Eisner to become Chairman of Parks?!

[fiftiesdean]

I like how everyone is pointing to Eisner about adding all of these parks, and skimming through these pages (I haven't read every word, so excuse me) I haven't seen much mention of Frank Wells (I think one person did)....he did a LOT, and if he didn't, he convinced Eisner to....

 

[Captain Chaos]

I like how everyone is pointing to Eisner about adding all of these parks, and skimming through these pages (I haven't read every word, so excuse me) I haven't seen much mention of Frank Wells (I think one person did)....he did a LOT, and if he didn't, he convinced Eisner to....

Yep.. Well said.. Frank Wells.. And when Frank Wells was telling Eisner what to do, Disney added some great stuff... When Wells was gone, Eisner didn't have a clue... He may have added a ton of stuff to WDW, and yes, TWDC spent millions upon billions to expand, but, howmuch was done on the cheap and how much was done in a rush.... And this all happened under Eisner.. That is my point... He wasn't a good leader without someone kicking him in the butt to do the right thing...

I don't think Eisner will be the chairman of the parks... Hopefully.

 

[tigger1968]

In the early days of Eisner's tenure with TWDC there were a number of improvements made across all lines of business. The rapid increase in on-site lodging, and the expansions in the parks were great decisions. However, I agree that the quality of Eisner's leadership changed with the departure of Frank Wells. At this point, I think the idea of Eisner continuing ANY relationship with Disney would be nothing but a drain on the company. I would HIGHLY reccommend to everyone that you pick up a copy of Disney War and read it cover to cover. I was very surprised at how much of Disney's success seems to have come about almost by sheer luck during Eisner's reign. I was a big supporter of him for many years, but I have now thrown my loyalty Roy Disney and his efforts. At any rate, in my opinion, Eisner's successes are more than outweighed by his missteps, failures, and missed opportunities. It's past time for him to move on and disappear from the Disney scene.

 

[dave2822]

I would HIGHLY reccommend to everyone that you pick up a copy of Disney War and read it cover to cover.

:sohappy: :sohappy:

It really is terrific work and very unbiased.

 

[raven]

Eisner doesn't know a thing about the parks. He said so himself when he came on board as the CEO. He comes from a movie studio background and relied on other people to take care of the parks because he didn't care to get into them too much. So why whould they put him in charge now? Seems like a dumb move to me if it were true. :hammer:

 

[Montu]

I hope you weren't talking about me looking for something to complain about.... Listen, I do not have to answer to anyone here... I have my opinions like you all do.. Can you sit there with a straight face and say MGM was designed flawlessly????

If you feel as though people do nothing but attack you here, and all you do is "answer to" them, then why not stop posting?

 

[Montu]

I like how everyone is pointing to Eisner about adding all of these parks, and skimming through these pages (I haven't read every word, so excuse me) I haven't seen much mention of Frank Wells (I think one person did)....he did a LOT, and if he didn't, he convinced Eisner to....

I was the one that brought up Wells. And the thing is, it's not a "convinced Eisner" point - Wells was the boss and Eisner was brought in as his second banana. When Wells died in the crash, Eisner stepped up and took over the position.

Many of the things everyone credits to Eisner were either already under construction, or already in development with budget approvals to move forward under Frank Wells. So though Eisner was technically in charge when they opened, he really did have little to nothing to do with most of them.

 

[tomm4004]

I was the one that brought up Wells. And the thing is, it's not a "convinced Eisner" point - Wells was the boss and Eisner was brought in as his second banana. When Wells died in the crash, Eisner stepped up and took over the position.

Many of the things everyone credits to Eisner were either already under construction, or already in development with budget approvals to move forward under Frank Wells. So though Eisner was technically in charge when they opened, he really did have little to nothing to do with most of them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Eisner was always CEO and Chairman, and Wells was always President. True, when Roy brought them on board it hadn't been decided, but they (Eisner/Wells) decided between the two of them and it was my impression that Wells didn't want to be CEO. I've never heard of Eisner being second banana to Wells at Disney.

 

[Captain Chaos]

If you feel as though people do nothing but attack you here, and all you do is "answer to" them, then why not stop posting?

Because I am free to voice my opinion. Just like you are free to voice yours. When someone voices their opinion, I do not attack them. A simple question I threw out there to Thrawn was how would Eisner be good for the parks? He answered. I replied why I felt he wouldn't be. I didn't deserve any attack on my opinion because someone doesn't feel the same way I do. I do not feel he would be good for the chairman spot. Others do. Fine. But I do not tell someone they are wrong for feeling that way. And for someone to ask such a moronic question if I ever designed and built my own theme park just shows the mentality of some people. And I am not talking about you Montu.

 

[raven]

(tries to be the happy mediator...)

This is the type of talk that gets these threads deleted. We all must keep an open opinion about things and let everyone have their say without criticism. Everyone is entitled to their opinion even though some others might not think it's right. Let's just try to keep that in mind so we can still read these threads. :wave:

 

[WeLComeHomE OKW]

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...

so let me get this straight....if you dont like the parks and what he has done with this stuff....why do u have membership to this website again? lets get this much straight....eisner has done some wonderful things for this company...he put them back on the map, as well as bring them down....hes made some pretty terrible mistakes too and made disney too "commercial". but i must say i enjoy almost everything he created....and saying things are sub par to disney before eisner are saying these new things are worse then magic kingdom...and educational epcot.....not true.

 

[CaliSurfer182]

Eisners past park focused efforts were for the most part good. Of recent his endeavors into non "family friendly" venues (the miriad of movie studios not directly linked to Disney, but owned by Disney that put out the non G rated movies) I am affraid, would spill over into the parks. .

No offense, and I am not trying to start an argument I am just trying to clear up facts. The Disney company started making non "G" rated movies years before Eisner even joined the company. Mr. Miller was in fact the first person in charge of the Disney Company that actively wanted to make adult movies.

Also by the way a Eisner era non "G" rated movie, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (PG), did find its way into the parks in the form of the Roger Rabbit cartoon spin ( Toontown, Disneyland ) and it was a pretty good ride as I remember it.

One more point The Walt Disney Pictures film studios just put out a PG-13 rated movie called "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl". I know that it came out during Eisner's reign, but my point is that it is a movie from the disney studios (not a disney owned studio) that is above a "G" rating.

 

[KevinPage]

I hope this is merely a rumor. I think I will make like an ostrich and stick my head in the sand

 

[Captain Chaos]

so let me get this straight....if you dont like the parks and what he has done with this stuff....why do u have membership to this website again? lets get this much straight....eisner has done some wonderful things for this company...he put them back on the map, as well as bring them down....hes made some pretty terrible mistakes too and made disney too "commercial". but i must say i enjoy almost everything he created....and saying things are sub par to disney before eisner are saying these new things are worse then magic kingdom...and educational epcot.....not true.

Let's get this much straight... And for the 10000th time since people cannot comprehend a simple thread... I never said I do not enjoy Disney. I love Disney, HENCE THE MEMBERSHIP TO THIS BOARD... I was merely stating that Eisner is responsible for a lot of the negatives that has happened lately... His time with the Disney Company is done... he would be a bad choice for the posistion being discussed in this thread, and that is my opinion... I went to Disney World with Eisner as CEO, I'll go without him as CEO... And, i never said things were sub par before Eisner... But Eisner's recent budget cuts held Imagineering back and thus made several attractions sub par (Stitch, JII to name two)...

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Eisner has some solid points, and I won't argue whether he could do a good job or not, but I can't see Eisner taking a "secondary" position. All administrators have egos, and ME's is legendary. How could he step into a secondary role to past subordinates. Just like you wouldn't see a past president accepting a role as VP.

I think Iger has tolerated much under ME and I can't see him willingly taking ME back into the inner circle. Just not good management style, personalities aside.

 

[Thrawn]

dxer, I've stayed out of this thread, because I didn't want it to turn into a flame war. But you keep on insisting on an incorrect fact. Eisner DOES NOT make budgetary decisions. Those are done by the entire board, of which Eisner gets one vote, same as everyone else.

Also, you seem obsessed with the fact that the two thrill rides in MGM are near each other. There was a choice: put them near each other, so they could share a power station, or not build RnR. Building a new power station for one ride would not have passed on the board, so they did what had to be done.

As far as DCA being a disaster ... well, you have to remember: So was WDW's Magic Kingdom. They completely blew the audience they thought they were going to have. Thats why they didn't have a PotC at opening day. Yes, it wasn't as pronounced, but there also weren't armies of Disney fanatics in 1971.

 

[Captain Chaos]

dxer, I've stayed out of this thread, because I didn't want it to turn into a flame war. But you keep on insisting on an incorrect fact. Eisner DOES NOT make budgetary decisions. Those are done by the entire board, of which Eisner gets one vote, same as everyone else.

Also, you seem obsessed with the fact that the two thrill rides in MGM are near each other. There was a choice: put them near each other, so they could share a power station, or not build RnR. Building a new power station for one ride would not have passed on the board, so they did what had to be done.

As far as DCA being a disaster ... well, you have to remember: So was WDW's Magic Kingdom. They completely blew the audience they thought they were going to have. Thats why they didn't have a PotC at opening day. Yes, it wasn't as pronounced, but there also weren't armies of Disney fanatics in 1971.

Points taken.. But the fact remains you said you thought Eisner in a certain position wouldn't be bad and I asked you how it wouldnt be bad. You gave your reasons why he wouldn't be bad in that position and I posted why I thought he would be. A little friendly exchange over two different ideas. Nothing was coming of it until others on this board decided to attack my posts. I didn't attack you or anyone else... But, I have the right to express my opinions, like eneryone else does. As your profile says, you don't like my posts then ignore me. I had no problems with you thinking he would be good in the chairman position. And I don't think you had a problem with my opinion that he would be bad. Others did. I stated what I had to say and now, I am done. My feelings have been expressed more times than I should have expressed them. if I continue to answer these attacks, then I would be no better than anyone else on here, and then I would be stooping to the level of a lot of others, you NOT included Thrawn.

I am not bashing the parks and Disney. I was merely stating some of the bad that happened under Eisner. I love the parks, and I love Disney. I am not obsessed with the idea that there are two thrill rides next to each other in MGM. I was merely suggesting that the park wasn't designed properly due to Eisner wanting the park open before Universal and thus not allowing the Imagineers to design the park with a proper flow. Just one of the bad decisions Eisner made. And by that I do not mean it was a bad decision to open Disney-MGM Studios.. I mean it was a bad decision to rush the opening.

 

[daoVinci]

lol. It's been a while since I posted here, but it's nice to see some things never change.

I'm surprised it took 'til the fifth page of posts for someone to point out that Wells provided a balance to Eisner, which is what the Company now lacks. With Wells as president, the focus was on the guest experience with an eye toward the shareholders. But since his passing Eisner surrounded himself with yes-men (and women), and the focus shifted to the shareholder with an eye on profit. The guest experience is a secondary focus, as evidenced by the lack of maintenance and upkeep, the shift toward lower quality and less selection in The Disney Store merchandise, the elimination of WDA-Orlando, and the falling out of relationships where ME didn't have creative control (and thus, tight control of profit margins), like Pixar and Miramax.

Yes, Eisner took TWDC to great heights. He is a very driven person. And when balanced by Wells' guest-centric vision, that drive led to great things for Disneyphiles. Left unchecked, though, it has led the company in some very miguided directions. Direct-to-video sequels, while they add profit, dilute the brand of some very strong characters (mostly because less efort is put into them than feature films). Clone rides, IMO, are okay as a stop-gap measure to build up capacity a bit...but not as a development strategy for half of your new attractions. However, Eisner recently hit homeruns with Mission:Space, Philharmagic and, hopefully, with Everest.

However, having just gone to WDW witha 3-year-old and a 5-month-old I'd like to see more effort put into a few new attractions for the under 40" set. (and, in answer to one post about demand for thrill rides, the queues for It's A Small World, Dumbo and Snow White almost always rival those for ToT, Splash Mountain and Space Mountain.)

The argument isn't that Eisner hasn't done wonderous things for the company, or that WDW sucks. But in the last several years, his myopic focus on shareholders (versus Walt's insistence that the Guest Experience comes first) and cementing his own power has been detrimental.

As Disneyphiles, we owe Eisner a lot. But it's time for someone new to come in, shake things up a bit and put the focus back where it belongs. Rasulo is a solid choice for Parks; let's hope they let him stay put for a while. I'm less sure about Iger at the helm, but I'll give him a chance.

 

[Captain Chaos]

lol. It's been a while since I posted here, but it's nice to see some things never change.

I'm surprised it took 'til the fifth page of posts for someone to point out that Wells provided a balance to Eisner, which is what the Company now lacks. With Wells as president, the focus was on the guest experience with an eye toward the shareholders. But since his passing Eisner surrounded himself with yes-men (and women), and the focus shifted to the shareholder with an eye on profit. The guest experience is a secondary focus, as evidenced by the lack of maintenance and upkeep, the shift toward lower quality and less selection in The Disney Store merchandise, the elimination of WDA-Orlando, and the falling out of relationships where ME didn't have creative control (and thus, tight control of profit margins), like Pixar and Miramax.

Yes, Eisner took TWDC to great heights. He is a very driven person. And when balanced by Wells' guest-centric vision, that drive led to great things for Disneyphiles. Left unchecked, though, it has led the company in some very miguided directions. Direct-to-video sequels, while they add profit, dilute the brand of some very strong characters (mostly because less efort is put into them than feature films). Clone rides, IMO, are okay as a stop-gap measure to build up capacity a bit...but not as a development strategy for half of your new attractions. However, Eisner recently hit homeruns with Mission:Space, Philharmagic and, hopefully, with Everest.

However, having just gone to WDW witha 3-year-old and a 5-month-old I'd like to see more effort put into a few new attractions for the under 40" set. (and, in answer to one post about demand for thrill rides, the queues for It's A Small World, Dumbo and Snow White almost always rival those for ToT, Splash Mountain and Space Mountain.)

The argument isn't that Eisner hasn't done wonderous things for the company, or that WDW sucks. But in the last several years, his myopic focus on shareholders (versus Walt's insistence that the Guest Experience comes first) and cementing his own power has been detrimental.

As Disneyphiles, we owe Eisner a lot. But it's time for someone new to come in, shake things up a bit and put the focus back where it belongs. Rasulo is a solid choice for Parks; let's hope they let him stay put for a while. I'm less sure about Iger at the helm, but I'll give him a chance.

Well said...