Eisner's replacement

[HennieBogan1966]

Well, first of all, I did NOT make any statements to the effect of Govt. legislating ANYTHING relating to moral beliefs. Nor do I believe that anyone has the right to tell you, I, or anyone else how to live. What I DID say was that based on current events, that a MAJORITY of people in this country still believe in values. And I also KNOW that Disney was created for FAMILIES to come to enjoy the parks. Now, families can mean many different things indeed. And I'm not here to debate WHAT constitutes a family. Again, what I AM here to debate is the replacement for Mr. Eisner. Now, I haven't used any LABELS to describe anyone except the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA, which pounds us incessantly with images and words about who THEY THINK we are out here, or WHAT we believe. Just as those of you out here who have more liberal views, whether they be political, philosophical, or personal say that the conservatives don't have the right to speak for you, neither does the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA have the right to speak for me, or those who might share my views.

Again, my comments are directed at the replacement for Mr. Eisner, and how I believe that it should be someone who has solid family values regarding the direction of the company. I don't intend to speak for anyone here except myself. I use the commentary of recent events to suggest a trend in this country, which goes largely underrated, and unappreciated, thanks to the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.

People, don't change the subject to me. I am NOT the subject here. The replacement for Mr. Eisner is. Now, I believe that IF Disney were to return to its roots, that it would be VERY GOOD for the company. Some of you out there say that they aren't doing too poorly. Well, I would seek to disagree on several fronts. They've had to sell of their Disney Stores, their sports franchises, have lost 180 Million this year at Euro, are going to have to overpay to keep Monday Night Football, and have only (1) real hit show, which would be desperate housewives. Now, there's something to be proud of. While I personally don't see the big deal about the Monday Night Football pre show, I can certainly understand those out there that do. It speaks to a larger issue of how desensitized our society has become to what is right and wrong. Which is why I say that it's not a big deal to me. There is far worse on television than that. But, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Disney/ABC entertainment signed off on that segment, and for that, someone should lose their job. Problem is, someone will say, what's the big deal? Others will say, it got us a lot of press. Even if it was bad press. That's the problem. Everyone seems willing to pass the buck, and not take a stand.

Now we hear people actually discussing gambling at Disney. Are you kidding me? Since when did that have ANYTHING to do with entertaining children and their families? I know, I know. Pie in the sky again. Well, I for one have come to the realization that until we take a stand, we'll fall for anything. Need I say anything more than FEAR FACTOR? Or mention one of the several I Married A ........(insert show title here)? How far have we fallen? And when Disney/ABC signs off on this garbage, what do you expect? So, if ANYONE dislikes one of these shows, or has the temarity to express those views, they're labeled as (insert any one of several conservative labels here).

No, the views I am expressing here have nothing to do with telling people how to live, but rather to how important that having quality leadership at the helm of any business is to the overall health of that business. Let's ask the question. If Michael Eisner hadn't had all the issues he's had, and ran the company with better values than he has, would we even be discussing getting rid of him? Would Roy Disney be looking for work, or still be on the Board? Would the animation dept. still be in existence, given the current trend towards animated feature length films? Would Michael Ovitz be suing the company, or helping make it one the best companies in the entire world?

These are just some views that come to mind when discussing the replacement of Mr. Eisner.

 

[Gail Hayden]

Well, first of all, I did NOT make any statements to the effect of Govt. legislating ANYTHING relating to moral beliefs. Nor do I believe that anyone has the right to tell you, I, or anyone else how to live. What I DID say was that based on current events, that a MAJORITY of people in this country still believe in values. And I also KNOW that Disney was created for FAMILIES to come to enjoy the parks. Now, families can mean many different things indeed. And I'm not here to debate WHAT constitutes a family. Again, what I AM here to debate is the replacement for Mr. Eisner. Now, I haven't used any LABELS to describe anyone except the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA, which pounds us incessantly with images and words about who THEY THINK we are out here, or WHAT we believe. Just as those of you out here who have more liberal views, whether they be political, philosophical, or personal say that the conservatives don't have the right to speak for you, neither does the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA have the right to speak for me, or those who might share my views.

Again, my comments are directed at the replacement for Mr. Eisner, and how I believe that it should be someone who has solid family values regarding the direction of the company. I don't intend to speak for anyone here except myself. I use the commentary of recent events to suggest a trend in this country, which goes largely underrated, and unappreciated, thanks to the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.

People, don't change the subject to me. I am NOT the subject here. The replacement for Mr. Eisner is. Now, I believe that IF Disney were to return to its roots, that it would be VERY GOOD for the company. Some of you out there say that they aren't doing too poorly. Well, I would seek to disagree on several fronts. They've had to sell of their Disney Stores, their sports franchises, have lost 180 Million this year at Euro, are going to have to overpay to keep Monday Night Football, and have only (1) real hit show, which would be desperate housewives. Now, there's something to be proud of. While I personally don't see the big deal about the Monday Night Football pre show, I can certainly understand those out there that do. It speaks to a larger issue of how desensitized our society has become to what is right and wrong. Which is why I say that it's not a big deal to me. There is far worse on television than that. But, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Disney/ABC entertainment signed off on that segment, and for that, someone should lose their job. Problem is, someone will say, what's the big deal? Others will say, it got us a lot of press. Even if it was bad press. That's the problem. Everyone seems willing to pass the buck, and not take a stand.

Now we hear people actually discussing gambling at Disney. Are you kidding me? Since when did that have ANYTHING to do with entertaining children and their families? I know, I know. Pie in the sky again. Well, I for one have come to the realization that until we take a stand, we'll fall for anything. Need I say anything more than FEAR FACTOR? Or mention one of the several I Married A ........(insert show title here)? How far have we fallen? And when Disney/ABC signs off on this garbage, what do you expect? So, if ANYONE dislikes one of these shows, or has the temarity to express those views, they're labeled as (insert any one of several conservative labels here).

No, the views I am expressing here have nothing to do with telling people how to live, but rather to how important that having quality leadership at the helm of any business is to the overall health of that business. Let's ask the question. If Michael Eisner hadn't had all the issues he's had, and ran the company with better values than he has, would we even be discussing getting rid of him? Would Roy Disney be looking for work, or still be on the Board? Would the animation dept. still be in existence, given the current trend towards animated feature length films? Would Michael Ovitz be suing the company, or helping make it one the best companies in the entire world?

These are just some views that come to mind when discussing the replacement of Mr. Eisner.

You keep mentioning family values, I asked who sets that tone. I don't get an answer.

For all the HIGHLY BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA you may think we "lemmings" follow, there are "lemmings" on the other side that follow HIGHLY BIASED CONSERVATIVE MEDIA.

what you fail to mention is that Walt's vision was for children of all ages to have a place to come and enjoy. I am a child of a certain age and I happen to enjoy playing blackjack. To have a casino there to enjoy during my vacation would be wonderful. To other "children" having terrific rollercoasters is a boon. It is NOT all about entertaining children and families. They are NOT the only ones that go there.

With the definition of family values comes the question of who dictates what are family values. Obviously, we don't share some of the same definitions.
With any set standard comes legislation, regardless of the fact that you did not mention it.

Eisner has a family and I would imagine he has family values, which appear to be make as much money as possible. Yet, we seem to not approve of his family values. I personally do not.

I said the parks do not seem to be suffering, I said nothing about Disney's subs.

Desperate Housewives is an ok show and I watch it whenever I have nothing better to do. The fact that it is a hit should show us that values are changing. Since it is not on during the Family Hours, what effect does it have on Family Values?

I would say that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans have family values, but, again, that is a very spacial term. Some family values mean living in a welfare mode, stealing, robbing, complaining and not doing something. Others have values that mean the biggest house, the biggest paycheck, the best car and schools. Others would like to see children actually raised and disciplined by the parents, not some third party and actually take responsibility for their children and do not expect the shools to do that.

Family values have different meanings to different people.

Roy Disney is a great person, but, you can bet his eye will be on the bottom line just like anyone else in his position.

As to the Disney Stores ( I actually call them the Pooh store), I am not sad to see them go, they have gone way downhill in the last 5-6 years.

As to ABC, I have not read enough about it to form an opinion one way or the other. I don't watch much TV and when I do it is rarely network TV.

 

[speck76]

You keep mentioning family values, I asked who sets that tone. I don't get an answer.

That is the M.O. with him Gail......lots of words, not a lot of substance.

 

[Gail Hayden]

That is the M.O. with him Gail......lots of words, not a lot of substance.

Speck, in a lot of ways I agree with you, but, in among all those words, there are some excellent points.

He is most welcome to his opinion, but, I do disagree that WDW is for families and children only. Oddly enough, the world does not revolve around that concept. Nor my concept either. A casino would be great for those who enjoy casinos, people that do not like it do not have to go there. That, apparently, is something he does not grasp.

what some fail to notice is the fact that we live in a Democracy and as such we are allowed to express our opinions, agree, disagree, hold our own beliefs and realize that we are not the only ones in the world.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Well Gail

You make several assumptions about me which are incorrect. First, to assume that I would want to legislate ANY type of personal behavior is incorrect. Who sets the tone? WE as INDIVIDUALS do. Now, having said that, the subject isn't directly about invididuals, but about the type of individuals we select, when given the opportunity to do so, for leadership roles in our lives. (i.e. supreme court justices, board members, etc. etc.). Now, most will agree that Michael Eisners' time has come and gone, and therefore, they choose to vote him out of power. We could debate endlessly why they feel that way, as the reasons are many and varied. But, who is chosen to replace him is more important at this time. Why? Because with the right person in place, you can change the entire tone with the Company. How the cms are treated for example. How payroll hours are handled. How the company is run on a very broad perspective.

Now, you may like desperate housewives, but do you honestly think that all children of all ages are in bed at that time? Do you think that it doesn't have some residual affect on society? Why is it that people who at times have shall we say, liberal views, seem to believe that things such as Enron or Haliburton or SOOOOOOO bad for our society and we must PUNISH those responsible, yet vulgarity, nudity, depraved behavior, and an anything goes mentality splashed across our tv screens constantly is okay? Can you answer that for me Gail? Or how other issues of our time seem so hypocritical?

I don't want to mention what those subjects are because I'm sure you can understand what I am trying to say. Moreover, these subjects AREN'T the subject here.

Now, as for Michael Eisner making lots of money. Keep in mind that he was hired and given a salary. As well he was given certain incentives. That's NOT his fault. He negotiated the best deal for he and his family. If you want to blame someone, blame those at Disney who were responsible for agreeing to his terms. Not Eisner. Again, it's not about class envy. I DON'T care what he makes. More power to him and those who are savvy and talented enough to maximize their opportunities. That's the beauty of capitalism, freedom, and democracy.


The parks may not be suffering financially, but read ANY of a NUMBER of threads about the improvements, upgrades, and maintenance needs of the parks. Why do you think they are suffering? Well, when you have other arms of the company which are suffering so severely financially (ESPN and ABC), the money for those annual losses have to be covered by something. Guess where that comes from? Or when Euro loses 180 million, where do you think that money comes from? Or when they have to overpay to keep MNF? Where does that money come from? So while the park attendance may not be suffering, when you rob peter to pay paul, guess who's broke at the end of the day?

Why do you think the stores have been so bad the last several years? POOR MANAGEMENT. In other words, poor values about how to run the stores led to their demise. Which is why I talk about hiring a replacement who embodies quality family values. If you will look at social statistics, I BELIEVE you will find that most families who exhibit high moral values, also TEND to be successful financially, etc., in their personal lives as well. As well, their businesses tend to be very successful. I realize that this isn't ALWAYS the case, which is why I expressed my views as my personal opinion.

You speak of the welfare state. Why do you think the government was okay with creating that program? One word: DEPENDENCY. Think about it.

 

[speck76]

Speck, in a lot of ways I agree with you, but, in among all those words, there are some excellent points.

He is most welcome to his opinion, but, I do disagree that WDW is for families and children only. Oddly enough, the world does not revolve around that concept. Nor my concept either. A casino would be great for those who enjoy casinos, people that do not like it do not have to go there. That, apparently, is something he does not grasp.

what some fail to notice is the fact that we live in a Democracy and as such we are allowed to express our opinions, agree, disagree, hold our own beliefs and realize that we are not the only ones in the world.

You are right, we are allowed to express our opinions. Run on over to the casino thread, and it does not seem that way. I agree with you on the casino......it would be great entertainment for those that would use it, and those that wouldn't use it, should not worry about it.

Even notice that those that try to share their religious/moral beliefs with you, never really want to hear yours?

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Are we going to get some names any time soon or is it handbags at dawn?

how about the person thats running universal?

 

[HennieBogan1966]

Excuse me Speck, but I don't mind at all hearing your opinions. What I don't appreciate are your personal attacks on people. I posed the opinion that I don't BELIEVE that Walt would be okay with a casino, nor do I think that it's needed. There are plenty of them all over the country to attend if that's your thing. I PERSONALLY don't like the idea. Seems like the only one whose opinion is trying to be quashed here is mine. Feel free to express your views. I will just have to continue to show you why you are WRONG!!!!!

 

[speck76]

Are we going to get some names any time soon or is it handbags at dawn?

how about the person thats running universal?

I don't think that information will be shared for a while. Most likely it will be the current head of another major company, and any word of that person leaving (before it is final) could reflect negatively on Wall Street for their current company.

I think Steve Jobs is a bad idea.

 

[speck76]

Excuse me Speck, but I don't mind at all hearing your opinions. What I don't appreciate are your personal attacks on people. I posed the opinion that I don't BELIEVE that Walt would be okay with a casino, nor do I think that it's needed. There are plenty of them all over the country to attend if that's your thing. I PERSONALLY don't like the idea. Seems like the only one whose opinion is trying to be quashed here is mine. Feel free to express your views. I will just have to continue to show you why you are WRONG!!!!!

Why is my opinion wrong.

Why is your's right?

 

[HennieBogan1966]

And if I might add: I have been the one clearly expressing my moral views. You on the other hand, flip-flop, if I may, by taking no clear position whatsoever. Why is that?

Need a shot of courage?

 

[speck76]

And if I might add: I have been the one clearly expressing my moral views. You on the other hand, flip-flop, if I may, by taking no clear position whatsoever. Why is that?

Need a shot of courage?

Where have I flip-flopped.....please explain.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I think Steve Jobs is a bad idea.

Perhaps Ive got the wrong guy, but whos the ex Disney animator thats Pixars mouth piece, if thats Jobs he comes across well.

Nothing wrong with strong leadership even with big egos, but it has to be able to take advice and admit whern its wrong.

I just hope its a creative type, with a bean counter as the number2.

 

[speck76]

Perhaps Ive got the wrong guy, but whos the ex Disney animator thats Pixars mouth piece, if thats Jobs he comes across well.

Nothing wrong with strong leadership even with big egos, but it has to be able to take advice and admit whern its wrong.

I just hope its a creative type, with a bean counter as the number2.

I think you are referring to John Lasseter

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005124/

I think he would be great, but I don't see him leaving Pixar, since he founded the company.

 

[HennieBogan1966]

In trying to be all things to all people, you take no position. what defines a family? You mean you don't know? Or you aren't sure? Moreover, why can't you say clearly why you don't believe that the company should return to its core family values, instead of taking the cop out of, who defines what a family is, or who defines what the standards are? We all know, including you, what good family values are. Some people have the courage to stick their necks out and express their true beliefs and values. Others run with the crowd, so as not to have to take the verbal attacks. I'm okay with the attacks. They strenghthen my resolve and prove to me that what I am doing is right. When everyone just goes along with you all of the time, there's something wrong.

It's easy to agree with everyone all of the time, and never suffer the slings and arrows so to speak. Where the rubber meets the road is when you take on the popular view, stick to your core beliefs, and fight thru to the end to see that you were in fact, correct. Again, recent events prove that a large majority of people in this country still believe in family values, god, and country. I'm sorry that you don't like or believe that to be the case. And as it relates to Disney, again, my view is that a a return to those core values and beliefs will only strenghthen the company, it's cms, and its shareholders.

Let me ask this: Would it hurt you personally if they did? If so, how?

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I think you are referring to John Lasseter

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005124/

I think he would be great, but I don't see him leaving Pixar, since he founded the company.

Thats the fella, he was on a UK tv special he spoke with such passion about his art and the contribution thats walts teams have made towards it creation. Maybe a natural progression though?

 

[speck76]

In trying to be all things to all people, you take no position. what defines a family? You mean you don't know? Or you aren't sure? Moreover, why can't you say clearly why you don't believe that the company should return to its core family values, instead of taking the cop out of, who defines what a family is, or who defines what the standards are? We all know, including you, what good family values are. Some people have the courage to stick their necks out and express their true beliefs and values. Others run with the crowd, so as not to have to take the verbal attacks. I'm okay with the attacks. They strenghthen my resolve and prove to me that what I am doing is right. When everyone just goes along with you all of the time, there's something wrong.

No, I don't know what defines "family values"......it is not objective....different people have different views. And moreover, what is a "typical family".....with kids, no kids, young kids, old kids. I can tell you I think the family that consists of a married couple with no kids, versus a gay couple, versus a family with 1 kid, versus a family with 5 kids, the values would probably differ.

 

[speck76]

Thats the fella, he was on a UK tv special he spoke with such passion about his art and the contribution thats walts teams have made towards it creation. Maybe a natural progression though?

We can dream.......but then we would have to wake up

I was incorrect on his position...oops

John A. Lasseter Executive Vice President, Creative Development
Held current title since: 1999 Officer since: 1991 Age: 47
Mr. Lasseter is a two-time Academy Award®-winning director and animator. In addition to serving as head of all of Pixar Animation Studios' films and projects as Executive Vice President, Creative, he directed Toy Story, (the first feature-length computer animated film), A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2. He is the Executive Producer of Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo and The Incredibles and in 2001 he was given an honorary doctorate degree from the American Film Institute and in 2003, he was awarded the Art Directors Guild's coveted Honorary Contribution to Cinematic Imagery Award. Mr. Lasseter is currently in development on his fourth feature film, Cars. Mr. Lasseter directed the first computer-animated feature film, Toy Story, for which he received a Special Achievement Oscar® and was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, the first animated film ever to receive an Oscar® nomination for screenplay. Mr. Lasseter has written and directed a number of short films and television commercials while at Pixar: Luxo Jr. (1986 Academy Award® nominee), Red's Dream (1987), Tin Toy (1988 Academy Award® Winner) and Knick Knack (1989), which was produced as a 3D stereoscopic film. Tin Toy was the first computer animated film to win an Oscar®, when it won the 1988 Academy Award® for Best Animated Short Film. In February 2004, Mr. Lasseter was given the Art Directors Guild's coveted honorary Contribution to Cinematic Imagery Award.

Lasseter make about 3 million a year and current has over $50million in options available to him.

Side note:
Steve Jobs takes an annual salary of $53 from Pixar (yes, fifty-three dollars)

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

No, I don't know what defines "family values"......it is not objective....different people have different views. And moreover, what is a "typical family".....with kids, no kids, young kids, old kids. I can tell you I think the family that consists of a married couple with no kids, versus a gay couple, versus a family with 1 kid, versus a family with 5 kids, the values would probably differ.

And many of the US family values are alien to us Brits and especially our Euro neighbours, and we are all potential dollar spenders

 

[HennieBogan1966]

So you're saying you live by NO particular core family values, which you might have learned from your elders? No idea of the line between right and wrong. Rather that right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder, and that it's more of a shade of gray, than black and white? See, when Walt Disney took information from his staff, he did think it over, and in the end, the decision was his, and his alone. He didn't waver, and think, I wonder what joe blow will think of this. I think I should ask him. When he had an idea or vision of what he wanted, I don't BELIEVE that he wavered at all. Instead he stuck to his guns and saw it thru to the end. Was he always right? No. No one is either. But what he did was learn from those mistakes to do it better the next time. And he used those same core values, even after having made some of those mistakes.

I'm not here to discuss certain social issues, b ut rather the idea that if someone is hired to replace Michael Eisner that has solid family values, that I BELIEVE that is what would be best for the company.