Eisner's replacement

[Gail Hayden]

Well Speck I would submit to you that any time you listen to news broadcasts, be it a major network, cable network, espn, etc. etc, you will find ALMOST always, Disney is mentioned as the parent company, when it comes to stories surrounding issues such as those that we are discussing.

I for one can tell as an avid sports fan that their name is mentioned all the time by various announcers at espn. The connection is that people "hear" Disney owned, or parent company Disney, when these various stories are circulated.

Now, as it relates to programming like those you mentioned, everyone knows that ABC is owned by Disney. Therefore, a lot of people (read families) here will make the choice not to watch based on their personal set of values. And they MAY make the choice to not shop the Disney brand if they so choose, based on those and other factors. Again, I'm not saying what I believe is right for YOU and YOURS to watch on TV. But let's be honest here. There are CLEARLY lines being crossed every day and night on most of the networks. The question I have is, how much is too much? When do people who don't believe in the anything goes mentality get to have a voice? I know, I know. Turn the channel right? Why is it always those who say that always the ones who think that if they are asked to turn it down a notch or two, think that they are being told how to live? What has happened to decency? What's WRONG with decency?

Now, as for how this relates to the subject hand. I'm sure that a lot of you out there would consider what some of the top brass at Disney make for a living to be obscene. And a lot of you have asked out there, how much is too much? When is it enough? Why can't they take less pay, (read: dial it down a notch or two), for the betterment of the "little guy?" (read: those of us out here who want to have a voice). You all see the parallels here?

So you can see my concern as to the TYPE of person that is chosen to run the ship next time out of port, so to speak. I submit there is nothing wrong with replacing Mr. Eisner with someone who isn't afraid to say that the strength of the company can once again be in its family-oriented programming and design of ALL of the companies assets. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I believe that the company will become much smaller, or bait for a takeover. Indeed, it will strengthen the company. Why?

Because, most people ARE decent, and do care about family values. We argue back and forth on here, somewhat due to political and philosophical views. But when it comes down to it, most of us are going to do the right thing for ourselves and our families. So, we're much more alike out here than people think in the end.

So I hope that the replacement is someone who shares some of those special values that I BELIEVE that Mr. Disney shared with those around him during his time. With that, I believe that the company will return to prominence within the spectrum of family-oriented programming, and park operations.

You know when asked what he was most proud of, this is how he answered:

Before he was felled by cancer at 65, it is possible to imagine that he was happy. He had at last devised a machine with which he could endlessly tinker. The little boy, envious of the placid small-town life from which he was shut out, had become mayor — no, absolute dictator — of a land where he could impose his ideals on everyone. The restless, hungry young entrepreneur had achieved undreamed-of wealth, power and honor. Asked late in life what he was proudest of, he did not mention smiling children or the promulgation of family values. "The whole damn thing," he snapped, "the fact that I was able to build an organization and hold it." These were not the sentiments of anyone's uncle — except perhaps Scrooge McDuck. And their consequences — many of them unintended and often enough unexplored — persist, subtly but surely affecting the ways we all live, think and dream. http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/disney.html

In reality, he sounds like a bit of a control freak that was out there for self agrandizement. Sort of like Michael Eisner. One would think that if he was really about family values he would have answered differently.

Trust me, I loved Walt Disney, I grew up with him on Sunday nights. But, he was not the saint you picture him to be. Few are and it is NEVER nervana.

 

[Lynx04]

Trust me, I loved Walt Disney, I grew up with him on Sunday nights. But, he was not the saint you picture him to be. Few are and it is NEVER nervana.

Agree, real saints never have money or power, they are to busy trying to help others. While Walt created some great things for his time, he was a business man first and formost. You don't get to the position of power and sucess where he was without being shrude, controlling, or just plain egotistical. No matter how much pixie dust you want to spread over him, he still must of had some of those qualities in him.

 

[Gail Hayden]

Agree, real saints never have money or power, they are to busy trying to help others. While Walt created some great things for his time, he was a business man first and formost. You don't get to the position of power and sucess where he was without being shrude, controlling, or just plain egotistical. No matter how much pixie dust you want to spread over him, he still must of had some of those qualities in him.

BINGO!!!!!

 

[longfamily]

Let's not forget his ever present shadow, Roy Disney, who was the brain power behing all things that came to be. Walt had his ideas, roy made them happen. Two very driven men who in the end got the last laugh
"Family" is where all of the money would come from. If you are to get into thier wallet's you have to suduce the children....
This is marketing genious!

 

[Bagheera]

My choice as I said before would be a creative/business pairing. Something like Meg Whitman or Steve Burke with someone like John Lassiter. We also have to wipe the board clean and start over. JMHO

Funny. Coulda sworn I said that back in post #49 (though you did have to click on the link...):

My thoughts.

Though I will admit some warming to Peter Chernin of late, I still like what I wrote.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Right you are! With the various ramblings on this thread, don't you think it good that some of us agree? This has also been discussed, and I have suggested similar in various posts started when Eisner announced his departure.

I thought your article was very good, but similar information was provided by articles in the NY Times, various financial publications and the like. They for the most part have only offered a single replacement, while I and others feel strongly for the two person approach for this unique business. A true leader for the creative side is the harder of the choices...I'm just not that saavy to know many of the real creative forces in Hollywood.

 

[PurpleDragon]

You know when asked what he was most proud of, this is how he answered:

Before he was felled by cancer at 65, it is possible to imagine that he was happy. He had at last devised a machine with which he could endlessly tinker. The little boy, envious of the placid small-town life from which he was shut out, had become mayor — no, absolute dictator — of a land where he could impose his ideals on everyone. The restless, hungry young entrepreneur had achieved undreamed-of wealth, power and honor. Asked late in life what he was proudest of, he did not mention smiling children or the promulgation of family values. "The whole damn thing," he snapped, "the fact that I was able to build an organization and hold it." These were not the sentiments of anyone's uncle — except perhaps Scrooge McDuck. And their consequences — many of them unintended and often enough unexplored — persist, subtly but surely affecting the ways we all live, think and dream. http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/disney.html

In reality, he sounds like a bit of a control freak that was out there for self agrandizement. Sort of like Michael Eisner. One would think that if he was really about family values he would have answered differently.

Trust me, I loved Walt Disney, I grew up with him on Sunday nights. But, he was not the saint you picture him to be. Few are and it is NEVER nervana.

The biggest difference between Disney and Eisner is that Disney was a creative genious. Walt Disney understood the creative mind and surrounded himself with others like him. This in turn brought about some of the greatest attractions and movies that have ever come out of Disney, however he damn near ran the company into bankrupcy every time he got a big new idea. Michael Einser on the other hand is anything but creative, he was a money man he only understood the value of a dollar and nothing more. So because of his lack of understanding and trust for the creative minds at WDC, he shut down the animation department and put the imagineering department on such a tight leash that they couldn't fart without permission. Thus bringing Dinseys creative momentum to a screaching halt. Eisner was so concerned about profit margins and market returns, that he forgot about the core focus of the company.

The only thing that really links Eisner and Disney together is that they were each 1/2 of a 2 person team. Each team succeeded in pumping out some of the best attractions and movies of their time. However if each were ever left alone to their own devices they would run the company into the ground beacuse of their one sided thinking. Something that Eisner has done so well over the past few years.

I am in total agreement on the team approach, because that seems to be what works best for the WDC. Each time there has been a good duo on top of things, Disney prospers and generates hit movies, shows, attractions, etc... So I figure if the formula works, why not stick to it?

 

[Gail Hayden]

Purple Dragon,
ITA with your post.

 

[PurpleDragon]

Purple Dragon,
ITA with your post.

Thanks!:wave: