For all you Eisner Haters!

[askmike1]

I think another problem is that if something bad happens, it is automatically his fault, yet if something good happens, he doesn't get credit. People act like he animates and directs the movies, and builds the attractions. If a WB movie fails, people will blame the director...but if a Disney movie fails blame the CEO! Also the imagineers do make problems too. They designed SGE (which I have no problem with btw), not Michael Eisner. Regardless of the budget, they are the ones who think of the ideas. When M:S premiered and almost everyone loved it (those who could get over the vents that is) who got the credit? The imagineesr of course. I could ramble on about this, but I will stop now.

-Michael

 

[WDWcouple]

I think another problem is that if something bad happens, it is automatically his fault, yet if something good happens, he doesn't get credit.

If I may Harry Truman said something one time that all leaders should subscribe to "The Buck Stops Here"

As to your point "If something good happens, he doesn't get credit" Well he shouldnt.. he is a leader and as such he is paid very handsomly to do good things..

I agree with you that Eisner has done many many good things with The Disney Corporation and bad things... Thus is the life of a CEO.. However as my Avatar shows I'm a staunch supporter of the "Save Disney" movement.. not becuase I hate Eisner or Like Eisner..... But I love Disney.. not the man or the place, but the feeling...

The purity of it all. I blind myself that Im spending a months salary to do so... There is nothing better in life than to suddenly realize for at least a day that all of you cares and bills and problems just left when I stepped off of the monorail.

Eisner is a figurehead and as such the fodder... The board needs change as well... Lets bring in a 5 year old child as an advisor to the board and maybe.. just maybe the directors can see Disney the way Walt once saw Disney and get back to that

PS I dont spellcheck forgive me

 

[barnum42]

First of all, I can't stand when people call them cheapquels. Animators put a lot of work into these movies and you are crushing their job.

If something looks like a turd and smells like at turd then I'm going to call it a turd. Abominations like Pocahontas II, Cinderella II and Tarzan and Jane were badly written and animated and Disney had the nerve to charge the same for this rubbish as the full feature film.

If you were an archetect and someone critisized your building and said "That building is horrible, it was made so cheaply!" would you feel good?

If you were a Disney Employee that had worked their butt off and turned up to work to be told you have no job because management wants to do things on the cheap and cutting you is the solution would you feel good? If you were the family of the poor soul who died on Thunder Mountain because safety had been farmed out to the cheapest quote to line greedy fat cat's pockets, would you feel good?

Also, quality of the "Direct-To" movies have been steadily increasing. I'd bet good money to say that if I showed you an image from TLK and an image from TLK1.5, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I'll happily grant you that Lion King 1.5 / 3 is a HUGE improvement over some of the junk cheapquels. It was well written and despite the restrictions placed on the production the animation did the job. The animation is not quite as slick as Lion King, but it is still good and the excellent script wraps up the viewer so they don't really notice this. The team Down Under did a great job.

Secondly, you say the parks are deteriorating...obviously you haven't seen Disneyland recently. The park looks fantastic. WDW also
looks great too.

I'm delighted to see they have started to address the problems, but there is no argument that the parks were allowed to fall below a state of repair that we have come to expect from the company.

 

[askmike1]

The animation is not quite as slick as Lion King, but it is still good and the excellent script wraps up the viewer so they don't really notice this.

Willing to test my theory, which one of these is from TLK and which one is from TLK1.5? Pic1 Pic2
Also, if you saw the Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest trailer, you would have seen how good the animation was. Also, read this to see the opinion of someone who saw a few scenes.

If you were a Disney Employee that had worked their butt off and turned up to work to be told you have no job because management wants to do things on the cheap and cutting you is the solution would you feel good?

Layoffs happen in every industry in every company in every section of the world every day. Just because it happens in Disney makes it no difference. Disney is a company.

-Michael

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Mikes a great guy, he’s saved Disney single handed, if he has to slash a few CMs so what as long as the shareholders are paid. as for these fan types, what do they expect its a business just because every company itches after repeat customers and brand loyalty Mike has seen through all that. Regulars have expectations and expectations can hit the bottom line, far better to make a quick sale and move on. There’s always another group of kids to sell cuddly Poohs to.

Viva Mike Viva Shareholder Dividend

Who give a toss what Disneyland looks like ill never go there or watch crappy sequels or have to put up with 4th rate show like Desperate has-beens

 

[SpenceMan01]

Oh yes they do - I have a qualification in lying with numbers - it's called statistics. :lol:

I only really remember one thing from my Stats class last year:

There are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

FACT: 742 Films have been released under his tenure (compared with the 158 released before him)

Quantity != Quality

I'd rather have 1/2 the number of movies or less, as long they're high quality movies with a great story and endearing, timeless characters. Releasing 742 films means nothing to me if 80% or more of them are just plain crap.

 

[barnum42]

Willing to test my theory, which one of these is from TLK and which one is from TLK1.5? Pic1 Pic2

Neither of those images are animated :lol: One is a small back ground plate the other an in-your-face close up. I've already said that LK 1.5 was a good flick [/QUOTE]

Layoffs happen in every industry in every company in every section of the world every day. Just because it happens in Disney makes it no difference. Disney is a company.

But this still does not make it a good thing, especially as it has cost at least one life.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Willing to test my theory, which one of these is from TLK and which one is from TLK1.5? Pic1 Pic2

I really hate when people show off Lion King 1 1/2 as proof to Toon Studio's improvement. I've said this a few times already, Lion King 1 1/2 uses recycled animation from the first movie. Plenty of backgrounds are taken from the original picture and are re-used. Don't get me wrong, the movie is a few notches above any other cheapquel but it doesn't indicate any majot improvement in animation... Want proof? Watch Mulan II and tell me the animation is as good as the first.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Who's animating Bambi II?

Walt hated sequels. He did sequels, and hated them. Original stories and ideas were his fuel, and that fuel tank, under Eisner's last 10 years, was run to almost "Empty". Eisner's first 10 years were great. But he lost it in the mid 90's. Blind Eisner loyalty is as foolish as blind SaveDisney loyalty. He cut costs to sustain growth. Without new ideas, cost cutting only goes so far. And we have seen what happens when you cut back too far (Disneyland and overall maintenance that *is* coming back to Disney standards).

By the way, do you have any idea what Eisner's current excersizeable stock options are worth? Try in the range of $400million. He's made a mint off of Disney - "In 1998, Disney CEO Michael Eisner received a pay package totaling $575.6 million...". And yes, Roy is rich from Disney, and he should be - it's his father's (and uncle's) company!

Also, where is the stock price compared to, say, 2000? 1997? Looking at the beginning and end is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. You have to look at the overall picture, which you are not doing. That's like saying that I did great at the blackjack tables, since I started with $100 and left with $300. But at one point, I was upto $2000. Would you call that great?

And Iger came over from ABC, I thought. If this is the case, then he's definitely not an Eisner hire. If Eisner did hire him, then kudos, he still had his eye for talent when he hired him. Iger may prove to be more intelligent than any of us thought - my feeling right now is that he was simply appeasing Eisner, slowly building his reputation and his case that he was the natural choice to be CEO, and then show that he is not at all like Mike. I hope I'm right.

Sorry if this sounds rambling, I didn't start out with so many thoughts about this thread.

 

[JBSLJames]

Thanks Mr. Eisner for your work to date. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Let's enjoy what we have and look forward to the future. :kiss:

 

[askmike1]

Who's animating Bambi II?

Walt hated sequels. He did sequels, and hated them. Original stories and ideas were his fuel, and that fuel tank, under Eisner's last 10 years, was run to almost "Empty". Eisner's first 10 years were great. But he lost it in the mid 90's.

And Iger came over from ABC, I thought. If this is the case, then he's definitely not an Eisner hire. If Eisner did hire him, then kudos, he still had his eye for talent when he hired him.

1) DisneyTOON Studios is animating Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest (which judging by the trailer, is excellent animation)

2) Whether or not Walt hated sequels, the public loves them. Take for instance The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride. That made a profit of over $300m.

3) To an extent, was Walt really using original stories? Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Pinnochio and almost all of his movies were based on stories and fairytales already known to people. Many times he had to adjust the stories (so it didn't end with everyone dieing) but largely, the story was unchanged. It wasn't until fairly recently that Disney used original stories.

4) Yes, Iger came over from ABC. What I meant is that Eisner promoted him to President and COO. Also, that happened in 2000.

-Michael

 

[Halfling418]

I actually do not have much of a problem with Eisner...I'm not an "Eisner-hater"--he did do a lot for the company.

That being said, I think his time has come. I just didn't like where the company was going in an artistic sense. It had been going SO GREAT until very very recently.

I am a HUGE film buff and movie freak. The sequels are NO GOOD. They tend to ruin the impact and feel of the first story--we don't always need to know what happens next. There needs to be some originality.

Take Bambi 2. I almost cried(not happy tears) when I heard about it, since I watched Bambi every single day as a child. The animation looks high quality, yes, but look at the origional! It's got none of the feel of the soft, muted, lyrical, watercolors of Bambi. Even now when I watch it, the sheer beauty of it all brings tears to my eyes. I mean, it was made in 1942! How can the sequel possibly be the same? And I also have read the book multiple times, and although some of it was changed for the origional, the film had the EXACT feel of Felix Salten. It's basically a pretty realistic life study of a deer. Fathers don't stay with the family. Bambi's only really spent time with him when he was grown, only to teach him the secrets of the forest so he could take his place. It's the circle of life. (haha, don't get me started on the Lion King 2--I was rolling on the floor laughing at the ridiculousness of it all, not to mention crappy animation) Also, what's up with little Bambi's head? Why has it grown so large in porportion to his body? I think these things make money cause the kiddies aren't old enough to tell the difference in quality. (direct to video=not good enough for theaters)

Please don't get me wrong. Eisner has done a lot, and I'm glad he was CEO. I just want some fresh, creative blood in there.

Some sequels work amazingly well though--they just should be used sparingly(they're more exciting when they're rare) and with movies where they work...and should be made so they can be released in theaters--the sequels that are awesome in my opinion are The Rescuers Down Under and Toy Story 2.

And direct to video things are cool--simply to make money--but I would like it if they used origional stories, and more Mickey and friends!

Oh and Kevin--I read that article when it came up on my homepage. I thought it very interesting too. Thanks for posting it. I mean, if you research Walt, you might even be shocked at some of the private things he has done--but I love him so much anyway!!

 

[HauntedPirate]

Good point on sequels and the "what happens next". I don't want someone else to tell me what happens after "Happily ever after". I think it's best left to each viewers imagination.

Direct-to-Video doesn't mean not good enough for theaters. D-t-V means riding on the coattails of the original, lower-quality animation (generally), less marketing, fewer costs, higher profits. Great for short-term profits, bad for long-term value.

And a statement like "the public loves sequels" is far from true. While some sequels are loved, and sometimes equal or outperform the original, it's typically a downward slide.

 

[Mr. Eggz]

This debate is now pointless and tired as Eisner's role within the Walt Disney Company is diminished, but just for the record...

It's not about the money it's about the legacy of Walt Disney.
It's not about how much Eisner was paid, it's about how little money is re-invested in the company considering how much he is paid.
Roy's money was inherited from his dad--one of the founders of the Walt Disney company who was poor most of his life so he kids could have a better life.

If money is all you care about, invest in real estate not entertainment. Many of Disney's inversters, employees, cast members, animators and imagineers hold Disney stock because they care about what Disney means to people, not money.

To Walt the money was always secondary...if you don't belive me, read Bob Thomas' Disney books and Randy Bright's Disneyland: the Inside Story. I've talked personally to Marc Davis, Alice Davis, John Hench, Card Walker and Marty Sklar. They all talked well of Walt as an employer. None of them talk about Walt caring about money.

I have also worked for Michael Eisner and Frank Wells. Eisner's employees know he only cares about money and power. Eisner is a truly selfish person. he only cares about himself. If it wasn't for Frank, Disney would have fallen apart years ago. The company's performance from 1984 -1994 reflects' Well's leadership. If you want to know Eisner's contribution look at 1994-2004.

I've read Eisner's Work in Progress twice (in which he admits all the mistakes at DL Paris were his fault--if you read closely enough). I think all of you Eisner supporters should at least read DisneyWar. Take it from someone who knows, it is right on the money.

 

[Mr. Eggz]

Look, this is foolish! These are legit numbers. It's not like they are saying: our profits were up 100% on even years with a 'leap year' and with a Presidential Election taking place.

Just to educate you, these are called 'bounds,' that is when there are restrictions placed on the stats to basically 'sweeten them up.' But in the case of the numbers in the article, these are VERY legit numbers! It clearly shows that Eisner was clearly a financial sucess for Disney! You can't even argue against that! It's there, BLACK AND WHITE CLEAR AS CHRYSTAL!

There is no argument against it!

Yes, Eisner did indeed make 'cut backs' but what CEO hasn't done that? Seriously, General Motors is about to go bankrupt due to the lack of cut backs made by their CEO!

Nothing in life is black and white. You are suggesting that Eisner is the only reason for all this financial success. He is not the only variable in this. You forgot about changes in the economy and thousands of other people who contributed to Disney's financial success--most notably Frank Wells.

I'm amazed this article was posted on a Theme Park fan site. Did you read it? It says that Disney's future is home entertainment and that's a good thing. Don't you realize that every penny that goes into home entertainment is one less penny that will go into the parks? Regardless of the fact that for the past 50 years the parks have been making that very money? Do you not like the parks?

 

[Number_6]

Okay, I want to say that I don't hate Eisner himself. I just don't like alot of moves that he has made in the past several years. Most notably would be DLP. Now, the idea of building a Theme Park in Europe did make some sense. Look how many visitors you get to WDW from Europe. Build one closer and maybe you can really start to cash in on the popularity overseas. Unfortunately, they chose to build it outside of Paris, France. Reasons, IMO, this was not the best choice of a location for it:
1) A large percentage of tourists going to Paris, are going to see things such as The Louvre, The Eiffel Tower, The Cathedral of Notre Dame, etc. Not to see and American made product.
2) The French, and this is according to many people that I know who have travelled to France, dislike tourists in general. You just tried to up the number of tourists to their capital.
3) The French really don't like Americans. I'm sure there are those that do, but overall(especially visible in more recent years) there is great animosity towards the US.
4)According to friends of mine in several European countries, they would rather travel to Orlando and go to WDW, getting what they feel is better service and friendlier CMs and locals, than go to France and deal with French locals.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE FRENCH, I AM JUST STATING REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN THE PAST.

Now, as far as other things go, please allow me to play Devil's Advocate askmike1.

FACT: 742 Films have been released under his tenure (compared with the 158 released before him)

Of the 742 films that have been released, how many were theatrical? Now, how many were remakes of originals? Now, how many were of good or better quality as far as writing, acting and where applicable animation?

FACT: He made the wise decision to release movies out on tape

This wasn't really a difficult decision to make. People are willing to buy a video tape to watch a movie they love over and over again at home. People love the classic Disney movies, so why not make them available(some for a limited time to make it even more special) for people to buy. It wasn't a revolutionary idea, since there were movie studios starting to put movies on video tape already.

Or do you mean how Disney is putting money in animation so there can be animated movies (Chicken Little, Repunzel, American Dog, Wilbur Robinson, etc).

But at the cost of eliminating traditional animation at the theaters. He's jumping on the bandwagon of CG animation because of the popularity of Pixar movies and films from Dreamworks. The problem being, the reason Pixar and Dreamworks movies are popular is not just because of their animation style. It is also because of the writing, voice acting and direction of the films. Take The Incredibles for example. Fantastic characters, wonderful story and dialogue that were well written and great casting of the voices. Now look at Dinosaur. Beautifully animated, but with weak characters IMO. I know there are some who like it, but there are alot that feel it was awful. Heck, the only character in it I liked was the Ankylosaur that acted like a dog. And he didn't really have lines.

Lilo and Stitch 2 looks just as good as the original

It should. From all indications, it was originally intended for a theatrical release. It looks like when they decided on "Home on the Range" being the last theatrically released tradtionally animated movie, they shifted it to a video release. This could be for any number of reasons, but it looks like they might have wanted to avoid possible further backlash from tradtional animation fans. If L&S2 hit the theaters, with Stitch's popularity being what it is, it would likely make money hand over fist. This would shoot down the notion that people only want to see CG animation in the theaters and would then show that maybe the decision to shut down the traditional animation studios for feature animation was as big a mistake as people first complained it would be.

Last one here, I promise:

They designed SGE (which I have no problem with btw), not Michael Eisner. Regardless of the budget, they are the ones who think of the ideas.

This was a comment in regards to the Imagineers. First off, the Imagineers don't just come up with one concept and that's it, they just go with that one. They come up with several. Then when the budget is presented to them, they see which ones can be made easily with the budget presented. Mission:Space was given a very good budget and did not have to conform to the system that was already in place from Horizons. It was able to be designed from scratch with the necessary funding in place. SGE was given as "put Stitch into the framework of this pre-existing attraction, utilizing the same show area." Odds are, it was felt this would not require nearly as much of a budget since they were re-using much of the space and it was in a smaller area than Mission:Space was, so therefore less money. From what I understand, the majority of the budget went into the Stitch animatronic which was a key component to the show. If you don't have alot left after that, then you're going to what you can with what you have. Unfortunately, it required some fine tuning, but who's to say if they had the extra funding that the fine tuning required, they wouldn't have produced a better product in the first place?

 

[askmike1]

If you want to know Eisner's contribution look at 1994-2004.

Lets see...Soarin', Tower of Terror, Expedition Everest, Disneyland Facelift, Philharmagic, ESPN, Lost, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lilo and Stitch, Mission:Space, Animal Kingdom (perhaps the most immensly themed theme park), Sixth Sense, Armageddon, Tarzan, Signs, I could go on but I'll stop now.

Roy's money was inherited from his dad--one of the founders of the Walt Disney company who was poor most of his life so he kids could have a better life.

Roy is a billionaire. How much of his money did he reinvest in the company?

I'm amazed this article was posted on a Theme Park fan site

WDWMagic is not just a theme park site. Also, this was posted in the 'Disney Co. News and Discussion' section of the forum.

-Michael

 

[askmike1]

As for DLP, being that the main park draws in [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]10.2m people (being in the top 5), I wouldn't say its doing too bad. The studios on the other hand probably won't do good until the ToT and toontown updates.[/font]

This wasn't really a difficult decision to make. People are willing to buy a video tape to watch a movie they love over and over again at home. People love the classic Disney movies, so why not make them available(some for a limited time to make it even more special) for people to buy. It wasn't a revolutionary idea, since there were movie studios starting to put movies on video tape already.

I quote the article...

At the time, Disney studio executives (including Katzenberg) were arguing that to release the company's beloved animated movies on video cassette would kill any profits to be made from re-releasing them in theaters. Eisner perceived the situation differently, and he put the videos into stores. Within a few years, video sales were providing almost all the profits for Disney's movie division and, by 2004, Disney raked in $6 billion from videos and DVDs sales.

Now look at Dinosaur. Beautifully animated, but with weak characters IMO. I know there are some who like it, but there are alot that feel it was awful.

Dinosaur only did mediocre because it had a serious plot. It was not a failure as most like to believe because theatrially alone it covered it's marketing and production budget. Worldwide, it made $354.2m, easily covering it's $127.5m production and $28.3m marketing budget.

It should. From all indications, it was originally intended for a theatrical release.

Regardless, it was made by ToonStudios and is excellent quality animation.

If L&S2 hit the theaters, with Stitch's popularity being what it is, it would likely make money hand over fist.

Disney is not concerned about protecting Stitch's popularity at all. Disney has been markteing the heck out of him. He's invaded Disney transportation, crashed a van outside of Downtown Disney, climbed up the empire state building, invaded parades, got paw prints all over the animation building, got a ride, has plush everywhere, and has done other things. If anything, this is the one character they are advertising the most.

-Michael

 

[Number_6]

Disney is not concerned about protecting Stitch's popularity at all. Disney has been markteing the heck out of him. He's invaded Disney transportation, crashed a van outside of Downtown Disney, climbed up the empire state building, invaded parades, got paw prints all over the animation building, got a ride, has plush everywhere, and has done other things. If anything, this is the one character they are advertising the most.

-Michael

I didn't say they were "protecting" his popularity. Far from it. I was trying to say that it would have likely made a ton of money in theaters if it had been released there and shown that "traditional" animation still can thrive in theatrical releases. It doesn't just have to be CG animation out there.

 

[barnum42]

According to friends of mine in several European countries, they would rather travel to Orlando and go to WDW, getting what they feel is better service and friendlier CMs and locals, than go to France and deal with French locals.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE FRENCH, I AM JUST STATING REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN THE PAST.

I prefer to travel to Orlando over Paris because day for day it is cheaper, the weather is generally better and the European public can be a lot ruder than those found in Orlando.