In regards to Michael Eisner

[captainkidd]

There was some mention of Eisner in another thread. Not to hijack that one, I think this is a topic that deserves it's own thread. So many people seem to bash Eisner and label him as the devil of Disney. I can't stand this. Do people not realize how much that man did for the company? All the things that are wrong with WDW right now, are things that were right with him. Just a quick list of things accomplished under Eisner:

1.Hollywood Studios
2.Animal Kingdom
3.Typhoon Lagoon
4.Blizzard Beach
5.Grand Floridian
6.Wilderness Lodge
7.Port Orleans
8.Caribbean Beach Resort
9.All Star Resorts
10.Pop Century
11.Animal Kingdom Lodge
12.Boardwalk
13.Yacht and Beach Club Resort
14.Coronado Springs Resort
15.Old Key West
16.Pleasure Island
17.DTD West Side
18.Disney Vacation Club
19.Disney Cruise Line
20.Disney's California Adventure
21.Euro-Disney

Need we get into a list of the attractions built under Eisner, starting with 2 of the most popular rides at WDW - Splash Mountain and Tower of Terror.

Everything we complain on this board about that is wrong with WDW, was right under Eisner. The reason shareholders and board members didn't like him was he spent money hand over fist on the resort. He also made money hand over fist for the resort.

Under his regime, the company reinvented the animated movie twice, starting with The Little Mermaid, then with the beginning of the Pixar relationship. I just don't get where all the hatred for Eisner comes from. Without him, WDW wouldn't be the place it is today (and I mean that in the best way possible.)

 

[SeaCastle]

Eisner did add some truly great things to the parks, don't get me wrong. But if you haven't read the book "Disney War", I highly suggest you do. Once Frank Wells died, Michael's ego was unleashed. There became a much greater push to make shareholders happy. Consultants replaced long-time Disney employees, and things started getting cut at the margins. For the record, Eisner almost permanently destroyed Disney's relationship with Pixar.

After 1994, the parks started spiraling downward. It kicked off what we see today.

 

[captainkidd]

Eisner did add some truly great things to the parks, don't get me wrong. But if you haven't read the book "Disney War", I highly suggest you do. Once Frank Wells died, Michael's ego was unleashed. There became a much greater push to make shareholders happy. Consultants replaced long-time Disney employees, and things started getting cut at the margins. For the record, Eisner almost permanently destroyed Disney's relationship with Pixar.

After 1994, the parks started spiraling downward. It kicked off what we see today.

Post 1994 - Blizzard Beach, Animal Kingdom, Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, Fantasmic, Mission:Space, Mickey's Philharmagic, Soarin'.

In all my trips to Disney, I think of the best years being the late 80's to 90's. Cleanest and friendliest the parks ever were. I don't think what we see today can be blamed on Eisner. He's been out for almost 6 years now.

 

[Testtrack321]

Eisner did add some truly great things to the parks, don't get me wrong. But if you haven't read the book "Disney War", I highly suggest you do. Once Frank Wells died, Michael's ego was unleashed. There became a much greater push to make shareholders happy. Consultants replaced long-time Disney employees, and things started getting cut at the margins. For the record, Eisner almost permanently destroyed Disney's relationship with Pixar.

After 1994, the parks started spiraling downward. It kicked off what we see today.

Yeah what he said. x10

Nobody's perfect, but nobody's totally evil. Eisner had his good and bad qualities, and when Wells died it left him unchecked. Most of the attractions you listed would not have been built without Wells.

Plus how can we forget the classic "Lets insert the mermaid from Splash into Splash Mountain" story just to show how out of touch Eisner was at times...

 

[Tigger1988]

Read Disney War and then amend your original post.

 

[captainkidd]

Read Disney War and then amend your original post.

Why, because one person's side of the story paints a brutal picture about Eisner?

Read Married To The Mouse, believe everything that was written in that book, and you might never want to step foot on Disney property again.

 

[Testtrack321]

Why, because one person's side of the story paints a brutal picture about Eisner?

Read Married To The Mouse, believe everything that was written in that book, and you might never want to step foot on Disney property again.

This is a discussion thread. We're discussing things, like Frank Wells and other factors that came into play that created great attractions. And other factors that led to his demise and bad attractions and experiences.

Should we forget what we lost when he was around, too? From Tomorrowland in DL to 20k, Mr Toad, Skyway, Horizons, original JII, and many other attractions?

 

[ABigBrassBand]

This is a discussion thread. We're discussing things, like Frank Wells and other factors that came into play that created great attractions. And other factors that led to his demise and bad attractions and experiences.

Should we forget what we lost when he was around, too? From Tomorrowland in DL to 20k, Mr Toad, Skyway, Horizons, original JII, and many other attractions?

I'd have to say, the benefits highly outweigh the losses in this case.

 

[imagineer boy]

Why, because one person's side of the story paints a brutal picture about Eisner?

Its not one sided, it simply presents the facts.

I pretty much agree with what's been said here, he did some great things until Wells died and the rest was history. *sigh* Why did Wells have to go on that mountain trip?

I think the most horriffic thing is the fact that if Eisner was still in power now, Disney would no longer be with Pixar and would not have released Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, and Disney would have produced a lackluster Toy Story 3. Just think of all the profit Disney would have missed out on. That's just bad leadership all around.

 

[Tigger1988]

Why, because one person's side of the story paints a brutal picture about Eisner?

And with this comment it is glaringly obvious you've never read the book, why even try to comment on its contents?

Its not one sided, it simply presents the facts.

Yup.

 

[SeaCastle]

Post 1994 - Blizzard Beach, Animal Kingdom, Buzz Lightyear's Space Ranger Spin, Fantasmic, Mission:Space, Mickey's Philharmagic, Soarin'.

In all my trips to Disney, I think of the best years being the late 80's to 90's. Cleanest and friendliest the parks ever were. I don't think what we see today can be blamed on Eisner. He's been out for almost 6 years now.

After 1994, you had the Adventureland Veranda, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Skyway, Diamond Horseshoe, etc. shuttered (at the Magic Kingdom alone). At EPCOT, you had the Odyssey, World of Motion, Horizons, and original Imagination shuttered. Lee Cockerell assumed command of Walt Disney Attractions. Maintenance took a turn for the worse, and the onslaught of cutting corners came. The things you mentioned above are nice in of themselves, but notice how they are all character tie-ins, replacing timeless/classic attractions. Soarin' was built because the VP of EPCOT diverted funds away from an E-ticket at the Magic Kingdom.

Eisner can be blamed for putting the structure in place that makes WDW so bad now. Once he installed Jay Rasulo, the parks took an even sharper turn for the worse. Look at what happend when Paul Pressler took over Disneyland. Eisner was still in charge then, and that was even worse than WDW.

So yes, there were some great things that happend during Eisner's tenure. He pulled the company off its laurels and produced some truly awesome things. But he also transformed the company into what we say today, which is not so good. I don't know what drove Michael Eisner, whether it was greed, ego, or maybe he meant well. I don't know, and I don't care that much. But all I can say is that when I look at the parks now, compared to how great everyone says they were before I started visiting, I'm disappointed. And in the end, it all goes back to Michael.

 

[wolf359]

I'm glad this got spun off into its own topic, since I was going to make a comment about Eisner but it would have carried the other thread further off course.

Simply put, Eisner did a lot of good, and a lot of bad in his 20 years at Disney. As others have already said if you look at only the first ten years he seems pretty gosh-darn great. If you look at only the last ten years, pretty gosh-darn awful. Look at the whole picture (which is the only fair way to approach it) and it's something of a draw.

Overall, I wish that expansion boom from '84-'94 had been just a little more conservative, because I think the biggest problem facing the resort today is it is too big for its own good.

Making things worse are the people weaned on that level of growth and expansion. Now the expectation is that unless Disney is constantly building newer and better things, adding multiple attractions to every park every year they're accused of growing complacent or stale.

Because of the speed with which news travels and attention-spans shrink all of Disney's unbuilt projects are already old news. Fantasyland, Star Tours, Hyperion Wharf, California Adventure 2.0, Shanghai Disneyland add up to years of time and billions of dollars of expansion and improvement. Even though none are finished and some haven't even broken ground yet the impatient watchdogs of progress are already looking beyond five years worth of projects and wondering why Disney seems to be doing nothing.

That's what I blame on Eisner. He gave Disney fans everything, except the knowledge that the building boom couldn't (and shouldn't) last forever.

 

[THEMEPARKPIONEER]

I dont think they should have fired him. All he needed was more boundaries when it came to wanting to make Disney more busyness. Why is Figment back in Journey into your Imagination? I think he listened to people like us. Things are worse without him. I am not going to say he isn't ruthless but the parks were way better with him. I think Spaceship Earth would have a better ending, The living Seas would be the same, Wonders of Life would still be open and Epcot wouldn't be losing sponsors. Ever since he left the Disney Channel started to take over. I read more and more and kept my mind open and I came to realize that the media did half the damage. He was a ruthless b****** but he kept the parks in ship shape.

 

[SeaBase86]

I did not read Disney War so here is my take on Eisner.

He was the man. This guy brought in so much for the company. Tower Of Terror, Disney Cruise Line, and much more. He also brought in the Miramax library which is probaly one of the most valuable libraries in Hollywood. With great films as Pulp Fiction, City Of God, and Good Will Hunting. He then brought in ABC which is one of the most popular broadcast companies in the world. From reading my post you can tell I liked Eisner.

Now I know there are also cons. Horizons was lost (ah who cares though the ride was overrated), 20,000 Leagues was lost (it was starting to show its age anyway), and so much more. And finally I think I've been so spoiled by Eisner's every year new attraction motto that WDW seems so stale at the moment (curse you Eisner for satisfying my attraction needs )

I will read Disney War and find out where all this hatred for Eisner is stemming from. However until then Eisner I believe was a major figure in progressing Disney

 

[captainkidd]

And with this comment it is glaringly obvious you've never read the book, why even try to comment on its contents?

I never said I did read it. But I've certainly heard about it. Like any other book of the sort, it's one side of the story. Ever read "Realityland"? It's an easy read, but it paints a very ugly picture of WDW. But again, it's one sided.

I have been looking for a new book to read, so I'll give it a shot.

 

[captainkidd]

I agree with those saying we lost some things because of Eisner, but I also agree with the post that we gained much more than we lost. The thing with Eisner was, when we lost something, we always got something worth while to replace it (with the exception of 20K Leagues, which was simply unfixable in it's setup).

 

[wolf359]

I dont think they should have fired him. All he needed was more boundaries

What is the incentive to be the head of a company if you can't do what you want to do? What is the incentive to have a CEO if the board of directors have to manage everything he does?

Why is Figment back in Journey into your Imagination? I think he listened to people like us.

Yes, but why did Dreamfinder and Figment leave in the first place?

Things are worse without him. I am not going to say he isn't ruthless but the parks were way better with him.

Things are bad now because the parks are still trying to climb out of the years of neglect from the end of Eisner's time. All of the poor management that ran ALL of the parks into the ground were installed and praised by Eisner because in his last years he became more and more focused on cost cutting.

I think Spaceship Earth would have a better ending, The living Seas would be the same, Wonders of Life would still be open and Epcot wouldn't be losing sponsors.

All three of those attraction's sponsors left while Eisner was still CEO.

 

[DisneyNut2007]

Simply put, the company DID take a turn for the worst under Eisner after Frank Wells' death.

Things ARE better with Eisner out of the picture, because things would've fallen into a much worse state by now.

Eisner never was, and never will be, the end-all, be-all of Disney--to say something like that is instant short-term thinking. He deserved to get the boot for doing more bad than good during the second half of his 21-year tenure as the CEO of The Walt Disney Company, which is a huge reason why Roy Disney created his "Save Disney" campaign in 2004 in the first place, calling for Eisner's much-needed ouster.

And, as others have already suggested, go read Disney War for some much-needed enlightenment.

 

[unkadug]

I never said I did read it. But I've certainly heard about it. Like any other book of the sort, it's one side of the story. Ever read "Realityland"? It's an easy read, but it paints a very ugly picture of WDW. But again, it's one sided.

I have been looking for a new book to read, so I'll give it a shot.

I didn't think it painted that ugly of a picture. It told the truth about a lot that has happened. If we wanted nothing but the "pixie dust" we wouldn't even be on this site. :shrug:

 

[SeaCastle]

I agree with those saying we lost some things because of Eisner, but I also agree with the post that we gained much more than we lost. The thing with Eisner was, when we lost something, we always got something worth while to replace it (with the exception of 20K Leagues, which was simply unfixable in it's setup).

That's just a matter of perspective. Eisner installed a management that led us to an ongoing period of stagnation and lack of in-berm spending at the parks. That is a problem, and that is a big problem. No amount of new parks and hotels can solve the problem that maintenance was lackluster and the existing parks stagnated.

20,000 Leagues wasn't "unfixable". Nothing was ever "unfixable". Anything could be done if there is enough money to fix it. Given a decent refurb, yes, 20,000 Leagues could have been an excellent attraction. If it was indeed "unfixable", why is Disneyland still running their submarines?

What happend when we lost Adventureland Veranda? Nothing replaced it. What happend when we lost the Skyway? Nothing replaced that either. When we lost Horizons, we got an overly-expensive, barely-themed simulator attraction to replace it. What happend when we lost the live entertainment that Eisner cut from Liberty Square? What happend when we lost the strict maintenance standards that Disney was so revered for? What was lost when Paul Pressler took charge of Disneyland? When we lost 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, how come it will have taken them 18 years to have something to replace that?

I'll say it again, yes we got some nice things with Eisner. But the repercussions of his actions made our parks the way they are today: stagnated.