artvandelay
Well-Known Member
And Star Trek II!
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Michael Eisner interview
- Thread starter Jrb1979
- Start date
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
So Eisner says the parks are too expensive -------what will Disney do about it------RAISE PRICES
Serpico Jones
Well-Known Member
It was a great interview. Some of the gems were Eisner calling Harvey Weinstein a “despicable pig” and a liar. He also said Roy Disney made terrible movies and needed to go and that Steve Jobs was asking for too much money for Pixar.
Interesting stuff.
Interesting stuff.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
I love when cranky old people with generations of “screw you” money lie in wait for decades and then spill tea and settle scores.
That said, Eisner acquired Weinstein before he acquired Iger, and could have ceased that arrangement at any time before 2005.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, it will never happen.
AidenRodriguez731
Well-Known Member
Tbh, that's just not how business is really done if you're one of the big boys in the public stock. You are tied to the shareholders in a lot of ways. And fully appeasing fans is very expensive and simply won't get the returns the stocks are used to seeing. If the holders think Disney is being a little too handsy with the money, they pull out and you lose more of it.
It's a balancing act. I think Josh does genuinely care. I hear all the time that he's in the parks, talking to guests. I was at Disney when he was announced and numerous guests and cast members were talking about how he was a good choice, they liked him, and he was a humble guy when they met him
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I agree, TWDC must act to preserve or increase the stock price. The majority of the stock is held by institutional owners and there are pensions that rely on the stock remaining stable or slowly increasing over time, although I feel sorry for the folks who got in during the Chapek time when it was at $200.
Personally, I only care about WDW and whatever we get between now and 2030 will be it for a while no matter what it turns out to be. Now that Josh is CEO, his main focus cannot be on the theme parks; not sure this matters since under Josh we had the destruction of RoA, Muppets 3D and Dinosaur.
For Josh and TWDC, my hope is the brand could be rebuilt to the family brand it once was and not one of activist.
Splash4eva
Well-Known Member
Scary part about Disney is this. Altho buybacks will always be a part of their future(as with most big companies now) they are not afraid to spend money. Issue is they just dont choose to spend it wisely or projects just end up costing a staggering amount and almost impossible to comprehend the final cost.
Bill in Atlanta
Well-Known Member
Always liked Eisner. Reminded me of a dad you'd see in line at Delta Dreamflight in 1988. I think he was a real one.
Tom P.
Premium Member
I think Eisner "gets it." If that makes any sense. He made some really good decisions, and some really bad ones too, but at his core, I think he gets it.
I don't think Iger ever has "gotten it."
It remains to see if D'Amaro "gets it" or not, but it at least looks promising that he might.
That's about the best way I can phrase my feeling about them.
I don't think Iger ever has "gotten it."
It remains to see if D'Amaro "gets it" or not, but it at least looks promising that he might.
That's about the best way I can phrase my feeling about them.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I liked his hotel expansion choices....
Eisner made some terrible decisions. But he had a passion for what he was doing. He enjoyed it. He also raised the value of the company 4,000% during his tenure, which I'm sure gave him a lot more leeway in terms of what the board and investors would tolerate from him. I was all for his ouster, and maybe it was time for him to move on, but in hindsight, we didn't know how good we had it. The cold reality of the matter is, we're not like (this is correct grammar, Grammarly) to see the likes of him again.
Tom P.
Premium Member
You know who repeatedly gets forgotten in these CEO discussions? Poor Ron Miller.
I'm only half-joking, actually. I know Ron Miller was largely disliked as president and CEO, and had a relatively short tenure, but conversations often seem to jump from Walt to Eisner as if there was no one in between. And I have to give Miller credit for giving us Touchstone Pictures and The Disney Channel, and also for being willing to take a chance on a little experimental film known as Tron.
I'm only half-joking, actually. I know Ron Miller was largely disliked as president and CEO, and had a relatively short tenure, but conversations often seem to jump from Walt to Eisner as if there was no one in between. And I have to give Miller credit for giving us Touchstone Pictures and The Disney Channel, and also for being willing to take a chance on a little experimental film known as Tron.
I think Miller's decisions didn't have time enough to see the success that would come before Eisner came in.
Splash4eva
Well-Known Member
Always loved Eisner but i guess the real question needs to be. How much of his success was do to Wells?
BasiltheBatLord
Well-Known Member
It's always fascinating how history changes perspectives. I joined my first Disney parks forum in 2004 (WDWTrivia), and I remember clearly that Eisner was not viewed favorably by most of the fan base near the end of his tenure. I think a lot of fans at that time bought into the Save Disney campaign and were desperate for a new CEO.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Trust me Iger was not Roy's ideal choice for a successor. Save Disney ultimately failed in its intentions sadly
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I think a lot to be honest. There was an extremely sharp and noticeable decline throughout the company immediately following his death. It took a few years to be felt within their theatrical and TV output (because those can take years to produce), but it was very noticeable in the immediate years following this in the way the parks were managed and maintained. It was visible at WDW, but especially so (and well documented) at Disneyland. Which I believe is no coincidence. And it just kept getting worse and worse until well into the late 90s and early 2000s where it finally began to become quite apparent in their movie and TV content.
There isn't a whole lot of information about Wells compared to Eisner. Like how he viewed the parks and movies, what sort of creative ideas he wanted to foster etc. It wasn't all that common to see Wells in a ton of park and media promos compared to Eisner, especially by himself. He'd still do dedications and such alongside Eisner of course, but he wasn't often one to put his face into everything like Eisner liked doing. That said, there is a photo of Wells posing by himself behind an early model of Tokyo Disneysea. I interpret this as him probably having some sort of interest in that project, which is interesting. By contrast, it's known that there were different pitches earlier on for a Studios like clone for Tokyo's second park instead, likely pitched by Eisner as he was known to be a fan of those. They ultimately (and thankfully) settled on the Disneysea project instead, which ended up being one of the best theme parks ever created. California got a mediocre Studios clone instead under Eisner's authority due to extreme penny pinching (canceling the Westcot plan), and Paris got an even worse version a year later.
Ron Miller on the other hand legitimately deserves FAR more credit than he gets, he inherited a lot of prior messes that weren't at all his fault. And he set into motion most if not all of the successes that Eisner/Wells enjoyed in the 90s. If Ron Miller had stayed on just a few more years for his foundational work to begin bearing fruit, he most likely would not have been ousted and would have gotten the proper credit he deserved.
The Disney Channel exists because of Ron Miller, and he was also heavily involved the push for home video releases. The successes of both of these things cannot be overstated. And while the theatrical animated movie studios began their "renaissance" under Eisner and Wells, Miller set up much of that foundation. I do not believe Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Little Mermaid would have happened without Ron Miller's foundational work. Remember that it takes years to produce a movie, and a lot was already set into motion under Miller. The theme parks were also still treated with great respect and care under Miller too, they hadn't yet become a vehicle for endlessly ripping people off with mass price hikes and ever diminishing quality. It was again during Eisner's regime (particularly following Wells' death though there were some warning signs even before that) that the parks began to experience a significant amount of neglect and degradation with corporate beginning to cynically treat them and their guests like trash to be taken advantage of for money. It should also be noted that Miller was heavily trusted by Walt Disney, he trained him for future executive roles in his final years. A lot of people like to create what-if scenarios in their mind for Wells having survived or Eisner being allowed to remain at the company for a few years longer. But in hindsight, I would have liked to have seen a longer Ron Miller term. I think we would have seen much of the same successes as the early Eisner/Wells years, and perhaps less of the bad stuff that ended up happening.
Last edited: