-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Micheal Eisner...
- Thread starter Dunston
- Start date
Jonnydanger
New Member
Micheal Eisner was cancer to Disney. Walt Disney I guarantee would have never hired someone line that. People like the part of Disney created by Walt not Eisner. Its too bad the Disney family don't own enough stock to take the company back from these people.
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
Don’t forget, WDW enjoyed its greatest expansion under Eisner. Aminal Kingdom, Hollywood Studios, Splash Mountain, Tower of Terror, etc were all under his watch.
He had his problems but what he helped build is what allowed the margin sucking management of today to succeed with zero expansion and utter apathy toward WDW.
He had his problems but what he helped build is what allowed the margin sucking management of today to succeed with zero expansion and utter apathy toward WDW.
Jonnydanger
New Member
Animal Kingdom and the rest are Walt Disney ideas. MGM was Eisner and it has no magic and is the lowest attendance theme park Disney. I go there and people tell me they don't like it and the original Disney parks are much better. Alien encounter has no attendance and that was 100% Eisner. The stock price was in the toilet under Eisner. Walt Disney and his family including Roy have said that this is not the direction that the company is suppose to be going. My family voted to kick Eisner out with our shares then we sold them.
They lined up all their computer programmers to fire them one by one in an almost execution style and made them replace them with Indian foreign workers under a program design for people who are unable to get Americans to do the job by using some cloak and dagger style shell companies. This was even such a big deal, it was brought up in the presidential debate and Disney was mentioned by name for doing this. Lets not forget that they fired guy that came up with the Pixar technology for the crime of coming up with the pixar technology. They eventually had to buy it back in the form of Pixar. Everything they paid for Pixar was something they could have had for free if the did not fire that individual. Unfortunately when a company goes public, its selling your soul to the devil in order to get some short term money and one day the devil comes to collect. In Disney case, that devil is in the form of Eisner.
I can guarantee you the park would be much better today if Disney and his family remained in charge vs Eisner and his goons.
They lined up all their computer programmers to fire them one by one in an almost execution style and made them replace them with Indian foreign workers under a program design for people who are unable to get Americans to do the job by using some cloak and dagger style shell companies. This was even such a big deal, it was brought up in the presidential debate and Disney was mentioned by name for doing this. Lets not forget that they fired guy that came up with the Pixar technology for the crime of coming up with the pixar technology. They eventually had to buy it back in the form of Pixar. Everything they paid for Pixar was something they could have had for free if the did not fire that individual. Unfortunately when a company goes public, its selling your soul to the devil in order to get some short term money and one day the devil comes to collect. In Disney case, that devil is in the form of Eisner.
I can guarantee you the park would be much better today if Disney and his family remained in charge vs Eisner and his goons.
No Name
Well-Known Member
Michael Eisner was instrumental in turning Disney into the company it is today. He was also instrumental in turning the man himself into a legend, which in turn, has helped the company. Whether TWDC would've been more successful without him is impossible to know. It might've been chopped up and sold. It might've been super successful.
Wow please do your research first. This is almost entirely factually incorrect.
Wow please do your research first. This is almost entirely factually incorrect.
Last edited:
The_Bellringer
Active Member
Eisner (and Wells) saved Disney.
The lattter half of Eisner's reign is what soured his reputation.
The lattter half of Eisner's reign is what soured his reputation.
Dude, you shouldn’t pass opinion as fact.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
^^^^ This
I agree, I read through this and all I could do is wonder if I had fallen asleep and was dreaming this discussion. Eisner did seem to be overwhelmed toward the end of his tenure, but, the first few years saved the Disney Company from total extinction. I know we are a society of "what have you done for me lately", but that whole rant lacked in any clarity or fact.
epcotisbest
Well-Known Member
Wow!
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Legacy is a funny thing, ain’t it? For all the negative, and there’s plenty, TWDC would not be in the position it is in today without Michael. Folks typically only view the company from the perspective of P&R, but Michael and Frank took advantage of the legacy and emerging businesses left to them and then established new ventures and made acquisitions that make up the modern Walt Disney Company. Michael’s legacy is a net positive and I suspect folks will come around as time passes.
Iger, in the long run, won’t be so lucky. Bob has had zero vision for the company as a singular, interconnected entity, which is funny considering the public still sees Disney that way. The focus has been on acquisitions which detract from the organization’s focus and problems Bob inherited from Michael, see WDW, have largely gone unfixed. His desire to be seen as the smartest and hippest guy is a front to hide the fact he runs a creative company but has no inherent talent for such an enterprise. Teflon wears out.
I had a chance to have a conversation with Roy Disney a bit before he passed away. He was on a DVC Member cruise and started a conversation with me in the Cove. Just me and him. I was a bit shocked that he was just there by himself.
After a moment of “what the heck”, I thanked him for bringing Eisner in, and then taking him out. He seemed to enjoy that summary.
I think the reality is that Eisner and Wells were a great team. Eisner by himself not so good.
Iger has positioned the company for the next 59 years. I don’t love everything that he does, but he made some truly genius moves with the company. Look at what WDW has working now with new rides and tons of new infrastructure. It takes years to get that stuff moving.
It’s easy to throw shade from behind a keyboard.
After a moment of “what the heck”, I thanked him for bringing Eisner in, and then taking him out. He seemed to enjoy that summary.
I think the reality is that Eisner and Wells were a great team. Eisner by himself not so good.
Iger has positioned the company for the next 59 years. I don’t love everything that he does, but he made some truly genius moves with the company. Look at what WDW has working now with new rides and tons of new infrastructure. It takes years to get that stuff moving.
It’s easy to throw shade from behind a keyboard.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
more of a culture thing to me. I feel most front running CEO types would,habe made largely similar decisions. it's how business is these days. I don't blame a single person I blame our own culture of money now. This is what really turned the needle toward being driven by stock growth IMHO. in any case those days were better than the ones we have had more recently.
I remember I did a research paper in 2004 on Disney for a corporate finance class I was taking in college. One thing I can recall from that project is how Eisner resurrected Disney from incredible mediocrity in the 1980s. Were some of his decision unpopular? Absolutely. BUT we would not have the Disney we have today without the vital role that Michael Eisner played.
Also, let's not forget that Eisner completely revamped the cast member model and instituted the guest service process spelled out in his famous book "Be Our Guest."
Also, let's not forget that Eisner completely revamped the cast member model and instituted the guest service process spelled out in his famous book "Be Our Guest."
floridagirl57
Active Member
Do you mind elaborating on this?
JIMINYCR
Well-Known Member
In the beginning Roy Disney was grasping for a solution to Disneys problems as it was heading for disaster. Reaching out to Eisner and Wells, he found what he thought was the answer to his prayers. Knowledgable, powerful guys that had innovative ideas to strengthen the Disney company and bring stability back. Eisner and Wells did a lot to keep Disney healthy enough to survive its issues brought on by the floundering Disney family management decisions and bad economic times. The atmosphere and decision making after Wells's death changed Eisner and the corporation. Eisner had some successes and blunders but he was still somewhat good for the company. It was towards the end as he started making poor decisions and saw his rule was going to end that he started looking out for #1 and did things to enrich himself before he turned the keys over to Iger.
He also destroyed Disney's cash machine. Eiser was responsible for pushing Disney movies into the homes and out of the theaters. Prior to Eiser if you wanted to see Snow White you waited the 7 or so years until Disney pushed it out to the theaters again or didn't see it at all. Eiser pushed all the movies out to make a fast buck, and while it has continued to serve them well as technology went from VHS to DVD to BluRay with each iteration given Disney the ability to resell the same movies over and over, the reality is when the movie gets to a format that doesn't require upgrading you don't get to make as much off the movie as before because there will be enough discs of the movie in circulation that it doesn't demand the same premium as before. It was only by luck that technology kept changing or the money Disney pulled in from classic movies would have pretty much dried up 20 years ago. Eiser was the poster boy for quick buck at the expense of long-term revenue.
TwilightZone
Well-Known Member
I did hate Eisner for a bit..but after some thought I have grew to the mindset that I only slightly dislike him in the same way I slightly dislike Iger.
I mean, how can you hate the person who allowed the little mermaid, lilo and stitch, meet the robinsons and classic rides such as soarin', dreamflight, the timekeeper, and so on to happen?
But I will never forgive him for your imagination and super star limo. At least Iger is consistent with his ride quality: good or meh.
I mean, how can you hate the person who allowed the little mermaid, lilo and stitch, meet the robinsons and classic rides such as soarin', dreamflight, the timekeeper, and so on to happen?
But I will never forgive him for your imagination and super star limo. At least Iger is consistent with his ride quality: good or meh.
Robbiem
Well-Known Member
They are both products of their times and really reflect the wider trends in western business. Eisner was eighties nineties expand by diversity and do new things - Disney store, more parks, cruise line etc. Even the Pixar deal originally was a gamble on a new type of movie. A lot of other companies at the time were the same look at how many virgin branded businesses existed around this time. Richard Branson had everything from an airline and records to vodka, cola and even condom brands. Iger is the noughties, teenies play safe grow by buying other companies, similar to Apple with beats, google with android etc rather than do something new (yes I know Eisner bought ABC but he didn't stamp collect in the same way as Bob does).
Which one was better, hard to say. For the parks Eisner initially did a lot of good but got panicked and made bad choices towards the end while Iger appears to a bit indifferent and uses them to promote other businesses rather than having them as their own thing. Without either of them the company would be very different and may not even have existed but in the end both have probably outstayed their welcome
Which one was better, hard to say. For the parks Eisner initially did a lot of good but got panicked and made bad choices towards the end while Iger appears to a bit indifferent and uses them to promote other businesses rather than having them as their own thing. Without either of them the company would be very different and may not even have existed but in the end both have probably outstayed their welcome
THEMEPARKPIONEER
Well-Known Member
Under Iger allot of popular attractions went down as well or are diying and the changes are appalling. Besides the new attractions coming in these changes are a bit off the trail for me in some cases.
slappy magoo
Well-Known Member
The move to video would have happened eventually. Not only was the lure of the lucre too strong, but as Disney kept producing new animated features, to say nothing of live-action, the "re-release every 7 years" strategy would have started to cannibalize new titles...or vice versa and Disney wouldn't have wanted press along the lines of "classic title doesn't hold up compared to new movie" any more than "new movie can't compete with classic." Really as far as a release and re-release strategy goes, videotape couldn't have come at a better time. Add to that what you wrote about advances in technology compelling fans to double/triple/quadruple/nth-uple dip (Betamax! VHS after Beta died! Ooooh digitally remastered VHS! Was it a widescreen movie? Widescreen edition digitally remastered VHS! DVD! Blu-Ray! Digital Copy if not included with Blu-Ray! And eventually 4K and after that who knows?), and it's that influx of cash that did more to sustain Disney profits than re-releases ever could, money they invested into among other things, the parks.
And it's pretty clear that the current bottom line isn't hurting from a lack of re-releases. If anything it's hurting from America's ending its love affair with Johnny Depp
