MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
Of course they are! Haven't you seen the figure for Big Mike's Farewell Bonus?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Roy O Disney Letter to Stockholders
- Thread starter all41
- Start date
Of course they are! Haven't you seen the figure for Big Mike's Farewell Bonus?
DisneyFan 2000
Well-Known Member
The letter talks about money only because that is the only language those people understand!
Oh, and DLP's opening year is 92! :animwink:
djmatthews
Well-Known Member
What a year that was - I still have my "Opening Crew '92" T-Shirt somewhere.... shame it won't fit any more!
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
Goodbye Pixar?
Last night I read Eisner's letter to shareholders in the company's 2003 Annual Report. He mentioned that Disney will produced their first 100% computer generated animated feature-length film in 2005. This tells me that Disney will no longer rely on Pixar for these types of films. No wonder why Eisner is not concerned with the company's relationship with Pixar. They will do it themselves and will no longer need theml.
Last night I read Eisner's letter to shareholders in the company's 2003 Annual Report. He mentioned that Disney will produced their first 100% computer generated animated feature-length film in 2005. This tells me that Disney will no longer rely on Pixar for these types of films. No wonder why Eisner is not concerned with the company's relationship with Pixar. They will do it themselves and will no longer need theml.
General Grizz
New Member
Re: Goodbye Pixar?
I'm sure if Disney can grasp 3-D, under current management, so much will be produced that 3-D will become the standard, "cheap," repeated Disney quality.
Know what I mean? Case in point, right now, 2-D animation is running down because of all of the mass crap Disney is producing from sequel to sequel to television show to television show.
Pixar has the right idea. One major film per year. No sequel crap. . . unless it's done well and spread over as a well-done, feature release. This adds a sense of value to the films that attract audiences to come see Pixar each year.
Not every day. . . this when (i.e. Disney's audience) starts to get tired, and degrades the Disney name as "cheap," "everywhere," and "standard." Walt would be ashamed (I'm sure).
As for Paris, it's still doing poorly. Disney had to ask the Saudi who invested 300m years ago to donate once again...based on the failure of the Disney Studios park.
Ugh...and now they're going for China.
Soon the parks will fizzle just like the animation...
I'm sure if Disney can grasp 3-D, under current management, so much will be produced that 3-D will become the standard, "cheap," repeated Disney quality.
Know what I mean? Case in point, right now, 2-D animation is running down because of all of the mass crap Disney is producing from sequel to sequel to television show to television show.
Pixar has the right idea. One major film per year. No sequel crap. . . unless it's done well and spread over as a well-done, feature release. This adds a sense of value to the films that attract audiences to come see Pixar each year.
Not every day. . . this when (i.e. Disney's audience) starts to get tired, and degrades the Disney name as "cheap," "everywhere," and "standard." Walt would be ashamed (I'm sure).
As for Paris, it's still doing poorly. Disney had to ask the Saudi who invested 300m years ago to donate once again...based on the failure of the Disney Studios park.
Ugh...and now they're going for China.
Soon the parks will fizzle just like the animation...
Woody13
New Member
You may judge my actions as not doing squat if you wish. My concern is that Roy and Stan are causing great harm to the company. And yes, the press is just eating this Roy and Stan cake up.
One of the main points I have made since this entire debate started was my concern that the cart was being put ahead of the horse. "Get rid of Eisner", "Down with Eisner", "Eisner must Go", "Roy is Right" and other such slogans are ubiquitous. However, when I, or others, have asked the question, "Who are you going to get as a replacement?", either the thread stops or a suggestion such as Steve Jobs pops up. I think we can all agree that we want what is best for The Walt Disney Company. IMO, Steve Jobs would be worse than Eisner is in every respect so let's not even go there.
So, how about the Disney number 2 man, Bob Iger? Does anyone think he is the man for the CEO job? I don't. I did see an interesting suggestion from mkt (I think). He suggested Sir Richard Branson as a possible replacement. I kind of like that idea but I don't know if he would be interested. Nevertheless, I thought it to be an excellent suggestion. I have all ready mentioned my favorite candidate in a previous post on another thread. Why haven't Roy and Stan made their new CEO suggestions public? Surely they must have one or more people in mind. Both Roy and Stan have stated that they have no desire to be CEO's of the company yet they have publicly refused to endorse anyone else. Does anyone here have a good candidate for the new Disney CEO?
Eisner's contract expires in 2006 and that is just around the corner. Why is there such a big rush to get him to open up his golden parachute now? Because of the uniqueness of this CEO position, and the importance of smooth succession, Boards usually wish to avoid sudden and unexpected termination of any type. I am not familiar with the specifics of Eisner's contract, but, I am willing to bet that early termination of his contract will cost the company a lot more than if they wait until 2006. As djmatthews said, "Roy has to present a solid, financially viable long term plan."
I still have a lot of concern about Roy's behavior in this matter. Rumors have circulated that while Roy was still a Disney Board member, that he had private talks with the Henson family and Pixar CEO Steve Jobs, urging them not to sign any new deals with Disney because he (Roy) was working on a plan to get rid of Eisner. If, in fact, he did this, then Roy is clearly guilty of violating his fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders and that could seriously damage the company.
In conclusion, I want the same things that all of you want. I want Disney to continue it's long tradition of making excellent animated and live action films. I want all of the Disney subsidiaries (books, records, magazines, sports, retail, TV, radio, Broadway, etc.) to thrive and prosper. I want Johnny Depp to win an Oscar. I want the theme parks to be extra special and the magic to never end.
Shaman
Well-Known Member
I understand and respect your points and views on the subject. That being said, they are worth about as much as anyone elses opinion on the subject. Who should be the replacement?...well I'm sure there are alot of qualified people out there 100% better than Eisner...finding a replacement, seems to me like the very same mentality (of putting the cart before the horse) you seek to critique...First of all things must be set in motion to remove Eisner, once it is clearly evident that Eisner will be removed then that offers a different perspective on the matter. While all of us can just sit here and talk, those on the front lines--Roy and Stan--are the ones directing the course of the struggle; they are the ones planning and surely among the plans is a subsequent replacement for Eisner.
I am very familiar with your views on this matter, and in many ways I have understood them more after reading the post I have quoted above...I'm sure most would never like to see Disney on a path of destruction, and that different people hold different opinions on what exactly is the right course Disney should take...so while we may hold different views...we still want the same bright future for the company we love....
Woody13
New Member
Name one.
I can only count on one hand (and have some room left over) the number of people that I think qualify to replace Eisner as the Disney CEO. Even then, it's going to be a very difficult role to fill.
What sort of "golden handshake" is going to be given to the new CEO? I just think that Roy and Stan's plans are counter productive to the health of the company and the smooth transition to a new CEO.:wave:
And you are right. My opinion on this matter is no better or worse than your efforts or others. I just wanted to propose a reasonable solution, rather than just curse the darkness.:wave:
Shaman
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Woody13
Name one.
What sort of "golden handshake" is going to be given to the new CEO? I just think that Roy and Stan's plans are counter productive to the health of the company and the smooth transition to a new CEO.:wave:
And you are right. My opinion on this matter is no better or worse than your efforts or others. I just wanted to propose a reasonable solution, rather than just curse the darkness.:wave:
*curses darkness* :lol:
:wave:
lebernadin
New Member
Great post, the above being most notable imo. Its also cute to read people referring to your realist posts dismissively as just being your opinion. :hammer:
Every post on this is "just an opinion" and yet when you provide some progressive opinions you're seen as a threat. Ironic isn't it, that people who are easy to back the cause for progression(Eisner out for ???) are just as quick to dismiss tangible ideas with re to it, apparently because of the messenger. I guess you've(woody13) developed a reputation around here that allows your posts to be immune from being read objectively. Its a shame, because you've made some valid/progressive points in this thread.
PeterAlt
Well-Known Member
I may concede...
Let it be known, from my messages, etc., that I have supported Michael Eisner from the very beginning, and I still support him. I think Roy Disney is disgruntled by Eisner's treatment of him in recent years and his campaign to outst him is driven mostly by personal biases, caused by a dysfunctional relationship between the two. After reading Eisner's letter to shareholders, in Disney's 2003 Annual Report, I am convinced without a doubt that the man knows what he is doing (mostly) and that he is the best man for the job. Most of his actions, as he outlined in his letter, are smart, and will take the company in the right direction.
I do, however, question a part of his letter, where he states that the cost of building theme parks is down, and will continue to come down, while revenue increases. This leads me to think that he encourages corners to be cut on constructions to save money, believing that consumers wouldn't notice. If this is the case, I am against this policy. But this would be the only major policy of his I would disagree with.
I'm hoping that my suspision is not true, and that the company has figured out a way to cut costs without cutting corners to the point that things do not appear to be cheapened. He did spend some time acknowledging that Walt Disney paid attention to detail and innovation, using the original PotC as an example. In the same breath, he also used Mission: Space as an example of what he thinks of as a quality and innovation.
Let it be known, from my messages, etc., that I have supported Michael Eisner from the very beginning, and I still support him. I think Roy Disney is disgruntled by Eisner's treatment of him in recent years and his campaign to outst him is driven mostly by personal biases, caused by a dysfunctional relationship between the two. After reading Eisner's letter to shareholders, in Disney's 2003 Annual Report, I am convinced without a doubt that the man knows what he is doing (mostly) and that he is the best man for the job. Most of his actions, as he outlined in his letter, are smart, and will take the company in the right direction.
I do, however, question a part of his letter, where he states that the cost of building theme parks is down, and will continue to come down, while revenue increases. This leads me to think that he encourages corners to be cut on constructions to save money, believing that consumers wouldn't notice. If this is the case, I am against this policy. But this would be the only major policy of his I would disagree with.
I'm hoping that my suspision is not true, and that the company has figured out a way to cut costs without cutting corners to the point that things do not appear to be cheapened. He did spend some time acknowledging that Walt Disney paid attention to detail and innovation, using the original PotC as an example. In the same breath, he also used Mission: Space as an example of what he thinks of as a quality and innovation.
MKCustodial
Well-Known Member
I don't think Woody's posts are threats. I just feel he threw a bucket of cold water on people who were "rallying and dreaming" about what to do on the March meeting.
As for realistic or not, it depends on your points of view. I for one think Roy is being VERY realistic since he's the only one here with enough experience and knowledge on the matter to do something about it. THe rest of us, mere mortals, can only wish, ponder and offer conjectures.
Do I want Eisner out? Yeah. Can I name a replacement? No, I don't know who's out there, I don't know enough people, and even then, I'd only know their public personas, not the real personalities that sit behind a desk every day. Roy mentions on his letter, in case you haven't read it, that the priority is getting rid of Eisner. It's not his place to name a new CEO, it's the board's. If he and Gold approve of the new name, fine. If not, they'll come up with a suggestion.
So if the "grand-generals" in this war feel this is the way to go, why should I go against them and start naming people?
General Grizz
New Member
MKCustodial - I offically draft you to the WDWMagic army.
Meet me in my office at 15:00.
THAT'S AN ORDER!
Meet me in my office at 15:00.
THAT'S AN ORDER!
Shaman
Well-Known Member
Well, not everyone's view of reality is the same...so in many ways realism CAN be dismissed as opinion.
Opinions...threating? How and why? We're having a debate about an issue...how can anyone be threated by an opinion (atleast I'm not). In a way, thinking that an opinion threatens....promotes a certain arrogance and belief that a certain opinion is above the others....
Woody13 makes valid points most of the time
, that doesn't mean we can't have a civilized debate about those points.Then again...thats just my opinion...
Shaman
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by MKCustodial
I don't think Woody's posts are threats. I just feel he threw a bucket of cold water on people who were "rallying and dreaming" about what to do on the March meeting.
As for realistic or not, it depends on your points of view. I for one think Roy is being VERY realistic since he's the only one here with enough experience and knowledge on the matter to do something about it. THe rest of us, mere mortals, can only wish, ponder and offer conjectures.
Do I want Eisner out? Yeah. Can I name a replacement? No, I don't know who's out there, I don't know enough people, and even then, I'd only know their public personas, not the real personalities that sit behind a desk every day. Roy mentions on his letter, in case you haven't read it, that the priority is getting rid of Eisner. It's not his place to name a new CEO, it's the board's. If he and Gold approve of the new name, fine. If not, they'll come up with a suggestion.
So if the "grand-generals" in this war feel this is the way to go, why should I go against them and start naming people?
IMHO, that was very well said. :wave:
Looks like Gen. Grizz agreed....:lol:
Welcome to WDWMagic Army...
djmatthews
Well-Known Member
Don't really get the point there.... but the people at Virgin would be great. They're inovative, creative - but still good business people! :animwink:
brisem
Well-Known Member
The point isn't how much innovation people have at Virgin. The Question is whether Sir Richard Branson would give up his post at Virgin to run Disney. I wouldn't think he would give up a company he started.
The same with Steven Jobs.
Again, I think it's interesting that Disney is selling off parts of the company--Sports Teams, Celebration and Disney Stores. It gives the appearance that they might be going back to the their core businesses. With all this happening, I think this is the year to determine Eisner future.
The same with Steven Jobs.
Again, I think it's interesting that Disney is selling off parts of the company--Sports Teams, Celebration and Disney Stores. It gives the appearance that they might be going back to the their core businesses. With all this happening, I think this is the year to determine Eisner future.
lebernadin
New Member
I didn't say Woody's posts were "threats", i said by the responses to his posts( his injecting of the realities of this vote and capabilities of a grassroots effort) it seems that people have developed tunnel vision. You're right, it was a wake up call.
The little people never have an effect on a vote when it involves as many shares/votes as this does. Why? Because the largest chunks of the stock that are owned by companies/people who make the same as Eisner are the ones who will decide what goes down in March when the votes are tallied. So the only way that Roy and Stan will see their ideas come to fruition is if they were to sway those votes into their corner. The nice folks on these boards and on Roy's website that are rallying behind this effort are fighting a noble, yet already decided vote.
THAT is the reality.
If/when Eisner is forced to step down, it will be at the behest of the major stockholders because they weren't happy with the return on their investment and want to breathe new life into it. It won't have anything to do with how we feel about certain attractions and choices that have been made in the parks. Although you can guarantee that Roy/Stan will take public credit for his dismissal.
So if the "grand-generals" in this war feel this is the way to go, why should I go against them and start naming people?
hehe...
100% confidence in anyone is not something i'd recommend. Since it tends to lead to abuses of that confidence. I prefer to question, not assume. Roy and Stan are a face to this stance, they don't possess a place at the table where decisions are made. They are in a good position, however, to influence those who DO hold a place at the table, yet the signs say that they haven't been successful if they have lobbied them. If they were, they would be focusing attention to this situation by bookings on the networks and pages of our newspapers and with confidence.
lebernadin
New Member
I used the term "realist" which refers to someone who chooses to deal with practical matters rather than progressive/visionary takes on any give context.
Realism as an umbrella thought-process can, technically, be "dismissed" but an example of dismissing a realist point of view is dismissing that Al Sharpton will never be President. It can be dismissed, but as my example shows, you'd be naive to do so.
Exactly. These boards are filled with posts that have a "hate Eisner for everything" mantra. Its the overwhelming mindset on here to the point that its more of a joke than a causal movement which is the worst thing that can happen to the focus of a cause.