The film has been in awful condition since at least 2010 when I first saw it (last WDW visit prior to that was 1997 long before it was made). I'd imagine it has been in poor condition for even longer before that as well. It just continues to degrade more and more as well. I'm guessing they have no intention of addressing this until a new film and/or third theater are made, if this even occurs at all. It's sad because it's desperately needed.
I'm hate to say it but I rather have Eisner back
He made some unquestionably stupid mistakes that ended up causing lasting damage to the company (now beyond repair), I've not intention of either defending or forgiving his mistakes regardless of whether others choose to. Eisner brought his misfortune on himself, his egotistical power hungry alterations to the corporate structure were what allowed Iger and company rise to power in the first place.
But I give credit where credit is due, yes I would much rather have Eisner running the company than Iger. No question. The good stuff he did was truly great and showed he did care about the parks. And at least near the end of his reign he was showing clear signs of acknowledging his mistakes and taking obvious steps to begin fixing the problems he caused. He hired Matt Ouimet to restore Disneyland, and was responsible for approving Everest for Animal Kingdom (flawed though it was, it's the last real E ticket WDW has gotten to date). We'll never know whether he would have been able to restore the movie and TV business to its former glory. One wonders whether he had plans to reform that division as well, but I really can't blame the corporate leaders for being alarmed at his decision to burn bridges with Pixar (he already sort of did this in the 90's by driving Katzenberg out, contributing to the creation of Dreamworks). Pixar was basically keeping the animated movie division alive at that point, Disney's own animation department wasn't in a position to keep the company going with the critically and financially poor movies they were doing at the time (Chicken Little and Home on the Range). The question is whether Eisner cut ties with Pixar because he had a grand plan up his sleeve, or if it was just another arrogant power hungry move by him. I'd like to have seen Eisner in full-on desperation mode, that would be something. For the parks however, he was beginning to show signs of making things right again.
So i'd have granted Eisner at least a few more years to see whether he could clean his mistakes up and get the company back on track. He deserved it far more than Iger did at least (who is consistently voted back into power in spite of being an infinitely less successful leader even in the eyes of Wall Street). Though I personally believe the company could do better than either Eisner or Iger, there are more worthy leaders out there. Ones who could satisfy both amazing quality and bountiful financial success.
