FigmentJedi
Well-Known Member
Eisner did hit that threshold for me, but with his treatment of the animation departments.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Spirited Sixth Sense ...
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
@WDW1974.. I know what you think about me, and vise versa, but let me say that it has been a long time since you have posted anything other then fluff about TV, Sports and incredible tin hat theories. Giving credit where credit is due the last two pages have been delightful to read and certainly up to the reputation that you have made for yourself. When you share your knowledge in a non-condescending form you live up to your claims and your logic is defined and palpable. Please continue with this type of dialog. Save the put-downs and cute little put down phrases for someone of lesser standing (and there are many). This is the Spirit I remember and the reason that you got your following.
I expect he could go into the role with a sense of ownership & purpose. After all - he's already done the job for 20 years.
My big wonder is what would "fix" mean. To me, that would mean a focus on WDW and perhaps related aspects of the company - such as animation. I know that I'd like to see of the excitement I felt in the 90's.
What about the international expansions? But what about the other parts of the business: ABC, ESPN, motion pictures, whatever they're doing with the internet? What about the investors?
When I hear some of the names thrown about to replace Iger - I get worried thinking - what makes me think they'd give two hoots about the parks...
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
With laser cutting technology I think TDO could double the number of servings from a pound of bacon, as well as reduce the cooking time by half, Imagine the Magical per portion energy savings, And this could be accomplished with only a 100% percent price increase. A Triple Double if you will
Imagine the Fanboi's gushing that Disney cuts bacon with a Frikken Laser...
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Eisner reached my threshold at the parks with the mutilation of Future World, which I suppose full on began with the closure of World of Motion and followed not long after with Imagination and Horizons. Though the first signs of trouble probably really began when Horizon lost its sponsor in '94. But the real first nail in the coffin was World of Motion being lost, with the funeral escalating afterwards with the closure of the other rides.
I still enjoyed many of the theatrical animated movies through 1999 (with Tarzan being what I consider the last great renaissance era movie). Though i'd say Pocahontas (regardless of how well it did financially) was the first huge dud for me story wise (still had great music and animation though). There were other great animated movies after Pocahontas however so I don't think that was the end of the renaissance. Hunchback of Notre Dame is IMO a criminally underrated masterpiece regardless of its lack of faithfulness to the original book. I would pinpoint the ransacking of Future World as when the WDW mess began though, at least on the creative side (not sure about maintenance). Disneyland i'm not sure about, i'm guessing after Indiana Jones opened was when things really stated to go south there (and maintenance may have already begun to decline even before that).
I'd also say the Disney Channel (later plural channels) went through a similar decline around that same area of time (perhaps slightly out of sync with the park and movie decline, but pretty similar area of time still). The made for TV Disney Original movies were really dire.
But whether it's parks, TV channels or movies, they were pretty much all in complete free fall by the 2000's. Well before Iger came in and further screwed things up. Regardless of the (arguably many) good things he accomplished prior to Wells' death, Eisner at least had a substantial hand in starting the downward spiral (and the fall has yet to stop). It also sounds like he helped to fire the people dedicated to "Walt quality" and helped to empowered people like Iger, Rasulo, Staggs, Crofton etc. Even if you can argue he wasn't AS directly responsible for the problems as many have claimed, he certainly did a poor job at policing or stopping the people who were responsible for them. If Eisner did care about quality and truly was insulated from problems, he still didn't take enough initiative as a proper bulldog leader should have in order to investigate things better (rooting out problematic people in the company in order to keep things on track).
So for that i'd say Eisner represented a very stark contrast throughout his reign, some of the highest highs and lowest lows the company had yet seen (not as low as Iger, but the lowest point it had reached at that point). He brought it to its epitome in many ways early on, only to send it spiraling down the toilet in the second half of his reign (and i'd argue the company hadn't reached a low point in quality that bad up to that point in time). I absolutely think Iger is horrible and would argue he's worse than Eisner near the end of his reign, but Eisner deserves his fair share of the blame too for instigating the problems that now plague the company. From what I gather, Iger and his buddies would not have climbed up to to the positions they're in without Eisner's help in the first place. Correct me if i'm wrong though. But again even if Eisner wasn't directly responsible for the quality dips, he didn't do enough to prevent them IMO.
I don't know if Eisner has since changed his tune on company quality compared to the latter half of his reign, but based on that latter half I don't want him running the company anymore. He might be better than Iger, but he's still not what it needs at this point and I don't trust him anymore. The company needs a different and better leader than either of them to get back on track. Iger has only made what was already a mess even worse. But in the end, both of them ended up being bad news for quality in my book. It's time for some new and better blood than either of them.
I still enjoyed many of the theatrical animated movies through 1999 (with Tarzan being what I consider the last great renaissance era movie). Though i'd say Pocahontas (regardless of how well it did financially) was the first huge dud for me story wise (still had great music and animation though). There were other great animated movies after Pocahontas however so I don't think that was the end of the renaissance. Hunchback of Notre Dame is IMO a criminally underrated masterpiece regardless of its lack of faithfulness to the original book. I would pinpoint the ransacking of Future World as when the WDW mess began though, at least on the creative side (not sure about maintenance). Disneyland i'm not sure about, i'm guessing after Indiana Jones opened was when things really stated to go south there (and maintenance may have already begun to decline even before that).
I'd also say the Disney Channel (later plural channels) went through a similar decline around that same area of time (perhaps slightly out of sync with the park and movie decline, but pretty similar area of time still). The made for TV Disney Original movies were really dire.
But whether it's parks, TV channels or movies, they were pretty much all in complete free fall by the 2000's. Well before Iger came in and further screwed things up. Regardless of the (arguably many) good things he accomplished prior to Wells' death, Eisner at least had a substantial hand in starting the downward spiral (and the fall has yet to stop). It also sounds like he helped to fire the people dedicated to "Walt quality" and helped to empowered people like Iger, Rasulo, Staggs, Crofton etc. Even if you can argue he wasn't AS directly responsible for the problems as many have claimed, he certainly did a poor job at policing or stopping the people who were responsible for them. If Eisner did care about quality and truly was insulated from problems, he still didn't take enough initiative as a proper bulldog leader should have in order to investigate things better (rooting out problematic people in the company in order to keep things on track).
So for that i'd say Eisner represented a very stark contrast throughout his reign, some of the highest highs and lowest lows the company had yet seen (not as low as Iger, but the lowest point it had reached at that point). He brought it to its epitome in many ways early on, only to send it spiraling down the toilet in the second half of his reign (and i'd argue the company hadn't reached a low point in quality that bad up to that point in time). I absolutely think Iger is horrible and would argue he's worse than Eisner near the end of his reign, but Eisner deserves his fair share of the blame too for instigating the problems that now plague the company. From what I gather, Iger and his buddies would not have climbed up to to the positions they're in without Eisner's help in the first place. Correct me if i'm wrong though. But again even if Eisner wasn't directly responsible for the quality dips, he didn't do enough to prevent them IMO.
I don't know if Eisner has since changed his tune on company quality compared to the latter half of his reign, but based on that latter half I don't want him running the company anymore. He might be better than Iger, but he's still not what it needs at this point and I don't trust him anymore. The company needs a different and better leader than either of them to get back on track. Iger has only made what was already a mess even worse. But in the end, both of them ended up being bad news for quality in my book. It's time for some new and better blood than either of them.
Last edited:
bhg469
Well-Known Member
Hold on here, you're assuming bacon is the only option here. I feel more savings can be had if they open their minds to bacon-like substitute! 3d printers could make "bacon" soon!!
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
To follow up on a previous post, Frozen sold 3.2 million discs on its first day of release, 50% of which were Blu-ray discs.
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=13577
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=13577
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Beggin Strips for Hew-Mons, Brilliant!!!, Disney needs to channel their inner Ferengi a bit more these days.
Gabe1
Ivory Tower Squabble EST 2011. WINDMILL SURVIVOR
Meh, I'll give you DCA and his issues with the film studios/relationships yet we cannot forget the all of the blockbusters that came under Eisners awning. Lion King still remains over the top popular and still holds true in the parks today. Animal Kingdom came under his awning and Everest was the first of the expansions was well on its way. Sunset Blvd was an amazing addition to the Studio's in Florida, he knew how to create an expansion. Eisner brought Disney DVCs concept to Florida which remains a concept Iger still supports. Few critize the dollars DVC has brought into the coffers. At Epcot he brought in Test Track, Soarin and Mission Space and even had rework in the works before he left. Those additions ruined FW? Seriously? Seem popular to me by the wait times. The Norway addition to Epcot was popular form the start. And Iger took the wand down.
Few criticize Eisner for adding a second gate entrance to the World Showcase or the building of the entire Boardwalk or those resorts and incorporating timeshares into the concept along with clubs for nightlife. Even Pleasure Island was popular and a booming concept for years. Who could argue the popularity of some of those clubs especially the Adventurers Club? While the Wand and monuments were questionable they hardly make or break a mans success let alone a hat. Those are questionable yes, but petty, grasping at straws.The Walkway pavers were attractive and sold well yet omitted, why? What happened to sponsors of FW under Iger?
Now what has Iger done for Epcot FW? Basically left it to decay. Nothing of substance has been added and he has allowed WoL to decay along with the potential for the Imagination Pavilion. SSE lost all of its after show. Iger does get Kudos for finally finishing AoA that he left to rot for so long but has priced it out of the value market and furnished it with items so cheap that it will need to be refurbished sooner than most resorts. He has pretty well brought DHS to its knees ignoring its now stale side of the park. While he did bring the Toys attraction he built it on the cheap knowing it would load slowly and not accommodate the guests it needed to.
FLE is beautiful.Time will tell if Dwarf will be the Ultimate draw making the expansion worth the expense like Sunset Blvd was to the Studios. Storybook was for the most part a wash to visitors. It offers a mirror of Toon for the cost and still attracts the same demographic. Avatar is also still up in the air and questionable if the expense will be worth the investment. If the new Avatar films do not draw like the original film this could flop the entire expansions popularity and we still don't know exactly what will be built or not. Springs is another money pit with thoughts of an infusion of new money. Will it really bring in locals and that much more money to warrant the expense? Remains to be seen. Doubtful, much like Storybook. Hyperion demonstrated he doesn't know what he wants to do.
And lets talk about infrastructure. Hows that monorail doing? Or the parks in general? For the most part WDW was left to idle. The simple maintenance ignored until it could be ignored no longer. While the MK has seen constant construction the constant Under Construction of Main Street demonstrates how badly things had become under Iger. The Studios will be an anchor around the next CEOs neck. AK another anchor only because Iger left it stagnant for too many years and with an Avatar expansion that demonstrates how wishy washy Iger is about the parks.
Eisner doesn't just so happen to be in WDW, that is just silly. He like us deliberately books a vacation. It isn't like his children and grandchildren couldn't go without him, unnoticed. And if Iger didn't like Eisners leadership team he had plenty of time to replace the leadership. That concept is a standard operating procedure. Leadership is as disposable as Iger is. I will give Iger credit for his adventures with the film companies, more his forte than his ability to oversee any of the parks.
But like Eisner in the last couple of years when it was indeed time for some fresh ideas and leadership Iger hit that point long before Eisner did. WDW saw far less imagineering under Iger than under Eisner but plenty of disrepair and shuttering. I look at the disgraceful condition of CoP for one example and it demonstrates how little Eisner cares about the parks. Iger will never receive the praise that Eisner still receives for moving WDW forward in the 80's and 90's in his tenure. Iger will be remembered for making stockholders happy, his visions were very different than Eisner and that isn't something guests care about while visiting the parks. Now his legacy will be MME and his Magic Bands and the over the top expenses in the parks and out. Time is ticking on this time bomb of a concept. He fixed what was not really broken.
Would it be safe to say that Iger is more comfortable managing through finances, efficiency, and acquisitions. He's not comfortable with managing through organic growth.
When he does attempt organic growth, it's over budget and underwhelming. i.e., he's happy to buy Lucas Arts, but FLE and MM+ are both late and not all we'd hope. Not sure if that's to simplistic or unfair.
When he does attempt organic growth, it's over budget and underwhelming. i.e., he's happy to buy Lucas Arts, but FLE and MM+ are both late and not all we'd hope. Not sure if that's to simplistic or unfair.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think the biggest difference is that Eisner was excited to be running Disney. He thought Disney was special and different. Iger seems like he would be just as content running any other major corporation. He might even be happier at one of the 65 companies ahead of Disney on the Fortune 500 list.
yeti
Well-Known Member
Wow. Just quoting for exposure, really. Great stuff.
I'm just curious...which part of all that determined his falling out with Roy E? I know he "retired" ala Tony Baxter but I've never really seen that as Eisner's doing.
baymenxpac
Well-Known Member
amazing eisner insight, spirit. thanks!
wogwog
Well-Known Member
Last week a MK cast friend was backstage and counted 68 benches stored outside along the canal by the parade float storage barns. Some were green and some were white benches that used to be in the park. They appeared to her to be in good repair and suitable for the park. Maybe since the trees are mostly gone WDW may have decided people would not want to sit on a bench in the sun. [sarc}
Steel City Magic
Well-Known Member
that is a travesty
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
An interesting question to ponder- What would the company be like today if Eisner had been left in power after all these years without Iger taking over? Tricky one considering the polarizing quality under his reign. With Iger we basically know what to expect (nothing good). But Eisner is more difficult to predict because of doing both great AND horrible things.
Movie-wise Pixar would be gone (unless Eisner dropped his ego and changed his tune, though he may have burned too many bridges to negotiate at that point). Pixar likely would have become a successful separate animation entity and competitor to Disney. Ratatouille was supposed to be their first solo flick before Iger got them back, so Rat may be a good indication of what a Disney-less Pixar movie would have been like. Pixar has gone downhill with their last 3 movies (dunno where that blame lies or if they can buck that trend). Disney also wouldn't have gotten Lucasfilm or Marvel. Eisner killed off hand drawn animation, so no Princess and the Frog or Winnie the Pooh as we know them (Iger has since killed it off again, breaking his promise). The direct to video sequels were almost exclusively horrible and ruined their reputation, and the theatrical movies were pretty vile as well. Meet the Robinsons was the first core Disney animated movie I thought was "really good" since the 90's, and that was after Iger had already taken over. But the post-2000 movies under either Eisner OR Iger haven't touched their 90's products (even Frozen). Unlike Iger, I don't see Eisner making as many external acquisitions in order to hide the faltering quality of their core internally produced products. So the question is whether he could reform the studio again as he did in the 80's. It's possible I suppose, but it depends on whether he even saw there was a problem in the first place.
The parks are more difficult to gauge. Pre-1994 he was great. The EPCOT resorts area and World Showcase entrance were awesome. I was never the biggest fan of MGM Studios due to the rushed and unfinished feel, but even it had some major quality in the few attractions it did have (Great Movie Ride is awesome). Tower of Terror was so good that (despite fearing heights and sharp drops) I still force myself to ride it. All Splash Mountains are awesome, as is Indiana Jones at Disneyland. Even major reworkings of adored classics weren't something to be feared (like Spaceship Earth '94). I adore DL Paris, most gorgeous castle park still IMHO (some of the best versions of rides). It's a shame it flopped (may have been a turning point for the bad things to come). I even enjoy Animal Kingdom, despite being caught up in the early point of Eisner's bad half and undergoing clearly crippling budget cuts during development. Spectromagic remains my favorite parade of all time, and the original Disneyland Fantasmic is great too. Early on there's a lot to love about Eisner, and I didn't even list all of it.
As I said, Eisner vilified himself in my eyes (around '94-'96 specifically) when EPCOT was ruined, that was my first signal of bad things to come. The budget mutilation of Animal Kingdom during its construction also may be traced to Eisner too (perhaps related to the financial failure of Euro Disney). Eisner also reportedly helped make the imagineering department the toxic and probably contributed to all the red tape and bloated overspending it still suffers from (also leading to the suppression and removal of Tony Baxter and many other talented imagineers). Disneyland upkeep escalated to such a horrible state that guests died in maintenance accidents, creating a huge PR scandal that rallied the Disney fanbase against Eisner (don't know if this had any major contribution to Eisner getting pushed out but i'm sure it couldn't have helped). If Eisner wasn't directly responsible for the Disneyland mess, he still helped appoint and empower the people who were, not lifting a finger to prevent it (at least not until it was too late). I consider that to be poor leadership even if it wasn't directly his fault, he should have been more hands on about the issue if he actually cared at all about quality or even basic safety of guests.
HOWEVER, Disneyland's cleanup for its 50th did apparently begin BEFORE Iger became CEO. With the appointment of Matt Ouimet. Though I do not know whether Eisner himself had a major hand in this or whether it was mandated by other executives against his will or without his consent. If it WAS Eisner that helped to start the cleanup of Disneyland, it's possible he DID actually learn his lesson and this was his attempt to be more hands on about maintenance problems. Again I don't know, but if he did learn a lesson then it was far too late for him. He was replaced by Iger around that time, so I suppose it's also just as possible that Eisner was only going along with the cleanup in order to try to get in good graces again. I hear Disneyland is now beginning to show problems again with Colglazier in charge, so it's worrisome that it may end up in a similar state to the way it was under Eisner's reign before too long. That would be truly unfortunate (though not at all surprising considering the dire state WDW has been in for a long time now). As for attractions, the main Disneyland park didn't seem to get much of substance after Indiana Jones. It received a second gate in California Adventure under Eisner. While i've never been, I think is fair to say based on what the general public have said over the years that many Disneyland fans seemed pretty darn disappointed with it at the beginning. From everything i've seen of it, DCA lacked amazing quality rides like Splash Mountain, Indiana Jones etc. Cars Land was what turned fan opinion around for the park (and caused attendance to skyrocket), and I highly doubt Eisner had any hand in the project (especially given the bridges he burned with Pixar while he was in power). I don't know whether he had his own plans for addressing the park's issues before he was kicked out.
Tokyo Disneysea was built during Eisner's reign, but the Tokyo parks aren't owned or operated by Disney so I don't know how much of an influence he had on the park. Despite Disney's non ownership of the Tokyo parks, I do gather that Disney still has some control over the building of new attractions at the parks (imagineers still design them). But just how much of a role Eisner had on the park's creation I don't know. It would surprise me if he had a huge role given the discrepancy of quality between the Japan and US parks regarding rides built during that era. During that point in Eisner's reign, Disneysea's main attractions (and the park as a whole overall) were overwhelmingly superior to ANYTHING being built at the US Disney parks around the same time.
But WDW? I didn't visit WDW between 1998-2010, but between WDW and Disneyland I actually hear WDW was the better maintained during DL's maintenance crisis (until the cleanup for the 50th anyways). Not anymore of course, but that's on Iger's head. Attraction wise it's hard to really gauge what Eisner might have done for WDW. He helped bring a lot of great attractions in the first half of his reign, but his second half was a huge mess with a ton of bad calls and destruction. Most of the new WDW rides created under his wing after 1994 are either mediocre or terrible IMO (with a few "good" exceptions like the Safari and even Everest to some extent). I suspect the final major park project Eisner had a substantial hand in was Expedition Everest. Though completed under Iger, Everest was imagineered and was well under construction before Eisner left, I consider it effectively an Eisner era project. Not including its present maintenance problems (which are likely traceable back to Iger), the ride is what i'd consider "good" but with a mixed bag of issues. It has clear elements of greatness but feels unfinished (much like Animal Kingdom itself). But I DO feel that compared to most of the rides built after 1994, it was a huge step up from what we had been getting.
I have to wonder if Disneyland's 50th cleanup along with the construction of Expedition Everest meant that Eisner was beginning to show signs of learning his lesson and turning over a new leaf to fix his screwups. I suppose it depends on whether he had a major hand in those positive projects and his reasons for doing it. He could have also just done these things in a quick and desperate attempt to get back in good graces with the other leaders, but intended to fall back into his old habits after the storm had passed. There's no telling now, but it something to ponder. Either way, despite the good things he did early on, his mistakes have definitely contributed to the company being in the mess it's in now. If he actually was trying to patch things up near the end of his reign, it was just too little too late for both him and the company. And it could very well never recover from these mistakes sadly (certainly no safe signs of recovery yet)...
Movie-wise Pixar would be gone (unless Eisner dropped his ego and changed his tune, though he may have burned too many bridges to negotiate at that point). Pixar likely would have become a successful separate animation entity and competitor to Disney. Ratatouille was supposed to be their first solo flick before Iger got them back, so Rat may be a good indication of what a Disney-less Pixar movie would have been like. Pixar has gone downhill with their last 3 movies (dunno where that blame lies or if they can buck that trend). Disney also wouldn't have gotten Lucasfilm or Marvel. Eisner killed off hand drawn animation, so no Princess and the Frog or Winnie the Pooh as we know them (Iger has since killed it off again, breaking his promise). The direct to video sequels were almost exclusively horrible and ruined their reputation, and the theatrical movies were pretty vile as well. Meet the Robinsons was the first core Disney animated movie I thought was "really good" since the 90's, and that was after Iger had already taken over. But the post-2000 movies under either Eisner OR Iger haven't touched their 90's products (even Frozen). Unlike Iger, I don't see Eisner making as many external acquisitions in order to hide the faltering quality of their core internally produced products. So the question is whether he could reform the studio again as he did in the 80's. It's possible I suppose, but it depends on whether he even saw there was a problem in the first place.
The parks are more difficult to gauge. Pre-1994 he was great. The EPCOT resorts area and World Showcase entrance were awesome. I was never the biggest fan of MGM Studios due to the rushed and unfinished feel, but even it had some major quality in the few attractions it did have (Great Movie Ride is awesome). Tower of Terror was so good that (despite fearing heights and sharp drops) I still force myself to ride it. All Splash Mountains are awesome, as is Indiana Jones at Disneyland. Even major reworkings of adored classics weren't something to be feared (like Spaceship Earth '94). I adore DL Paris, most gorgeous castle park still IMHO (some of the best versions of rides). It's a shame it flopped (may have been a turning point for the bad things to come). I even enjoy Animal Kingdom, despite being caught up in the early point of Eisner's bad half and undergoing clearly crippling budget cuts during development. Spectromagic remains my favorite parade of all time, and the original Disneyland Fantasmic is great too. Early on there's a lot to love about Eisner, and I didn't even list all of it.
As I said, Eisner vilified himself in my eyes (around '94-'96 specifically) when EPCOT was ruined, that was my first signal of bad things to come. The budget mutilation of Animal Kingdom during its construction also may be traced to Eisner too (perhaps related to the financial failure of Euro Disney). Eisner also reportedly helped make the imagineering department the toxic and probably contributed to all the red tape and bloated overspending it still suffers from (also leading to the suppression and removal of Tony Baxter and many other talented imagineers). Disneyland upkeep escalated to such a horrible state that guests died in maintenance accidents, creating a huge PR scandal that rallied the Disney fanbase against Eisner (don't know if this had any major contribution to Eisner getting pushed out but i'm sure it couldn't have helped). If Eisner wasn't directly responsible for the Disneyland mess, he still helped appoint and empower the people who were, not lifting a finger to prevent it (at least not until it was too late). I consider that to be poor leadership even if it wasn't directly his fault, he should have been more hands on about the issue if he actually cared at all about quality or even basic safety of guests.
HOWEVER, Disneyland's cleanup for its 50th did apparently begin BEFORE Iger became CEO. With the appointment of Matt Ouimet. Though I do not know whether Eisner himself had a major hand in this or whether it was mandated by other executives against his will or without his consent. If it WAS Eisner that helped to start the cleanup of Disneyland, it's possible he DID actually learn his lesson and this was his attempt to be more hands on about maintenance problems. Again I don't know, but if he did learn a lesson then it was far too late for him. He was replaced by Iger around that time, so I suppose it's also just as possible that Eisner was only going along with the cleanup in order to try to get in good graces again. I hear Disneyland is now beginning to show problems again with Colglazier in charge, so it's worrisome that it may end up in a similar state to the way it was under Eisner's reign before too long. That would be truly unfortunate (though not at all surprising considering the dire state WDW has been in for a long time now). As for attractions, the main Disneyland park didn't seem to get much of substance after Indiana Jones. It received a second gate in California Adventure under Eisner. While i've never been, I think is fair to say based on what the general public have said over the years that many Disneyland fans seemed pretty darn disappointed with it at the beginning. From everything i've seen of it, DCA lacked amazing quality rides like Splash Mountain, Indiana Jones etc. Cars Land was what turned fan opinion around for the park (and caused attendance to skyrocket), and I highly doubt Eisner had any hand in the project (especially given the bridges he burned with Pixar while he was in power). I don't know whether he had his own plans for addressing the park's issues before he was kicked out.
Tokyo Disneysea was built during Eisner's reign, but the Tokyo parks aren't owned or operated by Disney so I don't know how much of an influence he had on the park. Despite Disney's non ownership of the Tokyo parks, I do gather that Disney still has some control over the building of new attractions at the parks (imagineers still design them). But just how much of a role Eisner had on the park's creation I don't know. It would surprise me if he had a huge role given the discrepancy of quality between the Japan and US parks regarding rides built during that era. During that point in Eisner's reign, Disneysea's main attractions (and the park as a whole overall) were overwhelmingly superior to ANYTHING being built at the US Disney parks around the same time.
But WDW? I didn't visit WDW between 1998-2010, but between WDW and Disneyland I actually hear WDW was the better maintained during DL's maintenance crisis (until the cleanup for the 50th anyways). Not anymore of course, but that's on Iger's head. Attraction wise it's hard to really gauge what Eisner might have done for WDW. He helped bring a lot of great attractions in the first half of his reign, but his second half was a huge mess with a ton of bad calls and destruction. Most of the new WDW rides created under his wing after 1994 are either mediocre or terrible IMO (with a few "good" exceptions like the Safari and even Everest to some extent). I suspect the final major park project Eisner had a substantial hand in was Expedition Everest. Though completed under Iger, Everest was imagineered and was well under construction before Eisner left, I consider it effectively an Eisner era project. Not including its present maintenance problems (which are likely traceable back to Iger), the ride is what i'd consider "good" but with a mixed bag of issues. It has clear elements of greatness but feels unfinished (much like Animal Kingdom itself). But I DO feel that compared to most of the rides built after 1994, it was a huge step up from what we had been getting.
I have to wonder if Disneyland's 50th cleanup along with the construction of Expedition Everest meant that Eisner was beginning to show signs of learning his lesson and turning over a new leaf to fix his screwups. I suppose it depends on whether he had a major hand in those positive projects and his reasons for doing it. He could have also just done these things in a quick and desperate attempt to get back in good graces with the other leaders, but intended to fall back into his old habits after the storm had passed. There's no telling now, but it something to ponder. Either way, despite the good things he did early on, his mistakes have definitely contributed to the company being in the mess it's in now. If he actually was trying to patch things up near the end of his reign, it was just too little too late for both him and the company. And it could very well never recover from these mistakes sadly (certainly no safe signs of recovery yet)...
Last edited:
I guess we will be keeping it warm for you sometime between now and 2051...
Lee
Adventurer
lebeau
Well-Known Member
I recall a story in which Eisner dismissed the idea that Iger could or would ever replace him. When asked about the idea leaving Disney, Eisner responded with, "Who would run the company? BOB!?!" Like that was the most absurd suggestion anyone could ever make.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Love the costumes of the crow crew!
I wouldn't be surprised if that happened AFTER they get all the DVCs sold out or something.
Jeebus dude!, Are you some kind of evil mastermind in needs of torturing the souls of people?
stop giving them ideas on how to ruin food even more! D:
Considering how much egg substitute they already use.. I'm no surprise if they start to do that!
Next they will add tiny arrows that will say "need to sit down? buy our sitting package for mere 4.5$ in any of our restaurants!"
He probably facepalmed that noone was at the level he expected to run Disney...and had to dump the whole affair on Iger.