Time to stop all this "Eisner is cheap" crap!

[Dizknee_Phreek]

well, seeing as i'm doing a research paper on the successes/failures of Eisner, i feel the need to jump in on this! gotta put all my new-found knowledge to work!
now i'm not saying i know ALL about the happenings with Eisner...heck, i probably don't even know half of it!
i'm amazed that some keep bringing up his successes from the early 80's. i think most of us know that he helped save the company, and i think we're all very thankful for that. BUT that was 20 years ago! people can change in 20 years. he was a genious in his first 10 years, but the man has overstayed his welcome, and needs to step down for the good of the company.
personally, i can't give Eisner all the credit for saving Disney. i really think a LOT of it had to do with Frank Wells. personally, i think Frank was the true genious. once Frank died, a lot of crap happened that shouldn't have happened. for one, ABC/ESPN was bought...and we all know what ABC's like now. the company just spread itself too thin WAY too fast, which i doubt would've happened it Wells had still been around. and now the company's paying for it all. bottom line, Eisner has needlessly cost the company millions, maybe even billions of dollars. and yeah, all CEO's make mistakes, but do they keep the mistakes around for years? for example, the Angels, the Mighty Ducks, ABC...Eisner should have learned from these and corrected them a LONG time ago, but they're still around.
as for the animation dept....well, it's just sad. see, from what i've read, when Walt was around, Disney only produced one film every year or so to ensure quality. this system was kept up until after The Lion King. after that, Disney decided to make 2 films a year plus straight to video movies. Pixar was an awesome match because, like Walt, they only produce one movie a year to ensure quality. and, imo, THAT'S what's wrong with the animation. and with the departure of Pixar, who knows what we'll get! i'm not too sure about how Disney's 3-D animation is going to look...but, i'll pass my final judgement when i get to that bridge.
but, in terms of the company in general, i think the major problem there is that Eisner has no #2. as many others have stated, no company that's the size of Disney should be run by one man. even Walt didn't run the company all by his oneses...he had his brother to keep him in line.
btw, in the original list of 'good-things-Eisner-has-approved', i noticed a LOT of attractions that haven't even been opened yet. i can't see how anyone can say whether or not they're any count before they've been open. just my opinion.

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by dizpins14
No offense to you PeterAlt.....but I'm just wondering where you received all this information about Eisner from? I've been around these Disney chat boards and rumor sites for a while and I have never heard of the rumors of Eisner wanting DisneySea in Cali....which doesn't really make too much sense since DisneySea was designed for Japan having its history of the sea, and DCA opened the same year as DisneySea. It just seems like you know an awful lot of stuff about Eisner that we've never heard.

I get my 411 from news articles and books I read over the years. As for DisneySea in Long BEach, hold for a second while I find a link.... (goes into Google...)

WOw, what you'd find in search engines! Hundreds of links... But here's something to get you started....

http://members.tripod.com/~savehorizons/dissea.htm

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by Blake
Plus what about all the new/future attractions?

ToT at DCA- huge budget
Mission:Space-huge budget
E:E- big budget

Soarin/Motor Stunt show/Philarmagic/new Space Mountain/Buzz Lightyear etc.

None of these come across to me as being cheap...

Yeah, and E:E is testiment that Eisner isn't mearly approving clones. E:E IS BIG ticket. Original (though, inspired from Mattahorn Mountain). No cheapness there.

E:E follows the traditon of Mission: Space, Test Track, Rock 'N Rollercoaster, Tower of Tower, and Splash Mountain -- all approved by Eisner.

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by no2apprentice
I don't follow the exact details of who did what or when, but being a long time fan of Disney animated and non-animated films, as well as a fan of DL and WDW, I cannot forgive Eisner for two main things:
- Aquisition of soft- pay-per-view.
- Aquisition of another studio merely to tap into the money from R rated films.

These decisions, to me, are reprehensible and a smear on the quality of entertainment that I have always looked for in Disney. Yes, I know that business is business, and business is war, and money talks and everything else walks, blah blah, yadda yadda. But Eisner will only hurt Disney, and his precious bottom line, when people get tired of the Disney name being lowered and the parks suffering because Eisner chooses other priorities.

Eisner did a great deal of good for Disney in the beginning of his leadership, and some years after, no doubt about it. But I fear, with many others, that he is now going in the wrong direction, and doesn't appear to be willing to change course.

In other words, you dislike Eisner not because of his business acumen but because you feel that his morals are different than yours. Any CEO of any media comglomerate would have such businesses as part of their assets. Eisner does not use the "Disney" brand in any of the ventures you mentioned, but those businesses contribute to the company's bottom line, whether we agree with the content of the films or not. So the reason why people, such as yourself, dislike Eisner has gone from the way he runs the company, which you're admitting he's doing a good job at, to an admission that it is his morals that you dislike. Now, we're getting some where.

 

[A Kind Of Magic]

Mission: "Spaced Out"

I agree.

All this Eisner hate is always one sided without giving thought.

Michael Eisner did do many good things in the past and as for the future who knows.

All this Michael Eisner "hate" is really getting to me and many other people.

Let it go already.

Do some people really think public defamation and humiliation of Eisner is a fair and business like fashion to deal with any problems that he may have fathomed?

Many don't know how an executive corporate infrastructure operates, what determines supply and "real life" demand and the in-conclusion that the Disney Company is a "business".

Each time when I read threads about how people bash Michael Eisner I feel less and less willing to go to Disney.

No, I honestly do!

Now, when I go to Disney, I feel "obligated" to get involved in something I know as an individual I could never change.

I just want a "vacation" and a "good time" not get involved in third party front stage politics.

There are science fiction based theme parks being built now in Taiwan and the former U.S.S.R. that will promise to make Epcot look like a loser.

These international theme parks getting started will give you entertainment without the bustle of "oooh guess how much our CEO is making, cutbacks, layoffs etc, etc,…)

Who cares anymore really!

 

[mkt]

Eisner is most certainly not cheap...

It costs the company several million dollars a year to keep him around.. :lol:

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by KevinPage
To be brutally honest, I don't know how much power Jay Raluso really has? He is given a budget and has to make due what is given to him by the "powers that be".

Yeah, we are getting the Motors Stunt Show, but the only positive I see coming from that is hopefully getting rid of the Indy Stunt show and putting in the Indy "ride". Otherwise, we are getting a carbon copy "show" from a miserably failing park (that Raluso oversaw). Maybe if we had a TDL executive, we could have had something more special.

But a new show is a new show and it's always nice to have things ADDED to a park as opposed to just replaced, so overall it is a positive addition (just not as exciting as we all could have hoped for).

And for those that think ToT at DCA isn't built on the cheap- why do they not have the 5th dimension and elaborate queue? Cause management doesn't think they need to spend the money on it, as they can 'get by' with a "light" version of ToT. Sorry DCA, you ain't good enough to get an UPGRADE, only a DOWNGRADE.

Jay asked Eisner for a 50% increase in new attraction spending. Eisner granted it to him.

As for Tower of Tower.... I hope they got a downgrade because I want Florida to have the best! But that's just my Florida favoritism, since I am a Floridian!!!!! Any way, they SAY that DCA's Tower has different special effects that are supposed to be better than the 5th dimension scene. I personally find that hard to believe. But if that's true, they best be putting some of those effects over here in the near future!!!!!

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Originally posted by mkt
Eisner is most certainly not cheap...

It costs the company several million dollars a year to keep him around.. :lol:

I really did LOL at that. :lol:

 

[A Kind Of Magic]

Hate Einser Institute

Why is now everything all of a sudden a "Joke"?

A harmless "jester" mind you?

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by HennieBogan1966
I'd like to make a couple of comments of my own on this subject:

(1) After having taken a look at the stock reports from the late 80's forward, I see the stock values were much lower then. Now, I'm not sure, but I thought I remembered the Disney Stock being worth much more prior to the arrival of Mr. Eisner than it ever has been under his watch. I'm not positive, just trying to recall. And he is to blame for the tremendous losses in the stores over recent years.

Disney stock under Eisner's watch made a lot of people rich. The stock prices you see pre-Eisner was before the stock split many many many many many times. When I owned its stock, it split 2 for 1 and then 4 for 1 and then 4 for 1 again. This means I started with 20 shares, which became 40 shares, which became 160 shares, which became 320 shares. I made a lot of money when I sold it, more than quadrupling my original investment. Thanks to Eisner.

 

[lebernadin]

Originally posted by brisem
Show me a CEO that hasn't made a mistake.

Coke--introduced new coke
IBM--tried to go after the personal computer market.
There's a list of failure by companies. It happens CEO are human; they make mistakes.

The worst corporate blunder in history is the story of IBM and the DOS operating system.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

Originally posted by mkt
Eisner is most certainly not cheap...

It costs the company several million dollars a year to keep him around.. :lol:

:lol: amen to that!


btw, A Kind of Magic...i'm not quite sure what you mean...would you mind clarifying for me a bit?

 

[lebernadin]

The fact-based and well articulated arguments are certainly coming from those who either approve of Eisner, or dissaprove of the pre-school level of debate that is exercised by most on the "hate Eisner" side of the fence.

I'm from the latter, i don't sit at the thrown of Eisner, rather i see one or two people on these boards who have provided legitimate reasons not to like a CEO, and then hundreds of supporting posts that offer no fact-based arguments that can be traced to Eisner as 100% at fault for said points in those posts.

When someone who supports Eisner points out certain projects developed and brought to fruition under Eisner, the response is to thank someone under Eisner for that project and not Eisner.

Yet when those who hate Eisner bring up a project that they don't like its not the person under Eisner's fault, its Eisner himself that's to blame.
:lol: :hammer:

This is what makes the "down with Eisner" side of the argument lose its legitimacy.

saying "but they lost pixar!" over...and over...just lets everyone know you've developed the opinion, verbatim, of someone else on a messageboard and you didn't even bother to read up on the subject before making the post.

 

[3IdAlienKid]

There are a bunch of other things regarding what I feel to be Eisner's mismanagment.

Someone already mentioned ABC. It is still the 4th ranked network amongst the coveted 18-49 year old demographic, which means the lowest of the big 4 (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox). If a CEO cannot find a group of people to turn their network around, eventually that CEO is held responsible. Which means the CEO must eventually find a buyer, or step down, or be fired. Three years and still waiting....

The list goes on and on. Anyone care to address the Go Network? How about Fox Family Channel? Closing of Disney Animation Florida in spite of it's stellar record?

 

[3IdAlienKid]

originally posted by brisem
...I forgot who made to comment regarding Treasure Planet and Atlantis, but wasn't Roy overseeing one of them or both?

Yes, Roy was definitely overseeing both films. But let's not forget Glen Keane himself said that he's never seen a film more micromanaged than Treasure Planet (Keane was the lead animator for Long John Silver). It seems a general opinion in animation circles that Planet and the other recent offerings from Burbank Animation have been micromanaged by non-creative execs (MBA) to the point the creative execs (CalArts degree) have a slim story to animate. Keane is not referring to Roy as a micromanager, that's for sure. Rather, these micromanagers the execs hired by Eisner or Eisner-appointed heads that believe they know more about storytelling than the artists themselves. So again, as I stated in a previous thread, Eisner is responsible for the actions of those under him, and therefore he is responsible for the micromanagement that lead to the downfall of those films.

originally posted by PeterAlt
Jay asked Eisner for a 50% increase in new attraction spending. Eisner granted it to him.

Actually Jay asked Bob Iger for a 50% increase when he gave Iger a tour of DL on January 2nd this year. Should Eisner get credit for this too? Yes, of course (based on my previous reasonings). But isn't it interesting Jay didn't insist Eisner to come on the tour? Iger obviously had to run it by Eisner at some point before approving it so it seems logical the number one guy should have been there too. Or was Jay afraid of embarrassing Eisner by showing him what his Pressler-approved regime had ushered in? As I keep stating, Eisner is responsible for those under him, so ultimately he must pay for Pressler's mistakes. Hmm... I realize this is just speculation, but I'm convinced.

PeterAlt, I'm glad you are trying to keep things fair and see things from Eisner's side. But consider doing a Google search on any business article on Eisner from about one to two years ago (before the Roy/Stanley manouever) assuming they're still archived. I think you'll find that most qualified bean counters have been scratching their heads for a while at why Eisner - with his recent track record - is still CEO. All agree that any other company would have forced a resignation years ago (or that a CEO with less ego would have voluntarily retired/stepped down). So it's not just us on the discussion boards, it's not just Al Lutz or Jim Hill, it's not just Roy Disney and his "dysfunctional relationship with Eisner." It's also the market insiders and consultants, people more qualified to talk about it than me.

 

[Meyers]

Originally posted by dizpins14
No offense to you PeterAlt.....but I'm just wondering where you received all this information about Eisner from? I've been around these Disney chat boards and rumor sites for a while and I have never heard of the rumors of Eisner wanting DisneySea in Cali....which doesn't really make too much sense since DisneySea was designed for Japan having its history of the sea, and DCA opened the same year as DisneySea. It just seems like you know an awful lot of stuff about Eisner that we've never heard.

Actually Eisner wanting DisneySea in California is half right. It was not called DisneySea, but Port Disney and was proposed for Long Beach next to the Queen Mary. Some elements of DisneySea were part of the plan including the volcano.

I personally think it partly was a ploy to get the city of Anaheim to do more financially for the second gate at DL.

Port Disney would not have included the Spruce Goose or its building, but would have included a new passenger terminal for cruise ships which makes sense.

The project was opposed by environmentalists and some locals who objected to filling in sections of the surrounding bay area. Personally, I thought it made a lot of sense and likely would have been a better park than DCA. Later, Disney could have built a third gate in DCA's place, hopefully WESCOT, the originally proposed quality park.

 

[Meyers]

Originally posted by imagineer boy
All thanks to Jay Rasulo! Let's give him a hand folks.:sohappy:

I'm not so sure Jay Rasulo deserves a hand. He was in charge of EuroDisney and Walt Disney Studios trying to unsuccessfully resolve all their problems.

His recent statements tend to downplay major attractions and focus more show entertainment and marketing have me question his thinking.

I don't think he even was part of the walk around team with Iger and Ouimet that resulted in that 50% increase in attractions budgets for DL. I give Ouiment 100% credit for this.

I think Rasulo is just a small time clone of Eisner. I hope Ouimet eventually replaces him, if not Eisner himself. Roy and Stanley back on the Board along with the Saudi prince who saved DLP resort.

 

[barnum42]

Originally posted by imagineer99
So far there has been no childish name calling--simply a rational posting of opinions.

Eisner smells of wee.



There.....glad I could fix that omission :animwink:

 

[KevinPage]

What burns me is all the money the parks made being used to subsidize ABC. It's a crap network, always has been, nothing worth watching on it (along with anything else on Network TV for that matter).

If they kept the parks up to date, cleaned properly, attractions up and running and didn't "cheapen" the Disney name with "cheapuels", I don't think many of us would care about ABC, ESPN, The Mighty Ducks losing money.

But when you are destroying the parks at the expense of all your other crap blunders, trying to fix them, us park fanatics are going to use that against you!

If someone is going to give Eisner all the credit for his first 10 years then he sure as heck will be given credit for the last 10 debacles.

 

[imagineer99]

Originally posted by Dizknee_Phreek
i once Frank died, a lot of crap happened that shouldn't have happened. for one, ABC/ESPN was bought...and we all know what ABC's like now.

i'm not too sure about how Disney's 3-D animation is going to look...but, i'll pass my final judgement when i get to that bridge.

ESPN was a really big money maker for disney. ESPN was a very good purhcase.


Disney has ALREADY made a 3-d animated film...."Dinosuar" anyone!