To those that disliked SAVE DISNEY......

[Tim G]

I completely agree. :sohappy:

The SaveDisney site was unprofessional, sleazy, sloppy, very selective when it came to certain facts, and above all just plain toxic.

With his actions in the past week, Bob Iger has more than proved his worth as the new CEO. He's literally taking Disney into a new age. But I seem to remember a long, long, looooooooong list of names being hurled at him on the oh-so-prolific SaveDisney site. I only wish they were still up now, I'd bring in everything they said about him, from "puppet" to "pinnochio" to whatever else they could think of. But oh right, I forgot; taking down the site was part and partial to the "no " stipulation that Roy will have to follow from now on. Guess that limits a lot of what he'll be able to do. Oh well....


Eisner may not have been perfect, but he did a lot. A lot. I know people are wondering who's going to host Wonderful World of Disney now that he's gone...believe it or not there were quite a lot of children back in the 80's who watched him on TV and simply thought of him as the man Mickey Mouse spoke to.
Eisner was that man. Not Roy.

:king: [shakes hands with mickey sparkle]

 

[DMC-12]

Sorry Kev, I have to disagree... :lookaroun





But you expected this answer from me... :lookaroun

Ditto....

Roy = whiner = :hurl:

:lol: :wave:

 

[HauntedPirate]

To throw 2 cents into the discussion... I look at Eisner's legacy, if you will, as a bell curve - got better for the first 10 years, then began to decline over the last 10. I've stated that he's the reason we're here debating this stuff to begin with - without he and Wells, I fear we'd all be doing something else.

 

[Computer Magic]

believe it or not there were quite a lot of children back in the 80's who watched him on TV and simply thought of him as the man Mickey Mouse spoke to.
Eisner was that man. Not Roy.

That is sad sad sad

As the famous quote goes by vice-presidential candidate Senator Loyd Bensten to vice-presidential Quayle....

Eisner you are not Walt Disney


something that people that grew up in the 80's would understand

 

[Computer Magic]

To throw 2 cents into the discussion... I look at Eisner's legacy, if you will, as a bell curve - got better for the first 10 years, then began to decline over the last 10. I've stated that he's the reason we're here debating this stuff to begin with - without he and Wells, I fear we'd all be doing something else.

Correct and the most important words "Wells and Eisner"

 

[FigmentJedi]

That is sad sad sad

As the famous quote goes by vice-presidential candidate Senator Loyd Bensten to vice-presidential Quayle....

Eisner you are not Walt Disney

Exactly, Michael Eisner (to quote Elf) sat on a throne of lies

 

[Woody13]

Mike Eisner was not Walt Disney. But, Eisner was far better than Walt in making the company better. Walt only made 19 full length animated features (and some were stinkers). Eisner made more animated features, most of which, were better than anything created by Walt Disney.

Without even including the Pixar films, Eisner made 21 full length animated features (and some were stinkers) during his tenure. There is no comparison. Eisner built the company into a major power house.

Walt was too busy siphoning off profits for his immediate family with WED (privately held by Walt) to worry about Walt Disney Productions (publicly held corporation). Walt was a financial snake, as is his nephew, Roy.

I don't blame Walt, because he came from a poor background. I understand his greed.

 

[MickeyTigg]

Mike Eisner was not Walt Disney. But, Eisner was far better than Walt in making the company better. Walt only made 19 full length animated features (and some were stinkers). Eisner made more animated features, most of which, were better than anything created by Walt Disney.

And without Walt Disney....and the company that he created with his vision....Michael (not Mike) Eisner would have not had a company to raise to new heights or nearly ruin. Without Roy E. Disney...Eisner would not have been at Disney at all.

Roy has saved the company twice....he saved it by removing Ron Miller (Walt's SIL) and now with the removal of Eisner.

There are two halves to the Michael Eisner story with Disney...the first 10 years with the young, aggressive, visionary Eisner...the Eisner that brought the Disney Company into the modern era of movie making and theme parks and the last 10 years that nearly ruined the company financially and made it a take over target again.

Without Eisner we wouldn't have had the rebirth of the animation and live action studios...we wouldn't have had Lion King, Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid. We wouldn't have had the "Disney Decade". We wouldn't have had the rebirth of Walt Disney World.

No one can deny that the last 10 years of Eisner's reign weren't as good as the first 10 years. With this 10 years we got Michael Ovitz and the financial drain on the company caused by having to let him go because he was so awful. Without Eisner, we wouldn't have had the financial drain caused by bad decisions on building Disneyland Paris as it was built and expanded before it became financially viable.

Without Eisner we wouldn't had the big budget box office flops of recent memory. Without Eisner, we wouldn't have had the fiasco with Miramax. Without Eisner, we wouldn't had nearly every Disney junior executive leave the Disney Company because they could not deal with his backstabbing and meddling. Without Eisner, we wouldn't have had the riff with Pixar and Steve Jobs because Jobs and Lassiter could not work with him. Without Eisner, we might have had movies like Lord of the Rings and shows like Survivor under the Disney umbrella.

Yeah...Eisner was great the first 10 years...and I'm grateful, but the last years of his reign he became paranoid and his creative judgement was questionable at best.

Yeah...Roy resorted to tactics that normally wouldn't be the recommended way to do things. But since the Board was stocked with Eisner cronies and yes-men, nothing was going to happen internally. Roy had been cut off from the operations of the company and the animation division he was running way before he resigned. Sure, his acts were desparate but he wanted to deperately save the company that his father and uncle had created.

But back to the point I quoted....to insinuate that Eisner was better in any aspect than Walt Disney is perposterous and to say that money was syphoned off for greed by Walt and Roy is an insane and baseless.

 

[MKCP 1985]

Mike Eisner was not Walt Disney. But, Eisner was far better than Walt in making the company better. Walt only made 19 full length animated features (and some were stinkers). Eisner made more animated features, most of which, were better than anything created by Walt Disney.

Without even including the Pixar films, Eisner made 21 full length animated features (and some were stinkers) during his tenure. There is no comparison. Eisner built the company into a major power house.

Walt was too busy siphoning off profits for his immediate family with WED (privately held by Walt) to worry about Walt Disney Productions (publicly held corporation). Walt was a financial snake, as is his nephew, Roy.

I don't blame Walt, because he came from a poor background. I understand his greed.

You are off your medications!

To say the Eisner movies are better is arguable to a point. Is the Lion King better than Sleeping Beauty? Technologically, yes. Lion King was made 50 years later with state of the art technology. So was Sleeping Beauty, for its day. Of course, today's technology derives from improvements to what came before. What came earlier to compare Snow White against? Nothing! Walt was the risk taker and innovator that Eisner never was!!! Name one significant character or product that Michael Eisner CREATED on his own while heading the Disney Studios.

Walt greedy? Arrgh! Walt put everything he had into the quality of his product, to the point of jeapordizing the stability of his studio. For a desire to make the highest quality film, he spent more money on Pinocchio (his second ever full length animated film) than has ever been spent again when comparing dollars of the era from one to the other. The financial return was disappointing, so that rich detail of Pinocchio was not ever replicated. A greedy man would not have spent the extra money to begin with. He could have stood on what had been done before but he always gambled it all for the sake of improving the product.

Time and time again, Walt risked all for the quality of his product. Snow White and Mary Poppins both were expensive gambles that would have bankrupted the company had they not paid off.

Eisner built the company into a powerhouse? What was it when Walt was alive? Good grief, man - the company started in a garage and during Walt's life was THE source of what turned out to be classic animated motion pictures, ground breaking innovations in television programming (the first ever program to be broadcast in color), family amusement parks that became known as THEME parks, music recordings, books, comic strips, the list goes on and on.

Eisner didn't build the house. He RESTORED it. Yes, it is bigger and better than ever, but don't discount Walt. Michael Eisner would be nothing more than a Hollywood movie mogul had there never been a Walt Disney.

Thank you, Michael Eisner for all you've done. But Michael Eisner can't carry Walt Disney's briefcase.

 

[Computer Magic]

You are off your medications!

To say the Eisner movies are better is arguable to a point. Is the Lion King better than Sleeping Beauty? Technologically, yes. Lion King was made 50 years later with state of the art technology. So was Sleeping Beauty, for its day. Of course, today's technology derives from improvements to what came before. What came earlier to compare Snow White against? Nothing! Walt was the risk taker and innovator that Eisner never was!!! Name one significant character or product that Michael Eisner CREATED on his own while heading the Disney Studios.

Walt greedy? Arrgh! Walt put everything he had into the quality of his product, to the point of jeapordizing the stability of his studio. For a desire to make the highest quality film, he spent more money on Pinocchio (his second ever full length animated film) than has ever been spent again when comparing dollars of the era from one to the other. The financial return was disappointing, so that rich detail of Pinocchio was not ever replicated. A greedy man would not have spent the extra money to begin with. He could have stood on what had been done before but he always gambled it all for the sake of improving the product.

Time and time again, Walt risked all for the quality of his product. Snow White and Mary Poppins both were expensive gambles that would have bankrupted the company had they not paid off.

Eisner built the company into a powerhouse? What was it when Walt was alive? Good grief, man - the company started in a garage and during Walt's life was THE source of what turned out to be classic animated motion pictures, ground breaking innovations in television programming (the first ever program to be broadcast in color), family amusement parks that became known as THEME parks, music recordings, books, comic strips, the list goes on and on.

Eisner didn't build the house. He RESTORED it. Yes, it is bigger and better than ever, but don't discount Walt. Michael Eisner would be nothing more than a Hollywood movie mogul had there never been a Walt Disney.

Thank you, Michael Eisner for all you've done. But Michael Eisner can't carry Walt Disney's briefcase.

:sohappy: I couldn't have stated it better, so I will leave with :sohappy: :sohappy: :sohappy:

 

[DMC-12]

Say what you will of Save Disney, but let's thank Roy and Stan for giving us this gift.

Also... Keep in mind that Roy is a very greedy, self important, vindictive, bitter old man. This wasnt about "saving Disney"... it was all about throwing a tantrum and getting back at Eisner. :zipit:

 

[Woody13]

But back to the point I quoted....to insinuate that Eisner was better in any aspect than Walt Disney is perposterous and to say that money was syphoned off for greed by Walt and Roy is an insane and baseless.

WED Enterprises was created by Walt Disney in 1952. It was an independent and private company owned entirely by Walt Disney. Walt "cherry picked" the best people from Walt Disney Productions to work at WED.

WED was created to design and develop plans for Disneyland and to manage Walt Disney's personal assets. They owned and operated all of the transportation systems (monorail, trains, boats, etc.) at Disneyland. Disneyland, Inc. was absorbed into WED as was the Disneyland television series.

Roy O. Disney had a real problem with WED. He urged Walt to merge WED with Walt Disney Productions. Walt refused because WED was such a big cash cow for him and his immediate family (not including Roy). Roy did not own any part of WED. For several years, Roy and Walt fought bitterly about WED.

During the early 1960's, Walt and Roy stopped talking to one another for a period of over one year, because they were so bitterly divided concerning WED. Roy particularly disliked the idea that he had to deal with WED as an outside contractor. Finally in 1965, Walt relented and agreed to merge WED into Walt Disney Productions. However, Walt still kept a big chunk of WED and renamed it RETLAW. RETLAW is still owned by the Disney family and it's a cash cow.

Roy and Walt then got back on speaking terms. :wave:

Walt greedy? Arrgh! Walt put everything he had into the quality of his product, to the point of jeapordizing the stability of his studio. For a desire to make the highest quality film, he spent more money on Pinocchio (his second ever full length animated film) than has ever been spent again when comparing dollars of the era from one to the other. The financial return was disappointing, so that rich detail of Pinocchio was not ever replicated. A greedy man would not have spent the extra money to begin with. He could have stood on what had been done before but he always gambled it all for the sake of improving the product.
Time and time again, Walt risked all for the quality of his product. Snow White and Mary Poppins both were expensive gambles that would have bankrupted the company had they not paid off.

You made my point perfectly. You see, Walt Disney Productions was not owned by Walt. It was a privately held company. And yes, Walt came very close to causing the company to go bankrupt on several occasions.

However, WED never came close to bankruptcy. Walt was taking all those big risks with shareholder money. His personal finances were well protected when he created WED in 1952. In the early days, Walt didn't have much, but when he started to earn big money, he wanted to keep it for himself and his immediate family. Can't blame him for that.

The main reason why Walt agreed to merge WED with Walt Disney Productions was because of a potential stockholder rebellion. Once he dodged that bullet, he created RETLAW, which continued to keep the most profitable parts of WED in Walt's private domain. Walt was a very clever person. :wave:

And without Walt Disney....and the company that he created with his vision....Michael (not Mike) Eisner would have not had a company to raise to new heights or nearly ruin. Without Roy E. Disney...Eisner would not have been at Disney at all.

By the way, that's Walter (not Walt) Disney.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Much of what Woody stated above sounds familiar.... I admit that my knowledge of early Disney history as waned over the past 5-10 years, but I believe most of what was said is true. Never knew about RETLAW, though. What was it's function/purpose?

 

[mickey sparkle]

Re: Roy Disney

:king: [shakes hands with mickey sparkle]

Yeah...Roy resorted to tactics that normally wouldn't be the recommended way to do things. But since the Board was stocked with Eisner cronies and yes-men, nothing was going to happen internally. Roy had been cut off from the operations of the company and the animation division he was running way before he resigned. Sure, his acts were desparate but he wanted to deperately save the company that his father and uncle had created.

It makes no difference...the ends (which I don't believe he had much to do with) doesn't justify the means. The website and Roy's behavior following his resignation were both horrendous. Personal attack after personal attack, hurting Eisner, Iger, as well as every other executive and employee who were still just trying to do their jobs.

It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's quite another to slander them again and again until there's nothing left. What kind of adult could be taken seriously after moaning in the press about how "they fired me" and that Eisner is a "wicked witch" and "See! We were right!"The crassness and sleaziness of Roy's actions during the past two years beggars belief. Signing autographs, shilling his family's name on 'Dis'appionted T-shirts, selling SaveDisney merchindise off his site (as if he doesn't have enough money--he's way richer than Eisner), constantly plugging the DisneyWar book on his website because toady James Stewart was too much of a coward not to make Roy the hero, citing the book in his bs lawsuit last summer--it's just unbelievable. The website changed its philosophy depending on what day of the week it was and pandered to people like there's no tommorow. And how could Roy possibly blame Eisner for the "brain drain" of executives in the '90s when it was he who initiated the Katzenberg atrocity (and I use this word deliberately) as well as the subsequent erasure of Katzenberg from all Disney memorobilia. Don't believe this? How many times has Katzenberg (who was the real head of animation during those first ten years) been mentioned on Roy's site? Maybe twice?

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound so harsh. I realize that words like "family" and "magic" have a special place in people's hearts. I have no idea whether or not Roy thinks he believes in these things...whether he does or not is beside the point. It's his actions that matter. :brick:

 

[MKCP 1985]

You made my point perfectly. You see, Walt Disney Productions was not owned by Walt. It was a privately held company. And yes, Walt came very close to causing the company to go bankrupt on several occasions.

However, WED never came close to bankruptcy. Walt was taking all those big risks with shareholder money. His personal finances were well protected when he created WED in 1952. In the early days, Walt didn't have much, but when he started to earn big money, he wanted to keep it for himself and his immediate family. Can't blame him for that.

Woody, my problem with your argument is that it fails to consider that Walt Disney did struggle early on and knew what it was like to lose everything (failed ventures in Kansas City and the loss of a profitable character, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit), yet he found his way back into the game and when there continued to swing for the fences. When he again got a taste of success, he gambled it all on Snow White when he could have continued making quick and easy money with Mickey Mouse and Three Little Pigs cartoons. There was no WED to cushion his fall when Snow White was in development. Have you considered how much of a personal stake he had in Walt Disney productions? That shareholder money included a great deal of his own, and in his era there was incredible negative stigma to being labeled a bankrupt.

We will just have to disagree on your description of Walt Disney as a "financial snake" and "greedy."

Back to the original point, nothing said here persuades me that Michael Eisner was anywhere near the visionary or creative talent that Walt Disney was. *shrug*

 

[Woody13]

Much of what Woody stated above sounds familiar.... I admit that my knowledge of early Disney history as waned over the past 5-10 years, but I believe most of what was said is true. Never knew about RETLAW, though. What was it's function/purpose?

Here is a good explanation of Retlaw. It does leave out one very important part. Not only did Retlaw privately own, operate and pay rent for the rights-of-way for the Disneyland Railroad and Disneyland Monorail, they also collected a hefty fee from Disneyland for these attractions.

 

[MKCP 1985]

. . . and don't forget that people told Walt Disney his "Disneyland' was going to be a massive failure. Was Roy not against it? In hindsight it may look like a slam dunk based upon its success, but this WED Enterprises that built the park etc. was being bankrolled by Walt . . . again at his own risk.

 

[Woody13]

. . . and don't forget that people told Walt Disney his "Disneyland' was going to be a massive failure. Was Roy not against it? In hindsight it may look like a slam dunk based upon its success, but this WED Enterprises that built the park etc. was being bankrolled by Walt . . . again at his own risk.

No, it wasn't being bankrolled by Walt. It was being paid for from private investors.

Let me see if I can explain this another way. There was no risk for Walt in creating WED. Even if Disneyland tanked, Walt would still have his money out of the project. Disneyland was planned, designed and built by WED. Disneyland, Inc. didn't ask for competitive bids. It was a done deal that WED got the work and the money. They set their own price.

The story is often told that both Walt and Roy mortgaged everything they owned to raise the money to build Disneyland. Well, Walt never mortgaged WED Enterprises. They borrowed the money to build Disneyland. And guess what company made a small fortune building Disneyland? That's right, WED Enterprises.

Let me give you another example. WED built all the scenery and did all the special effects for all of the Disney live action films. In 1954 the Disney Studio made 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. At the time of its release, it was the most expensive motion picture ever made. WED made a fortune off of that film!

You've most likely heard the story about how they encountered a problem with the filming of the squid fight. It looked fake. So Walt and director Richard Fleischer decided that the scene needed to be re-shot. The scene was shot a second time (at great expense), as if it were a stormy night, with 100 backstage workers on hand providing the needed lightning, rain, turbulent seas, and hurricane winds, and the illusion was perfect.

This story is often told to illustrate that Walt would spare no expense to get things right. However, what you don't hear is that the production company was spending all the money and WED was getting all of that as profit. I can assure you that Walt would have been pleased to shoot the entire scene a third or forth time, mainly because WED made a good profit from those cost overruns.

With all the work that WED did, they had their money up front. There was no risk and there was no competitive bidding on contracts. Walt hired and fired WED employees at his discretion. In short, Walt used investor's money to finance his many hobbies and he made a very good profit in the process.

Had Disneyland failed, the investors would be holding the bag, not Walt or WED.

 

[MKCP 1985]

If WED had been bankrolled by private investors, those same investors would have shared in the profits. Everyone who put money into WED would have shared in both the risks and the rewards. If the private investors were Walt Disney and his immediate family, then by investing in WED, they were putting their assets at risk. If Walt Disney Productions and/or Disneyland had flopped, WED would have owned what? Trains and monorails with no return on their investment?

The squid scene you've described is not atypical for big budget feature films. How many big budget flops can you name? If at any time Walt Disney's gambles had sunk his company, WED would have had no cash cow upon which to feed. Everything put into WED would have been for naught. Mortgaged or not, the talent would have left and the company would have had no ongoing value.

Walt Disney Productions was the vine. WED was the bud, or the fruit. If the vine dried up, the bud would wither and die. Yes, good money was made as long as everything went well with Walt Disney Productions and Disneyland. Perhaps I am repeating myself here, but had Disneyland not succeeded, there would have been no-one to pay the rents on the trains, the monorails. Surely WED had overhead costs: Acquisition of the trains and monorails, payroll for all these talented people who'd been hired away from elsewhere, rents, taxes. There would have been financial risk associated with all of those things. In order for WED to make money, money had to be put into it to acquire assets. There was no guarantee Disneyland would be a success, and if it had failed who would have been responsible for the costs of the monorail or the trains? You've already told us that WED did not have shareholders, so that financial risk must have been borne by Walt Disney and his immediate family members.

It is never so easy to acquire wealth. Along with hard work and good fortune, there is always risk. Thank you for giving us something to think about, Woody. I hope I have given you something to think about as well.

 

[Woody13]

You might want to read chapter 24 of Bob Thomas’ excellent book, Building a Company: Roy O.Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire (Hyperion, 1998). He details some of the problems with WED.

For example, the WED contract with Walt Disney Productions was not made known to shareholders. The Board of Directors approved the contract (at Walt's urging) in a private session. WED built all the Disneyland attractions and then sold them to Walt Disney Productions at cost plus substantial overhead charges.

WED got a 10% cut on all the Disney merchandising. Roy O. Disney really disliked WED and he told Walt that if the shareholders found out about the deal between WED and Walt Disney Productions, then a lawsuit would surely follow.

Many people still hold the misconception that Walt Disney owned and ran the company that bore his name. Although Walt was always the guiding force behind Disney creative efforts, at the time of his death he was neither the owner nor the administrative head of Disney: Walt Disney Productions was a public company in which Walt held far less than a controlling share of stock, and he was not even an officer of the company. His relationship to Walt Disney Productions might best have been described as that of an independent contractor.

Walt sold WED to Walt Disney Productions in 1965 fearing a shareholder revolt. Walt knew he was scamming the shareholders.