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

[CaliSurfer182]

I am not entirely sure that your description is 100% accurate.

 

[Woody13]

I am not entirely sure that your description is 100% accurate.

Please feel free to correct any factual errors. :wave:

 

[CaliSurfer182]

Your statements are well thought, and well researched. However my point is to present 100% factual information about what happened in TWDC (before it was TWDC of course) you would of had to have been there, and at the same time you would of had to have sat on both sides of the fence.

Mr. Bob Thomas has acquired and presented a lot of information, but Mr. Thomas is presenting it in Mr. Thomas' way. Which is not the only way. It is easy to make observations and opinions and presentations about the past when the people from the past can not respond to them.

I just feel there is a whole lot more to the story then we will ever know. But in no way do I think Mr. Walt Disney was greedy or unorthodox about his monetary acquisitions.

 

[luvJC4saken]

Woody also isn't criticizing Walt Disney's creativity and storytelling ability, the things Walt is respected so much for. As business practices and ethics go, I have no problem with acknowledging Eisner's abilities in comparison to Walt. But this isn't where Eisner gets criticized either. Where Walt lacked in business and ethical practices, I believe Eisner lacked in the appreciation for creativity and talent at the Walt Disney, Co. Eh, I'm sure he appreciated it, but the fact that he lost so much talent during his time as CEO makes it appropriate that he has resigned.

In the laws of old-time economic theory (I'm sure this included Walt's life) there was one law (if someone knows the name of this please help me out) that stated, if your product was a good quality product, then it was guaranteed to sell. This isn't necessarily true anymore. Now sellers must also offer supreme service with their products also, competitive pricing, etc. The actually quality of the product is not near as important as it used to be. But I believe in the business of entertainment the quality of the end product is STILL number one in importance. Walt's belief still stands. It still comes down to, Are Disney animated films the best in the business? Are their rides the most entertaining? Are their parks the cleanest, etc?

Towards of the end of Eisner's reign, the Disney Co. began to lose precious talent, animated films followed "cookie-cutter" plots, characters weren't engaging to audiences and were unmemorable, since the quality and innovation of park attractions rest largely on how successful its film business is, quality there has also waned. And these haven't been just a few bad eggs. We all know every entertainment company releases a dud film once in a while. It's bound to happen. But when it starts to become a trend, that's different. And this has gone on, many would argue since the Lion King's release to theaters, long before the SaveDisney campaign.

When organizations begin to fail, people point their finger at the leadership, as they should. This is why Eisner had to go. Comparing him to Walt Disney? In my opinion they're two different people in two different eras. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses. But the bottomline is that in order to succeed Disney needs the top creative talent to produce the best quality entertainment products, period. To sacrifice this for the sake of squeezing out a dollar wherever possible is not very good "strategic planning" at all. The end product is too important in this business. There's my 80 dollars and two cents.

 

[KevinPage]

My point of starting this thread was to not debate whether Roy was moral or immoral or acted like a god or 5 year old.

It was simply to point out that, HE CAUSED CHANGE. He helped cause Eisner to step down, which lead to the positive changes we had today.

I'm not even suggesting that this was his master plan (get Pixar & Lasseter). But his actions helped the end result today, and for that we should be THANKFUL & GLAD.

For example: if you curse out your significant other, they get so mad they go to the market to let off steam and end up buying a lottery ticket. YOU then WIN the lottery. If you didn't curse them out, you wouldn't have this good fortune.

So good, bad or ulgy, the end result is what's important.

 

[Tim G]

My point of starting this thread was to not debate whether Roy was moral or immoral or acted like a god or 5 year old.
It was simply to point out that, HE CAUSED CHANGE. He helped cause Eisner to step down, which lead to the positive changes we had today.

My dear Kev!... The contract ended, so it only seemed veeeery clever what Gramps did... he made it look, as if he caused it... we all knew M.E. would leave, with dates and all...

I'm not even suggesting that this was his master plan (get Pixar & Lasseter). But his actions helped the end result today, and for that we should be THANKFUL & GLAD.

Again that's what they want us to think!
In fact Roy didn't/doesn't like Jobs at all, in last asuming crisis with Jobs, Jobs had Roy by the balls... that's why...

For example: if you curse out your significant other, they get so mad they go to the market to let off steam and end up buying a lottery ticket. YOU then WIN the lottery. If you didn't curse them out, you wouldn't have this good fortune.

So good, bad or ulgy, the end result is what's important.

And some result we've got...
And that result doesn't satisfy me... at all... Too many big words, too many promises... surprise take-overs... Nah... I'm giving Robert Iger about 4 to 5 years... Tops...
We even have to be carefull letting the parks sink into some kind of PixarWorld...
We're about to enter a very strange era...
An era of Mooooooore money... and I don't mean money for the emloyees, parks... or even Disney... (for that matter)
We're heading for a time as we had some time ago... the time of the Corporate raiders, letting the company fall apart, bit-by-bit sneaky take-overs...
Some people on this forum call me Dr. Doom, because of my pessimistic words about Disney's future, but if we don't take care of it fast, it will happen, They need a real CEO... not some wimp, who was pushed forward by some people from outside the company... I'm certainly not saying that M.E. was THE man for Disney, but Robert Iger certainly is NOT... as I said in another post... THIS will be the man who will shrink Creative to next to nothing... which means the end of the Walt Disney Company.... as we know it... or once knew...

Pffffft... Amen.

Look!!!! I'm smiling again!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Woody13]

We're heading for a time as we had some time ago... the time of the Corporate raiders, letting the company fall apart, bit-by-bit sneaky take-overs...

That concerns me as well. Kevin seems to have conveniently forgotten the Comcast takeover attempt and the fact that Roy was the catalyst for that fiasco.

 

[KevinPage]

Well, since I know nothing of the "inside dealings" and only what goes on via the "outside" we'll have to wait and see.

Will Dr. Doom prevail and hug Chicken Little or will the fairy godfather save us all.

Hey Corrus, you didn't join D-Troops recently, did ya

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Ghostbuster626]

Look the fact is Eisner got hit with a 45% vote of no confidence thanks to Roy Disney's campaign. I believe Delta's CEO got fired for a 23% vote of no confidence. It is only because of the corrupt board of directors that Eisner was allowed to stay with the company and all he did was give up his chairman position. If the fool had any brains he would have quit on the spot to make everyone happy (he was rich enough so its not like he needed the money). However, the campaign put the pressure on to force Eisner out one full year before his contract expired and he had to give up all perks such as an office in the corporate building and use of the corporate jet and he had to severe all ties to the Walt Disney company. Roy Disney was the one who told Comcast to make a bid for the Disney Company because he knew Eisner would reject it and it would make him look bad with the business world and Roy was also in cahootes with Steve Jobs to openly bash eisner and refusing to make a deal with him. Roy Disney won in the end he still gets to enjoy ties to the company and is going to be looked at as a hero in the eyes of many while Eisner will go down as a the guy who almost burned Disney to the ground and imo its the truth.

Oh and I just wanted to say that Bob Iger is a complete push over, we need Meg Whiteman as CEO!

 

[Computer Magic]

Woody also isn't criticizing Walt Disney's creativity and storytelling ability, the things Walt is respected so much for.

He didn't :veryconfu

by Woody

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.

As business practices and ethics go, I have no problem with acknowledging Eisner's abilities in comparison to Walt.

Two didn't era, so it's not fair to compare. What is consider unethical today may not have been back then.

When organizations begin to fail, people point their finger at the leadership, as they should. This is why Eisner had to go. Comparing him to Walt Disney? In my opinion they're two different people in two different eras. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses.

agree

 

[Computer Magic]

Your statements are well thought, and well researched. However my point is to present 100% factual information about what happened in TWDC (before it was TWDC of course) you would of had to have been there, and at the same time you would of had to have sat on both sides of the fence.

Mr. Bob Thomas has acquired and presented a lot of information, but Mr. Thomas is presenting it in Mr. Thomas' way. Which is not the only way. It is easy to make observations and opinions and presentations about the past when the people from the past can not respond to them.

I just feel there is a whole lot more to the story then we will ever know. But in no way do I think Mr. Walt Disney was greedy or unorthodox about his monetary acquisitions.

It seems Woody is presenting one side from one book. I always believe there are 3 sides to a story, left side, right side and the truth in the middle.

I totally agree with your post

 

[Computer Magic]

My point of starting this thread was to not debate whether Roy was moral or immoral or acted like a god or 5 year old.

It was simply to point out that, HE CAUSED CHANGE. He helped cause Eisner to step down, which lead to the positive changes we had today.

I'm not even suggesting that this was his master plan (get Pixar & Lasseter). But his actions helped the end result today, and for that we should be THANKFUL & GLAD.

For example: if you curse out your significant other, they get so mad they go to the market to let off steam and end up buying a lottery ticket. YOU then WIN the lottery. If you didn't curse them out, you wouldn't have this good fortune.

So good, bad or ulgy, the end result is what's important.

I agree with your points in this thread. Roy influenced change. Maybe some don't agree with his tatics or maybe Roy was doing it for his own self worth. The outcome was good for Disney and shareholders. I believe if Roy didn't do what he did Eisner would still be playing some type of role in Disney.

Now Eisner (and Frank Wells) was good for Disney, but he became obsessed and his ego got too big. Remember Frank played a role.

 

[Computer Magic]

My dear Kev!... The contract ended, so it only seemed veeeery clever what Gramps did... he made it look, as if he caused it... we all knew M.E. would leave, with dates and all... Again that's what they want us to think!
In fact Roy didn't/doesn't like Jobs at all, in last asuming crisis with Jobs, Jobs had Roy by the balls... that's why...And some result we've got...
And that result doesn't satisfy me... at all... Too many big words, too many promises... surprise take-overs... Nah... I'm giving Robert Iger about 4 to 5 years... Tops...
We even have to be carefull letting the parks sink into some kind of PixarWorld...
We're about to enter a very strange era...
An era of Mooooooore money... and I don't mean money for the emloyees, parks... or even Disney... (for that matter)
We're heading for a time as we had some time ago... the time of the Corporate raiders, letting the company fall apart, bit-by-bit sneaky take-overs...
Some people on this forum call me Dr. Doom, because of my pessimistic words about Disney's future, but if we don't take care of it fast, it will happen, They need a real CEO... not some wimp, who was pushed forward by some people from outside the company... I'm certainly not saying that M.E. was THE man for Disney, but Robert Iger certainly is NOT... as I said in another post... THIS will be the man who will shrink Creative to next to nothing... which means the end of the Walt Disney Company.... as we know it... or once knew...

Pffffft... Amen.

Look!!!! I'm smiling again!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

You make some good points and I repect your views. You are extreaming close to the action and one that can best talk about Disney.

I fear Pixarland..I've made jokes along that line in several posts.

I don't know how Iger will do.

I do know one thing in 5 years we will look about at these posts and someone will have bragging rights :lol:

 

[mickey sparkle]

Re: Comcast

Comcast takeover attempt and the fact that Roy was the catalyst for that fiasco.

I agree...there was a VERY interesting Jim Hill article back in '04 when all this was happening: "Trying to Tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys."

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=194

Yeah, a lot of people (myself included) are starting to get concerned with stuff like that. How we find it troubling that the message that's coming out of the Shamrock Company sounds suspiciously similar to the stuff coming out of the Pixar camp. Which -- perhaps not-so-co-incidentally -- sounds an awful lot like what the guys at Comcast are saying. Like everyone's reading off of the same sheet of music.

Roy wanted Eisner out, period. He didn't care if Disney got sold off to Comcast, Mel Gibson, Mel Karamzin (or however you spell his name.), Viacom, AOL or Yahoo. Remember all those SaveDisney 'what if' stories that were like: "Oh, wouldn't "so-and-so" be great for a CEO?" yadda yadda yadda. Way to preserve the company Roy! So much for a "plan" ("Round 2" indeed!) And I'm sure all those "Disney sucks" stories and links on SaveDisney made it even easier for companies like Comcast to smell that blood that was already in the water....

Roy wants what's good for Roy. Why else did the guy not even bother to attend the Disney anniversery last July? Oh, right, he had a yacht race planned. Uh, NO, the guy just wasn't big enough to swallow his pride and appear with Iger, Eisner and Roy's cousin Diane. His campaign wasn't about family and magic but about venom and hate. That's a great example to set for fans.

 

[Merlin]

Your statements are well thought, and well researched.

Actually, Woody's statements are seldom, if ever, "well thought and well researched." He does quick Internet searches and then passes himself off as an expert. The fact that he's offered Wikipedia as his source should be a pretty clear indicator that he hasn't done any real research on the topic.

 

[Woody13]

Has it ever dawned on anyone that the Disney clan is greedy? Has anyone noticed in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" that Cloverleaf Industries is a direct reference to Shamrock Holdings? Do you not understand the other (and many) Disney greed jokes in that movie?

 

[Merlin]

Has it ever dawned on anyone that the Disney clan is greedy? Has anyone noticed in the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" that Cloverleaf Industries is a direct reference to Shamrock Holdings? Do you not understand the other (and many) Disney greed jokes in that movie?

Cloverleaf was referred to in the book on which the movie was based. Additionally, at the time that Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out, Roy Disney was Vice Chairman of the Walt Disney Company as very much in good standing with Eisner, and vice versa. Cloverleaf is not a reference to Shamrock Holdings. As usual, you're twisting the facts, either intentionally or because you haven't truly researched this beyond typing "disney" into a Google search.

 

[Ghostbuster626]

Cloverleaf was referred to in the book on which the movie was based. Additionally, at the time that Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out, Roy Disney was Vice Chairman of the Walt Disney Company as very much in good standing with Eisner, and vice versa. Cloverleaf is not a reference to Shamrock Holdings. As usual, you're twisting the facts, either intentionally or because you haven't truly researched this beyond typing "disney" into a Google search.

hey woody you know what we call this on the internet? We call it getting OWNED

 

[Shaman]

So, General Discussion and News/Rumors wasn't enough, we had to move over into the Company Discussion forum to start another argument....wonderful.