What Has Roy Disney Ever Accomplished?

[prberk]

Re: Re: Re: What Has Roy Disney Ever Accomplished?

Originally posted by Pat X

Originally posted by edwardtc


If you use that argument, he also was in charge during the decline of Disney Animation as well. Great job Roy. :hammer:

He was increasingly shut out of decisions in that regard, according to his statements when leaving. David Stainton (director of feature animation dept) was said to have been to report to Michael any discussions that he had with Roy; and was to report directly to Michael on many decisions.

Roy has asked the board to make public his criticisms that they have on file for the last five years (during the "decline"). He was working within the system to change it.

Finally, many here have said that he has no experience in leadership other than animation; while others have said that Jeffrey Katzenburg was the one getting the credit. The larger truth here goes back to his being instrumental in bringing in this team to do it all in the first place. Roy has said explicitly that he does not wish to run the company this time either. He is once again seeking to bring in an manager that will develop and RETAIN talented team leaders. So, his strength here is team recruitment and development. That is what he has done.

His biggest criticism of Eisner is that his style now alienates and pushes out good team members.

I do not think Roy is a god or savior. But I do think that he has his uncle's heritage in mind, at least as he sees it. Read the "vision" tab postings at www.savedisney.com . (http://www.savedisney.com/vision/work_in_progress.asp )

I am not sure that he is always right , but I wanted the record straight on some of these issues.

 

[DMC-12]

Originally posted by General Grizz
I think we've gone through this before. :lol:

:lol: Yes... I think we have as well... *sigh*

But still, what I am saying is.... half of Roy's online lemmings (sorry... lack of a better term at this point) think this man can single handedly save Disney with a wave of a magic wand. Aint going to happen... sorry.

 

[General Grizz]

One man? Heck no. I don't know where you're getting this from, Jerry.

That's why he has the public, Stan Gold, Imagineers, Cast Members, executives, and families on his side. Not to mention animators - at Disney, fired from Disney, and from Pixar.

I'll be posting another story I read in the Sentinel about a great accomplishment tonight.

 

[DMC-12]

Originally posted by General Grizz
One man? Heck no. I don't know where you're getting this from, Jerry.

Grizz... read some of these off the wall posts in News and Rumors and General Discussion threads :lol: ... You'll pick up on this to...

...but then... no one says anything negative in response to these posts, cause then you will be labeled as "Anti-Disney" or not a "TRUE Disney Fan" or a "Fence Sitter" or a "Ei$ner Lover" ...etc... the list goes on... :lol: :hammer:

 

[3IdAlienKid]

Originally posted by DMC-12
Same here... great... he knows the animation dept.... and.... what else....

I know someone else has already responded to the above quote, but I have to throw in my 2...

I don't get this remark. This is really missing the point, isn't it? Who cares if he knows how to run the company as a CEO would? He's not trying to become CEO (he and Stanley have been saying this repeatedly). He's just trying to see someone closer to Uncle Walt's spirit running things.

Personally, I think Roy and Stanley both know they are not capable of running things. That's why they don't want the job.

But Roy does know Uncle Walt's spirit the same way others who worked with Walt did -- you know, guys like John Hench, Frank and Ollie. All folks who have been appalled at Eisner's recent decisions (remember what Hench said when asked about DCA? "I liked it better when it was a parking lot."). These are guys who probably don't have the experience or acumen to run things, but at least they understand the original creative vision (note I didn't say business vision nor how to integrate the two). I think Roy's comments on at least what is wrong with Disney have had Uncle Walt's fingerprints all over them -- Roy has been on the mark with his thoughts on fostering creativity and his emphasis on prestige rather than short-term gains, and that's why he deserves to be at least listened to even if he has nothing specific to say about how to do it.

Of course, I understand people don't believe Roy and Stanley know what they are doing in part because they have only addressed what's wrong but not any specific plans for fixing the mistakes. Lots of people are complaining about this, but really, they are only in the beginning stages of their plan, which is to oust the one who wouldn't listen to their creative visions and bring in someone who will at least consider their ideas instead of flatly rejecting them.

It makes sense to me there's really no point in revealing any plans yet anyway. After all, on numerous earlier occasions they have already stated their plans to Eisner and the board. None of them listened at that time. That's all this beginning stage is about, getting rid of the one who would not listen to them. Once he's gone, I personally believe that is when their plans will be revealed as they will then be able to work with that new person and combine their experiences (assuming they are even invited back to Disney in some capacity).

If people on these discussion boards think Roy and Stanley are the saviors, who cares? Maybe they actually will be, maybe not. At the very least, they are the initial catalyst for all the changes looming. Personally, I think Roy and Stanley may fade a bit into the shadows amidst the current chaos. But again, who cares? Look at what they started!

 

[PeterAlt]

Ironic....

I just think its funny how Roy is championing "creativity" when it was his father, Roy Sr., who was the un-creative bean counter. Roy Sr. and Walt spent sometimes YEARS not talking to each other because of their on-going augument of "creativity vs. sound business practices".

After Walt died, Roy Sr. went ahead and built the WDW Magic Kingdom and three resorts before he (Roy Sr.) died - less than a couple of months after WDW opened! But there wasn't any creativity on Roy Sr.'s part in getting WDW opened. He purely went by Walt's own plans and applied sound conservative business management, copying major attractions from Disneyland.

For example, the Fantasyland dark rides were to be different than what's at Disneyland (instead of Peter Pan, we were to get a Mary Popins ride). Roy Sr. knew theme parks made money, based on the company's experience with Disneyland, so building another theme park on the other coast made sense. But trying anything new was too risky. That's whay Roy Sr. shelved all of Walt's "risky" WDW plans, such as the futuristic city of EPCOT.

After Roy Sr. died, his ultra-conservative lieutentants took over the company for ten years. At this time, ironically, Roy Jr. (the son of the man on the other side of the creativity argument) was critisizing them for their lack of creativity. As we all know, he organized a team of creative Hollywood execs, including Eisner, Wells, and Katzenburg, calling them the "Brain Trust."

Walt's son-in-law Ron Miller was CEO for not even a year. Roy Disney quit the Board of Directors (like he did this time). The company was having a financial crisis over cost overruns of the construction of EPCOT, corporate raiders were ready to take the company apart peice for peice, and almost every movie the studio made (with the exception of Splash!) were box-office disasters, and then the Board voted to fire Ron Miller as CEO. Roy then returned to the Board to present Eisner to them.

Eisner came before the Board (this was in 1984) and gave this speech how Walt Disney was a creative person and how the company has lacked a creative leader, ending his speach by saying "It's time that a creaive person lead this company again." The Board, at that time made of the former "uncreative" CEO's that ran the company from 1972-1983, actually were convinced by Eisner's speach and voted unanomously to hire Eisner as CEO.

In books I read about Eisner, he is quoted over and over again to be more of the creative than the business person. We could all debate if business is his best skill or not. I personally think he is a good business person that is also very creative. But Roy would agrue differently. I think Eisner is the best compromise between the business and creative forces.

I just think its ironic that Roy Disney is championing "creativity" (Walt's side) over conservative business (his father's side). I wonder what his father would think.... His father would probably not like Eisner either because he (Eisner) keeps thinking of these crazy goofy ideas like his brother (Walt) did!

 

[3IdAlienKid]

originally posted by PeterAlt
But there wasn't any creativity on Roy Sr.'s part in getting WDW opened. He purely went by Walt's own plans and applied sound conservative business management, copying major attractions from Disneyland.

I think you've hit on a very good point. But while I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were being neutral and just making an interesting observation, I keep getting the feeling you've chosen to view your observation as negative rather than positive.

I'm not sure what's wrong with non-creative business folks like Roy Sr., Roy Jr. and Stanley championing something they themselves are not very good at. It's a little similar to someone rich making a donation to a music foundation, or sponsoring an exhibit of an artist's work at a gallery. The rich person isn't very creative him/herself, but appreciates good art when s/he sees it. So the rich person champions it by putting up some cash to help it along. They themselves did not paint, sculpt, write, or perform, but they believed in it's worth. Not exactly the same as the current chaos, but similar.

Roy Sr. was indeed not a creative person like his younger brother. But what he did was to champion his younger brother's creative vision because no matter how often he argued w/ his younger brother about it, he still ultimately believed in it, and he went as far as he possibly could with it within his capacity. After the opening of the Magic Kingdom, it was clear he intended to pass the rest of the responsibility on to others (even though that didn't exactly work out), because he had gone as far as he could go with it, not to mention he just wanted to rest.

As you point out, this is no different from what Roy Jr. and Stanley are doing today. They are not necessarily the creative persons themselves. But they believe in it. This is not a bad thing, nor is it contradictory. They are just championing it in their limited abilities. As it's been stated over and over in this thread and I think several others, Roy and Stanley are not claiming to be the answer -- neither wants to be CEO because they don't have the abilities or stamina required to do so. Rather, they are trying to oust someone who clearly doesn't know how to do so, and trying to put someone in who does.

And they have every right as shareholders to make a lot of noise, whether or not they themselves are qualified to be CEO. It's not quite a perfect analogy, but it's somewhat like the presidential election. Virtually no one voting this year is actually qualified themselves to be President of the United States of America. And yet we decide the fate of this position and nation and make a lot of noise doing so, partly because we have the constitutional right to do so. Is it a perfect system? No way. But it's the fairest one possible. We've already clearly pointed out Roy is not qualified to be CEO, but people keep saying he is not even qualified to comment, but guess what? Just like in our election process, almost none of us making comments for either side are qualified either. Yet, just like in the election process, we here on the discussion boards as well as Roy and Stanley themselves have the right to comment, qualified or not, that right being given to us by the systems in place.

In books I read about Eisner, he is quoted over and over again to be more of the creative than the business person.

Interesting that it is he (read: Eisner) who is quoted over and over again to be more creative. Either

a) It's Eisner's perception, or at least what he wants other's to perceive, not necessarily the perception of those around him.

b) The books were written prior to the late 90's, when he in fact did have creative drive.

Seriously, who in the last 6 or 7 years has accused Eisner of being "creative?" No, no, no, I mean besides the board of directors.

 

[PeterAlt]

Originally posted by 3IdAlienKid
The books were written prior to the late 90's, when he in fact did have creative drive.

Seriously, who in the last 6 or 7 years has accused Eisner of being "creative?" No, no, no, I mean besides the board of directors.

I can't see someone just losing their creative energies. If someone was creative for all their life, their creativity doesn't just "run out". They could go on a creative vacation, like George Lucas did during the late 80's and most of the 90's. In Eisner's case, he got distracted. Look what was going on during the last several years! Wells getting killed, the Katzenburg ordeal, Ovitz not working out, managing the merger of ABC, his open heart surgery, the Euro Disney mess, the U.S. recession, etc, etc, etc. With all these problems to worry about it's hard to find time to be creative!

But even during this "creative recession", he still found some time during this time period to be creative! This is when Animal Kingdom was built, something Eisner himself contributed ideas for (including the concept and name). I believe the Disney Cruise lines started up during this time frame as well. He also had some creative failures in this time period (but nonetheless creative) as well, including DisneyQuest.

I think this "creative recession" is over. If you read his letter to shareholders in the 2003 Annual Report, you'd see he started many new initiatives, many focused on new technologies. Maybe his creativity has moved from entertainment-related productions to new technologies, or both, or technologies is distracting him once again?

 

[3IdAlienKid]

originally posted by PeterAlt
I can't see someone just losing their creative energies. If someone was creative for all their life, their creativity doesn't just "run out". They could go on a creative vacation...

I'm not sure I meant this (or did I subconsciously perhaps?), but in either case, you make a good point, and for Eisner's sake I'd like to think that he has just taken a "creative vacation."

If writer's block were the only thing Eisner was being accused of, I might consider giving him more grace.

(But unfortunately, it's not.)