So what did eisner actually do to make everyone dislike him?
I'm rather ignorant to this subject.
Please help me be wise.
I'm rather ignorant to this subject.
Please help me be wise.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Why hate eisner?
- Thread starter kingslyZISSOU
- Start date
daliseurat
Member
Wow. That's going to be a complex and long answer. In reference to the THEME PARKS, Eisner basically put a whole bunch of people in charge (like Paul Pressler) who didn't know anything about theme parks, or DISNEY. They proceeded to slash the budgets of virtually every department. This led to HUGE maintenance problems and attractions and an entire park built on the cheap. So DCA wound up being a loser park with a bunch of attractions we
d already experienced, some off the shelf stuff and a bunch of movies, some of which were just terrible. At DL, the budget for Tomorrowland was slashed to bits and attractions suffered. WDW became more about money and things came and went like crazy because of overbuilding.
And then of course there's the whole losing Katzenberg thing, alienating Pixar, and refusing to appoint a 2nd in command.
To be fair, Eisner and crew did a tremendous job at first of re-invigorating animation at Disney and allowing a lot of theme park expansion.
Things started going downhill after the tragic loss of Frank Wells, who seemed to be able to keep Eisner on the right path.
d already experienced, some off the shelf stuff and a bunch of movies, some of which were just terrible. At DL, the budget for Tomorrowland was slashed to bits and attractions suffered. WDW became more about money and things came and went like crazy because of overbuilding.
And then of course there's the whole losing Katzenberg thing, alienating Pixar, and refusing to appoint a 2nd in command.
To be fair, Eisner and crew did a tremendous job at first of re-invigorating animation at Disney and allowing a lot of theme park expansion.
Things started going downhill after the tragic loss of Frank Wells, who seemed to be able to keep Eisner on the right path.
firemandisney
New Member
Not one thing. If you know business, He was GREAT. Profits went way up and new parks were built. Some disliked him for reasons that are the same as some Harley Davidson folks dilsliked AMF. Bottom line, He SAVED Disney parks from being owned (majority)by someone other than Disney.
He allowed Disney to become what they are today (huge profits and attendence) during a slight economic slowdown. Just as Harley Davidson came back to the powerhouse they are today after AMF 100% saved them.
Obviously Disneyworld/land would still be here but NOT at all how one would want it to be.
Personally, I think Disney is better than ever.
ryguy
Well-Known Member
He just wore out his welcome. The company needed him in the 80's when it was struggling and he did a good job focusing on the shareholder. That attitude became the primary focus rather than creating high quality attractions and entertainment. Mgm and AK are good examples, pleasure Island another. Eisner represents the shift from a family owned atmosphere of running a business to a corporate owned shareholder driven business. You see this argument a lot on these boards between those who liked disney 25 years ago better than now. If you've been going to disney since 71 you can see the difference. Ask a employee who has worked for Disney for over 25 years what era was better. Betcha ya they liked working in the seventies and early 80's better than the late 80's and early 90's. Eisner treated his help like garbage and the company was well known for being stingy with pay for its workers. He was constantly having fights with his top employees which in the end cost the company a great deal of money and talent. Basically Disney became a training ground for young professionals, get some experience and get out because you weren't going to get paid. Lost a lot of bright people as a result. In the end he really changed the culture of the company, some would say for the good, others for the bad. It's all personal I guess. In hind sight he probably should have left 5 years earlier, it would have been better for everyone.
dandaman
Well-Known Member
I predict some potentially heated debates here.
There's lots of opinions when it comes to Eisner. But generally speaking, you'll find that people will tend to take one of the following positions on the topic:
1. "Michael Eisner destroyed much of what made Disney so special and thank goodness he's finally gone."
2. "Michael Eisner saved the Disney company and built it into the entertainment powerhouse that it is today. He should be praised and held in the highest regard for time and all eternity because of this."
3. "Michael Eisner turned the Disney company around after a decades-long slump, and he reinvigorated it with true Disney magic. But in later years, he became out of touch and focused more on the bottom line than on quality, ironically causing much damage to the image of the company which he'd previously made so strong."
You will, no doubt, read all three of the above opinions expressed by the various people who will post to this thread, and many will likely be adamant in their position. Personally, I consider #3 to be the most accurate and fair description of Michael Eisner's impact on the Disney company.
There are quite a few books on the topic of Eisner's reign at Disney, as well as the events leading up to him being there in the first place. One of my personal favorites is a book called "Storming the Magic Kingdom", because it is very unbiased and is the result of some intense and thorough research. I believe it is out of print now, but you can probably still find it on eBay and in used bookstores.
To truly and fairly evaluate Michael Eisner's footprint at Disney, it helps to understand the company's history going back to long before Eisner arrived, and also the events just prior to his arrival.
In a nutshell (if that's even possible, given the rich and colorful history of this company), the critical history and events go something like this...
Walt Disney Productions (the name the company had had for most of its existence) was run by Walt and Roy Disney. Roy, technically, was the head of the company and held the titles of President and Chairman of the Board. Walt didn't generally like titles, but would often be referred to in stock reports and elsewhere by titles such as "Executive in Charge of all Production". Roy ran the business, and Walt was the creative mind. Without Roy, the company might likely have not lasted long because he was there to occasionally reign Walt in from some of his craziest ideas and concepts. Likewise, without Walt, the company certainly wouldn't have been anything special. There existed, at the company, a concept that you were either a "Walt" (i.e. into all the creative stuff, and a loyal follower of Walt) or you were a "Roy" (i.e. the business-minded people, the accountants, the lawyers, etc, and a loyal follower of Roy). Walt and Roy clashed a lot, but Walt had a strong, influential personality, where Roy was more mild mannered and laid back by comparison. Roy usually acquiesced to Walt, and therefore, the "Walts" were the people who were essentially "in power".
Roy had a son (Roy, Jr) whom Walt reputedly had referred to as the "idiot nephew" on at least one occasion. Roy, Jr worked at the Studio. Walt had a son-in-law named Ron Miller who also worked at the Studio. Largely because he was a "Walt", Ron climbed the corporate ladder with greater success and speed than did Roy, Jr.
When Walt passed away in 1966, Roy (Senior) ran the company until his death five years later. This was during a time when the company had turned most of its attention to the development and opening of Walt Disney World and theme park attractions. By comparison, the studio productions (including animated films) were becoming somewhat neglected. After Roy's death, the company was being run by Donn Tatum and Card Walker. Card Walker was a "Walt" man 110%, and soon became the top guy at the company. Nearly every decision Walker made was guided by one principle..."What would Walt do?" In the early to mid-70's, this was a good guiding principle, because the things Walt would have done would be considered pretty cutting edge. But as times changed, Card Walker's vision did not. Meanwhile, he was grooming Ron Miller to eventually take charge of the company.
By the late 70's and early to mid 80's, the value of Disney stock was going further and further down. Disney movies had become an industry joke, and the animated films had diminished somewhat in quality and personality. The theme parks were the "cash cow" of the company, but even those were become less and less cutting edge.
Because the company was being run by "Walts", Roy, Jr's influence in the company was not very strong. What the "Walts" overlooked, however, was that Roy, Jr was, at that time, the largest single stockholder in the company. Out of frustration, Roy, Jr resigned from the board of directors, and from the Disney company altogether. This moved, which seemed unheard of because he was a member of the Disney family, triggered further drops in the value of Disney's stock price.
This made the company an attractive target for corporate raiders, who planned to buy a controlling interest in the company, and then break it apart and sell the various parts to different buyers (e.g. the hotels in Florida were going to be sold to the Marriott company, and each individual theme park was going to be sold to a different buyer. The studio and the film library would be sold to a Hollywood studio). Roy, Jr then moved to organize a management shake up at the company, which would result in the departure of Card Walker and Ron Miller, and would have them replaced with management of Roy, Jr's choosing. Texas billionaires, the Bass Brothers, helped to finance this move, and they purchased enough stock to help fend off the corporate raiders.
It was decided that the best choice to run Disney was a young executive in charge of Paramount Studios, by the name of Michael Eisner. Because of his age and comparative lack of experience, a former Warner Bros executive named Frank Wells was also hired to co-run the company with Michael Eisner. The arrangement was that Eisner would hold the titles of CEO and Chairman of the Board, and would technically be the head of the company. But Wells (President and COO) would not report to Eisner, but rather would report directly to the Board of Directors. Eisner was the creative one with the radical ideas and the strong charismatic personality. Wells was the humble business genius who didn't mind taking a backseat and being out of the limelight. For the first time since the death of Walt Disney himself, the company once again had a "Walt/Roy" business relationship, a formula that proved wildly successful.
Under Eisner and Wells' watch, the animation unit was reinvigorated with such blockbuster hits as Little Mermaid, Beauty and Beast, Aladdin, and Lion King. The team also breathed new life into the theme parks by once again building cutting edge attractions and coming up with some unique marketing campaigns. More hotels and new attractions started springing up in Florida. And the studio started making more "edgy" fare under the Touchstone label. For the first time in about 2 decades, Disney was once again "cool". They rose from an industry joke into the biggest, most powerful entertainment giant in Hollywood.
But then....
In 1993, Frank Wells died in a helicopter accident. By this time, Eisner had risen into one of the most powerful people in entertainment. Suddenly, there was no longer the incredibly effective partnership that existed with Eisner/Wells. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Katzenberg, a long-time Eisner loyalist who had followed him to Disney from Paramount and was now head of the studio, expected that he was naturally in line to fill Frank Wells' job. Disliked by many on the Board, Katzenberg did not get the job, and subsequently left the company to co-found Dreamworks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. This further hurt the Disney company, because Katzenberg had been a huge reason behind much of Disney's success with live action and animated films. And now he was about to form a company in which his talents would be used to compete against Disney.
With Eisner now assuming the combined titles of CEO, President and Chairman, and with no Frank Wells to partner with and to help run the business, the made two of what many consider to be it's biggest blunders. One of those was the hiring of Michael Ovitz to fill Frank Wells' shoes and work with Eisner. This relationship lasted just about a year, was a disaster in every sense of the word, and ended with Ovitz leaving and getting paid about $138 million as a severance package. The other blunder was overpaying to buy the number one TV network (ABC), and then to subsequently drive it to number 3, where it remained for some time. These moves played a huge role in a significant downturn of Disney's stock for the first time since Eisner took over.
Perhaps out of desperation to improve the stock price and put Disney back on top, Eisner spent the next several years making moves which seemed to reflect a focus more on the bottom line than on enhancing the guest/consumer experience. Disney Stores began to oversaturate the market, causing them to become less and less special and unique. California Adventure was built, and it featured a mere handful of unique attractions, while the rest were off-the-shelf amusement park rides and copies of existing attractions from other Disney theme parks, not to mentioned significantly more shops and restaurants than attractions. Without Katzenberg to guide them, the quality of the animated and live action films declined.
On top of all these events, many observers began to remark that Eisner was becoming less and less in touch with what audiences wanted, and seemed to demonstrate a belief that oversaturating the market with all things Disney would increase success for the company. The effect, in reality, was an apparent drop in people's interest in Disney, as they grew tired of the overexposure.
All that said, it's my personal opinion that while Michael Eisner undeniably woke a sleeping giant and breathed new life into Disney, he is generally given full credit for events in which Frank Wells should have been given equal (and in some cases more) credit. The difference is that Michael Eisner was in the limelight. It's unfortunate that it took Frank Wells' death to bring attention to this. I'm also of the belief (as I'm sure many others are as well) that as time went on, Michael Eisner began to lose his magic touch with audiences. This is no wonder, as the company grew and Eisner took on more power and responsibilities within the organization. For these reasons, I believe that while Eisner did do some great things for the company, he also overstayed his welcome by nearly 10 years and actually did some damage to the company's most important and valuable asset...it's image, during that latter years of his tenure.
Does this lengthy post answer the question, "Why hate Eisner?". That's up to the readers to decide I suppose. Does it mean that I personally am among those who share in that hatred? Not at all. I do believe he did some great things that are deserving of recognition, but I don't believe that negates the bad.
PS: Sorry for the lengthy post. This is easily my longest post ever. :lol:
There's lots of opinions when it comes to Eisner. But generally speaking, you'll find that people will tend to take one of the following positions on the topic:
1. "Michael Eisner destroyed much of what made Disney so special and thank goodness he's finally gone."
2. "Michael Eisner saved the Disney company and built it into the entertainment powerhouse that it is today. He should be praised and held in the highest regard for time and all eternity because of this."
3. "Michael Eisner turned the Disney company around after a decades-long slump, and he reinvigorated it with true Disney magic. But in later years, he became out of touch and focused more on the bottom line than on quality, ironically causing much damage to the image of the company which he'd previously made so strong."
You will, no doubt, read all three of the above opinions expressed by the various people who will post to this thread, and many will likely be adamant in their position. Personally, I consider #3 to be the most accurate and fair description of Michael Eisner's impact on the Disney company.
There are quite a few books on the topic of Eisner's reign at Disney, as well as the events leading up to him being there in the first place. One of my personal favorites is a book called "Storming the Magic Kingdom", because it is very unbiased and is the result of some intense and thorough research. I believe it is out of print now, but you can probably still find it on eBay and in used bookstores.
To truly and fairly evaluate Michael Eisner's footprint at Disney, it helps to understand the company's history going back to long before Eisner arrived, and also the events just prior to his arrival.
In a nutshell (if that's even possible, given the rich and colorful history of this company), the critical history and events go something like this...
Walt Disney Productions (the name the company had had for most of its existence) was run by Walt and Roy Disney. Roy, technically, was the head of the company and held the titles of President and Chairman of the Board. Walt didn't generally like titles, but would often be referred to in stock reports and elsewhere by titles such as "Executive in Charge of all Production". Roy ran the business, and Walt was the creative mind. Without Roy, the company might likely have not lasted long because he was there to occasionally reign Walt in from some of his craziest ideas and concepts. Likewise, without Walt, the company certainly wouldn't have been anything special. There existed, at the company, a concept that you were either a "Walt" (i.e. into all the creative stuff, and a loyal follower of Walt) or you were a "Roy" (i.e. the business-minded people, the accountants, the lawyers, etc, and a loyal follower of Roy). Walt and Roy clashed a lot, but Walt had a strong, influential personality, where Roy was more mild mannered and laid back by comparison. Roy usually acquiesced to Walt, and therefore, the "Walts" were the people who were essentially "in power".
Roy had a son (Roy, Jr) whom Walt reputedly had referred to as the "idiot nephew" on at least one occasion. Roy, Jr worked at the Studio. Walt had a son-in-law named Ron Miller who also worked at the Studio. Largely because he was a "Walt", Ron climbed the corporate ladder with greater success and speed than did Roy, Jr.
When Walt passed away in 1966, Roy (Senior) ran the company until his death five years later. This was during a time when the company had turned most of its attention to the development and opening of Walt Disney World and theme park attractions. By comparison, the studio productions (including animated films) were becoming somewhat neglected. After Roy's death, the company was being run by Donn Tatum and Card Walker. Card Walker was a "Walt" man 110%, and soon became the top guy at the company. Nearly every decision Walker made was guided by one principle..."What would Walt do?" In the early to mid-70's, this was a good guiding principle, because the things Walt would have done would be considered pretty cutting edge. But as times changed, Card Walker's vision did not. Meanwhile, he was grooming Ron Miller to eventually take charge of the company.
By the late 70's and early to mid 80's, the value of Disney stock was going further and further down. Disney movies had become an industry joke, and the animated films had diminished somewhat in quality and personality. The theme parks were the "cash cow" of the company, but even those were become less and less cutting edge.
Because the company was being run by "Walts", Roy, Jr's influence in the company was not very strong. What the "Walts" overlooked, however, was that Roy, Jr was, at that time, the largest single stockholder in the company. Out of frustration, Roy, Jr resigned from the board of directors, and from the Disney company altogether. This moved, which seemed unheard of because he was a member of the Disney family, triggered further drops in the value of Disney's stock price.
This made the company an attractive target for corporate raiders, who planned to buy a controlling interest in the company, and then break it apart and sell the various parts to different buyers (e.g. the hotels in Florida were going to be sold to the Marriott company, and each individual theme park was going to be sold to a different buyer. The studio and the film library would be sold to a Hollywood studio). Roy, Jr then moved to organize a management shake up at the company, which would result in the departure of Card Walker and Ron Miller, and would have them replaced with management of Roy, Jr's choosing. Texas billionaires, the Bass Brothers, helped to finance this move, and they purchased enough stock to help fend off the corporate raiders.
It was decided that the best choice to run Disney was a young executive in charge of Paramount Studios, by the name of Michael Eisner. Because of his age and comparative lack of experience, a former Warner Bros executive named Frank Wells was also hired to co-run the company with Michael Eisner. The arrangement was that Eisner would hold the titles of CEO and Chairman of the Board, and would technically be the head of the company. But Wells (President and COO) would not report to Eisner, but rather would report directly to the Board of Directors. Eisner was the creative one with the radical ideas and the strong charismatic personality. Wells was the humble business genius who didn't mind taking a backseat and being out of the limelight. For the first time since the death of Walt Disney himself, the company once again had a "Walt/Roy" business relationship, a formula that proved wildly successful.
Under Eisner and Wells' watch, the animation unit was reinvigorated with such blockbuster hits as Little Mermaid, Beauty and Beast, Aladdin, and Lion King. The team also breathed new life into the theme parks by once again building cutting edge attractions and coming up with some unique marketing campaigns. More hotels and new attractions started springing up in Florida. And the studio started making more "edgy" fare under the Touchstone label. For the first time in about 2 decades, Disney was once again "cool". They rose from an industry joke into the biggest, most powerful entertainment giant in Hollywood.
But then....
In 1993, Frank Wells died in a helicopter accident. By this time, Eisner had risen into one of the most powerful people in entertainment. Suddenly, there was no longer the incredibly effective partnership that existed with Eisner/Wells. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Katzenberg, a long-time Eisner loyalist who had followed him to Disney from Paramount and was now head of the studio, expected that he was naturally in line to fill Frank Wells' job. Disliked by many on the Board, Katzenberg did not get the job, and subsequently left the company to co-found Dreamworks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. This further hurt the Disney company, because Katzenberg had been a huge reason behind much of Disney's success with live action and animated films. And now he was about to form a company in which his talents would be used to compete against Disney.
With Eisner now assuming the combined titles of CEO, President and Chairman, and with no Frank Wells to partner with and to help run the business, the made two of what many consider to be it's biggest blunders. One of those was the hiring of Michael Ovitz to fill Frank Wells' shoes and work with Eisner. This relationship lasted just about a year, was a disaster in every sense of the word, and ended with Ovitz leaving and getting paid about $138 million as a severance package. The other blunder was overpaying to buy the number one TV network (ABC), and then to subsequently drive it to number 3, where it remained for some time. These moves played a huge role in a significant downturn of Disney's stock for the first time since Eisner took over.
Perhaps out of desperation to improve the stock price and put Disney back on top, Eisner spent the next several years making moves which seemed to reflect a focus more on the bottom line than on enhancing the guest/consumer experience. Disney Stores began to oversaturate the market, causing them to become less and less special and unique. California Adventure was built, and it featured a mere handful of unique attractions, while the rest were off-the-shelf amusement park rides and copies of existing attractions from other Disney theme parks, not to mentioned significantly more shops and restaurants than attractions. Without Katzenberg to guide them, the quality of the animated and live action films declined.
On top of all these events, many observers began to remark that Eisner was becoming less and less in touch with what audiences wanted, and seemed to demonstrate a belief that oversaturating the market with all things Disney would increase success for the company. The effect, in reality, was an apparent drop in people's interest in Disney, as they grew tired of the overexposure.
All that said, it's my personal opinion that while Michael Eisner undeniably woke a sleeping giant and breathed new life into Disney, he is generally given full credit for events in which Frank Wells should have been given equal (and in some cases more) credit. The difference is that Michael Eisner was in the limelight. It's unfortunate that it took Frank Wells' death to bring attention to this. I'm also of the belief (as I'm sure many others are as well) that as time went on, Michael Eisner began to lose his magic touch with audiences. This is no wonder, as the company grew and Eisner took on more power and responsibilities within the organization. For these reasons, I believe that while Eisner did do some great things for the company, he also overstayed his welcome by nearly 10 years and actually did some damage to the company's most important and valuable asset...it's image, during that latter years of his tenure.
Does this lengthy post answer the question, "Why hate Eisner?". That's up to the readers to decide I suppose. Does it mean that I personally am among those who share in that hatred? Not at all. I do believe he did some great things that are deserving of recognition, but I don't believe that negates the bad.
PS: Sorry for the lengthy post. This is easily my longest post ever. :lol:
The above pretty much covers it.
Eisner and Wells saved Disney in 1984 and turned the company around
They made some amazing desicions, from resorts to attractions to whole parks. They really were thinking big and pushing the envelope.
Frank Wells was good at holding Eisners leash. It`d be pulled in if needed. Once Frank was gone no-one could do this, and Eisner went on a bumbling ego trip to hell, with the company as his vehicle. People with no experience were employed to run the parks, and they suffered. Measly budgets for attractions. Maintainence cut to dangerous levels. Plans scaled back so far they were just a shadow of their former selves. Obviously there is a lot more outside the park division too. He was also very good at giving the impression his ideas were great, and bad ones had to be someone elses.
A few examples - not `fan boy` rants but decisions that have come back to haunt the company:
Eisner ordered the major rehab of Horizons scrapped. Too expensive with no sponsor. When Compaq signed to sponsor M:S, they`d also be paying for Horizons demolition. The press spin was "the current building is too small, so we`re building an even bigger one". Space is 70% the size Horizons was.
Eisner rode DCAs ToT and came off fuming. "It`s too short. Guests will feel cheated. Compared to Orlando it is cheap". WDI had been saying this for years, since it was Eisner who wanted a cheaper alternative and decided not to persue other vehicle tracking options.
Eisner rode Journey into YOUR Imagination and came off fuming. "It`s too short. Guests will feel cheated. There is nothing to see". And he was right. He had ordered the short version to eliminate the problamatic turntable, and to enable the Imageworks to be moved downstairs and avoid that nasty ADA compliance. Kodak nearly pulled sponsorship due to dislike of him. Apparently.
Eisner had pulled back the scale of the Paris studios, due to the ecconomic climate in Europe. When built they were a shadow of their former self and the plan to keep guests in resorts an extra night nearly backfired. On the eve of the opening, one exec remarked off the record "maybe he did build it too small"
Eisner scrapped WESTcot, then the alternate version, and then scaled down DCA so much... well, the rest is history. DCA cost $600m in 2001. EPCOT Center phase one cost twice that much in 1982.
Eisner scrapped Beastly Kingdomme in DAK due to rising costs. The park opened with one `thrill ride` and a big empty hole. The Discovery River Boats were even classed as an attraction to hide the fact. Camp Minnie-Mickey was built for less than a million dollars in less than 12 months to try to cover the hole. What could have been the crowing glory of the new park ended up elsewhere in various guises. Only now are management keen to fix the problem, and only to keep up with the competition (not a bad thing, but something that shouldn`t need another parks plans to make it happen)
In short Eisner was the part saviour of the company, but became it`s worst enemy.
Eisner and Wells saved Disney in 1984 and turned the company around
They made some amazing desicions, from resorts to attractions to whole parks. They really were thinking big and pushing the envelope.
Frank Wells was good at holding Eisners leash. It`d be pulled in if needed. Once Frank was gone no-one could do this, and Eisner went on a bumbling ego trip to hell, with the company as his vehicle. People with no experience were employed to run the parks, and they suffered. Measly budgets for attractions. Maintainence cut to dangerous levels. Plans scaled back so far they were just a shadow of their former selves. Obviously there is a lot more outside the park division too. He was also very good at giving the impression his ideas were great, and bad ones had to be someone elses.
A few examples - not `fan boy` rants but decisions that have come back to haunt the company:
Eisner ordered the major rehab of Horizons scrapped. Too expensive with no sponsor. When Compaq signed to sponsor M:S, they`d also be paying for Horizons demolition. The press spin was "the current building is too small, so we`re building an even bigger one". Space is 70% the size Horizons was.
Eisner rode DCAs ToT and came off fuming. "It`s too short. Guests will feel cheated. Compared to Orlando it is cheap". WDI had been saying this for years, since it was Eisner who wanted a cheaper alternative and decided not to persue other vehicle tracking options.
Eisner rode Journey into YOUR Imagination and came off fuming. "It`s too short. Guests will feel cheated. There is nothing to see". And he was right. He had ordered the short version to eliminate the problamatic turntable, and to enable the Imageworks to be moved downstairs and avoid that nasty ADA compliance. Kodak nearly pulled sponsorship due to dislike of him. Apparently.
Eisner had pulled back the scale of the Paris studios, due to the ecconomic climate in Europe. When built they were a shadow of their former self and the plan to keep guests in resorts an extra night nearly backfired. On the eve of the opening, one exec remarked off the record "maybe he did build it too small"
Eisner scrapped WESTcot, then the alternate version, and then scaled down DCA so much... well, the rest is history. DCA cost $600m in 2001. EPCOT Center phase one cost twice that much in 1982.
Eisner scrapped Beastly Kingdomme in DAK due to rising costs. The park opened with one `thrill ride` and a big empty hole. The Discovery River Boats were even classed as an attraction to hide the fact. Camp Minnie-Mickey was built for less than a million dollars in less than 12 months to try to cover the hole. What could have been the crowing glory of the new park ended up elsewhere in various guises. Only now are management keen to fix the problem, and only to keep up with the competition (not a bad thing, but something that shouldn`t need another parks plans to make it happen)
In short Eisner was the part saviour of the company, but became it`s worst enemy.
Disney05
Well-Known Member
Without going into a long response, I agree with number 3.
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
Michael Eisner who?
....looking forward, looking forward...
....looking forward, looking forward...
teebin
Member
Not to long at all and very well written. You put it in a very large nutshell and I appreciate some of the nuances that I had otherwise not known.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
That was a great post. A very good summary of Disney corporate history. Thanks for taking the time the write it all down.
Me, I am a 'number 3'.
3. "Michael Eisner turned the Disney company around after a decades-long slump, and he reinvigorated it with true Disney magic. But in later years, he became out of touch and focused more on the bottom line than on quality, ironically causing much damage to the image of the company which he'd previously made so strong."
firemandisney
New Member
It was a great post!
Needs to be a keeper!
Wow. You seriously think having the DCA in Cali, WDS in Paris, and HKDL(with the current number of attractions) in HK all under Eisner reign was a sign that Disney is better than ever? Or you just don't give a ____ of anything other than WDW?
Jerm
Well-Known Member
My question is why are we talking about something that changed a few years ago? Uncle Mike is now off enjoying life, he can no longer hurt us....or help us (WHICH HE DID) so why are we talking about this?
Would you like to bring up my ex gf? Or how about my dead dog? Oh here is a fun one......Mr. Toad.
Rafiki: (hits simba over the head with his stick)
Simba: Ouch! Jeez! What was that for?
Rafiki: It doesn't matter, its in the past.
Simba: Yeah but it still hurts!
Rafiki: The past can hurt. But the way i see it, you can either run from it, or learn from it.
Would you like to bring up my ex gf? Or how about my dead dog? Oh here is a fun one......Mr. Toad.
Rafiki: (hits simba over the head with his stick)
Simba: Ouch! Jeez! What was that for?
Rafiki: It doesn't matter, its in the past.
Simba: Yeah but it still hurts!
Rafiki: The past can hurt. But the way i see it, you can either run from it, or learn from it.
firemandisney
New Member
LOL, Hey when we went to Disneyland in 04..Toad was one of our FIRST rides!
Jerm
Well-Known Member
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH TALKING LAMA!!!!!!! Demon LAMA!!!!! :ROFLOL:
raven
Well-Known Member
Here's a laymens explaination from a CM of Disney at the time of Eisner's peak years at the end of his Disney days:
-He took the company and his title to his head. He became Walt and made it very clear to the public, shareholders and employees that HE was the ultimate Disney God and no one else was.
-He was CEO AND President, meaning he could not be voted out of his position no matter what the shareholders did. He moved people around, fired the only Disney blood left in the company because of power issues.
-His temper was absolutely rediculous for any Disney employee. I know he was in charge of a corporate empire but he had no "magic".
-One person he fired ended up starting Dreamworks with Steven S. This company is now a HUGE competition for Disney.
-Michael fired all of the animators at MGM in Florida and completely shut down film making there. Dreamworks swallowed up a lot of these animators (which explains the uncanny resemblance to Disney animation).
-He sold The Disney Stores because he didn't want to deal with them anymore. This was a big mistake and Disney has since gained them back.
-He severed ties with Pixar. When they did, CARS hadn't been released yet. Neither Pixar or Disney could release the film due to each other holding equal rights to it. A few years later when Eisner was gone did Disney mend those ties and release the film.
-He was good for the company for years but his for power ultimately cost him his demise.
These are just thoughts from a large number of Disney employees and Cast Members and possibly the public.
When the shareholders voted over 50% wanting him to step down from President he did. Less than a year later he stepped out all together but his still draws millions from the company and will continue to do so for years. This is because while he was in office he padded his future by making changes to the company: He gets a large % of everything he ever created while he was around if they continue to make money (movies, parks, businesses, etc).
Sorry about the grammer and spelling as all I remember last night was Tequilla!
-He took the company and his title to his head. He became Walt and made it very clear to the public, shareholders and employees that HE was the ultimate Disney God and no one else was.
-He was CEO AND President, meaning he could not be voted out of his position no matter what the shareholders did. He moved people around, fired the only Disney blood left in the company because of power issues.
-His temper was absolutely rediculous for any Disney employee. I know he was in charge of a corporate empire but he had no "magic".
-One person he fired ended up starting Dreamworks with Steven S. This company is now a HUGE competition for Disney.
-Michael fired all of the animators at MGM in Florida and completely shut down film making there. Dreamworks swallowed up a lot of these animators (which explains the uncanny resemblance to Disney animation).
-He sold The Disney Stores because he didn't want to deal with them anymore. This was a big mistake and Disney has since gained them back.
-He severed ties with Pixar. When they did, CARS hadn't been released yet. Neither Pixar or Disney could release the film due to each other holding equal rights to it. A few years later when Eisner was gone did Disney mend those ties and release the film.
-He was good for the company for years but his for power ultimately cost him his demise.
These are just thoughts from a large number of Disney employees and Cast Members and possibly the public.
When the shareholders voted over 50% wanting him to step down from President he did. Less than a year later he stepped out all together but his still draws millions from the company and will continue to do so for years. This is because while he was in office he padded his future by making changes to the company: He gets a large % of everything he ever created while he was around if they continue to make money (movies, parks, businesses, etc).
Sorry about the grammer and spelling as all I remember last night was Tequilla!
Spike-in-Berlin
Well-Known Member
So the rehab of Horizons into a magnificent, breathtaking "Space Pavilion" was not only a mere design idea but really planned to be done and then suddenly cancelled?
I hate him.
No, not really, I know he was first a real saviour (together with Wells!) but obviously changed later. And he did a LOT of such mistakes.