Disney Pixar Discussion

[Lindsay]

I am so happy Save Disney is gone.

I think SD's biggest problem is that they underestimated Michael Eisner. Going into march, they had all this support (& apperently bumper stickers), they felt they were unstoppable. The shareholder meeting came in with over a 40% no confidence vote in Eisner and Roy thought it was over. When time passed and Eisner dis not quit, they had nowhere to go to. The only part left of the campaign after March 3rd was the website.

So the Grumpy Old men are out and Eisner, once again, has won.

What, are you a Mikey-backer or something, Mike?

[Christian]

Sounds like he is. Wait a sec, I bet he IS Michael Eisner.

[Ben]

I have to say - and this is nothing new...I posted a similar remark in our older forum - that I like Eisner.

Not his many legacy ruining decisions, but as a guy. I read his autobiography "Work In Progress" and for anyone who's a fan (or a detractor), it's a great read.

He basically worked his way up and through the industry to get where he is, and while I'm the sure the book glosses over any backstabbing he may have done to get there, it's a pretty fair account and his risk-taking attitude does come through.

I also think it's funny that he has this ABC complex. He started work there (also where Walt first broke into TV) and Eisner seems to have lent towards ABC all through his career, whether selling them shows from his Paramount days, or now, with having Disney acquire the network ("hey! I loved it so much I bought the company!").

Plus, I think it's amusing that, while other network logos are usually cut off from archival Disney DVD output, the new Mickey Mouse Club Treasures tin keeps the station sponsor tags intact.

Couldn't be because it's ABC, could it, and an extra little push for "company synergy"?

[Christian]

He's an enigma. That's for sure. People make him out to be all bad. I just think he's about 75% bad. It may very well be that nobody could get to the position he's attained to without being dirty, ruthless, and backstabbing. It seemed like Disney was just another kill for him to triumphantly stand up on and beat his chest and holler so that all around could see what he just conquered. I heard (I'm sure somebody will correct me) that he admitted that he had only seen one or two Disney movies in his life before getting hired by them and that he just went because his kids were bugging him to take them. I don't think there was really any love in his heart for the Disney legacy when he came on board but I do think that some of it crept into his fat cat capitalist heart once he came on board, but he still created a climate of fear in the company that never neeeded to be there. Also, I don't think that everything negative anybody can find coming from Disney is always Eisner's fault. People with dumbed-down mentalities would say stuff like, "Look! Nobody went to see 'The Alamo.' Man, we've gotta get Eisner outta there. He's destroying the company." Just like people here in the US think that everything negative in their lives is the president's fault.

[ShyViolet]

I have to admit that I share some of what Ben and Christian feel. I admire a lot of the things Eisner did in the past, even if he made some stupid movies later. Check out "Prince of the Magic Kingdom" by Joe Flower(1991). It may be kind of dated but there's a lot of things about Eisner that we tend to forget--his ideas with the theme parks, hosting Wonderful World of Disney (which he totally didn't have to do) etc....It's pretty eye-opening and it also shows you how Frank Wells was pretty business-minded in his own way, a great guy but not the "angel" to ME's "devil". Believe it or not, Frank Wells said, when they were trying to decide what to do about producing TV animation, that: "Would people notice if we produced it at half the cost?" and it was Eisner who said: "We can't go on television and look like trash."

*BTW, even SaveDisney ran this column called "The Two Eisners" a couple of months ago, taking examples from Work in Progress and showing some positive things Eisner did compared to what is going on now. (kind of strange that they did that at all).

BTW I read parts of his autobiography, and I liked it too. My favorite parts were when he discussed his childhood/youth,and when he talked about his own kids.


Plus if he was friends with JK once, I don't see how he can be ALL bad.

[PatrickvD]

Sure, Eisner's done great things, but I personally hold him responsible for everything that's gone wrong the last few years. The thing is, he could have stopped it, there was no need to lay off everyone, yet all of the executives including mr Eisner and worst of all Stainton (ugh) allowed it to happen. And by the way, knowing Roy Disney, we have not heard the last of this.....

[Christian]

hosting Wonderful World of Disney (which he totally didn't have to do)

Yeah, I liked that he hosted WWoD when it had never occurred to any other president of the WDC since Walt himself that they could do such a thing. But why did he later have to allow his "Badness level" to go up? And my new nickname for Stainton is mini-ME.

[ShyViolet]

Maybe if that book about Eisner's memoirs from his camp days (he sent kids to the same one) ever comes out, we will learn more about his character. The book was supposed to deal with what it was like to be at this camp and how those experiences influenced him in running Disney. It didn't come out this year because of everything that was going on. (It was supposed to come out on Father's Day).
I think it would be a very interesting read. :idea:

[ShyViolet]

hosting Wonderful World of Disney (which he totally didn't have to do)

Yeah, I liked that he hosted WWoD when it had never occurred to any other president of the WDC since Walt himself that they could do such a thing. But why did he later have to allow his "Badness level" to go up? And my new nickname for Stainton is mini-ME.

I read on several sites that Stainton is on the way to being fired soon.....

[askmike1]

What, are you a Mikey-backer or something, Mike?

1) Yes I back Michael Eisner 100%.
2) No, I am not Michael Eisner.

Michael Eisner during his 20 years as head of the WDC, IMO, has done much more good than bad.
I'll list just some of the great things he has done: Animation's Second Golden Age, Animal Kingdom, DMGM, Tower of Terror, Pixar, expansion of DMGM into a full day park, Expedition Everest & Mission: Space, made Times Square what it is today, and much more.

In fact, since the Shareholder meeting in March, Michael Eisner has not done one bad thing. Since then, he has: rejouvenated ABC this season, hired a new team at Disneyland thats giving the park an Extreme Makeover, bringing back the (newly aquired) muppets, and more.

Roy and Stan's campaign was nothing but mean. It was a personal campaign and their only goal was to get Mr. Eisner out, not 'Save Disney.' Even Walt's own daughter (Dianne Disney Miller) spoke out against the campaign, saying it was nothing but a personal attack.

So long live Michael Eisner, and be gone with the Grumpy Old Men.

[James]

In fact, since the Shareholder meeting in March, Michael Eisner has not done one bad thing. Since then, he has: rejouvenated ABC this season, hired a new team at Disneyland thats giving the park an Extreme Makeover, bringing back the (newly aquired) muppets, and more.

Roy and Stan's campaign was nothing but mean. It was a personal campaign and their only goal was to get Mr. Eisner out, not 'Save Disney.' Even Walt's own daughter (Dianne Disney Miller) spoke out against the campaign, saying it was nothing but a personal attack.

So long live Michael Eisner, and be gone with the Grumpy Old Men.

One could argue that it was because of the Save Disney campaign and the March shareholder meeting that Eisner turned things around.

[ShyViolet]

I'm not saying I totally support Eisner but wouldn't all the positive changes we saw this year (such as ABC picking up, etc...) take longer than a year to have had affect? Eisner was predicting that the turnaround would happen even before Roy and Stan started their spiel. I think it was perhaps partly because of them but it was also in the works beforehand.

And I agree that Roy and Stan's campaign was mean. If I did support them (which I didn't) I would have lost all respect for them after all those amatuer essays and let's not forget that fake photo that made Eisner look like Dr. Evil.

[ShyViolet]

Jim Hill has a very interesting column commenting on all this....


www.jimhillmedia.com

[Ben]

You leave Jim Hill's column out of this!

[askmike1]

Not wanting to repost it again, you can see my opinion to this at the JHMboards. It is the 6th post down. In summery, Eisner won, Roy lost, I'm happy. Also, that shareholder proposal (found in the article) is so rediculous, it isn't even funny (unless ofcourse you find shareholder proposals funny).[/url]