Is MICHAEL EISNER the culprit for Disney's current state?

[Jules]

I see Michael Eisner as a mixed bag.

He, with Frank Wells, brought Disney out of the rut they were in, in the 1980s. He has done good things, but lately, I feel he was a bit of a fraud.

First of all *I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TRUE* I remember reading somewhere that Eisner, initially wanted to discontinue Disney's Legacy of animation in the 80s. He wanted to make cheap Hanna-Barbera quality TV cartoons. Roy Disney had to try to convince him that feature animation could still be profitable. This was what resulted in "The Great Mouse Detective", "Oliver and Co." and "The Little Mermaid", the latter being the one which Roy Disney probably used as a sort of "So there!!!" to Michael Eisner.

Now, in humphreybear's thread, it seems it was mainly, Eisner's doing that 2D animation was terminated in 2004. Besides loathing Eisner for it, it looks like he finally had his way. According to him, people have lost their taste for hand-drawn animation.

He also seems to be depicted as a horrible ruling stubborn dim-witted giant, who never gave his employees any chance to have their own instinctive ideas.

So is this true or not? What are your opinions? Let's uncover the truth about Eisner...a normal human, or a monstrosity that shed its untreatable venom over the Walt Disney Company over the last 21 years?

If the latter is the case, it's a good thing he's finally retired...

[Disney-Fan]

* I remember reading somewhere that Eisner, initially wanted to discontinue Disney's Legacy of animation in the 80s.

That is somewhat true. I think it's his partner at Disney [besides Roy], Frank Wells, that insisted on keeping the creative side of Disney. That's why we got great animated movies, amazing theme-park rides and expansion like no other. It's really the only reason why I give Eisner credit. Wells and him as a team were unstoppable. Eisner alone was the sole destroyer of the company's core. Everything from micro-management to shutting down any room for creativity was pretty much his doing.

Little known fact for you guys: He had trouble figuring how a story about a cute fish that's lost in the big ocean could turn a profit, and he had the show "Lost" doomed before the pilot aired. That's just a sample of his "creative" side.

[Jules]

Little known fact for you guys: He had trouble figuring how a story about a cute fish that's lost in the big ocean could turn a profit, and he had the show "Lost" doomed before the pilot aired. That's just a sample of his "creative" side.

Wow! He's so creative! His imagination is unstoppable! He can project images from his eyeballs, so intense is his creativity!!! Walt would have been proud!!

(Obviously the above is sarcastic and ironic).

He must be the total opposite of the catalyst to the company he should have been!

I hope Bob Iger is better.

[Disney-Fan]

I hope Bob Iger is better.

Don't worry, he definetely is. He may not have a creative side, but he's hiring all the right people to get it done right. That's the difference between Eisner and Iger. Iger recognizes his weaknesses, whereas Eisner never gave a thought that he lacked the creativity that an imagineer or an animator has. I sincerely believe we are now in good hands.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Little known fact for you guys: He had trouble figuring how a story about a cute fish that's lost in the big ocean could turn a profit, and he had the show "Lost" doomed before the pilot aired. That's just a sample of his "creative" side.

Those are two big things that I LIKED about Michael Eisner.

[Jules]

WHAT!?

[Wonderlicious]

My take on him is that whilst he was a good CEO, he did outstay his welcome, thus naturally causing a number of problems for Disney.

Eisner at first did a wonderful job (along with Frank Wells) in turning Disney from a sinking ship into something wonderful like it was in the past. However, a number of things, such as the death of Frank Wells, his lack of being creative/inability to always hire the right people and the ABC purchase kind of made Disney into a bit of a mockery creatively and more a heartless media warehouse like News Corporation than the unpretentious film company and theme park operator that it once was.

I think that Bob Iger is doing a good job, on the whole, picking up the pieces of the house that Walt built that eventually Mike tore down and getting the right people to piece them back together.

EDIT: Here's the link all about how Tale Spin etc got created: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts ... facc?hl=en

[Harbinger]

I have to say yes. He left Disney in total disarray. I have still to read something good about that he personally did besides revamping the theme parks.

Plus he dissed "Lost" which was the straw that broke the camel's back. That's a big no-no in my book.

[Jules]

I remember once reading in an interview with Eisner on the internet, which I hope was fake, that he was going to turn the Walt Disney Company into the Michael Eisner Corporation, and rename Mickey Mouse, Mikey Mouse.

[2099net]

Change the first and last letters and you get Disney. Coincidence?

[Loomis]

I heartily recommend that everybody read Disney War by James B. Stewart. I've reviewed that here.

It follows Disney through the Eisner years, with a level of intimacy not usually seen in this type of 'business book'. Stewart never really makes a judgment on Eisner's career, but simply points to where it might have gone wrong. However, looking at his whole career in context, he did far more good for Disney than he did to destroy it.

He had many early successes; bolstered the Theme Parks a great deal and ushered in the 'new renaissance' of animation in the early 1990s. However, his lust for control and his incessant need to be suspicious of everybody and everything seemed to bring it all down for him, making bad decisions and wrong turns ultimately lost him the faith of the board and the shareholders. After 20 years in the saddle, maybe it was time for fresh blood anyway.

It is really easy to point to him turning down this deal, or taking that deal, and say he was a bad CEO. That's business though - you take risks with every deal. In the context of his career, dissing "Lost" and turning down The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is nothing compared to the legacy of good films and multi-billion dollar empire he grew out of the - let's not forget - 'dark ages' of Disney.

[Jules]

and turning down The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

What do you mean? Are you saying that Disney once considered making an animated version of LOTR?

It's just that that seems to ring a bell, somewhere in my memory...

[Loomis]

and turning down The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

What do you mean? Are you saying that Disney once considered making an animated version of LOTR?

It's just that that seems to ring a bell, somewhere in my memory...

No, I think it was when it was on the Miramax table, and Eisner had real issues with it then.

Let's face it - it WAS a risk. It just happened to work brilliantly.

[Jules]

I see...

Thanks for clearing the matter up Loomis...

[Lars Vermundsberget]

First of all, I think the idea of discontinuing Disney animation was up even quite a while before Michael Eisner - probably in the 70s. And at the time, that might not have been a totally illogical thing to do.

I'd say Michael Eisner WAS the right man in the right place - for quite a while. But eventually he turned into... eh, the wrong man - seemingly obsessed with control, at the expense of making good decisions and letting "good people" come forward. And for that he has also been paid WAY too much money...

[Jules]

I read something related to what you're saying in a thread about Michael Eisner which I managed to dig up from the dusty old archives of UD forums.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I think I read the part about discontinuing Disney animation in the 70s in a book, but I've got too many books about Disney to be able to tell which one right now.

[joplin4]

I think he's still upset it's not "The Michael Eisner Company" instead of "The Walt Disney Company". I think he was jealous of Walt. That's strictly opinion, of course.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

If so, I'd say he should have started the Michael Eisner Company himself. Disney isn't the place to start if you'd like to give the company a new (your own) name.

[AwallaceUNC]

Let's face it - it WAS a risk. It just happened to work brilliantly.

Indeed... and it may not have had it stayed with Disney. A different studio could even lead to a different director (I don't know how far back Peter Jackson's involvement goes), but it can't be taken for granted that a Lord of the Rings movie would have been a success in any circumstance.

As Loomis and Wondy have said, I think a lot of what happened to Disney in the last few years can be blamed in part on Eisner's leadership, but it's a little silly to say that any one person is solely responsible for all of a massive corporation's weaknesses. If not for many of the things that happened under Eisner's leadership (and in some/many cases, <i>because</i> of his leadership), there may not have been the large Disney following that led to websites like UD today. So I do feel a sense of gratitude and respect toward Eisner, but I think the mistakes he made in the second portion of his tenure were too many to count and for a number of reasons, it was time for him to go.

Eisner & Co. also did not like Johnny Depp's portrayal of Capt. Jack Sparrow and were quite nervous about it. Let the bashing begin!:P

-Aaron