Roy Disney and Stanley Gold resign! Eisner next?

matthewgb · Post by **matthewgb** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:20 pm

How will this possibly affect the treasures series? Roy Disney was one of the chief proponents for putting the TRue Life Adventures on DVD having participated in the production of some of them. Rumor was this was to be included in the 2004 slate. Will it be put on the back burner as to not stoke an already volatile fire? Or would a delay agrevate the situation even further?

Mermaid Kelly · Post by **Mermaid Kelly** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:30 pm

does anyone think this issue may cause the future platinum dvds not to come out!!!

I sure hope not!!! I really hope they still release the whole collection!!

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:32 pm

Hopefully Roy will campaign from the outside to assemble new management for another corporate take-over. It's blatantly obvious that too many issues have gone unaddressed for far too long and the time for significant action to be taken is at hand. Roy might be in the minority among shareholders, but he does bear the Disney family name and that's one legacy that I believe will prove to be far more powerful than Michael Eisner assumes. I would highly doubt that Mr. Eisner's stay at Disney will be reconsidered after 2006... Now that Roy has stepped down and essentially freed himself of all liabilities, publicity will be divulged and Eisner and his team will have a lot of difficulty contending for his position. I don't believe this marks the end for Roy Disney, he's likely playing the cards he was dealt and hopefully he and Stanley Gold will finally take this oppurtunity to fight back and purge the company of Eisner and his unit of soulless, apathetic, money-driven schlubs and hopefully reinstate some of the creative insight, passion, morality and heart into the company which it once defined. It's obvious that new leadership is crucial, and a common assimilation of both financial and artistic functions is what's needed. Here's hoping for the best - godspeed Disney!

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:30 pm

After reading Roy's letter, I'm so proud of that man. For someone of his stature to make such a shocking move and stick it to Eisner really deserves the upmoast respect. As others have commented on, I hope the DVD release lines aren't affected. If they are, it will suck, but I think its a sacrifice consumers can make for the betterment of the future of the Disney co.

I think its official that we are in a second age of dark years comparable to those in the late 70s/ early 80s.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:11 pm

im can see now that my letter to Mr. Disney really got read!

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:07 am

This whole thing is very sad.

(Extraneous link removed)

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 1:48 am

thanks wacko bill but that has already been posted!

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:10 am

Firstly, Roy is certainly a minority shareholder - he sold most of his shares a month or two back. I can't see Roy coming back to Disney. I don't hold this against him, and neither should any of you - he's earned a right to a peaceful retirement. Nobody can expect him to do anything.

Secondly, this will in no way effect future treasures or platinum (or whatever they eventually decide to call them) releases. The reason? Money. Disney is making money off these releases, so will not stop. I even expect Roy to continue to lend his name to the Treasures collections - Maltin is not a Disney employee, so why does Roy have to be? He can still consult on the releases. Either way, Disney will want to continue the series, especially after the extra-demand fisasco this year.

Thirdly, nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what would have happened had somebody else been in charge of Disney. Not even Roy himself. Also remember it was Roy who pushed for Eisner to take up his position at Disney. Like Roy himself says, Eisner did fantastic work at Disney when he first came onboard. Infact, Eisner stopped the Disney name and characters being bought-out by another studio (can't remember which one - I think it was MGM?). Of course, I think Eisner's made mistakes, but I guess any large company director makes mistakes. It's just companies like ICI or GM don't generally have websites micro-analysing every business decision or concequence like Disney does. Plus, some of the recent troubles at Disney have been outside of Eisner's control. That said, I do resent Eisner's salary and bonus schemes - especially when other employees are being fired or made to work for half their previous salary. I doubt Eisner is that special - when you have a company like Disney - a company with such a goodwill name, literally thousands of characters and an almost unending back catalog of properties - it must be pretty hard to screw it up.

Forthly, while I do think Roy was the best man for the job, nobody knows that much about the new Chairman on Feature Animation, David Stanton, apart from what is basically third-hand gossip and innuendo. For all we know, pulling "A Few Good Ghosts" may have been the right thing to do. The numerous titles for the film hint that progression was far from smooth and it's much more costly and time consuming to fix "broken" animated screenplays than live action. Nobody here can decide if David made the right or wrong decision.

Out of all the Disney "suits" Roy is the only one I respected, and that respect turned to a form of love after the whole "Treasure Planet" debacle. Roy was the only one to talk up the movie. Roy was the only one to praise the filmmakers. Most importantly, Roy was the only one to show respect for the film, Disney's long history and the filmmakers. I do think Disney will loose some of its soul now Roy has left - but I only wish him luck in whatever he chooses to do.

Update It turns out Roy was virtually "asked" to resign - his resignation was not a unilateral decision.

Disney's resignation may be a pre-emptive move to avoid being forced off the board of The Walt Disney Co. The board's governance and nominating committee has decided not to recommend Disney for another term because he is over the mandated retirement age of 72, the company said Sunday

"The Governance and Nominating Committee recently informed Mr. Disney of its judgment that the mandatory age limits of the company's Corporate Governance Guidelines, which had previously been unanimously approved by the Board, should be applied to him and two other Board members, Thomas S. Murphy and Raymond Watson," Mitchell said.

"It is unfortunate that the Committee's judgment to apply these unanimously adopted governance rules has become an occasion to raise again criticisms of the direction of the Company, and calls for change of management, that have been previously rejected by the Board."

Don't look for any major ramifications from his letter, he was pushed out after all.

wwwjim · Post by **wwwjim** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:35 am

2099net: that was a very well thought-out post, and I agree with you totally. Eisner is not the embodiment of the Disney philosophy, BUT that is not his job. His ultimate boss, whether we like it or not, are the shareholders of Disney stock. And as such, he can be deemed as doing his job in the short-term. Stock prices are up, the Disney coffers are growing again, attendence is again rising at the parks post-9/11, box office and DVD sales are good.

Do I like Eisner? No, not really. He has, however, kept the Disney company alive through some turbulent times and decent (occasionally good or great) movies are still being produced. So with a grudging tip of the hat, thanks Mike.

As for Roy, I agree that he is unlikely to return. Unfortunately, there is no other person with the Disney name to return and lead the company. Even if there was, there is not guarantee he or she would be any better than what we have. Neither business sense nor creativity seem to be genetic. Roy, I also thank you for your work at the animation dept. You have more than earned the right to kick up your heels and enjoy some time off.

ArtOfDisney · Post by **ArtOfDisney** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:27 am

I'm am sad to see Roy gone!!! He was the last of the Disney blood to leave his touch on things. I think it is bold of him to make such a stand and it will bring about a new Disney Co. in years to come.

As for Eisner, I don't hate the man as many do, but I don't like him either. I think that maybe with the pressure on him he will be able to turn things around drastically. I think it's amazing how far some pressure can make on someone. We may even see some good Disney films coming out if we're lucky.

Either way it goes, I hope the company gets on it's feet again. Just as they did in 1984, they need to do now!! And then maybe whoever comes in will do as Eisner originally did, turn around the company and parks to that Disnery touch.

karlsen · Post by **karlsen** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 8:07 am

I hope that this makes the apropriate presure on Eisner and that he soon resignes as well.

As someone else here wrote I do not belive that Roy will return. He has taken a final desision and will stand by that. We must remember that he is an old man now.

But if Eisner resignes he would be able to return to be a voice of the Disney family instead of a chairman. I belive that is what he was now as well. He was just treated by Eisner as a good old man that looked like Walt.

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 8:16 am

I disagree with you guys.

Firstly, I would highly doubt that Roy's leave could be construed as a "peaceful retirement" by anyone's perspectives. I also don't believe that he is gone for good.

If you recall, Roy did the exact same thing in the early 80's when Disney was facing financial threats and and was at risk of being bought over by numerous corporations.

Regardless of his position, he still holds the Disney legacy and I wouldn't expect him to just give up something that he regards with such passion, so willingly. I truly believe that he is playing his hand right now and will ultimately do everything in his power to try and regain position on board.

As for Mr. Eisner... He does deserve credit for saving the company from corporate take-over in the 80's and it was Roy Disney who brought him in to recondition and establish stability within the company when it saw it's darker moments, but aside from his fiscal capacities, Michael Eisner is NOT the man to be holding such a position. Remember that much credit needs to be given to Frank Wells for Disney's salvation over the past decade as he was the creative force behind much of the innovations which underwent process during those unbstable times, before his untimely death in 1994.

As a leader and president to the company, Michael Eisner falls short because he lacks perception in understanding what it was that brought about Disney's reverence.

As for Stanton - he epitomozes all that is wrong with the Disney corporation of recent years. The lack of trust and honor, fascist administrative policies, etc. He has no respect for his endeavors and is one of the first of Disney's mindless, uninspired execs that needs to go.

Eisner and his unit can no longer provide the type of leadership that Disney desperately needs to bring itself out of this rut. What the company really needs is someone of both creative and economic influential direction who both understands and appreciates the artistry and thoughtful enterprise which was the establishment of Walt Disney's vision 81 years ago.

While it's easy to point fingers and state blame, in the end, this has evidently been a long time coming.

I am extremely saddened that Roy has been forced out, because like 209 illustrated, he was one of the few on board who I really respected as he was the only successor to the Disney family name holding such a position and he had an intrinsic respect himself for his family's establishments. It was personal to him and I really am saddened that he has stepped down but I am also hoping that this gives him vantage to speak out against Eisner and his team and hopefully influences their resignations as well.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 8:59 am

STASHONE wrote:I disagree with you guys.

Firstly, I would highly doubt that Roy's leave could be construed as a "peaceful retirement" by anyone's perspectives. I also don't believe that he is gone for good.

He didn't retire as such, he was effectively forced out. It is very unlikely Roy will be back at Disney in an executive position (but I don't see him severing all ties with the company).

STASHONE wrote:Regardless of his position, he still holds the Disney legacy and I wouldn't expect him to just give up something that he regards with such passion, so willingly. I truly believe that he is playing his hand right now and will ultimately do everything in his power to try and regain position on board.

Roy has already tried to oust Eisner from the board, using the same reasons and Eisner won. Case, Eisner face fights to keep their positions and Eisner on the outer at Walt Disney. I doubt his resignation letter will have little affect on the board, given it's circumstances, and the fact that Roy's past actions are public knowledge.

STASHONE wrote:As for Mr. Eisner... He does deserve credit for saving the company from corporate take-over in the 80's and it was Roy Disney who brought him in to recondition and establish stability within the company when it saw it's darker moments, but aside from his fiscal capacities, Michael Eisner is NOT the man to be holding such a position. Remember that much credit needs to be given to Frank Wells for Disney's salvation over the past decade as he was the creative force behind much of the innovations which underwent process during those unbstable times, before his untimely death in 1994.

As a leader and president to the company, Michael Eisner falls short because he lacks perception in understanding what it was that brought about Disney's reverence.

But during the subsequent years, Eisner has, on the whole, more than kept Disney afloat with handsome profits. I've heard arguments about Wells' influence on Disney and Eisner before, and while I don't dismiss them, I think the reality is a lot more complex than the simple relationship between the two that people make out.

Of course Eisner was better with Wells. Most people are better when working as part of a team, especially if they like and repect their partner. Eisner was even better with Katzenberg, and they ended up hating each others guts!

(Which does beg the question why is Eisner so adamant to got it alone now and micro-manage the running of the company himself)

Personally, I think that Eisner's stayed on too long. He's lost his edge. That, plus the obscene amount of money he owns, means his enthusiam has diminished (even if only subconciously). What does he have to fight for and prove now? What more can he actually do for himself rather than for Disney?

STASHONE wrote:As for Stanton - he epitomozes all that is wrong with the Disney corporation of recent years. The lack of trust and honor, fascist administrative policies, etc. He has no respect for his endeavors and is one of the first of Disney's mindless, uninspired execs that needs to go.

Well, with all due respect, you don't know that.

We've only heard stories from Disney employees who are unsecure in their current jobs and naturally cynical about the company's actions and executives. Some are probably just waiting to pounce on any statement or action Stanton makes.

At my last job the daughter of the company's owner was brought in as head of our department. I'd heard all sorts of things about her, and could imagine nobody worse to have as a boss. But when she came, I found she was the best boss I've ever had (and am ever likely to have). Yes, she made changes I didn't agree with - but she was also kind, took time to hear everbody's opinions and worked hard to solve people's problems. But some people just couldn't get over her family ties or some of the changes she'd made to their working practice. It happens.

I'll judge Stanton's success (or failure) in a year or two's time, when things have settled down, and I can make my own mind up from more conclusive evidence. I don't really see how anyone can judge him at the moment.

Eisner, Katzenberg and their entire unit can no longer provide the type of leadership that Disney desperately needs to bring itself out of this rut. What the company really needs is someone of both creative and economic influential direction who both understands and appreciates the artistry and thoughtful enterprise which was the establishment of Walt Disney's vision 81 years ago.

Of course, when Walt was running the company, the animators actually went on strike. The Disney Studio Strike of 1941. Walt himself was far from perfect. Disney is, and always will be, a business.

STASHONE wrote:While it's easy to point fingers and state blame, in the end, this has evidently been a long time coming.

The biggest problem is Disney isn't the management as such - although I'll admit it could be, and should be, much better. It's just become too big - it's lost focus. What is Disney these days? Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, ABC TV, Miramax, Theme Parks, Cable TV, Hyperion Books, other Publishing, Disney Stores, Magazines, Computer Games, ESPN... I'm sure there's much, much more I'm missing out on.

Then add to this all the local Buena Vista subsidiaries in other countries and... well, the actual size of Disney is mind blowing!

See what the problem is? The Disney well all know and love is nothing more than a wheel within a wheel - all turning to feed the corporation with money. People here need to accept that.

STASHONE wrote:I am extremely saddened that Roy has been forced out, because like 209 illustrated, he was one of the few on board who I really respected as he was the only successor to the Disney family name holding such a position and he had an intrinsic respect himself for his family's establishments. It was personal to him and I really am saddened that he has stepped down but I am also hoping that this gives him vantage to speak out against Eisner and his team and hopefully influences their resignations as well.

I think the best we can hope for is that the open letter will be read by a number of major shareholders and it may encourage them to question Eisner's leadership. But, I would doubt anything will come of this - the board don't seem to care (especially as it was them who 'forced' him out in the first place) and most shareholders only care about short-term profit and loss, rather than the "magic" of Disney. (Which still does exist, by the way).

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 9:08 am

Here's another article on it, it mentions Roy's prior departure:

Updated: 08:28 AM EST
Roy Disney Exits Board, Asks Eisner to Go
By GARY GENTILE, AP

LOS ANGELES (Dec. 1) - In a sign of simmering tension at the top of one of the nation's largest media giants, Walt Disney Co. vice chairman Roy E. Disney stepped down from the board of directors and called on chairman and chief executive Michael Eisner to resign in a scathing letter.

''It is my sincere belief that it is you that should be leaving and not me,'' Disney wrote to Eisner. He also accused Eisner of ''muzzling'' his voice on the board.

Disney's departure may be a pre-emptive move to avoid being forced from the board of The Walt Disney Co. He is the nephew of company co-founder Walt Disney and the last family member to be active in the company.

The board's governance and nominating committee decided against recommending the 73-year-old Disney for another term because he is over the mandated retirement age of 72, the company said Sunday.

Board membership is on the agenda for the full board's scheduled meetings Monday and Tuesday in New York.

Disney has called for Eisner's resignation in the past, but the idea was rejected by the board. On Sunday, he sent a three-page letter to Eisner that criticized the chairman's leadership over the past seven years, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story.

''Michael, I believe your conduct has resulted from my clear and unambiguous statements to you and the Board of Directors that after 19 years at the helm, you are no longer the best person to run the Walt Disney Company,'' Disney wrote.

The board's presiding director, former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, said in a statement Sunday he regretted Disney's actions and confirmed that the governance and nominating committee recently informed Disney that the age-limit rules should apply.

''It is unfortunate that the Committee's judgment to apply these unanimously adopted governance rules has become an occasion to raise again criticisms of the direction of the Company, and calls for change of management, that have been previously rejected by the Board.''

A call to Roy Disney on Sunday was not immediately returned.

Disney previously resigned from the board in 1984 to initiate a stock battle for the company while it was headed by Ron Miller, Walt Disney's son-in-law. Disney was later reinstated.

Eisner is credited with transforming Disney from a minor producer of mediocre films and caretaker of two theme parks in 1984 into a media giant, whose holdings include five theme parks around the world, the ABC TV network, the ESPN sports cable channel and one of the highest-grossing movie studios.

Eisner's has taken heat for what critics see as micromanaging leadership style. Detractors also accuse him of presiding over a ''brain drain'' that saw top executives leave the company over the past 10 years, including former studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Bollenbach, who now heads the Hilton Corp., and most recently Paul Pressler, who left last year to head Gap Inc.

Roy Disney's letter also blames Eisner for a loss of morale at the company and for causing a perception that ''the Company is rapacious, soul-less, and always looking for the 'quick buck' rather than the long-term value which is leading to a loss of public trust.''

He also blasts Eisner for the failure to maintain constructive relationships with business partners, including Pixar Animation Studios, which co-produces computer-animated films with Disney, including the record-breaking ''Finding Nemo.''

Disney's stock has fallen from more than $40 per share in 2000 to under $14 in 2002. The stock has risen nearly 34 percent since the beginning of the year as the company's fortunes have gradually improved.

In September 2002, Eisner's plan for improving the company was unanimously approved by the board, but only after months of often bitter infighting among board members about the company's declining fortunes.

The plan included the most drastic changes in board membership since Eisner became chairman, such as bringing more independent members to a board that had long been criticized as having too cozy a relationship with Eisner.

Since then, another vocal Eisner critic, Andrea Van de Kamp, was dropped from the board. Two other board members who will not be re-nominated this year due to the age limit are 76-year-old Thomas S. Watson and Raymond Murphy, 77.

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 9:12 am

Background on Roy E. Disney

(Dec. 1) -- Biographical sketch of Roy E. Disney, who resigned Sunday as vice chairman of The Walt Disney Co.:

-- Born in Los Angeles on Jan. 10, 1930, to Roy O. Disney and Edna Francis Disney. He is the nephew of Walt Disney.

-- Joined the Disney board in 1967, when his father was chairman.

-- Formed Shamrock Holdings in 1978 to oversee his investments, primarily consisting of Disney stock.

-- Resigned from the board in 1984 to spearhead an effort to prevent a corporate takeover; he was later reinstated. He was instrumental in bringing Michael Eisner and Frank Wells to run the company, taking over from Ron Miller, Walt Disney's son-in-law.

-- Became chairman of Walt Disney Animation in 1984.

-- An avid sailor who holds many time records in offshore yacht racing.

-- Announced earlier this year he would sell much of his Disney holdings in a complex deal for estate planning purposes.

-- Favorite website is UltimateDisney.com.

poco · Post by **poco** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 9:33 am

Roy Disney wrote:

4. The perception by our stakeholders –consumers, investors, employees, distributors and suppliers – that the Company is rapacious, soul-less, and always looking for the “quick buck” rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of public trust.

hummmm.... always looking for the "quick buck" . Seems to me that is why they keep re-releasing all these different type of versions. No inserts...hummm....sounds like that too.

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:22 am

2099net wrote:
STASHONE wrote:I disagree with you guys.

Firstly, I would highly doubt that Roy's leave could be construed as a "peaceful retirement" by anyone's perspectives. I also don't believe that he is gone for good.
He didn't retire as such, he was effectively forced out. It is very unlikely Roy will be back at Disney in an executive position (but I don't see him severing all ties with the company).

My point exactly.

STASHONE wrote:Regardless of his position, he still holds the Disney legacy and I wouldn't expect him to just give up something that he regards with such passion, so willingly. I truly believe that he is playing his hand right now and will ultimately do everything in his power to try and regain position on board.
Roy has already tried to oust Eisner from the board, using the same reasons and Eisner won. Case, Eisner face fights to keep their positions and Eisner on the outer at Walt Disney. I doubt his resignation letter will have little affect on the board, given it's circumstances, and the fact that Roy's past actions are public knowledge.

Well I wasn't necessarily relating any of the above to Roy's letter so much as his now severed legal ties from the Disney corporation which will allow him to be in a position from which he can stand against Eisner's decisions and speak out on much of the inner workings of the company under Eisner's management which might be considered to many, less than virtuous.

STASHONE wrote:As for Mr. Eisner... He does deserve credit for saving the company from corporate take-over in the 80's and it was Roy Disney who brought him in to recondition and establish stability within the company when it saw it's darker moments, but aside from his fiscal capacities, Michael Eisner is NOT the man to be holding such a position. Remember that much credit needs to be given to Frank Wells for Disney's salvation over the past decade as he was the creative force behind much of the innovations which underwent process during those unbstable times, before his untimely death in 1994.

As a leader and president to the company, Michael Eisner falls short because he lacks perception in understanding what it was that brought about Disney's reverence.
But during the subsequent years, Eisner has, on the whole, more than kept Disney afloat with handsome profits. I've heard arguments about Wells' influence on Disney and Eisner before, and while I don't dismiss them, I think the reality is a lot more complex than the simple relationship between the two that people make out.

Of course Eisner was better with Wells. Most people are better when working as part of a team, especially if they like and repect their partner. Eisner was even better with Katzenberg, and they ended up hating each others guts!

Exactly. But I wouldn't dismiss the issue as being just a solid or respectable partnership so much as who Mr. Frank Wells was and what role he played in conjunction with Micahel Eisner that made the two so successful. My point being that Eisner is a great businessman. He knows how to handle his finances and understands the inner-workings and economic structural beams of big budget corporations - he is not a formative or prolific innovator though. Frank Wells was. He was the creative and inventive force behind Eisner's financial management and that is why their partnership worked. They each had their respective roles.

(Which does beg the question why is Eisner so adamant to got it alone now and micro-manage the running of the company himself)

Personally, I think that Eisner's stayed on too long. He's lost his edge. That, plus the obscene amount of money he owns, means his enthusiam has diminished (even if only subconciously). What does he have to fight for and prove now? What more can he actually do for himself rather than for Disney?

And so we come to the point in which I believe we all can agree. Eisner, as I stated, is a hard-nosed, rigid businessman. While that is an important factor necessary in running a large corporation, it is not the predominant bearing which ultimately establishes or distinguishes a Disney from a billion dollar enterprise like Nike, etc. He is simply out of his league. He has too much money and little concern towards the effects of the powermoves that he's making. Disney was not founded on the almighty dollar but it's success was derived from a genuine approach towards straightforward family entertainment, film and animation - all of which Eisner is effectively exploiting without any apprehension. He has no ties to the legacy of the company and therefore he's justifiably reforming the entire basis and groundwork of the company to meet his own substandards rather than building and diversifying on it's trusted, intuitive structure.

STASHONE wrote:As for Stanton - he epitomozes all that is wrong with the Disney corporation of recent years. The lack of trust and honor, fascist administrative policies, etc. He has no respect for his endeavors and is one of the first of Disney's mindless, uninspired execs that needs to go.
Well, with all due respect, you don't know that.

We've only heard stories from Disney employees who are unsecure in their current jobs and naturally cynical about the company's actions and executives. Some are probably just waiting to pounce on any statement or action Stanton makes.

At my last job the daughter of the company's owner was brought in as head of our department. I'd heard all sorts of things about her, and could imagine nobody worse to have as a boss. But when she came, I found she was the best boss I've ever had (and am ever likely to have). Yes, she made changes I didn't agree with - but she was also kind, took time to hear everbody's opinions and worked hard to solve people's problems. But some people just couldn't get over her family ties or some of the changes she'd made to their working practice. It happens.

I'll judge Stanton's success (or failure) in a year or two's time, when things have settled down, and I can make my own mind up from more conclusive evidence. I don't really see how anyone can judge him at the moment.

With all due respect... what an admirable and becoming start to operating a venture, than stepping in to rush the release of Disney's now-incredibly successful animated feature, Brother Bear, six whole months ahead of schedule - only to reward the staff members by pulling a surprise executive meeting to pull the plug on their next feature (already steadily underway into production), to prepare for the closing of the entire animation studio, department and staff who will ultimately be out of a job in six months...

It's much more than the perceptions of some cynical employees - it's unethical, unbefitting of a man in his position and not the respectable way to handle business affairs. He deceitfully underhanded everyone's faith by releasing a cover story that he would be attending a meeting to discuss future projects in order to keep news of the studio's closing and lay-off under wraps.

In fact, just weeks ago he screened the now-aborted production of "A Few Good Ghosts" for Michael Eisner and the two agreed that they reportedly had a successful film in the making. They blindsided and betrayed their management.

Apparently the decision to terminate the Florida animation department was reached months ago but they opted not to announce this potentialy unfavorable news until after the theatrical release of Brother Bear for fear of negative publicity on box-office sales.

Than again, I've heard allegations that they were actually anticipating Brother Bear tanking during it's initial domestic release by premiering it on a Saturday as opposed to the traditional Friday opening, and in direct competition with another Disney film - Scary Movie 3, apparently to use the failure as a convenient excuse to backup their decisions on the Florida animation studios...

Eisner, Katzenberg and their entire unit can no longer provide the type of leadership that Disney desperately needs to bring itself out of this rut. What the company really needs is someone of both creative and economic influential direction who both understands and appreciates the artistry and thoughtful enterprise which was the establishment of Walt Disney's vision 81 years ago.
Of course, when Walt was running the company, the animators actually went on strike. The Disney Studio Strike of 1941. Walt himself was far from perfect. Disney is, and always will be, a business.

Fair enough, but Disney delivered something that Eisner and his team cannot seem to effectively execute... consistent quality outcome.

I don't necessarily think it's fair to criticize Walt for the restrictions that he placed on the direction of the animation department of his company.

Eisner is a totally different scenario... Disney was a corporation that was initially driven by one man's passion and successful creativity. Eisner will never possess that same recognition.

I'm all for creative freedom and I will be the last person to promote just about any form of censorship, but this is something that should have been a common understanding in Walt's time - don't go work for Disney if you're ambition and direction is not befitting of Disney's ideals! How else can a company maitntain proficiency? There were very strict and outlined boundaries, all presented for a reason - Disney's vision. It might not have always coincided with the animators, but sorry, they didn't invest their life savings, hard works and effort into building the company - Walt did that solely on his own and for that reason alone, I don't think it's fair for anybody to question his intentions.

Still Disney, unlike Eisner and company, was in fact very loyal and promissing to his staff outside of such artistic contentions.

In my eyes, Walt Disney will forever remain a prominent icon in American culture for what he created and it's truly a shame to see what's becoming of his visions today - a selfish, money-driven corporation lacking inspiration, creative dexterity and all the aspects of wich brought about it's eminence.

STASHONE wrote:While it's easy to point fingers and state blame, in the end, this has evidently been a long time coming.
The biggest problem is Disney isn't the management as such - although I'll admit it could be, and should be, much better. It's just become too big - it's lost focus. What is Disney these days? Disney, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, ABC TV, Miramax, Theme Parks, Cable TV, Hyperion Books, other Publishing, Disney Stores, Magazines, Computer Games, ESPN... I'm sure there's much, much more I'm missing out on.

Then add to this all the local Buena Vista subsidiaries in other countries and... well, the actual size of Disney is mind blowing!

See what the problem is? The Disney well all know and love is nothing more than a wheel within a wheel - all turning to feed the corporation with money. People here need to accept that.

I agree, and that is partly due to Michael Eisner's management of the company. Disney will always be a mega corporation because of the stature to which it's grown, however it is still possible to retain it's honest standards and to continue offering genuine interesting and entertaining substance, however this is clearly not happening under Eisner's wing. It does not seem to be of any interest to his unit.

STASHONE wrote:I am extremely saddened that Roy has been forced out, because like 209 illustrated, he was one of the few on board who I really respected as he was the only successor to the Disney family name holding such a position and he had an intrinsic respect himself for his family's establishments. It was personal to him and I really am saddened that he has stepped down but I am also hoping that this gives him vantage to speak out against Eisner and his team and hopefully influences their resignations as well.
I think the best we can hope for is that the open letter will be read by a number of major shareholders and it may encourage them to question Eisner's leadership. But, I would doubt anything will come of this - the board don't seem to care (especially as it was them who 'forced' him out in the first place) and most shareholders only care about short-term profit and loss, rather than the "magic" of Disney. (Which still does exist, by the way).

Well there's not much more to add, but I'm sure we all hope for the best and if in fact this is Roy's last stand, than I too wish him the utmost on his future endeavors and we can do nothing more than to wait and see what will become of Disney in the months and years ahead...

Jens · Post by **Jens** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:23 am

Maerj wrote:-- Favorite website is UltimateDisney.com.

Is this true? If so, when did he say this?

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:46 am

STASHONE wrote:With all due respect... what an admirable and becoming start to operating a venture, than stepping in to rush the release of Disney's now-incredibly successful animated feature, Brother Bear, six whole months ahead of schedule - only to reward the staff members by pulling a surprise executive meeting to pull the plug on their next feature (already steadily underway into production), to prepare for the closing of the entire animation studio, department and staff who will ultimately be out of a job in six months...

It's much more than the perceptions of some cynical employees - it's unethical, unbefitting of a man in his position and not the respectable way to handle business affairs. He deceitfully underhanded everyone's faith by releasing a cover story that he would be attending a meeting to discuss future projects in order to keep news of the studio's closing and lay-off under wraps.

In fact, just weeks ago he screened the now-aborted production of "A Few Good Ghosts" for Michael Eisner and the two agreed that they reportedly had a successful film in the making. They blindsided and betrayed their management.

Apparently the decision to terminate the Florida animation department was reached months ago but they opted not to announce this potentialy unfavorable news until after the theatrical release of Brother Bear for fear of negative publicity on box-office sales.

Thank again, I've heard allegations that they were actually anticipating Brother Bear tanking during it's initial domestic release by premiering it on a Saturday as opposed to the traditional Friday opening, and in direct competition with another Disney film - Scary Movie 3, apparently to use the failure as a convenient excuse to backup their decisions on the Florida animation studios...

Firstly, moving Brother Bear up was not Stanton decision, it was Eisner and Schumacher's wasn't it?

Also your report includes words such as "allegations", "reported" and "apparently". It seems low on facts. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a regular visitor to AnimationNation and JimHill media and have read all of these suggestions before, but anything, anything self-published on the internet has to be taken with a grain of salt.)

So feel free to take this response with a grain of salt

Also being as Stanton's only just settled into the job, if it was decided to close the department before hand, I doubt it was his decision. Plus, as I said, before, stopping "A Few Good Ghosts" or whatever it was called at the time, may have been the right decision. We had no facts, and only reports to go on.

Not that I'm saying that they are wrong or right. I'm just saying in a couple of years or so we will start to see the actual results of his position in the cinemas.

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Well I agree that none of us can be 100% sure of any of the complex affairs going on internally at the Disney Studios right now... but it appears obvious to everyone that it's in a holy mess.

Yes Eisner was the man who pushed the production of BB forward but I was simply using that as a venue to illustrate the dishonorable actions taken by Stanton in effectively duping his management and than shutting down their operations, etc. Whether or not it was his call, and I'm sure none of us will ever know - It was a weak move on all of their parts and it reflects how many people feel towards the Disney of today - untrusting, uninspired, money-driven, soulless. Roy basically summed it up with perfection.

Again, I cannot possibly know all the facts and I agree that they should all be taken with a grain of salt but what it basically comes down to, is that there are a whole bunch of executives on board at Disney right now, who are compromising the integrity of the company and it's organization, employees, supporters and fans with the directions that they are taking, and to get back on topic... it's sad to see Roy Disney, a man who was really passionate about the company and carried many of the same perspectives and hopes for the future of Disney as a lot of us, be forced off by the suits higher up on the chain who don't hold half of the regard towards their positions as he did.

Again, I hope Disney can resurface and I expect to see it get a lot worse before it gets any better, but I'm sure it will pull through and I sincerely hope that when it does, Eisner will be watching from a big screen tv somewhere far, far away... on one of his remote island getaways. Living off his retirement plan.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Roy Disney and Stanley Gold resign! Eisner next?

Roy Out

Background on Roy E. Disney

Re: Background on Roy E. Disney