Roy Disney and Stanley Gold resign! Eisner next?

catNC · Post by **catNC** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:17 pm

stan gold has followed suit with his pal roy:

Reuters
Roy Disney ally Gold resigns from Disney board
Monday December 1, 2:06 pm ET

LOS ANGELES, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS - News) board member Stanley Gold, an ally of departing director Roy Disney, said on Monday he was resigning his board post since he did not believe he could achieve much change by staying with the company.

"I hope that my resignation will serve as a catalyst for change at Disney," Gold said in a letter a day after Roy Disney also resigned and the company said the family heir would have to leave due to mandatory retirement age.

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:26 pm

See, this just adds to my theory that they will be planning actions to retake Disney with a new assemblance, but this is still all very surprising...

I'm gonna go check if CNN is covering any of this...

fairuza · Post by **fairuza** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:21 pm

Eisner is going down.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 081&EDATE=

Stanley P. Gold's letter.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:32 pm

STASHONE, you have summed up my feelings on this mess with 100% accuracy. I couldn't have worded it any better. Everyone assumes that the company grew to what it was because of Michael Eisner alone. They forget that Jeffrey Katzenberg (head of animation) and Frank Wells (president of the company) were the creative force behind the innovations. Eisner was the brilliant economic backup for all these good ideas the company was coming up with. It was a golden era of imagination and exploration where anything was possible (including best picture nominations for animated films; corporate partnerships with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios; invention of new distribution labels including the critically acclaimed Touchstone Pictures label; award winning television series including the highest ranking shows on television; the list goes on and on). When Michael Eisner became the sole power in the mid 90s, the writing on the wall of the future of the Disney company could be seen in the grotesque departure of Jeffrey Katzenberg. Now the Disney company is known for being a flop when it comes to television ratings, lawsuits and scandals, box office disappointments, one critic even called the company an, "evil conglomerate". Now I know one critic does not represent the feelings of the world, but that's not the point. The point is that the company has been heading in a different direction ever since Michael Eisner has had complete control; and it is NOT one of creativity, heart, and imagination...it is one of greed and power. I, for one, hope that Roy will return. He deserves the respect and admiration of all of us for going into 'the lion's den' and standing up to the Disney board, making a stand for principle and inspiring hope that the company WILL be turned around.

MICHAEL......TAKE THE HINT AND LEAVE!!!!!!!!!

On a side note, I also 100% agree with your views on David Stanton. Anyone who says in an interview, AND I QUOTE!!!:

'One thing Stainton said he knows for sure: The studio's core audience for animation is 4- to 10-year-olds and their parents. "If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody." '

When someone this close-minded is set loose to 'economize' the animation department, then the greedy businessmen will have their way and suck dry the life and imagination that the animation department was supposed to infuse! As a source for inspiration, the animation department has been the heart and origination of the Disney company (which explains why it was so important to Roy). STASHONE I completely agree that David should be one of the first to go!!

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:21 pm

disneyfella wrote:On a side note, I also 100% agree with your views on David Stanton. Anyone who says in an interview, AND I QUOTE!!!:

'One thing Stainton said he knows for sure: The studio's core audience for animation is 4- to 10-year-olds and their parents. "If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody."

I know very little about David Stanton, but based on that quote alone, I would say that he is definitely the wrong man to be in charge of Disney Feature Animation.

STASHONE · Post by **STASHONE** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:31 pm

The immortal words of Walt Disney:

"Your dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:44 pm

Rebel wrote:
disneyfella wrote:On a side note, I also 100% agree with your views on David Stanton. Anyone who says in an interview, AND I QUOTE!!!:

'One thing Stainton said he knows for sure: The studio's core audience for animation is 4- to 10-year-olds and their parents. "If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody."

That quote is disgusting.

Post by **Luke** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:58 pm

Edited the thread title to mention Stanley Gold's resignation.

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:38 pm

Luke wrote:Edited the thread title to mention Stanley Gold's resignation.

In light of the recent events I feel I must make an announcement.
I'm resigning as a shareholder of Disney. I'd link to my letter, but as I'm sure you can all imagine this is getting a lot of attention right now. After all, 100 shares is 100 shares. There's a serious void to fill now that my .0000000028% ownership is vacant.

BasilOfBakerStreet427 · Mon Dec 01, 2003 8:12 pm

Sad,because now,it's all Eisner rules.Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:07 am

About Disney being a media-empire. It had to become one. If it didn't it would be part of some other media-empire by now - and have even less control over it's destiny. Do you think Roy would have had more or less influence if Disney was part of Time Warner? You could probably forget about Fantasia 2000 ever being released.

All Disney was when Eisner took over was a failed (yes, failed) movie company caretaking over a couple of theme parks. That's how the company was perceived at the time by other businesses.

Companies like that tend to be bought out by large companies. Look at New Line/Time Warner, Castle Rock/Time Warner, United Artists/MGM, Universal/NBC... the list is endless. Heck, even look at ABC and Disney itself for an example! While it's not impossible (see Lucasfilm for an example, but an equal amount of their income comes from their Skywalker Sound and ILM interests and patents, as well as their intellectual properties), I doubt Disney would be independent today if it was not the media-empire is now is.

About Stainton. What did he say that was "disgusting"? He actually said "The studio's core audience for animation is 4- to 10-year-olds and their parents" (the emphasis is mine of course) but what is wrong with that? He quite plainly states that the films core audience includes parents, and so one can assume he admits the films must have some appeal to parents. I'm sure Pixar's films are aimed at children and their parents. Was Finding Nemo made to attain a core audience of early 20 year olds?

All he basically said is that the majority of Disney's animated films will not primarily appeal to the teenager-early 20's range. And guess what - he's right. Selling animated movies to this demographic is very, very hard.

"If you think you're making a movie for everybody, you're making a movie for nobody." This is perhaps just acknowledging that fart and innuendo jokes that would (sadly) appeal to the teen/20's crowd, will simply put off Parents of small children. See the backlash (but sadly not the box office

) for the fart and sexual innuendo filled 'Children's film' The Cat in the Hat.

His quote, as it stands, is nothing to get worked up over. I'm sure even the great John Lasseter would say the same thing about the 'core' audience of Pixar films (although I'll admit he may skew the ages up a bit to "8-12 year olds and their parents").

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:09 am

2099net wrote:About Stainton. What did he say that was "disgusting"?

I was referring to his remark about: If you make a movie for everybody, you are making a movie for nobody.

This goes entirely against Walt's philosophy when he started making Snow White through to Jungle Book. Also, Pixar is a current example of making movies that appeal to everyone - people of every single age group love Finding Nemo, because it IS for everyone.

Stainton should be pushing the films to appeal to all ages, not discourage it - thats what determines whether films will be classics or kiddie-fodder.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:14 am

But he is sort of right. You can't make a film for everybody. Look at how Universal wanted Brazil changed to appeal to "everybody", or how Alien 3 was changed to appeal to "Everybody" Cat in the Hat has elements added specifically to attract older demographics and it failed (artistically if not financially

) He could be supporting less executive interfearence with that statement. It just depends how you read it.

Walt was not making Snow White for everybody - the core audience were kids. He just knew all ages would enjoy it. There's a difference to making a film lots of people will enjoy and specifically skewing a film in a vain, calculated attempt at making it appeal to "everybody" - such films often do fail.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:29 am

Once again 2099net, you say that Eisner came in when Disney was a failing empire and I must persist, that it was not only Eisner that came in. Roy appealed for Frank Wells AND Michael Eisner. (and it was Eisner who pulled in Jeffrey Katzenberg). Eisner did not do anything creative for the company when it was pulled out of the 'failing' as you call it, because he had absolutely NO creative control!

Second, I feel that I am not alone when I say that Walt was NOT (I repeat NOT!) making Snow White for children! This was the first feature length animated film, and it was made for an audience of all ages. And guess what...people of all ages came! There is a type of film that supercedes all age groups...........It's Called A Disney Film! Trying to appeal to everyone doesn't mean having one age specific joke in there for every demographic (i.e. fart jokes and stuff in Cat in the Hat), but rather EVERY joke that appeals to EVERYONE! Believe me, it CAN be done and has been done. David needs to go.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:45 am

disneyfella wrote:Once again 2099net, you say that Eisner came in when Disney was a failing empire and I must persist, that it was not only Eisner that came in. Roy appealed for Frank Wells AND Michael Eisner. (and it was Eisner who pulled in Jeffrey Katzenberg). Eisner did not do anything creative for the company when it was pulled out of the 'failing' as you call it, because he had absolutely NO creative control!

My main point was like it or not, Disney needed to be a multi-media empire to survive. And the failing comment was a paraphrased quote from a Reuters article. It is how the bussiness community saw Disney at that time - whether rightly or wrongly it is how Disney was perceived (which is what I say in the post).

disneyfella wrote: Second, I feel that I am not alone when I say that Walt was NOT (I repeat NOT!) making Snow White for children! This was the first feature length animated film, and it was made for an audience of all ages. And guess what...people of all ages came! There is a type of film that supercedes all age groups...........It's Called A Disney Film! Trying to appeal to everyone doesn't mean having one age specific joke in there for every demographic (i.e. fart jokes and stuff in Cat in the Hat), but rather EVERY joke that appeals to EVERYONE! Believe me, it CAN be done and has been done. David needs to go.

But Disney films are childish - you cannot escape that. So are Pixar films. Yes, they cover all age groups, but they are skewed to being children's films. I'm sure Walt didn't expect many 30+ adults to go and see Snow White on their own. Concerns were made about the witch being too scary for children. Snow White was a children's film which he wanted to have a broader appeal. But I'm sure Walt knew even then the film would end up playing to young children and their parents.

As for everyone liking them. No they dont. I can name 4 people in my immediate family who dislike Disney films. My mother goes as far as leaving the room when ever a Disney film is on. She just thinks that they are childish. Even when I was a kid, she would take me to the movies, but would simply watch my reactions to the films rather than the films themselves.

It's a sweeping generalisation to say they appeal to everyone. They obviously don't. They have elements that can appeal to everyone. That's it. And I still cannot see how reading "If you make a movie for everybody, you are making a movie for nobody" suddenly becomes something along the lines of "Stainton wants to dumb down Disney movies. Stainton wants to make movies only for young kids." He acknowledged the films need to appeal to the parents.

It's a single quote, probably taken out of context in a wider conversation (like most published quotes are) and that's that. My take on it is that Disney isn't going to make films like Atlantis or Treasure Planet anymore. A shame (because I enjoyed them) but Disney moved away from the core audience and made films with (supposedly) a wider appeal (designed to appeal to "everyone", young children, their parents and moody teenage angst ridden boys) and ended up with less successful films. Nothing more and nothing less - it's hardly controversial if that is what he meant.

Here's a radical idea - why not wait until some of the animated movies under Stainton's leadership are actually made and available for viewing instead of demanding his resignation now?

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:34 am

There are many films from over the years that appeal to people of all ages. Of course not EVERYONE in the world is going to like the same film; some people just have no taste.

I am a 33 year old non-parent who has always enjoyed quality all ages films. I do not enjoy films that try to target 4 to 10-year-olds and their parents; those are the childish films that fail.

Likewise it is incredibly dumb when a studio decides that they have to add in some more "adult" elements in order to make an otherwise G rated movie into a PG, PG-13, or R rated film. Movie execs claim that they do it because only 4 to 10 year olds and their parents will go see a G rated movie, but I have yet to see anything to support that claim. If it is a good film then a G rating will not deter adult people from going; however a non G rating will restrict the potential viewing audience.

Over the past decade, the number of G rated movies has make up a very very small percentage of the movies released to theatres, but if you take a look at the list of highest box office earnings, you find that there are several G rated movies on the list. Statistically a G rated movie has a better chance of achieving top box office earnings than PG, PG-13, or R rated movies. Disney and Pixar are both well represented on the box office earnings list; animated movies that specifically try to target a single narrow spectrum age demographic are not well represented.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:52 am

Since when is " 4 to 10-year-olds and their parents" narrowing the age range? If Stainton meant films that appeal to "4 to 10 year olds" exclusively he would of said "4 to 10 year olds" and nothing else.

He could be perfectly justified in saying so if that was his intent - after all most of the mechandise (which is jast as important for getting movies to turn a profit) is aimed at 4 to 10 year olds. "4 to 10 year olds" have enough "pester power" these days to get to see anything they want.

He specifically said "and their parents" and was talking of the "core" audience - not the exclusive audience. He said nothing wrong. It's all being taken out of context.

So Rebel, do you think it was "incredibly dumb" for non-Stainton Disney Feature Animation to make Atlantis and target older boys more then 4-10 "year olds and their parents" - what with the no singing, science-fiction, lots of explosions film?

I'm 100% convinced this is all he is talking about - Disney made a film like Atlantis thinking it would appeal to the traditional Disney core audience, while adding another demographic to the core audience, but ultimately it satisfied no one (or not as many people). Nobody can dispute that about Atlantis. Or Treasure Planet with the solar surfing and the space pirates etc. Going back to the "core" audience will most likely mean more "traditional" Disney films will be made, appealing to all ages - not less.

PatrickvD · Post by **PatrickvD** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:01 am

If they're targeting their films at 4-10 yr olds and their parents then they are making a HUGE mistake. I'm 17 and live in Holland, Finding Nemo just debuted here last weekend and I find it fascinating how Disney's promotional campaign managed to capture the audience of 12-18.

Everyone is talking about it and IF done right, any animated film with a proper promotional campaign can capture an audience of 4-75 year olds. Animation is for everyone and Finding Nemo continues to prove so.

Prince Adam · Post by **Prince Adam** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 11:30 am

Walt made Snow White in such a way that it could be enjoyed by everyone. Perhaps its core audience was children, but Walt wanted the film (like DisneyLand) could be something that would bring joy to the children, without boring the adults: it was something they could do together.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:54 pm

2099net wrote:Since when is " 4 to 10-year-olds and their parents" narrowing the age range? If Stainton meant films that appeal to "4 to 10 year olds" exclusively he would of said "4 to 10 year olds" and nothing else."

It narrows the age range because it excludes the 11-19 year olds, it excludes most 20-30 year olds, and it excludes most adults over the age of 40.

The implication is that unless you are aged 4-10 or a parent of a child age 4-10 then you are not likely to go see a Disney movie. I do not believe that to be true.

Also, I never said that Stanton said exclusively 4-10 year olds; however your argument that he implied anthing more is pretty weak. Why would he suggest that the movie would appeal to a 30 year parent, but not to a 30 year old non-parent? Is there some reason why a 30 year old parent like animated movies better than a 30 year old non-parent? The only logical reason that he included "and their parents" is because he believes that the movie would appeal to the parents simply because it is a movie that they can comfortably take their 4-10 year old child to see. Do you honestly think that he meant that parents of children age 4-10 would want to go see the movie without taking their children along?

Walt Disney strived to provide entertainment for ALL AGES and he succeeded. People of all ages enjoy the classic animated and live action Disney movies. I believe that Roy Disney's desire was to continue to follow in that tradition. Over the past 10 years, the Disney company has lost many creative people who have also wanted to follow that tradition and as a result, the quality of Disney movies has faltered.

If Stanton is going to focus on a core audience of 4-10 year olds and their parents, then he is not going to produce movies that appeal to all ages and thus he is the wrong person for the job.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Roy Disney and Stanley Gold resign! Eisner next?