Roy Disney and Stanley Gold resign! Eisner next?

[2099net]

Personally, I would class Barney, and the Care Bares as movies as being targeted for 4-10 years only, parents only see it because they go with their kids, unless you count the "clean" nature of their content, which is one valid way of looking at it. But nothing is put in the films to appeal to the parents. It's all just different takes on a single sentance. It's hard to get any reasonably compex ideas across in a single sentance (or two if you include the everyone/nobody quote too).

For anyone to fully understand Stainton's aims, you would need to hear or read a paragraph or two on what he fully intends to do.

I'm not his biggest fan - I don't like what I'm hearing about "Rapunzel Unbraided" for example. But I have no reason to have any strong feelings of dislike for the guy. How can anyone expect him to do his job properly if all he hears from people is moaning and complaining?

On another board, people just seem to dislike him because he came from television animation/dtv sequels and they are also using that as an excuse to bash him about the age-group appeal issue. Well, how many of the Disney cartoons series limited their appeal to 4-10 year olds only? Kim Possible isn't, House of Mouse isn't (not with all the in-jokes), Darkwing Duck wasn't (lots of Silver Age comic references). If you want to see what the films may be like, look to his TV series work.

I'll admit the DTV sequels had problems to start off with, but I think the latest bunch have been a vast improvement. And of course, there's The Three Musketeers which would have been done under his supervision - and most people on this forum seem to be looking forward to that.

The Three Musketeers will probably be the first time we can judge any of his work properly.

As for a tv/dtv background being "wrong" for Feature Animation (as some people are suggesting elsewhere) people have to start somewhere - they have to earn their wings. Also, lots of People like Disney's Tarzan. That was directed by two directors who, until then, only had TV/satellite Disney Animation credits. Were these people wrong for Tarzan?

[2099net]

I suppose I should post this:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=3935231

Roy Disney Sees Groundswell in Boardroom Rebellion

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Roy Disney's rebellion against the management of Walt Disney Co. has found fertile ground among small shareholders and average "folks," the former director said on Wednesday.

However, three days after resigning in protest from the Disney board and vowing to bring down Chief Executive and Chairman Michael Eisner, Roy Disney did not offer a specific plan when asked what would convince institutional shareholders to back him.

"There is a kind of a groundswell out there," Disney said, describing an outpouring of support from small investors and employees at the company, where he was the last founding family member in senior management.

"The response from folks is astonishing. I am absolutely boggled by it," he said.

Roy Disney and ally, Stanley Gold, recruited Eisner in 1984 but have fallen out with him in recent years. In a letter to some Disney employees on Wednesday, Roy Disney said, "Michael Eisner has lost sight of the vision upon which this company was founded."

Roy Disney and Gold resigned from the board this week after a nominating committee decided to force Roy Disney into retirement. Disney, who stepped down as vice-chairman of the board and head of animation, said departing was painful, but in some ways a relief given the atmosphere at work.

"It was like the mafia. You couldn't say 'good morning' without somebody saying you are talking out of turn," Disney said, arguing that the current board squelched dissent.

CONCERN OVER THEME PARKS

Eisner, he argues, has not invested in theme parks as he should, and the board of directors was ineffective.

"The upkeep down in Disneyland is sickening," he said, adding that the company under Eisner had built "half a park" but charged full-park prices at California Adventure, the theme park opened next to Disneyland in Southern California.

The park opened to mediocre reviews in 2001, but the company has added a number of new attractions that have proved popular, especially with younger children.

In the Wednesday letter, made available to Reuters, Disney added that under Eisner "the focus has shifted to the chase for a quick buck."
Eisner has not commented, but the independent members of the board in a statement have said that they had discussed and deliberated on all the issues Gold, in particular, had raised and had rejected the recommendation to change management.

The directors called the rebellion a "destructive course" for employees and shareholders.

Some Wall Street investors and analysts have said that the company needs new ways to grow, but a number of fund managers have said that the open rebellion, which has been simmering for more than a year, was too late, with Disney stock rising.

One former critic of management said Roy Disney did not have a chance to succeed. "He's howling in the wind -- the stock's up and now there are two voices (of dissent) who have left," said Herbert Denton, president of Providence Capital, which pushed Eisner last year to improve operating performance. Denton said he no longer owned Disney shares.

Roy Disney referred to average folks, however, such as smaller investors who had held Disney for years or decades. "I think they are the ones who will be the most vociferous" in support, he said.

Disney said he wanted to "present the idea that there is a better future." He and Gold say it is too early to talk specifics.

Disney concluded that those who said he could not succeed reminded him of doubters in 1984, when he resigned from the board to force a change in management. Six months later he succeeded in getting Eisner named CEO and chairman.

"The things that need to happen tend to happen," he said.

Overall, I don't think anything will become of this - like it says, Stock is up and the 2 major voices of dissent have left. That's the way business runs. When there's articles like the one below published the day before, it's unlikely to worry the major investors:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=3933935

Disney Hits $3 Billion World Box Office Record

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co. said on Wednesday it had set a world box office record, selling more than $3 billion in movie tickets so far this year.
Disney's Buena Vista arm, which set the record, also became the first distributor to release two films that topped $300 million in U.S. and Canadian box office -- "Finding Nemo," a co-production with Pixar Animation Studios Inc., and "Pirates of the Caribbean," a movie inspired by a theme park ride, according to film tracker Exhibitor Relations.

The $3 billion record by Disney's Buena Vista unit does not include Disney's Miramax division, which has had its own hits, such as horror movie parody "Scary Movie 3."

Disney said Buena Vista's combined worldwide box office stood at $3.08 billion, including $1.48 billion domestically and $1.6 billion internationally. That broke the previous record, set last year by Sony Corp.'s movie arm, of $2.86 billion, Disney said.

[Sulley]

The clouds are definitely circling. But it is only a matter of time before Eisner must leave. As we've discussed previously this year, every time Disney goes down, a Renaissance follows. Granted, things aren't good right now, and it may not happen for a while, but I believe, perhaps a little too optimistically, that Disney will again triumph as it has so many times in the past.

[canon]

I'm not exactly sure why there is any justification for Stainton right now. Really. I understand all that he's done for the TV/D2V division, and that's great, but when you go in a cloak-and-dagger mode to make a surprise visit to the WDFA in FLA to let them know that all production is halted until further notice, it just doesn't look good. Why the secrecy?

Furthermore on the Eisner/R. Disney situation (since this is a thread for that discussion)--I'm intrigued by what Jim Hill's been writing lately about R. Disney's relationships with the Henson/Muppets people and with Pixar, most notably Lassetter. We all know the notorious relationships that Eisner has (or rather, does NOT have) with Pixar's S. Jobs and various other media companies. Notice that talks with Pixar and Disney are suspended until further notice. Hmmmm....

I think that Eisner could be ousted sooner than you think.

[Joe Carioca]

Dave Pruiksma (ex-Disney animator) started a letter of support for Roy and Stanley... Join the fight and sign it too! My name is there (number 773) and you'll also find some famous animation artists in the list... Brenda Chapman, Tom Bancorfty, Gary Trousdale, Paul Brizzi among others.

http://www.pruiksma.com/letterofsupport.html

Join the fight!

[2099net]

I'm not exactly sure why there is any justification for Stainton right now. Really. I understand all that he's done for the TV/D2V division, and that's great, but when you go in a cloak-and-dagger mode to make a surprise visit to the WDFA in FLA to let them know that all production is halted until further notice, it just doesn't look good. Why the secrecy?

Because if you're going to be making people redundant (or may be making people redundant in the near future - I'm not sure of the specifics), it's better if you tell them the news yourself rather than them hearing about it from a third-party or rumour before hand.

I've been made redundant twice. I even finalised the purchase of my flat a week before being made redundant a second time. While I was buying the flat I often mentioned it in passing to my boss, and even other members of the management higher up. But they never let on I was (or was likey) to be made redundant in the next month or so. Because I wouldn't be fair for them to do so. The announcement was made, when it was supposed to have been made, when everybody affected were all together so could be told at the same time.

That is a sign of good managment. There's nothing cloak and dagger about it - it's just stopping inter-company leaks. And it's the Disney internet fan-sites, who are so keen to report every detail inside the House of Mouse that makes such precausions neccesary.

Or do you think you would see Stainton in a better light if he just let everybody read about it 24 hours earlier on JimHillMedia (or whatever) first? I'm sure if this was leaked, you would be damning Stainton even more.

[2099net]

Transcript of the Paula Zahn Now interview on CNN with Roy E. Disney

Aired December 3, 2003 - 20:00 ET

- - - - - - -

PAULA ZAHN: Now to our interview with the man who has launched a public campaign to get rid of Disney CEO Michael Eisner.

Over the weekend, Roy Disney, the last family member to serve on the board of the Walt Disney Company, resigned. And he demanded Eisner do the same. So why is Disney trying to push out the man many believe turned the company around?

Well, Roy Disney joins us now to explain.

Good to see you, sir. Welcome.

ROY E. DISNEY: Thank you.

ZAHN: I wanted to start off tonight by looking at some numbers.

In 1984, when Mr. Eisner took the helm with Frank Wells, profits were $97 million. Last year, they were $1.2 billion. In 1984, revenues of $1.7 billion. Last year, $25.3 billion. And we're told the stock price, if it stays on track for the year, will be up significantly this year.

What's wrong with that picture?

DISNEY: Well, here's another way to look at the same numbers. If you invested $1,000 in Disney in 1984, when Michael Eisner and Frank Wells together came into the company -- and that was very much our doing, trying to right the company from a course that we thought was astray at that time. If you invested $1,000 then, you would have, I think -- I believe it's accurate to say about $89,000 today.

However, if you invested that same $1,000 in Disney seven years ago, you would have $1,000 today. And it should have been in the bank. And there's been something like $5 billion, $6 billion of cash invested in a number of things in that period of time that have simply not added to the value of the company.

ZAHN: Do you want Mr. Eisner's job yourself?

DISNEY: I've never wanted Mr. Eisner's job myself. I didn't want it 20 years ago.

And, no, what the company needs is new, fresh blood that's excited about the company and excited about the future.

ZAHN: Who would you like to see replace him, if he goes?

DISNEY: Well, I obviously am not in a position to name names, because -- and we get asked this a lot -- because we know that anybody's name that we might bring up would be so trashed so quickly that we wouldn't have a friend left. So there are plenty of people out there that could do this job. And I have to leave it at that.

ZAHN: What are the chances, Mr. Disney, that Mr. Eisner will survive all this?

DISNEY: We need to convince people over the next period of time. Whatever that period is, I'm not sure yet. God knows, if I could give you a list of the e-mails and phone calls and Web site comments that we've had over the last two days, it sounds more like a revolution to me than anything else.

ZAHN: I would like to read to you a statement that the Disney board put out -- quote -- "It is a disservice to shareholders and to employees that the company faces this distraction at a time when its performance is improving."

Now, I saw you interpret numbers a little bit differently than a lot of analysts did at the top of this interview. Do you buy into the fact that the company's performance has improved this year and, if it continues, you might even see a 35 percent growth rate?

DISNEY: Well, I can't really comment on those particular percentage kind of numbers.

But, yes, indeed, the company over the last some months has improved. We don't look at it in terms of short-term, quarterly improvements. We look at it -- I particularly happen to have the name Disney attached to me. And I look at it pretty much over a much longer time span. And the last seven, eight, nine years, we've been absolutely flat as a pancake.

ZAHN: Mr. Disney, you attempted this tactic back in 1984, when in fact you helped bring in Frank Wells and Michael Eisner. What happens if you fail this time around? What does it mean for the future of the company?

DISNEY: I really don't know.

As I say, if I could predict the future by way of the support I've been shown by hundreds, literally thousands of people -- I've met people on the street who've patted me on the back who I had never met before and said: Good going. Keep it up. Get it done.

So we're not packing up our bags and leaving. We're just out here in the real world. As board members, we were prohibited to talk with you, the press, to talk with shareholders, to talk with anybody, even, practically, amongst ourselves. It was taboo to talk about the company's business. And it was time to leave that situation and come out here and talk about reality to the real world.

ZAHN: In the end, if Mr. Eisner doesn't go, has this been a waste of your time to resign from the board?

DISNEY: Nothing is a waste of time. Living is the most important thing. And we're going to be around here for a long time. So, there's a lot to look forward to in the future.

ZAHN: Roy Disney, thank you for your time this evening. We really appreciate your spending some time with us.

DISNEY: Sure.

- - - - - -
(c) 2003 CNN

[canon]

Because if you're going to be making people redundant (or may be making people redundant in the near future - I'm not sure of the specifics), it's better if you tell them the news yourself rather than them hearing about it from a third-party or rumour before hand.

That is a sign of good managment. There's nothing cloak and dagger about it - it's just stopping inter-company leaks. And it's the Disney internet fan-sites, who are so keen to report every detail inside the House of Mouse that makes such precausions neccesary.

Or do you think you would see Stainton in a better light if he just let everybody read about it 24 hours earlier on JimHillMedia (or whatever) first? I'm sure if this was leaked, you would be damning Stainton even more.

I was damning him way before that announcement anyway, for your information. Besides, monotony or no monotony, it's no excuse. Just plain and simple. It just doesn't look good and I really do not think that that's GOOD management at all. Really.

Why are you cheerleading this man, anyway?

[2099net]

Because there's a little thing called "Innocent until proven guilty."

I'm prepared to neither like nor dislike him until I see the final results of his leadership.

1) He's had his job for a short time, so none of his personal influence is likely to be seen by the public for two or three years.

2) Most of the changes at Disney animation were happening before he was taken on (shutting down other divisions etc) combined with Eisner's reputation for micro-managing everything at Disney, I doubt Stainton has much, if anything to do with the closures. (After all, although Chairman and not President, Roy didn't seem able to stop them did he?)

3) Most of the criticisms about Stainton on the net are being made by people who don't know either the full story or the real person. They're based on hearsay and brief comments. Which is hardly fair.

Like I said earlier, he's not my favourite person. I don't like what I have heard about Rapunzel Unbraided to date - but I'm prepared to give it benefit of the doubt until more is known. After all, I didn't like what I was initially hearing about Lilo and Stitch (for example). He must be given time to either prove himself or damn himself.

Look at Pirates of the Caribbean – can you all remember the sarcasm and biting comments made about that when it was first announced? People assumed just because it was a film based on a ride it would be worthless. Now, many of those people are constantly stating how good it was. You can only judge a "product" on the final showing – nothing before, and certainly not internet gossip. Plus, it was Eisner after all who agreed the budget for the film (the second highest Disney budget?)

It's okay to have principles, but you also have to have realism. Some don't like sequels. Fine. I can respect that. But they keep the money coming in. Given the disaster of Treasure Planet (and the under-performance of other films - even Lilo and Stitch offered a below average return on it's investment) is it not possible Feature animation may have been dismantled earlier without them? Is it not possible that if it were not for the sequels we may not have got Brother Bear and Home on the Range made at all?

Of course, even Treasure Planet will make a handsome return for Disney at some point in the future. But that's not the question. The question is would Disney have got a bigger return or sooner return by investing in something else. Would Disney have even been better off putting $140m in a bank or bonds somewhere and collecting the interest and/or dividends?

I know it's complicated, nothing it simply black and white. I don't doubt for a moment that there was some behind the scenes drama regarding Treasure Planet. I don't doubt that there's many more behind the scenes dramas we will never even know about. There's also more to running a business than simply making a profit (or there should be). But generally people are not "good" or "evil". They're something in the middle.

Other criticisms of the company are probably just as unjust. The turning of The Disney Channel into a "tween" channel and the dropping of the Vault Disney programmes. Well, I'm pretty sure those changes must have resulted in larger audiences or else they wouldn't have done it, or they would have changed back. It's not like the management at Disney are rubbing their hands together and asking themselves "What can we do to destroy Walt's legacy now?" Is it a case of doing anything for "short term gains" or is it a case of survival? Very few people who comment are in any way qualified to do so, they haven't seen the audience figures or the advertising revenues. I doubt that we ourselves will ever know.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Eisner supporter either, I think he's simply been at the company for too long and lost direction. But I don't think Eisner is "evil" or even particularly "greedy". He's just somebody who's been in the job too long and it's worn him down. (In my opinion of course). I do think Eisner should go, but I don't think he deserves all the rabid hate he is getting on the internet in general. But I agree 100% management at Disney is wrong, and Eisner looks like being the single major reason.

When it comes down to it, the world has changed since Disney was alive. It's changed since Eisner and Wells were first appointed. It's changed in the last 5 years even. Disney may be producing more stuff you don't like, be it films, DTVs or television programmes. But it's also producing more stuff. The number of good, strong, magical Disney films or programmes is just as many as before. Maybe it’s even greater. People should concentrate on the positive just as much as the negative.

And what would happen if Disney stopped doing the things you didn't like. Like it or not, one of the major reasons Theme Park attendance is down is because of Iraq and the fear of terrorist threats. It's certainly stopping a number of overseas visitors from attending. Would investing large amounts of money in the theme parks raise attendance enough to cover the costs? I'm not saying the parks don't need more investment, but ultimately any investment must produce a return or else there will be no theme parks. What if the DTV sequels were stopped? Where would the money come from to support new, original animated movies? What is Disney shut down Touchstone simply because it was making films with adult content. Where would the money for films like PotC and Haunted Mansion come from? Without Miramax's input, would Studio Ghibli's Princess Mononoke have been released? Miramax may make some films with strong adult content, but they also have a reputation for making quality films and do well as most Oscar Awards. Should Disney drop Miramax despite their quality products?

It's strange – all this talk about Disney being a firm of family values, and people wanting a to return to family values, most people are concerned only with the animated movies. But nobody is pointing to stuff like this:

http://www.nlcnet.org/campaigns/shahmakhdum/
http://daga.dhs.org/daga/readingroom/ne ... 25time.htm


It's actions like this, rather than arguments about who the films are aimed at, or if the California Adventure theme park or other theme park attractions that lets Disney as a company down. Roy's made no mention of these has he?

[Maerj]

Netty,

Very well-written and well thought out post. So far, you are one of the only people I have seen who has been level headed in this entire situation. It's been very brave of you to post your viewpoints in this matter and to 'stick to your guns.' I admire your conviction concerning this subject.

I know that anti-Eisner sentiment was strong before, but since the Roy resignation it has grown to frightening heights and has carried over to other Disney execs like Stainton. Stainton was being damned with that first article on him! I didn't like every statement I read in that article either, but I also saw that not every statement was attributed to him, some of it was from the writer.

Some of these people seem to hate Eisner so much that I wouldn't be surprised if there would be attempts on his life. Sure, maybe he is taking the company in a direction some may not like, but he did do good things for it as well. In fact, for most of you, a lot of your favorite Disney films came out during his era, from 1984 to today.

[ArtOfDisney]

I have to back you up on this one. Many of the films that everyone loves so much (i.e. Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Rescuers Down Under, B&B, Lion King etc.) came from Eisner's reign. I think even though I may have not liked the direction he went in as of now, he has proved successful in the past.

Now I'm not advocating him or hating him. I'm just saying, let's rife it out and see. Especially since he has had a good run in the past.

[disneyfella]

first of all, my favorite disney films are not from recent years......my favorites are from walt's heyday (1950-1965). second here we go again with the assumption and calling it 'Eisner's reign'. michael eisner did NOT make one single creative decision during his so called reign. except for disneyland paris which opened up as a huge bomb and failure losing more money than treasure planet! yes lets be quick to assume that eisner was the genius behind everyone's favorite films from the early nineties, but wait.....what's that?....oh......you mean Frank Wells, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Howard Ashman, Roy Disney, and others were much more influential in there make than Michael Eisner? I'm not wanting to deterr on the man. as i've stated numerous times before, he is an economic genius and can make money out of grass; he was the support for all these creative thinkers to do what they wanted. But when people think HE is responsible for the turnaround at disney......i really get frustrated! just look at what happened to the company when all those other influential people left or lost power in the company...........

[Maerj]

There are quite a few people here who have proclaimed that their favorite Disney animated films are Little Mermaid, Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, etc. Maybe none of your favorite Disney films havent occured during the last twenty years, but you have to admit that many others have. Of course other people were invovled in the making of them, but I can see that your Eisner hatred has made you a little bit emotional on the subject, which is going to make a discussion of it a little difficult. I can actually feel your anger in your post beginning with "First of all.." I am not trying to start an arguement with you or anyone else, so please calm down. That's why I didn't particiapte in this discussion before 2099net commented. I am just saying lighten up on the guy a lil bit, he's not the devil, he is a businessman not a creative genius. He is not Walt Disney. He is a money man trying to...make money for the company and himself.

I respect your opinion and the fact that we probably don't agree 100% about this matter, but that's okay. Let's be happy!

[canon]

But when you have two top board members resign and ask for his resignation, there's trouble brewin'. Plus with the butting heads on the Henson and Pixar deals, the infamous Go Network, etc,--the last couple of years doesn't do that man a good.

Obviously those two men are not going to make rash decisions here. They are businessmen, through and through--so with their resignations from a big company, especially from one who has family ties to the place--there is definitely something afoot. And I just can't admit to believing that giving myself a multi-million dollar bonus when my company was in the crapper is good business practice. No matter who you are or where you live.

And I'm willing to believe that Roy and Stan gave plenty of chances and breaks to Eisner. And Michael the same, I'm sure.

[SNERWW22785]

I'm as big a fan of quality, wholesome Disney entertainment as anybody. I don't like the endless parade of cheap sequels, head-scratching theme park decisions, etc, etc. Having said that...

...to crucify one person for this is slightly absurd.

My father has been a corporate officer for 25 years. Every time we'd flip on TV and maybe come across "The Magical World of Disney" or whatnot, and Michael Eisner would be there for the introduction, my father would comment, "That's a man who knows how to do business".

Notice how he didn't say "That's a man who can make great family entertainment", or "There's a guy with marketability and creativity". Of course, Eisner has a BIT of those traits otherwise he would not be where he is today. Point being, that it was NEVER Michael Eisner's job to be the creative face of the Disney Company. Has he maybe tried to become the creative face only to fail? That is certainly possible given the results which have come out of the company on the creative end.

Returning to my thought, Eisner has basically fulfilled in the past 18 months what should be the only goal of a Board of Directors and of a CEO - to increase the value of the company as relates to shareholders.

Roy Disney faces a very different set of challenges if he wants another boardroom coup in 2003. In 1984, the value and integrity of the Disney brand was shrinking into oblivion while much of Corporate America was roaring into a new economic boom, while Disney stayed stuck in the 1970s doldrums. In essence, they were being left behind. While Roy is right to say that $1,000 dollars of Disney stock bought in 1997 is still $1,000 dollars today, he leaves out how that truth applies to the majority of major American companies. The slump in terms of product quality, share value, "energy", "focus" - these are charges which could be leveled against many CEOs over the past five-six years. And what is happening now, as we approach 2004? The economy is once again rebounding. Disney is a part of that. For example, the movie studio is having THE MOST PROFITABLE YEAR IN THE HISTORY OF MOVIE STUDIOS. As in, no other studio has ever taken in more in a single year than the Disney Studios will in 2003. If the quality is so lame, is the energy is so frail, if the focus is so adrift, why the hell are people going to see these movies? I know that it's a bummer to see them rip off "The Jungle Book" with a cheap sequel. Guess what I did? I didn't go see it. If the hate of such movies is so universal, than people wouldn't see them, they would make no money, and a lesson would be learned.

In Eisner & Tony Schwartz 1996 book "Work in Progress", he commented on how the challenges Disney faces to maintain relevance are distinctly different every 10 years or so.

Walt himself faced this predicament - at first cartoons were only a small part of entertainment value, the ten minutes before a live-action picture. Then he tapped into a new vein with feature animation. By the 1950s, while still quality, feature animation was losing its luster and a new Disney dynamic was needed - Disney live action, which quickly spawned off to feed the country's fascination with television. Then Disneyland came, a phenomenal success, but Walt of course knew that a new public thirst would have to be slaked, and so was planning a completely different vacation experience in Disney World when he died.

Eisner's first ten years followed a similar trajectory. The company had been experiencing cycles of complacency and needed new ways to market itself. And now the exact same problem comes - how do we maintain our image of quality, family entertainment while staying relevant in a saturated market place?

All superlatives have been exhausted, and all applied, describing Walt Disney's brand of management and entertainment. Such accolades are deserved. But ask yourself - would he have been so successful, would he have been so significant, if he had to compete with the internet, cable TV, shopping malls, megaplexes, advertising meant to cater to every age between 9 and 73? The fundamental role of an entertainment business has changed dramatically not just since Disney's presence 60 years ago, but in the explosion of youth-driven culture in the last 10 years.

So while I can certainly see where Roy Disney is coming from, I must say this: Yes, the Disney company in Eisner's second ten years is gonna be fundamentally different from his first ten, for the simple reason that the audience as a whole is fundamentally different. I don't mean to invoke cliche, but "that was then and this is now".

And I don't mean that everybody has changed. Of course there is still a market for traditional animation, which I get the sense is the root of this entire conflict. And while there still a market (and always will be) for a film like "The Lion King", it is not the same one as 1994 . If "The Lion King" were to be released now, when it had to compete against entries like Shrek and Toy Story and Finding Nemo, would it find the same "global icon" status it enjoys from being released 10 years ago? The answer to that question is unknowable, but I highly doubt it.

As a shareholder in the Disney Company, I know many feel that Eisner is a plague on our house and has managed to suck all the creative energy out of it. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But as many have pointed out, Michael Eisner was not the lone reason Disney had such a great run of commercial/creative success. He was but a part of that formula. Maybe Roy Disney should reccomend people to come in and take over the the Theme Park Division, if he finds the current status so deployable, rather than storm out in protest. Maybe some energy should be devoted to getting Eisner to broaden his horizons in terms of hiring and delegation, rather than surround him like Caesar.

Lastly, one of Roy's chief charges was that Eisner cannot retain top executive talent. I assume if he were to name names he would include Jeffrey Katzenberg. Which is funny, because one of the chief reasons Eisner would not give Katzenberg the job as President after Frank Wells died is because ROY DISNEY DIDN'T WANT IT. Of course, now that Katzenberg continues to have success at DreamWorks is Roy angry that Eisner allowed him to depart. (And I KNOW Eisner had plenty of other reasons for not giving Katzenberg the job, we don't have to discuss all those here). It just strikes me as funny that Roy would castigate Eisner for letting top liutenants like Katzenberg leave, when Roy at the time was just as tepid about Katzneberg becoming President.

In the final analysis, like a football coach at a top program, Eisner has recieved way too much credit for success and way too much blame for failure. And now, let us see where the chips fall.

PS - New York Post speculating that Eisner is currently trying to head Roy off at the pass by offering a possible executive position to......STEVE JOBS. The plot thickens. Is it possible? Of course not. But if true I suppose it reinforces the idea that Eisner has a "win-at-all-costs" attitude.

[disneyfella]

well put Maerj, Eisner does get me riled up like no one else can. and sorry if my fury scared you for a minute. the thing is, i'm not entirely sure as to why he gets to me. i mean, i've never met the guy, and i don't know everything that goes on in the house of mouse, but for some reason he rubs me the wrong way. have you ever gotten one of those feelings from someone even before you've heard them talk? i guess that's what it is. Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh, just thinking about him makes me angry again........


"you don't want to see me when i'm angry"


(*comical Hulk reference*)

[Maerj]

It's cool. this just goes to show that even with all these coporate style shenanigans going on, we can all make the magic real for each other. What better thing could we do for one another on Walt's birthday? Maybe we can turn his birthday into a holiday for all races and creeds throughout the world? Walt's Magic Day, where we all try to do something to bring a lil magic into someone's day!

[disneyfella]

thanks,

"now it's time for me to pay it forward"

[fairuza]

Many say their favorite cartoons were made during the time Eisner was in charge. Well don't forget the people who made those cartoons are now fired! Have fun waiting for their next Dinsey 2D animation.

Furthermore, Eisner is putting an end to all 2D movie animations. That is the foundation of Disney. Not even Disneyland would be here if not for that. How would you feel if Eisner shut down all Disneyland theme parks? Is that acceptable too now? Instead of quiting why not try fixing. Disney needs a new person in charge.

And the only reason the 2D animations are being stopped is because Eisner ran it into the ground.

[Maerj]

Many say their favorite cartoons were made during the time Eisner was in charge. Well don't forget the people who made those cartoons are now fired! Have fun waiting for their next Disney 2D animation.

Its a shame about the layoffs, it really is. The movies I really loved from Disney were the animated ones. Some of the live action was okay, but I was always more of an animation fan.

How would you feel if Eisner shut down all Disneyland theme parks? Is that acceptable too now?

That would be terrible, I love the parks! That would be totally unacceptable! Also, I never said that shutting down the animation studios or ending 2d animation WAS acceptable. I have been very outspoken concerning that and have also been encouraging everyone to see Brother Bear in order to help save tradional animation.

And the only reason the 2D animations are being stopped is because Eisner ran it into the ground.

At least Brother Bear was a great movie and it looks like Home on the Range will be as well. I don't think that the quality of the animated films has dropped at all, it just seems like interest in them has. If they were still pulling in the big bucks there wouldn't be as many layoffs with the traditional animators. But the problem is that they aren't and the CG ones are. So, they are going to play the CG game for a while. In a few years, they may try 2d animation again, I certainly hope that they do!

I'm sorry if anything I wrote made you angry, that was not my intention, we were merely discussing the situation.