Iger sucks

[bradhig]

Eisner was better.

I remember a time when just about every disney website was bad mouthing poor Eisner. Am I the only one that wanted Cinderella sequels? I got run off one site for standing up for the DTV sequels. What happened to Roy and his save disney thing? bought out cheap? I can't stand Hanna Montana ,Wizards of wavely place ,etc. I was upset when that snow white sequel never made it. I sometimes feel like the victim here. especially when the people running the old site wanted to make it more anti sequel. Yes Eisner killed Skyway,peoplemover , and other attractions but Iger isn't doing much better he killed MR Toads ride at WDW. Didn't anyone ever watch the The PHantom Menace? Fear leads to Anger Anger leads to hate Hate leads to Suffering. THe suffering of me and others like me who were silenced by those trying to make DIsney believe every Disney fan disliked this or that and claiming the company shouldn't do this or that cause Walt didn't believe in it. Why aren't the same people trying to chase off Iger do they think things are any better. The only vassalage Disney Magic I saw left was at WDW and the other parks and who knows how much longer that will last.

[blackcauldron85]

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride closed way before Iger ran the company.

Up until Frank Wells' death, Eisner wasn't badmouthed as much as he was later on, when he had full control.

[Luke]

Not giving us more <i>Cinderella</i> sequels isn't something I lament, but I will say that there's been far fewer properties that interest me (and far too much brand and franchise stuff) with Iger in the helm. And even though the Disney stock is sucking, he keeps getting more and more money. For milking these flash-in-the-pan franchises that will have little long-term value? I never really understood much of the strong hate for Eisner anyway. At least the company's theatrical slate for the rest of this year and next year is a bit more promising than it has been in a while.

[Mason_Ireton]

From what I observed both Eisner/Iger did some help for Disney

1990s-2006

Mr. Eisner saved Disney from an all out company buyout (I think), brought Disney back to its roots with Lil Mermaid-Lilo/Stitch. He also launched a spin off of the Disney Parks to Paris, Toyko/Japan which made the disney magic more accessible to Europe. So in someways I'm thankful for some of Eisner's efforts to restore Disney to it's glory days.

2006-2009:

Eisner moved out of Walt's Throne and crowned Bob Iger, Mr. Iger restored peace btwn Disney/Pixar which Eisner nearly destroyed..... Then Mr. Iger did the unthinkable....Brought back Walt's 1st toon star, Oswald The Lucky Rabbit (which was highly praised) then he made peace with Roy E.Disney and havin Disney go back to 2d animation, Princess/Frog and Rapunzel.

[Tannerman]

This is a ridiculous topic

[Luke]

Then Mr. Iger did the unthinkable....Brought back Walt's 1st toon star, Oswald The Lucky Rabbit (which was highly praised)

You see, that's annoying. While I'm grateful that Disney has rights to a character Walt helped create, it's purely for show. "Look at me, I brought Oswald back. I remember Walt." Then proceed to turn Disney into a tween brand, showing no faith in anything else from Walt's time except the few evergreen animated movies.

I will give him credit for the other thing you pointed out however. Keeping Pixar was important. Without them, I can't imagine how low my interest in the company's ongoing work may have dipped. Although I'm not sure that Feature Animation developing into Pixar Lite is for the best and I'll be pleasantly surprised if <i>The Princess and the Frog</i> is able to be a good film in spite of all the efforts to keep everyone happy and unoffended.

[Neal]

I like a lot of the DTVs, as well. I will miss not getting any more 2D Pooh sequels. Pooh's Heffalump Movie was great!

[thesnakeguy]

Am I the only one that wanted Cinderella sequels?

I sure hope so. Cheapquels tarnish the brand. Follow Pixar's example. Make quality stuff.

[PatrickvD]

The DTV's damaged the Disney animation brand. Why go back to that? seriously, give me ONE good reason. No one ever has.

Iger's been in charge how long? So far, only allowing the Disney Channel crap to go on is his only fault I guess.

But unlike the DTV's kids go absolutely crazy for these DC kids like Miley and the Jonas Bros. They're a pop culture phenomenon. No one liked the DTV's. Even when a DTV was good... it was still an embarrassment compared to the original film.

[The_Iceflash]

Then proceed to turn Disney into a tween brand.

That one baffles me. (The criticism about it) When Disney created the Mickey Mouse club no one complained and said it wasn't Disney's thing. When Annette became a Disney Pop star no one complained about it. When Disney created the New Mickey Mouse club no one complained.

All those where clearly geared toward the "tween" audience. Why the complaints now? We have Disney pop stars the sings versions of songs from DAC like they did then as well. We still get our new DAC's on a regular basic and we also get a new Pixar Movie on a regular basis.

I don't see an issue at all with Disney having things geared toward "tweens". The only complaint I have is we are seeing less and less of Disney's classic characters in the shows + movies

[The_Iceflash]

Then proceed to turn Disney into a tween brand.

That one baffles me. (The criticism about it) When Disney created the Mickey Mouse club no one complained. When Annette became a Disney Pop star no one complained about it. When Disney created the New Mickey Mouse club no one complained.

All those where clearly geared toward the "tween" audience. Why the complaints now? We have Disney pop stars the sings versions of songs from DAC like they did then as well. We still get our new DAC's on a regular basic and we also get a new Pixar Movie on a regular basis.

I don't see an issue at all with Disney having things geared toward "tweens". The only complaint I have is we are seeing less and less of Disney's classic characters in the shows + movies

[2099net]

I will give him credit for the other thing you pointed out however. Keeping Pixar was important. Without them, I can't imagine how low my interest in the company's ongoing work may have dipped. Although I'm not sure that Feature Animation developing into Pixar Lite is for the best and I'll be pleasantly surprised if <i>The Princess and the Frog</i> is able to be a good film in spite of all the efforts to keep everyone happy and unoffended.

Do you really think Pixar would not have signed with Disney with Eisner still in charge? All that public bad-mouthing of Eisner by Job was just Jobs' negotiating ploy. And sadly, it worked. Look at Jobs' shareholding today and tell me who got the better deal - Disney or Pixar. People forget that Jobs is just as much of a business man - if not more so - than Eisner was. And you don't get to build (and in some cases rebuild) business empires by being "nice" (consider Jobs' attempt to control pricing and content of digital distribution with iTunes).

[Luke]

That one baffles me. (The criticism about it) When Disney created the Mickey Mouse club no one complained. When Annette became a Disney Pop star no one complained about it. When Disney created the New Mickey Mouse club no one complained.

All those where clearly geared toward the "tween" audience. Why the complaints now? We have Disney pop stars the sings versions of songs from DAC like they did then as well. We still get our new DAC's on a regular basic and we also get a new Pixar Movie on a regular basis.

The difference is that the company didn't suddenly become all about the Mickey Mouse Club then. You had the anthology series, you had Disneyland the place, and you had a variety of shorts and features being made. With its name, Disney Channel should reflect the company it represents. But it's all about the tweens and toddlers now. Look at the schedule and try to find something that has appeal outside these demographics. What happened to family entertainment? We've all heard Walt's quote about not limiting himself to winning over kids but trying to appeal to everyone. Yet Disney has this fixed demographic mindset that is fueling everything they do. It's not just Disney Channel -- look at what dominates the merchandise, the company reports, the Disney Stores shelves, what keeps assuming a larger presence at the parks. I mean they even had to give Miley Cyrus a part in <i>Bolt</i> although it wasn't a particularly good fit.

I'm all for Disney doing stuff for tweens, but A) they should be doing better stuff and B) it's so short-sighted to make so much stuff just for tweens. What is the tween demographic, 10-15? And after that, you just let them go on with their lives until you hit them with the Playhouse punch the few years they have young kids and then the new tween stuff (unlikely to appeal them) during their children's tween years? I think it's a poor strategy the company is relying too heavily on. Obviously the Disney of today is a lot, lot bigger than the Disney of fifty years ago and you can make an argument for variety in things like ESPN and primetime ABC stuff, etc. But as far as Disney-branded stuff goes, it seems like the company's interests get narrower each year.

[thesnakeguy]

don't see an issue at all with Disney having things geared toward "tweens".

I have a problem with Disney gearing things to the type of people that use a word like "tweens".[/quote]

[blackcauldron85]

Regardless of why Iger brought back Oswald, I think that it was a great move, and I'm very grateful for him doing that.

As far as the tween stuff, don't fully blame Iger. Disney Channel in the late '90s really started becoming more tween-focused, what with eveything from "Flash Forward", "Ready or Not", "Bug Juice", "The Famous Jett Jackson", "The Jersey", etc., and there were DCOMs back then, too (although not as successful as the HSM films or Camp Rock are now), and then remember "Lizzie McGuire"?!? Started under Eisner's control. That show was hugely popular. Maybe not quite as popular as "Hannah Montana" is now, but there was a huge marketing push, and Hilary Duff became really famous. And then "That's So Raven" came along. And then "Hannah Montana". It's the public who made "Hannah Montana" so successful; it's not like Disney had any idea how huge the show would be. True, they milk it for all it's worth, but still.

[Neal]

No one liked the DTV's.

I love hyperbole.

Clearly I like the DTVs and so does the OP.

There are two of us for you, so obviously someone likes them.

Some films did not need a sequel, you're right. The ones that ended 'Happily Ever After' should have stayed that way.

Films I believe set themselves up for a justifiable/understandable sequel:

The Many Adventures Winnie the Pooh
The Great Mouse Detective
The Rescuers
Fantasia
Make Mine Music


I believe such a film as Pooh's Heffalump Movie has more heart and magic to it than even some of Disney's recent big-budget outings (such as Chicken Little).

And, in my humble opinion, many of the DTVs are more interesting than some of the CGI big-budget films coming out. Space Chimps, Happy Feet, most of the DreamWorks films - are all surpassed by some of the better DTVs, in my eyes.

Now the point is moot thanks to The Princess and the Frog, but for awhile, the DTVs were the only Disney product keeping hand-drawn animation alive.

And I hate how you lump them all together into one group. Yes, some are revolting - such as Bambi II and "Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams: Keys to the Kingdom"

... however, films like TinkerBell are really good, in my opinion. I think they have heart, magic, and a childlike innocence and wonder.

They weren't all bad, and many people love them. This forum is a place for some of the upper echelon of Disney fans - those who know Disney history, and are more like hobbyists than fans. Therefore, we are more critical of the films.

But, go to a different forum - such as IMDb - or a family forum - and you will find many who lament over the death of DTVs and express "how cool a Peter Pan 3 would be" or "I wish we had more adventures with The Aristocats!"

The core of these DTVs were fueled by these sorts of fans. The type of fans who 'just couldn't get enough' of their favorite character and were always excited by new media involving these characters - TV shows, books, and especially feature-length DTVs.

The OP feels that way about Cinderella. I feel that way about Pooh. And I know we're not alone in our passion for these characters. We love new media involving our favorite characters sot we support and like - maybe even love - the DTVs.

[ajmrowland]

Iger's also the one who intended to bring animation back to it's glory days, and said that Pixar had more of the right people for doing it. OF course, that's according to the Pixar Story, which may be biased, but he still hire lasseter, and the animation department seems to be benefitting.

[ajmrowland]

No one liked the DTV's.

I love hyperbole.

Clealry I like the DTVs and so does the OP.

There's two for you, so obviously someone likes them.

Some films did not need a sequel, you're right. The ones that ended 'Happily Ever After' should have stayed that way.

Films I believe set themselves up for a justifiable/understandable sequel:

The Many Adventures Winnie the Pooh
The Great Mouse Detective
The Rescuers
Fantasia
Make Mine Music


I believe such a film as Pooh's Heffalump Movie has more heart and magic to it than even some of Disney's recent big-budget outings (such as Chicken Little).

And, in my humble opinion, many of the DTVs are more interesting than some of the CGI big-budget films coming out. Space Chimps, Happy Feet, most of the DreamWorks films - are all surpassed by some of the better DTVs, in my eyes.

Now the point is moot thanks to The Princess and the Frog, but for awhile, the DTVs were the only Disney product keeping hand-drawn animation alive.

And I hate how you lump them all together into one group. Yes, some are revolting - such as Bambi II and "Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams: Keys to the Kingdom"

... however, films like TinkerBell are really good, in my opinion. I think they have heart, magic, and a childlike innoncence and wonder.

They weren't all bad, and many people love them. This forum is a place for some of the upper eschelon of Disney fans - those who know Disney history, and are more like hobbyists than fans. Therefore, we are more critical of the films.

But, go to a different forum - such as IMDb - or a family forum - and you will find many who lament over the death of DTVs and express "how cool a Peter Pan 3 would be" or "I wish we had more adventures with The Aristocats!"

The core of these DTVs were fueled by these sorts of fans. The type of fans who 'just couldn't get enough' of their favorite character and were always excited by new media involving these characters - TV shows, books, and especially feature-length DTVs.

The OP feels that way about Cinderella. I feel that way about Pooh. And I know we're not alone in our passion for these characters. We love new media involving our favorite characters sot we support and like - maybe even love - the DTVs.

That deserves a .

[bradhig]

We never had Disney Channel before when it was a premium channel so I never got to see the old stuff except when they had free previews By the time we got Direct TV Disney Channel was going downhill. I never got to see the raccoons or Vault Disney. They could do the sequels as feature animation not DTV. I saw Cinderella on one of the free previews. I never got to ride Skyway ,Disneyland Peoplemover ,Adventure thru Inner Space. I only recently got to go to WDW.

[stewie15]

We never had Disney Channel before when it was a premium channel so I never got to see the old stuff except when they had free previews By the time we got Direct TV Disney Channel was going downhill. I never got to see the raccoons or Vault Disney. They could do the sequels as feature animation not DTV. I saw Cinderella on one of the free previews. I never got to ride Skyway ,Disneyland Peoplemover ,Adventure thru Inner Space. I only recently got to go to WDW.

You cant blame Iger because you missed out. I never saw any of the DCAs re-released in theaters but I'm not gunna blame disney (or who was in charge when re-releases got droped). Times change and companys change for the better or for the worse. I doubt that you or half of the people on the fourm could do better. I know I couldnt.