Iger sucks

[WDWLocal]

...it certainly looks like all Iger is good for is rolling over to any demand...

That's not true.

Watch what you say about Bob Iger. He IS a great CEO and lightyears better than Eisner was.

[IagoZazu]

All this talk about Eisner potentially loosing Pixar is complete nonsense. There's no way a successful businessman like Jobs would walk away from a Disney deal. All he wanted to maximum money and power from it - something Eisner appeared to be trying to reign in.

All the bad-mouthing Jobs did of Eisner was just a negotiating ploy. I like how people claim Eisner was a bad CEO. To my knowledge, he never resorted to criticising his business partners in earning reports and other official press events like Jobs did of Eisner and Disney. Is that how you want professional business leaders to act? Like spoilt children in playgrounds? So professional - yes, Steve Jobs is so much better than Eisner.

And you know what? Jobs' public "whining" worked, he got what he wanted. He got his money, his position and he also got rid of the one person who would probably hold him back in Eisner... it certainly looks like all Iger is good for is rolling over to any demand - most analysts agreed at the time Disney overpaid for Pixar. and in the end who ended up being the largest single shareholder in Disney? Who ended up making out like a bandit from the deal?

Jobs only took advantage of a very public split inside Disney for his own benefit. Just like any shrewd businessman would.

So you're saying that Jobs was the real bogeyman here?

[2099net]

I'm not sure he's a "bogeyman", but I am saying he's not a white as most people here seem to think. You don't get to be a successful businessman without being shrewd.

It the public criticism of Eisner and Disney was totally unprecedented. I know some people think he was speaking out for creative freedom, but really if you look at what you were saying, he was simply feeding the then current "Save Disney" machine. I think it was pretty clear Jobs' wanted Eisner to go - but think about his motives. Remember, Eisner wasn't supposed to be even negotiating for purchasing Pixar (but probably at least floated the idea), but just for renewing the distribution contract.

Firstly, no matter what anyone says, there's no way a sensible businessman (which is what Jobs' most certainly is) would break up the partnership with Disney. Pixar had more than just a film distribution with Disney, they had a highly successful merchandising machine too. And not just in shops. The fact Pixar was so prominent in the Disney Parks reminded hundreds of thousands of people every year about Pixar characters, and no doubt helped to shift merchandise too.

And that goes for future projects too - if Pixar did strike out as its own independent company, it would have to negotiate its own licences with toy makers (which I doubt would be favourable), wouldn't be able to rely on the Disney name to keep toys and merchandise in stores, wouldn't have an on-going theme park presence etc. An ongoing revenue stream would be even more important if Pixar went indy - because they wouldn't even have control of their films made in partnership with Disney so wouldn't even be able to re-release them to cinemas or home video if they needed money.

Frankly, it's inconceivable Pixar would ever go independent - it would be too big a risk. I know some will argue Pixar was a company built on risk, and Jobs is a businessman who takes risks. But really, neither is 100% true. The fact that when the crunch came, Jobs decided not to renew the distribution deal but accepted a buy-out shows that ongoing independence wasn't his prime concern all along.

So what can be assume from the final deal that was made. Well, it obviously suited Jobs because Eisner got the boot - something Jobs' public sneering helped to contribute to no doubt. And Jobs also ended up the biggest shareholder in Disney. Think about Jobs' other company, Apple and how beneficial that has been for both iTunes empire. I don't think its far from the truth to say Jobs would have been after a sizable chunk of a worldwide multi-media creation company to help boost iTunes. (If I remember correctly Disney was the first movie and television company to put films and episodes on iTunes, and more recently Disney was the first to support HD movies on iTunes.)

As for many of Jobs' rants about Disney - did he really mean what he said.?Especially about sequels? Toy Story 3. Cars 2. Strong rumours of a Monsters, Inc 2 continue to persist. All since the Pixar/Disney buyout. True, they're all with the original creators - but didn't Jobs once boast at one of those opinionated interviews Pixar made original stories and not sequels? Is this what Jobs wanted when Lasseter took control? Who can say? But you would think he would be fighting harder against it if it wasn't and his earlier anti-Eisner "smack down" talk had any meaning.

I'm not saying he's a bogeyman as such, but he obviously took advantage of an "civil war" within Disney to manipulate things to his benefit. Just as ComCast (remember them?) tried to round about the same time (and for the same reason - Comcast sensed weakness and jumped in almost as soon as the war started. Perhaps their only mistake was attacking too soon!)

At the end of the day, Jobs is a highly successful businessperson - people don't tend to become highly successful businesspersons without knowing how business works and how to turn an opponent's weakness into their own strength.

As for Iger: Since he took over the DTV sequels to classic films have nominally stopped. I say "nominally" because there's 5 Tinker bell movies - all based on a character from a classic film and the release frequency isn't much different from the old DTV releases - its still relying on purchases recognising and feeling a connection to a classic Disney character/film. As an aside, the "Buddies" franchise seems to have been turned into a live-action DTV series too. I wouldn't be surprised to see these end up being released twice a year for the next few years (and they really do suck).

Disney Feature Animation is going back to its roots with 2 Princess movies (and possibly the Elves and the Shoemaker and the Snow Queen coming soon). Not exactly what I would call a step forwards (but admittedly, nor is it a step backwards). It just seems to be people keen to recreate the past and past success.

There's a big kerfuffle over at Walt Disney Pictures, with executives dropping for being reshuffled like flies. Most people seem to think Dick Cook going was a mistake. Of course, we'll never know the real reason why - but it shows management problems aren't just associated with Eisner. Also at Walt Disney Pictures we've seen the Narnia franchise dropped and picked up by Fox - showing that its not just content that determines a Disney film today, but profitability. Remember all that fuss when Walden Media made a film with another studio which wasn't Disney and how some people here stated it was proof Eisner couldn't work with people? Well, Eisner sure as hell didn't leave Walden Media hanging in the middle of a franchise like Iger did. Meanwhile a lot of the live action Disney branded films appear to be sequels.

The Disney Channel and the bulk of Disney marketing and merchandise seems to be aimed primarily at "tweenage" girls. The fact they've had to start a new channel for "boys" and one of the reasons for wanting to buy Marvel Entertainment was to have something for boys - shows that they know something is wrong - yet they've not really changed - if anything the Disney Channel under Iger has become more incestuous with the same "stars" popping up on different shows, movies and CDs (until no doubt they get too old and are cruelly dumped).

I'm not really seeing any change to be honest. Going back to hand-drawn animation isn't as big a deal as people make out. It's just cosmetic. What matters is the content. Will the Lasseter approved films be better received than the Disney films of the last decade or so? Probably. Will they be better received by me? Probably not. Both The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel already seem old to me, and I find it hard to be enthused by more fairy tale adaptations.

And what if The Princess and the Frog does bomb? Is it wise to have Rapunzel and other fairytales waiting in the wings? If The Princess and the Frog is well received there's no doubt the following films will capitalise on its success to some extent. So is it a good business decision? Is it a calculated risk? Or is it just a single-minded narrow view of what a Disney film should be?

To be fair, Disney is a huge corporation and nobody can turn it around quickly. I'm sure some of what is being produced now is still Eisner's legacy. But from what I see, Disney is neither better or worse under Iger. At the end of the day under Eisner I would have expected the Disney/Pixar deal to progress and while Eisner may not have given Pixar as much power as they do now under Iger, but he still would have listened to them. You don't spend a fortune buying in expertise to simply ignore it - so to be perfectly honest I think a lot of what people here see as positives would still have happened anyway.

[Flanger-Hanger]

^ Excellent Post Netty.

I'll add to it by giving the Theme Park perspective that is essentially word of mouth. Lassater got a position in Imagineering that has really let his voice been heard and as a result DCA is getting it's $1.1 Billion makeover and the Fantasyland Expansion was forced upon a reluctant-to-spend-much WDW management among other things. Jay Rasulo has finally lost his position causing fans to cheer, but it's uncertain what his replacement will do.

I really feel with so much global spending done to fix mistakes made under Eisner's control (entire theme parks in the case DCA, Walt Disney Studios Park Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland) it is unwise to build a 6th resort complex, but hopefully if it is built lessons will be learned from previous mistakes.

Also, if the stories are true, we have Eisner's son to thanks for the existence of Splash Mauritian and Star Tours and he really enjoyed the original Phantom Manor so I don't see how awful he would have been by default of begin the son of "the monarch".

[WDWLocal]

I'm As for Iger: Since he took over the DTV sequels to classic films have nominally stopped. I say "nominally" because there's 5 Tinker bell movies - all based on a character from a classic film and the release frequency isn't much different from the old DTV releases - its still relying on purchases recognising and feeling a connection to a classic Disney character/film. As an aside, the "Buddies" franchise seems to have been turned into a live-action DTV series too. I wouldn't be surprised to see these end up being released twice a year for the next few years (and they really do suck).

The Tinker Bell movies do not suck, though, IMO.

Why the need to continue romanticizing the Eisner era, despite the fact that he became an out-of-control power-hungry ego-maniac after Frank Wells died, which lead to the need for Eisner's expulsion from the company?

[2099net]

I'm As for Iger: Since he took over the DTV sequels to classic films have nominally stopped. I say "nominally" because there's 5 Tinker bell movies - all based on a character from a classic film and the release frequency isn't much different from the old DTV releases - its still relying on purchases recognising and feeling a connection to a classic Disney character/film. As an aside, the "Buddies" franchise seems to have been turned into a live-action DTV series too. I wouldn't be surprised to see these end up being released twice a year for the next few years (and they really do suck).

The Tinker Bell movies do not suck, though, IMO.

Neither did ALL of the DTVs IMO.

Why the need to continue romanticizing the Eisner era, despite the fact that he became an out-of-control power-hungry ego-maniac after Frank Wells died, which lead to the need for Eisner's expulsion from the company?

I'm not. I'm just saying from the outside it appears nothing of major significance has changed.

But like I say, its like turning an ocean liner around. It can't be done in an instant. But for virtually every (layman, outsider) complaint hurled at Eisner, Iger reign has similar.

Management leaving under unknown circumstances (Cook); management interfering in pictures (to the extent Sanders walked away from Disney; I can't recall anyone walking away from an ongoing development under Eisner); Partnerships broken (see Nania); Cheap DTV Sequels (Tinkerbell may not suck, but its still cheap); A growing reliance on trends and fads (I'll see your Lizzie McGuire and HSM and raise you Hannah Montanna and Jonas); buying in companies to expand the catalogue rather than create substantial new IP (ABC in Eisner's case, Marvel with Iger)...

What's romanticising the past pointing out that (to an outsider) the present isn't much different?

[Flanger-Hanger]

I'd also like to point out that the Disney Stores are still and will be kid-only oriented and are continuing to fail to appeal to the adults who drag their brats in there. It's a huge missed opportunity for both sales and shaping a decent public image of Disney as the stores are regarded by the company as ambassadors for it's quality.

Adult clothing sales aren't doing well, eh? Well would you pay $25 for a cheap made in China T-shirt with generic character clip art?

[Rudy Matt]

All this talk about Eisner potentially loosing Pixar is complete nonsense. There's no way a successful businessman like Jobs would walk away from a Disney deal.

Everyone in the business was salivating at the idea of working with PIXAR. Every single major distribution studio approached PIXAR. Jobs, Lasseter and Catmull were taking meetings from everyone in the business when Eisner broke off talks.

All he wanted to maximum money and power from it - something Eisner appeared to be trying to reign in.

Aside from that making little to no sense, I think what you are trying to say is that Chimp Man tried to intimidate the greatest animation studio of the last decade and failed.

All the bad-mouthing Jobs did of Eisner was just a negotiating ploy.

It had the additional enhanced quality of being accurate.

I like how people claim Eisner was a bad CEO. To my knowledge, he never resorted to criticising his business partners in earning reports and other official press events like Jobs did of Eisner and Disney.

Well, allow me to educate you. Eisner lit up the animators at Pixar by claiming they'd never been able to animate humans. He wanted to fire Eddie Murphy from 48 Hrs. while he was at Paramount because he didn't believe Eddie Murphy was funny. He so antagonized Steven Spielberg that the man refused to do any work at Disney while Eisner was in charge. He passed on the Lord of the Rings, booted Harvey and Bob Weinstein from Miramax, he was extremely hostile to Johnny Depp's work on Pirates of the Caribbean, and Chimp Man personally re-titled Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl failing to realize THERE IS NO CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL! -- he tried to fire Roy Disney and he killed hand-drawn animation and we are defending this simian jackass why?

Eisner was and remains to be a charisamtic black hole whose only talent lies in taking credit for other people's endeavours and blaming others for his failures.

Do you know why the Pixar company exists today? Because Eisner and Katzenberg, frightened by the box office receipts of TRON and THE LAST STARFIGHTER, saw no future in CGI animation. You are upset that Pixar has grown so powerful and so rich with Cal-Arts talent, and you brand name acolytes are upset that "Pixar took over Disney", when it was Eisner and Katzenberg who chased John and CGI animation and CalArts talent away from Disney in the first place - they could have embraced CGI in house but they were afraid of it as CEOs, and instead flushed millions upon millions down the toilet on The Go Network while creating holstile relationships with damn near everyone on the payroll, from the hand-drawn animation staff all the way up to John Lasseter and Roy Disney!

You defend this man?

Is that how you want professional business leaders to act? Like spoilt children in playgrounds? So professional - yes, Steve Jobs is so much better than Eisner.

I'd rather have a spoiled child with a proven track record of innovation than a mercenary paranoid back-stabbing chimp jackass who killed hand-drawn animation at Disney to justify his failed leadership.

And you know what? Jobs' public "whining" worked, he got what he wanted. He got his money, his position and he also got rid of the one person who would probably hold him back in Eisner... it certainly looks like all Iger is good for is rolling over to any demand - most analysts agreed at the time Disney overpaid for Pixar.

PIXAR saved Disney. Eisner chased Pixar out of the company in the 80's and then was a brutal hostile partner with the company, even a threatening partner. I laugh at you fanboys who are so threatened by PIXAR. Most of the talent there continually comes from CAL-ARTS, the school of animation and the arts founded by Walt Disney himself. Your childish fanboy rage needs to be focused on the failed corporate culture of Disney in the 90's and 2000's. And that came from Chimp Man.

and in the end who ended up being the largest single shareholder in Disney? Who ended up making out like a bandit from the deal?

Wow, there's a cogent argument for Eisner - he raided the company for as much as he could get. He's a success! Meanwhile, Walt Disney took as little as he could and didn't live an extravagant lifestyle, because he poured his profits BACK INTO THE COMPANY.

Jobs only took advantage of a very public split inside Disney for his own benefit. Just like any shrewd businessman would.

You are pwned, and you are an Anti-Pixar fangirl/fanboy. I know your kind. You are just like Jim Hill - you're not a Disney fan, you're an Eisner Disney fan. You hate PIXAR because you are threatened by them. You reject the new creative blood at Disney because of your Eisner generation fan affiliation. You can't accept that PIXAR *is* Disney and is in fact by virtue of all the CALARTS talent MORE like Disney than anything we've seen from the company since the release of the Fox and the Hound. Eisner the Chimp Man was hostile to CGI and Cal ARTS talent from the start. He fired Musker and Clements!!! He fired ROY DISNEY!

Rant over.

Said all I need to say.

[Margos]

Wow... I was gonna comment on Netty's nonsense.... but that about covered it all. Go Rudy Matt!

[2099net]

All this talk about Eisner potentially loosing Pixar is complete nonsense. There's no way a successful businessman like Jobs would walk away from a Disney deal.

Everyone in the business was salivating at the idea of working with PIXAR. Every single major distribution studio approached PIXAR. Jobs, Lasseter and Catmull were taking meetings from everyone in the business when Eisner broke off talks.

But Pixar only wanted studios to distribute their movies, while funding and retaining ownership of their movies themselves. Much like LucasFilm does. Studios may have been desperate for Pixar - but distributing approximately one film per year for either a fixed rate or percentage deal wouldn't have affected a major motion picture distributor much. Much like Fox hasn't suffered drastically now LucasFilm appears to be distributing Star Wars through Warners. And of course, if Pixar did go independent, they would/could potentially lose a lot of income by Disney simply sitting on the properties it co-owned. Going independent - financing a film and its release themselves would be a huge gamble.

All he wanted to maximum money and power from it - something Eisner appeared to be trying to reign in.

Aside from that making little to no sense, I think what you are trying to say is that Chimp Man tried to intimidate the greatest animation studio of the last decade and failed.

Why does it make little to no sense? Do you really think Jobs would give a **** about Eisner if Pixar would be allowed to make the films it wanted and make the profits it wanted (again, Pixar initially were angling for a distribution only/retain the rights deal with Disney). So of course he wanted power (creative freedom at the least) and money (full ownership of Pixar creations initially). And of course Eisner would appear to be reigning that in - or else Jobs wouldn't have a problem with him, would he?

Of course Eisner was attempting to intimidate Jobs and Pixar. It was his job! It's what a CEO is supposed to do - negotiate the best deals on behalf of the company who employs him/her. (of course, it takes judgement to know how to negotiate - when to push and when not to push). You can bet Jobs was trying to intimidate Eisner back - thus the very public statements Jobs made).

All the bad-mouthing Jobs did of Eisner was just a negotiating ploy.

It had the additional enhanced quality of being accurate.

I like how people claim Eisner was a bad CEO. To my knowledge, he never resorted to criticising his business partners in earning reports and other official press events like Jobs did of Eisner and Disney.

Well, allow me to educate you. Eisner lit up the animators at Pixar by claiming they'd never been able to animate humans. He wanted to fire Eddie Murphy from 48 Hrs. while he was at Paramount because he didn't believe Eddie Murphy was funny. He so antagonized Steven Spielberg that the man refused to do any work at Disney while Eisner was in charge. He passed on the Lord of the Rings, booted Harvey and Bob Weinstein from Miramax, he was extremely hostile to Johnny Depp's work on Pirates of the Caribbean, and Chimp Man personally re-titled Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl failing to realize THERE IS NO CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL! -- he tried to fire Roy Disney and he killed hand-drawn animation and we are defending this simian jackass why?

Eisner was and remains to be a charisamtic black hole whose only talent lies in taking credit for other people's endeavours and blaming others for his failures.

Whoop-de-doop he passed on Lord of the Rings. It's not as if people have passed on properties which became hot later before is it? I'm sure every studio head has passed on something! As for your other points - Harvey and Bob stayed on for 12 years! 12 years! Whose to know what went on in 12 years? Adding "The Curse of the Black Pearl" doesn't seem to have affected the box office takings. And his other criticisms (Depp, Murphy, Spielberg) weren't broadcast - repeatedly - in press events, were they?

Do you know why the Pixar company exists today? Because Eisner and Katzenberg, frightened by the box office receipts of TRON and THE LAST STARFIGHTER, saw no future in CGI animation. You are upset that Pixar has grown so powerful and so rich with Cal-Arts talent, and you brand name acolytes are upset that "Pixar took over Disney", when it was Eisner and Katzenberg who chased John and CGI animation and CalArts talent away from Disney in the first place - they could have embraced CGI in house but they were afraid of it as CEOs, and instead flushed millions upon millions down the toilet on The Go Network while creating holstile relationships with damn near everyone on the payroll, from the hand-drawn animation staff all the way up to John Lasseter and Roy Disney!

You defend this man?

No. Critisising one person does not mean you are automatically defending the other. The world doesn't exist in solely black and white or yes and no.

Is that how you want professional business leaders to act? Like spoilt children in playgrounds? So professional - yes, Steve Jobs is so much better than Eisner.

I'd rather have a spoiled child with a proven track record of innovation than a mercenary paranoid back-stabbing chimp jackass who killed hand-drawn animation at Disney to justify his failed leadership.

But again, the facts aren't related.

And you know what? Jobs' public "whining" worked, he got what he wanted. He got his money, his position and he also got rid of the one person who would probably hold him back in Eisner... it certainly looks like all Iger is good for is rolling over to any demand - most analysts agreed at the time Disney overpaid for Pixar.

PIXAR saved Disney. Eisner chased Pixar out of the company in the 80's and then was a brutal hostile partner with the company, even a threatening partner. I laugh at you fanboys who are so threatened by PIXAR. Most of the talent there continually comes from CAL-ARTS, the school of animation and the arts founded by Walt Disney himself. Your childish fanboy rage needs to be focused on the failed corporate culture of Disney in the 90's and 2000's. And that came from Chimp Man.

But again, the talks originally were for Disney to only distribute the new Pixar films. At some point that became a wholesale merger/buyout. The fact that that happens shows Jobs had desire to have some active role in Disney. You can't deny that. Its a fact. He/they went from wanting to be independent to becoming part of the corporate juggernaut that is Disney. He vocally complained about things Pixar (or if you prefer Disney/Pixar) are now doing.

A cynic would say he only spoke about about sequels because initially, if Pixar did go independent, they wouldn't be able to make any! Plus, his words had the added advantage of pre-poisoning any sequels to Pixar films Disney did make because they did have the rights! Pixar have certainly changed their mind about sequels now that they retain the rights to their Pixar/Disney funded creations.

Can't you see, most of what he said was all business politics and influencing existing shareholders, potential investors and business analysts - and all done at a time when there was increasing civil war in the Disney boardroom?

and in the end who ended up being the largest single shareholder in Disney? Who ended up making out like a bandit from the deal?

Wow, there's a cogent argument for Eisner - he raided the company for as much as he could get. He's a success! Meanwhile, Walt Disney took as little as he could and didn't live an extravagant lifestyle, because he poured his profits BACK INTO THE COMPANY.

Jobs only took advantage of a very public split inside Disney for his own benefit. Just like any shrewd businessman would.

Again, why is pointing that out a argument FOR Eisner?

You are pwned, and you are an Anti-Pixar fangirl/fanboy. I know your kind. You are just like Jim Hill - you're not a Disney fan, you're an Eisner Disney fan. You hate PIXAR because you are threatened by them. You reject the new creative blood at Disney because of your Eisner generation fan affiliation. You can't accept that PIXAR *is* Disney and is in fact by virtue of all the CALARTS talent MORE like Disney than anything we've seen from the company since the release of the Fox and the Hound. Eisner the Chimp Man was hostile to CGI and Cal ARTS talent from the start. He fired Musker and Clements!!! He fired ROY DISNEY!

Rant over.

Said all I need to say.

And yet, if I'm the fanboy, I'm not the one resorting to calling supposed object of my ire "Chimp Man" or similar throughout.

All I'm pointing out is Jobs is a businessman, and like most businessman he knows how to take advantage of situations for his own benefit. Saying that doesn't mean I think Eisner was the second coming. I'm just pointing out since Eisner left - things haven't changed that much - and what most people seem to think is the biggest and best change (the Disney/Pixar merger) would probably happened to some extent regardless.

[ajmrowland]

Chimp Man

chimp jackass

Chimp Man.

Chimp Man

Said all I need to say.

Seriously great rant, but Someone should make that into a series of comics.

[Margos]

*Dramatic Voice*
And Now... "The Incredibly Adventures of Chimp Jackass," starring former Disney CEO, Michael Eisner!
In a world where no one is buying shitty DTV-sequels... one man must change the course of history.... by promoting mindless consumerism! Yes, it's Chimp Jackass!

[Mason_Ireton]

Nah I wouldn't pay $ to see that.... I rather see more Disney classics getin Part 2... *laughs*

[Margos]

Was that sarcasm I detect, Mason? I'm so glad he was stopped before any more of the classics could be wrecked by sequels. No, they weren't all bad. My personal favorite was TLK 2, but I heard that Cindy 3 and TLM's prequel were alright, too. I've never seen either of those, though, and honestly don't intend to.

[Mason_Ireton]

Yes that was sarcasm *laughs*

Twist In Time (Cindy 3) is the "true" Cinderella sequel, in my opinon, I was pleased with Return to Neverland, the ending was fittin, course I was dissapointed in both the pirates and the lost boys' portrayal. Disney seemed to use 'em for laughs instead of moving the story forward.

[Rudy Matt]

All I'm pointing out is Jobs is a businessman, and like most businessman he knows how to take advantage of situations for his own benefit. Saying that doesn't mean I think Eisner was the second coming. I'm just pointing out since Eisner left - things haven't changed that much - and what most people seem to think is the biggest and best change (the Disney/Pixar merger) would probably happened to some extent regardless.

Eisner killed anyone or anything that threatened his own position. You really need to read the book "DisneyWar". You don't know what you're talking about. Eisner was a walking paranoid cancer on the company. You think it was inevitable that Lasseter would rise to where he is today in the company? It would have happened "regardless"? You think Lasseter would have been allowed to rise to creative leader over animation and the theme parks "regardless" of Eisner's resignation? Do you SERIOUSLY think Lasseter would have agreed to the purchase of PIXAR with that Chimp Jackass as his boss? Who would then have the power to control PIXAR? Chimp Jackass Eisner FIRED Lasseter, he was HOSTILE to PIXAR, and tried to fire ROY DISNEY himself!

Are you out of your mind? I am so happy that simian-faced paranoid asshole is gone and that CAL ARTS GRADS are now in charge. This is the true 2nd generation of Walt Disney and his work ethic - his creative spirit- his belief in QUALITY - these have returned. I cry with joy when I think about Walt sowing the seeds for what would become his company's salvation without even knowing it, all through creating the endowment for CALARTS.

All you PIXAR and Lasseter haters who are upset about the "Pixar takeover" can go stick it where the sun don't shine. Seriously. I've had it with you. I don't give a damn that you grew up with Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. I grew up with WALT Disney, and suffered through monkey-faced corporate termites like Eisner and Katzeberg, who rotted the company from within and took credit for other people's success, all the while being a walking cancer on the company. You people still praise Katzenberg, the genius who wanted to cut "Part of Your World" from The Little Mermaid because he thought it was boring. Screw him, screw Eisner, and happy joyful wonderous day that CalARTS talent is now running the show. Thank God. Gob Bless Roy Disney. God Bless John Lasseter. You Jim Hill Pixar-Hating Eisner Fanboys can go swing in the trees with your simian chimp-faced failed deity.

Hey? How's that talk show working out for former Chimp Executive Organgutang ?

[PatrickvD]

All I'm pointing out is Jobs is a businessman, and like most businessman he knows how to take advantage of situations for his own benefit. Saying that doesn't mean I think Eisner was the second coming. I'm just pointing out since Eisner left - things haven't changed that much - and what most people seem to think is the biggest and best change (the Disney/Pixar merger) would probably happened to some extent regardless.

Eisner killed anyone or anything that threatened his own position. You really need to read the book "DisneyWar". You don't know what you're talking about. Eisner was a walking paranoid cancer on the company. You think it was inevitable that Lasseter would rise to where he is today in the company? It would have happened "regardless"? You think Lasseter would have been allowed to rise to creative leader over animation and the theme parks "regardless" of Eisner's resignation? Do you SERIOUSLY think Lasseter would have agreed to the purchase of PIXAR with that Chimp Jackass as his boss? Who would then have the power to control PIXAR? Chimp Jackass Eisner FIRED Lasseter, he was HOSTILE to PIXAR, and tried to fire ROY DISNEY himself!

Are you out of your mind? I am so happy that simian-faced paranoid asshole is gone and that CAL ARTS GRADS are now in charge. This is the true 2nd generation of Walt Disney and his work ethic - his creative spirit- his belief in QUALITY - these have returned. I cry with joy when I think about Walt sowing the seeds for what would become his company's salvation without even knowing it, all through creating the endowment for CALARTS.

All you PIXAR and Lasseter haters who are upset about the "Pixar takeover" can go stick it where the sun don't shine. Seriously. I've had it with you. I don't give a damn that you grew up with Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. I grew up with WALT Disney, and suffered through monkey-faced corporate termites like Eisner and Katzeberg, who rotted the company from within and took credit for other people's success, all the while being a walking cancer on the company. You people still praise Katzenberg, the genius who wanted to cut "Part of Your World" from The Little Mermaid because he thought it was boring. Screw him, screw Eisner, and happy joyful wonderous day that CalARTS talent is now running the show. Thank God. Gob Bless Roy Disney. God Bless John Lasseter. You Jim Hill Pixar-Hating Eisner Fanboys can go swing in the trees with your simian chimp-faced failed deity.

Hey? How's that talk show working out for former Chimp Executive Organgutang ?

wow. So... as much as I agree that things have changed for the better. Very much so actually. Stop pretending as though the Tinkerbell franchise didn't emerge under new management.

And you are seriously fooling yourself if you think "the CalArts grads" are in charge. Yeah, a handful of em who graduated back in the 70s. Regular animators, inbetweeners and clean up artists work from project to project and are not on contract. Because there's not much for them to do. Unlike Pixar and Dreamworks who keep a big staff employed. And some clean-up and visual effects work is now even being outsourced to Brasil. Sure, top notch work is delivered but it's a HUGE smack in the face to all the unemployed American artists.

All because Walt Disney Animation Studio just isn't allowed back its bigger budget. At least not the budget that Pixar is on.

So are we getting a slate of better films? Probaply yeah. But let's not pretend all is well in Disneyland. Lasseter is most likely still fighting with all he's got for Disney with upper management. If it were up to him, no animators were being let go at all and Disney's animated shorts program would actually function like Pixar's and keep animators busy. Where's that Nessie short? Or any of them for that matter.

[2099net]

Eisner killed anyone or anything that threatened his own position. You really need to read the book "DisneyWar". You don't know what you're talking about.

Boardmembers and shareholders at any time could oust Eisner. At the end of the day Eisner kept Disney on a reasonably stable footing throughout his reign. (Ironically, I feel his excessive share-taking and remuneration package probably did Eisner in just as much as Roy's SaveDisney campaign did)

It used to take some effort to buy and sell shares... it was all done on paper, with clerks recording and calculating who had what and when. Lots of administration was involved. People and organisations used to buy shares and generally stick with them for some time barring major personal or company financial upheavals or desires as a result. In short, shareholders used to INVEST in a company with more than just their money.

These days, computers can buy and sell shares in fractions of a second (see High Frequency Trading - where nothing matters by the current share price and trends) It's somewhat worrying to be honest, but more and more investors are going to have less and less "attachment" to their holdings. They won't care about long-term plans for the company five or ten years down the road. All they care about is the here and now. There's some shocking statistics about HFT on Wikipedia

As of 2009, high frequency trading firms account for 73% of all US equity trading volume.[4]

That's a heck of a lot of movement with little or no human intervention. Like it or not, the days of Business have changed dramatically since Walt's time, and different challenges and goals are involved.

There's lots of institutional investors in Disney (and other companies) who don't care about the long term future of the company - they'll just pull out and invest elsewhere if they predict a lower than expected gain (or even a loss).

But as the "Save Disney" campaign showed, there's also a lot of institutional investors who do care... but at the end of the day I'm not sure the voice of the shareholders who did care was loud enough (about 40% if I remember correctly which admittedly is a huge number for such a large, multi-national corporation) and they did vote against Eisner. But only when some of his actions were brought to their attention. Had the issues not been made public I'm sure most of them would have been happy with their investment in Disney shares simply by looking at each quarters earnings report.

When judging Eisner (or any other business leader such as Iger or Jobs or whoever), you have to compare them to other business leaders of Today, to see how they compare. Its not use looking to the past - everything was different then.

Eisner was a walking paranoid cancer on the company. You think Lasseter would hjave been allowed to rise to creative leader over animation and the theme parks "regardless" of Eisner's resignation? Do you SERIOUSLY think Lasseter would have agreed to the purchase of PIXAR with Chimp Jackass as his boss? Who would then have the power to control PIXAR? Eisner FIRED Lasseter, he was HOSTILE to PIXAR, and tried to fire ROY DISNEY himself!

No, as I said, I don't expect Pixar/Lasseter would have had as big a role should Eisner still be in control. But likewise, I said, you don't buy-in expertise/competition to ignore it - so I would have expected Pixar/Lasseter to have some control and autonomy even under Eisner - that's just business-sense.

Would I expect Pixar to merge with Disney? Yes - to some extent. Again maybe not as fully integrated management wise as it is now, but yes I do.

Such contracts can have clauses in them retaining the original management retaining control of their sub-domain, or for the sub-domain to be run and accounted for as a separate company - and often do. So yes, I would expect some form of "negotiation" to have taken place.

You know, "negotiation" - its what business is. Even you, when deciding if you want to see a film or purchase a DVD are taking place in a limited form of negotiation - you decide if the asking price is worth it or not, and accept or reject it based on your opinion. If enough people reject the price, the price often lowers as a result. All business is negotiation.

Are you out of your mind? I am so happy that simian-faced paranoid asshole is gone and that CAL ARTS GRADS are now in charge. This is the true 2nd generation of Walt Disney and his work ethic - his creative spirit- his belief in QUALITY - these have returned. I cry with joy when I think about Walt sowing the seeds for what would become his company's salvation without even knowing it, all through creating the endownment for CALARTS. All you PIXAR and Lasseter haters who are upset about the "Pixar takeover" can go stick it where the sun don't shine. Seriously. I've had it with you.

And yet, under Eisner we had a diverse range of animated movies - from fairy tales to slapstick comedies to all-out adventure (and of course Fantasia 2000). Lasseter comes in and we seem to have back-to-back fairy tales lined up for Walt Disney Feature animation.

Now, call me odd, but surely if Eisner was concerned simply with money and at expense of the creative, wouldn't he had pushed for a Princess/fairy-tale movie himself stronger?

We can discuss how the films were made - the sometimes unrealistic demands on the animators time, the sometimes dramatic retooling (which coincidently again would cost money, with months and months or work lost forever), the increased bureaucracy and executive headcount etc. etc. Of course that's bad and stifling. But feature animation under Eisner didn't go for the obvious, money-shot subjects.

The push towards fairy-tales now strikes me as a more obvious "money" grab than any of Eisner's films. How is Princess and the Frog being heavily promoted? As a Princess movie. What's one of Disney's highest merchandise franchises? The Princess line. What's their biggest merchandise franchise? Winnie the Pooh. And - look - we're getting a new Pooh movie too!

The creative process may have been strengthened - in fact, it undoubtably will have been - putting more emphasis on the film makers rather than the executives. But look at the films that they are making, compared to the films made under Eisner. People are keen to credit Jobs/Lasseter/Pixar with being a risk-takers - but their not taking risks with Walt Disney Feature Animation yet.

(You may argue that the brand has been so heavily tarnished in recent years that they need to go "back to basics" to revive the brand - I can see some merit in that - but I do feel the "back to basics" approach is going too far.)

I don't give a damn that you grew up with Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin.

You really need to look at my posting history, because I have little regard for many Disney films to be honest. I certainly have been outspoken about Beauty and the Beast somewhat recently.

I grew up with Walt Disney, and suffered through monkey faced corporate termites like Eisner, who rotted the company from within and took credit for other people's success, al the while a walking cancer on the company. Same thing goes for Katzenberg, the genius who wanted to cut "Part of Your World" from The Little Mermaid because it was boring.

Katzenberg also resulted in Aladdin being dramatically reworked - quite late in the production too. A change most people who worked on the film consider for the best. But on the other hand, he also reworked Pocahontas to what most people working on the film thought was to its detriment.

At the end of the day, no matter what was discussed, "Part of Your World" wasn't dropped - so I doubt it was something Katzenberg felt strongly about (unlike his Aladdin change - which he got done at huge expense and with consequence to the targeted release date too). So either he simply suggested cutting it, or others talked him out of it. At the end of the day, his opinion wasn't forced on the film.

Now I know you're going to say I'm "defending" him, but I'm not. I'm simply pointing stuff out, even-handedly (and unemotionally). I don't have much time for Katzenberg on the whole from what little I know about him. At the end of the day, some people can be in a job too long that it eventually becomes counter-productive and it seems that happened with him. And he obviously had ambitions of being more - thus the founding of Dreamworks SKG. But I do think he most likely was a boon to Disney during his first few years there - just as most people say Eisner was.

Screw him, screw Eisner, and happy joyful wonderous day that CalARTS talent is now running the show. Thank God. Gob Bless Roy Disney. God Bless John Lasseter. You Jim Hill Eisner Fanboys can go swing in the trees with your simian chimp-faced failed deity. Hey? How's that talk show working out for him? Oh, it's cancelled? Oh - too bad...

Again, you call me a fanboy, but you're the only one who seems to be getting emotional - overtly so, in fact.

And again, why do you get the impression I am constantly defending Eisner and/or Eisner's decisions? He obviously wasn't perfect, or else the whole "SaveDisney" thing wouldn't have started in the first place, he wouldn't be in-effect voted out and he'd still be CEO now, leading Disney onwards and always upwards. That obviously isn't the case.

Again, I've said this before, just because you say something about one person, doesn't mean you're defending their supposed "Nemesis" - its perfectly possible for both parties to have negative points (but I'm not sure how saying Jobs is a shrewd businessman and I don't necessarily believe he was 100% committed to his statements at the time which were obviously said to intimidate Eisner/Disney is necessarily a "negative" point)

[PatrickvD]

And yet, under Eisner we had a diverse range of animated movies - from fairy tales to slapstick comedies to all-out adventure (and of course Fantasia 2000). Lasseter comes in and we seem to have back-to-back fairy tales lined up for Walt Disney Feature animation.

Now, call me odd, but surely if Eisner was concerned simply with money and at expense of the creative, wouldn't he had pushed for a Princess/fairy-tale movie himself stronger?

Keep in mind that earlier this decade Eisner was very much pushing for development on Rapunzel and The Snow Queen to speed up. But as the Box Office earnings from Monsters, Inc, Shrek and Finding Nemo was rolling in, he lost interest. Leaving those two in development hell until now.

As for slapstick comedies? New Groove and Home on the Range were made in Eisners blind spot. Both hugely expensive retoolings of romantic dramas.

[2099net]

Keep in mind that earlier this decade Eisner was very much pushing for development on Rapunzel and The Snow Queen to speed up. But as the Box Office earnings from Monsters, Inc, Shrek and Finding Nemo was rolling in, he lost interest. Leaving those two in development hell until now.

As for slapstick comedies? New Groove and Home on the Range were made in Eisners blind spot. Both hugely expensive retoolings of romantic dramas.

Well, Rapunzel was probably as much about creating (and probably patenting?) new CGI technology as about adding to the Princess line. When was Rapunzel officially started?

As for The Snow Queen, was it ever seriously considered or just mooted/developed as a potential project? If it was seriously considered, then isn't there an issue with it being revived now (as is rumoured)? If something didn't work creatively then, why should it work now? Even with new talents available to Disney? Wouldn't those talents best be put to use making films that they want to make rather than being led down a path to make a film simply because its the type of film the audience expect Disney to be making?

But regarding Emperor's New Groove and Home on the Range you're probably right because you're right both are drastic reworks. But at the end of the day they both came out, and to some extent if Eisner was pushing for epic romantic dramas personally, he himself presumably had to admit neither was working.

It's all immaterial - at the end of the day, the most of the later Disney Animated films didn't appear to be obviously financially motivated, when they most certainly could be. Meanwhile, away from Eisner we have Pixar sequels aplenty, films obviously designed to suggest past glories and another Pooh film. All of which could be seen as being just as financially motivated as creatively motivated.

it doesn't mean that they'll be bad films, or carelessly made films or whatever. But there's obviously a financial agenda behind some if not all of them.