Disney Debates: #5 Bring back Eisner

[Ktrek]

One thing I would like to say about this thread is that you cannot accurately debate whether the new CEO is making a better Disney or not. Most of what we see today and is being released in theaters, TV and DVDs was conceived during the Eisner reign. I mean he has only been gone less than two years for crying out loud! It's like a President of the U.S. being blamed for problems that were really started and belong with the past administration. People do not seem to think that way. For whatever reason they seem to believe that the moment a person is in power he is in control and it just does not work that way. We will not be able to evaluate how good Iger will be for Disney until another two years have passed and all the Eisner projects are out of the pipeline.

Kevin

[blackcauldron85]

For whatever reason they seem to believe that the moment a person is in power he is in control and it just does not work that way.

I agree with what you wrote, Kevin, but what I quoted above makes me think of John Lasseter. The moment he became in charge, he canceled "The Aristocats II", and made changes to "Meet the Robinsons"...so he seemed to be in control from Day One. I know this isn't a thread about him, but I just had that thought.

[Ktrek]

I agree with what you wrote, Kevin, but what I quoted above makes me think of John Lasseter. The moment he became in charge, he canceled "The Aristocats II", and made changes to "Meet the Robinsons"...so he seemed to be in control from Day One. I know this isn't a thread about him, but I just had that thought.

Well, it would have to make you wonder how good the Aristocats II project was and how far along it was. I'm sure that Lasseter did not make that decision alone and without backing from those above him. As for changes to Meet The Robinsons almost every production goes through changes until the day it's released and many ideas get canned. Including already produced footage. I think this holds true for any production by any company. When I am talking about Iger I am thinking in a more "general" way. Of course Iger could come in and stir things up a bit if he wanted to but with the many many productions already in place he would be a fool to dump anything that was not an absolute disaster. Right now his main occupation has to be with surrounding himself with the right people, administratively and creatively, that can carry Disney forward. It will be at least two years before we can really tell if Iger is good for Disney.

As for Eisner I think he did some good things and probably a lot of bad things. I personally think Miramax and Touchstone pictures is a bad idea to associate the Disney name with most of their films. I also think that as more attention was given to them the Disney brand started to suffer. I also think the sequel after sequel bit was too much. I see nothing wrong with sequels if you have an excellent idea but sadly most of the animated sequels lack any substance. On the other side Eisner did save Disney in the 80s and was responsible for leading the company into a renaissance of their animation department and gave us many good films.

If there was one thing I could tell Iger if I could it would be to get back to what made Disney great to begin with. The Disney Corporation has their hand in so many pots they have lost their focus. I'd sell off Miramax, Touchstone and ABC Network and put all my efforts into their Disney and Pixar brand films, their parks and the Disney Channel.

Kevin

[REINIER]

Let's not forget that DVD releases have gone downhill since the power change. Yeah Eisner made a lot of mistakes, but so far the company (with the exception of returning to 2D) has not improved.

I've never understood the massive hate the man gets. Sure he did a lot of bad, but he also was responsible for saving the company in the late 80s/early 90s but nobody seems to remember that.

I wouldn't say bring him back completely, but I wouldn't mind him taking a highly placed position in the company again.

Interesting point of view, like you I myself think back on early pleasant eisner days, however, once fully in charge he made one grave error, he
wanted creative control over all aspects of the company, truth be told the man is not all that creative to begin with (suggesting sequels isn't exactly refreshing material, right!) and along with that he also argued with the man who did have a creative point of view, and that man who goes by the name of Jeffrey Katzenberg now does own his own skg dreamworks animation studio, and has to this day forward seldom failed in terms of quality animation-entertainment, whatever you think of these films in terms of story or animation, one after another has proved a box-office succes, sadly disneyfilms like Atlantis, Brother Bear ( eisner originally envisioned this as the lion king with bears!!!) and the last poor mistake for a disney film ''home on the range'' have not.
That is not to say that these movies don't have creative input, but probably not enough time was put into these movies to ensure succes!


let us hope that the disney brand under Iger's reign will not be further trashes down the drain, although the disney princess approach:

-tinkerbell movie, enchanted, princess and the frog, rapunzel is getting slightly old.
(and those aren't even out yet! )

[Balto123]

-tinkerbell movie, enchanted, princess and the frog, rapunzel is getting slightly old.
(and those aren't even out yet! )

That's what films like "Bolt" are for, a bit of variety. It's not as if Disney is only bringing out Princess movies from now on, and yet so many people seem to be forgetting this.

[ichabod]

I agree with what you wrote, Kevin, but what I quoted above makes me think of John Lasseter. The moment he became in charge, he canceled "The Aristocats II", and made changes to "Meet the Robinsons"...so he seemed to be in control from Day One. I know this isn't a thread about him, but I just had that thought.

You know it's an interesting point. Lasseter had been at Disney 10 minutes and we hear "Lasseter saves Disney" and the press report things like "Meet the Robinsons was only a success because of Lasseter" and people chant things like "Lasseter rids us of the sequels" and "All hail the saviour" etc.

Yet for some reason even though Iger has been there longer than Lasseter people jump to his defense saying "He hasn't been there long enough to implent anything of his own" and "It's too soon for him to have changed anything".

Interesting

[2099net]

As for Eisner I think he did some good things and probably a lot of bad things. I personally think Miramax and Touchstone pictures is a bad idea to associate the Disney name with most of their films. I also think that as more attention was given to them the Disney brand started to suffer.

But without Touchstone (Miramax was always niche until its final two or so years at Disney) there would be no Disney now. Touchstone saved Disney when it needed saving.

You can't have Disney without Touchstone. It would have died (or more likely been bought out by another media company. Imagine Universal-Disney or Warners-Disney or given the time frame the most likely option... Sony-Disney!)

[2099net]

Interesting point of view, like you I myself think back on early pleasant eisner days, however, once fully in charge he made one grave error, he wanted creative control over all aspects of the company, truth be told the man is not all that creative to begin with (suggesting sequels isn't exactly refreshing material, right!) and along with that he also argued with the man who did have a creative point of view, and that man who goes by the name of Jeffrey Katzenberg now does own his own skg dreamworks animation studio, and has to this day forward seldom failed in terms of quality animation-entertainment, whatever you think of these films in terms of story or animation, one after another has proved a box-office succes, sadly disneyfilms like Atlantis, Brother Bear ( eisner originally envisioned this as the lion king with bears!!!) and the last poor mistake for a disney film ''home on the range'' have not.

This brings up a few issues.

Firstly, was Eisner wanting creative control bad? Eisner for example pushed for a Lion King Musical when everyone else thought it would never work. It's gone on to be a huge success. That is, as far as I know with my limited knowledge, the only time Eisner stuck his heels in. Yes, he made suggestions about lots of other movies - such as Chicken Little being a Boy in Chicken Little, but I'm not sure he made "demands". For all we know, be probably made the same suggestions about Beauty and the Beast or Little Mermaid. We know Katzenburg made a huge demand that Aladdin was "aged up" more, which resulted in lots of completed animation having to be redone. Yet, that "control" over the filmmakers is rarely seen as being "negative" or "counter-productive".

As for Katzenburg, we have to ask, would we want Disney to be successful if it meant it would scoop to Dreamworks standards (and no, Chicken Little never "scooped" all you CL haters). And even then, Dreamworks has hardly had an unbeaten box office - The Road To El Dorado and Sinbad are seen as failures, as are both of the Aardman films distributed by Dreamworks - despite being arguably more sophisticated.

Finally Eisner may or may not have wanted "a Lion King with bears" but Brother Bear is has almost nothing in common with The Lion King.

[blackcauldron85]

As for Katzenburg, we have to ask, would we want Disney to be successful if it meant it would scoop to Dreamworks standards

No! Dreamworks sucks!

In all seriousness, no- Granted, I haven't seen many Dreamworks films, but they use crude jokes (farting, burping, etc.), and they rely too heavily on making fun of pop culture (and Disney). At least Disney's films are original (I mean, original using existing themes, like "The Lion King" uses "Hamlet" for inspiration). Movies like "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet" are great movies (in my opinion), even though they didn't do so great at the box office. I like "Home on the Range", and I think that it's a better movie than it's given credit for. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Disney takes chances, and those chances don't always turn out well (as in box office failures), but at least they continue to take those chances. Some people have been complaining that they'll be putting out too many Princess movies. Princess movies have been successful for Disney in the past (and I like princess films), so I think that it's not a bad move, especially since Disney will be taking chances. Their first partly-animated/partly-live-action princess (Giselle), their first African-American princess (Tiana), and the first CGI princess (Rapunzel) are all different (at least in some instances) than the princesses of the other Disney princess movies.

[BelleGirl]

As for Katzenburg, we have to ask, would we want Disney to be successful if it meant it would scoop to Dreamworks standards

No! Dreamworks sucks!

In all seriousness, no- Granted, I haven't seen many Dreamworks films, but they use crude jokes (farting, burping, etc.), and they rely too heavily on making fun of pop culture (and Disney). At least Disney's films are original (I mean, original using existing themes, like "The Lion King" uses "Hamlet" for inspiration). Movies like "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet" are great movies (in my opinion), even though they didn't do so great at the box office. I like "Home on the Range", and I think that it's a better movie than it's given credit for. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Disney takes chances, and those chances don't always turn out well (as in box office failures), but at least they continue to take those chances.

Isn't it a bit ironic that Dreamworks is now making movies that are more childish than most Disney films, when Katzenberg initially set out to make animated movies that were more 'mature' and 'serious'? When still at Disney, Kantzenberg very much pushed "Pocahontas" to have a serious tone (personally I think he was right about that, regarding the subject matter) Then he went on to make an epic Biblical feature "Prince of Egypt" and a pretty mature-themed Insect CGI-movie "Antz" for Dreamworks.
Apparently he soon gave up on these kind of movies.

[2099net]

It's easy to critisise people in power, but Dreamworks must have been under enormous pressure to deliver. They were after all a complete start-up studio.

I don't begrudge Katzenberg much. I think Shrek is basically over hyped and have done since Shrek 1, but at least Katzenberg tried to give America Wallace and Gromit - even if it was a mega flop over there Not to mention Antz (which I love), Prince of Egypt* and Spirit. He's not exactly a one trick pony, but when the push comes to the shove, he must be under huge expectations to bring money in, perhaps even more so now that Dreamworks Animation is a stand-alone company.

* Ironically, in this post Passion of the Christ climate, Prince of Egypt would probably be a record breaking box office smash were it to have been released now.

[BelleGirl]

Well, I pretty much liked "Chicken Run" and "Wallace and Gromit, the curse of the Were-rabbit".
I'm not sure if "Prince of Egypt" would have been a big smash hit if it was released after "Passion". Did you see a new wave of Biblical-themed films after that one? I only remember "The Nativity Story" (Which I didn't see)
POE was nice to look at, but I also found it a tad boring ( I know: sacriligious! )

[2099net]

I'm not sure if "Prince of Egypt" would have been a big smash hit if it was released after "Passion". Did you see a new wave of Biblical-themed films after that one? I only remember "The Nativity Story" (Which I didn't see)

Well, I don't know. I know I've read accounts of schools and churches in the US sending out letters and organising trips to see Disney's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe... no doubt inspired by churches doing similar for Passion of the Christ. And I've also read of US schools and churches sending out letters or lecturing people not to see The Golden Compass (or worse). So who knows?

I expect Prince of Egypt had it first been released now, at the very least, to have had similar letters of recommendation.

Plus, PoE has a bigger audience base than Passion of the Christ, being as it covers material from both Christian and Jewish religion.

Katzenberg's only major failing (in my opinon) is his belief that voice artists are the biggest selling point of his animated movies. Which often leads to said voice artists being [a] overpaid constantly promoted at celebrity screenings/events at the expense of the animated characters and [c] overtly promoted on posters/trailers. I can't watch a US sourced Dreamworks film without thinking "I'm watching Justin Timberlake/Chris Rock/Bruce Willis/[whoever]" rather then "I watching [character name]" and that personally spoils my enjoyment.

But in hindsight, this is probably something he got from his time at Disney having seen the benefits of Robin Williams on Aladdin.

[2099net]

Well the 2011 Sequels* shows that Iger doesn't appear to be any different from Eisner.

In fact, 2011 will have more Disney sequel films released than any other year (to my knowledge). It appears Iger is actually "out-sequeling" Eisner. Plus, the constant non-stop promotion of Disney Channel properties and "stars" seems to have increased under Iger too including countless Disney channel promotional music videos on Disney DVDs. And talking of DVDs, the apparent freefall in both quality and quantity of the DVD releases/supplements as Disney caters to the least demanding of its audiences.

Really, I can't see much difference. DTV sequels may have all but stopped, but several more, somewhat more offensive, sins remain. (You don't like sequels, fine, don't buy them. You don't like the teen-led Disney Channel and you can't avoid the trailers, videos and other promotions on other Disney products).

And as an aside, considering Jobs once scoffed at Disney saying "Pixar don't do sequels" it appears 50% of the upcoming Pixar films we know about are now sequels.

* That's sequels in the year 2011 by the way, not actually 2011 sequels coming soon.

[Balto123]

The difference being that under Eisner all the sequels Disney hashed out were poorly drawn, ultra 'kiddified' ultra cheap looking abominations that were designed to make money at the expense of quality. In comparison to this, what Iger and Lasseter apparently have planned in the years to come are sequels that have the same production values as the originals with story being the ultimate important factor.

Pixar know what they're doing and won't be shelling out cheapquels. Look at all the trouble Lasseter went to in order to stop the Tinkerbell Movie being the absolute abomination it was before the merger. You honestly think he'd go to all that trouble fixing a film that isn't even Pixar's only to put as little effort into Pixar's own sequels? I don't think so.

Come 2011, you'll see for yourself how much improved the post-Eisner years are and will be for some time to come.

[2099net]

The difference being that under Eisner all the sequels Disney hashed out were poorly drawn, ultra 'kiddified' ultra cheap looking abominations that were designed to make money at the expense of quality. In comparison to this, what Iger and Lasseter apparently have planned in the years to come are sequels that have the same production values as the originals with story being the ultimate important factor.

I don't think Pirates of the Caribbean 4 can claim to have "story" as it's core value when they have apparently greenlighted the film without knowing a single thing about the story according to the report. They don't even know if they want to make it "big" or "small", and if they want it "big" they don't know how to top the last film.

As for the sequels as Disney's animated films box office revenue continued to fall, perhaps it was those "kiddified" sequels that enabled Disney to carry on releases a new "animated classic" each year.

I doubt anyone here thinks films like Hunchback, Pocahontas or Tarzan were "bad films". But they didn't draw in the audiences as expected.

Also the DTV sequels were generally getting better. I know that's a lame argument when there has been without a doubt some truely dreadful sequels (mainly sequels forced into movies when they were never intended to be "movies") but it shows Disney was fixing itself regardless.

[BelleGirl]

I doubt anyone here thinks films like Hunchback, Pocahontas or Tarzan were "bad films". But they didn't draw in the audiences as expected.

Why, because they didn't have the fabulous box office result of The Lion King? I think it would be really unrealistc of Disney to expect that every time. And besides, didn't Tarzan do especially well at the box-office?
I'm still stunned that Hunchback is called a 'flop' by some people because it grossed a 'mere 100 million dollars' DOMESTICALLY!

[2099net]

Hey, I'm not disparaging those films at all. But if a company makes certain earning predictions based on previous form, and they don't meet their predictions, there's pressure to make the money some other way. It's how business works - especially a business which has to answer to shareholders (because to a certain extent, the share price is set based upon the company's earning predictions - as well as other influences both internal and external).

Iger and Lasseter may have stopped the production of sequels now, but its on the understanding of potentially lower profits for a few years until their "focus on theatrical animation/no diluting via DTVs" settles in. And even then, they're only being allowed to do this by the shareholders because ultimately they are predicting better box office income and home video sales for Disney's animated movies than for the 1990's and early 2000's, and most of the shareholders believe this.

Remember all that fuss about Ratatouille's "disappointing" opening? To a normal person it wasn't disappointing. But Disney was under pressure to justify its purchase of Pixar. So all the Wall Street Analysts and deal-makers were watching the film's box office performance like a hawk. Well, the same is true of all of Disney's films and other income to a lesser extent, because the same analysts recommend if stock it worth buying or selling all the time.

[stlewis75]

Eisner did good things at first, but then he went on to cheapen the brand name. In the early 90's, if Disney released a film, everyone saw it. About five years ago, I was the only person I knew who was still seeing Disney's animated films. They lost the trust of the consumer by trying to squeeze the worth out of previously successful franchises... the direct-to-video sequels played a big part in disenchanting the general public and causing them to lose the trust they once had in Disney. I knew that those sequels were coming from a different group, but most people didn't make a distinction between Disney Feature Animation and Disney Toon Studio... and they didn't care to. If any part of Disney gave them a bad movie, their trust waivered.

Because of how long it takes to make an animated film, we are still very much in the middle of Iger's transition period. Putting Lasseter in charge was a great idea... the reigns of a creative department like animation should be in the hands of a creative person... not in the hands of a CEO. How nice that he recognized that and put someone in charge who loves animation. You may hate Lasster for whatever reason, but he knows animation, and he knows story-telling. And as it's been said many times in this thread... he's getting Disney to return to 2-D... and that is great!

I can't imagine that Lasseter wants Disney to fail, or that he wants Pixar to crush Disney. His name is on the work he's doing with Disney, and knowing what I know about him (or about most people), that means his heart is behind them too. He grew up loving Disney movies the way we all did... only instead of leaving it at just a love for animation, he actually got into it and dedicated his life to it. Why in the world would he destroy his own credibility while destroying Walt's company that he grew up dreaming of working for? To make Pixar better? Pixar's doing just fine as it is... he doesn't need to destroy Walt's dreams or his own career by forcing everything coming out of Disney to suck. Iger was right to believe in what Lasseter can do... and the results of that decision won't be clearly visible for a couple more years, but then it's going to click. If you don't believe that... just hang in there and see.

Eisner was fine for a while, but he started screwing things up at the end. The more you learn about those last few years, the more clear that becomes. And if all else fails... ask Roy.