DVDizzy Forum

bradhig wrote:Wasn't Cinderella 2 made up of episodes from a never produced TV series?

I don't like Eisner for killing rides at the parks

He killed Adventure Thru Inner Space ,people mover at Disneyland ,Skyway at all parks, Mr toad at WDW. If they needed Winnie the Pooh ride so bad why didn't they built a new building rather then wreck a perfectly good dark ride with a following?

Yes, Cinderella II: Dreams Come True along with Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World were never fully produced TV series. What basically happened was that they were the pilots that Disney never picked up. Instead of wasting the material produced they created in between "memory" moments to tie them together. This also happens in Tarzan & Jane, Atlantis: Milo's Return, and Stitch!. I'd rather that they weren't considered sequels because of this fact.

Eisner isn't the only person to blame for "killing a attraction". in fact, does the CEO even have much of a say other than a vote? I would focus on being mad at Disney as a whole for it. Personally, I don't really mind if attractions that exist in other parks are closed. Although they change slightly, I would love if every park had different attractions so that each one is different.

Except for the fact that Stitch did start a tv series, and Tarzan & Jane already was part of a show to begin with. That's all I have to say with the unproduced tv shows.

Oh Don't forget about Hercules: The Animated Series...which I miss that show....I wish its compilation "movie" Zero To Hero was on DVD....or better yet the series on DVD with those scenes in between the Zero to Hero recap...sadly its only on VHS...it's Zero to Hero scenes are very very similair to the Tarzan and Jane or as I call them...flashbacks to the tv show

And Return of Jafar was suppose to be the opening for the TV series....but Disney released it as a sequel.....

Snow white maybe the one that started it all...but if you want my defintion of the one that started DTV Sequels.....its Return of Jafar....


I also recall reading on a Disney Site years ago...that it had a list of all the DAC and future Disney DTV and pixar...perhaps it was UD back in its youthful days...anyway it mentioned ideas of info about Lilo & stitch when it was just an idea and that disney was trying to get the rights to some Elvis Songs and treasure Planet was coming out and it was still an idea too...and there was mention of a Mulan III and also a Hercules sequel something to do with The Trojan Wars and Hercules...which actually sounded good..The Hercules one...

Yeah, i remember the murmurs of Mulan III and Hercules II: The Trojan War. Those weren't till way after Lilo & Stitch and TP came out though because Mulan II came out in '05. There were also talks for a Chicken Little 2 and another Rescuers. I bet at some point or another a sequel idea was brought up for every single animated classic, and probably multiple times. I allways thought that Hercules, the Aristocats, and The Rescuers could've all had good DTV. In fact, I wish that The Rescuers had their own TV series. It would probably be too close to Chip'n'Dale Rescue Rangers though.

Also, ajmrowland, I know that Tarzan and Jane as well as Lilo & Stitch were produced as TV series. I was merely pointing out that they have a similar format.

It would be interesting to see what scripts and ideas were considered for that Cinderella series.

Iger does not suck! He's a far better CEO than Eisner.

Eisner deserved to get booted out. Although he saved the company in the 1980's when he first took over it, he ruined it during the second half of his tenure there.

WDWLocal wrote:Iger does not suck! He's a far better CEO than Eisner.

Eisner deserved to get booted out. Although he saved the company in the 1980's when he first took over it, he ruined it during the second half of his tenure there.

Here, here! I don't think that Iger is perfect by any means, but come on Disney fans! We just survived the Eisner regime! Beggers can't be choosers, you know?

Margos wrote:

WDWLocal wrote:Iger does not suck! He's a far better CEO than Eisner.

Eisner deserved to get booted out. Although he saved the company in the 1980's when he first took over it, he ruined it during the second half of his tenure there.

Here, here! I don't think that Iger is perfect by any means, but come on Disney fans! We just survived the Eisner regime! Beggers can't be choosers, you know?

I third that notion!!

DisneyJedi wrote:

Margos wrote:
Here, here! I don't think that Iger is perfect by any means, but come on Disney fans! We just survived the Eisner regime! Beggers can't be choosers, you know?

I third that notion!!

Fourth! Iger cares more for the classic Disney. He started D23 after all.

IagoZazu wrote:Fourth! Iger cares more for the classic Disney. He started D23 after all.

Nothing says "I love the classics" like charging someone $75 US to well, buy expensive stuff, right?

And I doubt he personally did anything for the club besides promote it on The View.

I know, I know. D23 has its share of shipping problems, and I'm not saying Iger is perfect. His business choices however have been better than Eisner's, whose near break with Pixar would have been horrible.

I'm definitely no fan of the sequels. If the sequel isn't even meant to be on the big screen, then how would they be motivated to be seriously devoted to it anyway? They wouldn't make big bucks like they would on a solid theatrical DAC. That's the reason why they slack off on a lot of those DTVs; they would only be quick cash-ins. I hate it that they make sequels to the movies based on novels (Peter Pan, 101 Dalmatians, The Hunchback of Norte Dame) because they could bend the story however they want, and that snubs the author of the original story. I would appreciate sequels more if they had more quality, stayed relevant to the original, and were in theathers.

The only Disney sequels I like are The Rescuers Down Under and The Lion King 1 1/2. The Rescuers Down Under was a true sequel that had improved animation and was actually in theaters. The Lion King 1 1/2 was good too, even though it was more of a parody.

Yes, it's mainly the fact that he presided over the merger (take-over) of Pixar that makes me like Iger. No, he isn't perfect, but he's miles better than Eisner. Eisner would have lost Pixar, and allowed the company to make sequels ad nauseum. But after buying Pixar, he allowed Lasseter to put a stop to that (except, of course, the Disney Fairies series, but at least Lasseter's educated DisneyToon as to the proper way to make a good movie, even if it is DTV). As I said, we've just survived Eisner. Sure, he saved the company in the late 80s, but he became more about the money than the art. And even if Iger's the same, at least he's brought in Lasseter to keep the company on the right track.

Eisner even turned down Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and who would honestly do that?

ajmrowland wrote:Eisner even turned down Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and who would honestly do that?

Eisner, apparently. Good riddance!

I'm kinda glad that Eisner turned down Harry Potter and Lord Of Rings, cause story and element wise, it wasn't Disney per se. JK Rowling would be havin a constant battles with Eisner over the portrayal of the characters, it'd be too Disneyfied.

And think of how much plot Disney would've delted if they handled the Harry Potter series.

I'll admit he did some good for the studio, see page 1 for examples.

Sure Eisner pretty much signed his own pink slip when the battle for Pixar began.

Iger has done some good for the studio, again see Page 1 for examples.

So far he knows what he's doing, yet I have a feeling he's trying to be like Walt, which I think some could agree, even Eisner tried to be Walt too.

One thing that baffles me is why didn't Roy E Disney, or Diane Disney Miller take over the company after Eisner left? surely it would've been fitting if the true heir of Walt's throne reign the studio.

Well, I guess you're right about what would happen if Disney did Harry Potter or LotR, but I really really would love seeing them branch out and do really unusual stuff, that wouldn't neccesarily be "typical Disney."

ajmrowland wrote:Eisner even turned down Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and who would honestly do that?

Well, honestly, in the case of LOTR you have an unknown director who wanted to make two three hour movies that would've cost a lot of money. It's still a big gamble. It speaks for New Line that they not only took that gamble and made it three movies (like it's supposed to be) but the gamble paid of pretty well too.

Eisner was an insecure studio chief who fired anyone who could be seen as a threat to him (Katzenberg, Ovitz, and scores of others). Eisner didn't sign his own pink slip when he broke with Pixar, he signed his own pink slip when he fired Roy Disney from the Board of Directors because he was paranoid of Roy. You know who Eisner wanted to succeed him? His own son, Breck. I'm not kidding. Eisner was given stewardship of this company and then became infected with the power of the Disney Stewardship, and like any steward who has stepped into the shoes of a monarch, he came to believe he was a monarch himself - so he behaved like the worst of them. He eliminated threats to his power, and he envisioned his own son Breck (BRECK?!?) taking over the reigns of the company.

Roy fought back, and Comcast tried to exploit the turmoil with a hostile takeover. Roy fought off Comcast and and Eisner, and the board hired Iger after Eisner stepped down. Eisner overreached. He never should have screwed with Roy (he even complained that everyone was sympathetic with Roy because of his last name - to wit, "It's that damn Disney name!"). By saying this, Eisner exposed his own resentment at the family that started the company. Because nothing Eisner ever did in his entire career (of taking credit for other people's creative endeavors) would ever match the bond audiences have with Uncle Walt and his brother Roy, and Walt's nephew Roy. There could be five generations of Eisner's running the Disney company, but they would still be running the Disney company, not the Eisner company.

However, I would not put changing the name of the company past bad ol' Mikey. That simian looking douchebag remains one of the most reviled CEOs in history - the damage he inflicted in his last years to his own company is astonishing.

Here's to you, Roy. King Eisner is Dead. Long live King Disney.

Best. Rant. Ever. Way to go, Rudy Matt!
Well said!

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.