DVDizzy Forum

Well here we go with a new series which intende to provoke thought and discussion about an all aspects of Disney. Each week an issue will be brought up which hopefully will allow members to voice their opinions.

The subjects for discussion may be debates relating to all aspects of the company. When I bring up a subject it may be my opinion, or it may not be. I may just be playing devil's advocate and trying to provoke a reaction. Who knows.

Disney Debates: #5 Bring back Eisner

In the mid 1980s the Disney company was almost lost, following the departure of almost all the people who had built up the company with Walt within a short space of time. The job of maintaining the Walt Disney television output was in the hands of people that did not have much experience and a number of failures happened in the 1980s, the most known being the "too many cooks" film "The Black Cauldron".

However with Michael Eisner the company was given direction and success in all fields. Eisner worked along side artists, directors and storytellers to build up the successes of live action/animation/TV and park projects. It was under Eisner the arguably the greatest period of Disney history happened. The renaissance of Disney animation, innovative blockbusters, varied, ambitious projects. Live action successes both under the Disney name and under the newly formed Touchstone banner allowing Disney to succesfully create movies for adults.

New theme parks appeared across the globe, Disney took to the stage in acclaimed musicals.

On TV arguably the best and most fondly remembered TV shows appeared featuring both new and classic characters. Mickey, Donald, Goofy, Chip and Dale were all brought to the forefront of the public's minds following years of being ignored both of the small and big screen.

The successes both financially and creatively all happened under the helm of Michael Eisner. However despite all this man had done for the company, towards the later years of his reign he fell from favour and became painted as a villain. A number of direct to video projects, the decision to retire traditional animation and financially unsuccessful vehicles saw the tide turn on Eisner.

Thus Iger becoming his replacement was met with favour. However in truth is Iger any better than his predecessor. Was the Oswald trade off a sincere effort to preserve history or merely a way to win public love. Whilst box office receipts have grown marginally, films are not making that much more than the features from the latter half of Eisner's reign.

Direct to video sequels are still coming at us, cheaply made, poor franchises with the princesses and fairies are still coming at us, which can only do the same amount of damage to classic properties than the sequels ever could and the money grabbing attitude behind them is just the same.

The company's future plans now seems to be a half assed scheme of trying to capture past glory by making obvious films and a slew of Princess films are in the pipelines. Whilst films such as Atlantis and The Emperor's New Groove may not have smashed any records the brave ambition and scope of these films in breaking moulds and being creative looks like something that is altogether missing from Iger's future company.

Whilst Eisner thought that Disney should stand on it's own two feet without Pixar, Iger seemed to admit defeat and it's acquisition of Pixar seemed to show that he had no faith in his own company. Giving Lasseter and Jobs such prominent roles in the animation department seems to have only confirmed this and Iger seems to want to Pixar-ify Disney.

Eisner was blasted for wanting to make Toy Story 3 by all sides including Lasseter, however miraculously following the merger Pixar announces it will be making Toy Story 3 itself and this however is fine.

So a lot of the stuff Eisner was criticised for is still happening, yet no one is blaster Iger who supposedly would herald a new Disney and stamp out the evil of Eisner. Similarly Iger seems to be penning Disney into either recreating past success or pushing the Pixar influence. I mean unlike Eisner, Iger doesn't seem to be up to much. So who is running Disney these days? From outward appearance it seems like Jobs and Lasseter.

So has Iger solved Disney's identity issues or are/will they just be made worse?

Is Disney any better off in public opinion?

Is Iger any better than Eisner? Was the company a better place under Eisner?
________________

Other Disney Debates
Disney Debates: #1 Snow White should be redubbed for blu-ray started by Ichabod
<a href="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... t=">Disney Debates: #2 Are People too accepting of Pixar films?</a> started by 2099net

Come back, Walt!

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:Come back, Walt!

If they could only get his frozen head onto a body, everything would be perfect. But yes, I agree, none of the others have been all that great. Eisner got too greedy.

What ever happened with Roy Disney? I know he cut a lot of ties with the company (or got cut), but I remember seeing an interview where he was blasting the company, saying how Walt was rolling in his grave. Too bad he didn't control the company. He probably would do a better job

Eisner saw to it personally that Roy would be offed from the Board of Directors. Roy got bitter and started the SaveDisney campaign (which was a good move despite coming from a place of bitter and anger). As for Eisner returning? Only if he has an equal like he did back in the early days. Frank Wells (I'm pretty sure that was the name) kept Eisner from going overboard in terms of financial bottom line and Eisner kept him from being overly creative. It was a good mix and brought us some wonderful results (ie: Animation revival, Disneyland Paris, MGM Studios etc).

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.

Well, judging as a customer and recipient of the product... he was good, and then he turned sour. I can tell because the product turned sour. Now it tastes better. Nobody can be good for everything for always.

He was present for huge growth, but maybe that growth was a bit too big (like how nothing can live up to The Lion King).

Even if we could have some sort of Walt reproduction... would he really be what we want in this environment, at this current time?

I'd like to see Disney revert back to the way it was in the old days, Eisner or not. I want to see good, animated movies that aren't so modern. I'm not saying that later movies like the Incredibles aren't any good (I love that particular movie btw), but there was just something about the classics that made them... classics.

I don't know a lot about the topic, but this is what I remember about the Eisner days.

When I was a kid in the 80's and 90's I really liked how disney was. I loved the movies they showed on Wonderful World of Disney (I may have the name wrong...but you should know what I mean). I actually loved that Eisner hosted those, it was something I liked when was little. I loved the shows on tv, etc. The only thing I didn't like was that he got rid of the 2D animation department.

So far I am not convinced either way about Iger...but I loved Eisner in the 80's and early 90's. I will give Iger more time to win me over before I pass judgment on him.

Siren wrote:

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:Come back, Walt!

If they could only get his frozen head onto a body, everything would be perfect. But yes, I agree, none of the others have been all that great. Eisner got too greedy.

Sorry to whipe out your hope for a return of Walt, but in fact he was cremated.

I think I withold my judgement about Iger right now, I don't know much about the man.

Is it really bad that John Lassetter is now part of Disney? He at least acknowlegdes the worth of 2d-animation and stimulates the Disney artists to go back to these roots. For a time it seemed that Disney would forsake this form of animated art altogether.
And what is wrong with another fairy tale? If 'Rapunzel' and "The Princess and the Frog" turn out to be a succes, who says they will not go on experimenting with different types of stories afterwards. It also happened that way in the nineties.
Personally I rather watch an old fashioned fairy tale with a heart than a Sci-fi experiment that lacks one (like 'Atlantis').

I just try to stay a little bit optimistic.

From my personal point of view, I never saw anything drastically wrong with Eisner. Sure, not everything he did was fried gold, but all-in-all Disney, in whatever medium it was involved in, compared favourably to their competition while Eisner was in charge.

People just don't understand the pressure on CEOs these days, from shareholders, corporate partnerships, even just the media who have no real vested interest in the company in question.

But that's not to say I approved of everything Eisner did (or indeed, was paid - which I think was truely obscene, especially when 'cast members' in Parks and no doubt thousands of other Disney employees worldwide were on minimum wage).

But is Iger any better? Well, to be fair we still most likely need to give him time to settle in and the seeds of his leadership bear fruit. But so far:

Disney's two best motion picture franchises have been created under Eisner - Pirates of the Caribbean and Narnia. Bridge to Terabithia is also a result of Eisner's Walden Media partnership. Looking away from Disney, Wild Hogs also was initiated during Eisner's reign (IIRC).

So that leaves Pixar and their films over the past two years - Ratatouille and Cars. Now, I am of the opinion that Pixar was always, always going to partner or be bought out by Disney - despite all the "trash talk" from Jobs and to a lesser extent Lasseter. They simply had the best and most logical partnership. All those public statements were just business - they helped to raise the value Disney had to pay. In the end, everybody won. So I don't think personally we can credit Iger with the Pixar purchase.

However, we can probably credit the specifics of the purchase to Iger. On one hand Iger probably overpaid for Pixar (and Jobs being the single Disney shareholder with the most stock is probably alarming) - but I think Iger most likely got a more creative fit for Pixar than Eisner ever would. I do think some of the issues with Eisner and Pixar were of the type I mentioned above - price and stock - and as a business Eisner was probably right to try and negotiate both down. Alas, everything is full of "What Ifs" and "could have" so we will never know which would be best for Disney. But I don't think that Eisner should be labeled as "greedy" if he was indeed trying to get Pixar's price down. He was trying to do what was best for the shareholders, and that after all, was his job.

But as for everything else, I don't see a change for the better. The Disney Channel is still full of live-action tween comedies and modern - almost post-modern - animated shows. Classic Disney characters and creations hardly ever get a look in.

Iger himself has shown he's just as quick to jump on the sequel bandwagon with High School Musical (probably HSM1 was the result of an Eisner decision too). DTV sequels may be being thinned out - but that would probably happen anyway - I understand sales started to decline, so it probably is just as much a business decision than an artistic one. Mean while DTV sequels that are more likely to sell - such as the Princess fanchise continue. As to DTVs to sell new franchises, such as Disney Faries with Tinker Bell. So, in all honestly, I see no major difference.

But the quality of Disney DVDs continues to decline, when Disney can be bothered to release a DVD that is. I would certainly say Iger has been bad for DVD, and I blame Iger more than either next gen high def format or the format wars for Disney's lackluster output recently.

It's wrong to judge Iger now, but all in all, I don't see much difference. When it comes down to it, Iger still has to please the shareholders - and the biggest shareholders are not individuals who may care about Disney values, but they corporate finanacial groups who invest in pensions. So pleasing the shareholders is all about money and profit. There's not much anybody can do, no matter who they are, which deviates too far from profitable quarter earnings after profitable quarter earnings.

PS

Bellegirl - not to pick on you or anything - but it seems a little off to credit Eisner with Atlantis' failures. After all, the project was a dream project for successful animation directors Trousdale and Wise. If Eisner didn't let his creative staff make what they wanted to make, I'd say he'd be more open to critisism.

ichabod wrote:Was the Oswald trade off a sincere effort to preserve history or merely a way to win public love.

Why does that matter, as long as Oswald is back at Disney? It made the fans happy, and that's what really should matter, right?

ichabod wrote:Direct to video sequels are still coming at us, cheaply made, poor franchises with the princesses and fairies are still coming at us, which can only do the same amount of damage to classic properties than the sequels ever could and the money grabbing attitude behind them is just the same.

Well, some of the DTVs were already in production when Iger came- I know people who don't like the sequels would have wanted him to automatically shut them down, but that wouldn't necessarily be fair. As for the Princess Collection, that makes so much money for the company, and I don't see how the merchandise itself (meaning the dolls, blankets, clothing, oven mitts, etc.) can hurt the classic films. I understand the argument about the sequels tarnishing the reputations of the classic films (even though I don't necessarily agree), but the Cinderella toaster shouldn't hurt the reputation of the classic that is the original "Cinderella".

ichabod wrote:The company's future plans now seems to be a half assed scheme of trying to capture past glory by making obvious films and a slew of Princess films are in the pipelines. Whilst films such as Atlantis and The Emperor's New Groove may not have smashed any records the brave ambition and scope of these films in breaking moulds and being creative looks like something that is altogether missing from Iger's future company.

1. Maybe Iger is initially playing it safe, since he's new to greenlighting films.
2. People love Disney Princess films. I'm excited to see more princesses. I don't only want Princess films, but that's where “Bolt” comes in. (I love me some Disney animal films as well.)
3. Just give Iger & Disney a few more years...the next decade could bring us a slew of really creative animated classics. We just don't know yet.
4. Iger could be the one to bring us "Song of the South" on DVD. We don't know this, but he's more likely to than Eisner was.

ichabod wrote:Iger seemed to admit defeat and it's acquisition of Pixar seemed to show that he had no faith in his own company. Giving Lasseter and Jobs such prominent roles in the animation department seems to have only confirmed this and Iger seems to want to Pixar-ify Disney.

I have had mixed feelings about the Pixar acquisition since it happened. On the one hand, it'll be great to have Pixar on board for "Toy Story 3". On the other hand, the line between Pixar and Disney has blurred. Pixar wouldn't be open to letting "Disney people" tell them how to make their movies, yet "Pixar people" are doing just that to Disney. I've started to ease up on John Lasseter- he's not a villain, as I once thought. I don't think that Iger gave up on the company- Pixar movies make a lot of money and are definitely an asset to the Disney company, so now I think, ultimately, that it was a very smart business move, and I think that, ultimately, it could be a good creative move for Disney, if they are allowed to make "Disney" movies and not 2D "Pixar" movies.

ichabod wrote:So has Iger solved Disney's identity issues or are/will they just be made worse?

I think having the Pixar people in charge of Disney films has messed up Disney's identity, to a degree. Before the acquisition, Disney was Disney and Pixar was Pixar. Take "Meet the Robinsons", for an example. It was just a Disney film, but then the Pixar people came in and worked on it, and it is kind of like a Disney film seasoned by Pixar. I don't remember without doing some reading the troubles that MTR was having prior to the Pixar people coming in to save the day, but how bad would it have been without the involvement of Pixar?

ichabod wrote:Is Iger any better than Eisner? Was the company a better place under Eisner?

I think that a lot of things haven't necessarily changed, content-wise, at Disney. For example, the POTC franchise already had begun under Eisner, and the sequels had already begun under Eisner. I think that any boss is different in some ways and similar in some ways than the next one. I think that we should have this discussion in a few years and see what innovations (if any) Iger comes up with.

DisneyFanatic wrote:I loved the movies they showed on Wonderful World of Disney...I actually loved that Eisner hosted those

BelleGirl wrote:I think I withold my judgement about Iger right now, I don't know much about the man.

Eisner definitely was a more public figure than Iger seems to be. Not only did he host "The Wonderful World of Disney", but he was at the Disney-MGM Studios grand opening and the Animal Kingdom grand opening, etc. (which had a lot of publicity,I'm sure), as well as just being on TV and in the media often, since Disney was coming out with massive hits and other new things; Nothing major has happened yet in the reign of Iger, I guess, except Hong Kong Disneyland (that was during Iger's reign, right?), but even that had already begun in Eisner's reign. As I mentioned earlier, just give Iger time- he hasn't been there long enough yet to have made huge significant changes, like the greenlighting of and completion of a new theme park.

BelleGirl wrote:And what is wrong with another fairy tale? If 'Rapunzel' and "The Princess and the Frog" turn out to be a succes, who says they will not go on experimenting with different types of stories afterwards. It also happened that way in the nineties.

I agree 100%. Iger may want to greenlight some formulaic movies (princesses) initially, and if those do well, he can make a film that may or may not be a huge success- at least he'll have had some successes under his belt by then. Not that there’s anything wrong with formulaic movies, since they can be very enjoyable, too.

BelleGirl wrote:Personally I rather watch an old fashioned fairy tale with a heart than a Sci-fi experiment that lacks one (like 'Atlantis').

I personally don't agree with this. I love all the Disney movies, and I really love Disney music, but I really enjoy the adventure-type films ("The Black Cauldron", "Atlantis", "Treasure Planet")- I love how Disney has experimented in the past, and maybe I just like underdogs, but I welcome more "different" animated films. But, I also want Disney to make more fairy tale films, because princess films have love stories and some of the most popular Disney music. I hope that Disney continues making films based on fairy tales, on classic literature (like "Robin Hood" and "Alice in Wonderland", to name a couple), and completely original films (like "Lilo and Stitch").
I can't wait to see what Iger's reign brings in the future. As far as animation goes, we now have to figure in John Lasseter's influence, but we may find that Iger doesn't feel as strongly about animation as Lasseter does, so his helping out may not be a bad thing.

The theme parks haven't really been mentioned much in this debate. When I mentioned to my husband the topic of this debate, his first response was that he has noticed improvements at WDW under Iger's reign. I'm not sure what he was referencing, but how has Iger helped or hurt the theme parks since he's been CEO? Hong Kong Disneyland pops into my head, and Spaceship Earth, but not much else. Expedition Everest does come to mind, but was that started under Eisner's reign, or Iger's?

2099net wrote: People just don't understand the pressure on CEOs these days, from shareholders

That’s an important thing to bring up- much of what Disney has done (and I don’t just mean under Iger or Eisner) has been to please the shareholders. What if Disney had no shareholders to answer to- if the company could make the films and attractions that it wanted to, no strings attached?

2099net wrote: So I don't think personally we can credit Iger with the Pixar purchase.

Well, as long as Eisner was in charge, Pixar didn’t seem to want to renew with Disney. That surely partially was the reason that Eisner was booted out. No matter if Bob Iger or John Doe would’ve been the next CEO, Pixar’s chances of joining Disney somehow were raised, just because Eisner was no longer part of the picture.

2099net wrote: But as for everything else, I don't see a change for the better. The Disney Channel is still full of live-action tween comedies and modern - almost post-modern - animated shows. Classic Disney characters and creations hardly ever get a look in.

Those shows, though, are huge money-makers for Disney. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, they figure. Buddy shows (like “Lizzie McGuire”, “Even Stevens”, “That’s So Raven”, “Phil of the Future”, “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody”, “Hannah Montana”, and “Cory in the House”) have always been big hits for Disney (“Spin and Marty”, “The Hardy Boys”). I do think, though, that taking away “Vault Disney” was a mistake, and that, seeing the success of the Treasures series, Disney should make a Vault Disney Channel. Absolutely. And, to give some credit to Disney, even if “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse” isn’t the way some may want to see the classic characters, at least the classic characters on are TV.

2099net wrote: Iger himself has shown he's just as quick to jump on the sequel bandwagon with High School Musical

And with POTC, and with “Narnia”, etc. It’s not just films for little kids having sequels (like the DTV animated films and the HSM films, no matter how I love them), but the family hits I just mentioned, too.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Well, as long as Eisner was in charge, Pixar didn’t seem to want to renew with Disney. That surely partially was the reason that Eisner was booted out. No matter if Bob Iger or John Doe would’ve been the next CEO, Pixar’s chances of joining Disney somehow were raised, just because Eisner was no longer part of the picture.

But think about it. Why would Jobs be so vocal about getting rid of Eisner unless he wanted Disney to partner/buy-out Pixar? Did he make any other vocal demands about any other distribution company? Any? Not that I know of. Did he even mention any other distribution company at all in any of his press conferences? Again, not that I know of. Why would he keep all other business meetings secret, but tell anyone who cared to listen, even if it had nothing to do with them, that he wanted Eisner to leave Disney? To me, this shows that most of what Jobs was saying, if not all of it, was purely to benefit himself and Pixar, and he was using the media to help with his "negotiations".

Don't think that Jobs had Disney's well being at heart when he was talking about Eisner. Jobs is a billionaire businessman, and you don't become billionaire businessmen unless you put yourself and your company first at all times.

I'm sure Eisner too was a billionaire businessman. I'm sure both Eisner and Jobs had strong views on how to go forward, and often those views were at odds. Eisner wanted what was best for him and Disney, Jobs wanted what was best for him and Pixar. So it would most likely suit Jobs to get rid of Eisner. But deep down, I don't think Jobs or Pixar considered any other possibility other than partnering with Disney again. It was simply the most logical and nautural choice. So I don't think Iger was instrumental for getting Pixar on board.

But like I say, he probably gave more concessions and was willing to pay more for Pixar than Eisner would. Perhaps that means Iger demonstrates less clearly defined leadership than Eisner did?

History will show if the Pixar deal was more advantagous to Disney or to Pixar - specifically Jobs, who has a lot of Disney shares as a result, and its dangerous to let individuals or like minded groups have too many shares...

2099net wrote:


PS

Bellegirl - not to pick on you or anything - but it seems a little off to credit Eisner with Atlantis' failures. After all, the project was a dream project for successful animation directors Trousdale and Wise. If Eisner didn't let his creative staff make what they wanted to make, I'd say he'd be more open to critisism.

I don't recall crediting Eisner with Atlantis' failures. Just read my post again!
I only wrote that I prefer an ' old fashioned' fairy tale with a heart to an experimental Scifi without one.

And don't mistake me, I DO welcome different types of stories, the more the better! And I do like Scifi in general. But for me a Disney movie must have a heart. I like "Lilo and Stich" for instance, but ' Atlantis' left me cold.

this isn't even a debate. I despise that guy. he has even publicly said that hes not in the business for the disney magic. that its all about money. that's something Walt would have gone against, I'm sure.

and it was obvious that Eisner has/had no respect for the characters we cherish so much once he got trigger happy with the countless sequels and crap. he even claimed that the public today would not watch a mickey cartoon in the theatres. that he doesn't have enough appeal with today's audience. that's BS. mickey is the company's mascot for crying out loud. make a good movie with him in it, and people will go see it.

there's just so many reasons Id never want him anywhere near this company again. Ive barely scratched the surface.

I think anybody that has categorically written off Eisner needs to read an excellent book by James B. Stewart - "Disney War".

In 2005, Michael Eisner was forced to leave the Walt Disney Company after serving as its head honcho for almost twenty years. To some this was a cause for great joy. A large number of Disney fans and employees alike had felt that Eisner was running the company into the ground. Others simply couldn't understand what the fuss was all about. Disney War, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James B. Stewart, tries to discover where it all went wrong for Eisner. Opening just before Eisner took over in 1984, we are taken through the highs and lows of his often rocky career. We see his early successes; the "renaissance" of animation; the creation of Touchstone and new theme parks (including the near-disaster that was EuroDisney); the often vindictive relationship he had with Jeffrey Katzenberg and Michael Ovitz and the cathartic one he had with the late Frank Wells. Indeed, Stewart's book would seem to imply that Wells' death was where it all began to go wrong for Eisner. Disney War is written by a journalist, albeit a very good one, and as such the book can sometimes feel very "he said, she said." By the same token, the way that Stewart lays out the facts from several perspectives allows us to judge for ourselves how we feel about the players in this particular piece of history. We get a picture of man that was led astray, rather than the demonic visage that his detractors would often paint. After all, for all of Eisner's later troubles, it is hard to deny the evidence of some of the great work he did for Disney. Like or hate Michael Eisner, you will certainly have a different perspective on him by the time you finish reading this just under 600 page tome.

I have nothing against Michael Eisner... I mean how could I not respect the one who gave me my favorite Disney movies (Aladdin, Lion King, BatB, Little Mermaid).

I remember him introducing Brave Little Toaster on some recording I have on tape from sooo long ago lol.

Also I have a feeling that if Eisner was still there the company would be doing SOMETHING with the Muppets! If I'm not mistaken, Eisner was the one who had wanted the Muppets for such a long time and it seemed like he got kicked out around the same time.

Yeah, the whole Muppet-thing is another reason why I don't hate Eisner.

I think it'd be fair to accept and acknowledge that Eisner was the right man in the right place at the right time. For a few years, that is - and he wasn't entirely alone during that time either.

blackcauldron85 wrote: 4. Iger could be the one to bring us "Song of the South" on DVD. We don't know this, but he's more likely to than Eisner was.

I thought Iger was the reason we didn't get the SotS 60th Anniversary Edition DVD. I remember him saying that he himself called it off in a press release.

As for Sequels, EVERY movie studio is making sequels at a ridculous rate and Disney is simply jumping on the band wagon, which may be the issue that Disney should be doing it's own thing and setting it's own trends.

As for Muppets, something should be done to use them more (Great Muppet Movie Ride) so that it doesn't look like Disney has been wasting all it's time with these characters.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:As for Sequels, EVERY movie studio is making sequels at a ridculous rate and Disney is simply jumping on the band wagon, which may be the issue that Disney should be doing it's own thing and setting it's own trends.

Except that other studios' track records have proven much better than Disney, especially with treating their classics to sequels.

Are you both talking about animated sequels or sequels to live-action films? I'm asking because many live-action films had had sequels, but the only non-Disney animated sequels I can think of from a while ago are "Fivel Goes West" and the "Land Before Time" movies. Without "The Return of Jafar", "Aladdin and the King of Thieves", and all the sequels from the turn of the century (the 21st Century, I mean), (in addition to the "Land Before Time" films), would "Ice Age 2" or "Shrek 2" had been made? I think that other companies jumped on Disney's bandwagon.