CNNfn Article: Vultures Circling Disney

[barreloflaughs]

Check out this article on CNNfn.com:

Mickey's house on block to get bought out, Vivendi, MSFT, GE, Comcast likely buyers (http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/07/25/deals/disney/)

Vultures circling?
Eisner entrenched?
Takeover 3-5 years off?

I believe this is the just the beginning of a very ugly time for Uncle Walt's company.:(

Any thoughts?

barrel of laughs

[mmdisney]

My thoughts....

After reading that article I feel ill.... The look of Las Veges added to the EPCOT ball and now the awful looking Sorcerer's hat come to mind.... This all started when they painted the Castle pink in 97!

My trhoughts are pretty much summed up in 2 words.
FIRE EISNER

He has had his rise and now his fall. Creativity at Disney is at an all time low. We knew Atlantis was a bust before it ever it the screen. You take away Love and music from a flick and replace it with a G.I. Joe looking muscle man, that is what happens. This company has really drifted far away from what I called "magic" not so long ago. They had it all, they had something that worked. Then they went nuts and started wasting $$flow on things like the word EPCOT to Spaceship earth and a HORRIBLE looking woodcut of mickey's hand. That was an outrage. It cheapened the look. Furthermore, Disney has struggled quite a bit in getting people to even utter the word Disney lately. And now it will be Microsoft World. That is SCARy!

Makes me ill. EISNET GET THE HECK OUT OF THERE.

Another thought comes to mind, though.....

Ovith and Katzenberg..... and that company, um, ya know the one that has the real nice opening on just about EVERY HIT movie now..DREAMWORKS....

They screwed us when they got rid of Jeff.

And Mike has just let it go.... they do not even paint the posts on main street every night anymore, or change lightbulbs.... on the trainstation, but heck, lets put an awful looking yellow starred hat in the middle of MGM.... arghhhhhhh

The parks are starting to look like the ALL STARS resorts.....

MMC

[DisDuck]

This article is just a bunch of analysists speculating on what 'they' think will/would happen. NOT NECESSARILY WHAT 'DISNEY' WANTS.

[johare]

Disney has spent the past few years putting themselves in a position where what they WANT isn't going to matter. They are a publicly held company and investors are getting tired of Eisner doing everything he can to sink the company.

[barreloflaughs]

Originally posted by DisDuck
This article is just a bunch of analysists speculating on what 'they' think will/would happen.

Exactly. The article is nothing but 'informed' speculation. The problem for Disney is that the Wall Street recognizes that there are issues and are openly speculating on what the consequences may be. Speculation and rumor on an internet discussion board like this is one thing. When the analysts start getting into the game the audience gets much larger. Eisner and company do not need bad press from these guys right now.

Hopefully the added pressure will force some change for the good!

barrel of laughs

[Another Voice]

You know that video all of the news programs are showing with the sharks frenzy and the dead whale? Remember that image in six months…

Like the whale, Disney won’t be eaten in a single bite. There will be several players involved.

Expect interesting times after the AT&T Broadband affair is settled. The pack likes to go after only one meal at a time.

The FCC has already made it know they don’t want a single media corporation owning two of the four networks, and the WB network might be included in this group as well. But, the ABC network is highly disposable and Vivendi/Universal has enough cash to buy whatever changes Congress needs to make.

The idea that Eisner is entrenched is laughable – he’ll pull the plug the very second someone empties a truckload of cash on his desk.

Disney gets into trouble every time its parts become more valuable than Disney as a whole. With film and the stores sucking the life out of the parks, with the library of old films worth more than the new output from the studio, and with a swarm of non-profitable, non-core business that are kept alive only through constant theme-park cash infusions, the company is back in the same situation it was before Mr. Eisner showed up with cup in hand.

[*Robin*]

Ok, please forgive me, I'm truly not very business savvy, but don't the stockholders have something to say about what Eisner is doing? I somehow thought that they could get rid of the creep...and if things are this horrible, why aren't they?

I seriously don't understand...sorry if it's a not so intelligent question...

:rolleyes:

Robin

[Testtrack321]

First, to buy Disney will cost all of those componies BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS. Most of those componies are worth less than it will cost to buy out Disney. Second, Comcast is planning to buy out AT&T cable which will cost a few billion and Microsoft is under hot fire. Buy buying the biggest name in entertainment will just get the feds just more PO'd...

Highly douht that Disney will EVER get bought out. Think of the New Coak thing, only this time about Disney (mass anti-(insert name or buyer) rallies)

[Coronado Williams]

Originally posted by *Robin*
Ok, please forgive me, I'm truly not very business savvy, but don't the stockholders have something to say about what Eisner is doing? I somehow thought that they could get rid of the creep...and if things are this horrible, why aren't they?

I seriously don't understand...sorry if it's a not so intelligent question...

:rolleyes:

Robin

The overwhelming majority of Disney's shares are owned by an ultra-rich power elite that are either too rich and/or too busy to be overly concerned about Disney's performance, or are somehow connected with Eisner. Frankly, what Joe Blow the Stockholder thinks about Disney's performance means little if nothing to the company.

[johare]

First, to buy Disney will cost all of those componies BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS.

I'm not so sure there is a single company in the world which would cost even $1 trillion, let alone TRILLIONS.

AOL is worth about 4 times what Disney is worth and Microsoft is worth about 7 times the value of Disney. Even Vivendi Universal has a higher market cap than Disney does right now.

Think of the New Coke thing, only this time about Disney (mass anti-(insert name or buyer) rallies)

I don't think many would care if Disney were to be bought out...in fact, I'm sure that many would be happy if it was.

[Testtrack321]

I don't think many would care if Disney were to be bought out...in fact, I'm sure that many would be happy if it was.

I know 28749 people off the top of my head who would oppose it.

But even people who never went to WDW or DL have some respect for Disney. Most of them grew up with him in Wonderful World of Disney. When they went to war they saw the pro-American Disney fillms and drank pro-American Coke. The fact is that anyone who tries to buy out Disney will be demed anti-american. This is a unique compony and the american would not support such a fendish deed.

[johare]

Sorry, you are WAY wrong. If another company buys Disney, few will care and even fewer (if any) would deem that company anti-American.

[supamaki]

What I don't understand is why Disney doesn't re-release classics like Snow White as they did in the past. These are already made movies, that the only cost they would have attached is advertising. They are like instant cash influxes, that aren't being used.

[All Aboard]

Supermaki, two words - home video.

[YoHo]

the Comcast Deal isn't set and done last I heard. It seems we are cursed to live in interesting times. :)

[supamaki]

Home video aside, people would still pay to go see classics on the Big Screen. Or what about Non released titles like Lion King, or hard to get one's like Song of the South.

[YoHo]

Ion King was released to Home Video, I have a copy. Song of the south will never be shown or sold publicly in any form again.

[supamaki]

Oh, right, I forgot about Lion King's release. But still I think people would go see Pinnichio, Snow White, and other classics if they were on a big screen. Parents seeing them w/their children the way they saw them, maybe. Or is the price to bring a family to the movies too much these days??

[All Aboard]

Actually, there are no unrealeased Disney animated features, I've got all of them. I guess that selling video tapes (now DVD's) periodically generates more $ than theatrical re-releases.

However, we might see some of the neo-classics back in theaters. Isn't Beauty and the Beast supposed to hit the big screen next year? I've heard rumor that several others may, as well. AV, any "insider" info??

[Another Voice]

Disney’s strategy on home video and theatrical releases changes every year as they struggle to find a way to maximize the amount of revenue from each film. The current plans goes like this: A “classic” film will have its home video terminated for several years (likely between five and seven) in an attempt to build up demand: tapes break, discs are lost, new families start up collections, etc. As a way of “launching” the video re-release, a “plussed” version of the film will be put into theaters as a marketing vehicle. After the theatrical release, the film will be put out on DVD (high-end) and video tape (medium end) for a limited time before it gets put into the vault again.

For ‘Beauty and The Beast’, the film will be released into IMAX theaters in a similar fashion to ‘Fantasia 2000’ was. And the ‘Human Again’ scene, which was cut from the film but reappeared for the stage play, will be put into the new version of the film. Following the IMAX run, the film will be re-released onto home video for everyone to re-purchase. If this works, expect other classics to follow roughly every year.

As for ‘Song of the South’ – this film will probably be released at some point in the future when its potential revenue exceeds the controversy. There was the beginnings of a plan for a release, but Disney’s trouble with the incident with a radio station here in Los Angeles nixed those plans. With the growing controversy that’s starting to form around ‘Dumbo’, ‘Song’ has been pushed way into the back of the vault. Although ‘Song’ is current release in Europe and Japan if you really want a copy

I just love a double standard.

[vernon]

None of these points are connected

Don't aggressive take overs usually cause a rise in stock prices as the aggressor "bids up" for the shares. So , for shareholders news like this should be good news.

Would these same "informed" experts be the same ones that have labels virtually every major stock a "buy, accumulate or hold" have you noticed that very rarely do they label a share as a sell. Very few of them have had a good track record over the recent falling market. IMHO they are "flapping their gums" because they have little to talk about. Mergers and aquisitions are in a lull at the moment so they need to make up something different in order to justify their own employment.

Would a take over be a bad thing? Given that Walt Disney Inc has been not very " Disneyesque" in its corporate behaviour over the last few years and maximising profits to the detriment of the customer has been of paramount importance. This chase for the $ has led to a reduction in numbers through the gate. Woud it not make more sense for any purchaser to return, the Theme parks at least, to a more "service" related mentality and hope that the result is higher numbers for both park and hotel attendances. IMHO investing in a WDW wide transport system ( other than busses and linking hotels to each other) would increase the allure of staying on site, and reducing costs of WDW HOTEL restaurants would increase their profitability by increasing their occupancy rates. The parks are still major providers of liquidity and IMHO unlikely to be adversely affected, there are many other areas of Disney that are not very efficient and possibly a different management could improve those areas.

I can't see the point of buying a major institution like Disney whose name is probably it's biggest asset, simply to destroy that name. It would make more sense to me that anyone wishing toi do so , would want to return to the days when Disney was a byword for quality and integrity. JMHO

[Paul in CT]

Disney could also buy AT&T Broadband to get the "pipes" they need. I'm sure they could find the financing. After all, the best defense is a good offense. I, for one, would like to see it.

[Bork]

Maybe The Oriental Land Company would be interested in taking over the theme parks. They really see to understand what Walt wanted his parks to be. And they understand that it takes money to get money. People notice quality.

But back to the topic at hand. In these days of mega mergers, nothing is impossible. I could see Disney being bought whole or in parts. The ABC/Capitol Cities part, the movie studios like Touchstone, Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, sports teams, cruise line, stores. But if someone bought the traditional Disney part (Theme parks and animation), they could buy it and keep the Disney name. A takeover could mean an infusion of cash and high standards, or it could mean bleeding the Disney name dry. (Like the Vivendi deal. Will they invest in the Theme parks or just use them for cash flow)

I think Disney will stay independent. But a complete management overhaul would be needed. We could be headed back to the early 80's where everyone is trying to take over Disney until Eisner and Wells were brought in. Hopefully some new management with vision who see the long-term and will uphold the quality and family values as Walt did. Is Roy up to another round of battles?

[Captain Crook]

Responding to your first paragraph: You must have missed the thread by J. Thornhill, now residing on page 2, entitled "The Truth about Tokyo Disneyland, Disney & OLC"...Read the attachments, I think you'll find it interesting...:p
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Bork]

Thanks for the note. That was a very enlightening article. So we need someone with deep pockets to pay the bills for Disney.

[JeffJewell]

we need someone with deep pockets to pay the bills for Disney ...what we need is a CEO who would consider spending a billion or so on his Imagineering Department and high-end attractions and animations to create entertaining experiences, rather than one who drops $5 billion on a cable channel and the Power Rangers, to create re-runs.

Jeff

[Captain Crook]

Bork and Jeff, either of your suggestions will work!:D
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[YoHo]

Question, Is there a difference between what we the WDW lovers need (ie better parks) different from what Disney as a company needs?

are our requirments, our wish lists too much for the Disney Company to bare right now? After all, Universal has quieted some.
Are we demanding something unreasonable right now, given the economic situation? I'm not trying to defend or villify Eisner or anyone else, just wondering if what we want, what we think will work is even the correct way to think.

Personally, given that we seem to be back to the financial doldrums of the 70's/early 80's I'm wondering if it isn't right to let the parks simmer a while and right the filmed entertainment/television ship. Much as Katzenberg/Eisner/Wells did 15 years or so ago.

To heck with the theme parks.

[Captain Crook]

Yoho, you are right, we Disney nuts (particularily the Park nuts) do expect more than what we'll receive. Right now is bad times, right? But attendance at WDW is down 1%, while the Resorts are off 7%. Now, this is a worriesome factor to Disney, but in the short term only. The attendane & resort figures correlate directly to the economy and not as some peoples percieved threats from other parks or even poor performance. Disney really has no had no indicators that anything is wrong with the Parks (except DCA & AK - which I believe will be addressed). Otherwise DL & WDW don't seem broken. That's why I don't think we'll ever see a major Disney Seas type project at an existing American Park - How could it possibly pay for itself and what about the cannabilization affect it may have on the other parks or how could the other parks even measure up? These are concerns that I'm sure Disney see's and why I think any huge, innovative development in the USA will be a new destination...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Bork]

It's not so much that Disney has slowed the building at the parks. What many people have a problem with is how existing attractions are being left to deteriorate, how attractions are being closed without replacements, and how the recent attractions (and films) aren't up to level of quality that we are used to in Disney. The Disney name is being cheapened.

Investers are leaving in droves because they don't see a long term vision from Disney management. They want growth potential. Management is trying to cut their way to profits and that doesn't work long-term. They are sacrificing the future for present profits. The customers won't always blindly accept everything with the Disney name, if the quality continues to slide. Eventually, the name loses it's value and then the company is in real trouble.

And what about Japan? Japan has been in recession for years now. But people are still coming to Disneyland in droves. Why? Because OLC keeps investing in top-notch attractions. In the US, why should people pay top dollar to go to a Disney park, for a new ride that they can ride at the local Six Flags for less money.

Are people staying away because of slow economic times? Partially. But if Disney continued to build cutting-edge, quality attractions like they used to build, people would still be coming in droves. People will pay for quality.

Until Disney starts looking long-term again and seeing that quality does matter, profits will never return to where they once were and investers will continue to leave.

[Captain Crook]

But Bork, the problem isn't with the theme parks, so it makes no difference in the scheme of things whether attendance fluctuates by a few percentage points or if the hotels are only 85% full instead of 95%. The general masses are still satisfied with WDW and profitabilty is still no problem so Disney see's no incentive to make huge improvements and investors aren't leaving Disney because of the Parks, I think it's the other arms (that Disney still needs in order to remain independent) that are causing the mediocrity or brand deterioration if that, in fact, is happening (I'm not sure I agree, yet).
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[larworth]

To heck with the theme parks

Before I bothered to respond, I waited to see if the news wire had any reports of a mysterious lightning bolt striking somewhere in Chicago. I have not heard of any so I will presume you are still there YoHo.

I'm sure some of our expectations are a little unreasonable, given the soft economy. We know that it takes unusual courage to keep investing for the longterm when profits are down. I just would have hoped that the wizard would have bestowed a little courage on the organization, instead of getting rid of the lions.

This is one of the reasons I continue to be so frustrated with their actions over the last five years. At a time when profits were good and the economy boomed, if they had just been spending as they could have afforded to, than maybe attendance would only be down 2% today, or mayber even flat. Heck, if they had a big E ticket to go along with Walt's 100th celebration who knows what attendance might look like?

I don't see that the cure for turning around the film division as pumping more money into it. Is it suffering from a lack of funds to turn out more movies, or hire good talent? I don't know what the problems are, but they sound more cultural than fiscal.

[YoHo]

And what about Japan? Japan has been in recession for years now. But people are still coming to Disneyland in droves. Why? Because
That assumes that Japanese tourists and American tourists act and think the same which simply isn't true. Disneyland Tokyo is the undisputed king of all worldwide amusment parks with something like 12million guests a year. What works there does not translate into what works here.


I would agree that basic maintainence and ride closers without replacements was valid if it weren't for the fact that our complaining has forced a mini-turn around. I recall a report a couple months ago that all lights in the park were being replaced with longerlasting bulbs and that park maintainence was coming back.

Ride closure without replacement is a tricky beast, I suspect the logic is, "Look we've opened animal kingdom, there are your new rides." Again, we are in a unique position in that we care a lot more then the average person. have we lost in terms of ride count? not when you look across the whole resort.

More interesting to me is that if you go to the wonderful yesterland site, you'll see tons of rides that were pulled from DisneyLAND without replacment in the late 80's early 90's. To little complaint.
So I'm willing to give the company a very little leeway in this area. After all, the fact that AK is an apparent failure doesn't change the fact that I now have more attractions then before.


Ride refurbishment is more thorny. I've heard numerous complaints that Pirates needs to be refurbished, yet it was for like 2.5 month's last year closed for refurbishment. Others like CoP are likely biding their time waiting for a replacment.

[JeffJewell]

DL & WDW don't seem broken. ...they used to be "Magic," now they "don't seem broken."

I can't lower my expectations far enough to applaud "don't seem broken" as any kind of major achievement.

I mean, isn't the obvious trend disturbing enough now, while perhaps something could be done? Do we have to wait until things appear "broken" to one hundred percent of the rose-colored-glasses brigade before it's appropriate to address this? If we were on the Titanic, would we have to be under water before you'd think we might need to fetch a lifeboat?

Jeff

[YoHo]

Larworth, Unfortunatly, the storm clouds moved away after yesterday. And in my impervious bunker, I was safe from any errant bolts (I believe the cloud type is Cumulis Landbaroness)

I will agree to a certain lack of courage, Certainly during the dark times of the early 90's recession, Ei$ner and the company had for lack of a better term mopre BALLS. That is disappointing, but itdoesn't change the fact that the problems don't really lie in the theme park division and while we would like to see more money diverted there. After all Disney Did spend big, They built aniomal kingdom (they just didn't spend as big as they told us they would). In fact, I would suggest that Disney would have been better off not spending and leaving the parkinglot where DCA now sits.

[YoHo]

Jeff, now we tread lightly back into the realm of Perception.

I find it quite magical that The Head of WDW's Secretary called back numerous Email/letter writers to thank them and assure that their concerns and comments went to the appropriate people.

I question when somebody tells me Disney is no longer magical and then points to Universal saying look at spiderman the ride. What? one good ride (or even one great park)makes the other guy not magical?


We've heard confirmation that the maintainence situation is improving and I'm sure that Landbaron, gcurling, the captain and the rest will let us know the current status starting next week.

Doesn't seem to be broken =still magical in terms of this discussion. I am quite aware that you fully disagree with that. I'm also quite aware that Disney was never only a Theme Park company and the state of the theme parks never was nor will be the only concern.

[Bork]

I hope maintainence is improving, but it shows the short-sightedness of the current management. Save a few bucks now by not doing regular preventive maintainence, but then spent a boatload of money later once it has gotten so bad that it has to be fixed. They don't see that if they spend a few bucks on preventive maintainence now, these huge, expensive rehabs wouldn't be needed as often. And there would be less downtime.

Same with DCA. Save a few bucks during construction, but then have to spend major bucks later to fix all of the problems. Penny wise, dollar foolish. There's no long-term vision any more.

I'll agree that theme parks aren't the major problem. But the same problems we're seeing in the theme parks are also in the other areas, just magnified. Pearl Harbor and other movies don't do as well as planned because the main focus was on making money, not on the quality, creativity, and storyline. Instead of using Millionaire as a starting point for ABC to build upon, they milk it for all it's worth and it get's overexposed, leaving ABC in a mess. The emphasis is on short-term profits without a long-term vision.

They need to invest in the creative people (animation, movies, theme parks). That's how you get long-term results. Look how one Lion King movie meant profits for all divisions. Invest in quality and creativity and the profits will come.

[JeffJewell]

The Head of WDW's Secretary called back numerous Email/letter writers to thank them and assure that their concerns and comments went to the appropriate people. ...actually, I received one of those calls in response to my letters to Al Weiss, Paul Pressler, and Roy Disney concerning the June cut-fest. They also sent me $100 Disney Dollars. I guess they decided that was more cost effective than actually living up to expectations in the first place.

Calling that process "Magic" is the kind of spin that could get you a job as Pressler's personal copywriter.
I question when somebody tells me Disney is no longer magical and then points to Universal saying look at spiderman the ride. Did anyone do that?
Disney was never only a Theme Park company and the state of the theme parks never was nor will be the only concern I understand that, I was responding to the Captain's post. He seemed to be forgiving a lack of attention and funding to the parks by pointing out there have not yet been financial ramifactions resulting from that lack. I was trying to point out that there used to be other reasons for spending than "we've finally driven off enough customers."

Jeff

[Another Voice]

There is a difference between a showman and a businessman.

A showman knows entertainment is a luxury, but if you create one that enthralls, people will spend any kind of money to experience the thrills. He knows that if the art is a success, than business success will follow.

A businessman sees entertainment as a necessity – something that the public has to buy. His goal is to make you pay as much for your “goods” as he can get away with while spending as little as possible. They use the same techniques that are used to sell gasoline and mouth wash to try to “sell” you movies and theme parks. Art is irrelevant because people will be the movie because of the marketing, not because of the movie itself.

Disney was founded by a showman and is now run by a businessman. It’s time to bring a showman back. Make me WANT to spend my money on Disney products, don’t be content to tell me Disney is just a better product than Brand X.

[Captain Crook]

Sorry I didn't get to respod to this before I had to go, but here goes...

First of all AV, I can't really disagree with your comments and if this can be done (getting a showman in place of the businessman) I'm not against it as long as the Showman can keep Disney independent. I know I may be in a minority but I truly belive Disney would lose its appeal to me if run by Bill Gates whose interest in Disney wold have no Disney roots whatsoever. Eisenr might be a businessman but he's Disney's businessman with nearly 20 years of running'Walt's Company.' Again, I'm very scared of the enemy I don't know!

Jeff, I knew you were addressing me and I think you are confusing what I believe to be true with what I'd really like to happen (my personal dreams). I do see things that Eisner does (has done) from a business perspective and understand them and often support the fundemental decisions, but this doesn't mean that I'm happy with rides being built only in conjunction with movies or reducing Pak hours to promote PI spending, or skimping on projects because the public will accept it, etc. I would like "guest first" initiatives to be of higher priority, too...I just don't think Eisner is ALWAYS a dope for doing some of the business things he has to do...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[HorizonsFan]

I do see things that Eisner does (has done) from a business perspective and understand them and often support the fundemental decisions, but this doesn't mean that I'm happy with rides being built only in conjunction with movies or reducing Pak hours to promote PI spending, or skimping on projects because the public will accept it, etc. I would like "guest first" initiatives to be of higher priority, too...I just don't think Eisner is ALWAYS a dope for doing some of the business things he has to do...

Thank you, Cap'n!
What he said...

[tiggerstheman1]

Marketing over Magic, perhaps that's the real rub.

Make me WANT to spend my money on Disney products, don’t be content to tell me Disney is just a better product than Brand X.

I've been reading the book "Brand Warfare" and A.V.'s quote reminded me of a passage about Levi's. Levi's lost a ton of market share in the 90's because their marketing basically said "Hey, we invented jeans - buy them from us" when the jeans buyers wanted a product that was hip, not traditional. Their arrogance was their Achilles heel.

Is that the Disney message today - "Hey, we invented theme parks - come to ours"? A lot of large corporations have fallen, or nearly fallen with the same mentality. Look at IBM - remember the saying "No one ever got fired by buying from IBM" - they are trying to completely remake themselves after their arrogance got the better of them. So perhaps Disney's problem these days is they quit being hungry.

I'm not sure that I can say that Disney has expanded into generally the wrong areas. Too much competition in the marketplace makes it hard to be a "content-only" company, so I can see them needing to own more channels (if only they don't make them them all rerun channels). I see the cruise line as an extension of the resort business, you can get a room on land or on the sea and have a great vacation either way.

In the film business I'm very excited to see P.D. do so well it's opening weekend. It truely is a wonderful movie - just what made Disney successful. The film business is one in which I think Disney has lost it's way and perhaps it's now found it. Good, simple, fun, family movies are what Disney used to do best. They need to come home. Is P.D. going to win Academy Awards for best screenplay? Don't think so. However, it will do what it is supposed to do, give people a fun time for a couple of hours.

My feeling is that the films, and I see it in the animation lately, tried to be cool and trendy. It's like someone trying to join the in-crowd and always looking out of place. That's Disney of late. Remember some of the interviews surrounding Atlantis? While a beautiful piece of work, they forgot some of the elements that sets a Disney Animated Film apart. They wanted to get rid of the songs, tell a cooler story with action. Okay, guys, you just abandoned your base.

Perhaps it's just a cynicism in general, that people think that if they make a movie with a happy ending, that makes you feel good, you haven't made anything good. Only by showing life as it is, harsh, and hard, have you made something worthwhile. That's where they are wrong. How did Disney lose it in the first place? Abandoned family stories and tried to move into "serious" films (like The Black Hole). How many times do people have to forget that a movies that families can see tend to do better.

Okay, the soapbox is now free.

[Another Voice]

There are “rumors” going around town that a couple of new business books are been written about how “Disney lost it” – a classic case study in brand management. I truly do wish that everyone could see California Adventure so they can see just how lazy Disney has gotten. At its core, Disney is a content creation company but it has lost it willingness to try to create. Instead it’s been slapping its name on any product that it can find, hoping that the public won’t notice.

And Captain, sir. Remember that Mr. Eisner did not have any Disney connection when he and his gang took over the company. If he could “learn”, why couldn’t a new person?

[Captain Crook]

And Captain, sir. Remember that Mr. Eisner did not have any Disney connection when he and his gang took over the company. If he could "learn", then why couldn't a new person?
He could and I'm ok with that, but isn't it ok for me to worry that it could be a "worse case scenerio" as well?

I hope if Eisner is replaced it is by somebody who revered Walt, is a business maven and a man of incredible imagination and forsight...Do we know of anyone like that? I'm not saying Eisner is even close to these attributes but (for me) I know what Eisner is and I'm still scared of that guy we don't yet know...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth: