Disney troubles? Michael Eisner? Roy Disney? Whats it all about?!

DJ Disney Kid

Walt Disney World Vet
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
2,443
Can someone explain to me why Michael Eisner was so bad for Disney? Other than the huge mistake of not securing Pixar, what other issues did he have? And if Roy Disney saw him as a bad leader, why was he championing for a new leader, rather than lead Disney himself? I mean, he IS Walts brother! I'd just like to know what it was all about. Thanks!
 
Well, it's hard to get into that in a forum, but there are several books that have been written about Eisner's run as Disney's leader.

By the way, Roy is Walt's nephew, and the son of the elder Roy, who was Walt's brother. Roy (Walt's brother) died about a month after WDW opened in 1971.
 
Not sure Bob Iger is a lot better. But they're making tons of money anyway.
 

I think the long and short of it is, Eisner is trying to change what Walt created Disney to be. I don't think the Disney family wanted it to be a thrill park, but instead a family place. There is so much more, but I agree with Bob P, it is hard to get into here. As LIGrumpyGirl said, read Disney Wars. :)
 
I don't think that Eisner was all that bad for Disney. I think he just got stale. He had a vision and a map to follow when he first took over and his partner, who's name old age has caused me to forget, had a lot of stuff to do. Eisner and partner (Frank Something, I think) had lots of room to do stuff and create. When Frank(?) died in an accident I think Eisner found himself with no one to trust and had to make his own decisions. Not all were good ones.

Roy felt that the direction Eisner was moving was in conflict with the original wish of Walt Disney and the Disney family. Even though Roy was instrumental in getting Eisner there to begin with, he later turned on Eisner and Eisner on him. Roy Jr. never had the abilities of his Father and certainly not of Walt's. All he had was the Family name and fortune and certain abilities brought about by a lifetime of exposure to the Disney empire.

How this will all end is still to be seen. Roy was successful in his quest to remove Eisner but the choice of his replacement still has to prove itself to be the right one. It appears that Disney is having one of it's best years in a long time. That could be the change in leadership, the additional promotion brought about by Disneyland's 50th or just a change in the public priorities. If 9/11 taught us nothing else it is that there is no guarantee of tomorrow so rack up life while you can. Whatever the case may be, here's hoping that Disney continues to be able to provide entertainment for all ages and tastes, that's what made it great and what will keep it great. Are you listening Bob?
 
I think Eisner was good for the company in that he had a very good business sense. Perhaps he overstayed his welcome. That's why Katzenberg designed Lord Forquard from Shrek as a satire of Eisner. (I'm butchering the spelling of some of these names). I think Iger may have been a bad choice because now it's time to bring the Disney magic back into the mix. And I don't really see it yet.

Take for instance the Trip Planning DVD (which I finally got). It's not nearly as good as those in the past, it seems like too much of a sales brochure to me. It's very business, not magic. If Roy wants to insert his authority again, he needs to look at his father/uncle's model. Walt was the front man, the visionary, Roy was the behind the scenes, get it done type. The company needs to re-establish that.

To tie this into the park. . .one thing I would like to see stop is the tie-in of every attraction to a new movie. Somethings don't need updating, and some of the classic films are still capable of supporting their attraction. Heck, how many children have even seen "Song of the South"? Do we really want to see a "BTMRR" movie? Maelstrom would make a very odd movie as well. . .
 
Can someone explain to me what this has to do with TPAS?
 
Generally, many people view public figures, like Eisner or Iger, from the perspective of how the actions of those public figures personally affected them rather than from an objective perspective judging the public figure against the objectives the public figure set out to achieve. (Indeed, this phenomenon is apparent even with regard to folks who are not public figures -- many people tend to judge others based on the their own values rather than based on the values of the person they're judging.) From some perspectives, the folks who ran Disney before Eisner were the worst leaders of Disney, ever, because their actions and inactions almost led Disney into bankruptcy. By contrast, Eisner led Disney to preeminence in the media industry, which was his goal, regardless of whether or not preeminence was what any one individual customer wanted or appreciated. So folks who feel their own personal desires and goals with respect to Disney were under-achieved due to Disney pursuing its own goals would clearly see Eisner's tenure in a negative light. Meanwhile, the people who actually owned Disney, the investors, generally view Eisner's tenure, as a whole, in a very positive light.

Iger is Eisner's hand-picked successor, and while he's taken a different tack in some respects, many of the same people who condemned Eisner, at least towards the end of his tenure, are now condemning Iger and remarkably actually waxing poetically referring to Eisner's tenure as the "good old days". This is because Disney continues to operate in the real world, where the real-world pressures imposed on every company apply, such as cost containment, the push by owners for significant returns, increasing competition from new technology, outlets, pursuits, as well as from abroad.
 
Theme Park Attractions and Strategies
 
I think this topic has been rehashed over the years many times, and on better choices of forums than TPAS.
This is an old topic by now and should be moved.
 
Read Disney War, then read any other book that you can get on how Disney has worked.

Michael Eisner was an incompetant boor with ridiculously terrible managment skills.
He also considered himself an artist though he can lay claim to absolutly nothing artistic. He's been shunned by his peers and conspired to remove as much of "The Dead Guy's" legacy as he possibly could.


BoB Iger seems like a genuine enough man, but his talents are in distribution. He has no knowledge of how to run a content creation company. He's had a few epihanys, but he lacks the talent to act on them and the entire company is still staffed by Eisner drones incapable of changing managment styles.

Iger closed the loop on Pixar because he had to to keep his job.
In short, Iger may be a nice guy, but he's in over his head.


Anyone who waxes poetic for Eisner's good old days is ridiculous. I think you may be misinterpreting that. Nobody misses Eisner. They miss the company that Eisner hadn't had a chance to destroy yet.
 
YoHo said:
In short, Iger may be a nice guy, but he's in over his head.

Shockingly, I think you may be jumping the gun a little bit.

And I say some great things happened under Eisner run :stir:
 
And again we immediatly dive into a side conversation with no actual bearing on the discussion. Of course some great things were done. Eisner didn't destroy the place in a day. Just because the old guard managed to crank out a few gems doesn't mean that Michael Eisner wasn't a useless turd of an executive.
 
YoHo said:
And again we immediatly dive into a side conversation with no actual bearing on the discussion. Of course some great things were done. Eisner didn't destroy the place in a day. Just because the old guard managed to crank out a few gems doesn't mean that Michael Eisner wasn't a useless turd of an executive.

I did that for fun but it is related.
 
the folks who ran Disney before Eisner were the worst leaders of Disney, ever, because their actions and inactions almost led Disney into bankruptcy.
The old lie is back once again I see. People must understand that simply repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.

I suppose it’s easy for some without any first hand knowledge of the company nor any first hand knowledge of the entertainment industry to continue believing in falsehoods, especially when they have to push their own agenda. But ignoring the real history leads only to erroneous statements and false conclusions. Real damage is done when “basement experts” post their false conclusions as facts. Fortunately, there are people out here who actually know what happened, actually saw it happen first hand, and continue to deal with Disney and its industry.

Throughout the whole period of the “old” leadership – Disney remained the ONLY Hollywood studio to neither go bankrupt (as with 20th Century Fox, MGM, RKO) nor to be sold off to an conglomerate (as with Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal, Columbia). To be the only one standing as all of your competitors fall is hardly the mark of the “worst leaders”. In fact, the only time an offical offer to take over the company was becasue of Michael Eisner - the Comcast proposal.

The problems started not with business problems, but with a long standing feud inside the Company – the mutual dislike between the “Walt” side and the “Roy” side. After the passing of the two brothers, Walt Disney’s son-in-law, Ron Miller, slowly garnered more power than Roy’s son, Roy E. Over time Roy E. grew resentful enough simply to take his money and go away. But after a series of financial failings, Roy decided that he should really be running Disney (and that the company needed to make more millions for him so he continue playing with his yachts and Irish castles). He started a series of events that financially weakened Disney and left the company to be preyed upon by other corporate raiders.

Despite the damaging being done, Roy persisted and eventually convinced the Bass Brothers of Texas to buy a sufficient amount of stock to control the company. They hired Frank Wells, a former executive at Warner Brothers, to run the company and the calm the jittery nerves of Wall Street. Roy E. forced the board to fire Ron Miller and to install his people into the company.

Mr. Wells, knowledgeable of the Hollywood game, knew that the company needed someone with “street cred” to please the Tinsel Town Elite (Frank Wells ran the business side of Warner, but had limited experience with the creative side). After several names were batted around, they selected Michael Eisner, who at the time was being shoved out the door at Paramount (because never Paramount nor their parent company wanted to put up with him any more after Eisner’s failure to create a new Paramount TV network).

So the management structure was set – Frank Wells would actually run the company while Michael Eisner took lunches at Spago to convince Robin Williams to put down the coke spoon long enough to make a movie.

In fact, all of the “great things” that Eisner is falsely credited with – The Disney Channel, mainstream motion pictures, a return to television, expanding the resorts at WDW, The Disney Stores, and other were all started by Ron Miller.

What Roy Disney or Frank Wells had counted on was Eisner’s uncontrollable ego. But that’s another story.

For people interested in the what really happened, please read Storming the Magic Kingdom by John Taylor. It was written as the events unfolded with the cooperation of people that were there. It’s out of print, but can usually be found on any large used book website (Amazon.com lists several).
 
Another Voice said:
The old lie is back once again I see. People must understand that simply repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.
Repeated denials of reality don't make them true. Needless to say, reasonable people disagree about the specifics. What cannot be deined, however, is that Eisner elevated a very badly hurting Disney Company to the top shelf of the media industry.
 
Bicker, do you really dispute any of the facts set forth in A-V's e-mail?

Your claim that Disney was close to bankruptcy pre-Eisner is patently false. The company was not insolvent in 1984; rather, it was a potential takeover target because its stock was undervalued, and the company had assets that were not being fully exploited.

Leaving aside all of the other issues that you will, as usual, dismiss as personal issues rather than legitimate long-term business concerns, wasn't Eisner's job to maximize shareholder value, rather than just grow the company? Do you think Eisner performed that role well for his entire term?
 
Oh gosh. Some moderator moved this thread on to the Rumors board, home of the Eisner Bashers of America.

pn000912_0_ucc.jpg

 



New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top