Ei$ner to STEP DOWN !!!!!

[KNWVIKING]

Who out there on anybodies short list totally trusts Walt and Roy's (Sr.) business plan and would be willing to implement it again ? Someone willing to spend whatever it takes to " give them everything you can... " while at the same time being satisfied with a 5% annual return (ala Roy Sr.) ? Is there a candidate out there that not only "gets it" but also has the brass to "do it" ? Because if there isn't anyone like that.... how'd the old Who song go ...... "same as the old boss" ?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by raidermatt
I would. As profitable as the [PIXAR] deal has been, it would have been more profitable to make the larger committment of building it (and sticking with it) in-house. Particularly in the long run.

The deal was a way to mitigate risk, i.e. decrease committment.

Of course if you believe Disney was not capable of achieving the success that Pixar did, maybe the reluctance to maintain a committment makes sense. But that just raises the question of why that situation came to be.

This is a prime example of where Eisner hit a home run, but the folks in the rear cars can't bear to give him any credit.

The deal was not about mitigating risk, as Disney bore all of the production costs of the films. Rather, it was about selecting the best strategic partner to pursue the CGI business. Pixar had a great head start in the technology, and a good creative team. It was (is, will continue to be?) a great partnership.

Don't underestimate the importance of Pixar's technological advantages in CGI at the time the original deal was entered into. It would have been incredibly expensive for Disney to try to develop this on its own. [Similarly, it's not realistic to expect Disney to develop all of its ride technologies within Imagineering, such as with Mission: Space]

Now, if Disney had to go out on its own with CGI, there are a number of competing technologies available, and it is much cheaper to acquire (and develop) the required software and hardware.

 

[ShadowWind]

Glad to see Eisner finally agree to step down, but I have to wonder if it's not a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire. The short list that they present are mostly people from retail establishments who are not going to understand the "magic" end of the company. Disney is unique because they sell an intangible product as their core. Not many CEO's get that and thus we wind up with rides and nuances replaced with gift shops like the gutting of Main Street at the MK.

What Disney needs is a CEO that is a strong creative person and a president who is a financial wizard to keep the money flowing without interference. Walt was a visionary genius in creating what people wanted, but he was not a businessman. Roy, the unsung hero, got him the money he needed to secure his vision. When Eisner and Wells were together, it seemed as though they had that same working relationship, but after Wells was killed, that balance shifted badly. Eisner became more concerned with profits and how to create that, then the magic that he commanded, thus the fall.

I hope Disney gets someone like Steve Jobs or one of the leaders in the entertainment field, and not a CEO of a retail outfit. I love Ebay, but honestly, how does that relate to being able to run Disney?

 

[ThAnswr]

Not that I want to make it an issue, but when you first open up the DIS, is that the most God-Awful picture of Ei$ner greeting us?

Coincidence.............Hmmmmm.

 

[King Triton]

Michael Ei$ner should have retired five years ago. His recent bad decisions have really hurt Disney. He has no imagination or Walt's vision. Roy Disney got him this job and now he stabs Roy in the back. We need to flush out the entire Disney board and start from scratch.

Michael, please step down NOW. Two years from now is way too long. If you love Disney, you'll step down now.

 

[Goofyposter]

We need to flush out the entire Disney board and start from scratch.
Michael, please step down NOW. Two years from now is way too long. If you love Disney, you'll step down now.

Amen!

 

[raidermatt]

This is a prime example of where Eisner hit a home run, but the folks in the rear cars can't bear to give him any credit.

No, its a prime example of lowering standards.

As I said, the only way it makes sense is if you accept it as a given that Pixar had animation capabilites that Disney did not have, both technologically and creatively.

But there is no reason to accept that as a given, because it wasn't. Disney allowed themselves to fall behind because they lacked the vision to invest, and then when they did, they let a semi-disappointment (Dinosaur) convince them to quit.

The excuse that it was "too expensive" is also nothing more than just that... an excuse.

Disney had more than enough capital to make the investment. They simply chose to instead invest elsewhere.

Animation is one of their core products, and should always be on their short list of must invest options.

The deal was not about mitigating risk, as Disney bore all of the production costs of the films.

Yes, it was about mitigating risk, as you stated later:

It would have been incredibly expensive for Disney to try to develop this on its own.

Can't have this both ways.

Similarly, it's not realistic to expect Disney to develop all of its ride technologies within Imagineering, such as with Mission: Space

That's a HUGE leap to make. Investing in animation technology that is key to feeding your pipeline for years is a lot different than trying to create a space flight simulator so you can use it for one ride.

The expense wouldn't even be close, and the benefit is much greater.

And there's still the whole issue of not having the creative capabilities of Pixar... again, that shouldn't be accepted as a given. Its the result of decisions and actions, not some random event that Disney had no control over.

 

[ChrislovesMinnie]

Mikey,

If you're reading this and we all know that you do...

Thanks for the news. Please leave us now.

Really, it's for the better. That way we can start fixing what you have screwed up sooner.

Thank you.

 

[DancingBear]

Raidermatt, Academy Awards won by Pixar include:

2000 Academy Award® of Merit
Significant Advances in the Field of Motion Picture Rendering as exemplified in Pixar's RenderMan™
Edwin Catmull, Loren Carpenter, Rob Cook

1998 Technical Achievement Award
PixarVision™
David DiFrancesco

1997 Scientific and Engineering Award
Marionette 3-D Animation Systems
Eben Ostby, William Reeves, Tom Duff

1997 Scientific and Engineering Award
Digital Painting
Thomas Porter

1996 Scientific and Engineering Award
Particle Systems
William Reeves

1996 Technical Achievement Award
Direct Input Device
Rick Sayre

1995 Scientific and Engineering Award
Digital Image Compositing
Edwin Catmull, Thomas Porter, Tom Duff

1994 Scientific and Engineering Award
Digital Scanning
David DiFrancesco

1992 Scientific and Engineering Award
RenderMan®
The RenderMan Development Team

1991 Scientific and Engineering Award
Computer-Assisted Production System
The CAPS Development Team

Do you really think it would have been so simple to catch up to Pixar on the technical side? Lots of technical and creative companies with lots of resources tried to do that, and only became somewhat successful within the last few years.

On the other hand, the barriers to entry in CG are much lower now, and Disney could much more easily replace Pixar if they had to. You're right, it was about managing risk in the big-picture strategic sense, if that's the way you want to look at it. I see it as identifying the best resources available, and taking significant risk to put those resources to work for you. I don't see it as much different than going out and hiring the best talent.

The Pixar deal has been an amazing success for which Eisner deserves the credit. But, I know the rear car folks will never admit that. But, I would bet that if Eisner had passed up on Pixar, and Dreamworks had become Pixar's partner and Pixar had the bit hit streak, they'd be talking about how stupid Eisner was to pass up that opportunity.

 

[crusader]

Thanks DancingBear.

Great post.

Pixar did have animation capabilities Disney lacked. Lasseter saw the complement between the computer and the art and left to develop it during a time when Disney's traditional animation was booming.

And Disney was the company he partnered with to deliver this vision to the public. There is no greater visionary today in this field than John Lasseter and he could not be bought.

Disney did the next best thing. They worked with him and gave Pixar a name. It was a great strategic partnership which proved extremely beneficial to both companies.

There is no criticism to be handed to Disney here. Lasseter was the best and there was nobody else out there with that level of talent. Why waste money trying to compete with such an exceptional and rare individual who had more than his share of R & D resources through Lucas and Jobs. Disney can't match that and shouldn't be held to that level of technical development in house.

 

[raidermatt]

Do you really think it would have been so simple to catch up to Pixar on the technical side?

Again, why did they have to catch up? Why was Pixar investing in CGI while Disney wasn't?

Regardless, they didn't even try to start catching up until a few years ago.

And that still doesn't address the creative issues.

Lots of technical and creative companies with lots of resources tried to do that, and only became somewhat successful within the last few years.

This really comes down to what you expect from Disney. Are they supposed to be the leader in animation, in both quality and creativity, as they were for nearly 60 years?

Or is that no longer important? Are they merely in the business of outsourcing to others, then copying when it becomes cheap enough for anyone to do it?

We know what strategy got them here. Why buck it now?

There is no criticism to be handed to Disney here. Lasseter was the best and there was nobody else out there with that level of talent. Why waste money trying to compete with such an exceptional and rare individual who had more than his share of R & D resources through Lucas and Jobs. Disney can't match that and shouldn't be held to that level of technical development in house.

Fortunately, for most of its history, Disney did not allow such thinking to guide it. If it had, we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

 

[raidermatt]

Oh, one clarification....

Do you really think it would have been so simple to catch up to Pixar on the technical side?

Of course its not simple. To paraphrase Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, "If it were simple, everyone would do it."

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Again, why did they have to catch up? Why was Pixar investing in CGI while Disney wasn't?

Because Disney didn't need to. At the time Pixar started, Disney was at the top of its game. Hand-drawn animation was it -- big comback, huge numbers.

If Eisner had said, "we're going to spend millions of development dollars on building new CGI technology for animated features," he'd have been criticized and slammed for trying to kill hand-drawn animation and advocating doing with machines what Walt would have done with people, etc, etc.

Face it ... no one thought computer animation was a particularly cool or lucrative thing until Pixar made it so. Just as no one thought animation at all was a cool or lucrative thing until Disney made it so. If Disney had jumped into CGI when Pixar did, they'd have been roundly criticized for taking this warm, beautiful art of hand-drawn animation and trying to do it on a computer.

In hindsight, it's all very clear, of course, that Disney should have been investing in new technologies of animation. But where does that fault lie, exactly? I didn't see Roy jumping to get into computer animation. I didn't see Katzenberg thinking that new CGI technology should be his follow-up to Little Mermaid and the "New Classics."

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Again, why did they have to catch up? Why was Pixar investing in CGI while Disney wasn't?

They had to catch up because Pixar had a big head start from doing CGI for special effects purposes as part of the amazing technical braintrust around George Lucas.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
In hindsight, it's all very clear, of course, that Disney should have been investing in new technologies of animation.

Exactly. In hindsight, Eisner should have spent $10,000,000 to acquire Pixar like Jobs did. But, not having done so, at least he recognized that Pixar were the ones to hook up with.

 

[raidermatt]

Again, what is your standard for what Disney should be investing in?

What you and I can think of at a given time?

Or perhaps the leader of an industry needs to do a little more...

In hindsight, it's all very clear, of course, that Disney should have been investing in new technologies of animation.

Exactly, but its not even just hindsight. They need leaders who CAN spot industry trends before they are smacking them in the face.

And if they do miss the boat by a few years, they can't concede and just wait.

But where does that fault lie, exactly? I didn't see Roy jumping to get into computer animation. I didn't see Katzenberg thinking that new CGI technology should be his follow-up to Little Mermaid and the "New Classics."

If you want to blame them too, that's fine. I really don't know what Katzenberg thought, but it can be said that his company has at least jumped on the bandwagon with more success than Disney. While Disney was shutting down, Dreamworks ramped up.

(Now, don't take that as a statement that Dreamworks is "better" than Disney... its only commentary on the specific issue at hand.)

Regardless, I never said Roy or Katz were better choices for a leader than Eisner.

 

[crusader]

While Disney was shutting down, Dreamworks ramped up.

Comeon Matt! Dreamworks handed handdrawn animation a pink slip when Sinbad fell flat on its' face. So they too shut down a tradition.

What is it they ramped up? A sequel to Shrek is hardly a trendsetter. You give them far too much credit here.

Exactly, but its not even just hindsight. They need leaders who CAN spot industry trends before they are smacking them in the face.

Your arguing that because Disney chose to stick with what they were exceptional at - animation, and partner with the leading high-tech special effects and computer artistry industry giants the likes of Lucas and Jobs they failed to sufficiently invest in a trend?

So in other words, they should have purchased the equivalent of these two core businesses and staffed thousands of developers and high tech experts in- house to satisfy your standard. Why? Because a 10 plus year highly reputable and very successful joint venture with the best in the business is too weak an option according to your theories.

You can't be serious. If anything Dreamworks (whom you so readily complement, now) has proven how easily accessible this capability is today and how quickly a competitor can produce a blockbuster by concentrating on their area of expertise - art - and leaving the tech. development to the masters in that field.

 

[manning]

Ah, that magical word "change". Yesterday the horse was transport of choice, today the car, tomorrow ...?. But they have one thing in commom. Transport. One is more efficient than the other. I guess you can say the same for animation. but to be successful they both need excellent story.

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... if a technology, idea, advancement,etc was not originated by Disney, then Disney failed ? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Walt didn't invent tv, but he saw the potential it had. ME didn't invent CGI, but he saw the potential in Pixar.

Now, for the record I wish Disney were the "Pixar" of CGI, but I also don't have a problem with Disney partnering with great companies like Pixar.

 

[DC7800]

Originally posted by manning
Ah, that magical word "change". Yesterday the horse was transport of choice, today the car, tomorrow ...?. But they have one thing in commom. Transport. One is more efficient than the other. I guess you can say the same for animation. but to be successful they both need excellent story.

Funny thing about successive modes of transport is that none of them ever really go away. The Horse, the Paddle-Wheeler, the Steamship, even the steam locomotive - all survive in some capacity today. The advent of the automobile and commercial air travel didn't doom the railroad; in fact, all three should complement one another nicely.

Neither does CGI spell the end of traditional (hand-drawn) animation. Only if the studio powers that be decree that it has no future, and cease all work in the medium, will we fail to see future traditionally-animated and successful feature films.