I saw Michael Eisner on the Today show this morning.

[raidermatt]

I think its VERY difficult to even guess what Walt would have actually done with respect to specific rides or even parks. After all, he was going to build an entire city...

The company tried the "What would Walt do approach?", and even they couldn't make that work.

That said, I'd venture that most likely, parks that were built with Walt's vision in mind would always be an effort to improve on what was there before. There would be an effort not just to do things "right", but to do different things people hadn't even thought of.

I can say that they most certainly would not be built small with expansion in mind. AK, DCA, MGM, DSP, HKDL... love 'em or hate 'em, one thing we can't deny is that given the resources available to the company when these parks were built, Walt's Disney would have never opened them with the limited scope that they opened with.

That's not to say I know what he WOULD have done. Only that he would not have opened these parks the way they were opened.

On the idea of "sentiment" keeping a ride going, again, its impossible to say what Walt himself would do. But we have a pretty good idea of what his vision would say, and that's if you can make it better, make it better. Sentiment and nostalgia do have value to people, hence the continued appeal of a place like Mainstreet. But when the product isn't drawing like it could, or there are better options, there should be no hesitation to make changes.

As an example, a ride like Carousel of Progress, I highly doubt Walt would keep it going just because it had sentimental value. But at the same time, his vision would say that if updating was needed to keep it vibrant and entertaining, then that's what should be done.

Again, I'm not sure what exactly he WOULD have done, but I'm sure he would not have liked to see attractions sputter to their end because the company didn't want to spend the money to update them or replace them. The Show was the important thing, and he believed that's what would drive their success in the long run.

 

[mdhkitten]

Actually, here is a link to the archived savedisney.com, because it no longer exists, as they "saved" it, thus the www.saveddisney.com . This contains Roy Disney and Stanley Gold's resignation letters, etc......

http://web.archive.org/web/20031215014438/http://www.savedisney.com/index.html

 

[Ozymoe]

I agree with KatheeME. Although Walt would have seen to it that his parks kept on the cutting edge (requiring ever-ongoing change), he also knew the value of "classic".

I think he'd be delighted to know we love his CoP today, even in its "dusty" state. Who knows, he might have had an additional theatre built so we could also observe the 70's (how tv/affordable long distance telephone/microwaves changed life)...and the 90's (ah, the advent of computers in the schools/homes bigtime)...and the future (when our home life will be greatly affected by alternative energy/new mass transportation schemes...)

As it is, we just see the last vignette crunching all the advancements together. Of course the "four seasons" would have to be repeated...lol, hey, I can dream, can't I?

Additionally, Raidermatt puts forth my opinion of Eisner better than I could do it myself!

Have any of you ever noticed this:

D I S N E Y

E I S N E R

Drop the first and last letters of both names:

I S N E

I S N E

No biggie, but I found that interesting one day as I was working on a crossword puzzle...

 

[raidermatt]

Walt Disney was all about change and progress. He would never have left the rides alone long enough to become classics.

I think Peter's statement is a little too rigid, but essentially, I think he's close to the truth. PotC, for example. I think it would probably still exist today, and we'd call it a classic, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if it had already received more updates. Things like new effects and such. (As opposed to marketing tie-ins to upcoming movies...)

CoP, again, I don't think it would exist as it does today. Instead of going "seasonal", it would have been updated or replaced.

So yeah, I think its very reasonable that attractions would stick around for many years and become classics. If they remained very popular, and still told their story in a relevant way, they might have seen relatively little change. But again, their status as a "classic" alone would not keep them open, imho.

 

[peter11435]

I think Peter's statement is a little too rigid, but essentially, I think he's close to the truth. PotC, for example. I think it would probably still exist today, and we'd call it a classic, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if it had already received more updates. Things like new effects and such. (As opposed to marketing tie-ins to upcoming movies...)

CoP, again, I don't think it would exist as it does today. Instead of going "seasonal", it would have been updated or replaced.

So yeah, I think its very reasonable that attractions would stick around for many years and become classics. If they remained very popular, and still told their story in a relevant way, they might have seen relatively little change. But again, their status as a "classic" alone would not keep them open, imho.

Thank you. I agree with everything you said.

 

[bicker]

Average Americans were flooding WDW before the lower-priced WDW resorts were ever built.

Flooding the parks, yes, not the resorts. The Polynesian had never been affordable for average Americans until after Eisner took over.

 

[mdhkitten]

For those of you that were interested, the original post that I had with the archived savedisney.com site on it that contained the letters, for some reason the Stanley Gold letter to Michael Eisner wasn't loading. I got another archive, and at the top under letters has this letter along with others to Eisner, plus those to the people who were supporting the site.


http://web.archive.org/web/20040616041932/http://savedisney.com/

 

[k5thbeatle]

Way to complicated to answer completely. I highly recommend Disney Wars amongst several other books for a bit of insight.

Here is what I believe concerning Eisner: When things were down at Disney and the creative people running it were in need of some "business types" Eisner appeared and saved the day as it were. Problem was that instead of swinging the pendulum back to the center the "bean-counters" slowly took over and ruled the roost moving more and more into areas previously staffed by the creative types...which imho is where they are right now. Hopefully the current leadership (Iger) will move things back to a more balanced mix between the creative people and the purely business types but I am somewhat skeptical...no change that I am VERY skeptical!

That's admittedely a little over simplified for an explanation but like I said I could write pages on this.

(Can you hear us Roy!)

 

[k5thbeatle]

If you don't want to hear the "corporate stuff", read no further.

Just a little clarification first. Disney was "saved" essentially by Roy, Stanley Gold, and the Bass Brothers, with Roy being the driving force. It was that team that stopped the Michael Milkens of the world from breaking Disney into pieces and selling it off.

When it came time to put forth a management team, they wanted Frank Wells as the #1 guy, Eisner as the #2. Eisner was to provide the Hollywood clout it was felt Disney needed to move forward, but Wells was the business guy who was going to run the show. Eisner, however, would not accept the #2 position. Time was of the essence, and there weren't any other Hollywood bigwigs available at the time that were viewed as appealling options.

So, all agreed Eisner could be the head honcho, with Wells as President. However, Wells would not report to Eisner, but would report directly to the Board, just as Eisner did. (If you are really interested in how all of this went down, read "Storming the Magic Kingdom". Its not an anti-Eisner piece and primarily focuses on how the takeover/breakup was avoided and how Eisner/Wells came to be the new leaders.)

Disney was going to expand with or without Eisner, and with or without a breakup. The biggest reason it was a takeover target in the first place was not that it was necessarily performing all that badly. It was that it had a bunch of assets sitting around not doing anything. All that land in Florida was going to be worth a lot more developed than undeveloped, and Disney wasn't moving fast enough. The film library was just sitting there, for the most part.

So whoever bought WDW, for example, or whoever was brought in to run the company was going to start building stuff. Hotels and parks were going to happen. Eisner and Wells were not the only guys thinking this should happen. They were brought in to execute what everybody knew had to happen.

You can't credit Eisner, or even Wells, with the fact that things were built. The question is HOW did these things happen, and was it done optimally. (I'll leave that one alone for now.)

So was Eisner "good" or "bad"? Nothing is absolute. Certainly some of the things done under his watch turned out quite well. However, from many accounts (not just one book), he clashed with many of the other executives during those first 10 years, including Wells and Katzenberg. Many (though not all) of the creations we consider "winners" were actually done in spite of Eisner, not because of him.

What's also clear is that after the death of Wells, Eisner gained complete control of the company, and many say that things started going downhill at that point. Several years later, as the impact of Eisners complete control of strategic decisions was felt, the company's fianancial performance started stagnating. Still making money of course, but not performing as expected, and this has been reflected in the stock price since.

Really, the only question is did Eisner really change after Wells' death, or did we simply start seeing the impacts of what he would have always been capable of if in complete control? I think its the latter, but many think Eisner really did work well as part of the team at first. Either way, most agree he eventually overstayed his welcome, at least in part because he had so much control over the company and the board.

Excellent analysis!

 

[k5thbeatle]

...But what makes me side squarely on the "Eisner was bad" side is the way he systematically destroyed much of the spirit and soul of the company.

Walt made mistakes. Eisner had successes. We know this. But the company had a mission and purpose under Walt that really doesn't exist today. I'm not saying that changes weren't necessary. But that spirit and soul were the things that needed to survive. Those are the things that drew us all to Disney, whether we understood why or not.

Now, its a lot harder to find those things within Disney, and that is the one thing I point to as the crux of Eisner's legacy. There's a lot of executives who would have built hotels, parks, etc, and debating who would have done better is a pointless exercise, especially 20+ years later.

But Eisner nearly (some say completely) killed the soul of the company, and I can't find a way to excuse that. Sure, the spirit still exists in some individuals, but the company as a whole is a shadow of its former self in that respect.

"...But the company had a mission and purpose under Walt that really doesn't exist today..."

Wow, did you ever read my mind! Another excellent point!

 

[Sleeping Jedi Beauty]

I find it ironic that some celebrate animation's return to glory under the very Eisner who wanted to cancel Beauty and the Beast(yes, the same film that went on to become the first and only animated feature ever nominated for Best Picture and inspire a wildly popular and award winning musical that helped launch another award winning musical in the Lion King) because it was costing too much money to make. While Eisner did some good things for the company, he also made some cost cutting decisions that seriously damaged the company. Animation's return to glory was with Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Disney hasn't really had an animated hit since The Lion King. If a ballplayer had a great first 4 or 5 years, and then flopped his last 10, he would be remembered for lost potential.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Eisner was indeed a genius who turned Disney around. Without him, I doubt there would be any reason for The DIS to even exist, as what was the Disney theme parks would have been mere shadows of their former selves by now. 90% of his decisions were right on-the-mark, and as a result the Disney Company is a world leader today, instead of just a footnote.

I'll second that.

 

[k5thbeatle]

I find it ironic that some celebrate animation's return to glory under the very Eisner who wanted to cancel Beauty and the Beast(yes, the same film that went on to become the first and only animated feature ever nominated for Best Picture and inspire a wildly popular and award winning musical that helped launch another award winning musical in the Lion King) because it was costing too much money to make. While Eisner did some good things for the company, he also made some cost cutting decisions that seriously damaged the company. Animation's return to glory was with Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. Disney hasn't really had an animated hit since The Lion King. If a ballplayer had a great first 4 or 5 years, and then flopped his last 10, he would be remembered for lost potential.

Yes. After renting and watching Chicken Little, Disney's first attempt at a "Pixar-like" movie, it is clear to me that the current movement in Disney animation started by Eisner is (still) moving in the wrong direction. Don't get me wrong I thought it was an ok movie but the problem with Disney animated movies is NOT with the style of animation but the (lack of) storyline!

In my opinion this is why Pixar has blown Disney away. I'd bet that the Pixar movies would have been hits even with the old style of animation!

 

[KatheeME]

Im not saying that classics shouldn't be preserved. I was just saying that it is inaccurate to say that Walt would not have wanted the classics removed.

Why do you think this is inaccurate? Walt built WDW, or at least the foundation before he passed away, on a dream and life of a way he remembered and dreamed of. To think Walt would want them gone IS inaccurate.

 

[KatheeME]

You're right. It's just that today, since Walt is not here, his legacy are the Classic attractions (in terms of the parks themselves).

Precisely!

 

[KatheeME]

I think somebody should find some of that frozen DNA of Walt's, clone it, and offer the result up as Disney's next CEO. They need to do the rapid-growth thing they did in Star Wars Episode 2 with the Jango Fett clones, but I think it could work.

By the age of 3, I think Walt's clone could figure out that a) CoP needs to stay because it is a classic ride and b) it badly needs refurbishment and, yes, some changes in the story to reflect the passage of 45 years or so since its introduction.

Yes, Walt could figure out something at 3, that Eisner couldn't at 43!!!!!

 

[DisAddict]

I just notices Eisner has a new talk show on CNBC starting in about 15 minutes. I've never seen him before in an interview situation of any kind so
I'll watch.

 

[KatheeME]

I'm sorry, but I have to side with the others. There is more than one video clip I've seen where Walt explicitly talked about his parks needing constant change to stay relevant with progress. That's ironically what one of his most classic rides, CoP, is all about.

I do agree that Walt would be appalled at some of the lack of upkeep/updating on some rides, most especially CoP and the race track rides at DL and MK.

Tomorrowland doesn't seem any emptier to me now than it did in 1972.

I have seen the same clips, I agree. But change in that sense is one thing, getting ready of classic attractions to make way for giftshops, a play area, or changing Swiss Famly Treehouse to Tarzan just gets me, ugh, lol! Kids don't even know what Swiss Family Robinson is, but that's another thread!

 

[KatheeME]

Dancing Bear's list is a good example of why we see so many people either loving or hating Eisner. Take just those "goods" and things sound pretty impressive. Take just the bads and its downright depressing.

Of course, the truth is somewhere in the middle, as is almost always the case. But what makes me side squarely on the "Eisner was bad" side is the way he systematically destroyed much of the spirit and soul of the company.

Walt made mistakes. Eisner had successes. We know this. But the company had a mission and purpose under Walt that really doesn't exist today. I'm not saying that changes weren't necessary. But that spirit and soul were the things that needed to survive. Those are the things that drew us all to Disney, whether we understood why or not.

Now, its a lot harder to find those things within Disney, and that is the one thing I point to as the crux of Eisner's legacy. There's a lot of executives who would have built hotels, parks, etc, and debating who would have done better is a pointless exercise, especially 20+ years later.

But Eisner nearly (some say completely) killed the soul of the company, and I can't find a way to excuse that. Sure, the spirit still exists in some individuals, but the company as a whole is a shadow of its former self in that respect.

Thank you for taking the time to post in a more complete way, how I feel. I want the heart and the soul, the MAGIC back! And while I am not a huge fan Iger, not so far anyway, I have to be optimistic!

 

[KatheeME]

But ESPN came at an expensive price along with ABC and such for $18.9 billion. ABC was languishing for many years (and eating up the cash that the parks brought into the company) until it stumbled onto Lost and Desparate Housewives.

I have to ask ... What is your list Dancing Bear?