If Walt Were Here...

[DisneyBaby!]

If merging with pixar is good for the future of the company, than it is not wasted money. Wasted money building something like DisneyQuest in Chicago and than closing it a few years later. Wasting money is expanding the monorail when busses are more cost effective. Spending money on talent is not wasted. It might be unfortunate that you have to spend so much but not a wate

The problem was not that Disney slipped that much, they were on top of the animation world as recently as the early 90's. Problem was as the older generation retired, the new generation went to start-ups like Pixar, Dreamworks etc instead of Disney. Disney did get complacent to a degree but the products we not that bad, but others were making things so much better. And there are alot of old Disney movies, live action and annimated that are really forgettable

 

[Another Voice]

The problem was not that Disney slipped that much, they were on top of the animation world as recently as the early 90's. Problem was as the older generation retired, the new generation went to start-ups like Pixar, Dreamworks etc instead of Disney.

Ah…no. The “old generation” had retired a long time ago. The people that made The Little Mermaid, [/i]Beauty and the Beast[/i], etc. are all still young and in their prime. And none of them bailed out of Disney to go to Dreamworks or Fox or Blue Sky (that only happened after Disney began firing the entire animation department).

The problem was that Eisner became hooked on the massive cash flows from movies like The Lion King. Eisner demand more, so films were churned out faster and faster. That meant the filmmakers weren’t given the amount of time they needed to make a good movie – they just had to have something in the theaters to coincide with the quarterly happy meal marketing calendars.

When these films didn’t make as much box office as the good movie, Eisner demanded they be made for less money so he could continue to snort the same amount of profits. But now the films were starved for both resources and time – and movies became even worse. The public stayed away in droves.

Eisner created a downward spiral where he tired to cut spending faster than the box office take of the movies was falling. It ended with such a huge flaming crash ‘n burn that it utterly destroyed Disney Feature Animation.

In the mean time, this little company up in Northern California followed Walt Disney’s prescription for success – tell a good story and tell it well. It was a lesson the everyone at The Walt Disney Company knew, but one that was ignored because of one man’s greed.


P.S. Look up "wasted money" and you'll see a picture of a bus.

 

[DisneyBaby!]

Ok, I was talking out my a** on the animation, but check out IMDB look at the movies they have made and tell me that movies like That Darn Cat! and Monkeys Go Home are better quality than Miracle, POTC or The Santa Clause.

There was alot of movies made, when Walt was alive, that was the same lets make it on the cheap mad grab for money that happened in the 80's and 90's. There were bad and forgettable as well as timeless and great movies throughout the history of Disney. It is a shame that the animation department is dead or on life support, but the company seems to be going strong without it and, this is important, they are taking the steps to be get back on top and that is what is great about the company and I believe in the spirit of what Walt would do, do what it takes to get back on top.

 

[DancingBear]

That Darn Cat 1965.
Monkeys Go Home 1967.

BUT, Mary Poppins 1964
Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree 1966
Jungle Book 1967.

If Disney had also been producing the Pixar movies in the last 15 years, nobody would be complaining about Home on the Range.

Again, the argument isn't that the acquisition of Pixar is not a good thing, given the state of the company, but that the company never should have been in the position where it had to acquire Pixar to restore its feature animation production.

 

[DisneyBaby!]

That was kinda my point, they have made good and bad movie throughout its history. I think that people are missing the point that the WHOLE company will benefit from the merger with pixar. The fact that this will benefit animation is simply a bonus. The company has done fine without their own animation, and there is no shame in that. Plenty of companies have moved into things they were not a part of initially but are now thriving. And there are plenty of companies that are no more becuase they held onto the past for too long. Whats the saying about being the best buggywhip maker? Disney has moved on. But guess what, crazy thing is people now want the beauty and artistry of hand drawn animation again, and who is in the perfect place to be the leader again.

 

[exDS vet]

Well, I am joining this thread a bit late, but after reading the debate so far, I have to share some thoughts. I'm not going to quote anyone. But I agree with the Walt supporters. Let me start with Walt himself;

We all know that Walt Disney was an innovator. With all of the talk of Pixar and the need for Disney to own them to get on top. Let's not forget that it was Walt Disney and his early teams that brought us synchronized sound, the multi-plane camera, technicolor, etc. And if they didn't create them, well they sure put them on the map. I have no problem believing that Walt or one of his people would have created the types of animation that appears to be leading the industry today.

Look at the parks. Disneyland changed the theme park business as we know it. From the front gate to the Matterhorn and audio animatronics alone, it was Walt's vision that made these possible and paved the way for others to achieve similar success. I don't believe anybody can argue the point that nobody, and I mean NOBODY does, has done, or will do theme parks like Disney. And it all started in Anaheim.

Now. On to Eisner:
How can anybody give Michael Eisner the credit that some of you have on this thread. Some of you make it sound like this guy saved the company and/or was the best thing that ever happend to Walt Disney Productions. Well if changing the name and making corporate greed the number one focus, I give him all the credit.

But let's face it. When did the company thrive under Eisner's leadership? From the late 80's until the mid-90's. For a guy who ran the company for over twenty years, that's not much time. It's not hard to tell that it was Frank Wells, Jeffrey Katzenberger and, oh yes, Roy Disney who made the company huge during that time. But Michael gets all of the credit. Why is that? Not only was he trying to be a media mogul. He tried and succeeded in becoming the face of his new "The Walt Disney Company." He hosted "The Wonderful World of Disney" just like Walt did, but he never was, nor never could be Walt. But he gets all of the credit for the success because he was the visible one. Wells died, Katzenberger was forced out, and the guy who brought Eisner to Disney got the boot.

I think Frenk Wells should have gotten most of the credit for Disney's rebirth.

I must close with a thought that has plagued me since I started reading this thread. Nobody picked up on a simple oversight and replied to it, so I will.
Walt Disney died in 1966.

 

[jade1]

Regardless of who makes the best movies or who was at the helm calling the shots through the years, in a month and a half I will be out of this frozen tundra with the BW View you see below and I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE THAT CREATED THIS MAGICAL ESCAPE-well done I must say.

 

[Pedler]

I am also joining the conversation late but I think you have to look at Eisner's helm at disney as two separate phases. During the first phase two people took shots a buying Disney and trying to break it up and sell the pieces as was popular at that time. Disney had to give in to Green mail to keep the company whole. While is is unlikely that that type of take over attempt would have happened if Walt was around most people in the business community back then credit Eisner with being a large part of what kept Disney together. He also added some much need financial discipline at the time.

And for the next several years he kept things going well. Unfortunately he decided to stick around...

That brings us to the second phase where he did pretty much drive out just about any creative forces in the company that were not part of the cult of Eisner. He just didn't understand his role as CEO of a company that should be run like a business but whose primary business was based on the creativity of others.

Its unfortunate becuase he really was instrumental in keeping the company from getting chopped up (As were others including Roy) I remember the articles in the WSJ back then and it really wasn't that pretty for Disney when that was going on.

 

[Drummer71]

What differences would exist at WDW if Walt Disney were at the helm of the Disney Corporation? (Prices, overall look and feel of the place, Downtown Disney changes, whatever you think...)

I don't think we would have Disney land Paris, Tokyo, or Hong-Kong. Walt really didnt want there to be anythign else like Disneyland, but when he relized he ahd made a mistake and all these cheap hotels and fast food places started popping up right beside Disneyland, he decided to do it again except better. So i don't think Disney would be as big as it is now, but who knows.