it's "very unlikely" Pixar and Disney will resume talks

[Another Voice]

"But no one forced him to not speak."

Roy received a direct order from his boss (Eisner as CEO of The Walt Disney Company) and as Eisner, Chairman of the Board. Eisner also ordered Roy's subordinate to inform on Roy should he take the meeting. Had Roy actually spoken to anyone at Pixar, he would have been fired for insubordination (while Internet discussion board members harangued about Roy's disloyalty). At the time, Roy was trying to work with the Board – right up until Eisner came up the "age" scheme.

"As for the board endeavoring to rewrite the rules to retire him."

Exactly – the rules specifically exempt those serving as officers of the Company. That meant Roy. And it wasn't the rule that forced Roy out – the nominating committee (controlled by Eisner) decided not to put Roy up for this year's election. The rule was simply an after-the-fact justification for the move – all the kvetching about the rule is simply a lie meant to cover-up the real decision.


"Or that Roy just turned around one day and found out that his best friend Michael had been secretly plotting against him."

Like too many on this board, Roy assumed that Eisner had "just lost his way" and could be guided back. At least Roy has finally understood he's been duped even if it is too late.


"Roy is the "titular head of Animation" ... where were his comments defending hand-drawn animation or the films like Atlantis"

He was ordered explicitly to keep quiet. He's never been one for the public light and thought it would be best if he worked behind the scenes. Besides, people who question Eisner (say, Jeffrey Katzenberg or Michael Ovtiz) end up being shoved from a speeding car into the L.A. River late at night. Roy may have been duped, but he's seen Eisner's bloody knife enough to know what was waiting for him.

Besides, he didn't have any involvement in Atlantis, Treasure or the cheap-sequels. He'd be in the position of talking down his company's products and that's too disloyal to the people who worked on those films.


"so he knows more about tactics than Roy"

No, what Eisner has are a flock of lawyers carefully reviewing every thing that put in front of him to say. Eisner is not a great "off-the-cuff" speaker and likes things all tied up beforehand. However, get him in private and he'll singe the pixie dust off your eyebrows.


"…why turn it into a public war of words when it's not going to lead to anything?"

Just for the sheer humor of listening to him fumble for explanations. Eisner's like the burglar that's caught locked inside the bank vault trying to explain how he got in there. I'd bee a wonderful segment on 'America's Funniest Home Videos'.


Sure, Roy's tactics aren't the pristine art of oratory as practiced at Havard, but proxy fights are never filled to the brim with manners. A great company has been killed and people are angry about it. Besides, when one goes to confront a monster you usually don't get him to go away by asking him over for tea.

P.S. And Roy's tatics are about the only way he will be able to affect a change at the top. Such is the sorry, sorry state of the Wall Street and Eisner's greed.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Goofyposter
ok...I'll ask......WDSearcher.....taking that statement as a truth.....have you communicated your concerns to him? If so how? Have you recieved a response? Did you, or have you offered suggestions to alternative tactics? If so, what where/are they?

Yes, actually, I have. I sent a note to Roy at savedisney.com voicing my concerns and asking why certain things were done in a certain way. I received the exact same canned response my friend got when he sent a letter of support. I responded by thanking Roy for the response, but would appreciate a bit more detail on specific questions I asked, when he had time. I haven't heard anything back yet. It's been about four weeks. (I realize the guy has other things on his mind than responding to one critic among many unconditional supporters, but if someone is truly reading all the e-mails that come in, perhaps it will get flagged for response.)

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice Exactly – the rules specifically exempt those serving as officers of the Company. That meant Roy. And it wasn't the rule that forced Roy out – the nominating committee (controlled by Eisner) decided not to put Roy up for this year's election. The rule was simply an after-the-fact justification for the move – all the kvetching about the rule is simply a lie meant to cover-up the real decision.

If you could look at a timeline and say "this was the date that the nominating committee met and released their list" and "this is the date that the the age rule was deliberated", that's flat-out proof of a conspiracy. If it's that clear cut, why not publicize that, if you're Roy and Stan?

Like too many on this board, Roy assumed that Eisner had "just lost his way" and could be guided back. At least Roy has finally understood he's been duped even if it is too late.

I think you may be underestimating Roy. I'm sure it was achingly difficult for Roy to leave the board of a company that bears his name, but I don't think he waited so long because he thought Eisner could be guided back. I think he was just waiting for the proverbial straw, and it apparently came in the 'age rule.' Or maybe he tried to sway the board and finally realized that they wouldn't listen. But I don't think it's because he truly believed that ME would find his way back on his own. He doesn't seem to like Michael enough to give him the benefit of that doubt.

He was ordered explicitly to keep quiet. He's never been one for the public light and thought it would be best if he worked behind the scenes. Besides, people who question Eisner (say, Jeffrey Katzenberg or Michael Ovtiz) end up being shoved from a speeding car into the L.A. River late at night. Roy may have been duped, but he's seen Eisner's bloody knife enough to know what was waiting for him.

"Shoved from a speeding car into the LA River?" "Eisner's bloody knife?" And here I thought both Ovitz and Katzenberg were alive and well and working in Hollywood. Who knew those incredibly life-like shells walking around pretending to be them were actually audioanimatronic shams created by a top-secret band of Imagineers to keep Eisner from jail. I had no idea! Come on ... even Roy's rhetoric isn't THAT melodramatic. Animation was Roy's baby. And shunning the limelight or not, when you start seeing rumors in the news that an entire building full of YOUR animators is going to be shut down, and no one refutes those rumors, that's precisely the time that you stand up and speak. Think of the impact a mere statement from Roy Disney would have had on the press at that point in October. But he said nothing.

No, what Eisner has are a flock of lawyers carefully reviewing every thing that put in front of him to say. Eisner is not a great "off-the-cuff" speaker and likes things all tied up beforehand. However, get him in private and he'll singe the pixie dust off your eyebrows.

So could Roy, I imagine. But whether Eisner is being held back by a flock of lawyers or not, someone in that camp understands that not saying anything is the better option here.

A great company has been killed and people are angry about it. Besides, when one goes to confront a monster you usually don't get him to go away by asking him over for tea.

I wasn't aware that the Walt Disney Company was dead yet, but then I may have missed an episode. As for inviting the monster over for tea, one of the great battle tactics is, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Perhaps asking him over for tea would be more advantageous.

 

[airlarry!]

Well, Mr. Disney did have Mr. Ei$ner as close as you can call it. That worked out well.

I know I am beating a drum incessantly, but here's why I'm doing it.

When asked at the annual 'Annies' awards this weekend about 'Brother Bear', Andrew Stanton of Pixar (director of 'Finding Nemo') had nothing but praise concerning its creativity, in direct contrast to Jobs statements. And then he said...

"I don't care if Mom and Dad are fighting," Stanton said. "The way I see, it we're all family under the skin."

Jim Hill Media

Exactly. While others on the board see this relationship as one company just renting good movies, I see it differently. Oh sure, under the proposed arrangements, that is what it would probably have become, but you can lay the blame for that directly on The Anti-Midget Guy.

What was happening before was two parents, Pixar and Disney, related in spirit and in cooperation, working together to raise happy little animated features. But that's just not good enough for The Anti-Frozen Guy. Just like the parks, he wants to drain as much money out of animation to prop up the Flim Flam Fox deal and the giant movie budgets.

John and Roy deserve better.

Just a happy little thought on a beautiful and clear winter night.

 

[mickey1010]

My apologies for being so gullible, scoop. It was just surprising that the way it was implied was followed by any type of "just kidding" statement or tone.

It seems to me that in Roy's mind, the best way to affect change was from within, so he tried that for years....until he wasn't "within" anymore. Roy didn't pursue any tactics that would have shown him the door because he felt his battle would be lost or at least more difficult to fight from the outside. Now that the chains have been broken and the gag removed, he is forced to change his strategy and publicize issues and concerns that he had to keep locked away while at Disney.

That is probably waaaaay over simplifying the issue but seems to be a probable scenario.

 

[crusader]

My concern about Roy is that the longer he stands on his soapbox the quieter his microphone becomes.

I commend his efforts but find it very difficult to excuse him as a contributor.

The great thing about his campaign was that he placed his name on it. The more he resorts to lame tactics the weaker he sounds. I think he's pissed and rightfully so and this was the best forum to deliver his message.

So now that he's divulged basically nothing more than I've read otherwise, where does that leave him?

He appears to be a day late and a dollar short - unless he's toting a slingshot to the annual meeting.

 

[Another Voice]

"If you could look at a timeline and say "this was the date that the nominating committee met and released their list" and "this is the date that the the age rule was deliberated", that's flat-out proof of a conspiracy. If it's that clear cut, why not publicize that, if you're Roy and Stan?"

From Roy Disney's resignation letter: "Finally, you discussed with the Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors its decision to leave my name off the slate of directors to be elected in the coming year, effectively muzzling my voice on the board -- much as you did with Andrea Van de Kamp last year. "

Preventing Roy from being elected was the tactic Eisner had chosen (as he had in the past), the "age rule" was the pretext. I have yet to see the board refute the clause in the rule that exempted corporate officers (like Roy). This is a game of power politics; Eisner is simply better at it than Roy was.


"I think he was just waiting for the proverbial straw, and it apparently came in the 'age rule.' "

Nope – Roy had finally been backed into a situation that he was going to loose. His only choice was to go quietly or to fight back. I think it's a better show of Roy's character that he wouldn't be shut-up by a big check the way Ovtiz was.


"And here I thought both Ovitz and Katzenberg were alive and well and working in Hollywood."

Yup – despite all of Eisner's best efforts too (although Ovitz isn't really working in Hollywood but for other reasons). Katz and Ovitz were big enough players that they had a life beyond Eisner's circuit. It's the upper and middle management types that are disappeared because they lack clout. Remember the guy who went from Feature Animation to Broadway Producer? Wonder when his show opens…


"Think of the impact a mere statement from Roy Disney would have had on the press at that point in October."

Wait a minute – you're blasting Roy for speaking out in public now that's he no longer associated with the company. But you wanted him to publicly second guess a decision by his boss and the Board that he sat on?????????? Imagine the roasting you would have given him for his disloyalty.


"Animation was Roy's baby."

I will have to admit that I am not a particular fan of Roy. For too many years he was content to sail his boat and cash the checks – without a thought for the company. It was when the checks stopped that he got involved again. But that's the same situation back in the Card Walker/Ron Miller days. Funny how he was a hero then and is now being bashed for trying to retire another ineffectual CEO.


"I wasn't aware that the Walt Disney Company was dead yet, but then I may have missed an episode."

After a busy day with all the happy crowds at California Adventure, we swung by the local Disney Store to pick up the DVD set of the latest hit series from ABC (although I could just watch the highly rated repeats on ABC Family). While there, we saw all the merchandise from the latest $350+ million animated box office blockbuster (so nice the Store has such a wide variety of adult sizes in plenty of styles) and I had to pick up that album that just won all those Grammys from Hollywood Records. Naturally, we had to wait a bit to check out because of all the teenagers who consider Disney kEwL – but it did give me a chance to pick up that disposable DVD they just came out with. Later that evening I logged onto GO.com to make my reservation for a film class at The Disney Institute. Fortunately, my Disney stock is at an all time high so I can easily afford the trip.

Yup – things in the world of Disney are all nice and shinny.


P.S. Mr. Scoop is not a Disney plant.

 

[crusader]

There's AV with that hit list of failures again cleverly exposed absent absolutely any balance of acheivement.

The longer the clock ticks the futher go.com fades away in a 20 year mist.

A failed dot.com venture is not worth one ounce of complaint today. Get over it.

What was that DVD you were buying? Pirates?

Why would you care that a grammy wasn't handed out during that emmy award winning critically acclaimed farce of a production nobody could sit through? You should be much more concerned with the underlying political cesspool controlling why any award is given in surreal land anymore. I hear Lost in Translation is an absolutely horrific film but to hear it told in your circles, you'd think it was a reenactment of The Emperor Who Wore New Clothes. Ah yes, I forgot - we peons have no concept of art and Coppola is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Another Voice]

"A failed dot.com venture is not worth one ounce of complaint today. Get over it."

You're right. The GO.com fiasco only exists as a huge pile of debt on the balance sheet ---

But that's going to be Comcast's balance sheet now.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Remember the guy who went from Feature Animation to Broadway Producer? Wonder when his show opens…

Yup ... Tom Schumacher. I believe "Off the Record" is opening on tour sometime this season, in a pre-Broadway bid.

Wait a minute – you're blasting Roy for speaking out in public now that's he no longer associated with the company. But you wanted him to publicly second guess a decision by his boss and the Board that he sat on?????????? Imagine the roasting you would have given him for his disloyalty.

I'm blasting Roy for HOW he's speaking out ... not for what he's speaking out about. If he would have stood up last October and said, "Michael is an idiot for thinking about closing this building in Florida," then he'd get the same criticism from me that he's getting now. But if he'd gone on the record talking about how valuable the Florida facility was, and how talented those artists are, at least people would have thought he'd noticed that he had animators working there. As it was, the fact that he said nothing just made everyone think he agreed with the decision. "Silence implies consent." Speaking up after you've quit or after the building is closed doesn't require much courage. Speaking up while you're there -- if you truly disagree with the decision and have a plan for change -- is what takes guts.

Funny how he was a hero then and is now being bashed for trying to retire another ineffectual CEO.

He wasn't weilding insults then. He was behaving like someone trying to save the company. Now he's behaving like someone who's trying to get rid of Eisner. The two things are not necessarily the same. Last time his focus was on the Company. This time his focus is on Michael. IMO.

Yup – things in the world of Disney are all nice and shinny.

"Shinny?" Things at Disney are all about shins? I'd missed that too. I just HAVE to keep up more .... As for my world of Disney ... things are still nice and relatively shiny. Not as shiny as they used to be, but not totally covered with tarnish and unsalvagable either. In fact, all they really need is a bit of buffing. And to me, that's not dead yet.

 

[Another Voice]

"Off the Record"

Yea - the town is all a buzz about this massive new show. You can see the Broadway lights from here.


"Speaking up while you're there -- if you truly disagree with the decision and have a plan for change -- is what takes guts. "

Nope, all he would have gotten are people screaming "disloyal", "backstabber", "get on the team or get off the team". And when exactly have you heard a single Disney exectuvie pubically disagree with an Eisner decision? You ever sit through Marty Sklar's painful public tongue bitting whenever he has to say anything about Califorina Adventure. People who critize Eisner end up bumming quarters on street corners.


"He was behaving like someone trying to save the company. Now he's behaving like someone who's trying to get rid of Eisner. "

Getting rid of Eisner was the same as saving the company.

But Roy has just run out of time.


"And to me, that's not dead yet."

Yes, you'll have plenty of shiny new Disney® Brand merchandise products available for purchase through your local cable operator soon.

But to anyone wanting to see a quality movie, experince wonder at a theme park or to have their imigination sparked - Disney is dead.

 

[raidermatt]

If Disney failed at everything they did, they'd be out of business by now. But AV's list points out why the stock has underperformed, why insiders like Roy think they have (or had) a chance, and why outside companies see Disney ripe for a takeover.

There's simply not been enough achievements to outweigh the failures, and the stock has floundered.

For different reasons, Disney is in a very similar position as 1984... underperforming assets.

Its bizarre how some apply different evaluation standards to the players in both scenarios.

 

[crusader]

You're right. The GO.com fiasco only exists as a huge pile of debt on the balance sheet ---

wrong fiasco. But I understand the point.

But AV's list points out why the stock has underperformed, why insiders like Roy think they have (or had) a chance, and why outside companies see Disney ripe for a takeover.

Name one media company whose stock has overperformed in the last five years absent of manipulation?

Those failures AV repeatedly remarks on aren't the main reason were here. Games are being played that go way beyond that little hit list being tossed around. Somebody's trading stock - period.

Companies hoard cash to expand - Comcast has siphoned blood from every single employee within its' organization to stock a rich bank scouting for a patient.

If Roy delivered a fatal wound to bring about a takeover by Comcast - he deserves to be off the board.

 

[Jestocost]

During Pixar's 4Q03 conference call, Jobs stated Pixar made Disney a better offer than what it thought it could get from other studios. The offer included higher distribution fees, character rights at the parks and longer term deals. The rub was that Pixar insisted on keeping all of the rights to the next two films - The Incredibles and Cars - which was the main factor that lead Disney to nix the deal.

All things considered, this is likely to be a "business neutral" event for Disney in the short term and won't even have the potential to hit the bottom line until 2007. Longer term, it remains to be seen if Disney can muster the creative chops to successfully ramp up their internal computer animation program. The certain distractions that will result from the situation that's been touched off by the Comcast bid won't hep that effort, however.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Jestocost
During Pixar's 4Q03 conference call, Jobs stated Pixar made Disney a better offer than what it thought it could get from other studios. The offer included higher distribution fees, character rights at the parks and longer term deals. The rub was that Pixar insisted on keeping all of the rights to the next two films - The Incredibles and Cars - which was the main factor that lead Disney to nix the deal.

Not entirely. They also wanted to regain full rights to the films and characters that already belonged to Disney via the original deal. I think the fact that Jobs wanted to regain all that was really the main straw. If it had just been Incredibles and Cars I don't think it would have been as big of factor.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm sure there was some wiggle room in there. After all, they aren't going to get the rights back by going somewhere else. Of course that assumes Jobs was serious about the negotiations in the first place. With all else that is going on, who knows?

Name one media company whose stock has overperformed in the last five years absent of manipulation?

The only relevance in that is that perhaps the media model isn't all its cracked up to be. In which case, the only consolation is that misery loves company.

Regardless, investors have plenty of other models to invest in, which means the "peer" excuse doesn't do anything to help Disney's cause.

Those failures AV repeatedly remarks on aren't the main reason were here. Games are being played that go way beyond that little hit list being tossed around. Somebody's trading stock - period.

Without those failures, the stock would be out of Comcast's reach...

The only reasons games can be played are underperforming assets and bad investments. That's what opened up the board in the first place.

 

[crusader]

The only relevance in that is that perhaps the media model isn't all its cracked up to be. In which case, the only consolation is that misery loves company.

In which era? 1965 or today?

The only reasons games can be played are underperforming assets and bad investments. That's what opened up the board in the first place.

not true. Games like this are usually played through carefully tempered strategic alliances invisible to the investor eye.

Big investment holders are the targets. Who fits that bill?

So I disagree that...............

Without those failures, the stock would be out of Comcast's reach...

 

[raidermatt]

In which era? 1965 or today?

Well, its in today's era that you were referring to them all underperforming, correct?
Investors had choices 40 years ago, and have even more today, so I guess that applies to both.

not true. Games like this are usually played through carefully tempered strategic alliances invisible to the investor eye.

Of course they are, but economic realities do not disappear.

If Disney had generated good returns the last 7-10 years, Comcast simply wouldn't be able to afford the price. Roy really would be seen as a grouchy old man. There would be no "blood in the water" for Comcast to smell.

 

[crusader]

If Disney had generated good returns the last 7-10 years, Comcast simply wouldn't be able to afford the price. Roy really would be seen as a grouchy old man. There would be no "blood in the water" for Comcast to smell.

Disney had its' share of setbacks during a buildout period which I agree caused them liquidity problems.

That was over two years ago. Had they not paid down the debt last year, they'd have enough cash in the till as we speak to ward off Comcast. But maybe they don't have to? Maybe, Comcast can't afford this fight and nobody else wants to get involved right now.

The annual meeting's less than a month away. If Roy fails, the dust settles and the company emerges as is.

 

[raidermatt]

Maybe, Comcast can't afford this fight and nobody else wants to get involved right now.

The annual meeting's less than a month away. If Roy fails, the dust settles and the company emerges as is.

Alright, I'll give you this much.

Anything is possible.