Quotes of the day...from the Save Disney site

[Horace Horsecollar]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
Cristen -- what's the source for this quote? I have the source for the Walt quote, but was just wondering what meeting or interview or whatever, the Eisner one came from.

I'm not Cristen, but...

In her book, "The Keys to the Kingdom: How Michael Eisner Lost His Grip" (Morrow, 2000), author Kim Masters quotes an internal memo that Michael Eisner wrote at Paramount in 1982: "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

I don't know the context of the memo. But it is not unreasonable for a corporate manager to remind folks inside of a company that the objective of that company is to make money. There is nothing wrong with making money. That's how companies stay in business, attract investments and financing, and grow. Okay, I don't like the way the memo sounds either. It's a bad choice of words.

I don't think it's fair to put this particular internal business memo from Michael Eisner next to the public quote from Walt Disney.

The issue is what a company does to make money -- and whether the company is really making the money that it could be. A creative company should make money by... well... creating.

Under Michael Eisner's leadership over the past 7 years, Disney isn't making the money that they should be because of a series of poor choices at the the top. The shareholders suffer because the stock value doesn't grow as it should. The fans suffer because we don't get to enjoy the creative works that we know the company is capable of.

 

[Another Voice]

Here's an interesting idea.

If Walt couldn't have done business in today's environment - could Eisner have done business in Walt's time.

Think about it - no brand, no existing running profitable business. No carpet bombing marketing.

No junkbonds. Big banks that had to okay every movie the company made (which is how Walt worked). Imagine Eisner standing in front of the board at Bank of America asking for money to Animal Kingdom the same way that did to borrow money for Disneyland.

Imagine Eisner trying to get the company through WWII when the company lot 3/4 of its revenue (yet its expenses increased because of the all the work it took on for the government). Could Eisner had gotten away with a press release of "pent up demand" and a promise of 30% growth next year?

Imagine trying to market merchandise based on brand new characters. No princessess to fall back on - Dumbo, Sleeping Beauty, Baloo - all the characters no one had ever seen before. Imagine Eisner trying to secure the rights to Peter Pan, Mary Poppins and even Winnie the Pooh?

Could Eisner have dreamed up the concept of the mini-series (Davy Crocket)? Moved the entire company counter to the rest of Hollywood into television? Could he have created a new industry in theme parks?

Could Eisner have made anything? Or is he simple to guy that can steer a ship already underway?

 

[cristen]

"ORLANDO, Fla., Feb.. 2, 1967 (AP) Walt Disney Productions today announced it would build the world's first glass-domed city in central Florida amid Disneyworld, a $100-million entertainment center...
...The glass-domed city would take a quarter of a century to construct, Mr. [Roy] Disney said. "

Yes, that does seem quite low for what they had planned.

But now I am curious as to how much money has been poured into WDW in their first 25 years. I imagine it would be similiar amounts to what Walt wanted to do.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Horace Horsecollar
In her book, "The Keys to the Kingdom: How Michael Eisner Lost His Grip" (Morrow, 2000), author Kim Masters quotes an internal memo that Michael Eisner wrote at Paramount in 1982: "We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."

Originally posted by Horace Horsecollar
I don't think it's fair to put this particular internal business memo from Michael Eisner next to the public quote from Walt Disney.

I would totally agree. Not only was it an internal memo and taken out of context here, it was an internal memo for another company. The original post by cristen implies that the Eisner quote is a quote he made while at DISNEY, which would also imply that it is recent. It is neither. And as such, it is incredibly misleading, and something that was posted in order to fabricate a parallel.

I can probably find quotes nearly that old from Roy Disney that talk about what a great businessman and wonderful leader Michael Eisner is. That doesn't mean they're valid here.

 

[crusader]

AV -

Why does moving Walt Disney the founder of a company into a 21st century environment need to become a comparison with Michael Eisner the CEO of the company the founder created?

You know as well as I do that there is nobody who could have done it better back then than Mr. Disney himself - not even his own brother.

Obviously, Eisner possessed enough qualification to satisfy a certain criteria 20 years ago to the satisfaction of Roy. What was that again?

 

[cristen]

umm, there was never any motive here, and I wasn't trying to imply anything. I happen to be on the save Disney site, and saw these two sepereate quotes. I thought they were interesting and posted them here. I never wanted to imply that he said it at Disney, and personally I don't think it matters where he said it.
I saw the quote from Walt and thought it summed up his philosophy quite well, and saw the Eisner and thought that was interesting also. Nothing implied. Sorry, I would have made two seperate posts for them had I known they were not supposed to be mentioned in the same thread.

 

[KNWVIKING]

... ***"umm, there was never any motive here, and I wasn't trying to imply anything. I happen to be on the save Disney site, and saw these two sepereate quotes. I thought they were interesting and posted them here. I never wanted to imply that he said it at Disney, and personally I don't think it matters where he said it."***

While I',m certain you had no ulterior motive for posting both quotes on this board, I'm also just as certain the OP on SaveDis did.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Walt was a creator,an innovator, who had a big brother that was a businessman. Eisner lacks his "Walt", or at least lost his with the passing of Wells. Roy Jr didn't bring ME in because the company needed a Walt, it needed a Roy Sr.

Just as an off topic sidebar: For all those who would like to see Roy replace ME, did you ever wonder why Roy needed to go out and get ME ? Is an older version of the same Roy now the right person to rescue the company ?

 

[Another Voice]

Quotes:

From an open letter to Disney employees on 12/07/03:
( http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00000417.html )

"And we will not be distracted from what has been and must remain our sole focus - delivering growth and shareholder value."

Different company/different decade - same sentiment/same idiot.


"Obviously, Eisner possessed enough qualification to satisfy a certain criteria 20 years ago to the satisfaction of Roy. What was that again?"

Roy thought Eisner could con Hollywood. Roy was right, but he also got conned in the process. Now - after it's too late - he regrets that decision.

 

[raidermatt]

Just as an off topic sidebar: For all those who would like to see Roy replace ME, did you ever wonder why Roy needed to go out and get ME ? Is an older version of the same Roy now the right person to rescue the company ?

Yikes! I haven't been keeping up with all the posts on this board lately, but are some actually saying Roy should be the new CEO?

No offense to Roy, but even he knows he is not the answer (just as he knew it back in the day).

As for myself, my support of Roy's cause should not be interpreted to mean I want Roy as CEO.

On the original quotes, fine, maybe its not fair to directly compare the two. But in this case, the basic difference illustrated in the quotes still rings true.

 

[Goofyposter]

Walt could NOT operate today as he had while he was alive.

I'm sure all those who consider themselves "enlightened" will consider me an idiot......BUT.....I disagree in a philosophical sense.

Flame away!....and have some fun!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Goofyposter! Why would anyone “Flame” on this board? Especially since you are so very obviously right!!

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... Ya gotta delete that last post by Baron.

 

[crusader]

Different company/different decade - same sentiment/same idiot

Not exactly the same sentiment but I'll give you some rope with that one.

How are you ever going to survive this guy's resilience?

Another trip perhaps?

Regarding Walt's vision toward embracing that wonderful little box in our homes while the rest of Hollywood shuttered, I'd like to play the quote game a bit.

Here's one I'm particularly fond of:

"I have more latitude in television than I ever had before. If I had an idea for something, I had to then go and try to sell it to the distributors, to the theater men, and everyone else. With television, I just get my gang together and we say we think that will be something interesting - lets do it. And I go direct to that public." Walt Disney

Now why do you suppose he would need to do that? Afterall, he's not about peddling his products. He doesn't need to persuade us! Man, he must have been taken out of context.

 

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by DVC-Landbaron
Goofyposter! Why would anyone “Flame” on this board? Especially since you are so very obviously right!!

I don't see the problem with Baron's post.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Whoa! And I do mean WHOA!!! Mr. KNWVIKING. I’m not sure how you read it, but it certainly wasn't given with any rancor or malice! In fact it was about as “tongue-in-cheek” as I could get without actually putting one of those silly smilies in it!

Here:



Is that better?

Or perhaps a whole new (but somewhat boring) post:

----------------
Goofyposter,

I agree with you 100%. I think you are 100% correct!! Thank you.

As to your ‘flame’ comment, I don’t think it will be necessary as all of us on this Board do our utmost best to remain civil and cordial, if not downright friendly! I doubt very much if you need to be worried about any ‘flaming’.
----------------

Is that better? I believe it said the same thing, but was void of personality, banal, dry and… well… boring!! Sorry if you took it wrong. Sorry if I posted it wrong. Trust me. I’ll be more careful in the future if you’re involved in the thread. I won’t leave out the smilie!!

 

[KNWVIKING]

.... I was joking. I can't just let Baron get away with such a definitive "so very obviously right!!" comment. I also knew that your comment was meant to be humorous rather then malicious.

Maybe I should learn how to use the smileys and winkies.

 

[Another Voice]

"Now why do you suppose he would need to do that?"

Because at the time Walt was always at the mercy of bankers, distributors, and other "smart money" types that would control his access to the public.

The bankers would decide which movies were made (because all the studios financed their films using production loans) and distributors would decide which movies got into theaters (because the government essentially mandated this layer of middleman between a studio and distribution).

Everyone in the process, especially the ones with money, "knew" how the business worked and continually demanded Walt follow their plans instead of what Walt knew to be the best way. They were saying don't make new movie, just make sequels to The Three Little Pisg and Snow White, they were the ones that said make big musical movies instead of building an amusement park.

The typical "smart money" mentality that ruins businesses.

Television allowed Walt to make the programs he wanted to make, the way he wanted to make them, and show them directly to the public without interference from "smart money". He was able to bypass the narrow minds, fear and inertia of the entrenched types and created new material the public embraced. So while the other Hollywood studios were running away from television, Walt was there making buckets of money and promoting his new little venture down in Anaheim.

You gotta wonder if trying to follow the smart money now, which is Eisner philosophy" works any better. The Internet, increased cable, publishing, music, Disney Institute – all the favored projects of the smart money – have been massive failures beyond redemption. But the few counter smart money moves, the cruise ships, CGI animation (or at least sticking the brand on other people's work), Tokyo DisneySea – have all been amazing successes.

Gee, if Eisner had gone with his "smart money" ideas and closed Feature Animation in the late eighties when he wanted (and therefore no Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King) there probably wouldn't have been a "Golden Era" at all. Seems like Eisner is keeping up a tradition from the old Walt era afterall.

The tradition of being someone who doesn't have a clue.

 

[airlarry!]

AV:

Isn't this an unforeseen indictment of the administration of Ei$ner isntead? Can the point be made that Ei$ner himself represents the bankers of Walt's day that Walt through talent, charm, and sticktoitiveness prevailed over for many of his projects, and that the people under him should have prevailed collectively (just as Walt did)?

Is that why we get the early successes (despite Ei$ner instead of as credit to Ei$ner), but that since Ei$ner has so completely stripped the company of suits--other than yes man--with the creativity and perserverance that Walt showed?

Or is that there are and have been people below Ei$ner that should take the blame for not pushing harder for quality and timelessness creativity, and that Ei$ner has just been the Banker/Uncle Roy hurdle to cross?