Roy Disney Sues Disney Company

[crusader]

Snacky,

In those quotes Walt acknowledges the need for money. It may get in the way of his creative aspirations, and he may have had to battle Roy over and over again on this issue, but it was, is and will forever remain a vital aspect of Disney's business.

Let's assume they knew they couldn't win the alternate slate vote.

Yeah, let's. But take it one step further. Assume they couldn't win because they couldn't really prove the company needed "saving" after they failed to publicly speak out against Comcast. That's the credibility problem. It can't be reversed.

Honestly, they probably just want back in - it's tough missing all that adulation pouring out of the 50th.

Pirate said it: Timing.

 

[DancingBear]

...I've heard people on this and other boards say that all of the is and ts would be taken care of and the suit seems frivolous.

...Are we really that sure that they took every precaution? Is there no one who believes that this board has just enough arrogance to do what it wants, when it wants, and the details be damned.

Don't underestimate Mitchell and Eisner. In 2004, Comcast was coming, and they got unprecedented "no" votes at the annual meeting. Now, they are Chairman and CEO, and Eisner's choice is CEO-designate, and Comcast is out of the picture.

Whatever the historical arrogance of this Board, they weren't going to act stupidly in the face of SaveDisney's campaign and all of the scrutiny they were under. Remember how they took the wind out of SaveDisney's sails by hiring a search firm?

The timing thing is kinda bogus, too, since these were the same folks saying the projected naming of the successor by June, 2005, and Eisner's departure in 2006, were unnecessarily long timetables.

 

[WDSearcher]

Actually, don't your quotes prove the opposite of what you say?

No, I don't think they do. You're hearing me saying Walt was in it for the money and taking that as a negative. It's not. He may have hated that he needed the money and the investors to do what he was doing, but he did things that would bring money in so that he could pay for new stuff. If you want to get technical, as SnackyStacky did, I suppose it was Roy who was in it for the money, but Walt certainly didn't just blithely skip down the garden path of creativity thinking that money grew on trees and he could spend all he wanted. He knew that the majority of what he did had to be profitable or he couldn't do it any more.

I'm not saying this as fact. I'm speculating. But would it come as that much of a surprise that Roy & Stan wanted two bites at the apple?

No. But I want to know what they WANT. Yes -- they want someone other than Iger in charge. OK ... we get that. But who? For months and months people asked them who they thought would be a good choice for CEO. And even before they elected not to run an alternate slate, they demured. They had ample chances to name names, put ideas out there in the press. Get investors thinking. Get stockholders thinking. They had a press corps just BEGGING for recommendations and commentary. And they stayed silent. Now Disney is on a huge upswing, and they file a suit, and the press kind of yawns. Honestly ... if they had had an alternative slate ready right after they won the unprecedented "no confidence" vote, and they used that momentum and started campaigning then and there, and rode herd on the board and kept their Save Disney troops rallied, I don't think anything could have stopped them at the 2005 elections. They dropped the ball. The board obviously didn't feel threatened, and so they did what everyone figured they'd do. And now Roy and Stan are coming back, playing the wounded investors. Maybe they just don't want to admit they didn't follow through and so they're trying a desperation play.

 

[WDSearcher]

I agree with Larry. I think the only thing the quotes you've provided prove is that Walt thought money got in the way. In fact, another of his quotes is something to the fact that he never went into Disneyland with the idea of making money!

The quote is "We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money." They went in to make money, but that wasn't the only consideration. It probably wasn't even the first consideration. It was a work of love and creativity and ideas and entertainment, but it also had to make money.

How could Roy and Stan offer those bits of advice to Eisner?!

Who said they had to talk to Eisner? By Roy and Stan's own admission, there were several people on the board who they did trust and did feel were independent. They had allies. And honestly, Save Disney was a brilliant plan, if they'd have just stuck with it. They could have controlled the 2005 board elections and given Eisner and Mitchell something to have to fight against. They had all of these people in their corner, ready for the next move. Ready to do virtually anything Roy asked them to do. But they didn't have a next move. I can cut them a little slack for being surprised at the percentages and taking a second to catch their breath, but they still needed to have a place to go next. (yeah ... I know ... I'm armchair quarterbacking ... )

I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't see this as Roy and Stan being blind-sided. I think Roy and Stanley KNOW exactly what's happening, and what HAS happened to the company.

I don't see it as them being blind-sided either. But that seems to be their defense. If they know exactly what's happening, then why claim that they trusted the board and were led astray?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Once again I agree with Searcher and crusader...Always right on.

If nothing these first few weeks of the Iger regime prove he was the right choice...Yes, PROVE. He has made very un-Eisner-like moves towards decentralization, regained talks with Pixar and shown quite unequivicably that he is not Michael Eisner. Roy and Stan NEVER offered anyone for folks to get behind, and after their temperate support of the Comcast deal I'd say that's a good thing.

Roy is acting like a cranky old man and raining on the 50th party with earnings up 30% just stinks of ego. He had his chance with the success of Save Disney and couldn't follow it up with anything...Not a darned thing.

 

[DVCconvert]

If nothing these first few weeks of the Iger regime prove he was the right choice...Yes, PROVE.

No "proof" there whatsoever in my book. Imagine IF a puppet of Eisner's where to find themselves where Iger is - Eisners no dumbie, he'd have a puppet send out a smoke screen like act or two. Mind you, I hope this is not the case, and I do want to give Bob every benefit of every doubt, but the suit will determine if he has, or has not, any "smoking guns" in his past actions.

He has made very un-Eisner-like moves towards decentralization, regained talks with Pixar and shown quite unequivicably that he is not Michael Eisner.

Did I miss the Press Release that Pixar and Disney are in bed together again? I don't think so - so far, nothing has happened. Other than some mild suggestions that things might again get better.

Roy and Stan NEVER offered anyone for folks to get behind, and after their temperate support of the Comcast deal I'd say that's a good thing.

I believe that naviely perhaps, they afforded the benefit of the doubt to the board. Regretably, following the 'just add water, instant CEO' "vote", it became apparent that just perhaps, the board had not got religion. The comcast "support" was minor at best - it was an arguement tool. No one really believes that's what's best for the company. (Not even Wallstreet)

Roy is acting like a cranky old man and raining on the 50th party with earnings up 30% just stinks of ego. He had his chance with the success of Save Disney and couldn't follow it up with anything...Not a darned thing.

Who is "stinking of Ego" peter? I think this matter is clear evidence that they had something to "follow it up with". As far as the whooping it up about the 30% part - isn't it interesting to you than on the day of the annoucement they had to stop trading because of a leak? And on the following day, despite heavier than normal trading in the stock, it still only managed a .30% rise? That combined with the fact that in the annoucement, it was stated a part of the "rise" was due to a write down?

 

[Peter Pirate]

Come on Convert...At least capitialize the "P"!!!

 

[DVCconvert]

At least capitialize the "P"!!!

Whoops!!!, "My Bad"!

 

[airlarry!]

Once again I agree with Searcher and crusader...Always right on.

If nothing these first few weeks of the Iger regime prove he was the right choice...Yes, PROVE. He has made very un-Eisner-like moves towards decentralization, regained talks with Pixar and shown quite unequivicably that he is not Michael Eisner. Roy and Stan NEVER offered anyone for folks to get behind, and after their temperate support of the Comcast deal I'd say that's a good thing.

Roy is acting like a cranky old man and raining on the 50th party with earnings up 30% just stinks of ego. He had his chance with the success of Save Disney and couldn't follow it up with anything...Not a darned thing.

My esteemed bucaneer friend, why exactly are you agreeing with them? Other than tradition...

Let's not debate whether or not Roy and savedisney screwed up. (Heck, there I'm inclined to agree.)

The more important thing is someone on this very board asked me to stop calling Igor...Eisgor...err...whatshisname...Mini-ME because I wasn't giving him a chance.

Well, the flip side is people not giving him a chance to screw it up either. You're already calling him a success...and psst....he hasn't actually done the things he needs to do to be a success yet.

I've said I'm giving him six months, cause that's all I would need, and that's all he needs to prove it to me that he's not in fact Mini-ME. (God forbid he turns into Maxi-ME).

Saying he's gotten closer to Pixar or improved the parks or ABC is looking up or earnings are looking better is just a pixie-dust version of saying the exact opposite that DFA is still dead and there is no Pixar deal and McDonald's may pay $200m a year to Pixar and Dreamworks instead of Disney and ABC is not only a dead medium but a dying network and the parks are still saddled with three money losers and the possibility of one more on the way.

Are we going to trade hyperbole and speculation here? If I am to temper my pessimism (and I promise I am really trying to hold my tongue here because I may be proven wrong and all I'll have to eat are my usually snide--dare I say condescending?--nicknames about the guy), why are these two not asked to temper their optimism? At least give the guy a chance to thaw out before you call him Walt, will you?

Bob Iger may be a nice guy, loves pets, smiles at his kids, and gives to his favorite charities, but what he has not yet proven is that he deserves the job.

Disney is not in it to sell widgets. The core of this company is content and creativity. I hear people cheer that Comcast (or whatever big name) didn't buy Disney. Are you so sure, so positive, so absolutely convinced that Bog Ibor (and his mentor) haven't already changed the company from the inside?

 

[SnackyStacky]

The quote is "We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money." They went in to make money, but that wasn't the only consideration. It probably wasn't even the first consideration. It was a work of love and creativity and ideas and entertainment, but it also had to make money.

I think I see now the crux of the disagreement, and I think we're just randomly throwing around the term "money" here. When I say Eisner is in it for the money - I mean he is in it for PERSONAL financial gain. Walt didn't want the money for himself - he wanted it to finance his next big idea.

Walt mortgaged EVERYTHING he owned to make Disneyland a reality.

Eisner mortgaged everything the Disney company owned to build EuroDisney - a multi-million dollar mistake - while he went to Paris for the opening ceremonies in his private jet.

HUGE differences in the views of money, and the notion of trying to compare the two isn't at ALL kosher.

Who said they had to talk to Eisner?

You hypothesized:

Did they offer one bit of concrete evidence to anyone that Iger was not a good choice, other than that he was Eisner's pick?

My point was - the successor discussions only came up AFTER Roy and Stanley left. How could they have offered any evidence on an issue that wasn't even around? When it came up, they weren't on the board - so why would they have offered any evidence?

By Roy and Stan's own admission, there were several people on the board who they did trust and did feel were independent. They had allies. And honestly, Save Disney was a brilliant plan, if they'd have just stuck with it. They could have controlled the 2005 board elections and given Eisner and Mitchell something to have to fight against. They had all of these people in their corner, ready for the next move. Ready to do virtually anything Roy asked them to do. But they didn't have a next move. I can cut them a little slack for being surprised at the percentages and taking a second to catch their breath, but they still needed to have a place to go next. (yeah ... I know ... I'm armchair quarterbacking ... )

I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the SaveDisney campaign, but I believe that they had a plan. I think their plans kept falling flat because Eisner had so engrained himself that he, to use a term that Raidermatt coined, had become a franken-monster to the Walt Disney Company. What CEO, besides one that had a stacked boardroom, could have EVER survived the numbers that Eisner did from the 2004 shareholders meeting? Lesser numbers resulted in the ouster of Steve Case.

I don't see it as them being blind-sided either. But that seems to be their defense. If they know exactly what's happening, then why claim that they trusted the board and were led astray?

Because, they (they meaning the shareholders) WERE led astray. Have you read the complaint?

Also revealed in the complaint is the Company's recent rejection of Messrs. Disney's and Gold's request under Delaware law for books and records documenting the Board's search for Eisner's successor. Messrs. Disney and Gold's complaint cites the Company's refusal to permit any scrutiny of the Board's decision to appoint Iger as CEO as further evidence that shareholders were misled by the Board's statements about a bona fide process.

You don't call refusing to release documentation about the successor search leading the shareholders astray? I believe that Roy and Stanley ARE filing this suit on a personal vendetta, but I believe the basis of their complaint is in the best interest of the shareholder, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

I don't believe they would have gone forward with this lawsuit if there wasn't concrete proof of the claims that they're making.

As for whether or not Iger is the right candidate - again, Disney has set itself a precedent. I don't trust them. So it will take more than two or three positive moves for me to completely trust that Iger can and will turn things around. With each positive move they're gaining more and more of my trust, but they're SO far away from me believing the Disney of old can once again be achieved.

And you still haven't acknowleged the proof I offered that Eisner will probably be sticking around.

 

[crusader]

Well absent of actually getting back a Disney of "old" which is really not realistic, I'm hoping you'll be able to once again have a Disney of tomorrow you stand behind and support.

For many, Roy was the symbol of that (or maybe he was just a symbol of old). He unfortunately, didn't measure up in my view. Here's a guy there from the beginning, with a wealth of shareholders backing him up who presents nothing. I don't buy the arguments that he was ill prepared to successfully battle the board. He was an insider. He has the dirt. He knows where the skeletons are buried. If anything, he's pulling a CYA because of his own involvement or lack thereof regarding the many decisions he's blasting Eisner for.

Stan's no saint either. He signed the infamous employment agreement(s) and helping to create the monster in Eisner.

For them to litigate to try and prove Iger isn't the best qualified for the job only further proves that they had nothing to offer their supporters except to say "we agree" with you. If I were one of the many many loyal individuals who worked hard to help these guys, I'd be gravely disappointed.

Roy and Stan failed to tell them what they tried to do but couldn't for all those years. They failed to tell them what they continually attempted to propose for the future of the company and how the board prevented it time and again. They failed to unveil anything to prove the company really needed saving. It was all about Eisner.

 

[WDSearcher]

I think I see now the crux of the disagreement, and I think we're just randomly throwing around the term "money" here. When I say Eisner is in it for the money - I mean he is in it for PERSONAL financial gain. Walt didn't want the money for himself - he wanted it to finance his next big idea.

With this, I will agree. Although I'm sure Walt didn't mind that he had the money he needed to raise his daughters as he did and have the life he did. But I'll agree that he -- like many other innovators before him and after him -- saw the creative part of the project as being far greater than whatever financial gains he acquired.

Eisner mortgaged everything the Disney company owned to build EuroDisney - a multi-million dollar mistake - while he went to Paris for the opening ceremonies in his private jet.

Walt had a jet too.

My point was - the successor discussions only came up AFTER Roy and Stanley left. How could they have offered any evidence on an issue that wasn't even around?

Again ... they had friends and allies on the board and throughout Hollywood. Now, maybe they tried to talk to people and move ideas around, and maybe they didn't. But they had options. It wasn't as though a huge steel wall flew up and made it impossible for them to have conversations with people. Their overwhelming hatred of ME gave them a sort of tunnel vision. It was always more about beating Eisner than it was about anything else.

I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the SaveDisney campaign, but I believe that they had a plan. I think their plans kept falling flat because Eisner had so engrained himself that he, to use a term that Raidermatt coined, had become a franken-monster to the Walt Disney Company. What CEO, besides one that had a stacked boardroom, could have EVER survived the numbers that Eisner did from the 2004 shareholders meeting? Lesser numbers resulted in the ouster of Steve Case.

Exactly. Which is why I don't think they had a plan. Everyone seemed to believe that if the percentage vote were high enough, Eisner would leave. That the vote was the end of the journey. But what in Eisner's personality make-up made people think that? The next day, Eisner took his lumps, gave up the chairmanship, and came out smiling. And Roy and Stan did what? Nothing. Roy and Stan led a brilliant and enthusiastic campaign. Eisner and several board members received high percentages of "no confidence" votes. But guess what? All of those people are still in power. The only thing that changed was that Eisner isn't chairman and Mitchell is. If Roy and Stan had a plan for what happened next, then no one seemed to know about it. They tried a few press releases and demands, but never once did they give a call to action. And then the quarterly earnings came out. Great numbers; business as usual. Roy went back to yacht racing, and Stan went back to his office. And then every once in a while, they surface again with a lawsuit. If that's the plan, I don't think it's working.

I don't believe they would have gone forward with this lawsuit if there wasn't concrete proof of the claims that they're making.

Well ... we'll see. I don't believe that Eisner and Mitchell would not have made sure they met at least the minimum requirements. I imagine it will all come down to interpretation.

As for whether or not Iger is the right candidate - again, Disney has set itself a precedent. I don't trust them. So it will take more than two or three positive moves for me to completely trust that Iger can and will turn things around. With each positive move they're gaining more and more of my trust, but they're SO far away from me believing the Disney of old can once again be achieved.

From where I sit inside the company, there are many areas where the "Disney of old" is alive and well. But the company will never be the Disney of old -- the world is too different. All of the people who want Disney to be the same company as it was under Walt aren't being realistic. But that Walt spirit is still there in many, many places, from the executive offices on down. And with Bob Iger walking around and introducing himself, you can definitely sense a change in the air.

And you still haven't acknowleged the proof I offered that Eisner will probably be sticking around.

Becuase I don't see it as proof. I see it as your interpretation of a few comments that Eisner made in an interview. My interpretation was different. I read it as the normal flak that powerful men who are retiring give to the press, nothing more. I think he'll still have a presence, but I don't think he'll be sticking around in the same ominous way you do. Sorry.

 

[SnackyStacky]

With this, I will agree. Although I'm sure Walt didn't mind that he had the money he needed to raise his daughters as he did and have the life he did. But I'll agree that he -- like many other innovators before him and after him -- saw the creative part of the project as being far greater than whatever financial gains he acquired.

I did acknowledge that he probably wasn't too upset by the personal financial gains. Just a point of reference. I think we see eye to eye there.

Walt had a jet too.

And he purchased that jet AFTER Disneyland. And I'm sure you know darn well that Disney World opened with ZERO debt. So I don't have too much of a problem with Walt's jet.

Again ... they had friends and allies on the board and throughout Hollywood. Now, maybe they tried to talk to people and move ideas around, and maybe they didn't. But they had options. It wasn't as though a huge steel wall flew up and made it impossible for them to have conversations with people. Their overwhelming hatred of ME gave them a sort of tunnel vision. It was always more about beating Eisner than it was about anything else.

Agreed - but I gotta say - when they left, I think their allies became enemies because Roy and Stanley were the only ones with cajones enough to challenge Eisner. Everyone else fell to their knees in front of Eisner. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to share any ideas with those kind of people either.

Exactly. Which is why I don't think they had a plan. Everyone seemed to believe that if the percentage vote were high enough, Eisner would leave. That the vote was the end of the journey. But what in Eisner's personality make-up made people think that? The next day, Eisner took his lumps, gave up the chairmanship, and came out smiling. And Roy and Stan did what? Nothing. Roy and Stan led a brilliant and enthusiastic campaign. Eisner and several board members received high percentages of "no confidence" votes. But guess what? All of those people are still in power. The only thing that changed was that Eisner isn't chairman and Mitchell is.

I agree. I don't dispute those facts. I am sure that Roy and Stan made mistakes, but I can't tell what those mistakes are because I'm not at all knowledgeable as to how corporations work.

I don't know what procedures are in place to call out a CEO.

I really just don't know.

If Roy and Stan had a plan for what happened next, then no one seemed to know about it. They tried a few press releases and demands, but never once did they give a call to action. And then the quarterly earnings came out. Great numbers; business as usual. Roy went back to yacht racing, and Stan went back to his office. And then every once in a while, they surface again with a lawsuit. If that's the plan, I don't think it's working.

I don't think you're giving them enough credit. I really don't believe that, and I think it's pretty far fetched to assume that they're sitting around with their fingers up their behind and randomly saying "We haven't surfaced in a while! Let's throw together a lawsuit." As MUCH as you may think they're Dumb & Dumber, I think that that's just a little off the mark.

Well ... we'll see. I don't believe that Eisner and Mitchell would not have made sure they met at least the minimum requirements. I imagine it will all come down to interpretation.

I don't think that at all. I think Eisner is SO sure of himself, and so sure that nothing can happen - that I don't believe you scenario is the case at all. And mind you - I'm not saying that Roy and Stan will walk away from this suit victorious - what I'm saying is that I don't believe Eisner covered his tracks. He may get away with any wrongdoing he may have done.

From where I sit inside the company, there are many areas where the "Disney of old" is alive and well. But the company will never be the Disney of old -- the world is too different. All of the people who want Disney to be the same company as it was under Walt aren't being realistic.

Who said anything about Walt's Disney? I'm talking about the Disney that turned out some of the amazing rides that sit in the park today. Rides that Walt may have been around for, but not necessarily created by him. I'm talking about Pirates. I'm talking Haunted Mansion. I'm talking about Big Thunder Mountain. I'm talking about Splash Mountain. I'm talking about rides that are (or were): original, popular, and reeked of that Disney quality. I don't believe that the rides that have come out of Imagineering have lived up to the quality of rides that came out some 20 years ago - 20 years after Walt died.

And before you point to Everest - know that I have formed no opinions. I've heard opinions from those who I know are totally discredited on this board, but I still am anxious to try it for myself and judge after I've ridden.

But that Walt spirit is still there in many, many places, from the executive offices on down. And with Bob Iger walking around and introducing himself, you can definitely sense a change in the air.

First of all, I acknowledged as much the bit about Iger. But after years of leading the guest astray, it's going to take more to earn my trust back. It's in the process of being earned, but still so far to go.

Second of all - I don't doubt that a lot of cast members still feel Walt's spirit. In fact, I think that Eisner believes himself to be Walt's legacy. But I think that misguided notion is the reason that things are so awry.

Becuase I don't see it as proof. I see it as your interpretation of a few comments that Eisner made in an interview. My interpretation was different. I read it as the normal flak that powerful men who are retiring give to the press, nothing more. I think he'll still have a presence, but I don't think he'll be sticking around in the same ominous way you do. Sorry.

I don't think his sticking around will be ominous. I think his buddies on the board will ask him to remain on the board. Nothing ominous. Just....there.

And I guess we don't see eye to eye on it - I just wanted to get your take because you asked for something Eisner said, and instead of saying it did nothing to sway you, you were silent.

Just glad to know where you stand.

 

[DVCconvert]

I gotta say - when they left, I think their allies became enemies because Roy and Stanley were the only ones with cajones enough to challenge Eisner.
Everyone else fell to their knees in front of Eisner.

That last sentence isn't exactly acturate.
They actually were pushed down onto their knees by Zenia Mucha, who was offering them as a sacrifice.

Fortunately for them; Eisner had earlier that day, ripped the flesh off from a couple of dozen Temps, and a hundred or so Feature Animation soon-to-be ex-cast members, so he 'spared' them with their oath of allegiance.

 

[SnackyStacky]

That last sentence isn't exactly acturate.
They actually were pushed down onto their knees by Zenia Mucha, who was offering them as a sacrifice.

Fortunately for them; Eisner had earlier that day, ripped the flesh off from a couple of dozen Temps, and a hundred or so Feature Animation soon-to-be ex-cast members, so he 'spared' them with their oath of allegiance.

Yeah.

That works too.

 

[manning]

I'm talking about Splash Mountain.

I do remember reading about Eisner killing this ride saying "we can't afford to build it" It was Frank Wells who said "we can't afford NOT to build it".

 

[SoCalKDG]

Won't ME and Roy both be sticking around no matter what happens. Aren't they the two major stockholders now? So if Roy loses this lawsuit, won't he still have a large degree of influence due to the number of shares he holds? The same for ME even if a new CEO is elected(if Roy wins)? Don't both individuals have a huge stake in the financial well being of Disney due to their stock holdings?


Edited because of my stupidity.

 

[WDSearcher]

Won't ME and Walt both be sticking around no matter what happens. Aren't they the two major stockholders now? So if Walt loses this lawsuit, won't he still have a large degree of influence due to the number of shares he holds? The same for ME even if a new CEO is elected(if Walt wins)? Don't both individuals have a huge stake in the financial well being of Disney due to their stock holdings?

Just an FYI ... Walt is dead. Roy is the one filing suit. Roy does not want to be CEO. Yes, both ME and Roy have some influence from a stock standpoint, although neither is really a "major" stockholder when you put them up against the pension funds and other institutional holders.

 

[WDSearcher]

Who said anything about Walt's Disney? I'm talking about the Disney that turned out some of the amazing rides that sit in the park today. Rides that Walt may have been around for, but not necessarily created by him. I'm talking about Pirates. I'm talking Haunted Mansion. I'm talking about Big Thunder Mountain. I'm talking about Splash Mountain. I'm talking about rides that are (or were): original, popular, and reeked of that Disney quality. I don't believe that the rides that have come out of Imagineering have lived up to the quality of rides that came out some 20 years ago - 20 years after Walt died.

And I'm talking about the Disney that developed IllumiNations, SpectroMagic, Legend of the Lion King (and The Lion King on Broadway, for that matter), Soarin', Mission : Space, Fantasmic, Tower of Terror, and even smaller stuff like talking trash cans and Turtle Talk. I happen to think those things are original, popular and reek of Disney quality. But I realize that's subjective. I also tend to assign a lot more importance to the shows, because I believe that a great show can be an e-ticket too. I guess the difference is that you're lamenting what you believe is a lost creativity, whereas I still see it thriving. It's just a matter of perspective. I'm happy to "agree to disagree" on this one.

 

[SnackyStacky]

And I'm talking about the Disney that developed IllumiNations, SpectroMagic,

Hasn't Illuminations been around since the 80's, meaning it was inclusive in the time period I was talking about? While I dearly love both of those shows, and yes, live up to the "Disney of old" moniker, I'm talking rides. Not shows.

Legend of the Lion King (and The Lion King on Broadway, for that matter),

Never saw Legend, but as I recall that was in the mid 90's, and see my argument for the above. And the Lion King on Broadway? Disney FINANCED it. They really had nothing to do with the creation of it. That credit belongs to Julie Taymor. And while we're on the subject of it - it's amazing visually. But as a piece of theatre (mainly, the book)? It's really weak.

Soarin'

I'll give you that one flat out. I haven't ridden it, so I'm trusting the reviews of everybody - which is a stretch for me. I usually reserve judgement until I've seen something.

I do have one gripe with this though - they should have changed the dang film. So they dropped the "Over California" from the name. Doesn't help it fit any better into the Epcot landscape.

Mission : Space

That's one I'm discounting. I've ridden it. Disney doesn't do simulators well at all. It fell flat to me on both story and experience. I can feel a bunch of G forces on any linear induction motor coaster.

Fantasmic

Maybe at Disneyland, but the WDW version? Had our feet not been so tired, we would have left. Splashy spectacle does not a Disney show make. AND - it ain't a ride. It's a show. I'm talking rides.

Tower of Terror

You've flat out got that one. I was actually thinking Terror when I made my list, but I forgot to put it on. It opened in '93 which is only a year after Splash opened up - so while I forgot it, it still was in the era I was talking about.

and even smaller stuff like talking trash cans and Turtle Talk.

You're right there again - but again I say - those aren't rides. Those are SHOWS. I think Turtle Talk has AMAZING potential. It's now a question of implementation of the technology.

I happen to think those things are original, popular and reek of Disney quality. But I realize that's subjective. I also tend to assign a lot more importance to the shows, because I believe that a great show can be an e-ticket too. I guess the difference is that you're lamenting what you believe is a lost creativity, whereas I still see it thriving. It's just a matter of perspective. I'm happy to "agree to disagree" on this one.

One of the things I've noticed is that the story of a ride no longer seems to be of the utmost importance. When I think of Mission: Space, I think of a simulator. When I think of Test Track, I think of a car.

When I think of Spalsh Mountain, I think of the briar patch and the laughing place. When I think of Tower of Terror, I think of seeing a decrepit hotel. When I think of Pirates of the Caribbean, I think of floating through a pirate battle, and a ransacked town.

See what I mean? All of those rides pre-95: it's seemingly the story that endures. The stuff post-95: it's the ride mechanism. The stuff that I look at lovingly transports through the story. The others transport through the use of a vehicle.

And while we're at it - MOST of the stuff that's out there now, I like too! But I don't see it as living up to the same standard that the older rides lived up to.