Slate piece on Eisner...

[BRERALEX]

lotr I LIKED IT. IT DOES HAVE SOME REALLY BORING PARTS BUT GOOD OVERALL.

AND ONE OF THE FEW TIMES THE MOVIE IS WAAAY BETTER THEN THE BOOK

THOSE BOOKS SUCK SORRY TO SAY TO ANY tOLKEIN FANS BUT MAN THEY ARE HORRIBLE THE WAY HE WRITES THEM. CANT WAIT FOR THE TWO TOWERS. TRYING TO READ THE BOOK BUT ITS PAINFUL.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Now don’t tell anyone, but the inside sco… ahhh… track is, ‘legally’ this is not a rumor!! I hope I can get away with it!!

And I certainly don’t want to turn this thread into a LotR thread but…

BRERALEX!!!

AND ONE OF THE FEW TIMES THE MOVIE IS WAAAY BETTER THEN THE BOOK

I thought you showed a great deal of intelligence!! But then you come out with a statement like that!!!! (TIP: If you’re mired in The Two Towers, push on!! It can get a little… ahhh… we… dry! But it’s well worth it to get to The Return of the King!!) I know, and I'm only kidding, but LotR is one of my favorite books!! (along with Lonesome Dove!!)

And I already saw the first one. AV alluded to the fact he screened the second one AND HE’S GOT TO GIVE UP THE GOODS!!!!

Please!!! AV!!! Please!!!



(GOD!! I hate groveling!!)

 

[hopemax]

and having come from a screening of a movie about short people and an interesting bit of jewelry

AHHHHH, tell, tell, tell!

I'm skimming, along and one little sentence sends me screaming around the room and for once it's not something Disney.

DH and I are having a screening of the first tonight.

Groveling around with DVC...

 

[BRERALEX]

Man then AV really is the man if im stuck on the first and he gets to see the second man WHO IS HE!!!!!!

Im way behind what thread is is this "rob peter to pay paul?"

Baron please please. LOTR, THE hobbZzzzzzzit, and the Two Towers are awefully hard to read very very very hard to read. And its not that their too dense cause im a huge Anne Rice fan its just that their IMO poorly constructed. I think their early success was lack of other sci-fi fantasy way back then lol. <-man im gonna get flamed for that

sorry to jump OT

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

This is why I so passionately advocate active protest. The only way the system changes is if consumers cut off its air supply.

OK!! Scoop! Not that agree with anything you said, but OK!! For the sake of argument – You da man!! Every single solitary sentence rings true and we all agree that you will lead us!

From your posts lately it is clear that you are one of us, the only difference is that you don’t think anything will change if Ei$ner goes! The old Disney way of doing things is DEAD!! And now, for this exercise at least, we all believe you. And what’s more we agree with you!! Sure, we are all depressed!! But your post leaves us with hope!! You say there is a way that AV, WFH, myself and all the rest of us can affect real change in the company!! So…

So, What’s our first move, Skipper? Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead!! We await your orders!! And by the way, will you lead by example? Or will you merely give lip service!?!?

 

[PKS44]

Southwest gives customers what they want..low fares, on time, safe and friendly service...and they make money...NO other airline makes money -- and yet they continue to do things the way they always have while this little upstart comes in and does what any well run company does--give the people what they want....quality in entertainment is not the same as it is for haircuts and airlines and low end retail....IN entertainment, people want something special---they want cheap haircuts, because they know there is not much difference in what they get if they pay $10 or $40 for most hair..and you get another chance at it in a few weeks....vacations, leisure time---once they are gone, they are gone...people will invest time and money in something if it delivers the goods...If Disney wants to play Southwest in the Entertainment business-as it appears is their strategy-then they misunderstand the success of Walmart and Southwest and other budget/value providers...Entertainment dollars are not spent the same way as Walmart dollars...There are too many people who can give you cheap entertainment, Disney cannot hope to compete in that market--they have to be special or people will go elsewhere...building a carnival instead of a destination will not draw people from their nearby carnival--building a nahtazoo when people can go to top zoos for a third of the price or less will be nahtasuccess. Disney is the problem and they refuse to face up to it...They blame the economy...they blame the consumer (as thedscoop does) and yet if they are only giving what the consumer "wants" why is it such a failure while those Walmarts and Southwest "evil drags on quality" a success? Because success and quality are not what thedscoop says they are...success comes from knowing what your market wants AND delivering it well...THAT is quality...it could mean a cheaper haircut or a more expensive vacation, but it boils down to delivering to the consumer what he wants...Disney management is failing to do that.

 

[treesinger]

The mistake, IMHO, is viewing WDW as a major player in the theme park industry. Its true, but it doesn't explain the popularity or success of WDW. Many WDW visitors are not theme park enthusiasts. Most are not deciding between going to WDW or Six Flags or a Paramount park. They are deciding whether to go to WDW, or go to the Grand Canyon. WDW, or Maui. WDW, or the historic sites on the East Coast.

VERY astute observation!! Most people, whether they realize it or not, are going to WDW for the CULTURE rather than for a theme park experience. It also draws on people's loyalty because of the happy memories they have from past trips. Everyone remembers how it used to be, and for the most part, these same people STILL see the excellent service whether it is really there or not. The loyalists here are more likely to shrug off any Un-Disney attitude as an abberation rather than as the norm. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between.

The point is (there really IS one) that, yes, WDW is NOT primarily competition for amusement parks. It IS competition for family time and culture. WDW is inspiration, imagination, animation, family, and pixie dust. And if WDW is going to flourish again, it needs to find these roots again!! TV stations, internet portals, etc. are not means to these particular ends. I don't begrudge Disney's efforts at making money with Disney channel, etc, but when the PRIMARY focus shifts away from the ideals, it's no wonder they find themselves in this predicament.

 

[treesinger]

Scoop, you make a great point about pulling your dollars away from Disney until they straighten up, even though you say you won't. But the problem in point of view is not so easily solved, I think.

First of all, many of us feel that if we stopped going, we'd only hurt ourselves. WDW would still survive without us, though maybe not thrive. It's the "my vote doesn't count" syndrome. Unless we feel there is a concerted effort by the public at large to make a change, then discontinuing visits to Disney only hurts us, because we really want to go whether or not it is the Disney of old.

Another point: If stopping our visits is the most practical way to get rid of Eisner, who's to say it would work? What if, for some wild reason, Disney continues to plummet but Eisner somehow remains the Man. We continue to punish Disney and ourselves by not going, and then the whole fiasco reaches the point of no return. And you can't say this won't happen for sure, because many are surprised that Eisner has managed to stay aloft for as long as he has through Disney's latest slump.

Once the Titanic takes on too much water, it is guaranteed to go down. Do we want to jump off the (big red) boat entirely or are we going to grab a pail and help bail?

Scoop, your point about going cold turkey certainly works in some situations. However, I don't think the Eisner/Disney thing is one of those situations.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

But to get to this "endgame" one should look to where the seed was planted--where this process started.

Well That's easy!!! It started right here on the DIS, when Peter Pirate, Parrothead and myself had a long running debate about the decline of WDW!!! About a year later the boards merged and well... the rest is history!!!

But seriously, Scoop I do have a question for you.

Would you like to see Ei$ner go?

Please, no dissertations. No qualifiers and no closing arguments. We can give a myriad of reasons later, but I'm asking you for a one word answer. Either YES or NO!!

Thanks!!

 

[treesinger]

So, that is why I answer Baron's question the way I did. If you want to get rid of Eisner, stop going to Disney parks, Disney stores, Disney films, etc. Why? Because its working pretty good so far if your desire is to get rid of Eisber...

Can't argue with that!

I guess my point really stems from the fact that Disney is already bleeding plenty of green and doesn't need to bleed anymore. I would bet if there was a turnaround of sorts, we would STILL want to get Eisner out because we would reason that it is a fluke or that it is still not enough, etc.

I think Eisner is gone no matter what. I think most of us think that. And if that's the case, no matter how much money we now decide to throw at the parks, movies, etc., it would not be enough to save his hide. That wasn't the original point I was trying to make, but your response helped me realize the other point that was tucked away in my brain.

I don't believe we have to help Eisner dig his grave any deeper. 6 feet is plenty!

It's not that I disagree with you scoop, it's that I think your plan of the proletariat overthrowing the evil dictator has already come to pass, we just haven't hung him yet. And he'll be hung soon enough.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

NOT FAIR SCOOP!!!

Come one!!! Play the game. We don't know IF a well-though out and well designed post-Eisner plan for Disney has been carefully formulated and committed to by his successor.

We don't KNOW squat!! We can conjecture we can dream. We can go by the best rumor. But I'll lay you odds that even Roy Jr. doesn't KNOW the final outcome yet.

So given what we know, at this point in time, a simple yes or no.

Do you want to see Ei$ner go?

 

[treesinger]

Eisner has to go. Even if he had great plans that the board ate up hungrily, they would still be skeptical that he could pull it off. Eisner's legacy is too scarred for him to go on. He needs to take his $737 million and go home.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Ahhhhhhh!!! Scoop!! A good attorney (at least on TV) always tells his client to answer the question only!! And NEVER volunteer anything!! If you had stuck to you original “no” and said nothing else, I would have given up. But like the Perry Mason witness, you just couldn’t leave well enough alone.

Now on the other hand, if you ask should Disney be looking for a better CEO? Then yes.

Well!! We’re finally getting somewhere!! But, boy oh boy, you ain’t making this easy!! I feel like a dentist!!

So, let’s regroup a bit. You think it’s time for Disney to look for a new CEO. OK. Fair enough. But what would motivate the board to do such a thing?

Now, I really should stop there and let you answer, but I can’t contain myself!! So, I’m going to tip my hand a bit. But let’s face it, you wouldn’t be much of a lawyer if you didn’t know where I was going anyway. So, here goes…

If you could split a fine hair for me, I’d like to know the difference between my stance (wanting EI$ner out) and your position (the board should look for a new one). Before those fingers of yours start typing, I know that you want a replacement before we give him the boot. I understand. And you don’t think he’s quite as bad as I do, but you still think it’s time for the Board to start looking.

So, don’t we really want the same thing? It’s just the process that’s a bit different. And actually I think your way is a bit better than mine, although I think my way would FORCE the board to take action. But be that as it may, we both think it’s time for Ei$ner to go!! Right?

OK. Once again I should stop and see what twists you put in (and I mean that in the friendliest way). Or you may agree with me. Anyway I should stop, but I won’t.

So, supposing that I am correct, and there’s no legal maneuvering (you know, wiggle room, loopholes, etc.) you’re going to lay on me, I’ll continue.

Just what makes your position any different than mine? We both want to force the board to take action. Find a suitable replacement and then bring out the tar and feathers!! (Although in my case the order could be reversed!!) Anyway, my dear Scoop!! It’s time for the question!!!!

What are YOU doing to insure that this happens!!?? What are YOU doing to make sure that the board gets the message that EiSner has got to go and that they better start accepting and reviewing resumes!!??

I mean, a couple of posts ago, you waxed eloquently regarding the actions AV, Mr. Head and I should take. We should boycott!!! Refuse to give them our Disney Dollars!! Philosophically, I’m inclined to agree with you. In practice, however, it is an impossibility!!

So now I want to know if you are willing to practice what you preach!! Are you staying away? Are you NOT going to Disney movies? After all, we both want Ei$ner out. It’s just the order of the process where we SLIGHTLY disagree.

So, how is The “D” Scoop sending his message to the board?


PS: I know I’m going to hate myself in the morning for not continuing to lead you down that pretty garden path!!! SO PLAY NICE!!!!

 

[PKS44]

...and who is to say that if there is a further erosion in attendance, Eisner and colleagues won't just say, "see, this is why we had to make those cuts. And we have to make more as well." Boycotting or whatever is definitely a powerful piece of ammunition, but it may be used against your position, too.

 

[raidermatt]

Just a quick comment of not spending on Disney because I don't like the direction...

I have to keep this whole thing in perspective. I'll avoid spending money on a company for what I perceive as ethical issues. Exxon is one of these.

But that's not the case with Disney. I merely disagree with the current direction the company is taking. I don't like it from a guest pov, and I don't like it from a business pov.

That doesn't mean I think Disney has slipped below its competition.

I'm still going to spend money on what I think are the best choices for my family. They are a much higher priority than affecting change in Disney's managment.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I think that, while missteps have been made, the 2002 WDW is better than the 1999 WDW...

I disagree!!

but that's another topic which has been debated enough for me at least...

I agree!!

As for the rest of your post!!

Thank you.

It took a while to get there, but I enjoyed the talk!! And you did play nice and I did had fun!! And we even exchanged some lofty thoughts and traded some basic philosophies!!

GREAT!!

THANKS!!!

 

[King Triton]

I am shocked at all the big $$$ thrown around. hmmmm, and you say you couldn't afford to keep Horizons and World of Motion at Epcot. Sheeeesh!

Just think, Michael Eisner's salary from last year alone could have built some amazing new rides at WDW and then some. Come on Michael, how much money is enough for you?? Let's put Mickey and making people happy first instead of making all the board members filthy rich.

As a stockholder, I sure hope Disney dumps these expensive projects that is pulling the company down. Get rid of ABC!! Focus on the theme parks and getting back to making real Disney quality movies.

I sure do wish Walt were alive today.

King Triton

 

[Another Voice]

Eisner's salary....

Disney spent more on Eisner's direct compensation in the last five years than they did to build California Adventure.

That's not counting his car and driver, lunches, expense accounts and all those other little "fun perks" one gets when one is a Major Media Mogul.

And to think that Walt sold his vacation home so they could finish the 'Mark Twain' at Disneyland.

 

[treesinger]

Disney spent more on Eisner's direct compensation in the last five years than they did to build California Adventure

That's just gross.

And to think that Walt sold his vacation home so they could finish the 'Mark Twain' at Disneyland

And that is the most telling fact of the Eisner era. It's more about what they can get out of Disney, than what they can give from it.

::sigh::