So, who has led since Eisner....and do we like him/her?

[DVC-Landbaron]

Condorman Wrote:

I must have really hit a nerve to bring some "landbaron" out of hibernation for two years

Not at all. It is pure coincidence that I entered the conversation after a two year hiatus. You had nothing to do with it. I chose your post because it was the easiest to break down – conversationally. In case you haven’t noticed I like o do that. It is an old habit I picked up from Usenet RADP (Now that’s OLD!!!!!)

keep the rest of you bickering over Walt's long-lost philosophy.

Sad isn’t it? LONG-LOST. I’m afraid you’re right. You evidently don’t agree with it.

Tell me. What is it about that philosophical outlook that bothers you? What is it that you disagree with? I really want to know.

You see, the reason that I signed up on this board in the first place was to discuss this truly unique company. This ‘magical’, ‘pixie dusted’ place that I fell in love with. In my mind if it were not for this “LONG-LOST” philosophy, I wouldn’t be here. I certainly wouldn’t be swept away by some mundane or pedestrian amusement park! I certainly wouldn’t feel passionate enough to spend a half an hour talking to you about some run-of-the-mill company.

In my mind it was Walt’s business and guest relations philosophy that set his company head and shoulders above the rest. According to you I’m wrong. So… OK… Fair enough…

… What is it that you find exciting about this company? What compels you to spend even two minutes answering me?

I know I speak for Walt when I say you are the last kinds of guests, patrons or fans he ever would have wanted championing his side.

That’s pretty bold pal!! And you are, of course, WRONG!!

Everyone knows his quote about the parks never being finished and always evolving.

Hmmmmmmmm. Now I could be wrong, but I think he meant that to be in a positive way. I think he meant that it should GROW and IMPROVE. Not diminish, shrink and become <gasp> ordinary! Am I wrong again. Did he mean that ANY change was good? That Ei$ner’s business model was good, just as long as it was change (always evoling) and ongoing (never being finished)?

I’m sorry. I just don’t agree with that. I really think he meant that the change should be for the better. But again – I could be wrong.

Funny how you claim to long for his standards and goals and know absolutely nothing about the man or his means.

WOW!! Again rather bold!! How could you possibly know what I know about the man? What arrogance!! What egotism!! What hubris!!

But that's why I'm here... to educate you.

So do it!! Educate me. Teach me oh wise one!!!!

BTW, I'm done with this thread so any responses are irrelevant

Oh nuts!! How disappointing!! How on earth am I to be “EDUCATED”!?!?!? Who will teach me!!

BTW, I'm done with this thread so any responses are irrelevant

Yeah I know, but this quote was so good that I just had to use it twice!!

Irrelevant!!! To who? You? Ah, come on! You’re still reading, just not responding! And what about all the other posters in this thread and lurkers who just enjoy reading. Is it irrelevant to them too? Because you say it is!

deej696:

Now come on Condor, you cant just take your toys and go home.

Yes he can. Little kids are like that. When things don’t go their way or they are at a loss, they take their toys and go home. But don’t worry. He’s still reading.

BTW. I agree with everything you said. I just thought that maybe, since we were talking about the CEO, you’d like to know how his thinking differs from the founder’s. I never mean to spoil anyone’s good time!

So enjoy! I just did. I spent two WONDERFUL weeks in WDW just a couple weeks ago. At Old Key West! And I am planning on a trip for the Food & Wine Festival. I always have a good time. Fortunately, Walt left us with some mighty powerful magic that hasn’t completely disappeared yet. Unfortunately there is a “YET” in that sentence. The currently thinking will eventually kill it and that wonderful Disney company that I truly fell in love with will become – Ordinary!

How sad!!


minnie61650:
Thanks for the EPCOT (Epcot) lesson. Contrary to popular belief (read condorman’s contention that I don’t know Walt), I already knew it, but many other may not have, So thank you.

But that was my point. Call the current park something else. Is it E.P.C.O.T.? NO! Do you wish it was? YES!! (Me too)

But let’s call it LindaLand instead! Now it has no connection to Walt’s city. Is it still a failure? Does it still make you sad?

I don’t know if that makes sense but that’s the way I think of it.



WOW - Only back a a couple of days and I'm getting wordy already!!!!

 

[ChrisFL]

So, some of us fans are looking for the Disney parks that are always meticulously maintaned, have the latest technology and have some of the most creative attractions ever seen, with immersive environments.

Sadly, I haven't seen this happen in the U.S. parks, or in fact any Disney owned parks recently...the only parks I've heard are like this are Disney parks NOT owned by Disney!

They're Tokyo Disneyland and DisneySea. I plan to visit soon and see what all of the fuss is about in person, but for now it appears as if they've come the closest to keeping the same feelings of the original Walt vision.

 

[c4a]

Thank you. Linda.
WDW came to be because Walt was frustrated that Disneyland had became so commercial. It was surrounded by resorts, and shopping districts. It had strayed from it's purpose-to be a safe,fun, family friendly escape.
Walt was looking to take us back (Main Street, USA is an example)...to remind us what a family vacation is supposed to be about...family. He wanted us to be entertained while being educated. To stretch our minds and imaginations to new limits and possibilities.
Somewhere, somehow that is being lost. THAT is what I lament...not the rising prices, long lines, multiple phone calls to get an ADR. With rising popularity-prices,lines, and competitive ADR grabbing is to be expected. Disney IS a corporation...they are in it to make money. I understand the mass marketing (I don't like it & thinks it cheapens the sentimentallity of Disney souvaniers. When people are buying souvaniers geared around a destination BEFORE they even leave home because the item is cheaper and easier to find... ).
Uhm, Condor-something to consider-perhaps, some of us didn't "miss your point" in your earlier posts...we just chose to ignore the comments.

 

[zulemara]

AMEN!
Different philosophy/marketing plan-call it what you want-it still doesn't change the base fact. Like it or lump it-the Disney of our youth is gone. Now, I have slowly been coming to this realization since the early 90's...so, I thought that the Disney gurus could not shock me. WRONG! The day I found out about the LTT going characterless...I cried. There I said it-I bawled like a baby.
The LTT characters celebrated OUR heritage. OUR freedom. OUR history.
Then I found out about FANTASMIC! It got ugly at our house for a couple of days. One of the most creative celebrations imaginable displaced by...it makes me want to gag just saying it...American Idol. =Sigh=

Question on Walt's proposed city-so, then Celebration actually be closer to his vision than EPCOT?

I agree with you but WHOA WHOA WHOA they are not replacing Fantasmic with American Idol I do not believe. They are reducing the number of shows during off peak times which I can sort of understand. I don't think there is any connection between that and American Idol. Of course you're welcomed to prove me wrong(which I'm hoping you can't do)

 

[c4a]

Fantasmic starting in September 2008 will go to Monday and Thursday nights. Disney says they MAY consider additional shows during peak seasons; however, at this time...they are not forseeing another schedule change.

Also, Disney is telling us to "suggest the "New! American Idol" show as an alternative to those wishing to see Fantasmic!" in our marketing material.
Perhaps-the still gagging reflex-I should have used the words " as an alternative". Sorry.
I don't watch that show at home-after driving 18 hours, I sure as all-get-out don't want to watch it at Disney!

 

[zulemara]

Fantasmic starting in September 2008 will go to Monday and Thursday nights. Disney says they MAY consider additional shows during peak seasons; however, at this time...they are not forseeing another schedule change.

Also, Disney is telling us to "suggest the "New! American Idol" show as an alternative to those wishing to see Fantasmic!" in our marketing material.
Perhaps-the still gagging reflex-I should have used the words " as an alternative". Sorry.
I don't watch that show at home-after driving 18 hours, I sure as all-get-out don't want to watch it at Disney!

be that as it may, I can't imagine that during peak times they won't increase showings. There will be ssoo many pissed off people if they can't get in. It's bad enough you have to line up an hour before the theater opens. ugh! Stupid american idol!


btw I bought the "Disney wars" book today. I can't wait to read how Eisner screwed up the company!

 

[BRERALEX]

And what about all the other posters in this thread and lurkers who just enjoy reading.

Lurking

Enjoying

 

[rutgers1]

I bought "Disney War" today, too. I also bought "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination." Since I am still having trouble seeing the conspiracy, I figured that I would read Disney War so I too can hate Eisner, lol.

Speaking of Eisner, I took my first tour over to Jim Hill's site today and saw that Disney is naming him a legend. Apparently the same debate is going there as is here: click here for comments

I think that there are three major points in this thread, and I am not sure that I agree with all:

1) The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing or selling out in any way. While I would agree that Roy was more concerned with the bottom line, it is my understanding that it was Walt's idea to use the Disney TV show as a free opportunity to advertise Disney movies and parks. He was less concerned about entertaining than promoting with the tv show. Likewise, wasn't he one of the first to full explore merchandising, essentially using Mickey in any way possible to generate a profit for his company? Before Disney, that type of merchandising was relatively uncommon.

2) The second is that most of Eisner's changes were bad. I don't think they are "complete" by any means, but I see a lot of potential in Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studies. There are parts that I don't like, but then again, there are parts that I wouldn't have liked in the original Disneyland. Those that criticize would have you think that Walt would not have been happy with any of the changes taking place during the Eisner regime. I think he would have loved many of the animated films, the safari at AK, Buzz Lightyear, many of the hotels (perhaps not all, but many), and more.

3) The last is that Eisner is a mean dude. Perhaps he is. I have to learn more about him to comment further...hence my purchase of Disney War. However, the biography of Walt that I read made him out to be a pretty mean dude, too. He was known to rip apart anyone and everyone who worked with him, and he wouldn't give his animators and imagineers credit for anything. The only one who got billing was Walt. I don't know for certain, but I would be that is why the imagineers gave credit to themselves all over Disney World (ie, signs on storefronts along Main Street USA). I think that was a bit of a swipe at Walt, who from what I gather, would never have allowed that to happen. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[YoHo]

Disney War along with Storming the Magic Kingdom are some of the best books you can read about Eisner.

I have to really laugh at anyone who would attempt to claim that that certain element needs to be educated on Walt. I mean, I should keep my mouth shut, but come on.

Also

I'd like to harkin back to a comment made a few pages back and that was that the Disney parks are Art.

This is fundimentally true and it is at the core of understanding the problem.
Walt Disney's theme parks were a work of art to him and to the artists he used to create them.

It's a small world is art.
Pirates of the Caribbean is art. Oh how it's art.

Dumbo isn't so much art, but the setting and the thought in the design of fantasyland is art.

Theme parks are a creative artistic endeavor. And at best, if you want to be as generous as humanly possible, you might possibly be able to say that Disney has moved from the Monet,Van Gogh and Picasso that was Walt and his immediate successors. To Thomas Kincaid painter of snowglobes in the 1990s to Starving artists this Sunday at the Motel 6 by the freeway.

Every once in a while something of value pokes through, but it's no Picasso.

 

[cristen]

The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing or selling out in any way.

Wrong. We all know the story behind DL the TV show and why Walt put it on the air, it was major advertising for him. It was a great way to get the whole nation to learn about his new project and to build the anticipation among the public. And don't forget the story about Walt wanting to give out the booklets for free so that when people put it on their coffee table at home, their guests would notice them and learn more about the park. But Walt was smart about it. Watching DL on TV, you got to watch the process of building his dream, you were on an adventure to see the next greatest thing WALT DISNEY was doing. You were excited about it, instead of feeling like you are being hounded for a time share while you are in the parks.

Ask Baron what that DL show did for his love and excitement for Disney and DL as a yound boy that continued into adulthood.

And you are right about the Mickey plush, it was the first of it's kind. The difference is, I believe, it wasn't so in your face, and it was more tasteful. Now that last part is my opinion, and it could be wrong, but I never felt like I was in the middle of an ad campaign when I went to DL. I was at DL which was a dream, the most magical place on Earth. Now it feels like it's just there to push another Pixar movie or whatever else they are trying to shove down my throat. Disneyland was the star, everything else was the supporting role, not so much anymore.

He was less concerned about entertaining than promoting with the tv show.

This could not be further from the truth. Everything Walt did was with the intent to entertain. He may have been promoting the park, but he did it in an entertaining way through the tv show. He may have been promoting space exploration, but he did it with cartoons so as to teach through entertaining. You aren't honored with being the first, and I believe, the only, person in the history of the Earth to have the award "Showman of the World", without being concerned about entertainment.

http://ftp.afilm.com/blog/ShowmanP1.jpg
http://ftp.afilm.com/blog/ShowmanP2.jpg

However, the biography of Walt that I read made him out to be a pretty mean dude, too. He was known to rip apart anyone and everyone who worked with him,

Yes, that is known as well. But he wanted the best out of his people because he knew he would put his name on it. If you watch any interviews or read any interviews of the people who have worked with him and the look on their faces when they speak of him or how they still after all these years, cry when asked about the time he died. It seems to me that he was well liked, that even though he had a temper, people respected and loved him.

Have you ever heard or seen that with people who have worked with Eisner?

he wouldn't give his animators and imagineers credit for anything. The only one who got billing was Walt.

I believe back in those days, this was common practice. I could be wrong.

 

[deej696]

I think that there are three major points in this thread, and I am not sure that I agree with all:

1) The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing or selling out in any way. While I would agree that Roy was more concerned with the bottom line, it is my understanding that it was Walt's idea to use the Disney TV show as a free opportunity to advertise Disney movies and parks. He was less concerned about entertaining than promoting with the tv show. Likewise, wasn't he one of the first to full explore merchandising, essentially using Mickey in any way possible to generate a profit for his company? Before Disney, that type of merchandising was relatively uncommon.

I would never profess to be a Walt expert by any means, considering I was born well after he died. But I think many make him out to be purely creative, without a drop of business sense. Wasnt it Walt who trademarked his own name, and forced the company to pay him royalties for its use? Some would call this unethical, but I call it a shrewd and genius business move. Granted, this served as a huge divide between he and Roy, but it just proves he was far more into the dollars and cents than history makes him out to be sometimes....

There's 2 more cents, to use Linda's words

 

[c4a]

Rutgers-some good and valid pts. I am also glad that you used the words "some of you" and "many of you". Thank you.
I'd like to personally answer to the 3 pts that you made.
1.)Walt wasn't about Marketing& selling? Walt was a business man. Disney is/has always been about making money. HOWEVER, Disneyland was meant to be the "first escape"-Walt's BABY (as you will)-withen 15 yrs. it was surrounded by hotels, strip malls, and restaurants. It was not what Walt had in mind. Back to the drawing board-the new vision "WDW" was purpously planned. The land was purchased through many small "Dummy corporations" owned by one corporation...Disney. Now that is an astute business man!! He had the forethought to realize that just going in and "gobbling" up land wouldn't go unnoticed-which it pretty much did, except for that one farmer. Walt didn't want WDW to become another "shopper's delight" like Disneyland. He wanted guests to have a feeling of entering a whole new world. But what is it slowly becoming? And I don't just mean with DTD and the new PI proposed shopping district. Queen Capitalism is rearing her head & that is fine as long as we are honest about the fact. It is change, though.
2.)Eisner's changes bad? Change is change. As I get older, any change is an inconvience for me. There I said it. Perhaps it is the whole "middle-aged thing"= memories of going in March and not having to stand in line to ride anything. Dole whips that were twice the size of the ones, now-and I swear I think they were even sweeter and creamier. Honestly, I DO think some of the changes have been for the better. The Eisner Era and Post-Eisner have brought us more restrooms, resorts, child care facilities, activities, budget flexibility, two new parks (Animal Kingdom being my favorite, followed closely by EPCOT). Just please, keep in mind that some of us "old foggies" are aching (yes, aching inside) for something that has turned into a bittersweet memory.
3.)Eisner is a mean dude? I don't know. I, personally have never sat down and had dinner with the guy. We aren't on each other's Christmas card list. I can only judge him by how he has been REPORTED to have treated Disney employees. (Reports that I take with a grain of salt-every story has 3 sides...) Your right in saying Walt had his "flaws". He was a human. That said-I grew up with the Mickey Mouse Club in black and white, and Uncle Walt coming into my living room every week-thanking me and thousands of other boys and girls for inviting him into our homes. I have NEVER had Mr. Eisner do this. Have you? That is another aspect missing/changed-Walt was personnable- we were GUESTS & he considered himself to be a GUEST in our homes.
I love Disney-the Walt era, Eisner era, and post-Eisner. Nothing will ever change that. However, part of that love is I don't view Disney through "rose colored" glasses. I accept it as it is. I acknowledge that there are flaws. However, those flaws aren't going to make me turn my back on Disney and go running to where-ever.
Loving doesn't always mean liking.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I bought "Disney War" today, too

Great!! You will truly get an education. Some other people on this board might want to do the same. Come on! You know who you are!!

I figured that I would read Disney War so I too can hate Eisner, lol.

After you’re done with it, it will come naturally. But you have to do it with humor!! We’ll start with the spelling of his name. It is NOT Eisner. It is Ei$ner! And the “$” does not represent money for the company but money for Ei$ner. You will learn he was quite inept at running Disney, but very, very good at lining his own pockets!!

The first is that many think that Walt wasn't about marketing

Some may think that, but not anyone who knows anything about the man. He LOVED making money. But the philosophical difference was what the money was used for. For Ei$ner it is increasing his personal wealth. For Walt it was a means to explore other venues, try new things and in short – CREATE!!

The second is that most of Eisner's changes were bad.

I cannot think of a thing he initiated that wasn’t BAD! Some worse than others, but nearly all of them bad!

Now if we try hard enough we might come up with something that he did that was right, but I can’t think of any off hand.

Also, that doesn’t mean that good things didn’t happen under his regime. But he had very little (if anything) to do with it.

I don't think they are "complete" by any means, but I see a lot of potential in Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studies.

Case in point. Do you really think that within the “Walt Philosophy” they would have put up ½ day parks?

The last is that Eisner is a mean dude

Well, not so much “mean” as arrogant, self absorbed and utterly egotistical.

However, the biography of Walt that I read made him out to be a pretty mean dude, too

Yep! He also liked to dip his donuts in bourbon. Yet he didn’t allow drinking in his park! Go figure. A complicated guy. But he certainly knew how to make magic, didn’t he? And he made it at an extreme VALUE for his guests! Another point that many just don’t get!

 

[deej696]

Baron would your last name happen to be Katzenberg

And whats the matter? You dont think EuroDisney and ABC Family turned out well?

Ok jokes aside, Disney War is a great book, but I would not call it an education. Text books are education and are typically filled with undisputed fact. Disney War is a version of events, and is the Yang to Eisner's Ying... "A Work In Progress." Assuming that Disney War is the final word on what really happened, is like treating the Da Vinci Code as non-fiction. Its another view on the story, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between....

And as far as Eisner's personal wealth. Lets remember that the vast majority came as a result of stock options, not salary. Eisner only made money if every other shareholder in the company also did the same, which is the duty of every CEO in the world. I would love to find an interview where Diane Disney Miller complains about the 30 fold increase in her family's stock....

 

[zulemara]

I would never profess to be a Walt expert by any means, considering I was born well after he died. But I think many make him out to be purely creative, without a drop of business sense. Wasnt it Walt who trademarked his own name, and forced the company to pay him royalties for its use? Some would call this unethical, but I call it a shrewd and genius business move. Granted, this served as a huge divide between he and Roy, but it just proves he was far more into the dollars and cents than history makes him out to be sometimes....

There's 2 more cents, to use Linda's words

he did! and I learned that today reading my book

I will of course take everything with a grain of salt. I am seen as the Disney guru by pretty much everyone I know(but am humbled on these boards at those who know more) and that's why I decided if I'm going to complain non stop about the company, I need to know how it got where it is. how did it lose focus? I was under the impression that the company was and should be about the parks, but from the first 50 pages, everything revolves around their movie division. I suppose that makes sense since it was animation that started the company, but I just envisioned they would focus on the theme parks a little more. All I've seen thus far is a side mention of EPCOT costing 2 billion dollars and hurting their stock.

Who is up for partnering with Roy to bring another hostile take over??

 

[YoHo]

Ok jokes aside, Disney War is a great book, but I would not call it an education. Text books are education and are typically filled with undisputed fact. Disney War is a version of events, and is the Yang to Eisner's Ying... "A Work In Progress." Assuming that Disney War is the final word on what really happened, is like treating the Da Vinci Code as non-fiction. Its another view on the story, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between....

Perhaps, but there are too many people "in the know" that concur with that version of events.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Baron would your last name happen to be Katzenberg

Unfortunately (financially) I am not!!

Ok jokes aside, Disney War is a great book, but I would not call it an education. Text books are education and are typically filled with undisputed fact.

I didn’t call it a text book. I called it an ‘education’. As in: learning something you never knew before.

I also used that term for our friend Condorman (whom I contend is still reading this long-winded conversation). He claimed that:

Funny how you claim to long for his standards and goals and know absolutely nothing about the man or his means. But that's why I'm here... to educate you.

And I was merely prodding him (and everyone else on this board) to educate himself! And since I don’t know any definitive “text book” on Disney I thought Disney Wars might be a good place to start.

Now, please understand that I do not, even for a moment, take every word in it as gospel. No! Of course not! That would be silly! I only believe 99.9% of it!!!!!

Disney War is a version of events, and is the Yang to Eisner's Ying... "A Work In Progress."

Again a huge difference! Ei$ner’s book is… well… I guess you’d have to call it… Ei$ner’s Book!! It is the epitome of self-aggrandizement. It shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows anything about the man that he would put out this questionable tale in which HE (caps deliberate) is the hero!!

Conversely, on the Disney Wars front we have a Harvard Graduate, acclaimed author and what is more important, a neutral third party just telling the story as he sees it. Is it subjective? Sure it is! What in life isn’t? But do you think it might be closer to the truth than someone trying to vindicate the questionable moves he’s made in his life? I don’t think there’s anything “ying and yang” about it. And that can also be said for “Storming the Magic Kingdom”.

And as far as Eisner's personal wealth. Lets remember that the vast majority came as a result of stock options, not salary.

Oh where is AV when you need him!!!!???

A long while ago we had this very discussion. And some rather interesting facts were brought up about the bonus structure, timing of the stock options, etc. All I did (when I was educated in these things) was shake my head and started typing his name with the “$” in the middle! Yes! I brought that cute spelling to this board. And it was in direct relations to those talks here.

I’ll try to find them so you can have a link to it, but… Maybe YoHo remembers it. Or there’s always hope that AV will answer.

BTW. YoHo is right. There are WAY too many people leaning in the same direction (some very well connected). Ei$ner’s “Work in Progress” is the ONLY one leaning the other way. Just something to think about.





PS:

is like treating the Da Vinci Code as non-fiction.

You mean it’s not!!!!!

 

[deej696]

I would love to see the thread, but I doubt it will change my opinion When I first purchased Disney stock in 1996 I read Eisner's contract from front to back in the annual report. Granted I was 16 at the time, so I dont really remember the specifics

I'm sure Eisner made many decisions with the timing of his stock options in mind. But the way I see it, regardless of timing, if the stock went higher as a result of news etc, then it went higher for everyone, not just Eisner. Which again I say is the job of every CEO in the nation. Perhaps your info will enlighten me

Taking Disney War to even be 99% true, is no different than taking "Work in Progress" to be the same. Both were written by authors trying to make money, and lets face it, controversy and heroism both sell. The 100% truth usually does not....

But at least we both agree that Da Vinci Code could be true

Condorman, please come out of hiding. Apparently I'm the only one on this side of the fence, and if Baron teams up with AV I'll be screwed

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I would love to see the thread, but I doubt it will change my opinion

There we go!! That’s what I call open minded!!!!

But seriously, I think it might. However, I’m not good at that archive, looking up stuff! It takes WORK!! And I don’t like work. I like to pontificate. And I’m not bad at it. And surprisingly I’m usually not wrong either, though I don’t cite my own words. Others are good at that. YoHo isn’t bad and Hope is WONDERFUL!! (You listening Hope?) And AV… well… He’s AV isn’t he?!!! Anyway, they usually back me up.

When I first purchased Disney stock in 1996 I read Eisner's contract from front to back in the annual report Granted I was 16 at the time

You may want to re-read it then. The fine print that has to due with deadlines and such. I’m led to believe it was quite creative!!

But the way I see it, regardless of timing, if the stock went higher as a result of news etc, then it went higher for everyone, not just Eisner.

AH! But that’s when that timing thing rears its ugly head again. Overall it was just so-so (and at times downright BAD – I’m a stockholder too!!), yet he made (and I’m guessing I remember it correctly) over a QUARTER OF A BILLION!!!! Not bad, eh?

Taking Disney War to even be 99% true, is no different than taking "Work in Progress" to be the same.

I guess you missed my point about one being self absorbed and an regular Ego Trip!! And the other being by a relatively un-invested third party. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, he went into the project with a wholly different slant and midway though it discovered that Ei$ner was a megalomaniac. He quickly changed direction and PRESTO Disney Wars was born!!

Condorman, please come out of hiding.

He’s not reading this – remember?

Apparently I'm the only one on this side of the fence, and if Baron teams up with AV I'll be screwed

We used to team up all the time. And there wasn’t one single casualty. Just a few conversions to the true Disney Philosophy!! And you look like a prime candidate!! Ask raidermatt or DisneyKidds. It's a compelling business philosophy!!

 

[deej696]

Baron I must say I am really enjoying this, and I would love for others to jump in. I'm not impossible to be converted, but as I said earlier, Michael Eisner was my hero as a kid, so it may be an uphill battle. Yea I know most kids want to be like a different Michael, but he was mine

So setting aside Eisners faults with the Katzenberg drama, what makes his QUARTER OF A BILLION different than Eisners? Surely if you want to fault Eisner's pay, then every other executive who benefited from these contracts should be under the same standard. How much did Litvak, Iger, Katzenberg and Wells all make during the same period. Shame on the board for not being more proactive in all of these contracts, and obviously they cost shareholders dearly. But I dont see any "Katzenberg robbed the company blind" threads.....

I like to pontificate. And I’m not bad at it. And surprisingly I’m usually not wrong either, though I don’t cite my own words.

Maybe some day I'll learn to pontificate, it just sounds cool But surely someone who knows how to pontificate knows that there is no right or wrong in debates

So I'm curious, when did you become a shareholder and why?