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

[KYMickey]

In my opinion, thats pretty much dead on. It was a company stuck in the past, and nearly ceased to exist as a result. Eisner's critics say that he really isnt responsible for turning the company around, because any idiot would have done the same things he did. Obviously I disagree...

In my opinion the only thing that is dead is the Disney that was created by Walt and that people loved. Today all we have is a conglomeration of businesses that use the Disney name in one way or another. It's certainly not the same experience it used to be. Fortunately I was able to experience the original Disney prior to its demise. The only thing that actually improved was the quality of the restaurants and that too has also declined recently. Hopefully Disney management will recognize the problems and make corrective actions before Disney dies.

 

[zulemara]

In my opinion the only thing that is dead is the Disney that was created by Walt and that people loved. Today all we have is a conglomeration of businesses that use the Disney name in one way or another. It's certainly not the same experience it used to be. Fortunately I was able to experience the original Disney prior to its demise. The only thing that actually improved was the quality of the restaurants and that too has also declined recently. Hopefully Disney management will recognize the problems and make corrective actions before Disney dies.

agreed, although I never got to experience the Disney of old. It seems to me that of all the branches of the Disney name, the theme parks seem to fall low on the priority scale when it comes to keeping the vision that Walt had.

 

[rutgers1]

Isn't it kind difficult to attribute too many things to "Walt would have wanted this...Walt wouldn't have wanted that" when he was only there to see the creation of one park, and his biggest idea (Epcot) never made it beyond the early prototype stages? From what I understand, Miller and the others running the show during the 70's and early 80's were guys brought into the company by Walt and entrusted to run things his way....yet very little changed or grew under their watch, and certainly very little was done that would make many of the people on this board think that it was done "Walt's way." And with hotels, how can we criticize them for not being able to run 5-star hotels if Walt wasn't a hotel guy himself, and "his" guys were some of the biggest sticks in the mud when it came to change? The GF is 5-star to me, but obviously not to others, but I still think the entire growth of the Disney hotels dwarfs and surpasses what was there before Eisner (Contemporary and Polynesian).

To me, the big difference is that Disney was Walt's baby. When you essentially "own" something - from the idea to the actual land it is built on - it takes on a different tone. For Walt, it was less of a business than a quest. That is why he would put up his own money to get things built. But 25 or 30 years later, with the company having grown so large and still no one else (including Roy) ever taking it on their back, is it really right to get mad at "new management" for taking a more corporate approach?

Well, I guess I have to get back to reading Disney War. The first 100 pages haven't convinced me to hate Eisner yet - but there is still more reading to be done!

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I'm not playing the "what would Walt do" game but I am saying that the Company Walt built was built on certain credos that are not being followed today. I know that Walt would not have continued his energies in the Parks (been there done that) but he wouldn't have just milked it for the sole sake of the milk either.

That Walt was not a hotel guy does not mean that hotels built by Disney in 'modern times' should not be done Walt's way...Give the guest more than he expects...Give them quality and you will succeed. Todays Disney just 'can't' do it that way...

I'm not one who thinks Eisner was the devil but he was an egomanic and a privialaged egomaniac at that. He did many good things but rather than be motivated by what was good for Disney ("Disney") he governed more by how would it reflect on him (his legacy and wallet) and he had no regard for the common 'park people' because he was born to privalage. That's why fine hotels and dining were among his biggest contributions.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Hello again. I was kind of busy the last week or so. My daughter’s wedding took over all of our lives!! HOWEVER, the wedding is over, she is now on her honeymoon and I just lost a tournament of on line poker to a very bad beat (Nut flush beat on the river by a full house!! The moron shouldn’t have even been in the hand with pocket fours!!) Anyway…

rutgers1 writes

Isn't it kind difficult to attribute too many things to "Walt would have wanted this...Walt wouldn't have wanted that" when he was only there to see the creation of one park, and his biggest idea (Epcot) never made it beyond the early prototype stages?

The short answer – NO.

The long answer – PHILOSOPHY!!

It really boils down to knowing the man’s philosophy of doing things. Let me see if I can explain…

Would Walt have ever created EPCOT as it debuted in 1981? Probably not. In fact, with virtual certainty I think we can all agree he would definitely not!

BUT… If he did get it into his head to do something like that, what kind of ideals, standards and values would he employ to build and operate such a thing? In other words – what philosophical principles dictate construction materials, layout, basic concepts, cost, price points, etc, etc, etc.

Those principles can easily be gleaned by looking at how he did things in the past. Not WHAT he did, but HOW he did it!

yet very little changed or grew under their watch, and certainly very little was done that would make many of the people on this board think that it was done "Walt's way."

OK. Two statements in one sentence. One I agree with, the other is utter nonsense! First…

“yet very little changed or grew under their watch,”

Yes! I agree. Sadly they were like deer caught in the headlights. They were terrified to make a move. It could be because they didn’t know how. Walt had been in charge for so many years they simply didn’t know how to “start” without him. I don’t know the reason, but things did seem to stagnate, I’ll grant you that. But then they did seem to get off the dime a bit when they made plans for Splash, Little Mermaid and EPCOT. ALL of them in the works BEFORE Mr. Wonderful was brought on board. And ALL of them were created in the “WALT PHILOSOPHY”. Which is where the second part of your sentence comes into play.

“certainly very little was done that would make many of the people on this board think that it was done "Walt's way."”

EVERYTHING they did was done “Walt’s way”!! It was one of the factors that led to the stagnation. They were afraid to make any moves because of the “Walt’s Way” of thinking! But the day to day operation was certainly “Walt’s Way”. And when they finally did decide to make some moves forward it was done completely “WALT’S WAY”.

And with hotels, how can we criticize them for not being able to run 5-star hotels if Walt wasn't a hotel guy himself, and "his" guys were some of the biggest sticks in the mud when it came to change?

GOOD LORD!! 5 star!! I don’t think Walt gave a flying f… I mean, Walt didn't care anything about some snobbish hotel rating!! He was out to give you a “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” Something that those stupid stars couldn’t even begin to comprehend!!

The GF is 5-star to me

And that is the problem with the hotel. It is… well… let me see… how can I say it… I KNOW!!

It is very nice! Very elegant! May even be five star!! I suppose you could lump it into that category along with the hundreds of other five star hotels in the world! Certainly you can list it among the 4 star hotels!! Isn’t that nice! Isn’t that good! Isn’t that NON-Disney!!

In other words it is – Pedestrian. Plain and simple – Pedestrian. If you can get the same experience almost anywhere else in the world, then I guess it is NOT a special, magical, pixie dusted – DISNEY experience. And that’s what I find sad about the GF. It is VERY, VERY nice! Rich! Elegant! Stylish! Chic! Just like every other hotel that could share those adjectives. But just as those other hotels are NOT Disney – so is the GF. The only thing that makes it Disney is the zip code.

is it really right to get mad at "new management" for taking a more corporate approach?

Yes! It is! Simply because that “corporate approach” replaced Walt’s Philosophy. And in doing so turned it into a mundane company.

Well, I guess I have to get back to reading Disney War. The first 100 pages haven't convinced me to hate Eisner yet - but there is still more reading to be done!

Wait!! By the time you’re done, and a few more posts by me, you’ll be driving car #3 and looking for someone to ride shotgun with you!!

PETER!!!

My goodness, Peter!! You sound like I did three or four years ago!! If you keep this up I may see a little tag in your signature like DisneyKidds has in his!

We just have to get rid of one sentence and the post would be perfect:

He did many good things

Name one! Name one he initiated and just didn’t green-light for corporate or political motives! Go on!! NAME ONE!!

 

[rantnnravin]

Would Walt have ever created EPCOT as it debuted in 1981? Probably not. In fact, with virtual certainty I think we can all agree he would definitely not!

could you imagine Walt's director's eye taking in the Epcot landscape with the Swolphin looming in the distance????

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

EXACTLY my point!! And a great example.

Thank you Ei$ner!!! You really are Mr. Wonderful!! That's was doing things Walt's style!!

Now do you get it?

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Landbaron, we've 'been there done that' with this game...I won.

As I said the water parks were totally on his watch and totally a good thing.

Otherwise, while I'm not quite as black and white as you with most things Disney, it has dawned on me that realities are different for people during different stages of their lives. I had my complete Disney love moments (as do most of us) when my kids were very young, meaning Disney at that time facilitated my needs very well. Now, no longer seeing Disney through my childrens eyes, I need and expect more, knowing the ins and outs of what had preceeded the present makes it easier to figure that imagination, dream and wonder no longer rule the roost.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I couldn't have said it better myself. The kids just puts pixie dust in your eyes. Mine did it to me too. And then one day they cut summer hours by two hours!! And I looked at Disney without my rose colored glasses. I clearly remember when it happened. 1990. Walking out of the MK on August 1st at 10:00 with hoards of others, and vacuum cleaners blaring in my ear!! And I saw, for the first time, that Walt's philosophy (something I hadn't defined for myself at the time) was long gone!! It was more of a feeling rather than a cogent thought. And I remember it was very sad indeed!!

Landbaron, we've 'been there done that' with this game...I won.

Yes you did win! The truth set you free! Knowledge is power!! And any other trite phrase you care to use!! The point is you won by removing the pixie dust and seeing the CORPORATE DISNEY for what it is. And I'm glad I could help!!

 

[rantnnravin]

And I looked at Disney without my rose colored glasses. I clearly remember when it happened. 1990. Walking out of the MK on August 1st at 10:00 with hoards of others, and vacuum cleaners blaring in my ear!! And I saw, for the first time, that Walt's philosophy (something I hadn't defined for myself at the time) was long gone!! It was more of a feeling rather than a cogent thought. And I remember it was very sad indeed!!

Although my DD is still young, 8, what did it for me was being herded through backstage pathways past dumpsters to get to/from Fantasmic.

 

[YoHo]

In the interest of answering the question posed at the top of the page.

The answer is that Pre-Eisner Disney had...problems.

And that problem was Card Walker.

When Walt Disney was alive, Card Walker moved up the rungs of the company. When Walt Died, he became VP under Roy and President when roy died. In 1980 he became CEO.

Now here's the tricky thing. Card wasn't an imagineer, he wasn't a creative guy, but he knew how Walt wanted things to run. So during the 70s Disney operated in sort of a malaise where they simply wouldn't change anything from the Way the company was run during Walt and Roy's last days.

Into this came Ron Miller. Ron was Walt's son in law and Walt wanted Ron to take over.
We don't know everything there is to know about what Ron would have done, but he was more in tune to change than Card. Ron had a number of plans to improve the company. Card stopped them, because they were new and different from what Walt knew.


And then of course, Card and Ron were on the outs with Roy E.
And that made Roy angry.
By 1983, Card finally let Ron take over, but Roy E. hooked up with the Bass bros. and took control.


Now here is what is really important.
Ron wanted to found touchstone, he greenlit splash.
Ron wanted to release the catalog on Video, but Card wouldn't let him
Ron was the one that had work on The Little Mermaid started.
Ron was the one that saw inefficency in costs and ways to improve stock performance.

And Ron asked Eisner to join and take over the Film division knowing that his contacts would help the studio even if he was a fraud creativly.

In other words, The Disney Studios were on the upswing when Roy E decided to throw a tantrum.

When Eisner and Wells walked in, they had all of Ron's plans right in front of them. They didn't have to do anything, the work had been done for them.

Now don't get me wrong, Frank Wells was a smart guy and he did good things for the Walt Disney company, but all indications are that if Roy hadn't brought them in, Ron Miller would have charted much the same course to stabalize and protect the company.

So in the end, the fiction of the Disney company being broken up is just that, a fiction.

 

[minnie61650]

......GOOD LORD!! 5 star!! I don’t think Walt gave a flying f… I mean, Walt didn't care anything about some snobbish hotel rating!! He was out to give you a “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” Something that those stupid stars couldn’t even begin to comprehend!!


And that is the problem with the hotel. It is… well… let me see… how can I say it… I KNOW!!

It is very nice! Very elegant! May even be five star!! I suppose you could lump it into that category along with the hundreds of other five star hotels in the world! Certainly you can list it among the 4 star hotels!! Isn’t that nice! Isn’t that good! Isn’t that NON-Disney!!

In other words it is – Pedestrian. Plain and simple – Pedestrian. If you can get the same experience almost anywhere else in the world, then I guess it is NOT a special, magical, pixie dusted – DISNEY experience. And that’s what I find sad about the GF. It is VERY, VERY nice! Rich! Elegant! Stylish! Chic! Just like every other hotel that could share those adjectives. But just as those other hotels are NOT Disney – so is the GF. The only thing that makes it Disney is the zip code.

I agree!! I also think the GF has nothing to do with “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” !

They just copied another hotel...........

(here are 3 examples that have the same theming as the GF)

...and dropped the GF in the spot that was reseved for the 'Future Asian Hotel"

The Asian hotel could have been a “DISNEY EXPERIENCE” theme instead of victorian theme that many hotels in the US emulate.

I think that why I dislike the GF so much. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth because I know what should have...could have been built where the GF now stands!

--------------------------------------

Before the MK was even built plans were in place for 4 hotels to be on the monorail line.The Grand Floridian hotel is on the land that was set aside and dedicated to be the "Future" Asian Resort Hotel (A). The "Future"
Venetian (B) Resort was going to located between the Poly (5) and the Contemporary (8). A fifth hotel was going to build on a monorail spur which ended at the "Future" Persian Resort (C). That resort would be located just to east of the Mk and North of the Contemorary and would built with much of the hotel being on /over the water of Bay Lake. So even though the GF was not built until 18 years later a hotel was planned for that area at the same time the monorail was planned.

 

[YoHo]

It is Ironic that the new owners of the Hotel Del Coronado have opted to gut the interior and replace it with a more modern, shopping mall like interior. It's a bit of a case of man bites dog.

The Lounge from some like it hot is now but a distant memory.

 

[Galahad]

Probably a disjointed contribution - haven't been over here in a while.

One Eisner contribution that I (and about 5 others) really liked was the Disney Institute. Didn't fly. I don't really know whether it was execution or vision but it didn't work. My family loved it though, and during that period we did as many Disney Institute classes as we could fit in. It really was different and was a great opportunity to let the creative folks at WDW run with something. I guess that was the problem. They were never allowed to do any more that repeat the same old rock climbing and cooking classes.

I'm pretty much with Peter still - though I don't buy the "privilege" angle on Eisner so much.

DW and I just celebrated an empty next. We decided to a long week at WDW - OKW to be exact. We bought in at OKW I think the second year they were offered. Over the recent years the deterioration of the Disney experience and the loss of the magic has been disheartening but we always loved OKW. We stayed away from WDW and even Florida for 2 1/2 years. In part to see of we could recapture some of the magic that repeat visits might shadow.

Honestly, for the most part it didn't work.

We haven't enjoyed going to the parks in years so we do less and less of that with each trip. This time, EPCOT was our only park visit. It was a profound disappointment. It has turned into nothing more than a bland but glorified food court. Low crowds or not, there was almost no evidence of a CM anywhere that cared a whit about the experience they were supposed to be creating. Mexico was no more remarkable than Italy was no more Remarkable than Inoventions. Soaring was quite good and we liked the new Living seas, but they were hardly worth the price of admission.

And Disney Dining - the final nail in the "magic" coffin as far as I'm concerned. Brought the whole of the quality of the Disney dining experience way down including the quality of the food and the service. But it also takes away the very possibility of spontaneity. Disney magic is now strictly regimented - give a smile won't you? We had four wonderful meals - 3 of which were in restaurants that did not accept Disney Dining and one that did but it seemed made it very "expensive" to use Disney dining there so they were not crowded with people with their checklists.

We had two Disney experiences that were very much like the old Disney magic for us. We took the Segway tour at Fort Wilderness and we had a lovely meal at Citricos. The CM's in both cases were what we remember in a Disney CM. Almost everywhere else it wasn't even average let alone a cut about the "outside world". There is really nothing remarkable about WDW any longer.

So, I'm not all that happy with Iger either. He simply solidified the things Eisner got rolling and now it's a well oiled machine. How sad. Closing the Pixar deal was necessary for there to be any hope for the future short of a complete dismembering so for that I think Iger deserves kudos of sorts.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Just wanted to throw out a couple of thoughts on why Baron's discussion of philosophical changes is sooooo important to this discussion. It's a point that can easily be overlooked by the crowd of people, many of whom had never experienced first hand or researched in depth how Walt's driving philosophies shaped the company from the earliest days, who find it hard to get past the growth explosion that took place under Eisner and his Disney Decade. And keep in mind this, few people really fall in love with a company the way they became enamoured with Disney just because they turn the tidiest quarterly profit or year over year stock growth, or attain top conglomerate status. To attain the kind of following Disney achived you have to touch on something in a special way, and then build upon it. That is something that has been sorely lacking in Disney for some time now. Quality and Show haven't ruled the roost in a long time. There are soooooo many places where that becomes evident that one would hardly know where to start. Since it pretty much all started with animation, the decimation of Disney Feature Animation would be a good place, but what a long discussion that would be.....one that many people might no be interested in becasue the latest direct to video abomination about Ariel and her beginnings cost nothing to make and therefore is an add to the bottom line with each DVD sold. For those reading Disney War, you will soon be illuminated to some of the incredible opportunities that the company passed up under Eisner's direction so that we could have.........Go.com? or Buy Fox Family? Now some might point to those debacles and say that they were just flawed implementation of a sound business strategy, but a more cogent argument could be made that such decisions were made more to satisfy Eisner's need to be a media mogul, rather than doing what was in the best interests of the company long term. Where is the next Pirates of the Caribbean (not the movie)? Why did Disney have to acquire Pixar at some hugely inflated price so that the parks could have characters to draw from in the future? So many questions. Alas, the answer comes back to Disney having been stripped clean of any soul, of any creativity, of any ability to create something new, innovative and lasting.......and that can all be traced to the philosophical changes that driven the company over the past 20+ years. Sacrifice quality, compromise the guest experience, only give the people the minimum you need to to keep an acceptable portion coming back, all while turning a tidy profit and padding your stock options. That sounds an awful lot like a lot of other companies in corporate America today.....and that is something Disney never was and never should have become.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Mr. Galahad, I agree with your take on OKW, but disagree about the Institute. I never got it. Now don't get me wrong, it may have been well done, it may have been fun, but to me - it was NOT Disney!!

WELL SAID MR. KIDDS!!!!

It took a while but you have indeed become... ME!!!

Now!! Let's take a really good look at those 1972 Poly prices, so you can correct that misleading tag line!!!

 

[zulemara]

it's getting very difficult to read Disney War based on Eisner's big head and inability to judge a good idea. sixth sense...Lord of the Rings...the list keeps growing! you frickin moron!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I hate to say it... And it is with tongue-in-cheek... But...

I TOLD YOU SO!

 

[rutgers1]

Don't you think that a book on any CEO of a major entertainment company would be filled with projects that they passed on that went on to make millions?

I am only about 1/3 of the way finished, but my take so far is that the author really doesn't paint anyone in too positive of a light. From reading this board, I thought that Katzenberg was going to come out smelling like roses, but not so...at least thus far. Eisner definitely looks a bit loony, but then again, so does everyone else in this tale.

 

[rantnnravin]

It's important to remember that the author began the project as an homage of sorts to Eisner. After conducting research, however, the focus of the book changed. Eisner was NOT happy when the manuscript was submitted.