Where would Disney be without Eisner?

[DemoBri1]

Just to play the Devil's advocate here. Can any of you anti-Eisnerites, Save Disneyites, or whatever you're calling yourselves these days tell me where the Walt Disney Company would be today without Michael Eisner?

I'm not going to disagree that the performance of the company has been lax the last few years, but that has been the norm rather than the exception in the entire scheme of things the past 5-6 years. Would the Walt Disney Company still exist as an entity today, if Eisner and his group hadn't taken over in the mid-80s?? Maybe yes, maybe no. I guess we'll never know. I just think you should put some thought into this question. Also, remember Roy was part of the group that brought Eisner in to begin with.

Another thing that I find funny, is that over the past year and a half on this board, I've seen quite a bit of bashing on Mr. Pressler, and yet now Roy states that he wished that Pressler was still around. How am I to take this statement? A man that so many people revile is one of the people that the man so many of you hold as the savior of the company wants to have back. Is this an oxymoron or what?

I don't know what the future holds for TDWC, but I'm certain that no matter what happens I will support TDWC until the end, whenever that will be. My only hope is that somehow TDWC can come out of this period in its history as its own company or a majority owner in a partnership deal.

Just my $.02

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Where would Disney be without Eisner?

Short, flip answer: A LOT BETTER OFF!!

More insightful answer: ...................................


On second thought I don't think I'll give one.

When I first saw your post I assumed you were new here and I wasn't going to re-hash the same old ground, so I passed. But then my answer formulated as I saw you have been here for a year and a half!! If you haven't picked it up by now, nothing I can say will remove the pixie dust from your eyes!!

Have a "Disney Day"!!!

 

[DemoBri1]

Well Landbaron...I'd like you to quantify your answer for me. How do you know for sure that Disney would have been, as you put it, "A LOT BETTER OFF!!" How do you even know that if the corporate raid in '84 had succeeded that TDWC would even be around?

Don't give me the ol' "pixie dust" response as a conclusion. That seems to be the prevailing attitude of some people on this board, that if people don't bash Eisner to the max, that they must have "pixie dust" on the brain.

And...while you're at it. Can you tell me what Roy and Stan are going to do to turn the company around. Before you ask, yes, I have visited Save Disney.com, and believe me I want Disney saved after investing in 40 years of DVC vacations. It seems to me they devoted I think a total of 1 slide to their "plan". Looks good on paper, but I'll bet there was a similar plan on paper back in 1984.

If you read my post thoroughly you will see that I agree that ME has not had the company up to par in the last several years. I don't disagree that maybe a change is needed. I just posed a simple question that should be asked and thought about before posting a short-flip answer.

Alot of people here just want to see what the last 5-6 years have been like, and maybe that's how it should be. A sort of "What have you done for me lately?" But, we must also think about the fact that Eisner took over in what was probably a darker time in Disney history and brought out of the well. Remember, Pixar was a small miniscule company when Eisner took a chance on them. Yes...it stinks that he let this spiral out of control and let them get away. Everyone makes mistakes...look at AOL/Time-Warner. This is a perfect example of why Disney needs to stay independent.

 

[Chuck S]

Without Eisner, the few WDW resorts would be in the hands of an outside management company. DVC would be non-existent and the 3 parks MK and EPCOT at WDW, Disneyland in CA would be run by Cedar Fair or Six Flags, under licenses. Studios would have merged with another company (possibly MGM or Paramount). Imagineering would probably be spun off into a development company for rides and roller coaster systems, or simply shut down.

The corporation (if it remained independent) would basically derive all its income from licensing.

 

[bretsyboo]

Oh the many reasons this is just plain silly. Oh the many reasons.

You aren't playing devils advocate, no matter how much you say you are, you are saying Mike saved the company 20 years ago from being broken up, so now if it is being broken up we should give him a pass.

"no I'm not! no I'm not!"

But yes you are, because you refer to "us" as Save Disneyites meaning you aren't part of the crew that wants to Save Disney. From what I've read from most Save Disney people, it isn't that Roy is anyones Napoleon, it's that he's our BEST HOPE. That's all. As far as you wanting to give him a pass you say:

I don't disagree that maybe a change is needed

Gosh, what a hard line after "5-6" years of not preforming "up to par" you are perfectly ready to concede that "maybe" a change is needed. Can't get much more middle of the road than that.

But to answer your question, where would we be without Eisner? It's unfair because we aren't offered a replacement. More suitable question would be, "what would Disney have been like the last 20 years if it was run by..." but instead we're left twisting in the wind, if it wasn't Eisner it would be a bunch of mean companies gobbling up Disney like, well like Mike is negotiating today. The best I can do is answer if Eisner had been put in place, the new management team had surrounded him, and somehow he dropped dead. In that case I imagine Wells would have Eisners position as was originally intended, and they probably would have found him a partner.

In this case I don't know what really would have changed. I don't know if MGM would exist but I imagine that had a 3rd park been built...and that would have most certainly have happened...it would have opened up a far more complete park than Eisner gave us. I doubt we would have seen the continuing trend of smaller and smaller parks. I imagine that the talents the company had, like Lassiter, that left because they quarreled with Eisner would have stayed aboard and perhaps the golden age of animation would have continued longer. It's hard to say what would have happened up til 94 because Wells was already there, but let's pretend there was no Eisner and Wells didn't die. I don't think we'd have Eisners baby (ABC) or the other money vaccuums Disney has in the media that were purchased by the television expert himself.

I don't think we would have seen such dramatic cuts in parks and attractions, as well as atrocities like DCA. I think without ABC on the monthly bill a man would still be alive in California after having a great time on BTM. I don't think there would be legions of writers with inside sourses galore that despise the companys leader for his business first approach to the company. I think Pressler would be a very rich man running the most dazzling Disney stores you've ever seen at every mall in the country. I think Animal Kingdom, or whatever the 4th park might have been, would have been a full park. I think Disneyland would have fresh paint. I think Mission Space would give me shivers, as would Myst Island. I think I'd never have dreams about comcast. I'd think Disney would still be looked at with admiration the more you learn about it, instead of today, where the more you learn, the more disdain you have.

I think there would be news and rumors boards wondering what the next spectacular frontier Disney would enter is, instead of having people who wish for the magic of old fighting with people who have endured several failed parks, ABC, ABC Family, the All Stars and Pop Century resorts, and Chester and Hesters where they can ride a spinning mouse coaster next to a wheel and spoke ride that somehow managed to be cheaper and worse than the aladdin wheel and spoke ride that came before, and yet can only concede that "maybe" it's time for a change.

Oh, and if a half decade (I'd argue it's been more than a decade) is what-have-you-done-for-me-lately that's pretty darn leniant, you must be a Cubs fan.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Hey boo. Don't feel so dirty while the lights are off at home, huh? .

And you Baron.............you can do better than that. It ain't like you got somethin better to talk about. Come on, man!!

As for the question at hand (where would Disney be without ME?), I have no idea. I'd say there is a good chance that Baron's flip answer and boo's real answer would be the case, but who can say for sure? Too many variables. I doubt that Disney would have been broken up. If not ME I'm sure another "savior" could have been put at the head. Hell, leveraging unused assets wasn't that much of an epiphany. Afterall, the saving of Disney wasn't so much about one man (Eisner) as it was about the team that was put in place with him. So, if someone else was chosen to run the place what might be different? Again, too many variables to say, but if that person held truer to the ideals of Walt's Disney (or as Baron would say - "Got It") there is no doubt we truely would be MUCH BETTER OFF.

But that isn't really what you are getting at, is it? No, it seems to me you want to look at what ME did, and determine if he truely is the reason for where we are. Isn't that really it?

The sad sack state that Disney is currently in, with raiders at the gate once again, is very much due to the course of action that ME has taken. Unfortunately, that course was largely charted without the people who were in place around ME back when he "saved the company". Without that team he didn't have the right focus, or the right people to guide his focus, and he assumed way too much absolute power, micromanaging things and making decisions that would serve to feed his desire to head a media conglomerate, as opposed to serving the needs and the ideals of the Disney we all grew up with. Where would Disney be without the likes of CAP Cities, Go.com, Fox Family, etc. etc? There is a good chance that is where we would be without Eisner, and don't you agree without those losses and financial drains the company wouldn't be the takeover target it is today?

So yes, Eisner was a part of the team that saved Disney in the mid-80's, and I've always given him credit for that. However, I can't give him credit for not realizing that his success wasn't just about him, for not realizing that no one man can run Disney, for not realizing that without the proper team of creative people around him he would be destined for the failure he and Disney are now experiencing. I can't give him credit for all that he has taken from this company while it has floundered. I can't give him credit for creating a board that gets an F, stacking it so far in his favor that the best interests of the comapny became secondary while ME could do anything and take everything he wanted from a company who's long term future you and I care more about than he does. I can't give him credit for developing so many bad relationships that Pixar is gone, Miramax wants out, and hardly a friend can be found while Comcast is storming the gate.

I'm sorry, I just can't give Eisner a pass now just because he contributed to the saving of Disney in the past. To do so would be to say that Eisner didn't help save the company back then, but only delayed the worst that might have happened. Half a decade is hardly 'what have you done for me lately', and while everyone does make mistakes Esiner has had too many mis-steps over too long a period to cut him any more slack. I say that you have to forget about what happened in the past and look at the overall direction and strategic vision of the company over that half decade of mis-steps and ask yourself if you are happy with the course that Eisner has followed. That is the question that must be answered when deciding whether you want to be part of the save Disney campaign or not.

 

[vernon]

tell me where the Walt Disney Company would be today without Michael Eisner?

The flippant answer would be about $40 a share.

ME was part of a group that did a very necessary job 20 years ago. Disney needed a major reality check to get it's finances in place as the "artistic" aspect of the company was running amok and there was no control on the finances. For any company there has to be a balance between production and costs. In the 1980s that balance was out of line and it required a management change to facilitate a correction. It took several years to get this huge leviathan back on course but due to some unfortunate circumstances (a certain death in 1994) and Eisner's success at wrestling the control of the company into, to all intents and purposes, his sole hands the course of that leviathan has over-compensated to such a degree that now "control of finances" is the driving force within the companies management and the "artistic"/production side of the company has been starved of funds and inspiration. Eisner has forced out people that disagree with him and chased away good "new blood" by making it obvious he has no intention of allowing any individual to appear to be capable of taking over from Mike.

In short, ME did a great job in 1980-1990, an adiquate job 90-95, a less than adiquate job 95-00 and a shocking job in the last 4 years. It may be harsh to say he's a "one trick pony", but all (and not very many at that) his tricks are a variation on a theme. That theme is cut costs. Many of the good things that have happened recently have happened DESPITE ME, not because of him.

Ultimately we are ( or should be) talking about the continuing growth of Disney, not saving one individual (Eisner). I understand that ME himself likes to think they are one and the same ( I would put forward that is where a lot of the recent problems stem from) but they are not. ME had his (successful) time, it has now passed, it is time to move on and allow someone with drive, energy and new ideas to come along, drive the company forward and allow the production side of the company to flourish.

 

[airlarry!]

I agree with the sentiments expressed so well above by the previous posters.

In sum, Roy has never said "Bring Back Pre$$ler to the Parks, Mikey!" Never said it. Bogus. A Big Lie. All the savedisney.com crew has said is that Ei$ner has mismanaged his employees, and lost creative talent LIKE Pre$$ler, who was very good at his job with the Stores. I feel like I'm beating my head in the wall here, but I will stop if anyone can give me a quote from either Mr. Disney or Mr. Gold that says something like "Boy, if only Michael had kept Paul Pre$$ler around to finish Tomorrowland."

As for Cou$in Mikey, Mr. S said:

Without Eisner, the few WDW resorts would be in the hands of an outside management company. DVC would be non-existent and the 3 parks MK and EPCOT at WDW, Disneyland in CA would be run by Cedar Fair or Six Flags, under licenses. Studios would have merged with another company (possibly MGM or Paramount). Imagineering would probably be spun off into a development company for rides and roller coaster systems, or simply shut down.

Are you describing 1994 or 2004?

If Comcast buys the company (as Ei$ner has always planned to happen--he's been trying to sell the company to the highest bidder for months), then Ei$ner will have accomplished the following:

Outsider resorts? Check, with Mikey here, we've already heard rumors of the hotels being sold off to a mgt group;

DVC non-existent? Only if Mikey never got here? Didn't Mariott want to come in here already? Hasn't Mikey already *allegedly* had discussions with other timeshare companies about purchasing DVC?

(Side note: What, nobody else could have come up with this concept? Thank God that Michael Ei$ner is the smartest man in the universe, or else DVC as we know it would never existed. His writing, drawing, and inking on the Lion King was pretty sharp, too, and I'm really impressed with his design work on The Tower of Terror.)

DL being run by six flags? check, since the rumors are already flying that Comcast would 'license' the parks to outside management...and some would argue that ECA (Ei$ner's California Adventure) already looks like Six Flags. Not me, since I've never been there.

Imagineering shut down? (throw in animation, too, I guess). Well, some argue that with the massive layoffs in both departments, Mr. Ei$ner has already shut these two down. A little harsh, yes, but who would argue that the heart and soul of WDI and DFA has been cut out?

Let's agree to disagree. It's probably not entirely true, but it makes for a good story that Ei$ner since his health scare and since the death of his watchdog, Frank Wells, has not had the focus he needed and exhibited in his first decade.

The company is too massive for him to totally control, and so quality and creativity has slipped past his watchful eye many times since 1994.

But, in the last few years, with the consolidated power he has maintained, he has finally put his touches on The Walt and Michael Disney Company.

And its time for the gravy train to end. It is entirely his fault that the Comcast wolves are at our door, and its time he paid the piper for this.

 

[airlarry!]

And one quick thing...I'll play Devil's Advocate too.

If Michael Eisner left circa 1994...

We'd have Discoveryland instead of Tomorrowland.

No ESPN, but no go.com no foxfamily no hockey no baseball.

We'd have Pooh with GPS.

SOMETHING would be in the lagoon.

We'd have Beastly Kingdom instead of Tarzan Rocks.

We'd have the Space Pavilion, instead of Maytag's Spin Cyclotron.

I would have told you how much fun the new Star Tours: Pod Racers version is.

Holding shares in Pixar meant you own Disney stock or at least were still a sister company.

We'd have DisneySeas in California and/or Orlando, and monorails running to all parks and all major resorts, with magical transportation to all value resorts (only two classes that differed in price and transportation...everything else the same).

Dare I say Mickey-head-shaped Butter? Two o'clock closings of the MK in June? The Ragin' Cajun Water Park? A monorail to Pleasure Island?

I would be getting ready to read about Disney's latest animated feature, the newest release in 12-18 months. Lots of singing, furry animals, corny ending, big parade at the parks, and rumors of a new dark ride in the Fantasyland or MGM to go with it.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
I'm sorry, I just can't give Eisner a pass now just because he contributed to the saving of Disney in the past. To do so would be to say that Eisner didn't help save the company back then, but only delayed the worst that might have happened. Half a decade is hardly 'what have you done for me lately', and while everyone does make mistakes Esiner has had too many mis-steps over too long a period to cut him any more slack. I say that you have to forget about what happened in the past and look at the overall direction and strategic vision of the company over that half decade of mis-steps and ask yourself if you are happy with the course that Eisner has followed. That is the question that must be answered when deciding whether you want to be part of the save Disney campaign or not.

Oh my goodness....has Kidds taken a foot and a half out of car 2?!

 

[Another Voice]

Eisner did not "save" Disney from take-over.

By the time Eisner was hired, Roy Disney and the Bass Brothers had already accumulated enough stock in friendly hands to prevent anyone else from buying the company. Eisner was simply a guy Roy hired to give Disney "street cred" in Hollywood. Frank Wells was the person meant to actually run the business.

Makes you wonder – look at how the business collapsed when Frank Wells died and Eisner had the cookie store all to himself.


Pressler is a really good shopkeeper, but an can't run a park

Yea, Pressler was the perfect man to convince the brand monkeys to drop their paychecks at the local mall for over priced trinkets. Why does this suddenly mean the man was supposed to be able to create a replacement for 'The Main Street Electrical Parade'? Two different businesses – he could run well in one and not the other.

Pressler was moved into Parks because Eisner wanted a stooge. Pressler wasn't suited for the job (either in skill or temperament) – and Eisner's subsequent promotion of PP from Disneyland to head all of the parks showed how Eisner doesn't really care about running Disney; all Eisner cares about is power. Roy is saying Disney lost a talented merchandise executive and gained a crappy entertainment guy. It was the CEO's mismanagement of people.


I will support TDWC until the end"

I support Disney – the idea, the concept, the goals. I support working as hard as one can to make the best that one can. I support the belief that stories matter, that stories are how we teach ourselves and our children how to be better people. I support imagination, that life is improved by doing things differently and by ignoring those with "it can't be done" attitudes. I support the notion the world is what we make of it – and if we want to make it a better place than get into the dirt and work.

That is not the same as a Delaware-based corporation which only seems to support the greed of a single balding CEO.

If The Walt Disney Company folds up its tent this afternoon and goes away, I really don't care.

Because Disney will still be around.

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by DemoBri1
...tell me where the Walt Disney Company would be today without Michael Eisner?...

Walt Disney Imagineering
1401 Flower Street
Glendale, CA 91221

Rather than

The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521-4873

Big difference!

JC

 

[Chuck S]

Actually, the original question where would the Disney company be today without Eisner...doesn't that imply the OP was wondering what the company would be like if 1984 never happened? If it had continued along the course already in motion...then yes, the company would have been split up, sold off, and made it's income form licensing.

 

[GrimGhost]

Airlarry....

Cyclotron by Maytag ......That is freakin' hilarious...

Another Voice That was all very well said..I think I almost ...ahem..have a tear in my eye(I am not being sarcastic at all)

I support Disney – the idea, the concept, the goals. I support working as hard as one can to make the best that one can. I support the belief that stories matter, that stories are how we teach ourselves and our children how to be better people. I support imagination, that life is improved by doing things differently and by ignoring those with "it can't be done" attitudes. I support the notion the world is what we make of it – and if we want to make it a better place than get into the dirt and work.

 

[DemoBri1]

Originally posted by bretsyboo
Oh the many reasons this is just plain silly. Oh the many reasons.

You aren't playing devils advocate, no matter how much you say you are, you are saying Mike saved the company 20 years ago from being broken up, so now if it is being broken up we should give him a pass.

"no I'm not! no I'm not!"

But yes you are, because you refer to "us" as Save Disneyites meaning you aren't part of the crew that wants to Save Disney. From what I've read from most Save Disney people, it isn't that Roy is anyones Napoleon, it's that he's our BEST HOPE. That's all. As far as you wanting to give him a pass you say:

I don't disagree that maybe a change is needed

Gosh, what a hard line after "5-6" years of not preforming "up to par" you are perfectly ready to concede that "maybe" a change is needed. Can't get much more middle of the road than that.

But to answer your question, where would we be without Eisner? It's unfair because we aren't offered a replacement. More suitable question would be, "what would Disney have been like the last 20 years if it was run by..." but instead we're left twisting in the wind, if it wasn't Eisner it would be a bunch of mean companies gobbling up Disney like, well like Mike is negotiating today. The best I can do is answer if Eisner had been put in place, the new management team had surrounded him, and somehow he dropped dead. In that case I imagine Wells would have Eisners position as was originally intended, and they probably would have found him a partner.

In this case I don't know what really would have changed. I don't know if MGM would exist but I imagine that had a 3rd park been built...and that would have most certainly have happened...it would have opened up a far more complete park than Eisner gave us. I doubt we would have seen the continuing trend of smaller and smaller parks. I imagine that the talents the company had, like Lassiter, that left because they quarreled with Eisner would have stayed aboard and perhaps the golden age of animation would have continued longer. It's hard to say what would have happened up til 94 because Wells was already there, but let's pretend there was no Eisner and Wells didn't die. I don't think we'd have Eisners baby (ABC) or the other money vaccuums Disney has in the media that were purchased by the television expert himself.

I don't think we would have seen such dramatic cuts in parks and attractions, as well as atrocities like DCA. I think without ABC on the monthly bill a man would still be alive in California after having a great time on BTM. I don't think there would be legions of writers with inside sourses galore that despise the companys leader for his business first approach to the company. I think Pressler would be a very rich man running the most dazzling Disney stores you've ever seen at every mall in the country. I think Animal Kingdom, or whatever the 4th park might have been, would have been a full park. I think Disneyland would have fresh paint. I think Mission Space would give me shivers, as would Myst Island. I think I'd never have dreams about comcast. I'd think Disney would still be looked at with admiration the more you learn about it, instead of today, where the more you learn, the more disdain you have.

I think there would be news and rumors boards wondering what the next spectacular frontier Disney would enter is, instead of having people who wish for the magic of old fighting with people who have endured several failed parks, ABC, ABC Family, the All Stars and Pop Century resorts, and Chester and Hesters where they can ride a spinning mouse coaster next to a wheel and spoke ride that somehow managed to be cheaper and worse than the aladdin wheel and spoke ride that came before, and yet can only concede that "maybe" it's time for a change.

Oh, and if a half decade (I'd argue it's been more than a decade) is what-have-you-done-for-me-lately that's pretty darn leniant, you must be a Cubs fan.

First of all BretsyBoo...despite what you think whether or not I'm playing Devil's Advocate or not... I am. You, like most of the max Eisner bashers don't see the possibility of what might have become of TWDC if Eisner and his group hadn't come in, and in reality, let's just call him Mr. X, as it could have been anyone. I am a Disney shareholder, and by no means am I in favor of where the company is going. Yes a change is needed, but let's not just change at the first opportunity for the sake of change. We must change in a positive direction.

Take a look at SaveDisney.com and look at Roy and Stanley's presentation slides. One of the slides listing their accomplishments was bringing Eisner on. Now they want to get rid of him. So my question to you is this...Did Eisner suddenly become a bad executive?

I am not saying that Eisner should be given a pass. He shouldn't. Ultimately he is responsible for what happens. What frosts me is that all the SaveDisney crowd wants to do is bash Eisner, but they aren't offering up any solutions to the problem. Simply getting rid of Eisner isn't going to fix this. There's going to have to be a bunch of things happen to fix it. So why are we not getting any information on this front? You all say that Roy and Stanley are our best hope, yet Roy is one of the pioneers of the direct-to-video program, which quite a few people have bashed in the past.

I personally hope that the rumor of Mr. Daly taking over as Chairman has alot of truth behind it. I think he can bring the type of vision to the company that seems to have been lacking in the past. He did a great job with Warner Bros. during his time.

Lastly, don't pretend to know what baseball team I root for, and know that I want the Disney company to prosper and thrive. Yes, it needs to do this without Eisner, but we have to have a more concrete plan in place than simply to oust Eisner and all will be hunky dory.

 

[DemoBri1]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Hey boo. Don't feel so dirty while the lights are off at home, huh? .

And you Baron.............you can do better than that. It ain't like you got somethin better to talk about. Come on, man!!

As for the question at hand (where would Disney be without ME?), I have no idea. I'd say there is a good chance that Baron's flip answer and boo's real answer would be the case, but who can say for sure? Too many variables. I doubt that Disney would have been broken up. If not ME I'm sure another "savior" could have been put at the head. Hell, leveraging unused assets wasn't that much of an epiphany. Afterall, the saving of Disney wasn't so much about one man (Eisner) as it was about the team that was put in place with him. So, if someone else was chosen to run the place what might be different? Again, too many variables to say, but if that person held truer to the ideals of Walt's Disney (or as Baron would say - "Got It") there is no doubt we truely would be MUCH BETTER OFF.

But that isn't really what you are getting at, is it? No, it seems to me you want to look at what ME did, and determine if he truely is the reason for where we are. Isn't that really it?

The sad sack state that Disney is currently in, with raiders at the gate once again, is very much due to the course of action that ME has taken. Unfortunately, that course was largely charted without the people who were in place around ME back when he "saved the company". Without that team he didn't have the right focus, or the right people to guide his focus, and he assumed way too much absolute power, micromanaging things and making decisions that would serve to feed his desire to head a media conglomerate, as opposed to serving the needs and the ideals of the Disney we all grew up with. Where would Disney be without the likes of CAP Cities, Go.com, Fox Family, etc. etc? There is a good chance that is where we would be without Eisner, and don't you agree without those losses and financial drains the company wouldn't be the takeover target it is today?

So yes, Eisner was a part of the team that saved Disney in the mid-80's, and I've always given him credit for that. However, I can't give him credit for not realizing that his success wasn't just about him, for not realizing that no one man can run Disney, for not realizing that without the proper team of creative people around him he would be destined for the failure he and Disney are now experiencing. I can't give him credit for all that he has taken from this company while it has floundered. I can't give him credit for creating a board that gets an F, stacking it so far in his favor that the best interests of the comapny became secondary while ME could do anything and take everything he wanted from a company who's long term future you and I care more about than he does. I can't give him credit for developing so many bad relationships that Pixar is gone, Miramax wants out, and hardly a friend can be found while Comcast is storming the gate.

I'm sorry, I just can't give Eisner a pass now just because he contributed to the saving of Disney in the past. To do so would be to say that Eisner didn't help save the company back then, but only delayed the worst that might have happened. Half a decade is hardly 'what have you done for me lately', and while everyone does make mistakes Esiner has had too many mis-steps over too long a period to cut him any more slack. I say that you have to forget about what happened in the past and look at the overall direction and strategic vision of the company over that half decade of mis-steps and ask yourself if you are happy with the course that Eisner has followed. That is the question that must be answered when deciding whether you want to be part of the save Disney campaign or not.

Once again I will reiterate my point. I'm not saying that Eisner should be given a pass. I'm just trying to point out that Roy, Stanley, and the rest of the Save Disney crowd have not mapped out a detailed plan on how they deem to go about bringing the company back. Are they going to throw a boat load of money at John Lasseter to come back and head up a new CGI group?? What? I just want to see something concrete that's all.

I've invested in DVC for the next 40 years, and I more than anyone else want to see Disney succeed to the utmost. I want to make certain that smiles that were on my children's faces when they first visited WDW last December to remain on all children's faces each time they walk down Main Street U.S.A.

 

[raidermatt]

Well, if the question is if 1984 never happened, doesn't that also mean the attempted takeover and breakup never happened?

But if the assumption is that piece was going to happen, then there's two questions:

What if Roy/Stanley didn't fight and win?

What if somebody else were put in Eisner's place?

On the first question, its pretty clear... sell-off and breakup. As to how the breakup would have occured, and who would own what, that's hard to answer. Certainly the Disney company of today would not exist as it does. Not all of that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is likely the parks, resorts, and animation would not exist under the same umbrella.

On the second question, I think its very reasonable to speculate that Disney would be better off today if somebody other than Eisner were at the helm. As DK said, whoever was brought in was going to have to utilize idle assets, so we can't say that whatever Eisner ok'd would not exist.

Things went reasonably well while Wells was involved, so in retrospect, the scarier question might be where would Disney be today if Wells had not been in the picture for the first 10 years of Eisner's reign?

Two possibilities:

1- Eisner's influence permeates the company quicker, doing more damage sooner.

2- He messes things up before he has the power base to survive the storm, and actually ends up leaving sooner.

 

[raidermatt]

I just want to see something concrete that's all.

A perfectly reasonable request. They do have a general platform. But if you're talking names, that has to wait until a replacement campaign looks viable. Nobody wants to put their neck out only to find that Eisner isn't going to leave.

 

[DemoBri1]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Actually, the original question where would the Disney company be today without Eisner...doesn't that imply the OP was wondering what the company would be like if 1984 never happened? If it had continued along the course already in motion...then yes, the company would have been split up, sold off, and made it's income form licensing.

Thank you Chuck, finally someone reading all the way through.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Once again I will reiterate my point. I'm not saying that Eisner should be given a pass. I'm just trying to point out that Roy, Stanley, and the rest of the Save Disney crowd have not mapped out a detailed plan on how they deem to go about bringing the company back. Are they going to throw a boat load of money at John Lasseter to come back and head up a new CGI group?? What? I just want to see something concrete that's all.

I understand this. However, in a campaign like Disney and Gold are waging timing and strategy are crucial. Tip their hand too early and who knows what might happen. I suppose I'm willing to show a little patience as I have no doubt that Disney and Gold care a heck of a lot more about the legacy of this company and it's future founded on those roots than Eisner does. There really is no denying the validity of the criticisms they levy and I honestly believe that they can put together a better management team than Eisner. Do you have serious doubts about that. After all, you agree that Eisner has taken the company in the wrong direction.