Which Disney death led to their current Dark Ages?

[Above_the_Rim]

This topic probably doesn't belong in Rumors and News, but a lot of topics get posted here and this board is so big that it's really the only one I post in... Anyways, I think both these deaths made a big impact at Disney and probably both made a dominoe effect. I see Frank Wells as a guy at Disney who stressed all the values that Walt Disney believed in, he was a product first business second type of guy. It made it so that betweent the two most powerful people in the company (Eisner and Wells) you had one who was all business and one who was all creativity and product. A very similar relationship as the one between Walt and Roy disney. I feel as if after Frank Wells died, all you had left was the business strategy from Michael Eisner, and the things such as product and quality were no longer being made as important. Also note that Frank Wells died at the peak of the Walt Disney company with the release of The Lion King...... Another death that I think made a big impact on the company was that of Howard Ashman. You have to see, when Ashman died it wasn't only lyrics that died, but the music, and with worse songs the movies started to decline, and finally Michael Eisner chose to kick out the singing in films (a major part of Disney movies.) It is true that you still had Alan Menken, but Alan Menken withuot Howard Ashman is like Peanut Butter without Jelly. Their talent was always a team, not just one person. You have to realize how much of an impact the music made on the movies. The first film Alan Menken did completely without his former partner (Pocahontas) didn't do as good and is said to have started the decline of Disney. So vote, tell me what yout think?

 

[YoHo]

Being forced to choose among those 2, I had to choose Wells. Ashman certainly brought a new way of thinking about the Disney animated movie with him, but if the executives had been around to foster things, then others just as talented as Ashman could have come in.






Of course, the real problem is that things were going down hill since Eisner first stepped in. Wells just was able to cover it up.

 

[mitros]

It has always been felt that the years of Ei$ners success ceased after the death of Wells and the deoarture of Jeff Katzenberg. They apparentley were the guiding hands that helped with a lot of successes at Disney. Once they were both gone, Eisner decided that he would run the show himself. {Hail king Ei$ner!, In his opinion}

 

[raidermatt]

I chose Wells simply because his loss directly impacted every aspect of the company, whereas Ashman's sphere of influence was smaller.

Like YoHo, however, its clear to me that there were "issues" brewing well before the unfortunate loss of Wells.

 

[Above_the_Rim]

It has always been felt that the years of Ei$ners success ceased after the death of Wells and the deoarture of Jeff Katzenberg. They apparentley were the guiding hands that helped with a lot of successes at Disney. Once they were both gone, Eisner decided that he would run the show himself. {Hail king Ei$ner!, In his opinion}

Yeah I guess it all is kinda connected. In the end Wells death also led to the departure of Katzenberg. When Wells died Katzenberg asked Michael Esiner to be promotoed to COO, Eisner refused and fired Katzenberg. To me Eisner seems like a dumb person really, I think he falsely gets the title of starting the Disney Renaissance, it was moreso the people around him.

 

[DVCconvert]

To me Eisner seems like a dumb person really, I think he falsely gets the title of starting the Disney Renaissance, it was moreso the people around him.

With all due respect....'now there's a news flash'.



Frank, was a GREAT loss to TWDC. May he RIP.

 

[Above_the_Rim]

With all due respect....'now there's a news flash'.
.

lol, guess I didnt realize it completely until now

 

[mitros]

Don't forget, the now closed and gone Disney Institute was Ei$ners "baby" as well.

 

[peter11435]

This topic probably doesn't belong in Rumors and News, but a lot of topics get posted here and this board is so big that it's really the only one I post in... Anyways, I think both these deaths made a big impact at Disney and probably both made a dominoe effect. I see Frank Wells as a guy at Disney who stressed all the values that Walt Disney believed in, he was a product first business second type of guy. It made it so that betweent the two most powerful people in the company (Eisner and Wells) you had one who was all business and one who was all creativity and product. A very similar relationship as the one between Walt and Roy disney. I feel as if after Frank Wells died, all you had left was the business strategy from Michael Eisner, and the things such as product and quality were no longer being made as important. Also note that Frank Wells died at the peak of the Walt Disney company with the release of The Lion King...... Another death that I think made a big impact on the company was that of Howard Ashman. You have to see, when Ashman died it wasn't only lyrics that died, but the music, and with worse songs the movies started to decline, and finally Michael Eisner chose to kick out the singing in films (a major part of Disney movies.) It is true that you still had Alan Menken, but Alan Menken withuot Howard Ashman is like Peanut Butter without Jelly. Their talent was always a team, not just one person. You have to realize how much of an impact the music made on the movies. The first film Alan Menken did completely without his former partner (Pocahontas) didn't do as good and is said to have started the decline of Disney. So vote, tell me what yout think?

You missed an option.

#5 The company has not shown any decline.

 

[YoHo]

You missed an option.

#5 The company has not shown any decline.

He was only showing the logical options.To suggest the company has shown any decline flies in the face of not just those of us concerned about "Magic" or the traditional Disney way, but also thos elooking only a stock price and the money.

Disney has had a decline. That CANNOT be denied. The stock price is lower, the value of the stock is lower etc etc etc.


Even if you ignore those concerned about "Magic"

 

[Above_the_Rim]

Yeah Yoho is pretty much right... But I guess a good question now would be, do you think Robert Iger (or maybe even Roy Disney again) can bring in somebody who can work side by side with Iger (perhaps from a COO position again) so you have somebody stressing business and another stressing creativity and the traditional Disney way.

 

[peter11435]

He was only showing the logical options.To suggest the company has shown any decline flies in the face of not just those of us concerned about "Magic" or the traditional Disney way, but also thos elooking only a stock price and the money.

Disney has had a decline. That CANNOT be denied. The stock price is lower, the value of the stock is lower etc etc etc.


Even if you ignore those concerned about "Magic"

I don't know. Sure looks to me like the stock price only continued to go up after both Wells and Ashmans death. Must I remind you that Eisner came in 1984, the year where the large upward trend seems to begin. The only decline I see in the past 25 years is around the end of 2000.

 

[YoHo]

It seems that if DisneyWar is to be believed, the most important thing Wells did is be the intermediary between Eisner and .....everyone that didn't kiss his butt.

 

[DancingBear]

Since I think the Hunchback score is fantastic (and the most Broadway-worthy), I couldn't vote for Ashman, although his death broke up a great team.

Wells' death did not cause an immediate decline in the stock, because the things that lead to the rise in the stock price had already been set in motion, and the damage from Eisner's unhindered megalomania have been more gradual and "behind the scenes".

For whatever reason, Wells' presence kept Eisner's worst tendencies in check.

 

[peter11435]

Since I think the Hunchback score is fantastic (and the most Broadway-worthy), I couldn't vote for Ashman, although his death broke up a great team.

Wells' death did not cause an immediate decline in the stock, because the things that lead to the rise in the stock price had already been set in motion, and the damage from Eisner's unhindered megalomania have been more gradual and "behind the scenes".

For whatever reason, Wells' presence kept Eisner's worst tendencies in check.

Then how do expaline why nearly every major company shows the same decline. Go ahead check it out. You will see that even IBM and Microsoft stock both showed a decline similar to Disney's right around the same time.

 

[DancingBear]

I'm not talking about the stock price, at least not immediately. I'm talking about Eisner's inability to share power, his creation of a rubber-stamp board of directors, his poor decisions regarding Ovitz and Katzenberg, the decline of feature animation, the reputation of Disney as a poor place for creative talent, etc. In today's Wall Street, stock prices follow quarterly earnings reports, not potential long-term issues.

 

[Above_the_Rim]

I don't know. Sure looks to me like the stock price only continued to go up after both Wells and Ashmans death. Must I remind you that Eisner came in 1984, the year where the large upward trend seems to begin. The only decline I see in the past 25 years is around the end of 2000.

Yeah Dancing Bear makes a good point. And Peter, why are you trying to say the the stock prices didn't fall and then you try to argue with Dancing Bear and say there was a decline at the time. Keep in mind that the movie continued to do decent until Tarzan, it was after Tarzan that the BAD movies came out. But Little Mermaid to The Lion King the movies were doing great, not just decent. You have to keep in mind that the price of things naturally increases as time goes by, and the success of the early 90's allowed Disney to acquire more things therefore increasing their stock prices in the late 90's. But these aquisations were only good for short term profits, after the death of Wells long term profits started to diminish therefore resulting in the decline after 2k. What happens in 1996 might not make an impact until 2000.

 

[YoHo]

They've pretty much hit saturation with home video too which is what drove most of their stock increases anyway.

 

[peter11435]

Yeah Dancing Bear makes a good point. And Peter, why are you trying to say the the stock prices didn't fall and then you try to argue with Dancing Bear and say there was a decline at the time. Keep in mind that the movie continued to do decent until Tarzan, it was after Tarzan that the BAD movies came out. But Little Mermaid to The Lion King the movies were doing great, not just decent. You have to keep in mind that the price of things naturally increases as time goes by, and the success of the early 90's allowed Disney to acquire more things therefore increasing their stock prices in the late 90's. But these aquisations were only good for short term profits, after the death of Wells long term profits started to diminish therefore resulting in the decline after 2k. What happens in 1996 might not make an impact until 2000.

I never said Disney's stock price did not decline. I said Disney has a company did not have a decline. That said, you are 100% correct that the films in recent years have not been anywhere near as successful as in the early 90's. However animated films is the only aspect of the company, and its performance should not be based solely on them. I still don't see how a case can be made that the loss of wells contributed to a decline in stock prices.

 

[DancingBear]

I still don't see how a case can be made that the loss of wells contributed to a decline in stock prices.

Who was trying to make such a case?