Why the Hatred Towards Meg Crofton and Jay Rasulo?

[raidermatt]

Disney is supposed to be about happiness and good things, but it seems that it's those "curmedgeons" who attempt to go out of their way to ruin Disney and make them look REALLY, REALLY bad, which is quite depressing, IMO.

Why do all these people who supposedly don't know what they are talking about depress you? When I read things from people who don't know what they are talking about I either ignore them or enter into a conversation to help both of our understandings. But depressed? If you are so comfortable in your belief about the Disney truth, why in the world would they depress you?

Disney is supposed to be about happiness and good things?

No, Disney is a business. There are different opinions out there about how that business should be run.

Are you seriously suggesting that any business is beyond scrutiny because of their name? That's a dangerous road don't you think?

 

[bicker]

Whoa, you've been on the internet for 20 years??? How was that possible????

I'm that old.

The Internet was created in 1983, and was opened to public interests in 1985. I joined the old net.disney discussion forum shortly thereafter, in September of 1986.

 

[bicker]

But the heart and soul of Disney was that it was better than everything else.

Being "better than everything else" was never the stated goal nor intention of Disney. The "heart and soul" of Disney was to provide entertainment that whole families could enjoy. Disney also was intended to be "ever-changing" reflective of the passage of time, reflecting how society changes, how technology changes, and indeed how families change. I feel that misinterpretations of the past account for this disagreement, but that's not the only direction such misinterpretations flow: People use Walt's name in vain when they complain about how expensive Disney is, too, but again it was never the intention of Disney to be accessible equally by rich and poor alike. When you talk about "heart and soul" you really have to go back to the reality of things when they started. The reality is actually neither of these two perspectives ("better than everything else" and "equally by rich and poor alike").

Having said that, even if Disney wasn't still very effectively fulfilling its original intention, that's also inconsequential. Walt is dead. And even if he wasn't, no one here can say how he would running the company if he had lived these past almost-40 years. He would have been changed by the passage of time, by the way the world of business has changed, by the way the company's place in the world has changed. As likely as not, he'd be making the exact same choices as those who run his company today, and no one can prove otherwise. Using Walt's name in vain, that's really what it is.

 

[bicker]

I know I had my first email address in 1986 and was posting to discussions on USENET around that time too.

net.disney, specifically???

This useless piece of trivia brought to you by someone who not only knows what a 1200 baud modem was but owned one too.

I started on 300 baud.

 

[bicker]

Some of it is warranted, some of it isn't. Bicker made some good points but I think Disney fans are a lot more sensitive after seeing the neglect of Disneyland years ago under Paul Pressler/Cynthia Harris. Mention those two names to most Disney fans in the know and you will see a passionate response. The park suffered under their leadership and it just wasn't the Internet that thought so, it was business magazines and newspapers that pointed that out as well. I think anytime some passionate fans see change they don't like, they blame the management.

And this really points out another aspect to this: There are cases of justifiable attacks on corporate leadership, even within the Disney Company. My point is that, online, the critics track-record is horrible. I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems like 95% of everything they criticize is actually management taking proper actions; i.e., only 5% of the criticisms online are valid. That's a far worse record than just flipping a coin. If you really want valid discussions of corporate management, rely on valid sources, because online forums are too ripe of a planting field for people just getting out their personal frustrations about not having things go their way at the resort. (One equivocation to that; the discussion boards at fool.com have a comparatively decent record of keeping things real, though still not what I would consider an acceptable level.)

To Bicker, my hat is off to you sir.

Thanks for your kind words.

 

[disneyphilip]

Kudos to Bicker.

 

[DancingBear]

My point is that, online, the critics track-record is horrible. I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems like 95% of everything they criticize is actually management taking proper actions; i.e., only 5% of the criticisms online are valid.

"Seems like"???? C'mon, Bicker, you're the guy who needs data. Don't just make it up.

First of all, "the critics" is not a block of unified opinion, so it would be impossible to generate any batting average for "the critics." (Let alone all of the problems in determining who was right and wrong on many issues).

I'm "a" critic of many things, but not of many others. I'm certainly not one who wants to thaw out Walt. Heck, I've even argued vociferously on these boards that Eisner should get some credit for many things that happened in the early part of his tenure, and defends Eisner-era stuff like the Swan and Dolphin, Celebration and the Pixar development agreement.

But, yeah, when they did away with Early Entry and said they were replacing it with Character Caravan 'cause that's what their guest surveys said, I criticized. Guess what? The Company not only brought Early Entry back but expanded the concept (and I praised that).

And when the West Coasters saw the original park sliding due to neglect, and California Adventure built, they criticized. Guess what? Disney brought over Ouimet to bring Disneyland back up to snuff, and a good chunk of the Company (including John Lasseter) is trying to figure out how to fix DCA.

And just now when they've decided to take away another 1400 acres of land to do nothing spectacular, I criticize.

Yes, many of us know that Walt is dead, and that TWDC is a business, yada, yada, yada. But we don't find it necessary or helpful to just sit back and accept that management knows what's best.

 

[DancingBear]

As likely as not, he'd be making the exact same choices as those who run his company today, and no one can prove otherwise.

Isn't this statement doing exactly what you say "the critics" are doing? You can't tell "the critics" to stop saying "Walt would hate the spinner in Adventureland" and then make such a silly statement.

 

[bicker]

But, yeah, when they did away with Early Entry and said they were replacing it with Character Caravan 'cause that's what their guest surveys said, I criticized. Guess what? The Company not only brought Early Entry back but expanded the concept (and I praised that).

That's one of the 5% that the critics got right. I even criticized that decision. That's really the point -- if you're going to criticize, criticize when you're right, not just when you don't like what's going on.

"Seems like"???? C'mon, Bicker, you're the guy who needs data. Don't just make it up.

Isn't this statement doing exactly what you say "the critics" are doing?

No. The fact that you're missing is that I'm honest. Unlike the folks I was referring to, when I actually don't know something, I make that clear in what I write. "Seems like" and "As likely as not..." are clear declarations of reality, something which the folks I'm referring to often cannot manage to muster.

 

[DancingBear]

The fact that you're missing is that I'm honest. Unlike the folks I was referring to, when I actually don't know something, I make that clear in what I write. "Seems like" and "As likely as not..." are clear declarations of reality, something which the folks I'm referring to often cannot manage to muster.

As you're aware, I've been involved in many discussions where you've dismissed your opponents for not "actually knowing anything" when in fact (1) folks are clearly expressing their own opinions and not claiming to know more than they do, (2) the other folks set forth the basis for their opinions, but you dismiss them out of hand, and (3) you fail to acknowledge that your postings include many assumptions that may or may not be as valid as those with whom you are arguing.

"Seems like" or not, you're pulling the 95% out of your derrierre. Although I have no doubt that it accurately reflects your perception of reality--amazing that you agreed with the 5% of the criticisms that were correct, and disagreed with the 95% of those that weren't. And how exactly did you measure whether management decisions were correct when by definition the alternative decision was not pursued? You got some proof that EuroDisney would have performed worse in Spain?

"As likely as not" means the probabilities are 50% each way. Saying that there is a 50% probability that "he'd be making the exact same choices as those who run his company today" is inherently absurd.

 

[bicker]

I'm not going to get into it with you -- I shouldn't have even responded to your first message. I've read enough of your messages to know you're just not worth the bother. I really wonder why I took you off my Ignore list in the first place. I think you're incorrect, and merely trying to defend the indefensible by wildly attacking strong statements that you simply don't like. 'nuf sed'

 

[DancingBear]

I think you're incorrect, and merely trying to defend the indefensible by wildly attacking strong statements that you simply don't like. 'nuf sed'

Well, I guess folks can read what we wrote and decide for themselves whether I was doing such a thing.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm not going to get into it with you -- I shouldn't have even responded to your first message. I've read enough of your messages to know you're just not worth the bother. I really wonder why I took you off my Ignore list in the first place. I think you're incorrect, and merely trying to defend the indefensible by wildly attacking strong statements that you simply don't like. 'nuf sed'

You don't have a mirror anywhere in your house, do you?

Your statements are the most hypocritical of any I've ever read on these or any other boards.

And as always, when your statements are challenged and you have run out of answers, you insult and disappear.

Yes, kudos to you. You never disappoint.


disneyphillip, you asked some questions, and you've received some honest answers. If you REALLY want to know why some are critical of SOME of the things done by Disney's management, there are plenty who are perfectly willing to discuss it with you in a rational manner.

You may not come to agree with a word anyone else says, but if you take the time to listen, you will at least understand where the criticism comes from. You will also learn that the vast majority of those that are openly critical of some of Disney's decisions care more about Disney and what its supposed to stand for than you ever imagined.

But that, of course, is up to you.

 

[bicker]

You're entitled to your opinion, but its sure is true to form. The reality is it is just a continuation of that curmudgeon perspective -- attacking without merit, solely because you don't like what people are doing or saying.

As it is, not even your friend DB questioned my assertion that being "better than everything else" was never the stated goal nor intention of Disney, or that the "heart and soul" of Disney was to provide entertainment that whole families could enjoy, or that Disney was intended to be "ever-changing" reflective of the passage of time, reflecting how society changes, how technology changes, and indeed how families change. These core points of the thread, which are things perhaps that he or you simply don't like to read, get lost in the mud-slinging used to distract attention away from them. How is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Regardless, seems that you and he cannot simply have your say and let others have their say. You, like the curmudgeons I was referring to, are simply here to attack, whether it be Disney management or simply other DIS members you disagree with. Have at it. It's your thread now.

 

[DancingBear]

As it is, not even your friend DB questioned my assertion that being "better than everything else" was never the stated goal nor intention of Disney, or that the "heart and soul" of Disney was to provide entertainment that whole families could enjoy, or that Disney was intended to be "ever-changing" reflective of the passage of time, reflecting how society changes, how technology changes, and indeed how families change.

I didn't address those assertions because they weren't responding to anything I said in the first place.

Among other things, I'm not among those who think nothing should change. As far as I'm concerned, they can go ahead and rip out Carousel of Progress, if they replace it with something better.

Some of "the critics" wouldn't agree with that particular choice, but I don't know any that are against change per se.

It's ironic that you say the "heart and soul of Disney was to provide entertainment that whole families could enjoy" given that a major criticism from "the critics" has been that attractions like Mission:Space are at odds with that ideal.

But, really, it's not about whether you or I like Carousel of Progress or Mission:Space, or any other individual decisions that might be made. It's about a perception that decisions are made with the aim of making quarterly numbers rather than for the long-term benefit of the guests AND the shareholders.

 

[DancingBear]

For those of you who wanted Eiser gone and are now unhappy some of us tried to warn you that change did NOT gurantee you became happy LOL!

Nobody thought that Eisner being gone would guarantee any improvements. But it was clear that Eisner remaining guaranteed continuing issues.

 

[disneyphilip]

You're entitled to your opinion, but its sure is true to form. The reality is it is just a continuation of that curmudgeon perspective -- attacking without merit, solely because you don't like what people are doing or saying.

As it is, not even your friend DB questioned my assertion that being "better than everything else" was never the stated goal nor intention of Disney, or that the "heart and soul" of Disney was to provide entertainment that whole families could enjoy, or that Disney was intended to be "ever-changing" reflective of the passage of time, reflecting how society changes, how technology changes, and indeed how families change. These core points of the thread, which are things perhaps that he or you simply don't like to read, get lost in the mud-slinging used to distract attention away from them. How is that not intellectual dishonesty?

Regardless, seems that you and he cannot simply have your say and let others have their say. You, like the curmudgeons I was referring to, are simply here to attack, whether it be Disney management or simply other DIS members you disagree with.

Well stated once again, Bicker.

Thanks for the support. And please don't leave this thread.

 

[DancingBear]

One of the strange things to me is that so much of the value of the brand that is exploited in marketing and merchandising is based on nostalgia and the goodwill which Disney built up through the earlier quality-based business practices which are now disparaged as not a viable business plan. It seems to me to be an unsustainable business plan in and of itself.

I think Iger acknowledged this issue when he bought Pixar. He said at the time that he was watching a parade or some other Disney event and he realized Disney hadn't created a memorable character themselves in a decade.

As Frank Wells said, when he and Eisner took over the company, every rock they turned over had some under-exploited asset under it. One key success of the early Eisner/Wells era was in unlocking that value. But at some point you have to create some new value, not just keep marketing the princesses.

 

[disneyfan67]

Nobody thought that Eisner being gone would guarantee any improvements. But it was clear that Eisner remaining guaranteed continuing issues.

That is true. If Eisner had of stayed on, the Pixar deal would have never went through. Cars would have been the final film. Eisner and his tactics really turned off a lot of people and they refused to deal with him anymore. Having said that I miss the Early days of the Eisner era when Frank Wells was still alive and Disney was coming out with some beautiful films. Look at the list of animated classics that came out. The parks and resorts expanded as well. I often wondered how much better the Disney would have been if they hadn't of gotten involved with Euro Disney project and if Frank Wells hadn't of passed away. According to the book "Disney War" and others like it, the excessive cost of Euro Disney was really hurting the company and put it into debt. It also seems that the death of Frank Wells in 1994 was a turning point as well. Things seemed to go down hill from there for Eisner.

 

[raidermatt]

You're entitled to your opinion, but its sure is true to form. The reality is it is just a continuation of that curmudgeon perspective -- attacking without merit, solely because you don't like what people are doing or saying.

Of course it's true to form. You always provide the same input. You don't address the issues and instead you resort to outright namecalling. All under the guise of the generic "you" of course, which keeps you within the letter of the forum rules.

Then you turn around and call criticism of your insulting and irrelevant statements intellectual dishonesty.

Again, the definition of hypocricy.

DB, who I have disagreed with many times on Disney issues by the way, is always willing to actually discuss the issues, as am I. If you have no desire to address those issues, that's fine. This isn't a global peace issue or anything.

But instead you offer no substance and attack the poster, not the position.


Phillip, I'm going to reiterate what I said before. You asked questions. Legitimate questions. You also made a lot of assumptions about some people's motiviations, love for Disney, and even their ability to enjoy life.

If you want to cling to those assumptions by listening to posters like bicker, that's your choice. If you really do want to understand where others are coming from, that path is before you as well.

Either way, best of luck to you. Just remember that the next time you are in the parks and see some jolly mouseketeer who looks like he's having the time of his life with his family, you might be suprised to find out its one of the very people you are dismissing as a crumedgeon.