Forum - View topicSemi-OT: Eisner no longer Disney Chairman
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Emerje
 Posts: 7550 Location: Maine |
|
|||
|
Well, Disney does release the Ghibli stuff so this isn't totally off topic. Not like we've never had Disney topics here before...
Anyway, Eisner was stripped from his Chairman roll yesterday, but he's still CEO. Reuters report Emerje |
||||
|
||||
|
Godaistudios
Posts: 2075 Location: Albuquerque, NM (the land of entrapment) |
|
|||
|
I suspect they want to get all their ducks on a row before Eisner is ousted as CEO... that was a lot of people who want him to stand down. As a matter of public affairs, that may be just a matter of time.
|
||||
|
||||
|
cookie
Former ANN Editor in Chief
 Posts: 2460 Location: Do not contact me for support. |
|
|||
i'd wager it'd end in 2006 with his contract, unless the disney shareholders relent.. 44% voting for his removal is a really significant amount, one that i think (even if it is a minority) is powerful enough to keep him from having his contract renewed. of course, even if he does go, he's still gonna get a severence package worth more than what i'll make in my lifetime. :p |
||||
|
||||
frostedsaiyan
 Posts: 637 Location: Maryland |
|
|||
Since he's stepped down now; do you think Disney will fair better? |
||||
|
||||
|
jmays
ANN Past Staff
 Posts: 1390 Location: St. Louis, MO |
|
|||
|
Why the shareholder revolt? I thought Disney stock was recovering...though losing Pixar probably didn't help.
|
||||
|
||||
|
cookie
Former ANN Editor in Chief
Posts: 2460 Location: Do not contact me for support. |
|
|||
In the 80s, when Eisner came to Disney, it was stuck in the middle of a rut, and it's feature animation division was floundering. It's TV channel was highly repetitious (AND was subscription-only). It's non-theatrical animation was limited at best. Disney World wasn't getting younger.. Eisner came to the company in 1984 and basically turned the company around. Rescuers had been a reasonable success in 1977... but following that, Disney produced a string of flops: Fox and the Hound (1981) Black Cauldron (which I remember seeing in theaters; 1985) Great Mouse Detective (1986) Oliver and Company (1988) It wasn't until Little Mermaid (late 1989) that Disney really turned its theatrical animation department around. LM and Oliver were the first two productions done entirely under Eisner, and Oliver was meant to be a hold-over until LM could be finished the following year. You'll also note that between 1984-1989, the Disney TV animation also grew significantly, with Wuzzles, Gummi Bears, New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers, Duck Tales, TaleSpin... and it continued into the 90s with Darkwing Duck, Gargoyles, Bonkers, Goof Troop, Marsupilami (well, maybe that wasn't such a success)... The Disney Channel went from being a highly repetitious channel (containing almost exclusively disney shows, often airing the same movies 3-4 times a week for an entire month) to a very diversified channel during the same time. Disney Channel used to show Disney-made shows much of the time, but then expanded out to include all sorts of animation (Quite a few people, even here, remember seeing Unico on Disney Channel... or, at least Rankin-Bass's Hobbit, Return of the King, and Flight of Dragons. Did Last Unicorn show on Disney?) as well as new live-action programs (Road to Avonlea, Avonlea, Anne of Green Gables) and more movies.. Thanks to this innovation, Disney went from a boring, repetitious company to a very powerful one. Eisner is almost certainly to be thanked for this change. HOWEVER, he's continued since then. His policies (Cheapquels, excessive "branding") are fiscally sound, but the stockholders (many of whom are probably in their early 40s by now, and remember Disney from the 80s fondly) don't agree with these changes -- so they removed him. Will Disney get "better"? I hope so. I don't know Mitchell's stance on anything, so I can't say. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I lump Eisner and James Kellner (The guy who made Fox Kids and KidsWB in the early 90s, then later cancelled Animaniacs and Freakazoid for attracting the wrong audience. I don't recall if he had a hand in Tick's cancellation or not, either.) together in the same basket much of the time -- what they did was "best for the company", but what's best for the company can alienate many people, which oftentimes ends up _hurting_ the company. What they're doing isn't wrong... but he needed to go, nonetheless. |
||||
|
||||
Tenchi
 Posts: 4665 Location: Ottawa... now I'm an ex-Anglo Montrealer. |
|
|||
|
Well, all I can say is that I'd have voted for Eisner if I was a shareholder, since I find that the opposition to Eisner has this way too romanticized idea of the way Disney ought to be run (art over profits, job security for all animators for life rather than hiring animators on contract, no diversified business holdings, etc...). I'm sure Roy's a nice guy, but simply being born with the name "Disney" doesn't mean he automatically knows what's better for the company than Eisner does.
Some of the "cheapquels" are actually fairly decent, though pretty much only the ones based on the modern properties... |
||||
|
||||
|
jmays
ANN Past Staff
Posts: 1390 Location: St. Louis, MO |
|
|||
|
Do you really think Roy Disney and Stanley Gold would be worse for the company? They've been on the board before, so I imagine they have an ounce of practicality in their romanticized ideas...
|
||||
|
||||
littlegreenwolf
 Posts: 4796 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||
|
Poor Tim Burton quit working for Disney after being assigned Fox and the Hound. *probably would of too*
If only disney didn't spawn off all those horrible sequals, and stuck to classic story lines that weren't "modernized". If they would of stayed away from that crap, they wouldn't be in this rut. And now no more traditional animation because "no one wants to see traditional animation any more". Idiots. I don't know who's fault the current downfall of Disney is, but closing down the animation studios was a horrible choice. |
||||
|
||||
|
Nagisa
Moderator
 Posts: 6128 Location: Atlanta-ish, Jawjuh |
|
|||
No idea, but I do remember one time seeing a commercial for some Godzilla mini-marathon. Though this was back when they were on subscription, and the "free preview week" or whatever ran out before I could see it. 
Anyway, I have to say I agree with Cookie's assessment; Eisner did a lot of good when he first came in, but his strategies the past few years have been...well...sadly ill-conceived, perhaps is a good choice of words? |
||||
|
||||
|
Godaistudios
Posts: 2075 Location: Albuquerque, NM (the land of entrapment) |
|
|||
|
Whether or not Disney will fare better is only something time will tell us. However, it is worth keeping in mind that a change of direction is often needed by every company at some point. To the best of my knowledge, stagnancy has never been good for a company, and that is what Disney has become.
|
||||
|
||||
mahoro
 Posts: 310 |
|
|||
|
And shareholders are royally pissed! We all want results not some idiot who gets paid ridiculous amounts of money, but reduces the company, its products and identity into a laughingstock of the industry. Mind you few studios have the resources that Disney has but, the quality of the animated feature films have gone to hell. Yes it was a smart move to buy the rights to Ghibli films and to form the former partnership with Pixar, but look at what Disney released on their own during that period... pure crap.
And what about originality? What is that? I cannot even remember something vaguely original and creatively done by Disney, that did not directly take ideas (without giving credit mind you) to the creators. At least with Roy the shareholders know he understand what makes a good animated feature, it is not the glitz, the 3D images, it is the bloody characters and storyline. Eisners cheapquels are sickening and anyone with half a brain will recognize it for what it is worth, an attempt to milk the cashcow for a established title. You can and should only do it so much, even Pixar knows this which is why they were against doing sequels for Toy Story. Disney's creative direction has gone to the crapper and it shall remain there, unless a new direction is taken. Eisner had his chance for a long time, it is time for him to get the hell out and let a better qualified individual to improve the situation. I do not feel an ounce of sympathy to this guy, because we all know even if he gets fired tomorrow, he will still gets a insane severance package which he does not deserve at all. 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Godaistudios
Posts: 2075 Location: Albuquerque, NM (the land of entrapment) |
|
|||
|
Well, I didn't find Toy Story 2 to be all that bad. But then again, Pixar had its hands in there to make sure it was done well. But there were far too many "sequels" out there trying to cash on the success of original products.
At least (AFAIK) they didn't try to pull out a sequel for Snow White. Somebody would have had Eisner's head on a stick for that. |
||||
|
||||
|
Aaron White
Old Regular
Posts: 1365 Location: Birmingham, Alabama |
|
|||
They did put the Evil Queen from Snow White into the Gummi Bears show, though. |
||||
|
||||
|
cookie
Former ANN Editor in Chief
Posts: 2460 Location: Do not contact me for support. |
|
|||
I totally don't recall that episode... and I'd like to think my memory for 80s cartoons is pretty good... given that my memory is so bad for everything else. :) |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group