Why does everyone hate Michael Eisner?

[TMC]

http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/299840-why-does-everyone-hate-michael-eisner.html

So he made some mistakes, but he got Disney out of a rut in the '80s.

I believe many people hate him for denying giving Jefferey Katzenberg
the President office after Frank Wells' death in 1994, or the whole
shake-up at Pixar or that he wanted more lowbrow programs on ABC and
turned down Lost and Desperate Housewives, which became mega-hits. My
biggest problem was him ousting Roy Disney in 2003 and turning the
feature animation department into a CGI House.

What's your opinion?

http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/209905-michael-eisner-gets-star-hollywood-walk-fame.html#.ULWeBduF99c

[RichA]

On Nov 28, 12:17 am, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/299840-why-does-ev...

>
> So he made some mistakes, but he got Disney out of a rut in the '80s.
>
> I believe many people hate him for denying giving Jefferey Katzenberg
> the President office after Frank Wells' death in 1994, or the whole
> shake-up at Pixar or that he wanted more lowbrow programs on ABC and
> turned down Lost and Desperate Housewives, which became mega-hits. My
> biggest problem was him ousting Roy Disney in 2003 and turning the
> feature animation department into a CGI House.
>
> What's your opinion?
>

> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/209905-michael-eis...

He made almost $1B in salary, bonus and stock options the top year he
was there.

[Michael Black]

I don't think that's it.

The one thing I remember him doing was introductions to the show, just
like Walt used to do. That made him visible in ways that some CEO would
never attain in traditional fashion, no matter how rich or famous.

And I didn't think it worked. So suddenly he was visible, but not in a
good way. Maybe it was too much like copying Walt Disney, maybe the style
was different.

ONce he's visible, I also recall that was the preiod of remakes of
classics. So they used Kirk Cameraon to remake THe COmputer WOre Tennis
Shoes, made for tv only, which I though didn't stand up to the original.
There were flubber remakes and such around that time (two I seem to
recall, one using the judge from Night COurt, another something else, so
maybe one was for tv and the other a theatrical release).

Wasn't it also the period when Disney got r-rated, originally under the
Tochstone banner so initially it looked like a different company? I had
caught on, I remember seeing something like "Night SHift (which I think
wsa Touchstone) or "SPlash!" and not thinking that highly of a company
that makes something but doesnt' want to put it's name on it (II liked
both movies, just not the misdirection).

Michael

[Professor Bubba]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, RichA wrote:
>

> > On Nov 28, 12:17İam, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/299840-why-does-ev...
> >>
> >> So he made some mistakes, but he got Disney out of a rut in the '80s.
> >>
> >> I believe many people hate him for denying giving Jefferey Katzenberg
> >> the President office after Frank Wells' death in 1994, or the whole
> >> shake-up at Pixar or that he wanted more lowbrow programs on ABC and
> >> turned down Lost and Desperate Housewives, which became mega-hits. My
> >> biggest problem was him ousting Roy Disney in 2003 and turning the
> >> feature animation department into a CGI House.
> >>
> >> What's your opinion?
> >>
> >> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/209905-michael-eis...
> >
> > He made almost $1B in salary, bonus and stock options the top year he
> > was there.
> >
>
> I don't think that's it.
>
> The one thing I remember him doing was introductions to the show, just
> like Walt used to do. That made him visible in ways that some CEO would
> never attain in traditional fashion, no matter how rich or famous.
>
> And I didn't think it worked. So suddenly he was visible, but not in a
> good way. Maybe it was too much like copying Walt Disney, maybe the style
> was different.

To the public, Walt was Uncle Walt; he was a natural. Eisner was a guy
who ran a company. They should have hired a host if that's the way
they wanted to go but, as you say, Eisner was copying Walt Disney.
Unfortunately, Walt Disney was uncopyable.

> ONce he's visible, I also recall that was the preiod of remakes of
> classics. So they used Kirk Cameraon to remake THe COmputer WOre Tennis
> Shoes, made for tv only, which I though didn't stand up to the original.
> There were flubber remakes and such around that time (two I seem to
> recall, one using the judge from Night COurt, another something else, so
> maybe one was for tv and the other a theatrical release).

They were churning their old stuff, attempting to capitalize on their
past with remakes and "sequels."

> Wasn't it also the period when Disney got r-rated, originally under the
> Tochstone banner so initially it looked like a different company? I had
> caught on, I remember seeing something like "Night SHift (which I think
> wsa Touchstone) or "SPlash!" and not thinking that highly of a company
> that makes something but doesnt' want to put it's name on it (II liked
> both movies, just not the misdirection).

The shit originally hit the fan when Disney (the company) accepted a PG
rating for The Black Hole in 1979. It was the first time Disney had
issued something that was not rated G; even their reissued films from
the pre-ratings era routinely got a G. There was a lot of criticism of
Disney by the family-friendlies at the time for not cutting The Black
Hole to get the G. (Reportedly, the problem was that the death scene
of one of the characters was too graphic.)

Splash is the film you're thinking about. It was the first release by
Touchstone, and was rated R for some language and Daryl Hannah's
boobies. The film was greenlighted by Ron Miller, Eisner's
predecessor. Splash premiered on 9 March 1984 and Eisner didn't arrive
at Disney until the following September, so it doesn't appear that he
had anything to do with it.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 11/28/2012 8:37 AM, Professor Bubba wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, RichA wrote:
>>

>>> On Nov 28, 12:17Ýam, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/299840-why-does-ev...
>>>>
>>>> So he made some mistakes, but he got Disney out of a rut in the '80s.
>>>>
>>>> I believe many people hate him for denying giving Jefferey Katzenberg
>>>> the President office after Frank Wells' death in 1994, or the whole
>>>> shake-up at Pixar or that he wanted more lowbrow programs on ABC and
>>>> turned down Lost and Desperate Housewives, which became mega-hits. My
>>>> biggest problem was him ousting Roy Disney in 2003 and turning the
>>>> feature animation department into a CGI House.
>>>>
>>>> What's your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/209905-michael-eis...
>>>
>>> He made almost $1B in salary, bonus and stock options the top year he
>>> was there.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that's it.
>>
>> The one thing I remember him doing was introductions to the show, just
>> like Walt used to do. That made him visible in ways that some CEO would
>> never attain in traditional fashion, no matter how rich or famous.
>>
>> And I didn't think it worked. So suddenly he was visible, but not in a
>> good way. Maybe it was too much like copying Walt Disney, maybe the style
>> was different.
>
> To the public, Walt was Uncle Walt; he was a natural. Eisner was a guy
> who ran a company.

I disagree. That may be true for the public who grew up with Walt but I
grew with Eisner introducing the shows and never had a problem with him.
He may have been the devil incarnate but to my young impressionable
mind he seemed like a nice guy, which was probably the point.

They should have hired a host if that's the way
> they wanted to go but, as you say, Eisner was copying Walt Disney.
> Unfortunately, Walt Disney was uncopyable.
>
>> ONce he's visible, I also recall that was the preiod of remakes of
>> classics. So they used Kirk Cameraon to remake THe COmputer WOre Tennis
>> Shoes, made for tv only, which I though didn't stand up to the original.
>> There were flubber remakes and such around that time (two I seem to
>> recall, one using the judge from Night COurt, another something else, so
>> maybe one was for tv and the other a theatrical release).
>
> They were churning their old stuff, attempting to capitalize on their
> past with remakes and "sequels."
>
>> Wasn't it also the period when Disney got r-rated, originally under the
>> Tochstone banner so initially it looked like a different company? I had
>> caught on, I remember seeing something like "Night SHift (which I think
>> wsa Touchstone) or "SPlash!" and not thinking that highly of a company
>> that makes something but doesnt' want to put it's name on it (II liked
>> both movies, just not the misdirection).
>
> The shit originally hit the fan when Disney (the company) accepted a PG
> rating for The Black Hole in 1979. It was the first time Disney had
> issued something that was not rated G; even their reissued films from
> the pre-ratings era routinely got a G. There was a lot of criticism of
> Disney by the family-friendlies at the time for not cutting The Black
> Hole to get the G.

Good. I'm glad they held the line on that. I like the darker Disney
movies like The Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes and Return
to Oz.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Nov 28, 11:37 am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>
wrote:

> Splash is the film you're thinking about.  It was the first release by
> Touchstone, and was rated R for some language and Daryl Hannah's
> boobies.

"Splash" was rated PG.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088161/

[Michael Black]

But Hayley Mills never showed her backside in the Disney films. They
didn't even hint at nudity. Even as a "grown up" in "The Moon Spinners"
her role was chaste.

Michael

[Professor Bubba]

In article
<4f65cac8-85d0-425b...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

Yes, it was. Thanks for the correction.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:37:05 -0500, Professor Bubba
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

>To the public, Walt was Uncle Walt; he was a natural. Eisner was a guy
>who ran a company. They should have hired a host if that's the way
>they wanted to go but, as you say, Eisner was copying Walt Disney.
>Unfortunately, Walt Disney was uncopyable.

That's the public perception of Disney, certainly. Reality was much
different. I don't think the public has any idea of what kind of
persona Eisner is trying for.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Nov 28, 3:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> >To the public, Walt was Uncle Walt; he was a natural.  Eisner was a guy
> >who ran a company.  They should have hired a host if that's the way
> >they wanted to go but, as you say, Eisner was copying Walt Disney.
> >Unfortunately, Walt Disney was uncopyable.
>
> That's the public perception of Disney, certainly.   Reality was much
> different.   I don't think the public has any idea of what kind of
> persona Eisner is trying for.

Yes. Walt Disney came off extremely well in his opening remarks to
his TV show. He had a good voice. Gave off warm and fuzzy.feelings.
Also, kids liked him because he was making films and shows for kids
which kids generally liked.

I suspect Eisner was trying for the same effect, but it backfired.
Eisner simply didn't have a good screen persona. It would've been
better not to have done it at all.

Also, there may have been mroe publicity about Eisner and Disney's
business dealings as opposed to Walt's. Eisnew was probably seen as
more of a business man and less as an entertainer. Walt Disney was
probably seen as an entertainer who liked kids, and less of a
businessman and studio executive. Heck, people probably thought Walt
spent his time drawing new Mickey Mouse cartoons, when in fact his day
was no different than Eisner's.

[Michael OConnor]

> The shit originally hit the fan when Disney (the company) accepted a PG
> rating for The Black Hole in 1979.  It was the first time Disney had
> issued something that was not rated G; even their reissued films from
> the pre-ratings era routinely got a G.  There was a lot of criticism of
> Disney by the family-friendlies at the time for not cutting The Black
> Hole to get the G.  (Reportedly, the problem was that the death scene
> of one of the characters was too graphic.)

The Black Hole wasn't really made for children, it tried for mass
appeal; it wanted to be like Star Wars and have cute robots and cool
laser gun battles to bring in the marketing money from selling toys
and t-shirts, but they tried for a 2001 type ending that attempted to
be thought provoking with metaphysical overtones which I'm sure went
over the heads of all the children watching. The scene where Anthony
Perkins was killed, there was no blood, but I think the filmmakers put
it in the movie specifically to get a PG rating, because they learned
from Star Wars that a G rated sci-fi film from Disney would be
dismissed by adults, but a PG movie would draw a bigger audience. I
watched The Black Hole recently for the first time in about ten years,
and other than the John Barry score and the special effects and the
performance of Maximillian Schell, it was an utter disappointment.
Disney tried to have it both ways in making a movie that appealed to
kids and adults and failed on both counts.

[Dano]

Why does ANYONE care?

[Peppermint Patty]

Part of it was the E-ticket proportion contract he gave himself not to mention the paycheck that went along with it. I think he really blew it when he got rid of or tried to get rid of Roy Disney.

[~consul]

'tis on this 11/28/2012 12:56 PM, wrote Arthur Lipscomb thus to say:
> On 11/28/2012 8:37 AM, Professor Bubba wrote:
>> To the public, Walt was Uncle Walt; he was a natural. Eisner was a guy
>> who ran a company.
> I disagree. That may be true for the public who grew up with Walt but I grew with Eisner introducing the shows and never had a problem with him. He may have been the devil incarnate but to my young impressionable mind he seemed like a nice guy, which was probably the point.

Me too, I grew up with him, mostly. I was fine with him doing the intros, it was homey, despite not being like Disney. Hmm, did we see a rise in other CEOs doing stuff, like say commercials, like we had Jobs and Dan Hess doing them now?

>> The shit originally hit the fan when Disney (the company) accepted a PG
>> rating for The Black Hole in 1979. It was the first time Disney had
>> issued something that was not rated G; even their reissued films from
>> the pre-ratings era routinely got a G. There was a lot of criticism of
>> Disney by the family-friendlies at the time for not cutting The Black
>> Hole to get the G.
> Good. I'm glad they held the line on that. I like the darker Disney movies like The Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes and Return to Oz.

I still watch Something Wicked This Way Comes every now and then.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Damaeus]

In news:rec.arts.disney.animation, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> posted
on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:05:42 -0500 the following:

> Why does ANYONE care?

This is usenet, where people come to talk about things nobody cares about,
just so we can use usenet. :)

Damaeus

[anim8rFSK]

In article <mphad89ik1mq069so...@4ax.com>,

I don't hate Eisner, I hate Katzenberg.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[JG]

On Nov 29, 8:55 am, Peppermint Patty <patriciabarbe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Part of it was the E-ticket proportion contract he gave himself not to mention the paycheck that went along with it.  I think he really blew it when he got rid of or tried to get rid of Roy Disney.

I blame Eisner for the waves of ticket price increases that continued
under his successors. Money Grubbers !

[Doc]

On Nov 28, 12:17 am, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/299840-why-does-ev...
>

> So he made some mistakes, but he got Disney out of a rut in the '80s.

Starting from the premise that the Disney enterprises exist to
separate people from their money, Walt was certainly in it to make a
buck but Eisner is a professional corporate vulture who possesses none
of Disney's creative genius.

People like Eisner run tobacco companies which sell addictive,
carcinogenic poison to idiot addicts for profit. The people of the
"it's just business" mentality who would sell heroin to grade
schoolers if it were legal.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<30c91cbd-c7f8-4cc0...@r13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

I consider the special effects to be an utter disappointment, so I'm
pretty much down to the score.

[Remysun]

I've previously discussed how he parted ways with Stephen Schwartz
because he assumed that it was an exclusive contract when Schwartz did
Prince of Egypt, I think for Dreamworks. The loss of Schwartz also
hurt the animation department.

I also mentioned his talk with Guiliani that brought Disney to
Broadway with The Lion King.

So there might be love lost for those who oppose the Disneyfication of
America, but Times Square is a lot cleaner (8th Ave is still unsavory
though), Disney has survived the death of its founder, it has done a
great job of releasing its collection, as well as Studio Ghibli's, and
Touchstone was a great move to not be so milquetoast while maintaining
family standards.

The acquisition of Miramax didn't work out so well, but they got
played by Harvey Weinstein.

All in all, Eisner's good for the company outweighed his faults, but
the effect his success had on the rest of the industry, which I would
actually claim was an inevitable outcome, is probably the biggest
fault, because we don't need the rest of Corporate America to be Slim
Shadys imitating.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

On 12/29/2012 7:59 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article
> <30c91cbd-c7f8-4cc0...@r13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael OConnor <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> The shit originally hit the fan when Disney (the company) accepted a PG
>>> rating for The Black Hole in 1979. It was the first time Disney had
>>> issued something that was not rated G; even their reissued films from
>>> the pre-ratings era routinely got a G. There was a lot of criticism of
>>> Disney by the family-friendlies at the time for not cutting The Black
>>> Hole to get the G. (Reportedly, the problem was that the death scene
>>> of one of the characters was too graphic.)
>>
>> The Black Hole wasn't really made for children, it tried for mass
>> appeal; it wanted to be like Star Wars and have cute robots and cool
>> laser gun battles to bring in the marketing money from selling toys
>> and t-shirts, but they tried for a 2001 type ending that attempted to
>> be thought provoking with metaphysical overtones which I'm sure went
>> over the heads of all the children watching. The scene where Anthony
>> Perkins was killed, there was no blood, but I think the filmmakers put
>> it in the movie specifically to get a PG rating, because they learned
>> from Star Wars that a G rated sci-fi film from Disney would be
>> dismissed by adults, but a PG movie would draw a bigger audience. I
>> watched The Black Hole recently for the first time in about ten years,

It's scheduled to air on Showtime this Thursday. I'd watched it again
but I saw it recently myself. I think it holds up fairly well. I'm
hoping to go forward with the remake/sequel from the Tron: Legacy team.

>> and other than the John Barry score and the special effects and the
>> performance of Maximillian Schell, it was an utter disappointment.

I *liked* the robots too!

>> Disney tried to have it both ways in making a movie that appealed to
>> kids and adults and failed on both counts.
>
> I consider the special effects to be an utter disappointment, so I'm
> pretty much down to the score.
>

It has a great score. For 1979, the effects were passable. The only
one that really stands out as subpar is the meteorite inside the ship.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kboomd$2ck$1...@dont-email.me>,

How young were you? I was in college and saw it at the theater near the
university on opening night, and people were booing and throwing food at
the screen ...

>
> >> Disney tried to have it both ways in making a movie that appealed to
> >> kids and adults and failed on both counts.
> >
> > I consider the special effects to be an utter disappointment, so I'm
> > pretty much down to the score.
> >
>
> It has a great score. For 1979, the effects were passable. The only
> one that really stands out as subpar is the meteorite inside the ship.

Well, and the visible wires on the robots.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

I was still a young child when I saw it for the first time on TV. At
the time the movie was made for an older audience. I actually grew into
liking the movie more. I had a similar experience with 2001. The first
time I saw it was on TV as a young child. As I grew older I came to
appreciate it more. These are also movies that I was able to appreciate
while still relatively young on DVD in the proper aspect ratios in a way
that I couldn't in pan and scan TV when I was younger.

I was in college and saw it at the theater near the
> university on opening night, and people were booing and throwing food at
> the screen ...
>>
>>>> Disney tried to have it both ways in making a movie that appealed to
>>>> kids and adults and failed on both counts.
>>>
>>> I consider the special effects to be an utter disappointment, so I'm
>>> pretty much down to the score.
>>>
>>
>> It has a great score. For 1979, the effects were passable. The only
>> one that really stands out as subpar is the meteorite inside the ship.
>
> Well, and the visible wires on the robots.
>

That use to bug me too but I noticed while watching in HD that the wire
was a tether to the ship. I didn't notice any other wires after the
opening. Perhaps they removed them from later prints?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kbpr86$n8c$1...@dont-email.me>,

I'm taking about visible wires coming right up off the 'floating' robots.

Basically Harrison Ellenshaw's work, like the 'man' himself, sucks.

[Remysun]

On Dec 30, 11:48 am, Arthur Lipscomb <art...@alum.calberkeley.org>
wrote:

> I was still a young child when I saw it for the first time on TV.  At
> the time the movie was made for an older audience.  I actually grew into
> liking the movie more.

I saw it in the theater as a child. For a serious child, it was very
enjoyable, but I could see how the college crowd hated it.