Re-elect Eisner? 43% vote NO!
Juan F. Lara
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/03/news/companies/disney/index.htm
I'm afraid I don't understand the voting process of shareholders' meetings very
well. But I've read that if a CEO gets a "no" vote over 20% then he/she is in
trouble. In turn, Michael Eisner received a >43%< vote against his reelection.
Things are looking hopeful.
- Juan F. Lara
http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html
Pupu
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:c25ldq$h0m$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
ELurio
<<
i really hope he won't be reelected >><BR><BR>
Too late. The only way he could have been thrown out at the shareholders'
meeting was if there was an alternate slate of directors. Somehow, Roy and Gold
forgot to do that. He would have been gone had the done so.
Wheresthebabes?
wrote:
Getting rid of Eisner is only half the battle. They also need someone
to come in an turn thr direction of the company 180 degrees, back
towards creativity and quality.
Marty Feldman
exactly. finding the right replacement is the other half. very
difficult to do right.
and someone should tell the board they don't need to give away
zillions of options to get that guy. just someone who's got
integrity, fairness, depth, and a keen judge of character.
BUD
combine Disney and Pixar and put Disney on the right track, I would also
bring Roy Disney back (as head of conventional animation) and re-employ
some of the talent that left the company due to all the political back
stabbing - Give Eisner fifty million retirement gift and get Disney back
to where it belongs as innovators in the industry.
The problem with the US film and entertainment industry is that it is
playing roulette with creativity and launching a series of productions all
geared by accountants to make big bucks (in the short term) but they
forget one very important fact - the viewing public recognizes what real
talent can produce and will reward the creator by going to see their
films, that is if they can get their film distributed and shown which is a
major problem for talented producers.
Roll on the private digital cinema which should allow independents to show
their work to the public, instead of gathering dust in a storeroom.
BUD(UK)
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> I'm really happy to post this link.:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/03/news/companies/disney/index.htm
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the voting process of shareholders' meetings very
> well. But I've read that if a CEO gets a "no" vote over 20% then he/she is in
> trouble. In turn, Michael Eisner received a >43%< vote against his reelection.
> Things are looking hopeful.
>
With greater than the SEC-mandated 35% dissidence though,
that allows the dissidents to field their candidate
for next year's board meeting, if they choose to do so.
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ stanlee[at]cif[dot]rochester[dot]edu
| ( _| | http://cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Juan F. Lara
S.t.A.n.L.e.E <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> With greater than the SEC-mandated 35% dissidence though, that allows the
> dissidents to field their candidate for next year's board meeting, if they
> choose to do so.
I'd like to hope that something can happen EARLIER than next year.
- Juan F. Lara
ELurio
children's entertainment, they want adult lite. Not wholesome at all.
Disney's live action stuff with the exception of Mary Poppins and 2Ok leagues
under the sea was generally sub-par [we're talking about theatrical flicks, not
the pseudo-documenteries].
The problem is the theme parks and the animation studio. If the cheapquels
didn't sell so well, there wouldn't be the confusion between the "prime" stuff
and the crap. That's what killed the division.
What has to be done is that Disney must split up into Touchtone/ABC and Disney
Parks/Animation studio. That's what it seems Roy and the dissidents want.
Derek Janssen
> One forgets that children's entertainment is very hard to do. Kids don't want
> children's entertainment, they want adult lite. Not wholesome at all.
Actually, it was guessing "what children like" (lotsa cool TEEN stuff!
:) ) that gutted the Disney Channel and cut their cable broadcast throat.
> The problem is the theme parks and the animation studio. If the cheapquels
> didn't sell so well, there wouldn't be the confusion between the "prime" stuff
> and the crap. That's what killed the division.
If it's any consolation, it was EISNER who publicly said "Let's quit
dumping the cheapquels in theaters, we're glutting the market and
ruining our studio's image".
But then again, three months later, it was Eisner who also believed
Katz's Sinbad Swindle and emptied Orlando, and it's getting *scary* that
nobody's mentioned that at the board meetings so far.
(Only guess is that nobody wants to publicly come out looking as if
they're on the side of *defending* 2-D animated, just in case "Home on
the Range" doesn't surprise-rescue studio fortunes, but sheesh, when the
foggy blue heck is it going to occur to *somebody* in the building to
bring up the Lilo & Stitch question???)
Derek Janssen (I mean it!...SCARY!!)
dja...@rcn.com
DishRoom1
>ELurio wrote:
>> One forgets that children's entertainment is very hard to do. Kids don't
>want
>> children's entertainment, they want adult lite. Not wholesome at all.
>
>Actually, it was guessing "what children like" (lotsa cool TEEN stuff!
>:) ) that gutted the Disney Channel and cut their cable broadcast throat.
Not to mention the fates of "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet."
>
>> The problem is the theme parks and the animation studio. If the cheapquels
>> didn't sell so well, there wouldn't be the confusion between the "prime"
>stuff
>> and the crap. That's what killed the division.
>
>If it's any consolation, it was EISNER who publicly said "Let's quit
>dumping the cheapquels in theaters, we're glutting the market and
>ruining our studio's image".
>
>But then again, three months later, it was Eisner who also believed
>Katz's Sinbad Swindle and emptied Orlando, and it's getting *scary* that
>nobody's mentioned that at the board meetings so far.
>
>(Only guess is that nobody wants to publicly come out looking as if
>they're on the side of *defending* 2-D animated, just in case "Home on
>the Range" doesn't surprise-rescue studio fortunes, but sheesh, when the
>foggy blue heck is it going to occur to *somebody* in the building to
>bring up the Lilo & Stitch question???)
>
I know how strange it is from the info I get from the Disney stockholders'
meeting , the Disney vs. SaveDisney battleground, and the news-media coverage
over both of them, or so it appears. There's a lot of talk from both sides
these past three days on the preformance of the themeparks, ABC, ESPN, and the
possible Comcast takeover. But to my annoyance, at least based on from what I
read, see and hear from the internet and television, no one has ever talked
about the slump in animation, the downsizing of the animators, the closing of
the Flordia studios, the CG firestorm, and the cheapquels (their formulic
plots, gluting and ruining the animation market, the cheapquel animators taking
away the jobs and dignity of the prenium-stuff, inhouse animators.) I mean,
come on, folks, animation has been a big cornerstone of The Walt Disney Company
for 75 years, cry out loud!
Think of what could have happened if Walt Disney never got into the hand-drawn
animation game in his life. No Mickey Mouse. No Minnie. No Goofy. No Pluto. No
Donald Duck. No Chip and Dale. No Dumbo, No Lady and the Tramp. Oh, I'm sure
that someone else would have first made animated versions of Snow White and the
Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, ect. Also that someone else would
have made the first perfectly soundtracked-sync animation, the first color
cartoon and the first color cel-animated feature-lengh film. But would it have
been the same as Disney did? Would the Disney Empire have gone the same
historical path as it had but without cel-animation and its possiblities?
Also consider the irony that without Disney or any other studio/person to start
the old ways of animation in the first place, there'd be no Pixar, no PDI, no
computer animation either. Pixar and other CG animators had their start in cel
animation long ago.
Are people really forgetting that it all started with a mouse? (and with the
help Ub Iwerks' pencil?) <:-(
Incidently, I was watching "Nightline" the other night about its take on the
Disney shakedown (Ted Koppel interviewed both Eisner (who gave an crapfest with
the appeal of excriment through his teeth) and to Roy Disney and Stan Gold. In
one instance before the interviews they program showed briefly for 2 seconds
animation of Mickey and Minnie Mouse dancing and then hugging each other. Only
that it sadly didn't look hand-drawn... it was made with "Mickey's Philharmony"
(sp?) style computer animation! Apparently Disney is pushing too hard with this
"Forget 2D and go eye-popping over our CG" campain. >:-(
John Shughart
DishRoom1
An atricle on SaveDisney.com mentioed that. Disney could have kept its name
reconition pure if it kept the feature in-house animation under the Disney
label, then renamed DisneyToons Studios (which does TV series and cheapquels
for Eisner) as ABCToon films.
Personaly, it would be more better if Disney Studios wanted to have sequels, it
should allow more creativity than the "fanchise star parent and rebelous
offspring" formula and repeating puridly some of the same or similar occurances
of the original movies.
John Shughart
Derek Janssen
>>But then again, three months later, it was Eisner who also believed
>>Katz's Sinbad Swindle and emptied Orlando, and it's getting *scary* that
>>nobody's mentioned that at the board meetings so far.
>>
>>(Only guess is that nobody wants to publicly come out looking as if
>>they're on the side of *defending* 2-D animated, just in case "Home on
>>the Range" doesn't surprise-rescue studio fortunes, but sheesh, when the
>>foggy blue heck is it going to occur to *somebody* in the building to
>>bring up the Lilo & Stitch question???)
>
> I know how strange it is from the info I get from the Disney stockholders'
> meeting , the Disney vs. SaveDisney battleground, and the news-media coverage
> over both of them, or so it appears. There's a lot of talk from both sides
> these past three days on the preformance of the themeparks, ABC, ESPN, and the
> possible Comcast takeover. But to my annoyance, at least based on from what I
> read, see and hear from the internet and television, no one has ever talked
> about the slump in animation, the downsizing of the animators, the closing of
> the Flordia studios, the CG firestorm, and the cheapquels (their formulic
> plots, gluting and ruining the animation market, the cheapquel animators taking
> away the jobs and dignity of the prenium-stuff, inhouse animators.) I mean,
> come on, folks, animation has been a big cornerstone of The Walt Disney Company
> for 75 years, cry out loud!
And again, WHAT "2-D animation slump"??
Leaving aside "Brother Bear"'s surprise longevity, Lilo & Stitch was not
only one of the big movies of its year and one of Disney's year leaders,
it was the Last Animated Movie Standing of summer '02, while "Powerpuff
Girls", "Spirit" and "Hey Arnold" took their seventh-place baths--
If anything, wouldn't that "prove" a slump in movies Disney DIDN'T animate??
(But then, we're going with the radical proposition that an animated
movie from one studio can actually be different from another animated
movie at *another* studio--We didn't hear that a lot last summer.)
> Incidently, I was watching "Nightline" the other night about its take on the
> Disney shakedown (Ted Koppel interviewed both Eisner (who gave an crapfest with
> the appeal of excriment through his teeth) and to Roy Disney and Stan Gold. In
> one instance before the interviews they program showed briefly for 2 seconds
> animation of Mickey and Minnie Mouse dancing and then hugging each other. Only
> that it sadly didn't look hand-drawn... it was made with "Mickey's Philharmony"
> (sp?) style computer animation! Apparently Disney is pushing too hard with this
> "Forget 2D and go eye-popping over our CG" campain. >:-(
We sometimes lose sight of historical perspective, and forget the fear
and panic of last summer--
It was more than *just* "Sinbad" flopping, or analysts never bothering
to watch "Atlantis" or forgetting how many films crushed "Treasure"'s
opening...It was "Finding Nemo".
Nemo's numbers--not to choose too fine a word, here--SCARED THE LIVING
CRAP out of studio executives.
...Well, wouldn't it to you? I mean, if *you* were some studio
executive who never actually saw the films, but whose highly paid job
depended on your faith that "Terminator 3", "Hulk", "Tomb Raider 2",
"Charlie's Angels 2", "Bad Boys II" and "2 Fast 2 Furious" were this
summer's marketable, critic-proof money blockbusters?
And then staring jawdropped and chill-blooded as not only each film
tanked in two weeks, one by one by one, but "Nemo" kept going BACK to
being #1 after each one of the others plummeted in turn? 0_0
It was a tense time. Fear, superstition and panic ruled Hollywood.
All bowed before the Great Fish God, lest it crush them on a whim. And
due respect was shown to its many minions who--in a fearful attempt to
explain the terrifying mysteries of nature--they believed would do
anything their CGI master bidded....
(Uh, guys?--Sinbad tanked, Atlantis sucked, Treasure Planet was crushed
by Harry Potter, and Nemo was kinda cute when there wasn't anything else
to go see, or to go back to when you wanted to get the taste of one of
the other crappy movies out of your mouth. There's really not much else
you can read into that.
And no, we didn't keep going back to Pirates all through August "because
it had CGI in it", either.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
DishRoom1
I wrote --
First of all, I'm sorry for the mistake that I didn't mention "Brother Bear and
"Lilo and Stitch". Never meant to, since I saw both films myself, liked them,
and noticed their success at the Box Office. When i talked about "slump" I was
squarely refecting on how while Disney-Florida was successful artistically and
in BO grosses, the California unit, which was closer to Eisner's iron thumb,
withered with dead scripts, politically-correct didactic themes (like
"Pocahantas" and "Atlantis"), Eisner's attempts the make Disney's toon-universe
more "hip" and relavant-to-the-times to teenagers and kids (Thus making Disney
loosing some of its charm), the singing and dance muscials too Braodway-esque
(Like "Hercules", for example), trying to cabon-copy anime without
understanding what makes real anime truely tick (Atlantis again, even though it
was designed by the "Hellboy" creator), big plotholes (Atlantis -- what the
heck cause the surviving Atlantians suddenly become illiterate and unable to
know how to fly their fish-pods? How come one character tore a page from an
Atlantian book, and know for sure he has the right page if only Milo can read
Atlantian? How does a sub run on coal? How could a race of people with no
conection with the outside world for thousands of years were able to speak
modern forms of several languages?), micromanagement from the execs and
scriptwriters.
>
>(But then, we're going with the radical proposition that an animated
>movie from one studio can actually be different from another animated
>movie at *another* studio--We didn't hear that a lot last summer.)
Universal/Steven Speilberg's "Balto" (1995 ?)and Rakin-Bass' "The Last Unicorn"
(1978) are among the few several movies that prove that cel-animated films from
other studios can be as good as Disney if the studios heads would let the films
done right with the right creative people who are experienced with animation
and animated storytelling, However, many non-Disney cartoons durning the 1990's
weren't as good with their stories and their characters, just as most in-house
Disney toons after 1994 had similarlly lost their magic as well. Maybe most
people ignorantly didn't go to the non-Dis films cause they didn't have the
name Disney on them, but they may have lacked the storytelling, the humor, the
charm and character development as Disney's classics "The Lion King" and
"Beauty and the Beast", and that their animation lacked the polish of Mickey's
animators. What happened was that the other studios saw that Disney was
bringing home the bacon with their cartoons, so they started out their own
animation studios and the like to compete in the new Golden Age. Problem was
they lacked aesthetical vision. Another problem the Non-Disney toons faced,
regardless if they were bad or good, was that they would have poor advertising.
"Batman:Mask of the Phatasm", "Prince of Egypt", and "The Iron Giant" were
examples of this.
Indeed, Hollywood is making a god out of CG cause it's flashy and new and seems
neverendingly successful (uh, guys, what about "Dinosaur" and "Final Fantasy"?)
But just wait as Disney and the other glut out the CG films like they did with
hand-drawn.
>
>(Uh, guys?--Sinbad tanked, Atlantis sucked, Treasure Planet was crushed
>by Harry Potter, and Nemo was kinda cute when there wasn't anything else
>to go see, or to go back to when you wanted to get the taste of one of
>the other crappy movies out of your mouth. There's really not much else
>you can read into that.
>And no, we didn't keep going back to Pirates all through August "because
>it had CGI in it", either.)
>
Never liked "Pirates". May look slick but on the other hand I can't keep
thinking "full lengh themepark ride advertisment" in the dark corners in my
head.
John Shughart