Michael Eisner to become Disney Legend

[plutoboy]

I was checking all the Disney Websites tonight and came across the 2008 list for the Disney Legends. Among the names on the list was Michael Eisner!!!

While I know this will upset some and infuriate others I honestly believe that if you look over his 20 year span with the compnay that the "Legendary Status" is well derserved. Think back to what Disney was in the early 80s and what they were on the brink of financially and the target over takeovers. If it had not been for his leadership and guidance then many of the things that we enjoy today would most likely not exists.

I am certainly not a Michael Eisner fan and having worked at WDW for several years I got to see first hand both the good and the bad of his creativity or influence. Yes he did mess a lot of things up in the last part of his tenure but he also had the insight to do a lot of things right.

What do you think? Deserved or Not??

[Daisy'sMom]

AS far as I am concerned, he did bring Disney back from an almost death.

[PharmD]

I agree with you whole heartedly. While I think in the latter part of his career he was working on ruining what makes Disney, he did save the company in the first part. The reason for part of the demise in the latter part of his career was the untimely loss of the creative guidance provided by the awesome Frank Wells. Eisner was the buisness brains and Frank was the creative genious. Together they did wonders, but you couldn't have one without the other.

[big blue and hairy]

I agree completely that Eisner should be a Disney Legend. Eisner instigated and/or oversaw amazing creative and monetary growth of the Walt Disney Company in his first decade. While it is true that he made bad decisions in has second decade, it is highly likely that the Walt Disney Company wouldn't exist if it were not for Michael Eisner. It would have been broken up and someone like Six Flags would have gotten the Disney Parks and destroyed them.

That said, if he isn't already, I'm not sure, I would like to see Frank Wells become a Disney Legend along eith Eisner.

:sulley:

[murphy1]

I agree, he definitely brought back Disney and he is responsible for the resorts being built and great movies from the 90's being put out there (don't count the horrible cheapquels).

[TheRustyScupper]

1) I agree that he needs to be a legend.
2) He did a good job.
3) He just stayed 10-yrs too long.

NOTE: The way things are going, I am seriously wondering if I prefer him to Ogre (I mean Iger).

[DizneyRox]

At the very least, he's a legend in his own mind... Too soon to be a legend, there are many more deserving. He's only been gone for a few years, not enough to wash away the bad taste in my mouth for him. And I agree, Iger isn't any better.

[CaptainJessicaSparrow]

When he came to the company, he was what Disney needed. As Rusty, and others, have said....he overstayed his welcome.

[SurferStitch]

Definitely deserved. He did many wonderful things with the company, and should be a legend.

[Ian]

It might be a bit too soon. I think they might have been better served waiting another 5 years or so until the bad taste was gone from everyone's mouths.

Because it is very true that he stayed too long. It's really a shame, too, because if he had gone out in like the early 90's I think everyone would be singing his praises as a real Disney legend.

Now he's definitely going to go in under a cloud of doubt, debate, and bad feelings. In reality, though, he definitely deserves to be inducted as a Legend.

[Goofy4TheWorld]

NOTE: The way things are going, I am seriously wondering if I prefer him to Ogre (I mean Iger).
This is exactly what I first thought to myself when I read the title to this thread.

[GrumpyFan]

With the exception of maybe his last 3 or so years, he did a lot for Disney, and should be honored. However, his pride and ego seems to have gotten the best of him in the end. It's the kind of stuff that a good movie could be made of if only it had a happier ending. But sadly, his reign at Disney (the story) ended on a sour note.

Okay, this gives me a crazy idea! Maybe somebody in story creation could make a movie on the basis of the Michael Eisner story. Something in the line of a young prince coming to power and becoming king, and saving the people/kingdom from being overtaken by their enemies, but then only becoming like the tyrant he saved his people from, then maybe realizing his failure in succumbing to the power and ego and turning back into the kind of leader he was in the beginning. Throw in a damsel/heroine and some wise-cracking sidekicks and boom, you've got a movie! I know, easier said than done, right? ;)

[Tamerella]

I love the last comment!! I worked Disneyland in 01 and he was gonna let that park fall apart. I really don't see him as a disney legend there are a ton of other people who deserve the honor

[Faver]

I think it's well deserved. He brought Disney back from the brink. He gets a bad wrap, but business is tough gig..... it's not called pleasure or kindness, it's called "Business" for a reason.

I say make 'em a legend! :thumbsup:

[brownie]

I think he deserves it, although I think he should have had to wait longer.

[special k]

I know of Michael Eisner, but I'm not sure why people both love and hate him so much. I've been reading a lot of books on Disney lately, and it has become sort of a hobby for me. Can someone enlighten me as to what Michael Eisner is all about? I just finished a biography on Walt (the Neal Gabler one), and am currently reading Realityland. I find all of it very interesting, but I'm not up to date on the Eisner drama.

Also, does anyone have any advice on some other good books to read if I'm looking for the straight scoop on Walt Disney and the Disney parks?:mickey:

[wdwnomad]

special k: Definetly get Disney War. I think you will see why people have mixed feelings on Eisner after reading it.

[Vito]

Eisner most definitely helped turn Disney around in the 80s. Theme parks were struggling, and the company as a whole just wasn't thriving. During the late 80s to early 90s, Disney Animation churned out such box office knock outs as Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King. They built MGM Studios theme park as well as several new resorts including the Value Resorts, and just overall expanded the amount of time people wanted to spend at WDW. From the early 80s to the early 90s, Disney stock split several times and in a span of maybe 15 years, the stock rose exponentially - if you bought a lot of Disney stock in the early to mid 80s, you're sitting pretty right now.

My guess is that Eisner never truly saw what Disney was really about and what separated it from the competition. I think he saw the completely corporate, financial aspect of the company, and that eventually caught up with Disney as a whole. The Animation department fell apart, he almost screwed up the relationship with Pixar, and the theme parks began to stall. Now that's not all Eisner's fault, but I don't think he had the pioneering creative vision that a guy in his position needs to maintain a thriving Disney. There was no dedication to quality, rather it was quantity and financial bottom line, and it began to seep into many levels of the Disney company, including television, feature films, and the theme parks.

In short, (just my opinion) I think Eisner began to rest on his laurels rather than pushing for excellence, and preferred to fatten his wallet with high salary, insane profits through his stock options, and bonuses.

[Polynesian Dweller]

. I think he saw the completely corporate, financial aspect of the company, and that eventually caught up with Disney as a whole.
Not quite right IMHO because it was really Frank Wells (before his untimely demise) who was the more financially oriented guy. He and Eisner worked together quite well and it was the partnership that kept things working. You could see the change when Wells died. Eisner seemed to have lost the guy who kept him on firm ground. In some ways the relationship was similar to the relationship of Walt and Roy. Walt was the dreamer and Roy was the money guy who kept things solid and a bit of a rein on Walt's dreaming.

Eisner deserves his legend status. Disney was close to becoming a takeover target of other corporations which would have led to it being split apart (much like what will happen with Busch and SeaWorld) and we wouldn't have the Disney we know today without him.

As with everyone, he had only so many creative ideas in him, stayed a little long and lost a partner (Wells) who made him better.

[PeterPan]

You won't find a more die-hard Disney fan than me. I have been watching this company all my life - I have read every book ever written about the company or Walt or any other subject remotely associated with the company. I have been a stock holder for many, many years. I remember when E. Cardon Walker was chariman of the board after Walt died.

I say that Eisner unequivocally deserves the honor of "LEGEND."

YES he stayed TOO LONG and lost his touch.
BUT he saved the Disney company from certain ruin. If only for that, he derserves the title of Legend.

[Vito]

Not quite right IMHO because it was really Frank Wells (before his untimely demise) who was the more financially oriented guy. He and Eisner worked together quite well and it was the partnership that kept things working. You could see the change when Wells died. Eisner seemed to have lost the guy who kept him on firm ground. In some ways the relationship was similar to the relationship of Walt and Roy. Walt was the dreamer and Roy was the money guy who kept things solid and a bit of a rein on Walt's dreaming.Thanks for the clarification. My impression had always been that Eisner lost the creative perspective that had turned the company around in the 80s/90s and in turn the more success Disney had, the more out of touch with that element Eisner had become. However, if what you say is true, there may have been indeed even more external factors that led to the way things played out.


Eisner deserves his legend status. Disney was close to becoming a takeover target of other corporations which would have led to it being split apart (much like what will happen with Busch and SeaWorld) and we wouldn't have the Disney we know today without him.Yeah, I remeber hearing rumors here and there of the Disney parks being sold off (as well as those takeover scenarios not too long ago), and I can only imagine what would have happened in that scenario. The synergy of the company as a whole (Disney Animation, Pixar, theme parks, television, etc) is critical to making the Disney name what it is. I'd hate to think what would have happened, and where Disney as a whole would be today, had it not been for the turn around the company did over the past 25 or so years.

[Ian]

Also, does anyone have any advice on some other good books to read if I'm looking for the straight scoop on Walt Disney and the Disney parks?:mickey:Definitely read Disney War. To get the other side of the story read Eisner's biography, Work in Progress.

Also try the book called Walt Disney: An American Original, which is by a guy named Bob Thomas. Definitely read Building a Company (also by Bob Thomas) which is actually a biography of Roy O. Disney that's very good.


My guess is that Eisner never truly saw what Disney was really about and what separated it from the competition. I think he saw the completely corporate, financial aspect of the company, and that eventually caught up with Disney as a whole.As someone who has read a whole lot on the subject, I think you have it partially correct.

Inititally what made Eisner so great was his ability to surround himself with good people. Frank Wells was actually the perfect "Numbers Guy" compliment to Eisner's creative side. Most people don't realize it because of what happened later, but originally Eisner was very much involved with the Imagineering side of things. He had a lot of influence, especially in the resort side of things (some would say too much).

Wells, on the other hand, played Roy Disney to Eisner's Walt. He was the businessman who made the tough choices, ran interference for Eisner, etc.

Eisner also had a great ability to surround himself with good people. Jeffrey Katzenberg was key in reviving Disney animation. Virtually all of the new Disney classics were created under Katzenberg. In fact, Disney really hasn't had a true hit (outside of Lilo and Stitch) since he left.

But after Wells died, things got a little weird. Eisner seemed to become very focused on retaining his power. He slowly but surely alienated and drove off all of the creative talent (maybe because he always thought he knew better than they did?) and really put the company in a bad place.

The whole "bean counter" mentality that's placed on Eisner is probably incorrect, even in later years. That was more a factor of the people he chose to surround himself with ... the Paul Presslers of the world. True bean counters. I would speculate that, instead of trying to surround himself with talented and visionary leaders, Eisner instead felt threatened by those types of executives and instead surrounded himself with a far less capable, yet loyal staff.

Disney War really lays it out very well. It's a must-read, in my opinion. And I don't say that just because I'm quoted in the book. ;)

[Polynesian Dweller]

The whole "bean counter" mentality that's placed on Eisner is probably incorrect, even in later years. That was more a factor of the people he chose to surround himself with ... the Paul Presslers of the world. True bean counters. I would speculate that, instead of trying to surround himself with talented and visionary leaders, Eisner instead felt threatened by those types of executives and instead surrounded himself with a far less capable, yet loyal staff.
Absolutely, the Paul Presslers were the one's who seemed to lead the downturn IMO. That seems to be confirmed in his subsequent career. Glad you mentioned him. Wells was definitely the steadying factor and probably kept Eisner from being as threatened by others.

Some of the blame also has to go to Roy E. Disney IMHO. His management of the animation division was less than ideal and he was a disruptive force for a number of years, at least based on the mailings I received during the proxy battles he had with the company.

[special k]

Thanks for the explanations and book recommendations!

[GrmGrninGost]

Yes, he deserves "legend" status. Yes, he saved the company. Yes, he stayed too long. Why should he have to wait? He won't do a thing to make him any more "deserving" now that he's not at Disney. :confused:

[Vito]

Thanks for that info Ian, very interesting. Most of my impressions are just that - impressions based on my own observations, hearing the occasional "rumors" over the years, etc. If I'm interpreting everything people have said here correctly, it sounds like Eisner, rather than "changing his stripes" or changing philosophy, moreso made some questionable decisions and lost much of his support group.

[Imagineer1981]

I totally think he deserves to be a legend. He saved Disney from going under and helped grow it to what it is today. While we may disagree with decisions made towards the end of his stay, remember there is a big board of directors also that has a big say in most things, so he can't be entirely to blame