Why is Michael Eisner hated by the media? About This Page:

[Jciambor]

The title of this thread may surprise people. Though I have been going on press websites and they have been smashing the guy there and even on here. There are people for some reason that still criticize him since he stepped down in 2005. I understand big CEO types like him become reputable targets. However if you look at it historically he helped out the company and took it to new heights.

First of the early eighties was one of the darkest times for Disney. In 1984 they were on the verge of collapse when a group of investors attempted to buy out the company. Michael Eisner reversed much of this and resurrected their animation department with Roger Rabbit, and The Little Mermaid. He expanded the companies horizons and turned the company into one of the worlds biggest media conglomerates.

Disney was successful under Walt but Eisner transformed it into a multi-billion dollar industry. He entered the company correct if I'm wrong the companies assets were in the millions. The companies current assets four years after he left are over 60 billion.

I don't trust the media all the time. If you get down to the core business details he really helped out Disney in a dark time and took it to greater heights than ever before.

My guess as to why you guys don't like him is that you want Walt's family to have owner ship and not some questionable business outsider. The family lost ownership of the company in the early eighties because they didn't have the business prowess or direction that Walt or Roy had. They agreed to hand the company to Eisner it was for the best because even though the family doesn't own the company now it is still just as great as it ever was.

[audrey77]

Well at least in the parks, maintenance took a downturn. Mr. Disney made it a point that if a light bulb was out... if paint was chipped, it was fixed IMMEDIATELY. That didn't happen anymore- the focus was shifted ($$$) It became more about the bottom line rather than the original "quality." And I think that turned a lot of people off... That and the fight with Pixar.

[dj1028]

From what I've read, he was a terror to work for and was a tremendous egomaniac. Maybe there are some people who work/ed at Disney who got a little revenge when he was forced out?

[eff051102]

I don't remember reading on PP where Eisner was disliked by the boards. Do you
happen to have the link showing this?

[tkm1005]

Eisner was far more focused on the money than on the creativity which may have brought in more dollars, but many other components of the company declined. I would disagree that the quality today is the same as it once was.

However I don't think I've ever seen any Eisner bashing on the boards so I'm not sure why you think everyone is against him.

[bradk]

it's usually Disneylanders who hold spite for Eisner.

but please don't hold the CEO and President accountable for chipping paint. blame the DLR president. In fact, Eisner haters tend to quote DLR's rusting as a key element. Yet somehow when Ouimet came in and started changing things.. UNDER Eisner, Ouimet was cheered while Eisner was still grumbled about.

Eisner has good and bad. Glenn Martin DDS is bad. Eisner actually saved Disney from breaking apart and being taken over. That's good.

[Jciambor]

Originally Posted by bradk

it's usually Disneylanders who hold spite for Eisner.

but please don't hold the CEO and President accountable for chipping paint. blame the DLR president. In fact, Eisner haters tend to quote DLR's rusting as a key element. Yet somehow when Ouimet came in and started changing things.. UNDER Eisner, Ouimet was cheered while Eisner was still grumbled about.

Eisner has good and bad. Glenn Martin DDS is bad. Eisner actually saved Disney from breaking apart and being taken over. That's good.

This is what I wanted to hear. Eisner saved the company from dying in the early eighties which was from my research was Disneys darkest period. Michael saved the company financially and thanks to him its one of the worlds leading companies.

I understand however that there are people who are alienated by Eisner's big corporate direction. This has not lessened the creativity of the studios output.

[tkm1005]

Originally Posted by Jciambor

This has not lessened the creativity of the studios output.

I suppose from the outside the creativity appears to be alive and well. I think the change was internal and the moral and overall feeling inside the company definitely changed. I agree w/BradK that there is good and bad which holds true for any leader.

[bfth]

Ok, here's my take on it.

Eisner did come in a take the company out of it's dark days (there were lots of problems when Ron Miller -- who IS Disney Family, by marriage -- was running the place). He did do some great stuff. Opened parks, added resorts...

But you're only as good as your most recent success and he started to fail..and fail big (Treasure Planet anyone?).

PLUS he made the major mistake that many "celebrities" make. He believed his own PR. I think he forgot that no matter who you are ANYONE can be replaced. And so he was.

[Jciambor]

Originally Posted by tkm1005

I agree w/BradK that there is good and bad which holds true for any leader.

Disney will never have the perfect leader. Though to answer your earlier question I only believe that parts of the media and some Disney fans hold mixed emotions to him. Though they can't realize that the company was saved from inevitable collapse in 1984.

[Jciambor]

Just imagine if Eisner hadn't prevented those investors from hijacking the company. That's my belief. I think that will never a find a leader that will balance out artistic freedom and big business at Disney. I think the artists and producers at the studio are just going to have to make compromises.

[bradk]

See, just like I'd hold the DLR president mostly responsible for the state of the park, I would hold... oh, I dunno, Roy E Disney responsible for the decline in Disney animation, just like I hold Katzenberg responsible for the renaissance in animation. And despite Eisner being around when both Little Mermaid and Home on the Range were released, I think it's clear that Katzenberg had influence just like Roy had influence just like Matt Ouimet had influence, just like Pressler and Harriss had influence.

When you're sitting on the top of the heap, you're a target. And Iger sure has his lot of detractors too, only not as much.

Iger tends to be more diplomatic while Eisner was more of a 'my way or..' sort of thing. And nobody dared to keep him in check after the death of Frank Wells. That was the start of the end.

People blame Eisner for the Swolphin. Not just for its looks, but primarily for its location. But Eisner had little to do with it. Tischman had the rights to build wherever they wanted and they wanted to build skyscrapers. It was Eisner that prevented that much from happening.

[Jciambor]

Great points. Lets not forget the likes of Richard Williams (animation director of Roger Rabbit) for producing some of the freshest animation seen on film in almost 20 years. I put that film as the renaissance of animation paving the way for The Little Mermaid and pretty much every other animation box-office success since.

Many animation historians would say that Robin Hood (1973) was the beginning of Disney's problematic period of not only becoming uninspired, borrowing animation references from earlier Disney films. I also heard the film had many production setbacks. Disney didn't really recover until Roger Rabbit which was under their Touchstone label. So their first true Disney masterpiece since the sixties would be The Little Mermaid.

My opinion on creativity is that Disney reached its technical peak with Pinnochio and Fantasia. That is just my opinion however I have heard that the studios animators e.g. the nine magic old men, have a special place in their hearts for Pinnochio for some reason and often call it their best work.

Both animation historians and the animators have rated that film often in the top spot for Disney's all time creative output. I don't need a link to prove this, this is also not conjecture. I've found out that alot of Disneys greatest animators and general historians have nothing but the highest kind of critical praise for that film this coming from countless sources.

I'm not much of a Pinnochio fan but that was and still is considered an all time favorite. Like I said they generally then rank Robin Hood as the beginning of the decline and Roger Rabbit as the beginning of the renaissance, technically The Little Mermaid if your talking about the Disney banner. Their not to far off either from their assumptions and theories, after all they are professional critics and animators.

[audrey77]

Originally Posted by bradk

it's usually Disneylanders who hold spite for Eisner.

but please don't hold the CEO and President accountable for chipping paint. blame the DLR president.

I blame cutting maintenance and general operating costs.
When you can't even get tape to post a sign in a back stage area... there's a problem. :-D and this was at WDW The culture as a company is different. You learn about this culture in Traditions (which is now only, what, a day?!?) and then you go out there, and the magic is pretty much gone. Those ideals and standards are not consistent.

[stubekis]

I just finished reading Realityland, which is a very good although admittedly biased, history of Walt Disney World. It begins at the time Walt was scoping out land to purchase in Orlando and goes through the time when Animal Kingdom debuted. My understanding from the book is that many disliked Eisner's cost-cutting measures and believed that many of his projects went against what Walt was trying to achieve with family-friendly parks (examples included ET Alien Encounter in MK, which many people felt was too scary for that park and did not belong there and Pleasure Island, among others). Others disliked him making changes to classic attractions which Walt created, such as the Enchanted Tiki Room (some felt the new show mocked and denigrated the original, which many translated as mocking the very traditions WDW customers valued.) He was also criticized for egomaniacal tendencies and for possibly stealing ideas from the developers of Universal Studios for MGM (apparently he had seen proposed plans for Universal while sitting on the board of another corporation being pitched for sponsorship, prior to coming to Disney.) Animal Kingdom also received a lot of criticism when it first opened, as many will recall. Later it was felt that many of the attractions added bastardized the park's emphasis on nature and conservation and turned it into just another place to promote characters and Disney movies. Finally, my understanding was that he forced many of the staff from the early days to take early retirement and CMs who had been around for many years were no longer treated as valued employees, but relics of the old way of doing things.
I was also surprised at the fact that so many seemed to dislike him because prior to reading that book, I was under the impression that he had made huge strided for the company's profitability and was admired for that. I guess sometimes making a company more profitable does not always make one more popular, however.