-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
Doesn't mean he'll be absolved of being a hypocritical asshole lol.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
That is extremely out of character for Iger....maybe he's got a very guilty conscience and the internal situation at Disney is worse than any of us can imagine.
Keep in mind that Bob Iger announced his retirement several months before the coronavirus was on anyone's minds. It's pretty clear he wants to go out on top and not be in the same pages of the history books as Michael Eisner, but I think Iger's hubris will probably be even more devastating to The Rat in the long run than Eisner's reign ever was.
Eisner gets a lot of flak for the California Adventure attraction and because of the string of flops that Disney had in the early 2000's after the whole "Disney Renaissance" had finally petered out.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, but wasn't the Disney Renaissance itself part of Eisner's reign?
I did read something about him saving Disney from collapsing completely in the 80's as well.
@Kari Kamiya and @Trilby both probably know a lot more about Disney's history than I do and both of them have been some of my favorite posters on here dating all the way back to when I first joined, so I'd like their input on something I've been pondering in all this....
Do you think Michael Eisner will ever be "vindicated by history" or will he always be seen as the guy responsible for the post-Renaissance/pre-Iger low point in the company?
Conversely, will the reverse happen to Iger in the future? Or will Chapek get all the blame for his mistakes?
It's pretty obvious that a lot of Disney's current woes can be traced back to Iger's policies and then Corona-chan threw them an even bigger curveball that turned a rough patch into a major crisis for the company's finances.
Bob Iger's tenure at Disney is currently seen as a time of growth and expansion that saw Frozen and the major acquisitions of Marvel, Star Wars, and Fox. The MCU in particular will probably be remembered as an icon of 2010's pop culture, for good or ill, and it was the main weapon in The Rat's empire-building arsenal during the Iger years.
But now it's becoming more obvious that Iger overextended the company when it came to his plans to build an entertainment monopoly.
Star Wars went from one of the biggest and most profitable franchises of all time (and one of the few "geek" franchises to have major normie appeal before the 2010's "nerd culture" fad) to a sad joke with no real potential thanks to Iger placing Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson, and JJ Abrams in charge of the franchise.
The MCU is still big, but they've hit the peak and the normies won't show up in droves now that End Game is over and done with.
Even before the pandemic, the capeshit fad was winding down post-End Game, with the major comic book movies released afterwards being Spider-Man: Homecoming, Joker, and Birds of Prey.
One was a forgettable afterthought, the other was a Scorsese tribute that was capeshit in name only and largely the antithesis of a 2010's superhero movie, and the other was a major box office bomb that lost massively to a video game movie that was expected to fail.
Something major is going to happen at Disney. I don't think they will collapse completely unless something even more drastic and unexpected happens, but I would not be surprised if they try to downsize and sell off some of their lower priority subsidiaries and IP's.
I'd expect A&E/History Channel to be sold first if it gets bad enough.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
I honestly never really hated Eisner. I hate Katzenberg and Iger
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
I've only been to Disneyland
Yup, 1984 to 2005. They took risks under his watch, something which I can't say the same for Iger. I mean, yeah, you could say Star Wars was a risk because of how much they bought it for, but it shouldn't have been all that hard to make back that money. The way they fucked it up was unbelievable, and that's going to haunt Iger for the rest of his life.
I think he's already being vindicated, or at least it's still slow for now. Yeah, shady shit was going on under him such as that wage-fixing scandal that only got noticed/called out for last decade, and depending on who you ask, Kingdom of the Sun's rejection is a black mark on his legacy, but Eisner made sure Disney wasn't creatively bankrupt while under his watch. Although he still signed off on Chicken Little and the foray into CGI, which was a super awkward transition, but that was at the tailend of his reign. He might've been experiencing burn-out, saw the writing on the wall about where animation was going (thanks to Pixar), or he was still super ass-mad with Katzenberg's company getting the first Best Animated Film Oscar when Beauty and the Beast was snubbed and could've (should've?) been the first.
Honestly, could we really blame him for what Disney went through under Iger? Was there a lot of foresight way back when by insiders/outsiders about what would come to pass in the 2010s? Outside of the Simpsons, were there ever jokes about Disney becoming a monolith back in the 1990s like in the 2010s? Maybe Katzenberg saw what was coming which was why he left/got kicked when he was rejected, but DreamWorks had a similar rise-and-fall under his watch, too (although I don't think anyone foresaw Steve Jobs kicking the bucket so soon), so who knows.
Did anyone see it coming with Kathleen Kennedy pissing on Star Wars, though? George Lucas apparently didn't because they were close friends, she had been a producer for many successful film, and he trusted her. Was she openly hating Star Wars before the buyout, or did no one realize what a crazy feminist she was until it was too late? How much did Bob know, really, that he agreed to put her in charge of Star Wars thinking they were going to make bank on wokeness/shitting on the fans?
I don't think we're going to know Disney's ultimate fate for another decade. We still need to see what Chapek will do to save the ship from sinking, but it's definitely not looking good for him.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2014
Much of what @Kari Kamiya said pretty much is how I feel on the matter too, though I'm more for the artistic side of the company than for it's business endeavors. Much of Iger's tenure to me just seems like the company further eroding away what Walt had built up over the decades with these IP's and libraries that do nothing for the Disney namesake (to me anyway). Eisner's time seems like something that is very half and half for me, on one yet, yes he did save the company in the 80's and brought us the Renaissance that the 90's ushered, but the way he treated the artist is something that just rubs me the wrong way (especially those like Andreas Deja and Glen Keane). No doubt by the end with the whole "2D is dead" will be his epitaph I feel.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
Eisner's only being vindicated by people who don't remember what he was like. He did a lot of dumb shit and we can't forget that, ever.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
And he desperately needed to be replaced by the end of his run because Disney was damn near irrelevant by that point.
But even so, he deserves credit for some things, he did save the company at the start, he oversaw the Disney renaissance and he still cared about Disney being "Disney", he understood that the name meant something.
Iger on the other hand has turned Disney into just another media conglomerate, he did not understand the Disney name meant something specific.
So while Eisner needed to be replaced in the long run things only went out of the frying pan and into the fire.
The main thing that pisses me off about Eisner by the way is that he allowed the closure of the 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea ride in Florida, that is just shameful.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
It's worth noting how is it is to forget how many CEOs Disney had after Walt died. It wasn't Walt, Roy, then straight to Eisner, no, there were three other people before him: Donn Tatum (1971-1976 CEO, then 1976-1980 as chairman), Card Walker (1980-1983, but he worked under Tatum since 1971), and Ron W. Miller (1983-1984, though he was the president of Walt Disney Productions in 1980). I don't think it's because people weren't paying close attention to the company until Eisner, but Eisner did do a lot of riskier things that got him noticed in the business world.
Disney really was in a slum, and the poor CEOs knew it. They did what they could to keep it afloat only to get usurped by a jackass who was actually good at his job. But he remained on longer than was to be expected, I think, and perhaps that's why the last years of his time at Disney was growing stale and falling apart because no new blood was there to oversee it all.
Although I do have to wonder what Disney under Katzenberg would've looked like since we got to see how DreamWorks went under him. He and Eisner really just hated each other's guts with extremely opposing views, but it makes you wonder if the company would be better off had Katzenberg remained on board, or if it would have fallen apart (faster than with Iger).
Disney really was in a slum, and the poor CEOs knew it. They did what they could to keep it afloat only to get usurped by a jackass who was actually good at his job. But he remained on longer than was to be expected, I think, and perhaps that's why the last years of his time at Disney was growing stale and falling apart because no new blood was there to oversee it all.
Although I do have to wonder what Disney under Katzenberg would've looked like since we got to see how DreamWorks went under him. He and Eisner really just hated each other's guts with extremely opposing views, but it makes you wonder if the company would be better off had Katzenberg remained on board, or if it would have fallen apart (faster than with Iger).
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2013
Far as I can see, it started off as a joke, but then became a hit afterwards. I think Superstar Limo was the only universally hated attraction there, and even that was mostly because of a mix of poor timing and overall cheapness.
Yes and no, on the one hand, his accomplishments (the Disney renesaunce, their animated TV shows, saving Disney from hostile takeover) are great and something no one should forget, but on the other, his blunders, especailly with the theme park division, should also not be forgotten, still, I'd argue he made more good decisions than Iger did.
I think we're seeing it now, in fact, I'd argue we've been seeing it unfold since the last 2-3 years with all the buyouts and socjus pandering to keep relevant. While at the same time proving the only thing keeping them known to the public are the MCU and their massive business and film blunders like the Fox buyout and the live-action remakes. Push is going to give to shove, and assuming Chapek doesn't turn out to be worse than Iger in terms of competence, we'll be seeing less of those blunders in the coming years once Disney gets humbled by these current events.
Wait, Disney owns these? I always assumed it was another media conglomerate who did.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2014
They were part of ABC's section of the company, though they're jointly owned by Hearst as well. Sometimes holding onto a nest egg for 30+ years does wonders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A&E_Networks
MysticMisty
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
Something that really needs to be mentioned is that, honestly, the Renaissance was really only from 89 to 94. Pocahontas sunk hard and feelings are generally mixed with Hunchback, Hercules, and Tarzan. Yes much fuss was made about them when they were released, but they were forgotten really quickly after their theatrical runs ended. There is a reason why older millennials name The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Best, Aladdin, and/or The Lion King as top contenders for their favorite childhood movies. With the exception of Mulan and A Goofy Movie (which isn't part of the main animated canon anyways), the rest of the 90's output were mediocre at best and people forget that for some reason.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
Eh, maybe it's my own personal nostalgia, but I loved Hunchback, Hercules, and Pocahontas, and Tarzan was decent too.
Mulan is very much one of the Disney Renaissance classics, and I'll even consider Emperor's New Groove as part of the Disney Renaissance, acting as an epilogue of sorts for that era as a whole.
That's my favorite in the Disney Animated Canon and is tied with Toy Story for my favorite Disney movie of all time.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
Disney Purchases More Land Near Magic Kingdom
The land sits next to 235 acres it purchased in December.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2019
How long until they start euthanizing the animals at Animal kingdom due to costs?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2019
I'm kinda regretting paying for a year of Disney plus now
insidethemagic.net
It's Not the Mandela Effect! Disney Actually Altered a Scene in "Lilo & Stitch" | Inside the Magic
For safety concerns, Walt Disney Animation did, in fact, change an early scene in its classic film "Lilo & Stitch" after the first edition DVD was released.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
It might just be me, but I think another reason it's considered a Renaissance is because Disney went back to their roots in terms of not being afraid to tackle darker, more adult themes. Modern Disney plays things safe a bit more than usual (some themes are still around like in Zootopia, but they had to tone that down during production, too), but back then, they went a bit wild with their ideas and did things that they only got away with because it's Disney.
I think it's a shame that the Renaissance ended after Tarzan because movies that came out after that could still fit in that description of what made a Disney movie part of the Renaissance. But I think it's telling that Treasure Planet was the last to be an intense adventure family film of the animated canon. Next to it being one of the more ambitious films from Disney's line-up that they basically sabotaged due to its high costs and general audiences catching on to their marketing ploy.
I'm kinda regretting paying for a year of Disney plus now
It's Not the Mandela Effect! Disney Actually Altered a Scene in "Lilo & Stitch" | Inside the Magic
For safety concerns, Walt Disney Animation did, in fact, change an early scene in its classic film "Lilo & Stitch" after the first edition DVD was released.
Jesus Christ, Disney, what the fuck is wrong with you? And they did this behind Chris Sanders' back, too. Twist the knife in a bit deeper, why don't you.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
lol you paid for thingsI'm kinda regretting paying for a year of Disney plus now
It's Not the Mandela Effect! Disney Actually Altered a Scene in "Lilo & Stitch" | Inside the Magic
For safety concerns, Walt Disney Animation did, in fact, change an early scene in its classic film "Lilo & Stitch" after the first edition DVD was released.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2014
A shame too given the other things that had to be changed/altered/edited out of the film like the plane flying through Honolulu.
EDIT: Just so we don't forget!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
The latter half of the 90s and the year 2000 is a fascinating period of Disney to analyze.
Their movies were still big friggin' deals, but the receptions were more mixed, I don't remember disliking Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan or Tarzan, but they didn't inspire the same passion Aladdin, Beauty and The Beast and Lion King did for me.
My favorite movie of that period would be The Emperor's New Groove as a matter of fact, but then in 2001 things started dropping off hard and fast, first there was California Adventure and then the box office failure of Atlantis, followed by Treasure Planet in 2002.
By 2003/2004 it seemed like the public interest in Disney had waned a lot, about the only things from that era that made waves was Lilo & Stitch, Kingdom Hearts and the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
And Pixar of course, but that was technically a separate thing until 2006.
The 2000s was just not Disney's decade, it was a pretty cynical culture, whether that was because of the post-9/11 era or just the general zeitgeist, Disney was very out of lockstep with the culture of the time unlike the 1990s which seemed tailor made for Disney, it's weird how quick things can change, but it's happened again, from Disney seeming on top of the world a decade ago to now getting fucked in the ass by Corona-Chan.
Things change fast.
Disney Purchases More Land Near Magic Kingdom
The land sits next to 235 acres it purchased in December.www.mynews13.com
local onlines say the mouse bought some more land around Disney World back in December before the coof came down, fits with ongoing efforts to secure land outside the current property
Interesting, what on Earth could they want that land for? Were they planning on finally building another park in Florida?
I'm kinda regretting paying for a year of Disney plus now
It's Not the Mandela Effect! Disney Actually Altered a Scene in "Lilo & Stitch" | Inside the Magic
For safety concerns, Walt Disney Animation did, in fact, change an early scene in its classic film "Lilo & Stitch" after the first edition DVD was released.
At first I thought they made that change because they thought the sight of a woman and a washer and dryer was politically incorrect, at least the real reason isn't that stupid.
But what the heck is that supposed to be that they replaced it with? A cabinet and a pizza box?