When I was 14 in 1987. I was at Disney world, I was running across tomorrow land and came around building and ran right in to him. He was with a group of men all in suits. I bounced off him and landed on my butt LOL I had no clue to who he was then. He helped him up and ask me not to rush . He then told me I had plenty of time to see everything . As he walked off he had a worker take me to a food stand to get me drink. they told me who he was. Just one of those things that stick with you for the rest of your life. He was so nice about the whole thing, he could of been the big jerk people say he was and kicked me out of the park. I grew up watching Disney movies of the 80's and 90's . to me they are some of Disney best movies
From my birth to age 4, my mom worked at Disneyland. She was a supervisor in the admissions department. All of the gates and admission ticket stands were her responsibility 4 days a week. I got to meet the man himself several times from '81-'85. Not super sociable from what little I can remember, but always nice. He always had some random little Disney trinket for us kids...
I've been fascinated for a while by that sort of flailing, post-Walt, pre-Eisner era, mostly just because that was the Disney of my childhood. Strange and dorky live-action offerings like "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo" and "The Cat from Outer Space," budget-strapped animated movies desperately trying to recreate previous hits, and the occasional gem like the Winnie-the-Pooh shorts. Only that was also the era when the first Florida parks opened up, and that was a really big deal at the time--I never went, claimed I didn't want to go (I think the mascot characters freaked me out), but I had the View-Master reels. I sometimes wonder whether the theme park business, which was actually massively expanding, kept Disney from just fading from the popular consciousness during that time.
It's always the most difficult era to hone in on. There isn't a ton of reading on that period, which makes it one that I'm most interested in as a result. So far the best I've found is Storming the Magic Kingdom, which covers the attempted hostile takeover of the company in the 80s. It doesn't cover the era itself, but it starts off by setting up the context of why Disney was so ripe for a takeover by the early 80s.
My observation is exactly the opposite as yours. We're still keep finding new stories of successes he took credit for or opportunities he squandered that we now know would've been incredibly lucrative or beneficial for the company.
I really think you should do a "Disney Movies you didn't know were made by Disney" list. XD You just talked about like, a bunch of them that I didn't know.
Remember Disney owned Miramax for most of the 90s.... so Clerks, Pulp Fiction, and From Dusk Til Dawn are actually Disney movies. Personally, I never really considered them "Disney" unless they were Buena Vista or Disney branded.
Eisner was awesome! I applaud him for coming up with the "singles and doubles" strategy to save the Walt Disney Company. I wish Eisner was still in charge and I agree he must've been a big hero. That is, however, what I wanna do. I think the "singles and doubles" strategy is what I could use also seeing how that's a big help.
Rob, For a future video concept about Disney, I think a good idea would be the logistics of Disney World, such as how they generate/buy electricity, how much of it the use etc. The same idea could be used for other utilities as well such as water and sewer services.
I support that. Think of the logistics of "behind the scenes" in a park, How do they refill their restaurants? How much has to be transported and how is it done? Food, beverages? Water supplies? What about the waste? How much laundry is there every day (costumes)? Transportation could be a topic of its own. Vehicle maintenance. I know, that those numbers and figures are huge (I once saw some of them), but what are they today? Even simple things like: Who does eg. the regular plumbing? What about gardening? Is there a hairdresser at the venue? Just by thinking about all those topics, my head begins to swirl, if I think of the size of WDW and what else is involved in the logistics to actually run such a thing.
kallewirsch2263 yeah it's really mind boggling when you start thinking about the massive scale it is on. WDW is essentially it's own city, but to have all of that responsibility for everything to move smooth every day, there is no way any actual city could beat that efficiency and expertise
Re-watching this video in the current state Disney and the industry is as a whole, I've been thinking perhaps it's time for them to revisit the singles and doubles strategy.
It's too bad the "Singles and Doubles" strategy "doesn't apply" anymore (as you said, nowadays virtually all movies need to be HomeRuns): most movies I grew up with in the 80s and 90s were and still are far better than some of the biggest blockbusters we have had in recent years. Maybe we need to shift back to Singles and Doubles? OMG I had forgotten all about "Down and Out in Beverly Hills", thank you for such fabulous flashback!!! :)
Found your stuff randomly yesterday and I realized how much I've been ignoring my Disney addiction since I got into college. You do great work and I can't wait to keep seeing your stuff.
I think the singles and doubles strategy may work again with a few tweaks. When Disney finally comes out with its own streaming service they can use this philosophy to make original content movies. Lower overhead combined with clever, creative writing can lead to a lot of long running (streaming?) new classics. It can also serve as a new proving ground for new Disney talent.
damn rob, when i first started watching your videos 3 months ago, you were at 15k subs! now youre at 36k, a 21k growth in just 3 months! congrats to you man! awesome content out there
Good video. The thing with Raiders of the Lost Ark though is that it was made for a relatively modest 18 million. George Lucas' The Empire Strikes Back and Steven Spielberg's "1941" both went way over budget at 33 and 35 million dollars respectively, they decided that Raiders would be a lower budget affair. But your point is well taken. I think this is something Disney should revisit to work along side their blockbuster budgeted films. We occasionally get a Million Dollar Arm or Queen of Katwe but I'd like to see Disney make more of them. I enjoyed The Lone Ranger and John Carter but for the price Disney paid for those two you could fund twenty singles and doubles for the next decade.
I have a feeling that Disney could benefit from building up a fresh singles and doubles library. Star Wars and Marvel will print money for many years, but it's not always likely to stay at it's top performance level. Whose to say that they couldn't use their extensive IP catalog to do it. Not every Star Wars film has to be an A level affair. A B-Level Star Wars film series could be interesting. After seeing The Lone Ranger, everyone agreed that it was a good movie, but we couldn't see where the money went. Ok, that's not entirely true, Johnny Depp's bank account was way up. With that being said, it was never going to be a spectacular game changing bases loaded home run, but it should have been a solid triple with a possible rbi. The whole film would still have been just as good, if not better, at a much more modest budget and scope. It's hard to see how any reasonable person would even greenlight a non-sequel western with a blockbuster budget in the first place. When the budget was revealed sometime during production, I don't think I could find anyone who would have thought that a $150 million western was even remotely practical. I eventually watched it very late into its theatrical run more out of curiosity than must see enthusiasm. When the main marketing factor is, "what does a 240 million dollar western film look like?" and eclipses any other story or selling point, that movie should not get made. The only fault I will consider with John Carter is that the title character was miscast. I have not seen the actor since.
I read Disney War on your recommendation and it was fantastic. What do you think was the turning point for Eisner? I think the moment things started going off the rails was with the death of Frank Wells in 1994.
Nice! Glad you enjoyed it. I mostly agree that the loss of Frank Wells, and the decision to more or less run the company alone after that played a large part of that turn. I also think part of it was just age and stubbornness. Eisner was a very creatively focused exec with a great eye for talent and good stories. However as time passed the trends of what people enjoyed changed as well as how we enjoyed it, and I think Eisner partially dug his heels in on the old way of thinking. I think any other time it would have been OK, but as Hollywood shifted from a more balanced ecosystem to leaning into event films, it was this one-two punch of avoiding it too much, and not doing it well enough when they did do it. I think that's why it took someone like Iger to step in and do tent-pole filmmaking the proper way to adapt to the industry.
FWIW, when I worked for The Disney Stores in the mid 90's, the stores were driving the company, pulling in more profits than either the parks or the studio division.
Maybe, but I don't know what the quality would be. I think it's safe to say that by the time he was ousted, he was making more poor decisions than good ones.
Could you possibly do a video on the history of the Disney family(Walt, Roy O., Roy E., Diane, etc.) & there spouses and the influences that they had on the company as a whole? It's known that the family doesn't have too much influence any more and I do believe that there are not any family members who have constant, direct involvement in the company (please correct me if I'm wrong). The company is different than it was years ago and it would be interesting to see how this change has gotten us to where we are now.
He definitely wasn't perfect, and his role as CEO seemed to be far more rocky towards the end of his time there, but it'd hard to deny that in the 80s and early 90s he really turned the company around!
It seems that Eisner and Frank Wells made a great team, but, when Wells died in 1994, Eisner lost his mooring. That, at least, seemed to be the conventional wisdom leading up to his departure from the company. I remember seeing Eisner introducing The Wonderful World of Disney, as Walt Disney himself did so many years before. At the time, it seemed as though he was recapturing the magic. I remember seeing The Little Mermaid for the first time in the theater, ushering in a new era of classic animation. Those first 10 years of Eisner's tenure really seemed to revitalize the company.
You're quite right about Wells' death being pivotal. But most of the big achievements of the first 10 years go largely to Katzenberg not Eisner. Wells was the only of the three that truly loved and honored Walt.
I highly recommend people read "Disney War". Eisner's first 10 years were great, but after Frank Wells died, Eisney made many bad decisions. Still, he was a great leader and I miss him. Iger has good and bad too, but Eisner had guts and determination.
Hmm... my mom and I had a brief conversation in person about going to Disneyland sometime soon, then not even an hour later I'm getting a ton of video recommendations about Disney.
Hi Rob. Great video! With the 30th anniversary of Who Framed Roger Rabbit coming up next year, I was wondering could you talk about the Disney Renaissance and the role it played in saving the company as well sometime?
I misunderstood the title as not being a baseball metaphor but, instead, thought this video had something to do with lodging. I'm not disappointed that I clicked.
I’m currently reading Disney War..... Eisner was great in the beginning but after Frank Wells died, he became a real C U Next Tuesday. He turned against longtime friends (10-30 year friendships) because he thought they were trying to take his job. He would hire his friends and wouldn’t delegate anything, he would just micromanage every aspect of the company.
Hey Rob, I love your videos. please keep making more!!! Just wanted to ask if you use the same camera every time for your vlogs. I love the way they come out. And I'm looking in to getting one. Thanks. Keep doing what your doing. These videos help me when I am not at Disney...
Thanks! I'll keep trying! It depends on which vlogs your watching. Everything before and up to the June 2016 trip was recorded with my old DSLR (Nikon D3200). The picture quality was OK, but it did poorly in low light, was a bit cumbersome for vlogging, and didn't offer much image stabilization for my shaky hands. It was great for the montages though. Everything after that June trip was recorded with a Canon G7X II, which is much smaller, way more stable, and does great in low light. I love it and it's my go-to for trips now.
Hey Rob... What is your mentality regarding youtube videos? Are you shooting for singles and doubles as you create content, or going for the home run each time? You definitely have many homers homie!
I LOVE this question and honestly don't fully know the answer. I guess it's a little different since the channel isn't my main job, so I can put personal happiness before views or money whereas Disney wouldn't have that benefit. I've definitely adopted more of a quality > quantity outlook from way back when I was doing 5-7 videos a week. In a way I'd say I aim for a home run every time because if the water video has taught me anything, it's that I'll never know which videos go viral and which don't. So to that end I try to make sure every video is as good as it could possible be. Yet at the same time if I cared about views and subscribers the most, I'd probably be focusing on more click-bait style topics and lists or something, but I wouldn't find that nearly as fun or rewarding. So I guess I aim for triples? :P
Pulp Fiction too! It's funny whenever people insist that Disney getting involved in a creative project means they'll make it family friendly, because the truth was in the late 80s and early 90s many within the studio were chomping at the bit to get into more adult focused film under their other labels. They understood there's more than one market out there, and as long as people aren't inherently thinking Disney when they think of films like Scream, it's OK to make them.
When I clicked this video I thought it was gonna be how Disney parks let single riders go ahead to fill in empty seats on rides to make lines go faster. lol! But this was a really interesting video and I enjoyed it lol!
Hey Rob, Have you heard about the changes coming to the POTC ride in the Auction scene with the Redhead? I was wondering if you had any thoughts on it.
I think the big budget, super hero-themed movies have gotten old. It's the same story with different CGI effects. How about some more low budget, high quality films? I've been watching more of those lately and find them more satisfying so long as the writing, acting and directing are all good.
I don't get why so want people hate him, Disney was struggling when he took over. Yeah, EuroDisney was a disaster but as far as movies. He really improved Disney and got the company going again. Yeah, he killed their 2D animation studio in the early 2000's but the general public was more into CG movies then, even well written 2D movies like Treasure Planet were failing then.
Bob Iger‘s homerun strategy doesn’t always work, and he runs the risk of things blowing up in his face down the line. Marvel is big today, but will it always make a billion dollars opening weekend?
I think the key to Iger's homerun strategy is that he'll be stepping down as CEO in 2021. So as long as it doesn't blow up in his face by then, it's no longer his problem. I think Marvel films have enough steam to keep being billion dollar flicks for the next two years. The real risk is if the next CEO things they can get away with just trying to emulate Iger for the next 10 years.
To be fair, for all the great things he did for Disney in the 80s and early 90s, he also made some pretty boneheaded moves in the late 90s and early 00s. He seemed to really have a knack for good entertainment when he stepped in, but he didn't evolve with the times and it began to show. Furthermore losing Frank Wells as a balance really didn't do him any favors either. Ultimately he just kind of overstayed his welcome. I suspect had he stepped down in the mid to late 90s he would have been seen more favorably by fans. Instead they think of his later time as CEO, which generally wasn't that great.
A lot of people hate him and think he is the worst thing that happened to Disney but I think this man was one of the best things that happened to the company
Yup! It's definitely a split. He did a lot to help Disney not only stay Disney, but grow into what it is today. At the same time, he lost the checks and balances that made him successful and it lead to plenty of poor decisions. Either way, I'm glad he ran the company when he did!
That's Jeffrey Katzenberg. He played a pivotal role in Disney animation's renaissance until he had a nasty falling out with Eisner/Disney in 1994. It lead to him co-founding Dreamworks and up until 2016 he was the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.
Any way we could get your reaction on that Pirates Of the Caribbean The Ride change?...completely understand if no because it's such a controversial topic.
So I'm totally fine with it. I think the idea of a badass redheaded pirate lady is kind of cool. I've seen a lot of outrage against the change and honestly while it's totally fine for people not to like it, I've yet to hear a good argument as to why it's a bad idea. The common arguments floating around are: It's changing history and whitewashing pirates - This makes no sense. This ride was NEVER historically accurate. It was a cleaned up Disneyfied version of piracy since day one. The difference is in the 60s the idea of selling women fell into that cleaned up image and today it doesn't. They're essentially keeping it a cleaned up vision of piracy to match the times. It's changing history by changing a classic Disney ride - So what? The parks were built specifically to be upgraded, changed, and replaced. Walt did it all the time with rides. Furthermore this ride specifically went through numerous changes over the years, so it's not even like Disney is finally touching this classic attraction for the first time ever or anything. It's a reaction to outrage/complaints/sensitive parents - Maybe. It's also equally likely it's not. If we stop and think about this, they're planning to shut down one of their most popular rides in two theme parks. They're paying people to design the new scene. Paying people to plan it's change. Paying people to put the changes into action. They're also taking on fan backlash they knew would come. Really going to believe they'd spend all that money, time, and goodwill to appease a small number of complaints or sensitive folks? I don't think so. It's more likely a combination of wanting to bring something new to an old attraction that is under the shadow of it's fancier newer Shanghai cousin, seeing appeal in the redhead as a character and realizing that this is a marketing and merch goldmine, and yeah, making the change in a way that updates something that's slowly falling into bad taste so that it more closely aligns with the company's traditionally progressive views. It's killing three birds with one stone. Lastly it's just the general reaction we get whenever there's a change announced. People have strong memories associated with these parks, and some people tend to hope they're preserved in the form of never wanting the parks to change, despite the fact that such a wish goes completely against what Walt wanted out of Disneyland. Like almost every other change at the parks, most of the fan backlash will die down, the general majority of guests who aren't hardcore fans won't even care, and when the ride re-opens people will be reminded that Imagineering is generally good at what they do and realize that the new scene isn't some awful affront they built it up to be. Then they'll move on to raging over the Epcot news we're getting in a few weeks :P
You have to evolve with the times, no one is going to drive to the movie theater and pay $25 to watch something that is less exciting and has worse visuals then a $15 video game you play at home that you can interact with and still has a plot/story line usually just as good as most Hollywood scripts these days...
The difference now is that Disney can count on the foreign markets to bail them out financially, something that Eisner couldn't always count on or was even non-existent w/these ten-pole films. While American box-office performance was all that mattered back then, these days, it has become almost irrelevant when big-budgeted blockbuster movies are shown in places like China & India.
Sure. Actually I'm not going to lie, I'm a bit jealous of California Adventure. Don't get me wrong, I love the Tower of Terror, but I've enjoyed it for 23 years now. I'm ready for something new. I kind of wish they could have put Mission Breakout in Florida instead.
Hey Rob, I am going on a trip soon and know that there is a new firework show. I think it will be great but my family thinks it can't top wishes. How could I convince them to watch it, also what is your opinion on the new firework show? Should I not see it? Plus will you start doing Q&A's again any time soon? Love the videos! Keep up the great work!
Fun Disney Fan I am not Rob. But are you talking about the firework show at Disney World? if you are there is video on RUclips of the new show called "happily ever after". There are some others also. it is a good show. I have not seen it in person. But they use projections on the castle which look best if you're close to the castle and not down Main Street. The Disney parks RUclips channel has a short clip of the fireworks and a behind-the-scenes talking about the show while they were still making it.
You should let them know that the only way to really see if it can top Wishes or not is to see it! Personally from what I've seen online, it looks great! It definitely doesn't carry the same emotional weight that Wishes does, but it seems to be intentional. The new show is far more light-hearted. The projection and effect timing looks incredible though. I'm beyond psyched to see it in person. Regarding the Q&As, I actually do most of that with Christine on our Disney podcast, The Tomorrowland Transit Authorities (www.ttapodcast.com). That said I've considered doing sporadic Q&A videos whenever we end up with too many Q's to A on the show.
Not close to bankruptcy, but primed for a hostile takeover. Their leadership in the 70s wasn't that strong and they weren't growing as a business in the way something as major as Disney should have been. This meant that it would have been easy for another larger company to come around buy them out. Also worth noting that at this point in the 80s, corporate raiding was especially popular.
I would disagree on these days every studio having to hit a home run because these days a lot of movie studios the movies that they make are complete garbage due to heavily rely on CGI and boring wow factors rather than good acting and writing
Eisner's "strategy" of aiming low and management by spreadsheet are exactly why he was ousted. The successes Disney had during his tenure were in spite of him not because of him. Talented writers and directors who were scrappy and hardworking and willing to push forward event with the counterforce of a leader who honored profits over production values. It is true that Disney was badly injured when Eisner was brought on and he deserves credit for staving off the takeover threats at the time. But with diminished resources, small films were all they could afford to produce. You can't be a world leader in entertainment by bottom-feeding. Survival mode is not a strategy or a philosophy. It is NOT suited for the long term. I get runs circles around Eisner and is in many ways a modern continuation of Walt's philosophies -- the ideas and ideals that put Disney on the map in the first place and fortify its staying power as a major industry force well into the future.
I think it's a bit unfair to say the successes were in spite of him. For a company executive he was very creatively focused and involved himself in the development of a lot of these films. Not just on a budgetary level but on a story and character level. He was no Walt Disney, but he definitely looked at the industry beyond spreadsheets and profits. Just off the top of my head, Three Men and a Baby literally exists in the US because of Eisner, who saw the French film while in Europe and recognized it's universal appeal with audiences. That's not the kind of insight you typically get with an average exec. I also agree that survival mode isn't suited for long term, but considering his singles and doubles strategy was one from his days at Paramount where he was thriving, I'd also argue that it's not simply survival mode. It was a specific means of reducing cost by putting more focus on character and story than trying to sell a movie on star power. Sure towards the end of his time he was ousted, but I believe that had less to do with him honoring profits over production value and more to do with an inability for him to adapt to a rapidly changing industry that leaned into event films more than anything else. Hollywood was embracing a path that he consciously avoided in the past, so unsurprisingly he wasn't the best at it when there was no other choice.
Firstly, thank you for the thoughtful and well-expressed reply. Here you've posted this video praising this figure and I come along making contrarian remarks. You could easily have muted me, blocked me, flamed me, or otherwise shut me down. Instead, you engaged in a constructive discourse on the matter and afforded me a respect and consideration that I will aim to reciprocate. It is refreshing that we can have two very different views but still be civil and even friendly while supporting our statements. My perspective on Michael Eisner may be tainted. I have had direct experience with the man and his decisions and in some cases lack of decisions have caused grief and setbacks for more than a dozen individuals I know how have previously or still currently work for the Disney organization. So I have a great deal of empirical knowledge and direct experience on this subject. Normally I would say that to pull rank but looking at things from the long view, perhaps that makes you more objective. You can be clinical in your analysis whereas my subjectivity means many of my views carry emotional charge. That all said, on the flip side, I think history is kind and rounds off the rough edges on events and exchanges as they really happened. One of the biggest complaints from people during the Eisner era was not having a sense of leadership or even a sense of who Disney was as a studio. There was a tremendous loss of identity that was tied to the loss of two key people who were also brought onboard when Eisner was brought on. That is the tragic loss of Frank Wells, who ran the parks, and the eventual infighting that resulted in the loss of Jeffrey Katzenberg. Those two men were incredibly important counter-weights to Eisner's way. Without them, the Disney organization started to decline in several key ways. Walt Disney famously said, you must never forget it all started with a mouse. The core of the Disney brand had always been animation. But Eisner didn't like animation. Animation is costly and development takes a long time. His philosophy, as you cited, was lower budgets, faster returns, modest but steady. He pushed the studio aggressively into live action making films that paid the bills but they were NOT what the world had come to know and expect from the Disney brand. He also didn't care about owning intellectual property. He saw Disney more as a distributor than a producer because, again, lower risk, steadier returns. So yes, Three Men and a Baby delivered a return on investment but it wasn't even known as a Disney picture. It was branded under Ron Miller's Touchstone Pictures. A lot of its initial publicity came from the fact that Leonard Nimoy directed it. Many people at the time complained that Eisner was making Paramount movies and had never bothered to understand the Disney brand or what it was about. Katzenberg is credited with the so-called Disney renaissance. Little Mermaid, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, all born of that era. It was great to see Disney making new classics for what Disney was best known for. But the only reason these films happened was because Katzenberg fought for them and pushed them through with limited resources and limited buy in. Where he should have had all kinds of support and resources, he had to push and fight and threaten in order to get those films made. Those films were Disney films and it was the first time in ages that the company actually owned its own intellectual property. The story was more complex when we talk about Roger Rabbit which I'll shelf for future discussion because I could fill a book on that project alone. Suffice to say, Eisner didn't initiate that project, Ron Miller did, and he didn't help the project, he hurt it. It is his fault that to this day Disney doesn't have clear ownership of Roger. When Katzenberg finally got fed up, Eisner and him had their final showdown and Katzenberg was out. He didn't disappear into obscurity. By then, all of Disney Animation Studios was fiercely loyal to Katzenberg. They had wanted him to be CEO of all of Disney. Katzenberg famously because the "K" in Dreamworks SKG, a new studio formed by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. There was a mass migration out of Disney. Diaspora. The crown jewel of Walt Disney Studios, the animation group, was a shadow of its former self and there was no plan to replenish them. Eisner looked at it as a benefit. The studio would be that much leaner and the relationship with PIXAR had already started. With the success of TOY STORY, he became even more convinced that Disney didn't need its own animation studio. In fact, he started shrinking WDI (Walt Disney Imagineering) as well and started outsourcing core functions of Imagineering that had always been in-house. TOY STORY was a break out hit and the relationship with PIXAR started out famously. It validated this model but Disney had no identity in the process. No unique contribution. And things came to an apex when he entered the octagon against Steve Jobs, CEO of PIXAR. Jobs did the ultimate take-away by walking away from the altar on their deal renewal. At that point, PIXAR was renowned as the world's greatest animation studio and Disney had nothing. He understood how much Disney needed PIXAR and how PIXAR could go ANYWHERE and get a sweetheart deal because of their outstanding hit after hit track record. This was the negotiation that would be Eisner's undoing. By then everyone knew they were fed up with all the cost cutting measures. They wanted their studio back. A Disney with no animation. Parks all badly neglected and in need of repair and renovation. And Imagineering people going to Universal and to Iwerks and Landmark and other firms. He turned Disney into a distributor not a maker. And while many argue that is how they weathered the storm, it would be their undoing. PIXAR was proof of that. Bob Iger himself has said it best, "Michael didn't understand that Disney's problems with animation were as acute as they were. That manifested itself in the way he dealt with Pixar. He never felt that he needed Pixar as much as he really did." Iger had been watching Eisner carefully and he was upset that Disney didn't own any new intellectual property. Iger recalled from an opening parade for Hong Kong Disneyland. He said, "A light bulb went off. I'm standing next to Michael, but I kept it completely to myself, because it was such an indictment of his stewardship of animation during that period. After ten years of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, there were then ten years of nothing." These are the very words Iger said when he took the helm, "As animation goes, so goes our company," he told the board. "A hit animated film is a big wave, and the ripples go down to every part of our business -- from characters in a parade, to music, to parks, to video games, TV, Internet, consumer products. If I don't have wave makers, the company is not going to succeed." That's why Iger went to work not just bringing PIXAR back to the table to renew their distribution deal but rather to acquire them outright. And he did one better. He installed John Lasseter, founder of PIXAR, as the new Walt Disney. He gave him the title of Chief Creative Officer of the entire company and gave him the mandate to rebuild and restore the Disney Animation Studios. Iger bought MARVEL and LUCASFILM and PIXAR to make sure he had those wave makers. And he even went back and righted a wrong committed against Walt himself and secured the rights back to Oswald The Lucky Rabbit. You're right that Eisner brought ideas from Paramount to Disney but those ideas gave Disney a serious identity crisis. The studio whose fame was owed to being the most talented animation studio in the world had lost its claim to the throne. And its live action efforts were not Disney films. Nothing about them had anything to do with the brand identity and they weren't even released under the Disney banner. Bob Iger eliminated all of those practically-nameless deal entities (Pacific Touchwood Silver Screen Partners III) branding with the DISNEY name upfront and center. Under Iger, Disney owns their future again. And they are a maker again. And they know who and what they are and are attracting the top talent in those fields. The parks have all undergone major renovations and restorations. Embarrassments like DCA 1.0 and EuroDisney have been rebuilt to the standards they should have been built to in the first place. Iger just recently bought Paris Disneyland and he bought back core assets like the Disney Stores and Disney Cruise Lines that had been huge blunders of licensing without operational quality control. I respect your view but mine is that most of the good that happened during the Eisner era were from folks like Katzenberg who fought against the system that was stacked against them to get what they got. And in all cases, it was watered down and a compromise from the original concept because of Eisner's worship of the spreadsheet. I respect your view, and again, your response was well-reasoned and well-expressed. But take it from someone who lived it. There were more downsides than upsides. It took someone extraordinary, like Bob Iger, to turn it all around. He has exceeded everyone's expectations and continues to take the company to new unprecedented levels of success. Thanks for reading this long missive. I sincerely hope you got something out of it one way or another. And thank you for allowing me this forum to speak freely.
Absolutely! I am not one for silencing opposing opinions. I welcome them! I honestly have to say I agree with most everything you've just said, and definitely do not want to come off as seeing Eisner as a saint. I don't have the benefit of having been involved with the company during his time, but I will say having entered into the hobby of Disney history firmly (like many online) thinking that he was damaging to Disney as a whole, I was surprised to learn that it wasn't a black and white issue. I think this chain highlights that. I think you make great points regarding the relationship with Pixar, and while I was never able to find anything to prove it, I suspect Eisner played a big part in why negotiations fell apart with the Muppet acquisition back when Jim Henson passed. Eisner's approach to animation definitely differed from his approach to live action, so I agree with you there. I intentionally left that out of this video because I think animation, the renaissance, and Katzenberg's role in the company is meaty enough to take up their own videos. I also think you make a great point regarding an identity crisis using a business strategy like this. It's hard for me to approach that one objectively since I grew up in the 90s and so for me the identity Eisner's Disney formed (for better or for worse) is the one I came to know as Disney. Ultimately I do think that Eisner suffered from holding his position much longer than he should have. I think looking back at the overall history of the company it's hard to deny that his leadership in the 80s and early 90s played a big role in taking Disney from the state of semi-limbo that it was in in the 70s to the global powerhouse it became, and in more than just a adversarial role with the rest of the leadership. I believe from everything I've read about him, he did have a passion for story when it came to film, but I also believe he was incredibly stubborn which often lead to times where he expected that story at any cost. My hope with these videos is to eventually show the pros and the cons of him as a leader, since I think people tend to only remember the later years when it was more bad than good. Also I totally welcome continued discussion on these videos! I think it's important to have alternate viewpoints on all topics like this in order to get a more rounded picture of things, especially if you have the benefit of first-hand experience!
What I find funny about that breakdown is that it was literally the "What would Walt do?" mentality that setup Disney to face potential ruin. We saw what over a decade of that mentality resulted in, and it resulted in stagnant films that performed poorly in the box office, and a virtual lost era for a company that ended up in the cross-hairs of corporate raiders. Once they finally accepted that Walt was dead and it wasn't the 50s anymore, the company grew back into the massive success it is today. The poetic part of all this is that what Walt would have REALLY done is continue to evolve and grow, which is the one thing Disney wasn't willing to do in the 70s. As for their future, it's fine to not like their current content (Even though I do think the "progressive agenda" boogeyman nonsense is just that, nonsense. $1.2 billion at the box office seems to agree.), but stepping away from the personal bias of nostalgia, the numbers show that more than enough people are embracing and enjoying what Disney has to offer. So I'd say it's a bit ridiculous to think that Disney will be no more in a few decades. I'm sure there will be far less people from eras past idolizing them (whether due to the passage of time kicking in or in some unfortunate cases the fear of societal progress under the guise of wanting "traditional family values".) but so long as Disney continues to evolve and focus on entertaining current audiences instead of trying to recapture an audience that no longer exists, they'll do just fine.
Thanks again for your open-mindedness and approachability. And, to be clear, critical as I am of Eisner, I don't doubt for a moment that he was doing what he believed was best for the company. The core issue from the start was Eisner's lack of affection and reverence for Walt Disney or the cornerstone values that were the very DNA of the company. At best, he saw Walt Disney as a quaint figure of a time gone by. He dismissed most of Walt's famous quotations as marketing copy never realizing that these were the beliefs on which this man defined his entire life and everything he'd ever created. He wanted those ideas to live on through his works and through his parks. Eisner saw himself as a change agent and he steamrolled over everything that made Disney unique in the world. As you said, he did away with the "What would Walt do" mentality armed with the mandate that he was there to show all these dreamers how a professional movie studio is run. In Eisner's defense, this was what the board was looking for when they hired him. It's a shame that Ron Miller was never given the chance to really lead. Although Walt had been grooming him to lead the studio, he was thrust into the role very young and inexperienced with no real track record. His only claim to fame was that he was Walt's son-in-law. He might have been in over his head but he understood what made Disney special and frankly was on the right path with his work. Many of the accomplishments people associate with Eisner were, in fact, Miller's doing. For example, establishing the Touchstone brand and launching the Disney Channel. Although he wasn't able to stick around long enough to see all of them to release, wee have Miller to thank for Pete's Dragon, Escape to Witch Mountain, The Black Hole, TRON, Roger Rabbit, Inside Out (yes, the recent PIXAR hit was on Miller's slate at the time he was fired and the modern-day filmmakers DID thank him officially in the closing credits), and the movie Splash, which was not only Disney's first live action hit (under Touchstone) but it would later be the inspiration for The Little Mermaid. It is funny that you mention the "Muppet acquisition" not the "Jim Henson Productions" acquisition. Jim Henson was negotiating to sell his entire company to Disney. He was particularly interested in doing more ambitious productions along the lines of Dark Crystal. But, again, Eisner could care less about being a maker or about owning the intellectual property. He made an offer to license just the Muppets characters but Jim wanted to sell. Ultimately, while many people mistakenly think that Disney owns Jim Henson Productions, that is not the case. Disney owns the Muppet characters. They don't own the studio, any of Jim's other characters, they don't own any of the "Muppeteering" know-how to produce or voice those characters. That's why to this date it is SO hard to get a Muppet production put together. Why didn't Eisner just buy the whole company?!? In contrast, Iger was keenly interested in STAR WARS but he was smart enough to buy all of Lucasfilm which meant all of its holdings, all of its intellectual property, including Indiana Jones, patents, abandoned ideas, key people, trade secrets, you name it. I can see how Eisner was the face of Disney for you. Up until then, Walt had been the only presenter of The Wonderful World of Disney television series. I can't take any of that away from the man. It was not lost on anyone what a powerful marketing tool that show was. He was a big part of my childhood too. I don't think I'm that much older than you. But Eisner was never supposed to be the sole leader of Disney. Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg were hired by the board TOGETHER to work as a team to lead the 3 key parts of the company respectively, Studios, Parks, and Animation. That's the part your video misses. They were supposed to be a triumvirate and, most importantly, all three key areas of the business were to be developed. Eisner's miserly approach was hurting Wells' and Katzenberg's operations. Once Wells was tragically killed in an accident, Eisner put himself in Wells' place rather than nominate someone to fill the role. The parks needed love and attention. They were falling into disrepair. Rather than fix them, Eisner was doing things like getting rid of all the escalators in Tomorrowland to cut maintenance costs. Once Wells was out, Katzenberg angled for a restructuring of management where Eisner would lead and Katzenberg would be second in command of the entire company. Eisner denied him the spot and instead fired him. With Katzenberg out, Disney wasn't a maker anymore. It had become a distributor/marketer not a storyteller. The triumvirate was crushed. The magic was gone. Once Eisner had the helm alone, he ran Parks and Animation into the ground. Roy E. Disney put it best when he said that Eisner had turned the Walt Disney Company into a "rapacious, soul-less" company. The thing that really turned the shareholders against Eisner was the fiasco with CAA talent agent Michael Ovitz. Katzenberg's urgings to the board stuck and the board was worried about Eisner operating without someone to balance his decision making. They were incredibly generous with Eisner and simply asked him to find someone to be second-in-command and hire them. He chose Ovitz but the two were at each other's necks almost from the start. Ovitz worked just over a year with no real results. Things hit the fan when Ovitz came to cash in his hefty severance package of nearly $40 million in cash plus $100 million in stock options. Disney shareholders sued Eisner and Disney's board of directors for negligence in awarding Ovitz such a large golden parachute. The lawsuit further revealed that the stock options weren't even vested over time but regarded as fully earned at time of hiring. At the time, 43% of Disney shareholders wanted Eisner gone. By the time of the botched negotiations with PIXAR, it was obvious to everyone Eisner had to go. In my opinion, Ron Miller was off to a great start but Wall Street fears ran amuck and in the face of a very likely hostile takeover, he was edged out. It is a shame they didn't step up and support him but they were truly scared of losing it all. On some level it is unknowable but, in my opinion, Eisner's impact is impossible to ignore but on the whole he really did more damage than good. The board, in my opinion, was too slow to act and gave him the benefit of doubt that Miller never got.
When I was 14 in 1987. I was at Disney world, I was running across tomorrow land and came around building and ran right in to him. He was with a group of men all in suits. I bounced off him and landed on my butt LOL I had no clue to who he was then. He helped him up and ask me not to rush . He then told me I had plenty of time to see everything . As he walked off he had a worker take me to a food stand to get me drink. they told me who he was. Just one of those things that stick with you for the rest of your life. He was so nice about the whole thing, he could of been the big jerk people say he was and kicked me out of the park. I grew up watching Disney movies of the 80's and 90's . to me they are some of Disney best movies
akoww1000 such a touching story
From my birth to age 4, my mom worked at Disneyland. She was a supervisor in the admissions department. All of the gates and admission ticket stands were her responsibility 4 days a week. I got to meet the man himself several times from '81-'85. Not super sociable from what little I can remember, but always nice. He always had some random little Disney trinket for us kids...
@@chillaxter13 You must be mis-remembering. Michael Eisner didn't start at Disney until 1984.
Wow
Agreed! Love him or hate him, talking to you shrek, Michael saved disney.
Nope. Frank Wells SAVED Disney.
@@Tornado1994 Both of them
I've been fascinated for a while by that sort of flailing, post-Walt, pre-Eisner era, mostly just because that was the Disney of my childhood. Strange and dorky live-action offerings like "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo" and "The Cat from Outer Space," budget-strapped animated movies desperately trying to recreate previous hits, and the occasional gem like the Winnie-the-Pooh shorts. Only that was also the era when the first Florida parks opened up, and that was a really big deal at the time--I never went, claimed I didn't want to go (I think the mascot characters freaked me out), but I had the View-Master reels. I sometimes wonder whether the theme park business, which was actually massively expanding, kept Disney from just fading from the popular consciousness during that time.
It's always the most difficult era to hone in on. There isn't a ton of reading on that period, which makes it one that I'm most interested in as a result. So far the best I've found is Storming the Magic Kingdom, which covers the attempted hostile takeover of the company in the 80s. It doesn't cover the era itself, but it starts off by setting up the context of why Disney was so ripe for a takeover by the early 80s.
You can thank Ron Miller for those Herbie movies. I remember them fondly. Before we had the CARS movies, we had Herbie!
I LOVED "The Cat from Outer Space"! It was cheesy at times, and sometimes a bit contrived, but I still really really enjoyed that movie!
I thought I knew a lot about Disney... then I started watching your videos.
Lol same
Eisner was the Public Face of Disney during the 80s and early 90s, but Frank Wells was CALLING ALL THE SHOTs.
The short version of this strategy: "We don't have to make ALL THE MONEY; making a lot of money is good enough."
So much hatred for Eisner but as time goes on, I see more and more evidence that he was the right man at the right time. ( Flaws acknowledged )
My observation is exactly the opposite as yours. We're still keep finding new stories of successes he took credit for or opportunities he squandered that we now know would've been incredibly lucrative or beneficial for the company.
Honestly I think if anything Wells was the true hero. The list of Eisner’s blunders pretty much started after Wells died.
This new camera stye is really working dude! I like it a lot!!!
Thanks! Definitely a lot of moments where I'm like "I don't know what b-roll would even go with this", but I think it's paying off overall!
Larry Bundy Jr I always forget you're a Disney guy until I see your comments on like every Disney video I watch.
I really think you should do a "Disney Movies you didn't know were made by Disney" list. XD You just talked about like, a bunch of them that I didn't know.
This is a pretty interesting idea!
Yes do it please!!!!!!!
Remember Disney owned Miramax for most of the 90s.... so Clerks, Pulp Fiction, and From Dusk Til Dawn are actually Disney movies. Personally, I never really considered them "Disney" unless they were Buena Vista or Disney branded.
Tito Tim's Videos they also owned it through the 2000’s and things like Chicago and Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 were released as Disney movies.
Eisner was awesome! I applaud him for coming up with the "singles and doubles" strategy to save the Walt Disney Company. I wish Eisner was still in charge and I agree he must've been a big hero. That is, however, what I wanna do. I think the "singles and doubles" strategy is what I could use also seeing how that's a big help.
Success tends to make you forget what made you successful... Truest word ever spoken. Stay humble
Rob,
For a future video concept about Disney, I think a good idea would be the logistics of Disney World, such as how they generate/buy electricity, how much of it the use etc. The same idea could be used for other utilities as well such as water and sewer services.
pashastookie It would be a great idea for a video!
I support that. Think of the logistics of "behind the scenes" in a park, How do they refill their restaurants? How much has to be transported and how is it done? Food, beverages? Water supplies? What about the waste? How much laundry is there every day (costumes)? Transportation could be a topic of its own. Vehicle maintenance.
I know, that those numbers and figures are huge (I once saw some of them), but what are they today? Even simple things like: Who does eg. the regular plumbing? What about gardening? Is there a hairdresser at the venue?
Just by thinking about all those topics, my head begins to swirl, if I think of the size of WDW and what else is involved in the logistics to actually run such a thing.
kallewirsch2263 yeah it's really mind boggling when you start thinking about the massive scale it is on. WDW is essentially it's own city, but to have all of that responsibility for everything to move smooth every day, there is no way any actual city could beat that efficiency and expertise
You have your wish!
Re-watching this video in the current state Disney and the industry is as a whole, I've been thinking perhaps it's time for them to revisit the singles and doubles strategy.
Agreed!
It's too bad the "Singles and Doubles" strategy "doesn't apply" anymore (as you said, nowadays virtually all movies need to be HomeRuns): most movies I grew up with in the 80s and 90s were and still are far better than some of the biggest blockbusters we have had in recent years. Maybe we need to shift back to Singles and Doubles?
OMG I had forgotten all about "Down and Out in Beverly Hills", thank you for such fabulous flashback!!! :)
Ted Danson and Tom Selleck still headlining hit TV shows today 30 years latter.
Found your stuff randomly yesterday and I realized how much I've been ignoring my Disney addiction since I got into college. You do great work and I can't wait to keep seeing your stuff.
Thanks!
I love these videos. They're my favorites to watch.
Thanks!
I think the singles and doubles strategy may work again with a few tweaks. When Disney finally comes out with its own streaming service they can use this philosophy to make original content movies. Lower overhead combined with clever, creative writing can lead to a lot of long running (streaming?) new classics. It can also serve as a new proving ground for new Disney talent.
damn rob, when i first started watching your videos 3 months ago, you were at 15k subs! now youre at 36k, a 21k growth in just 3 months! congrats to you man! awesome content out there
Good video. The thing with Raiders of the Lost Ark though is that it was made for a relatively modest 18 million. George Lucas' The Empire Strikes Back and Steven Spielberg's "1941" both went way over budget at 33 and 35 million dollars respectively, they decided that Raiders would be a lower budget affair. But your point is well taken. I think this is something Disney should revisit to work along side their blockbuster budgeted films. We occasionally get a Million Dollar Arm or Queen of Katwe but I'd like to see Disney make more of them. I enjoyed The Lone Ranger and John Carter but for the price Disney paid for those two you could fund twenty singles and doubles for the next decade.
I have a feeling that Disney could benefit from building up a fresh singles and doubles library. Star Wars and Marvel will print money for many years, but it's not always likely to stay at it's top performance level. Whose to say that they couldn't use their extensive IP catalog to do it. Not every Star Wars film has to be an A level affair. A B-Level Star Wars film series could be interesting.
After seeing The Lone Ranger, everyone agreed that it was a good movie, but we couldn't see where the money went. Ok, that's not entirely true, Johnny Depp's bank account was way up. With that being said, it was never going to be a spectacular game changing bases loaded home run, but it should have been a solid triple with a possible rbi.
The whole film would still have been just as good, if not better, at a much more modest budget and scope. It's hard to see how any reasonable person would even greenlight a non-sequel western with a blockbuster budget in the first place. When the budget was revealed sometime during production, I don't think I could find anyone who would have thought that a $150 million western was even remotely practical. I eventually watched it very late into its theatrical run more out of curiosity than must see enthusiasm. When the main marketing factor is, "what does a 240 million dollar western film look like?" and eclipses any other story or selling point, that movie should not get made.
The only fault I will consider with John Carter is that the title character was miscast. I have not seen the actor since.
Amazing analysis. Well thought out.
So informative! Thank you, Rob!
Fascinating stuff! Great video!!!
I have so much to learn before I can intelligently comment on your videos, but I just have to say that you impress me more and more every video.
Wow, that was a great video! So informative, you inspired me to want to read more about Michael Eisner. Thank you! 👌
Thanks! I highly suggest Disney War by James Stewart!
I read Disney War on your recommendation and it was fantastic. What do you think was the turning point for Eisner? I think the moment things started going off the rails was with the death of Frank Wells in 1994.
Nice! Glad you enjoyed it. I mostly agree that the loss of Frank Wells, and the decision to more or less run the company alone after that played a large part of that turn. I also think part of it was just age and stubbornness. Eisner was a very creatively focused exec with a great eye for talent and good stories. However as time passed the trends of what people enjoyed changed as well as how we enjoyed it, and I think Eisner partially dug his heels in on the old way of thinking.
I think any other time it would have been OK, but as Hollywood shifted from a more balanced ecosystem to leaning into event films, it was this one-two punch of avoiding it too much, and not doing it well enough when they did do it.
I think that's why it took someone like Iger to step in and do tent-pole filmmaking the proper way to adapt to the industry.
FWIW, when I worked for The Disney Stores in the mid 90's, the stores were driving the company, pulling in more profits than either the parks or the studio division.
How do you not have a million subscribers, this video is so insightful and informative.
No doubt in my mind if Eisner was still in charge... WDW would have a 5th gate by now
Maybe, but I don't know what the quality would be. I think it's safe to say that by the time he was ousted, he was making more poor decisions than good ones.
Rob Plays very true, maybe if it was back in the day of Eisner/Wells like in the late 80's it would be a different story
@@MidwaytoMainStreet that's why he's not in charge of Disney anymore
When I read the title I thought this would be about animation techniques
Could you possibly do a video on the history of the Disney family(Walt, Roy O., Roy E., Diane, etc.) & there spouses and the influences that they had on the company as a whole? It's known that the family doesn't have too much influence any more and I do believe that there are not any family members who have constant, direct involvement in the company (please correct me if I'm wrong). The company is different than it was years ago and it would be interesting to see how this change has gotten us to where we are now.
Your vids really make me hate Eisner less. A great video yet again sir.
When people complain Eisner's fails but then show them this video of how he saved Disney.
He definitely wasn't perfect, and his role as CEO seemed to be far more rocky towards the end of his time there, but it'd hard to deny that in the 80s and early 90s he really turned the company around!
It seems that Eisner and Frank Wells made a great team, but, when Wells died in 1994, Eisner lost his mooring. That, at least, seemed to be the conventional wisdom leading up to his departure from the company. I remember seeing Eisner introducing The Wonderful World of Disney, as Walt Disney himself did so many years before. At the time, it seemed as though he was recapturing the magic. I remember seeing The Little Mermaid for the first time in the theater, ushering in a new era of classic animation. Those first 10 years of Eisner's tenure really seemed to revitalize the company.
You're quite right about Wells' death being pivotal. But most of the big achievements of the first 10 years go largely to Katzenberg not Eisner. Wells was the only of the three that truly loved and honored Walt.
What is going on in my comment?
Ooooh baby a double!
I highly recommend people read "Disney War". Eisner's first 10 years were great, but after Frank Wells died, Eisney made many bad decisions. Still, he was a great leader and I miss him. Iger has good and bad too, but Eisner had guts and determination.
but the singles and doubles are still of considerable quality.
just fun. even more dear and cozy than the big ones.
Well done!
Hot dang Rob you really know your Disney facts.
...never realized Katz was that short...
Hmm... my mom and I had a brief conversation in person about going to Disneyland sometime soon, then not even an hour later I'm getting a ton of video recommendations about Disney.
Hi Rob. Great video! With the 30th anniversary of Who Framed Roger Rabbit coming up next year, I was wondering could you talk about the Disney Renaissance and the role it played in saving the company as well sometime?
Would like to see more Eisner successes. Thanks! (:
I misunderstood the title as not being a baseball metaphor but, instead, thought this video had something to do with lodging. I'm not disappointed that I clicked.
In the 80's the casting people at Disney used to hang out at the Betty Ford Center looking for talent.
I’m currently reading Disney War..... Eisner was great in the beginning but after Frank Wells died, he became a real C U Next Tuesday. He turned against longtime friends (10-30 year friendships) because he thought they were trying to take his job. He would hire his friends and wouldn’t delegate anything, he would just micromanage every aspect of the company.
Hey Rob, I love your videos. please keep making more!!! Just wanted to ask if you use the same camera every time for your vlogs. I love the way they come out. And I'm looking in to getting one. Thanks. Keep doing what your doing. These videos help me when I am not at Disney...
Thanks! I'll keep trying! It depends on which vlogs your watching. Everything before and up to the June 2016 trip was recorded with my old DSLR (Nikon D3200). The picture quality was OK, but it did poorly in low light, was a bit cumbersome for vlogging, and didn't offer much image stabilization for my shaky hands. It was great for the montages though.
Everything after that June trip was recorded with a Canon G7X II, which is much smaller, way more stable, and does great in low light. I love it and it's my go-to for trips now.
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it a lot. Have a magical day.
I thought this was going to be about the single rider and double rider lines at Disney parks
Hey Rob... What is your mentality regarding youtube videos? Are you shooting for singles and doubles as you create content, or going for the home run each time? You definitely have many homers homie!
I LOVE this question and honestly don't fully know the answer. I guess it's a little different since the channel isn't my main job, so I can put personal happiness before views or money whereas Disney wouldn't have that benefit.
I've definitely adopted more of a quality > quantity outlook from way back when I was doing 5-7 videos a week. In a way I'd say I aim for a home run every time because if the water video has taught me anything, it's that I'll never know which videos go viral and which don't. So to that end I try to make sure every video is as good as it could possible be.
Yet at the same time if I cared about views and subscribers the most, I'd probably be focusing on more click-bait style topics and lists or something, but I wouldn't find that nearly as fun or rewarding.
So I guess I aim for triples? :P
"triples" Lol nice! You just convinced me not to make a low quality video wishing Elon Musk a Happy Birthday today. Thanks!
When you find out Scream was a Disney film 😱
Pulp Fiction too! It's funny whenever people insist that Disney getting involved in a creative project means they'll make it family friendly, because the truth was in the late 80s and early 90s many within the studio were chomping at the bit to get into more adult focused film under their other labels. They understood there's more than one market out there, and as long as people aren't inherently thinking Disney when they think of films like Scream, it's OK to make them.
I know marvel wasn't owned by Disney at the time but you could say the same strategy was used with the first iron man and hiring RDJ
When I clicked this video I thought it was gonna be how Disney parks let single riders go ahead to fill in empty seats on rides to make lines go faster. lol! But this was a really interesting video and I enjoyed it lol!
Can you talk about Disney Celebration Village, just heard about it today and would like to know more
Seeing a lot of good movie clips in this video, so if they were considered singles or doubles, I'm also okay with that concept!
Subscribed!
Fantastic video :) thanks!
i love how i'm watching a vid about Disney but i get a Universal Studios ad.
Hey Rob,
Have you heard about the changes coming to the POTC ride in the Auction scene with the Redhead? I was wondering if you had any thoughts on it.
*claps profusely*
"YOU JUST KEEP HITTIN' THE FUCKIN' SINGLES AND DOUBLES, DISNEY!!!"
Paramount studios entrance looks like the temple of BAAL
Heh, I hate being somehow grateful to Lord Farquaad, you know? He gives me the creepy willies.
i really enjoy your videos❤
Thanks!
I think the big budget, super hero-themed movies have gotten old. It's the same story with different CGI effects. How about some more low budget, high quality films? I've been watching more of those lately and find them more satisfying so long as the writing, acting and directing are all good.
I don't get why so want people hate him, Disney was struggling when he took over. Yeah, EuroDisney was a disaster but as far as movies. He really improved Disney and got the company going again. Yeah, he killed their 2D animation studio in the early 2000's but the general public was more into CG movies then, even well written 2D movies like Treasure Planet were failing then.
Bob Iger‘s homerun strategy doesn’t always work, and he runs the risk of things blowing up in his face down the line. Marvel is big today, but will it always make a billion dollars opening weekend?
I think the key to Iger's homerun strategy is that he'll be stepping down as CEO in 2021. So as long as it doesn't blow up in his face by then, it's no longer his problem. I think Marvel films have enough steam to keep being billion dollar flicks for the next two years. The real risk is if the next CEO things they can get away with just trying to emulate Iger for the next 10 years.
Very informative!
So why do so many Disney fans hate Eisner? I never understood this.
To be fair, for all the great things he did for Disney in the 80s and early 90s, he also made some pretty boneheaded moves in the late 90s and early 00s. He seemed to really have a knack for good entertainment when he stepped in, but he didn't evolve with the times and it began to show. Furthermore losing Frank Wells as a balance really didn't do him any favors either.
Ultimately he just kind of overstayed his welcome. I suspect had he stepped down in the mid to late 90s he would have been seen more favorably by fans. Instead they think of his later time as CEO, which generally wasn't that great.
A lot of people hate him and think he is the worst thing that happened to Disney but I think this man was one of the best things that happened to the company
Yup! It's definitely a split. He did a lot to help Disney not only stay Disney, but grow into what it is today. At the same time, he lost the checks and balances that made him successful and it lead to plenty of poor decisions. Either way, I'm glad he ran the company when he did!
Esiner knew how to play small ball
Michael Eisner. Portsmouth FC⚽️
who's the guy with glasses in that Eisner picture you added to the video? He looks so familiar
That's Jeffrey Katzenberg. He played a pivotal role in Disney animation's renaissance until he had a nasty falling out with Eisner/Disney in 1994. It lead to him co-founding Dreamworks and up until 2016 he was the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.
thanks for the info!
Yeah now we're at a point where a "double" is just called a flop (looking at you, Solo).
Any way we could get your reaction on that Pirates Of the Caribbean The Ride change?...completely understand if no because it's such a controversial topic.
So I'm totally fine with it. I think the idea of a badass redheaded pirate lady is kind of cool. I've seen a lot of outrage against the change and honestly while it's totally fine for people not to like it, I've yet to hear a good argument as to why it's a bad idea.
The common arguments floating around are:
It's changing history and whitewashing pirates - This makes no sense. This ride was NEVER historically accurate. It was a cleaned up Disneyfied version of piracy since day one. The difference is in the 60s the idea of selling women fell into that cleaned up image and today it doesn't. They're essentially keeping it a cleaned up vision of piracy to match the times.
It's changing history by changing a classic Disney ride - So what? The parks were built specifically to be upgraded, changed, and replaced. Walt did it all the time with rides. Furthermore this ride specifically went through numerous changes over the years, so it's not even like Disney is finally touching this classic attraction for the first time ever or anything.
It's a reaction to outrage/complaints/sensitive parents - Maybe. It's also equally likely it's not. If we stop and think about this, they're planning to shut down one of their most popular rides in two theme parks. They're paying people to design the new scene. Paying people to plan it's change. Paying people to put the changes into action. They're also taking on fan backlash they knew would come. Really going to believe they'd spend all that money, time, and goodwill to appease a small number of complaints or sensitive folks? I don't think so.
It's more likely a combination of wanting to bring something new to an old attraction that is under the shadow of it's fancier newer Shanghai cousin, seeing appeal in the redhead as a character and realizing that this is a marketing and merch goldmine, and yeah, making the change in a way that updates something that's slowly falling into bad taste so that it more closely aligns with the company's traditionally progressive views. It's killing three birds with one stone.
Lastly it's just the general reaction we get whenever there's a change announced. People have strong memories associated with these parks, and some people tend to hope they're preserved in the form of never wanting the parks to change, despite the fact that such a wish goes completely against what Walt wanted out of Disneyland.
Like almost every other change at the parks, most of the fan backlash will die down, the general majority of guests who aren't hardcore fans won't even care, and when the ride re-opens people will be reminded that Imagineering is generally good at what they do and realize that the new scene isn't some awful affront they built it up to be.
Then they'll move on to raging over the Epcot news we're getting in a few weeks :P
The singles and doubles strategy is still done by studios like Blum house
Was the Disney renaissance part of the singles and double strategy? Or were thoes there own collective or individual project?
+jesmag69 Animation kind of took a different path and is definitely deserving of its own video eventually.
Seeing as Mulan TLK and Little Mermaid had budgets that were obscene in animation amounts. Then again Pay Millions for TLK you get 1Billion dollars!
Yes! Someone remembered Disney made Dick Tracy XD
So... Eisner should be leading video game companies now? (:
You have to evolve with the times, no one is going to drive to the movie theater and pay $25 to watch something that is less exciting and has worse visuals then a $15 video game you play at home that you can interact with and still has a plot/story line usually just as good as most Hollywood scripts these days...
isn't that Jennifer from back to the future 0:45
Singles & Doubles saved Disney from comcast.
Singles and Doubles get men on base, not everyone can hit for power.
The difference now is that Disney can count on the foreign markets to bail them out financially, something that Eisner couldn't always count on or was even non-existent w/these ten-pole films. While American box-office performance was all that mattered back then, these days, it has become almost irrelevant when big-budgeted blockbuster movies are shown in places like China & India.
this is the stragey behind the movie Moneyball. How the boston redsox finally won a world series
Nice Guttenberg snub.
Would you switch the tower of terror in florida to guardians of the galaxy to bring back the california adventure tower of terror?
Sure. Actually I'm not going to lie, I'm a bit jealous of California Adventure. Don't get me wrong, I love the Tower of Terror, but I've enjoyed it for 23 years now. I'm ready for something new. I kind of wish they could have put Mission Breakout in Florida instead.
What's that giant jumble of ugly, nonsensical greebles hovering over the Morrocco Pavilion?
Hey Rob, I am going on a trip soon and know that there is a new firework show. I think it will be great but my family thinks it can't top wishes. How could I convince them to watch it, also what is your opinion on the new firework show? Should I not see it?
Plus will you start doing Q&A's again any time soon? Love the videos! Keep up the great work!
Fun Disney Fan I am not Rob. But are you talking about the firework show at Disney World? if you are there is video on RUclips of the new show called "happily ever after". There are some others also. it is a good show. I have not seen it in person. But they use projections on the castle which look best if you're close to the castle and not down Main Street. The Disney parks RUclips channel has a short clip of the fireworks and a behind-the-scenes talking about the show while they were still making it.
You should let them know that the only way to really see if it can top Wishes or not is to see it! Personally from what I've seen online, it looks great! It definitely doesn't carry the same emotional weight that Wishes does, but it seems to be intentional. The new show is far more light-hearted. The projection and effect timing looks incredible though. I'm beyond psyched to see it in person.
Regarding the Q&As, I actually do most of that with Christine on our Disney podcast, The Tomorrowland Transit Authorities (www.ttapodcast.com). That said I've considered doing sporadic Q&A videos whenever we end up with too many Q's to A on the show.
Rob Plays thanks! I love your podcast and listen to every new podcast when it comes out. Thanks for the help!
I was going to check out your podcast (I don't do podcasts, this is a significant compliment 😂) but the website doesn't seem to actually exist?
Sorry! Try ttapodcast.com
"We don't make movies to make money, we make money to make movies."
- Walt Disney
But what about trips and quads?
I haven't even watched the video yet but I think a strong bullpen is what really but the Disney company ahead.
So... twin's game and sister act are good ideas?
Sister Act pulled in 230 million on a $30m budget, so yup. That's a perfect example of the kind of idea that helped saved the company.
It is funny how I got a warner bros studios ad before this
YOUR AMAZING M8
No mention of the flops at the theme parks under Eisner's leadership.
Nope. This video is about Eisner and his business strategy with live action films, not Eisner as a whole. So no point in mentioning the parks.
interesting
I never realized how close Disney was to bankruptcy...The More You Know
Not close to bankruptcy, but primed for a hostile takeover. Their leadership in the 70s wasn't that strong and they weren't growing as a business in the way something as major as Disney should have been. This meant that it would have been easy for another larger company to come around buy them out. Also worth noting that at this point in the 80s, corporate raiding was especially popular.
The outro needs a little work. Very informative regardless.
I feel like most of the hate Micheal Eisner gets is from well... DCA he had really missed the mark with that Park, but thankfully it gotten better
I would disagree on these days every studio having to hit a home run because these days a lot of movie studios the movies that they make are complete garbage due to heavily rely on CGI and boring wow factors rather than good acting and writing
Hi Rob, are you going to D23? If you are, please come to our D23 booth. Disney Imagineer Terri Hardin and I will be at booth 333E July 14-16, 2017.
I wish! However unfortunately I'm going to be out of town this year. :( I'm hoping to eventually make it out to a future D23 though!
shrek is not a disney film
Eisner's "strategy" of aiming low and management by spreadsheet are exactly why he was ousted. The successes Disney had during his tenure were in spite of him not because of him. Talented writers and directors who were scrappy and hardworking and willing to push forward event with the counterforce of a leader who honored profits over production values. It is true that Disney was badly injured when Eisner was brought on and he deserves credit for staving off the takeover threats at the time. But with diminished resources, small films were all they could afford to produce. You can't be a world leader in entertainment by bottom-feeding. Survival mode is not a strategy or a philosophy. It is NOT suited for the long term. I get runs circles around Eisner and is in many ways a modern continuation of Walt's philosophies -- the ideas and ideals that put Disney on the map in the first place and fortify its staying power as a major industry force well into the future.
I think it's a bit unfair to say the successes were in spite of him. For a company executive he was very creatively focused and involved himself in the development of a lot of these films. Not just on a budgetary level but on a story and character level. He was no Walt Disney, but he definitely looked at the industry beyond spreadsheets and profits.
Just off the top of my head, Three Men and a Baby literally exists in the US because of Eisner, who saw the French film while in Europe and recognized it's universal appeal with audiences. That's not the kind of insight you typically get with an average exec.
I also agree that survival mode isn't suited for long term, but considering his singles and doubles strategy was one from his days at Paramount where he was thriving, I'd also argue that it's not simply survival mode. It was a specific means of reducing cost by putting more focus on character and story than trying to sell a movie on star power.
Sure towards the end of his time he was ousted, but I believe that had less to do with him honoring profits over production value and more to do with an inability for him to adapt to a rapidly changing industry that leaned into event films more than anything else. Hollywood was embracing a path that he consciously avoided in the past, so unsurprisingly he wasn't the best at it when there was no other choice.
Firstly, thank you for the thoughtful and well-expressed reply. Here you've posted this video praising this figure and I come along making contrarian remarks. You could easily have muted me, blocked me, flamed me, or otherwise shut me down. Instead, you engaged in a constructive discourse on the matter and afforded me a respect and consideration that I will aim to reciprocate. It is refreshing that we can have two very different views but still be civil and even friendly while supporting our statements.
My perspective on Michael Eisner may be tainted. I have had direct experience with the man and his decisions and in some cases lack of decisions have caused grief and setbacks for more than a dozen individuals I know how have previously or still currently work for the Disney organization. So I have a great deal of empirical knowledge and direct experience on this subject. Normally I would say that to pull rank but looking at things from the long view, perhaps that makes you more objective. You can be clinical in your analysis whereas my subjectivity means many of my views carry emotional charge.
That all said, on the flip side, I think history is kind and rounds off the rough edges on events and exchanges as they really happened. One of the biggest complaints from people during the Eisner era was not having a sense of leadership or even a sense of who Disney was as a studio. There was a tremendous loss of identity that was tied to the loss of two key people who were also brought onboard when Eisner was brought on. That is the tragic loss of Frank Wells, who ran the parks, and the eventual infighting that resulted in the loss of Jeffrey Katzenberg. Those two men were incredibly important counter-weights to Eisner's way. Without them, the Disney organization started to decline in several key ways.
Walt Disney famously said, you must never forget it all started with a mouse. The core of the Disney brand had always been animation. But Eisner didn't like animation. Animation is costly and development takes a long time. His philosophy, as you cited, was lower budgets, faster returns, modest but steady. He pushed the studio aggressively into live action making films that paid the bills but they were NOT what the world had come to know and expect from the Disney brand. He also didn't care about owning intellectual property. He saw Disney more as a distributor than a producer because, again, lower risk, steadier returns. So yes, Three Men and a Baby delivered a return on investment but it wasn't even known as a Disney picture. It was branded under Ron Miller's Touchstone Pictures. A lot of its initial publicity came from the fact that Leonard Nimoy directed it. Many people at the time complained that Eisner was making Paramount movies and had never bothered to understand the Disney brand or what it was about.
Katzenberg is credited with the so-called Disney renaissance. Little Mermaid, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, all born of that era. It was great to see Disney making new classics for what Disney was best known for. But the only reason these films happened was because Katzenberg fought for them and pushed them through with limited resources and limited buy in. Where he should have had all kinds of support and resources, he had to push and fight and threaten in order to get those films made. Those films were Disney films and it was the first time in ages that the company actually owned its own intellectual property. The story was more complex when we talk about Roger Rabbit which I'll shelf for future discussion because I could fill a book on that project alone. Suffice to say, Eisner didn't initiate that project, Ron Miller did, and he didn't help the project, he hurt it. It is his fault that to this day Disney doesn't have clear ownership of Roger.
When Katzenberg finally got fed up, Eisner and him had their final showdown and Katzenberg was out. He didn't disappear into obscurity. By then, all of Disney Animation Studios was fiercely loyal to Katzenberg. They had wanted him to be CEO of all of Disney. Katzenberg famously because the "K" in Dreamworks SKG, a new studio formed by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. There was a mass migration out of Disney. Diaspora. The crown jewel of Walt Disney Studios, the animation group, was a shadow of its former self and there was no plan to replenish them.
Eisner looked at it as a benefit. The studio would be that much leaner and the relationship with PIXAR had already started. With the success of TOY STORY, he became even more convinced that Disney didn't need its own animation studio. In fact, he started shrinking WDI (Walt Disney Imagineering) as well and started outsourcing core functions of Imagineering that had always been in-house. TOY STORY was a break out hit and the relationship with PIXAR started out famously. It validated this model but Disney had no identity in the process. No unique contribution. And things came to an apex when he entered the octagon against Steve Jobs, CEO of PIXAR. Jobs did the ultimate take-away by walking away from the altar on their deal renewal. At that point, PIXAR was renowned as the world's greatest animation studio and Disney had nothing. He understood how much Disney needed PIXAR and how PIXAR could go ANYWHERE and get a sweetheart deal because of their outstanding hit after hit track record.
This was the negotiation that would be Eisner's undoing. By then everyone knew they were fed up with all the cost cutting measures. They wanted their studio back. A Disney with no animation. Parks all badly neglected and in need of repair and renovation. And Imagineering people going to Universal and to Iwerks and Landmark and other firms. He turned Disney into a distributor not a maker. And while many argue that is how they weathered the storm, it would be their undoing. PIXAR was proof of that.
Bob Iger himself has said it best, "Michael didn't understand that Disney's problems with animation were as acute as they were. That manifested itself in the way he dealt with Pixar. He never felt that he needed Pixar as much as he really did." Iger had been watching Eisner carefully and he was upset that Disney didn't own any new intellectual property. Iger recalled from an opening parade for Hong Kong Disneyland. He said, "A light bulb went off. I'm standing next to Michael, but I kept it completely to myself, because it was such an indictment of his stewardship of animation during that period. After ten years of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, there were then ten years of nothing."
These are the very words Iger said when he took the helm, "As animation goes, so goes our company," he told the board. "A hit animated film is a big wave, and the ripples go down to every part of our business -- from characters in a parade, to music, to parks, to video games, TV, Internet, consumer products. If I don't have wave makers, the company is not going to succeed." That's why Iger went to work not just bringing PIXAR back to the table to renew their distribution deal but rather to acquire them outright. And he did one better. He installed John Lasseter, founder of PIXAR, as the new Walt Disney. He gave him the title of Chief Creative Officer of the entire company and gave him the mandate to rebuild and restore the Disney Animation Studios. Iger bought MARVEL and LUCASFILM and PIXAR to make sure he had those wave makers. And he even went back and righted a wrong committed against Walt himself and secured the rights back to Oswald The Lucky Rabbit.
You're right that Eisner brought ideas from Paramount to Disney but those ideas gave Disney a serious identity crisis. The studio whose fame was owed to being the most talented animation studio in the world had lost its claim to the throne. And its live action efforts were not Disney films. Nothing about them had anything to do with the brand identity and they weren't even released under the Disney banner. Bob Iger eliminated all of those practically-nameless deal entities (Pacific Touchwood Silver Screen Partners III) branding with the DISNEY name upfront and center. Under Iger, Disney owns their future again. And they are a maker again. And they know who and what they are and are attracting the top talent in those fields.
The parks have all undergone major renovations and restorations. Embarrassments like DCA 1.0 and EuroDisney have been rebuilt to the standards they should have been built to in the first place. Iger just recently bought Paris Disneyland and he bought back core assets like the Disney Stores and Disney Cruise Lines that had been huge blunders of licensing without operational quality control. I respect your view but mine is that most of the good that happened during the Eisner era were from folks like Katzenberg who fought against the system that was stacked against them to get what they got. And in all cases, it was watered down and a compromise from the original concept because of Eisner's worship of the spreadsheet. I respect your view, and again, your response was well-reasoned and well-expressed. But take it from someone who lived it. There were more downsides than upsides. It took someone extraordinary, like Bob Iger, to turn it all around. He has exceeded everyone's expectations and continues to take the company to new unprecedented levels of success. Thanks for reading this long missive. I sincerely hope you got something out of it one way or another. And thank you for allowing me this forum to speak freely.
Absolutely! I am not one for silencing opposing opinions. I welcome them!
I honestly have to say I agree with most everything you've just said, and definitely do not want to come off as seeing Eisner as a saint. I don't have the benefit of having been involved with the company during his time, but I will say having entered into the hobby of Disney history firmly (like many online) thinking that he was damaging to Disney as a whole, I was surprised to learn that it wasn't a black and white issue. I think this chain highlights that.
I think you make great points regarding the relationship with Pixar, and while I was never able to find anything to prove it, I suspect Eisner played a big part in why negotiations fell apart with the Muppet acquisition back when Jim Henson passed.
Eisner's approach to animation definitely differed from his approach to live action, so I agree with you there. I intentionally left that out of this video because I think animation, the renaissance, and Katzenberg's role in the company is meaty enough to take up their own videos.
I also think you make a great point regarding an identity crisis using a business strategy like this. It's hard for me to approach that one objectively since I grew up in the 90s and so for me the identity Eisner's Disney formed (for better or for worse) is the one I came to know as Disney.
Ultimately I do think that Eisner suffered from holding his position much longer than he should have. I think looking back at the overall history of the company it's hard to deny that his leadership in the 80s and early 90s played a big role in taking Disney from the state of semi-limbo that it was in in the 70s to the global powerhouse it became, and in more than just a adversarial role with the rest of the leadership.
I believe from everything I've read about him, he did have a passion for story when it came to film, but I also believe he was incredibly stubborn which often lead to times where he expected that story at any cost. My hope with these videos is to eventually show the pros and the cons of him as a leader, since I think people tend to only remember the later years when it was more bad than good.
Also I totally welcome continued discussion on these videos! I think it's important to have alternate viewpoints on all topics like this in order to get a more rounded picture of things, especially if you have the benefit of first-hand experience!
What I find funny about that breakdown is that it was literally the "What would Walt do?" mentality that setup Disney to face potential ruin. We saw what over a decade of that mentality resulted in, and it resulted in stagnant films that performed poorly in the box office, and a virtual lost era for a company that ended up in the cross-hairs of corporate raiders.
Once they finally accepted that Walt was dead and it wasn't the 50s anymore, the company grew back into the massive success it is today. The poetic part of all this is that what Walt would have REALLY done is continue to evolve and grow, which is the one thing Disney wasn't willing to do in the 70s.
As for their future, it's fine to not like their current content (Even though I do think the "progressive agenda" boogeyman nonsense is just that, nonsense. $1.2 billion at the box office seems to agree.), but stepping away from the personal bias of nostalgia, the numbers show that more than enough people are embracing and enjoying what Disney has to offer.
So I'd say it's a bit ridiculous to think that Disney will be no more in a few decades. I'm sure there will be far less people from eras past idolizing them (whether due to the passage of time kicking in or in some unfortunate cases the fear of societal progress under the guise of wanting "traditional family values".) but so long as Disney continues to evolve and focus on entertaining current audiences instead of trying to recapture an audience that no longer exists, they'll do just fine.
Thanks again for your open-mindedness and approachability. And, to be clear, critical as I am of Eisner, I don't doubt for a moment that he was doing what he believed was best for the company.
The core issue from the start was Eisner's lack of affection and reverence for Walt Disney or the cornerstone values that were the very DNA of the company. At best, he saw Walt Disney as a quaint figure of a time gone by. He dismissed most of Walt's famous quotations as marketing copy never realizing that these were the beliefs on which this man defined his entire life and everything he'd ever created. He wanted those ideas to live on through his works and through his parks.
Eisner saw himself as a change agent and he steamrolled over everything that made Disney unique in the world. As you said, he did away with the "What would Walt do" mentality armed with the mandate that he was there to show all these dreamers how a professional movie studio is run. In Eisner's defense, this was what the board was looking for when they hired him.
It's a shame that Ron Miller was never given the chance to really lead. Although Walt had been grooming him to lead the studio, he was thrust into the role very young and inexperienced with no real track record. His only claim to fame was that he was Walt's son-in-law. He might have been in over his head but he understood what made Disney special and frankly was on the right path with his work.
Many of the accomplishments people associate with Eisner were, in fact, Miller's doing. For example, establishing the Touchstone brand and launching the Disney Channel. Although he wasn't able to stick around long enough to see all of them to release, wee have Miller to thank for Pete's Dragon, Escape to Witch Mountain, The Black Hole, TRON, Roger Rabbit, Inside Out (yes, the recent PIXAR hit was on Miller's slate at the time he was fired and the modern-day filmmakers DID thank him officially in the closing credits), and the movie Splash, which was not only Disney's first live action hit (under Touchstone) but it would later be the inspiration for The Little Mermaid.
It is funny that you mention the "Muppet acquisition" not the "Jim Henson Productions" acquisition. Jim Henson was negotiating to sell his entire company to Disney. He was particularly interested in doing more ambitious productions along the lines of Dark Crystal. But, again, Eisner could care less about being a maker or about owning the intellectual property. He made an offer to license just the Muppets characters but Jim wanted to sell. Ultimately, while many people mistakenly think that Disney owns Jim Henson Productions, that is not the case. Disney owns the Muppet characters. They don't own the studio, any of Jim's other characters, they don't own any of the "Muppeteering" know-how to produce or voice those characters. That's why to this date it is SO hard to get a Muppet production put together. Why didn't Eisner just buy the whole company?!? In contrast, Iger was keenly interested in STAR WARS but he was smart enough to buy all of Lucasfilm which meant all of its holdings, all of its intellectual property, including Indiana Jones, patents, abandoned ideas, key people, trade secrets, you name it.
I can see how Eisner was the face of Disney for you. Up until then, Walt had been the only presenter of The Wonderful World of Disney television series. I can't take any of that away from the man. It was not lost on anyone what a powerful marketing tool that show was. He was a big part of my childhood too. I don't think I'm that much older than you.
But Eisner was never supposed to be the sole leader of Disney. Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg were hired by the board TOGETHER to work as a team to lead the 3 key parts of the company respectively, Studios, Parks, and Animation. That's the part your video misses. They were supposed to be a triumvirate and, most importantly, all three key areas of the business were to be developed.
Eisner's miserly approach was hurting Wells' and Katzenberg's operations. Once Wells was tragically killed in an accident, Eisner put himself in Wells' place rather than nominate someone to fill the role. The parks needed love and attention. They were falling into disrepair. Rather than fix them, Eisner was doing things like getting rid of all the escalators in Tomorrowland to cut maintenance costs. Once Wells was out, Katzenberg angled for a restructuring of management where Eisner would lead and Katzenberg would be second in command of the entire company. Eisner denied him the spot and instead fired him.
With Katzenberg out, Disney wasn't a maker anymore. It had become a distributor/marketer not a storyteller. The triumvirate was crushed. The magic was gone. Once Eisner had the helm alone, he ran Parks and Animation into the ground. Roy E. Disney put it best when he said that Eisner had turned the Walt Disney Company into a "rapacious, soul-less" company.
The thing that really turned the shareholders against Eisner was the fiasco with CAA talent agent Michael Ovitz. Katzenberg's urgings to the board stuck and the board was worried about Eisner operating without someone to balance his decision making. They were incredibly generous with Eisner and simply asked him to find someone to be second-in-command and hire them. He chose Ovitz but the two were at each other's necks almost from the start. Ovitz worked just over a year with no real results. Things hit the fan when Ovitz came to cash in his hefty severance package of nearly $40 million in cash plus $100 million in stock options. Disney shareholders sued Eisner and Disney's board of directors for negligence in awarding Ovitz such a large golden parachute. The lawsuit further revealed that the stock options weren't even vested over time but regarded as fully earned at time of hiring. At the time, 43% of Disney shareholders wanted Eisner gone. By the time of the botched negotiations with PIXAR, it was obvious to everyone Eisner had to go.
In my opinion, Ron Miller was off to a great start but Wall Street fears ran amuck and in the face of a very likely hostile takeover, he was edged out. It is a shame they didn't step up and support him but they were truly scared of losing it all. On some level it is unknowable but, in my opinion, Eisner's impact is impossible to ignore but on the whole he really did more damage than good. The board, in my opinion, was too slow to act and gave him the benefit of doubt that Miller never got.
So basically Eisner's method was the cheap low risk route?
Why don't you have a million yet?