[MissDisney]

Did anyone read an article in Vanity Fair (I think it was June issue) about Disney? I missed it, but read in the next month's Letters To The Editor some letters referring to the article. So I was wondering what the article had said. Hey, Park Hopper, you are usually on top of the news situation... what did I miss in VF?

[Dana]

OMG! I am a magizene junkie and missed this article!!! Darn it! Figures Vanity Fair is on of the few I don't read all the time, except for this month. The cover shot of David Beckman was enough to get my money...lol

[Metalfan]

Nope sorry can't say I read it! Vanity Fair doesn't come across my lap that often...lol

[MissDisney]

Dana... yep, that's the reason I bought the magazine, too... That's also when I read the Letters to the Editor and found out about the Disney article from the previous month! David is certainly eye-catching!

[mickaholic4077]

I bet we can go to the library and see if they have back issues of VF.

[Dana]

Originally Posted by MissDisney

Dana... yep, that's the reason I bought the magazine, too... That's also when I read the Letters to the Editor and found out about the Disney article from the previous month! David is certainly eye-catching!

definately!

[trilliumB]

We've got a subscription --the article talked about the war between Michael Eisner and Roy ? Disney that's going on. The author, I'd say, was working to present all sides, without pulling any punches. Neither side came up smelling like roses, but I came away feeling like it's Roy & co who are the real rats --not that they've done worse than Eisner, but because they've been so insincere and manipulative in their public campaign, and particularly targeting the pixie dust-lovin' fans. That's us!

He described Eisner's history, particularly pointing out that Roy & co ran the same campaign as they're using against Eisner now to get the last guy out, and Eisner in, back 20 or so years ago. He really made Roy & co sound pretty insincere, citing how they are taking a "we're just simple, humble guys, we're not out for money, we're just trying to bring back the magic" approach, and criticizing Eisner as a soul-less guy who's just out for cash --while Roy owns a huge amount of Disney stock (which he's grown very wealthy on through the company growth that Eisner wrought), a castle in Ireland (or Scotland?), and flies his family around on a private jumbo jet. He also points out that Roy has never had any kind of creative input at Disney and is known for non-participation at meetings. He quotes Eisner: "He's a guy who looks like Walt, but isn't." --And he seems to really be playing it up for his campaign against Eisner.

On the flip side, the author (who's had long experience covering Eisner) didn't pull any punches on Eisner, talking about how he basically really is a soul-less bully of a guy who has indeed traded a lot of the magic in for revenue (all that merchandising is his work). Although apparently if you look back at the campaign 20 years ago --again, led by Roy-- to bring in Eisner, the clear purpose was to bring someone in who would be laser-focussed on the bottom line. They apparently specifically wanted to get away from the fuzzy feel, and reap the financial rewards of the aggressive business organization model that was coming into its own in the greedy 80s. And it worked --Disney is a real giant now, and expanding the parks & resorts was also Eisner's work...

I'd summarize by saying the author was explaining his (well-researched) point of view that Roy & co are insincere in their stated motives for ousting Eisner, playing on Roy's faux "Walt" vibe to try & stir up the pixie dust-lovin' small-shareholders to revolt. He painted Eisner as a quite unpleasant character who has done the damage to the magic that they are accusing, but convincingly pointed out the unfairness of the attacks by Roy & co, considering that Eisner's work was clearly what they asked for. --And that Eisner made Roy & Co incredibly wealthy in the process. He made Eisner out to not be particularly engaged in the battle, but more hurt/baffled by the onslaught, although he's been moving somewhat to block them out.

Sorry if that's a little long. Does that help?

Oh-- check out Roy & co's campaign against Eisner website at: SaveDisney.com . I thought it was really mean-spirited. Just looking to save the magic? My butt.

[MissDisney]

Yes, that all helps... I admit, though, that I don't really care about the profit margin as much as I care about the quality of the product! I would be thrilled if my Disney stock never showed a dollar in profit, but I would love it if they used every cent earned on movies, parks and related items and put it all right back into great quality stuff! That's why I was curious... if the author agreed that Eisner is flushing quality in exchange for profits...

[trilliumB]

I so agree, MissDisney. Eisner recently closed Disney Feature Animation in Orlando (as you probably heard), stating publicly that "classical animation is dead". I for one am appalled to hear the head of Disney saying that. He went on to say that "the future is in 3D animation", because it's faster to produce and cheaper. Whaddup widdat?

An interesting (IMO) related point is that apparently a big reason the Pixar people wanted out of Disney was because Disney has been diluting the market for Pixar's very unique and well-crafted feature-length 3D movies, by pumping out a lot of...quickly and cheaply produced 3D movies. Apparently the breakup has a lot to do with disagreements with Eisner and his money-only priorities that totally sacrifice quality and creative interests.

But then again...He did bring us all the expansion at WDW (MGM-Studios, AK, and all the new resorts), and those ARE fantastic...

I think the author of the article's point was, more or less, Yes, Eisner's a jerk, (but he's done some good stuff too), but that Roy & co are pretty jerk-y too, and isn't it gross that they're pretending to be the good guys.

[mickaholic4077]

So both Roy and Mike are flawed human beings,is what the authore of the article is saying,right?