Eisner Under Pressure...

[Captain Crook]

Rportedly several board members are concerned with the lack of direction of the Disney Corporation and are 'urging' Eisner to do whatever it takes to turn things around.

The report indicates there are no grumblings to remove ME (who's contract is through 2006) but they are pressuring him to be more team oriented, so it would seem. finance.yahoo.com/mp#dis

 

[EUROPA]

"Specifically, the board wants him to intensify efforts to turn the ABC TV network around, to build up the co's executive ranks, and to come up with a more systematic succession process."

That does not sound like they will be putting money into the parks. Again they fail to see where the money maker is. I guess that means they are going to buy the rights to the Smurfs and bring them back to prime time on ABC 6 nights a week.

 

[Galahad]

Captain,

I just saw this news item too and came over here to the boards to see what's posted about it.... So for those that believe that the board is simply in ME's back pocket this will just be a smoke-and-mirrors game to give ME legitimacy ("See, we held him accountable"), or is it really part of the sea change that was indicated by bringing in the outsiders to audit the board's decision making?

 

[manning]

Friday May 31, 12:48 am Eastern Time
Disney Board Calls on Chief Eisner to Reverse Company's Slide

Walt Disney Co . Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Eisner is facing increasing calls from several members of the company's board to improve Disney's faltering performance and better plan for the future, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

ADVERTISEMENT


The Disney board has long been derided for cutting Mr. Eisner too much slack, both in good times and bad. But these days, a string of corporate scandals has put directors themselves under pressure to be more diligent about their oversight role. In that environment, according to people familiar with the board, a small number of important Disney directors has during recent months gotten more assertive with Mr. Eisner in hopes of reversing the entertainment company's slide.

It is a similar scenario to what is being played out at underperforming or downright troubled companies across the U.S. After the collapse of Enron Corp. and the subsequent severe problems faced by companies ranging from Global Crossing Ltd. to Adelphia Communications (NasdaqNM: ADLAC - News) Corp., board members have been widely blamed for being asleep at the wheel.

Greater director activism has spread quickly to the entertainment business. As companies such as Vivendi Universal SA and AOL Time Warner Inc. (TWX - News) have difficulty meeting their stated performance goals, directors at those firms have become more demanding of executives to make sure they don't over-promise and under- deliver.

At Disney, the board members aren't looking to replace Mr. Eisner, 60 years old, whose current contract runs out in September 2006 , these people suggest. Rather, the directors are trying to prod Mr. Eisner by working in consultation with him, a process he has welcomed. Specifically, they want him to intensify efforts to turn the ABC television network around, to build up the company's executive ranks, depleted during recent years by defections, and to come up with a more systematic succession process, something Mr. Eisner has long resisted.

Wall Street Journal Staff Reporter Bruce Orwall contributed to this report.

 

[SeaDog]

I was not offended but rather dismayed after watching ABC's first installment of The Hamptons. The prgramming wizards over at television central obviously have their heads entrenched firmly betwixed their buttocks... I'm pretty liberal by nature, open minded for sure, and embrace anything that steps outside the box when it comes to creative thinking and entertainment. However I suspect that future editions of The Hamtons will drag ABC deeper into the abyss of Sunday's prime time ratings...

What say ye, Mr. paidwaytoooomuch Eisner, about this latest TV venture?

 

[Jeff in BigD]

At first glance I thought it was a comedy sketch lampooning things like The Real World (which, unfortunately sometimes I'll get suckered into watching). Then I realized that it was for real. I didn't think it was possible to get a bigger group of whiney, self involved morons than the Real World kids.

Bravo, ABC. You've outdone yourself


I think if Pixar does end up walking, the heat on Eisner will become blistering.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

I think if Pixar does end up walking, the heat on Eisner will become blistering.

One can only hope!!

 

[Planogirl]

How long before Pixar can walk though? Truthfully, I'm literally salivating at what Pixar might come up with if it had full control.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

It depends on how ugly this little in-feud becomes.

Here's the skinny if you guys haven't heard it - there's been a lot of tension between Eisner & Jobs, Disney & Pixar. Disney (seeing an opprotunity to pad the coffers is heavily pushing for a Toy Story 3, but Pixar feels that the venture has run it's creative course & wants to move on to newer/better things. Jobs loves innovation & hates imitation & I think he & Pixar don't want to see their baby going from highly acclaimed to direct-to-video lame.

Not to mention the fact that Eisner's boys are trying to pull a slick willy on Pixar by insisting that a Toy Story Trilogy counts as a single venture, so the contract for 6 movies means that Toy Storys 1-3 would only could as one picture against the contract & Disney has them for 5 more. Percentage wise that means they're essentially making the same amount of money for one movie as three. Disney is breaking one of it's own rules - it's telling the genie that one of the wishes is for more wishes.

Given the two egos in the equation, it'll take some work for things to be ok-ish. Personally I can't fault Pixar an ounce in this deal that seems to be more of a screw-over than a deal that is finacially agreeable to both parties. This could get brutal & we may see the sequel to Eisner vs. Katzenberg.

 

[airlarry!]

That's weird. I read an article quoting Tim Allen saying he and Tom Hanks and the Pixar crew were all fired up about doing a sequel. He hinted, if I remember correctly, that it was Disney that was slowing it up.

I assumed this to mean more contractual squabbles over whether TS3 would count toward the 6 movie cap.

As a Disney shareholder (53 shares woohoo!), I am in a quandry. I would want Pixar to stay because as a partnership these two companies have produced dynamite features. I couldn't bear the thought of Pixar putting out movies for other companies.

But, there is a part of me that wants to tweak Cousin Michael's nose a bit....must suppress this thought for the good of the Family.

 

[Captain Crook]

It's way to early to speculate on this (Pixar/Disney) issue. There is so much 'Hollywood' time remaining on the deal that anything could happen (i.e Lilo & Stitch and Treasure Planet are both huge Disney hits and Pixar's next flick or two bomb...Or L&S & TP bomb & Pixar success continues). The balance of barganing power could shift so quickly that it's really moot to speculate.

From what I've read most insiders think a continuing deal will materialize. Voice has the real scoop on this though, if he chooses to verbalize...

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Jeff in BigD

Not to mention the fact that Eisner's boys are trying to pull a slick willy on Pixar by insisting that a Toy Story Trilogy counts as a single venture, so the contract for 6 movies means that Toy Storys 1-3 would only could as one picture against the contract & Disney has them for 5 more. Percentage wise that means they're essentially making the same amount of money for one movie as three. Disney is breaking one of it's own rules - it's telling the genie that one of the wishes is for more wishes.

Pixar agreed that orginally that sequals would not count toward the 6. Trust me Pixar made lots of money off of Toy Story II as well as Disney both got paid. Did you think Pixar did it for free?

 

[Another Voice]

It all started when Disney got extremely heavy handed in dealing with Pixar. With the success of ‘Toy Story’, Pixar felt that Disney was wrongfully interpreting contracts and was overall acting as a bad partner.

Disney demanded that ‘Toy Story 2’ not count against the contract when Disney demanded that ‘TS2’ be made as a cheap direct-to-video sequel. People at Pixar recoiled at working on garbage and convinced Disney to make the sequel using the same care and resources as the first one. Disney agreed, but still demanded that Pixar do the movie for “free” under the contract.

Right or wrong, Disney just ticked people off. Then Pixar had to go to court get rights and monies from the first ‘Toy Story’ movie in a case very similar to the ‘Pooh’ trail currently underway. Disney gave into Pixar because movies were threatened.

Many people at Pixar came from Disney and all have expressed their opinion that Disney has trashed its entire Animation division. When even the long time traditional animators are fleeing, the chance that Pixar will work with The Mouse again is extremely remote. They have already announced the final three films for the Disney contract and there are rumors they are already working on several non-Disney projects. Both “Shrek’ and ‘Ice Age’ have proven that plenty of money can be made without the DISNEY® sticker.

Pixar won’t be back.

 

[YoHo]

The Difference is Scoop, that Microsoft for all its faults is an Unstoppable Juggernaught whereas, Disney has 3 Flat Tires and a blown Cylinder.

Combined with the Fact that Job's Apple Successors ruined the Company which he is still trying to fix....

Different situation entirely. Pixar doesn't need Disney and there are other companies with more money to spend. I doubt Disney could make the best deal even if they wanted to.

 

[Captain Crook]

But Yoho, don't you see the possibilities that still exit? The deal isn't up for sometime yet & as I said, what if Disney's next two movies (L&S and TP) are huge and the Disney/Pixar releases stumble? It seems a movie Company is only as good as its last picture these days. That would put Disney in a much better barganing position. But if it remains status quo, Eisner will be forced to foge a Pixar advatageous deal and be happy with it. The board is now watching...This relationship will continue.

 

[YoHo]

I have no doubt things are possible. There may be a Goodyear Dealer around the corner.

We live in interesting times, but until I see something, anything to make me think things will improve (Like for instance, L&S does very very well AND, the next feature gets a similar lack of Managerial input so that it has the same love and attention to detail in its production.) I am going to have to be pessimistic about the Disney/Pixar Relationship. We're talking about huge imense Egos here and Eisner is not a 50 ft image of Gates towering over the Macintosh Expo graciously donating money.

 

[Another Voice]

"It seems a movie Company is only as good as its last picture these days."

Actually, you're only as good as your next movie.

No one cares what the last movie did; people are looking forward to what the next movie will make for them. Unless it's a direct sequel, "Monsters" will have no impact on the box office for "Finding Nemo".

Pixar is making it very cleat that Disney is nothing but a distrubutor for them. When the deal is up, Pixar will move to another distributor that gives them a better deal and treats them well. Business or not, ego still plays a big part in the game. Michael's stomped on far too many for Disney to have much a chance left.

Besides, as with "Monsters", Disney is in a no-win situation with Pixar. If the next three are a hit, all the credit will go to the creators at Pixar. If they flop, all the blame will go to Disney's fading marketing clout.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by airlarry!
That's weird. I read an article quoting Tim Allen saying he and Tom Hanks and the Pixar crew were all fired up about doing a sequel.

Sounds like PR talk to me. I'm sure Ben Affleck was really fired up about Reindeer Games when he was doing the usual media promotions.

He hinted, if I remember correctly, that it was Disney that was slowing it up.

I find that highly unlikely, but if it's indeed the case, the sure bet is because of legal reasons, not creative.

I assumed this to mean more contractual squabbles over whether TS3 would count toward the 6 movie cap.

No doubt.

As a Disney shareholder (53 shares woohoo!), I am in a quandry. I would want Pixar to stay because as a partnership these two companies have produced dynamite features. I couldn't bear the thought of Pixar putting out movies for other companies.

I do think that it's inevitable. However things tend to be circular with Steve Jobs, (starting Apple, getting tossed, running it again & working with Microsoft, wanting to shoot Bill Gates in the face with a bazooka after Gates stabbed him in the back, then working with each other...competitively). I think that Jobs would sometime in the future consider working with Disney again & knocks on their door. It'll just be determined if Disney answers the door or not.

But, there is a part of me that wants to tweak Cousin Michael's nose a bit....must suppress this thought for the good of the Family.

I don't think Eisner's the devil (his spawn maybe) & he has done some good things for the company, but every year isn't 1994. He's also made some really bad decisions by not placing another idea person in Frank Wells' loss, but instead filling the places with money people. I realize the company is in a better position financially, but quanity & quality aren't always one & the same. You know what they say about good reputations, they take years to earn & moments to destroy. I think the key is balancing the power having equal parts idea people & equal parts money people. It's working for Apple right now.


I'll try & wrangle up the article & link it for you guys. Voice pretty much stated what was in the article though.

 

[airlarry!]

Correct me if I am wrong, movie insiders, but our hope has to be with John Lassiter not with Steve Jobs, and that the Pixar movies do great....

1 -- that is pressure on Michael. The board asks itself, "How come Pixar has the magic touch, Mike? Why aren't they in the stable, Mike?"

2 -- more pressure on Mike if Lilo does well...I know that sounds backwards...but hear me out...Lilo does $150 million and the board wonders where did this film come from? Where is the next one? Where are all the animators? hehehe, now Michael has to explain why Big Time Animators and Pixar are all leaving....

 

[Captain Crook]

As this post was about the apparant new edict from the Board, don't we think ME will have to be dilligent in his decision making and dealings and particularily in a relationship that is bound to get a lot of ink? I would think the pressure is on Eisner to get this one sewed up...