John Lasseter the New Walt Disney?

[bfdf55]

Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume

Every executive in charge of the park has made executive decisions for the betterment of the park. Even if the decisions were to save money, there excuse was always for the betterment of the park.

I'll challenge that assessment when describing Pressler. His decisions that caused immense deterioration of the park were in NO WAY for the betterment of the park. They were ENTIRELY to provide the increased revenue demands that Eisner put on him.

Instead of putting up ANY sort of challenge that the park's quality should be maintained even if it meant that they wouldn't be able to meet the 20% returns that Eisner demanded, he willingly took step after step that weakened the park. The result was loss of quality attractions, quality merchandise and eventually the life of a guest.

[Mr Wiggins]

Originally Posted by bfdf55

They were ENTIRELY to provide the increased revenue demands that Eisner put on him.

With apologies for nitpicking an excellent post, Paul and Michael together put the demands on Disneyland. They excited each other with the possibilities; Paul arguably being the more proactive of the duo in pitching to Michael the pots of gold Paul saw lying everywhere in the Park, just waiting to be picked up.

The results, of course, were as you describe.

[Romba]

John Lasseter is John Lasseter. No more, no less.

[royaldisneyfan]

I don't think it's fair to compare anyone to Walt. John Lasseter is a creative, intelligent and enthusiastic person, who appreciates the story first. I respect that greatly about Lasseter. But there will never be another 'Walt'.

[Aladdin]

Originally Posted by ROBONICS95

Funny that you posted this today...

The Hollywood Reporter just named John Lasseter Innovator of the Year





Good article about a great man

John Lasseter leads Disney to next great phase

Interesting that the HR would include characters from "Bolt" on the iconic Lasseter shirt.

[DisneyIPresume]

Originally Posted by bfdf55

I'll challenge that assessment when describing Pressler. His decisions that caused immense deterioration of the park were in NO WAY for the betterment of the park. They were ENTIRELY to provide the increased revenue demands that Eisner put on him.

Instead of putting up ANY sort of challenge that the park's quality should be maintained even if it meant that they wouldn't be able to meet the 20% returns that Eisner demanded, he willingly took step after step that weakened the park. The result was loss of quality attractions, quality merchandise and eventually the life of a guest.

It's exactly Pressler who I was referring to there.

I said, "Even if the decisions were to save money, there excuse was always for the betterment of the park." (Oops -- I should have said their).

I know that all Pressler did was cut costs which led to decrease in quality of the park. But although I can't recall anything specific, I'm sure the spin generated to justify such cutbacks were to accentuate that these cutbacks would ultimately lead to a better experience, which in the case of Pressler was not the situation 99% of the time.
Lasseter has done and is doing good things for the parks and animation. I just don't see the same level of enthusiasm as Walt had, and I wish he had more influence over the others especially Jay Rasulo like Walt had over his colleagues.

[Robert Cook]

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster626

- When Iger started hyping up blu-ray he immediatly started saying in interviews how wonderful Blu-ray is and how the only way to PROPERLY see the movie is to go out and buy the overpriced blu-ray disc of that movie. Ditto for Disney Digital 3D. If he loves 3D so much how come he wasnt championing for it before it became a big promotional thing for Disney?

I'm not saying Lasseter is a bad guy but it just seems to me he is becoming more of a company Yes Man and not the "man of the people" we all hoped he would be.

I see what you mean, and all I can do is hope that now that he has gotten himself into a position of potentially greater influence, he has the ability to make a positive difference. If he has any fight in him, he may still have to pick his fights carefully--even Roy E. Disney (Walt's nephew) had to. Maybe nothing much will come of this, or maybe things will keep getting better as quality and success gradually become partners once more. Only time will tell.

For contrast, the thing about Walt Disney that really stands out is that he was truly a "self-made" man in virtually every sense of the term. And in addition to his own vision and initiative, he had fantastic enablers (nobody does anything like this alone)--people with crazy artistic talent who would do anything for him and his brother Roy who did everything imaginable to get the funding that Walt needed. No such situation exists today (taken as a whole), unfortunately, at least not at the top--it was unique to Disney in this business back in the day, too.

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster626

IMO his first true test will be Princess & The Frog but I have become less enthusastic about it since he & his team caved into media hysteria that the movie was not "politcally correct" and had to tone down the story, change charecter names and the name of the movie (originally The Frong Princess), and probably made changes to the story to soften it up. I fear that what could have been the next Aladdin or Lion King will now become the next fox & the hound.

This might sound funny coming from me, but it is possible to avoid certain traps that could cause unnecessary controversy while at the same time avoiding overt political correctness and making a decent flick. We'll find out what happened soon enough.

Originally Posted by Gymfan15

I do think though, that John is the best thing that has happened to Disney in a LONG time. He cares tremendously about people and the experience they want to have when they visit parks, and he's always looking to try new, interesting things. I mean, just look what he did with Pixar.

True, although if I remember correctly (and had the correct facts to begin with ), Disney initially had to push Pixar and convince them that they were ready to create a full-length animated feature, which turned out to be Toy Story, of course. Pixar are a pretty conservative bunch in some ways, despite all of their technological innovations. Some of their animated features are truly great, but they are not innovative in the way that Walt Disney's early animated features were. Walt's early features were all quite different from one another both artistically and in storytelling style, as he was always trying new things--compare Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi. That's quite an eclectic collection of movies--while his attention was still focused on animation, Walt certainly did not immediately settle into a pervasive formula and style like John and Pixar did.

Originally Posted by techskip

A lot of people were amazed with Walt's sense of enthusiasm, that was what started this comparison. More then anything else I am continually amazed when I read stories about how Walt was able to amplify the creative talents of those around him. That isn't something seen too often. I don't know John, and I haven't seen that side of him to be able to say either way... but that was a hallmark of Walt. He inspired others, and expected the best from them. If you look at interviews of the "nine old men" you'll hear stories about that over and over. If you listen to the Marc Davis interview he talks about it... so did Ollie... that was Walt. Many would say he'd walk in a room, ask a couple of questions, and basically amplify the talent of those around him.

Back when I was in college circa 15 years ago (and posting on the old rec.arts.disney newsgroup), I read every book I could find on Walt and paid particular attention to transcripts of story and brainstorming sessions in which Walt participated, trying to get a sense of the real person behind the legend. I love most everything he and those who worked for him created, and nothing would change that, but being who I am (a coldblooded realist coexisting uneasily with a stubbornly idealistic inner child who is told to shut up a lot ), I fully expected the man to understandably fall short of the legend. But to my surprise, silly me, Walt was absolutely brilliant! I've seen just about every bit of background information on many other animated features, including the most rudimentary concepts and the process by which they were transformed into the finished pictures, and nobody I've seen has the kind of sharpness of vision, grasp of story, and the "laser-guided" ability to get to the heart of the matter as Walt had. He generally didn't work much on short subjects and delegated virtually all of the official roles in features to others he trusted, but his personal contributions were still crucial to what the studio was able to achieve. Most of it is undocumented, of course, consisting of Walt walking in on people and throwing some ideas at them, helping them make decisions, and gathering ideas from others and putting them together in a way that made sense or created something novel. It's not that I didn't believe the stories about him from the "Nine Old Men" but people have a way of subtly, unconsciously exaggerating things, especially when talking about a legend of the past. I no longer believe that they were exaggerating.

Originally Posted by bfdf55

there will never be "the next Walt" as long as the company is run by any management that's similar to anything the company has had since Walt's death. Even Iger is not likely to let loose someone who has that kind of passion.

That's how business is at this level, and Disney is now a massive conglomerate, not the small, independent studio it was back in Walt's day. Every time the subject of "What would Walt do?" comes up, I'm tempted to ask "Before or after the board of directors fires him?"

Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume

Every executive in charge of the park has made executive decisions for the betterment of the park. Even if the decisions were to save money, there excuse was always for the betterment of the park.

They lied--they only cared about making money, period. They didn't even care about safety or human life, except for the pain of paying the settlement and the bad publicity. Making money mainly consists of making the stock price go up, not profit per se. Profit itself is far less important than how much it goes up every year, which makes the stock price go up, thereby personally enriching every one of these rats and inflating the market value of the company. When revenue can no longer increase sufficiently to meet their ever-optimistic growth predictions, then they will slash costs to the bone to grow the profit (it's all numbers to them, not physical reality). In some cases, such as the "Dot-Com Boom" (and the bubble-burst that followed), increasing revenues alone enriched the major shareholders while companies lost money on each sale, which ultimately lead to their demise (common sense didn't apply and largely still doesn't). Even when a business entity like Disneyland is always profitable, year in and year out, it can still become a corporate liability if growth cannot be sustained. It could be argued from a business perspective that Disneyland would have been sold or shuttered by now without the establishment of DCA and the resort complex because clearly only so much more growth can be sustained given the capacity limitations and current ticket prices. Most top-level executives don't care much about profit because it doesn't make them personally more wealthy by much--stocks are where their outrageous compensations are really derived from.

All of this may seem stupid (I assure you that it is also clinically insane) and complicated, but it's really very simple--do whatever it takes to make money for oneself as the end goal. If the company ever benefits in any way, it's just a side effect of trying to raise the stock price. Companies are often damaged or forced into bankruptcy by the mindless, unbridled greed of their executives. Look at the current financial crisis, which is really as much a result of the greed of the average person as it is of investment bankers--a real eye-opener. By the way, a couple of nights ago on TV, I saw a person willingly trade $416,000 that he was just handed by a game show for a 50/50 chance of winning either $1,000,000 or $1, and he ended up with $1. He's definitely CEO material.

[techskip]

Originally Posted by Robert Cook

Back when I was in college circa 15 years ago (and posting on the old rec.arts.disney newsgroup), I read every book I could find on Walt and paid particular attention to transcripts of story and brainstorming sessions in which Walt participated, trying to get a sense of the real person behind the legend. I love most everything he and those who worked for him created, and nothing would change that, but being who I am (a coldblooded realist coexisting uneasily with a stubbornly idealistic inner child who is told to shut up a lot ), I fully expected the man to understandably fall short of the legend. But to my surprise, silly me, Walt was absolutely brilliant! I've seen just about every bit of background information on many other animated features, including the most rudimentary concepts and the process by which they were transformed into the finished pictures, and nobody I've seen has the kind of sharpness of vision, grasp of story, and the "laser-guided" ability to get to the heart of the matter as Walt had. He generally didn't work much on short subjects and delegated virtually all of the official roles in features to others he trusted, but his personal contributions were still crucial to what the studio was able to achieve. Most of it is undocumented, of course, consisting of Walt walking in on people and throwing some ideas at them, helping them make decisions, and gathering ideas from others and putting them together in a way that made sense or created something novel. It's not that I didn't believe the stories about him from the "Nine Old Men" but people have a way of subtly, unconsciously exaggerating things, especially when talking about a legend of the past. I no longer believe that they were exaggerating.

I completely agree that when people look back on past times there is a sense of exaggeration that is usually mixed in with the nostalgia. When people that knew him reminisce about Walt sometimes you get the sense that the man would never be able to live up to the carefully crafted legend. While almost any official bio is a fluff piece, there are plenty of other bios about various individuals... including the nine old men... that are not fluff and at least shed a light on Walt. It truely was remarkable how he easily recognized talent in others, and as I said had a remarkable ability to amplify and direct the talents of others. There are several interviews with Marc Davis that highlight this ability. It is one thing to have talent, or to share your own personal talents. It is quite another to recognize the talent and potential in others, then convince them to use their talents to the fullest potential. Many try to do this... but not everyone does it well. To me Walt was a conductor in a very talented orchestra that produced some of the highest quality, most creative, hand drawn animation in history. Disneyland is a byproduct of the studio's success.

[tmh331]

Originally Posted by Datameister

I'm not talking about their excuses - I'm talking about decisions that really DID consistently improve the park as a piece of living art for its guests' enjoyment and as a money-making machine for its owners.

Honestly, I think it is a better park today than it was 20 years ago. While many may disagree with specific decisions of previous managers/executives the end product is a great park which, IMO, continues to improve and adapt.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by tmh331

Honestly, I think it is a better park today than it was 20 years ago. While many may disagree with specific decisions of previous managers/executives the end product is a great park which, IMO, continues to improve and adapt.

Sorry, but no. 20 years ago was arguably the best time in its history. Pretty much everything significant that's there now was there then and a ton has been lost. The park was cleaner and the CMs were nicer and the retail matched the land it came from and cartoons had not invaded every land. The only thing I would miss going to DL then would be Indy. The park is moving in the right direction, if it ever does get a new TL and they fix a couple of other things, then maybe it will be as good as it was 20 years ago again.

[tmh331]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Sorry, but no. 20 years ago was arguably the best time in its history. Pretty much everything significant that's there now was there then and a ton has been lost. The park was cleaner and the CMs were nicer and the retail matched the land it came from and cartoons had not invaded every land. The only thing I would miss going to DL then would be Indy. The park is moving in the right direction, if it ever does get a new TL and they fix a couple of other things, then maybe it will be as good as it was 20 years ago again.

Sorry Bob, but you and I seem to have a much different perspective. I am a forward looking person with little passion for nostalgia, which I think will continue to dominate our different perspective. When comparing the past 5 years to 20 years ago I don't see a noticeable deterioration in quality of Cm's, rides, or cleanliness. On the contrary, I think the new rides are a marked improvement. Indy, splash, TSI (although I wish Tom and Huck had a greater presence), all of fantasy land (a little more than 20 years ago), WInnie the pooh (yes I said it, a huge improvement of the country bears). nemo, toon town, Fantasmic to name a few. Not to get off topic, but the addition of DCA - for us this is just an extension of Disneyland and therefore improves our overall experience....

I will have to agree with the merchandising, while I could really care less about junky trinkets, the feel of the land specific merchandise was much more appealing to me.

At any rate, I am glad you feel it is getting on the right track. For my family, we will continue to look foward the the progress it makes every year - In particular I can't wait until the next large tomorrow land Todayland referb.

[Uncle Bob]

Well we do agree about some things, but Splash is almost 20 too, and I do think F! is cool and TT is ok, though it could be a lot better. Anyway, I liked the Bears a lot more than Pooh, I miss a lot and I still think the cleanliness was better and CMs were better back, then but perhaps that's more nostalgia. Nemo's ok, I don't love it, and I don't think it's appropriate for TL, but I never loved the old ones and I'm glad the lagoon is being used so that's a wash for me.

[Mr Wiggins]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Sorry, but no. 20 years ago was arguably the best time in its history. Pretty much everything significant that's there now was there then and a ton has been lost.

Bingo.

[Mighty Mikerscope]

As others have touched on, Walt Disney's life, influence and achievements have been a rare gift to this world.

While Mr. Lasseter is a talented filmmaker, he is certainly not the "New Walt Disney." His efforts in the parks so far have been decidedly underwhelming, the most recent being "Toy Story Midway Mania" at DCA. The attraction may be a significant technical achievement, but lacks attention to detail and more importantly seems to be void of the "heart and soul" that is palpable in Walt's attractions. I expect rides of TSMM's caliber at Sea World, not in a Disney park.

And yes, I'm a bit worried about the quality we will see in the rest of the DCA makeover too. I'm crossing my fingers, hoping the talented Mr. Lasseter and crew can rise to the occasion and do something special.

Is John Lasseter the New Walt Disney? No. I thought that was Ed Grier.

[Circa1966]

Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume

The executive most like Walt has not arrived yet. You will know who it is once they decide they want to spend the night inside of Disneyland.

Does this mean it was somebody who won the Dream Suite?