Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46
  1. #31

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Count me down as pro-Eisner. Yeah, his last ten years had many, many failures and his reign almost ended with the company being carved up in a takeover like the one he was brought onboard to stop in the 80's, BUT...

    I think he avoided one big problem that would have been permanent for WDW, while most of the problems he left have been turned around or could be turned around with the right leader. I agree with most of what's been said about the drive for constantly increasing profits; I think that's his biggest negative legacy. His biggest positive legacy is the horizontal expansion in the tourism industry: if there's money to be made, Disney should be the ones making it. It got us the vastly improved food, the cruise line and the amazing lineup of hotels we have today.

    Disney was not really in the hotel business when Eisner started with the company. The Disneyland Hotel was still owned by Wrather. The Poly and Contemporary were supposed to be owned by U.S. Steel; they were bought out by Roy Disney only when construction fell behind. The company had lost its appetite for operating the few hotels they had. This is evident from the deal with Tishman that eventually resulted in the Swan and Dolphin. Instead of pushing forward with more experiences like the Poly or Contemporary run by Disney, there were going to be some nondescript hotels from an outside company. Eisner couldn't get out of the deal, and the compromise was eventually hotels that Disney still had creative control over, at least. After Eisner comes, BOOM. Grand Flo, Caribbean Beach, Wilderness Lodge, Yacht & Beach, etc. EVERY resort (depending on how you define Art of Animation) except Poly, Contemporary, and Ft. Wilderness came from Eisner's direction. All new rooms since he left have been expansions. Simply put, without Eisner, we could have seen the property littered with boring box hotels like Walt hated about Disneyland or even had the parks sold off back in the 80's. That kinda stuff you can't recover from. Stuff like a cheap, misguided DCA? Sure, it was bad at the beginning, but after just twelve years it will be transformed into a worthy neighbor to the best theme park in the world. The bad DCA will be a small footnote in the history of Disneyland.

    Re: Dinoland. I've heard the choice between Dinoland and Beastly Kingdom came down to "kids like dinosaurs" rather than the movie tie-in. If the movie tie-in was the goal from the beginning, Countdown to Extinction would've opened as Dinosaur!

  2. #32

    • враг народа
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,111
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    Re: Dinoland. I've heard the choice between Dinoland and Beastly Kingdom came down to "kids like dinosaurs" rather than the movie tie-in. If the movie tie-in was the goal from the beginning, Countdown to Extinction would've opened as Dinosaur!
    Chester and Hester's Dino-Rama, the part of Dinoland USA that people dislike, was not part of the pre-opening plan with Beastly Kingdom. It was a quick post-opening expansion intended to increase the park's ride count.

  3. #33

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by lazyboy97O View Post
    Chester and Hester's Dino-Rama, the part of Dinoland USA that people dislike, was not part of the pre-opening plan with Beastly Kingdom. It was a quick post-opening expansion intended to increase the park's ride count.
    I know, but I've heard that the choice between Dinoland in general and Beastly Kingdom was that "kids like dinosaurs" in the same apocryphal way Cars was made so that Disney could sell toy cars (good call there, Michael).

    Sad fact: according to Jim Hill, the Excavator would have cost just as much as Dino-Rama. They just went with the tacky carnival theme to bump up the attraction count more.

  4. #34

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Imagination Pavilion, Walt Disney World, EPCOT Center
    Posts
    241

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    why i hate michael eisner. he ruined my favorite attraction and made into utter garbage. and i think everyone knows what attraction im talking about by looking at my user name

  5. #35

    • WDW will always be home.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    697

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    I think he avoided one big problem that would have been permanent for WDW
    Which is?

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    while most of the problems he left have been turned around or could be turned around with the right leader.
    The Swan and Dolphin are a pretty big problem (from within Epcot). They're not going anywhere. The toxic culture of paranoia and "win-lose" thinking he created within the Corporation, which still pervades all levels of management, could take decades to get rid of, if that ever happens. It will also be very surprising if WDI ever regains the authority over the parks they had before Eisner's disastrous response to the Euro Disney failure.

    Worse still, is how's WDW layout prior to Eisner was extremely well thought out and at least loosely based on the original master plan so as to all but eliminate the necessity of automobile traffic on property. Remember, this was one of the original goals of WDW as it was originally conceived. It's nice that we now have a ton of new resorts, but there is absolutely no logic to their layout whatsoever. The resort is hopelessly spread out, and the only way to traverse it is by automobile, with all the traffic, stoplights, and pollution you'd find in suburbs or smaller cities. There's no going back from that.

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    Disney was not really in the hotel business when Eisner started with the company. The Disneyland Hotel was still owned by Wrather. The Poly and Contemporary were supposed to be owned by U.S. Steel; they were bought out by Roy Disney only when construction fell behind. The company had lost its appetite for operating the few hotels they had. This is evident from the deal with Tishman that eventually resulted in the Swan and Dolphin.... Simply put, without Eisner, we could have seen the property littered with boring box hotels like Walt hated about Disneyland or even had the parks sold off back in the 80's.
    This is a mixture of conjecture and incorrect history:
    1) Walt hated the garishness, tackiness, and seediness of the establishments that sprung out outside Disneyland. The officially licensed Disneyland Hotel, built at Walt's request by his friend Jack Wrather, was (and still mainly is) a "boring box hotel."
    2) The Contemporary and Polynesian were both planned and designed by WED Enterprises. U.S. Steel was contracted to build them, and an outside luxury hotel company did operate them for the first several months of the resort's operation. The hotel operator was bought out of the contract by Disney because Dick Nunis and other Disney executives were not satisfied with the level of customer service provided by the hotel company and thought Disney could do better.
    3) All of the hotels that Disney had planned for the property, both originally and shortly before Eisner took over, were themed hotel properties - the Contemporary and Polynesian were both built, the Persian and Venetian were both planned but eventually scrapped, and the Grand Floridian was in the planning phase well before Eisner came on board. At no time did Disney plan to build boring box hotels at WDW.
    4) The Tishman deal occurred not because Disney wanted to outsource hotel development, but because Tishman was the construction company that was building EPCOT Center, and when construction grew too expensive for Disney to continue to fund, that concession was made as a form of "payment" for the completion of the EPCOT Center project. The deal entitled Tishman to develop/own/run two hotels right next to EPCOT Center, and Disney always reserved creative control. The deal was limited and only intended as a means of completing EPCOT Center; it was not an indication of future plans with Tishman or for the property in general. Incidentally, it was Eisner who brought in architect Michael Graves and allowed him to build hotels too high so that they visually intrude on the World Showcase skyline.
    I knew if this business was ever to get anywhere, if this business was ever to grow, it could never do it by having to answer to someone unsympathetic to its possibilities, by having to answer to someone with only one thought or interest, namely profits. For my idea of how to make profits has differed greatly from those who generally control businesses such as ours. I have blind faith in the policy that quality, tempered with good judgment and showmanship, will win against all odds.
    -Walt Disney



  6. #36

    • Metro-Retro Historian
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brava Centauri
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by PSUMark View Post
    The Swan and Dolphin are a pretty big problem (from within Epcot). They're not going anywhere. The toxic culture of paranoia and "win-lose" thinking he created within the Corporation, which still pervades all levels of management, could take decades to get rid of, if that ever happens. It will also be very surprising if WDI ever regains the authority over the parks they had before Eisner's disastrous response to the Euro Disney failure.
    Yup, this is the worst part of the Eisner legacy because it's the hardest to undo.

    Quote Originally Posted by PSUMark View Post
    Worse still, is how's WDW layout prior to Eisner was extremely well thought out and at least loosely based on the original master plan so as to all but eliminate the necessity of automobile traffic on property. Remember, this was one of the original goals of WDW as it was originally conceived. It's nice that we now have a ton of new resorts, but there is absolutely no logic to their layout whatsoever. The resort is hopelessly spread out, and the only way to traverse it is by automobile, with all the traffic, stoplights, and pollution you'd find in suburbs or smaller cities. There's no going back from that.
    Nothing really compares to how perfectly phase one was constructed. Everything fit together perfectly. However, even before Eisner, things started going wonky. The Golf Resort was built without monorail access as was the far away Disney Village. Of course there were plans to add a people mover and monorail station to the Village, but we're still waiting on those.

    That said, the layout of the many resorts that exist now isn't that bad. It's certainly nowhere near ideal, but it's not a complete disaster. Most of the Eisner phase resorts are around the Epcot/Downtown Disney area with the exception of the Animal Kingdom Lodge (which is conveniently close to the Animal Kingdom) and Coronado Springs and the All-Stars which are pretty much in the middle of nowhere. Not perfect, but not so haphazard that they couldn't set up a peoplemover/monorail system that can get guests from point A to point B without an obnoxious number of transfers.



    Quote Originally Posted by PSUMark View Post
    All of the hotels that Disney had planned for the property, both originally and shortly before Eisner took over, were themed hotel properties - the Contemporary and Polynesian were both built, the Persian and Venetian were both planned but eventually scrapped, and the Grand Floridian was in the planning phase well before Eisner came on board. At no time did Disney plan to build boring box hotels at WDW.
    It's also important to note that the reason those hotels weren't built wasn't because the company didn't want to run hotels. In fact it was quite the opposite. When Walt Disney World proved to be the most popular thing ever in its first couple years, the company had to go into hurry up mode to get more rooms as fast as possible. That's where the Contemporary's 2 "Garden Wings" came from, as well as the Golf Resort. The reason those plans were scrapped was the gas crisis of the mid/late 70s. The tourism industry took a tremendous nose dive and suddenly, the resort didn't need all those extra hotels anymore.
    It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.

  7. #37

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Posts
    1,412

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Benefits: Expansion of WDW into what it is today (including the values and moderates resorts), Golden Age of movies from Little Mermaid thru Lion King

    Detriments: Running the company as a profit machine, decreasing quality across all lines, obsession with sports and TV channels and using theme park profit to pay for them.

    Wells was the star and met an untimely death. Once Mikey was on his own, it was all over.
    Please consider the environment before printing useless emails

  8. #38

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by PSUMark View Post
    Which is?



    The Swan and Dolphin are a pretty big problem (from within Epcot). They're not going anywhere. The toxic culture of paranoia and "win-lose" thinking he created within the Corporation, which still pervades all levels of management, could take decades to get rid of, if that ever happens. It will also be very surprising if WDI ever regains the authority over the parks they had before Eisner's disastrous response to the Euro Disney failure.

    Worse still, is how's WDW layout prior to Eisner was extremely well thought out and at least loosely based on the original master plan so as to all but eliminate the necessity of automobile traffic on property. Remember, this was one of the original goals of WDW as it was originally conceived. It's nice that we now have a ton of new resorts, but there is absolutely no logic to their layout whatsoever. The resort is hopelessly spread out, and the only way to traverse it is by automobile, with all the traffic, stoplights, and pollution you'd find in suburbs or smaller cities. There's no going back from that.



    This is a mixture of conjecture and incorrect history:
    1) Walt hated the garishness, tackiness, and seediness of the establishments that sprung out outside Disneyland. The officially licensed Disneyland Hotel, built at Walt's request by his friend Jack Wrather, was (and still mainly is) a "boring box hotel."
    2) The Contemporary and Polynesian were both planned and designed by WED Enterprises. U.S. Steel was contracted to build them, and an outside luxury hotel company did operate them for the first several months of the resort's operation. The hotel operator was bought out of the contract by Disney because Dick Nunis and other Disney executives were not satisfied with the level of customer service provided by the hotel company and thought Disney could do better.
    3) All of the hotels that Disney had planned for the property, both originally and shortly before Eisner took over, were themed hotel properties - the Contemporary and Polynesian were both built, the Persian and Venetian were both planned but eventually scrapped, and the Grand Floridian was in the planning phase well before Eisner came on board. At no time did Disney plan to build boring box hotels at WDW.
    4) The Tishman deal occurred not because Disney wanted to outsource hotel development, but because Tishman was the construction company that was building EPCOT Center, and when construction grew too expensive for Disney to continue to fund, that concession was made as a form of "payment" for the completion of the EPCOT Center project. The deal entitled Tishman to develop/own/run two hotels right next to EPCOT Center, and Disney always reserved creative control. The deal was limited and only intended as a means of completing EPCOT Center; it was not an indication of future plans with Tishman or for the property in general. Incidentally, it was Eisner who brought in architect Michael Graves and allowed him to build hotels too high so that they visually intrude on the World Showcase skyline.
    1) I will agree that there were many worse things probably popping up in Anaheim at the time than merely a "boring" hotel, but the whole reason that Wrather was brought in was because Walt put literally all of his money into the park. Maybe Walt wouldn't have had the kind of entertainment architecture that we think of today, but he was strapped for cash and probably didn't have perfect creative control. I don't think that's fair to hold up as an example of "what Walt would do".

    2) U.S. Steel was bought out after opening, yes. But the hotels were owned by U.S. Steel. Disney, at the time, was simply not a hotel company.

    3/4) From Mousetales by David Koenig:
    Corporate management felt it needed to get more hospitality experience into the hotels, and began negotiating on a partnership in which Disney would retain ownership of its hotels, but Marriott would build and operate them. The main stumbling block was a contract that previous Disney management had signed with Tishman. In exchange for quick cash to fight the then-raging corporate takeover, Disney would allow Tishman to build and own two on-property convention hotels.

    Eisner demanded the contract with Tishman be broken. Tishman promptly filed a $300 million lawsuit charging breach of contract and demanding another $1 billion in punitive damages. Disney, realizing that it was clearly violating the terms of its agreement, convinced Tishman to sign a complicated deal in which it would still own the next two on-property hotels, could build them on a prime location next to EPCOT Center, and could use "Disney" in the name. Tishman could also set the construction budget, but Disney would determine the design.

    While Eisner argued publicly that Disney's retaining design control would help prevent Tishman from building something like the plain high-rises they had originally planned, the new deal also gave Disney some measure over costs. Initially, Eisner figured he could use the design provision to punish Tishman by forcing them to go wildly over-board with post-modern touches. Fortunately, Frank Wells and other wiser heads were able to point out that ugly hotels would in fact punish Eisner more since people would view the hotels as Eisner's first accomplishment on Disney World property.
    My point is simply that Disney was only reluctantly in the hotel business, seemed like at various points that the company was headed down a different path than what we know today, but I like what we ended up with. The bus transportation is not perfect, but not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. I think the dispatching is a little wonky and they could probably stand to add buses, but the bus system is pretty good and traffic on-property is really only bad on Buena Vista. That's something they're working on with the road widening and the new entrance to DHS.

  9. #39

    • WDW will always be home.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    697

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    Corporate management felt it needed to get more hospitality experience into the hotels, and began negotiating on a partnership in which Disney would retain ownership of its hotels, but Marriott would build and operate them.
    You do realize that that was Eisner's corporate management, right? Eisner made the decision to negotiate with Marriott, Tishman broke that off, but it was eventually WDI and the designs they had drawn up for the Grand Floridian - which they were working on before Eisner got there - that convinced Eisner that Disney could build their own hotels.

    In response to your first two points, you're correct. The only caveats I would add is that with Walt's obsessive control over the Disneyland property, it's unlikely he would have licensed a hotel that went completely against his desired aesthetic/design. Honestly, I think the most logical conclusion is that Walt just didn't care that much about the hotels so long as they weren't garish/sleazy and selling knockoff merchandise. Also, look at the original design for EPCOT - what's at the center? A gigantic box hotel; albeit, a skyscraper box hotel, but still a box hotel.

    And yes, you're also correct that U.S. Steel owned the hotels (for a few months), but they were bought out because Disney wanted to operate the hotels themselves; not because they fell behind schedule. This point is important, because it establishes that Dick Nunis was actually the one who decided that Disney was capable of running their own hotels, and convinced upper management to buy out U.S. Steel so as to takeover operational control. This is why WDI was working up plans on the Grand Floridian before Eisner was brought on board.
    Last edited by PSUMark; 04-15-2012 at 07:05 PM.
    I knew if this business was ever to get anywhere, if this business was ever to grow, it could never do it by having to answer to someone unsympathetic to its possibilities, by having to answer to someone with only one thought or interest, namely profits. For my idea of how to make profits has differed greatly from those who generally control businesses such as ours. I have blind faith in the policy that quality, tempered with good judgment and showmanship, will win against all odds.
    -Walt Disney



  10. #40

    • New Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    I know it was Eisner's team from the quote, but the Tishman deal still predated him. The last paragraph says that they would have been plain high-rises. I think one would have been in the DtD area, but I'm not sure if the other one was always going to be on the Swan & Dolphin site or not. Always hard to pin things down on projects that never get built. They could have had a big impact on property or not.

    I listened to a Jim Hill podcast about the opening of WDW (I think it was Magical Definition around the time of the 40th), and I'm pretty sure he said/implied that Dick Nunis was brought over from Disneyland to get the hotels done after a meeting in early 1971 where U.S. Steel told Disney that they wouldn't make opening. While I was skimming through Realityland, it seems like that same exact meeting was with J.B. Allen, who I assume was a contractor building the park? On the other hand, I remember a specific story from Jim's podcast about Dick Nunis laying out sod at the Contemporary by the light of everyone's cars, so maybe his construction duties did extend at least somewhat to the hotels as well? Realityland mentions at least one example where Disney sort of did things at the Contemporary just to get them done in spite of the union and then paid them off. Maybe Jim's story refers to something like this?

    The skyscraper at the heart of EPCOT the city would have been unthemed in the same way that the Contemporary is unthemed: very modern for the time, but yes mostly unthemed. I've been really wondering today if Walt would have or did come up with the whole entertainment architecture idea for the hotels. I've never heard about any unbuilt themed hotels for Disneyland from the Walt era, but then all of a sudden there's a whole slew planned for the Seven Seas Lagoon within a few years after his passing. There's even a late 60's concept by Dorothea Redmond for a Main St hotel inside the park in the art of WDW book. Walt obviously understood the importance of all of the theming in the parks, but I wonder what his thoughts were on hotels? Was the Wrather deal preclude a separate Disney hotel in Anaheim? Maybe by the 60's he was just too obsessed with the next big thing to worry about building a hotel at Disneyland.

  11. #41

    • WDW will always be home.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    697

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    I listened to a Jim Hill podcast about the opening of WDW (I think it was Magical Definition around the time of the 40th), and I'm pretty sure he said/implied that Dick Nunis was brought over from Disneyland to get the hotels done after a meeting in early 1971 where U.S. Steel told Disney that they wouldn't make opening. While I was skimming through Realityland, it seems like that same exact meeting was with J.B. Allen, who I assume was a contractor building the park? On the other hand, I remember a specific story from Jim's podcast about Dick Nunis laying out sod at the Contemporary by the light of everyone's cars, so maybe his construction duties did extend at least somewhat to the hotels as well? Realityland mentions at least one example where Disney sort of did things at the Contemporary just to get them done in spite of the union and then paid them off. Maybe Jim's story refers to something like this?
    Jim Hill generally isn't the best source of factual information (at least if you want it to be factual), but in this case Realityland would suggest that he's at least partially correct. Nunis was VP of Operations in Disneyland and known for running a super-tight ship. All of construction at WDW (not just hotels) was behind schedule, and Nunis was brought in to get things back on track and was appointed overall Attractions VP in charge of DL and WDW. His role extended well beyond hotels, but he was instrumental in Disney buying out the Contemporary/Poly because he was very frustrated/unsatisfied with the level of customer service provided by the luxury hotel operators that U.S. Steel brought in and thought Cast Members could do much better (by all accounts, he was right).

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    I've been really wondering today if Walt would have or did come up with the whole entertainment architecture idea for the hotels.
    Whether or not he would have is anyone's guess, but I can confidently say that he didn't. While the MK and the entire WDW property (at least as it was built in 1971) contain Walt's "DNA" in a myriad of ways, Walt was almost entirely uninvolved with WDW planning beyond picking out the site and designing EPCOT.
    I knew if this business was ever to get anywhere, if this business was ever to grow, it could never do it by having to answer to someone unsympathetic to its possibilities, by having to answer to someone with only one thought or interest, namely profits. For my idea of how to make profits has differed greatly from those who generally control businesses such as ours. I have blind faith in the policy that quality, tempered with good judgment and showmanship, will win against all odds.
    -Walt Disney



  12. #42

    • Metro-Retro Historian
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Brava Centauri
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by crlachepinochet View Post
    I've been really wondering today if Walt would have or did come up with the whole entertainment architecture idea for the hotels. I've never heard about any unbuilt themed hotels for Disneyland from the Walt era, but then all of a sudden there's a whole slew planned for the Seven Seas Lagoon within a few years after his passing. There's even a late 60's concept by Dorothea Redmond for a Main St hotel inside the park in the art of WDW book. Walt obviously understood the importance of all of the theming in the parks, but I wonder what his thoughts were on hotels?
    From the 1966 EPCOT film:
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt Disney
    Of course, there will be another amusement theme park in Florida, similar to the one in California. We're now developing a master plan that encompasses the theme park and all the facilities around it that will serve the tourists; hotels, motels, and a variety of recreation activities.
    That's really all he says about the portion of the property that would become Phase 1 of Walt Disney World. The map showing this section isn't much more help. There appear to be 3 resort areas roughly where the Contemporary, Polynesian, and Grand Floridian stand today. One is vaguely mickey shaped. One surrounds a large body of water that looks to be an expansion off the western side of Bay Lake. The third really has no special distinguishing features that really stand out on a map of that scale. It's fairly safe to assume these would be themed. If they had the idea to build a hotel complex in the shape of a big Mickey, why wouldn't they theme it? If they were going through the trouble to build an inlet on the lake with a resort spread along the shores, why would the buildings that make up the resort be themeless? Walt knew that the level of detail in the themeing is what drew people to Disneyland, and he definitely had enough imagination and forethought to extend that to his hotels.

    The Hotel at the center of EPCOT looks like an unthemed box hotel to us today, but at the time it was a very modern design. Sleek skyscrapers of steel and glass were a very new thing in the 60s. This centerpiece was pretty futuristic themed resort in its time.

    Let's also remember that at the same time Walt Disney World was being planned, the Mineral King resort was also in the planning stage and there is actually a great article about it, with concept art on this very site. http://micechat.com/blogs/samland/17...eral-king.html. While it's not as themed as something like the Wilderness Lodge, you can tell that the idea is there. The part that really illustrates that Walt was all about the show was the way he wanted guests to only be able to reach the resort by train.

    Walt bought all this land for Disney World so that he could make everything in sight the way he wanted it. If he was happy with generic unthemed hotels (which we know he wasn't) he never would have started this project. If they hadn't yet had the idea to completely theme hotels yet, it wasn't far off and definitely would have come about before construction went vertical. After all the same crew that would have designed and built Phase 1 was the same crew that actually did design and build it except without Walt. With the way he was and the way the folks at WED regarded him, they were probably so determined to make something worthy of his legacy that what they created for Phase 1 was just as good if not better than what would have come had he lived to oversee it.
    It bothers me when people selectively edit quotes to support whatever point they are trying to prove.

  13. #43

    • Closed Account
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    661

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Eisner did more in his first 7 years than Iger could even dream of doing. Eisner knew how to get and keep top A-List talent and create one blockbuster after another with showmanship. And he really DID care about the parks. Read his shareholder letters leading up to DLPs opening. He extolls on DLP like his own child as Walt did with DL. '95-'99 wasn't even that bad (excpet for Joe Roth taking over WDP). It was when Pressler became head of Attractions and Nunis and Greene "retired" that the track truly came off the rails for P&R. Brigning in Rasulo with his interactive/character overlay fetish was a disaster too. I think the Animation was still good up util Treasure Planet. The entire Pochoahontas-Atlanthis period is extremely overated. It was everything after TP that was horrendous. Remember Chicken Little??? A Dreamworks wannabe movie!! Eisner finally saved face bringing in Ouimet to save DLs 50th. Eisner with Roy also let the whole Treasure line start and finally Disney animation and TV history was avaiulable to us without waiting till 12am to watch Vault Disney.

  14. #44

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Posts
    1,412

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCSkipr79 View Post
    The entire Pochoahontas-Atlanthis period is extremely overated. It was everything after TP that was horrendous. Remember Chicken Little??? A Dreamworks wannabe movie!!
    In the context of what you were saying, I think you meant Poca-Atlantis was UNDERrated; yes?
    Please consider the environment before printing useless emails

  15. #45

    • Closed Account
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    661

    Re: What is your opinion of Michael Eisner and his legacy for WDW?

    Oppppps OMG yes. Pocahontas-Atlantis era is UNDERrated and does not get the credit it deserves.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •