The excellent Motley Fool article got me to pondering: What do you think would happen if Michael Eisner held a big press conference and basically admitted that he's screwed things up pretty badly lately? His programming decisions at ABC, his overpriced acquisitions of mediocre assets, his utter failure on the internet, his cost-cutting and lack of customer focus at the theme parks... Of course such an admission would have to come with his promises of specific changes to get Disney back to the dynamic entertainment force it was during the heydey of the Eisner/Wells era.

What would it do to the stock price? What would it do for attendance at Disney parks? What would it do for cast member morale? Does he have the credibility to sway investors, consumers, and employees to believe in his sincerity?

I realize that top-level "admissions of guilt" like this are rare. The normal policy is to do what Michael's doing right now--publicly insist that everything is fine while panic ensues in the back rooms. A CEO never wants to admit his failings because that can be used against him by a hostile board, but it seems that he's up against the ropes as it is. This preemptive announcement, if sincerely delivered, might just save his job and energize the company. Or am I being too naive again and something like this would be disastrous on many levels?

Well in these times odds are him admiting messing up would just drop the stock lower, but if he did makes promises of improvement that could be considered credible then it would still drop.:) (I may be kidding) If he were to do something like that where he would admit and then unveil new ideas there would probably be a large number of PR moments in the immediate future. But it's all guessing right now.

Iceman: An interesting proposition ............

A few comments:

I think Eisner's biggest problem is mounting some kind of campaign where he will be seen as some kind of sympathetic character - the ridiculous amounts of money he received through the various perks and stock grants will make it difficult for investors, cast members and the general public to believe any new plans for the future that he might try to present.

Investors may simply lump ME in with many of the CEOs that are being exposed as profiteers, whether it is true or not.

Cast members, who have seen cutbacks, layoffs and hours cut while the CEO is swimming in cash, will be hard pressed to believe any plans about turning things around until they actually see some tangible effects in the operations and/or the treatment of themselves.

The general public is probably distrustful of most CEOs as they are becoming something of a scapegoat in the press for many of the big money mistakes corporate America seems to be making - Enron, General Datacom, KMart - many big companies are in the news for the wrong reasons and that affects the national psyche to say nothing of the world issues involving the Middle East.

I think many people are of the mindset that Eisner should simply take his money and go - let the company be run by someone who has an emotional stake in it or can exhibit a passion which can catch the eye of the groups mentioned.

Maybe now is the time for a Roy E., if he wants to accept the role of remaining family patriarch, to take at least some more public responsibilities while putting together a management team that can provide some direction for each of the different arms of the business.

But this process will not happen overnight ...............

The problem with this idea is that Eisner's ego prevents him even from understanding he did anything wrong (or what it would have been). He is too immersed in the new religion of business theory.

Actions speak louder than words... what would he actually DO about it? - - other than announce a new "Disney Decade" that would never happen and wait for the press to die down.

If he didn't beleive it, and just issued a phony mea culpa, it would change nothing at the company (and convince no one but those already converted). His credibility with key staff is non-existent.

The insular management and their hostile practices and contempt for consumers would continue... the necessary creatives would continue to be put down... the legal and accounting departments would continue to be the heart of the company... and the product would continue to reflect it.

Until Micheal truly realizes that the company needs to be about creating superior creative content, not the brand marketing of empty content... That he needs to be more PT Barnum and Mark Twain than FW Woolworth and Donald Trump... the whole thing will remain dysfunctional and stocks will continue to drop on rejected, substandard product. Disney is not Proctor and Gamble.

Management throughout the ranks needs to accept accountability for failure as well as success. Right now it's the club that can do no wrong. A club that badly needs an enema to proceed with their day.

It's such an ingrained system failure that this change can only happen from the top down.

Good reply merlinjones- right on the money (so to speak).....

And witty too. Love the idea of the corperate enema:D :eek:

I couldn't agree more. I'm thankfull for what the team did in the 80s for Disney, but it's time for new blood. And I don't think any amount of " I screwed up, I'm sorry, I promiss not to do it any more" will make it better. Only actions count. And because Eisner thinks he knows what is best (it worked before it will work again) we are not going to get the right actions.

Originally posted by merlinjones
If he didn't beleive it, and just issued a phony mea culpa, it would change nothing at the company (and convince no one but those already converted). His credibility with key staff is non-existent.
Not only that, but his credibility is non-existent with everyone down the ladder, from park CMs to private stockholders. I was shocked at how many current CMs you can get to speak out against him while they're onstage at the park.

People don't trust him. They see everything that comes out of his mouth as empty corporate rhetoric, but worse yet, rhetoric with bad numbers behind it. They're in financial straits, everyone can see that, and he still won't change his tune. At this point I think he's coming off as either completely contemptuous for the company itself, or completely out of touch with reality.

It's interesting that the company's current woes mirror those that Eisner helped pull them out of back in the 80's. Eisner has really been a double-edged sword for Disney. His cut-throat corporate style helped trim the fat and recognize company assets vs. liabilities and deal with them accordingly 18 years ago, but once the emergency was over, they were still left with a person with that mentality in charge. It was only a matter of time before his attention to the bottom line became a liability for the company in a time when they should have been growing healthily.

>>At this point I think he's coming off as either completely contemptuous for the company itself, or completely out of touch with reality.<<

It almost seems like he wants to take the Company's assets with him, erase everything Walt created - - to assure his legacy or something. Like Narcissus, he sees only his own reflection in the company.

>>It was only a matter of time before his attention to the bottom line became a liability for the company in a time when they should have been growing healthily.<<

Well, it was bad enough during the gravy years when this policy went by the term "austerity program" and resulted in firings of lifelong employees prior to realizing their full benefits and other such "cost savings" - - the very object lesson that there is no such thing as a "trickle down economy".

But after Frank died, he lost all perspective. He was once a creative type executive at ABC and Paramount - - but somehow he turned into a bottom line marketing/product guru along the way. I'm not sure what took all those creative energies/instincts out of him - - but at some point it became only about what he could squeeze out of the selling process, not what he could create (then sell).

Originally posted by merlinjones
It almost seems like he wants to take the Company's assets with him, erase everything Walt created - - to assure his legacy or something. Like Narcissus, he sees only his own reflection in the company.
Nothing proves that point better than him putting himself on DVDs, Disney specials, and movies in the parks (The Walt Disney story). He behaves like is he IS Walt Disney. Like his contribution is just as important as Walt's ever was. He want's to be synonymous with Disney. Think Disney and you think Eisner. Guess what? We do.

P.S. He's not any closer to saying I'm sorry...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,773751,00.html

Originally posted by Frees

http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,773751,00.html

The British newspapers seem to be of two minds on if Stanley Gold is an Eisner supporter or opponent. This article in the Guardian seems to imply that he is an opponent and that Eisner will be better off with Gold having decreased influence.

However, Lani linked to a London Telegraph article in this thread (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8809) . That article calls Gold a "strong supporter" of Eisners and that Eisner will be weakened by Gold's reduced influence.

Hmmmmmmm, perhaps he is some sort of double agent?

Originally posted by EandCDad
Hmmmmmmm, perhaps he is some sort of double agent?
I pose two possible theories:

1) He's playing his hand close so no one knows what side he stands on, especially if he's going to contest with Eisner.

-or-

2) The English are launching a massive misinformation campaign against the Walt Disney Company, in an effort to undermine the public's trust in company assests and senior execs, driving the companies value to a point low enough to allow them to buy up a majority of it's shares. Once in control of the company, they will claim all it's US based holdings as the sovereign property of England, a major step towards re-colonialization?

I think the press confusion comes from:

Disney and Gold have >traditionally< been characterized as defenders of Eisner (they put him there...). But recently this has allegedly changed (...and they can take him out! - - We hope.).

merlinjones, you worked in Feature Animation, correct?

I was speaking to a person who used to work there fairly recently and was laid off (of course) who passed on the usual barrage of horror stories about what goes on there and the division's downfall, and whatnot.

What I'm wondering is, what exactly was Eisner's hand in it? What did he specifically do to that department that caused the avalanche, so to speak?

Originally posted by Frees

The English are launching a massive misinformation campaign against the Walt Disney Company, in an effort to undermine the public's trust in company assests and senior execs, driving the companies value to a point low enough to allow them to buy up a majority of it's shares. Once in control of the company, they will claim all it's US based holdings as the sovereign property of England, a major step towards re-colonialization?

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)

Originally posted by EandCDad
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;)
I will add you to my mailing list, Homer. :D

Well, since you asked.... ;)

"The Rennaissance of Disney Feature Animation and How it Went Wrong":

When Eisner first took over the company, he looked at the economics of Disney's feature animation operation and deemed it antiquated (they were immediatley stuck with the problem of trying to sell the wildly expensive Black Cauldron). Because his background was in network programming, he wondered why they couldn't produce animation overseas at a similar low rate per minute as Hanna-Barbera and all the tv suppliers.

The animators were immediately tossed out of the Animation Building on the lot (they had occupied since 1940), so the glamorous art-deco building could be used to woo live-action talent to Touchstone. The remaining feature animation crew was relocated in a ramshckle warehouse building across from WED (Imagineering) in Glendale. The crew still included one of the Nine Old Men, Eric Larson, who was training the new animators - - and was horrified at this treatment of the traditional core of Disney's business (let alone himself!).

But this alternative only happened because Roy E. Disney was trying to protect the division from complete extinction. He told Eisner and Katzenberg that he understood the unusual economics of Feature Animation and wanted to protect it, groom it and see what would happen. Owing him their jobs - - they reluctantly agreed, but never believed anything would come of it.

Katzenberg got more involved with feature animation story planning to make the output more modern and closer to the brash celebrity driven Touchstone output (Down & Out in Beverly Hills etc). Oliver and Company was the first in this line of development. As a consequence, the traditional method of developing stories for animation by cartoonists/storytellers began to shift over to live-action writers. At first this was a boon, because there was a balance of skills. The writers brought better structure and arc to the proceedings and infused some fresh ideas... but their work was still filtered through the traditional Disney animation thinking and methods of character based, sequential visual storytelling, as the division was still fueled by career animation artists.

Meanwhile, using his kids as defacto creative executives, Eisner dreamed up The Gummy Bears, The Fluppy Dogs and a Walt Disney Television Animation Group, a separate division reportable to TV, not Feature Animation. This was once unthinkable. Purposefully cheap, non-artful overseas animation done with the Disney name attached! It was the first step in the degaradation of the house art form (a parrallel track to Disney's quality feature rennaissance that would later dovetail the groups together in disaster! But I get ahead of the story...). It was promised to the horrified Animation group that Disney TV would only do original characters and never, ever do low-budget animation of Walt's classic characters.

When the original shows failed to make an impression. They caved on this pledge and decided to do DuckTales, based on the popular Carl Barks comics. Again, Feature Animation was horrified (some there has always hoped a big budget featurette could be produced based on Barks material) - -these were classic characters done cheaply! Yes, but... the incrementalists went on, they were comic book characters and Donald wouldn't appear.

Of course, when DuckTales proved a success, they took another incursion step: MovieToons would be a new label for Walt Disney Television Animation produced feature films - - even released theatrically, but produced overseas at a very low budget! Still there was a pledge that they would never do the Feature characters in this format... or Mickey Mouse.

The handwriting seemed on the wall...

When Eisner granted an interview with Diane Sawyer on 60 Minutes (during the production of Oliver and CO.), he announced that the economics of feature animation made no sense and would never be profitable. It was a business past it's prime and there were some things the company did only for tradition. So much for the visionary...

Meantime, animation story staff (Clements) had come up with a take on Little Mermaid. At that time, the dream of the small Feature Animation staff was that they could produce something worthy of the Disney legacy, another fairy tale or folk tale in the High Disney Tradition, which had not been done since Sleeping Beauty in 59. Most studio people scoffed that anyone would want to see something like this in that day and age.

Peter Schneider (one of the leaders of the LA Olympic Arts Festival) had been recruited to run feature animation. His background and interest in theatre merged with similar interests of Katzenberg and Eisner. Fortunately for everyone, this resulted in the hiring of Howard Ashamn and Alan Menken, hot off of the success of the cartoonish Little Shop of Horrors, they made sense to merge with the cartoonist sensibilty, but bring a new Boradway tone to the proceedings. Luckily, Howard loved old Disney movies and wanted to make something ne win the spriit of the old... without this key ingediant, the future would have been very different. A new musical fairy tale?... the execs were not at all confident it would work (the animation staff was). Who would go, just little girls? (Jeffrey tried to have Part of Your World cut out for being too boring, but was prevailed upon by Howard and Keane to keep it).

When the Little Mermaid proved a surprise hit that even brought single adults into the theatre for a cartoon for the first time in decades - - everyone in the executive suite was completely surprised and life would never be the same...

TO BE CONTINUED....

More! More! This is fascinating...

(Eric Cartman) "Sweeeeeet..."

"Disney Animation: the Real Story" Part II

Now, Frank Wells (from WB), having been Roy's first choice to run Disney, was the one who kept Animation funded through this time and balanced out the do-it-cheaper mentality from the former Paramount bunch. Without his help at the helm, Roy's nurturing process for Feature Animation's turnaround may not have come to be.

A project had been lying around feature animation for years (going back to the Miller regime) that would combine live-action and animation in a film noir comedy - - Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The project, being film noir, caught Mike & Jeff's eyes. When the animation director that championed the project left the studio, it was eventually adopted as a co-venture between Disney and Amblin, who were honeymooning together at the time. Everyone wanted Speilberg to do a Disney project. Zemeckis and Williams got involved and Roger was mostly animated in London with a special crew. The execs seemed to like this one, as it evolved into the brash sensibility of their live action films.

Williams was real sticker for quality and art, however, leading to clashes over the budget. When it went wildly over, the Studio was burned by advance press comparing the then-enormous budget with some iffy word of mouth. Jeffrey came out to the press to say they should judge the film, not the budget... and an honest budget for an animated feature was never again released to the press!

Still, Roger's success whetted the studio's appetitie for more animation.

Meanwhile, back in Burbank - - with Little Mermaid's success, Tyco's Ariel dolls started selling better than anyone expected. Somehow there was an appeal to Little Mermaid (a very Walt like movie in spirit) that no one could have guessed upstairs. At best they thought it would be a prestige project.

So between these two films, the little department that had been shuttled off to the industrial district, that no-one at the studio payed any attention to unless they had to - - was suddenly the center of attention again.

But development had already proceeded in other directions. Top executive decree had ordered Feature Animation to start producing franchise extensions - - sequels to animated favorites. A once unthinkable horror in the house of "you can't top pigs with pigs". Peter Pan topped the list (to try and head off Speilberg's rumored "Hook") which nearly caused a mutiny among cartoonists. A Winnie-the-Pooh story was pitched where the characters were no longer British, but got kidnapped in the car and took the gift of imagining to inner-city breakdancers. These didn't happen (yet!), but less-offensive to everyone (because it wasn't a classic to ruin) was Bernard and Bianca starring in a sequel to Rescuers (which had been very successful overseas).

Since theatre folks had helped boost Mermaid, it was thought that more outsiders were needed to beef up the division and Tom Schumacher, Schneider's crony from the Olympics, was brought in to produce Recuers Down Under. Rather than a musical theatre sensibilty (they were still nervous about that), he brought a new cultural and politically correct awareness to the film and downplayed the flirtatious (read "sexist") highjinks of Bianca, making her a cipher in her own film. Tests "proved" that RDU would be "even bigger than Mermaid" (since it wasn't an old fashioned, audience limiting fairy tale) - - oops, wrong again! It came and went.

Across town, the TV Animation group decided to capitalize on the success of Mermaid with a cheap and ugly tv series... starring Feature Animation characters! The promise was again broken and mediocrity merged ever closer to the heart of the company (almost a ying to Feature Animation's yang)... Soon Winne-the-Pooh would follow into this dark wood, and with his honey pot of gold, there would be no more holding back.

Right after Mermaid, Ashman had plunged into a honky-tonk musical version of Aladdin, but was put off - the material seemed too bizarre for the execs (several Mickey Mouse featurette variations on Aladdin had failed to gel around this time too).

But Beauty and the Beast, which had come and gone out of development for years, finally appealed to Jeffrey as a title on the basis of the then-cult TV series. Everything was tried to make this fairy tale as much NOT like a Disney fairy tale as possible. Live-action writers were put firmly in charge of several drafts (one of which took the pair around the world on a cruise), while animation storypeople pursued their own versions. Several British animators began to storyboard a straight, non-musical adaptation which had no talking objects or fanciful fun. This proved a disaster and Howard Ashman was asked to look at the project as co-producer as well as lyricist. Again, Ashman knew what would work for the medium, and brought back the Walt-era kitsch that all the execs hated. Suddenly there were singing, dancing pots and pans. the execs never thought it would be any good, but kept going, hoping lightning might strike twice by accident.

Another beginning to the end began - - as some of the animation staff started to grumble about repeating themselves, wanting to go into new directions, like anime style action. Others wanted to do a simple, cartoonish Dumbo type of film without so much dialogue. But everyone was starting to sense that the animator/cartoonist sensibility was drifting away in development, replaced by live-action concerns. This was a unique medium right? Clashes with management increased. No one listened...

Beauty and the Beast suddenly blossomed mid-project, into something more than anyone involved imagined it would be. It successfully merged the sensibilities of the tradtional cartoonist/animators, the Walt-era fairy tale storytelling... and pushed even further into the realm of current Broadway styling. Without this delicate troika of interests, it wouldn't have been what it was. The clashes paid off here in spades.

Smash! The success of Mermaid paved the way for Belle's even-bigger success and an unthinkable Oscar nomination for best film! Merchandise flew off the shelves.

Now the studio execs were all-over Feature animation... it was Sutter's Mill and everybody above-the-line wanted a piece of that lucrative and prestigious Mother Load (even if they had never seen an animated feature prior to Mermaid).

Suddenly, its biggest critics were hailed as the saviors of the medium.

Fortunately, Aladdin was already in progress, with Ashman's kooky sensibilty and fully empowered animation directors (Musker and Clements) on top of their game. Jeffrey was now fully engaged in the process in a bigger way than ever. They kept it all going for another big hit in the Walt tradition, but merging in the brash Touchstone attitude as well (from JK). Again, a balance was struck as the cartoonists got one more lick in before... everything changed forever!

Howard Ashman died.

Schumacher and his politically correct theatre sensibilites took over as head of story development.

Schneider and Schumacher hired every theatre production person they ever knew to come West and take management positions in Feature Animation.

The argumentative cartoonists, animators and story people were politically marginalized. Kept under a glass ceiling and manipulated with approval/denial parental control methods... and false promises of directing or head of department... the career animators would soon lose control over their own division and output in all but the most superficial ways. Caricature shows were censored, creative expression curtailed.

New managemnt were told specifically that if they wanted to progess up the ranks they could not hang around with the animators... who were increasingly referred to as "craftspeople" (a distinction from "real" artists or filmakers).

After all, it was the outsiders who saved the business, right?

TO BE CONTINUED....

I hate to make you do all this typing, but... more, please.

Was all this published someplace, or is this "The Renaissance as Seen Through MJ's Eyes"? There's a lot of neat stuff in there, but enough unverifiable opinion and slanted, skewed views to make me wonder...

Originally posted by Iceman
There's a lot of neat stuff in there, but enough unverifiable opinion and slanted, skewed views to make me wonder...

Unverifiable opinion? How can you have an unverifiable opinion?

I mean, if someone gives you their opinion on a subject, you can safely verify that it's theirs, right? :D

Unless of course you've got an evil twin going around claiming to be you and passing their own opinions off as your own...

Is this the case merlinjones?!

Wait! What am I doing? An evil twin would never knowingly reveal himself!!

:D

I figure you're being sarcastic, frees, but just in case...

Opinion that is not based on fact is worthless. I'm sure you've heard the old adage about how opinions are like, well, our backsides. Everybody's got one.

Maybe "verifiable opinion" was a poor choice of words, but what I meant is that one guy on a vendetta is not your most impartial source of information. Someone who has been fired from feature animation is of course going to have strong opinions about management and mis-management, but without additional sources (especially from the opposing point of view) those opinions don't help an impartial observer learn much of anything.

Originally posted by Iceman
Opinion that is not based on fact is worthless. I'm sure you've heard the old adage about how opinions are like, well, our backsides. Everybody's got one.
:eek: Now you're discussing naughty bits...

You're proceeding from the false assumption that a) I've never heard any other sides of this story before, and b) that I've never had any dealings with Disney myself.

I asked MJ for his insight into the FA division of the company, and he was giving it to me. I figure that insight coming from a person who's actually worked there and had experience there is worth hearing, regardless of the details of their termination.

I'll weigh what he says with what else I've heard from people that have worked there, but I've gotta tell you, the sentiments he's expressing are not uncommon.

But then that's only my... opinion. :D

Ice:

Like anyone's, my point-of-view is certainly only that - - one angle on a story that can be told from many sides.

What I'm sharing here is what was asked for... my opinion, my view on the Feature Animation drama. It's not from a book or a PR release or a collective compromise - - I'm not an impartial reporter but a traveler through life.

Like it or don't, agree with it or not... This is my honest perception of the big picture issues. My view from the front lines.

Why not come along for the ride and enjoy the tale? I hope it isn't boring, anyway...

...and please share your experiences with us too!:)

STORY TO BE CONTINUED...

"The Rise and Fall of Disney Animation as seen from the Peanut Gallery" PART III:


Frank and Roy backed the major budgeting needed to create the CAPS computer system that revolutionized production beginning with Rescuers Down Under. Caps allowed not only for computer-built CGI animated elements, but the digital compositing allowed for colored lines, shadows and other once labor-intensive picture enhancements that had disappeared from the budgets back in the 50's. This gave Beauty and Aladdin a major boost in production value and styling and allowed the full artistic rennaisance to flower (...though a very dark side would emerge from the digital revolution over the next ten years that would ultimately take more control from artists - stay tuned...).

Though this meant that Mermaid was the last feature to have cels, fake cels were created as limited editions for the new digital features to supply a growing art market.

Aladdin's success took Disney Television Animation to the executives' next broken promise: a low-budget feature-length sequel was created and animated overseas - - starring Feature Animation characters. Again, horrified animators could see the eventual collapse of art values and the eviction notices that would be coming for them in the long run, but were assured now that sequels would only be made for new features... never Walt's classics...

With public recognition, Jeffrey now began reading everything he could about Walt and began thinking of himself as the defacto director of the animated feature productions. Since the animation directors had been "teamed up" to marginalize their individual contributions and political clout (one could always be fired without causing a production delay), thereby consolodating power above the line - - this became the status quo.

JK's instincts for audiences were good (in a narrow range), but he couldn't visualize the results in advance - - so required insreasingly costly trial and error to fish for something he could react to. But with Aladdin's pot of gold, money was no object at this point... Throwing money at a problem became the standard for the growing ranks of non-animation Feature Animation execs (largely from Theatre or Live-Action or Technology).

Lacking experience, they went fishing... and increasingly took the costly toll out on their fishermen. Artistic positions that were once supported, began to become more like auditions - - as talent (animation directors and art department heads) started to be eaten up like Pringles in the process of educating theatre maven rookie execs about making animated features.

JK wanted make his own Bambi and loved the title "King of the Jungle", so a story about lions had to be found to fit the title. Soon it would become "King of the Beasts", still with no solid story... and finally "The Lion King" with a Shakeperean story template. Another miracle was created that no one anticipated, this time due to the skill and instincts of ace animation storypeople (including Chapman-Lima and Sanders), who managed to create something out of a written nothing.

The general public responded at the box-office to each feature release in reaction to the last. Mermaid, Beauty and Aladdin each bumped the threshhold of success up a dramatic curve as audiences ate up the films (and ancillary merchandise). Those three fed into "Lion King" which exploded in an orgy of unheard of consumer glory based on the accumulated goodwill of this package of films - - as much as its own moderate merits.

The accountants went wild, seeing how the film could drive synergy sales across the board (in a medium that had been pronounced dead by Eisner only five years earlier). Any budget became okay as money was thrown at projects to please the finicky execs.

Crazy business plans were made up based on the grosses of Aladdin and Lion King (which were historically, total anomalies in the genre), that assumed these numbers would be the norm from now on - - these are the same business plan models used by all the jealous competing studios to build their animation temples of competitive doom.

As cash cows, the animators would be welcomed back to the main lot. Not back to the much-preferred original animation building of Walt's times, but to a new, lavish building tailored to the needs of the new production systems.

Up, up up went the business... but why were these things so unexpectedly popular?

The theatre group decided they were the ones responsible for the change in the business and the maturing of the genre. It wasn't that the old cartoon-centrric Walt-formula fairy tales had been freshened up with Broadway styling... it was that animation was the new Broadway!

Eisner and Katzenberg, as ex-New Yorkers, could hardly disagree. Now this was territory that sounded appealing and familiar to them. Moreso than the alien world of cartoon humor.

From now on it was out with the old as Disney Feature Animation would become the means by which to re-educate the public's tastes to higher, loftier forms of Broadway style entertainment and progressive social/political theme.

Since Howard Ashman (who loved Disney movies and had a campy cartoon sensibility) was gone, they would recruit serious budding young Sondheims from Uptown to help reshape the business in their image.

Yes, the theatre mavens had done it all - - and those childish animators were not going to spoil the ride with their whinings about Walt, Dumbo and visual storytelling...

The name of Walt would no longer be welcomed from the tongues of "purists".

Just around the bend was a new direction for Disney Animation - one that would leave the past behind and help shape the children of the new millennium.

...and the unexpected death of Frank Wells.

NEXT: THE DECLINE AND FALL...