One of my favorite articles to date!

quick quote:

>>That the Happiest Place on Earth is run by the Most Miserable Company in Hollywood is nothing new; for years now, because of top-to-bottom defections of talented personnel at Disney, Eisner as a leader has more and more resembled ROTC storm trooper Doug Neidermeyer in National Lampoon's Animal House, who was shot by his own troops. <<

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/39/deadline-finke.php

(Still think it's just me, ice?)

"This fish stinks at the head." - that's my favorite quote about Mike.

merlinjones-
Cool article.
I hope Eisner is out in November. That would be the best Xmas present for all of us die hard fans. I doubt Katzenberg would go back as the head of Disney, he couldn't do Dreamworks and Disney at the same time and I would hate to see Spielberg with his hands in the Disney mix... something about that just wouldn't seem right.
Who knows.
:)

I'd love to see it happen.

But I'm just as concerned as to what type of person would take his place. Things could even get worse.

Oh, this is that thing where you post an insult in the thread title and pretend that it's not name-calling, right?

>>Oh, this is that thing where you post an insult in the thread title and pretend that it's not name-calling, right?<<

Let's see:

"LA Weekly attacks...": Accurate description of article.

"Anti-Walt": Well, he certainly isn't pro-Walt! ;)

Originally posted by cstephens
Oh, this is that thing where you post an insult in the thread title and pretend that it's not name-calling, right?

Actually, as you probably remember, the moderators (or at least Tony) said they didn't feel like using the term "Anti-Walt" was name calling. It was in this thread (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?threadid=2285&highlight=antiwalt) which was started by yourself. No real point being made by me, just find it kinda funny.

As far as the article itself. The LA Weekly, as I recall, has a pretty anti-business, pro "Power to the People" type attitude, so I'd be a little surprised if they didn't see the Disney Corporation as a big evil behemoth regardless of their practices (up to a point). The fish comment made me laugh, though.

cstephens posted on 9/24/01:

>>Now that I know that "anti-Walt" is an acceptable term of usage on MP, I will know not to object when the term is used in various threads. Thank you.<<

From Businessweek Online...

Eisner's Challenge: Beat The Buzz

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2002/nf20020816_4160.htm

"Still, buzz can be a funny thing. When newspaper articles of boardroom confrontations mushroom, the story takes on a life of its own. Michael Eisner, in the minds of investors and other media moguls, is very vulnerable right now. And when media moguls look vulnerable, bad things can start to happen. Unsure of who might be calling the shots down the road, top producers stop bringing scripts to studios. Creative talent decides to leave. And other moguls try to take advantage of the wounded by pushing more difficult terms, figuring the besieged executive desperately needs to show his board that the company is moving forward."

Good article! Anything we can do to help with the buzz?

I say we picket and enlist in the use of bullhorns so our voices get heard. :D

Originally posted by EandCDad
Actually, as you probably remember, the moderators (or at least Tony) said they didn't feel like using the term "Anti-Walt" was name calling. It was in this thread (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showthread.php?threadid=2285&highlight=antiwalt) which was started by yourself. No real point being made by me, just find it kinda funny.

Well, I guess it means I'm consistent, as my feelings haven't changed about the issue. I do remember having made a point about the term previously. And, while MousePad apparently thinks it's perfectly ok to use that term, I still personally disagree and feel that it is name-calling so will probably continue to refer to it as such.

Originally posted by merlinjones
cstephens posted on 9/24/01:

>>Now that I know that "anti-Walt" is an acceptable term of usage on MP, I will know not to object when the term is used in various threads. Thank you.<<

Completely didn't remember that I'd said that. Oh well. Does it count as a lie if I meant it at the time and then forget later that I'd said it? In any case, I'm changing my stance now. I'll try to remember that a term I find objectionable is allowed here and try not to make comments about it. But I reserve the right to lose my little mind and still say something.


It just amazes me that some people are incapable of having a discussion about something they dislike without resorting to what I feel are insults.


And now, back to the topic of the thread...

Originally posted by Gemini Cricket
"This fish stinks at the head." - that's my favorite quote about Mike.
"Pity Eisner's propagandists." - that's mine. :D

Or how about this one from the LA Weekly for the Anti-Walt...

"Michael Eisner is the most rancid CEO in Hollywood, in America, and maybe the world."

Yep, that is a flattering comment:eek:

I think that the most important quote from the article, which pretty completely clarifies the author's perspective, has been generally left out of all these online discussions:

Full disclosure: I am in a legal dispute with Disney.


In other words, this isn't any kind of thoughtful analysis of the state of the company or its management. It is someone lashing out at a company they are involved in a dispute with.

-Jeff

Originally posted by JeffG

In other words, this isn't any kind of thoughtful analysis of the state of the company or its management. It is someone lashing out at a company they are involved in a dispute with.

-Jeff

Here's some background on the lawsuit. This article is from the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0217/cotts.php) .

>> In other words, this isn't any kind of thoughtful analysis of the state of the company or its management. It is someone lashing out at a company they are involved in a dispute with.<<

How are those ideas mutually exclusive?

Cooie: That's why CEO's are so often times dispatched quickly when things are going bad for the company. It takes at least 12-18 months for a new CEO to get things going in another direction so the sooner the old one is removed the better to start the healing process ...........

Originally posted by Jeff G
...this isn't any kind of thoughtful analysis of the state of the company or it's management.

I definitely agree the article is biased. But for me I'm not sure that automatically disqualifies it either. She's not really reporting any news that hasn't been reported. And while I think you're right in saying she wants to lash out through her writing, I still think she has plenty of interesting opinions.