"The Wild"

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 19th, 2006, 9:49 pm

You know, just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to be rude.

Post by **Movie-Man** » April 19th, 2006, 10:03 pm

ShyViolet wrote:You know, just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to be rude.

Well it's just that you're the first person I know who likes Eisner, I mean the guy almost killed 2-D animation.

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » April 19th, 2006, 11:07 pm

Movie-Man wrote:Well it's just that you're the first person I know who likes Eisner, I mean the guy almost killed 2-D animation.

Ya know - the guy also ushered in 2-D's hay-day. You must remember that Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Aladin, etc were all produced entirely under the Eisner administration. Disney World became the nation's four most visited theme parks under his vision. Eisner did great things for Disney - he just made poor choices toward the end and outlived his Glory Days.

Post by **askmike1** » April 20th, 2006, 1:09 am

Movie-Man wrote:Are you damn stupid? The guy almost killed 2-D animation.

You know what? If it weren't for Eisner, there would be no Disney right now. He is the one that prevented a hostile takeover not once, but twice. It was because of him, Disney is still around today. It is because of him that we got to see such films as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin & The Lion King. It is because of him we got such great theme park attractions as Expedition Everest & Tower of Terror and such theme parks as Animal Kingdom. It is because of him that pretty much from the early 90s until today (with the exception of 2001-2003), ABC was a ratings leader. It is because of him we got such live action movies as Narnia & Pirates. It is because of him that Disney stock went from pretty much nothing to where it is today. It is because of him that Times Square is now a family friendly place and not a crime infested pornland.

Look at the big picture. You say he killed 2-D animation. 2-D is an art style, not an animation category. Walt moved from black and white to color films. He moved from silent films to animated movies with music and talking. Would you have complained about him? Art styles will always change & you have to acknowledge that. How many films in the past 6 years have used the Xerox method? How many from the past 10 years were completely hand drawn? Technology will change & art styles will change, as they always have.

Post by **Movie-Man** » April 20th, 2006, 1:24 am

askmike1 wrote:
Movie-Man wrote:Are you damn stupid? The guy almost killed 2-D animation.
You know what? If it weren't for Eisner, there would be no Disney right now. He is the one that prevented a hostile takeover not once, but twice. It was because of him, Disney is still around today. It is because of him that we got to see such films as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin & The Lion King. It is because of him we got such great theme park attractions as Expedition Everest & Tower of Terror and such theme parks as Animal Kingdom. It is because of him that pretty much from the early 90s until today (with the exception of 2001-2003), ABC was a ratings leader. It is because of him we got such live action movies as Narnia & Pirates. It is because of him that Disney stock went from pretty much nothing to where it is today. It is because of him that Times Square is now a family friendly place and not a crime infested pornland.

Look at the big picture. You say he killed 2-D animation. 2-D is an art style, not an animation category. Walt moved from black and white to color films. He moved from silent films to animated movies with music and talking. Would you have complained about him? Art styles will always change & you have to acknowledge that. How many films in the past 6 years have used the Xerox method? How many from the past 10 years were completely hand drawn? Technology will change & art styles will change, as they always have.

No, without Walt, there would be no Disney and Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean are better off without Eisner and thank god he resigned and replaced himw ith someone and hopefully isn't worse than Eisner, besides you guys like him but other people don't even animation fans, they hate him and so do I.

Post by **Macaluso** » April 20th, 2006, 1:32 am

Was that even english?

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 20th, 2006, 1:38 am

You know what? If it weren't for Eisner, there would be no Disney right now. He is the one that prevented a hostile takeover not once, but twice. It was because of him, Disney is still around today. It is because of him that we got to see such films as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin & The Lion King. It is because of him we got such great theme park attractions as Expedition Everest & Tower of Terror and such theme parks as Animal Kingdom. It is because of him that pretty much from the early 90s until today (with the exception of 2001-2003), ABC was a ratings leader. It is because of him we got such live action movies as Narnia & Pirates. It is because of him that Disney stock went from pretty much nothing to where it is today. It is because of him that Times Square is now a family friendly place and not a crime infested pornland.

Amen, Mike!

I always like to think that if it wasn't for Eisner, we would still be stuck watching The Sword and the Stone and Robin Hood on UPN and WPIX. And the latest ride in Walt Disney World would still be "Innerspace" and "The Country Bears". The Disney Live Action library would still only consist of films like The Apple Dumpling Gang and Tron....(I just thank the Lord I was born at the very end of the Ron Miller era) There would be no Pretty Woman, Three Men and a Baby, Dick Tracy, Pirates of the Carribean, The Sixth Sense, Signs, Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love, The Joy Luck Club, Kill Bill, The Royal Tennenbaums, well, you get the picture. Still wish Eisner had never come to Disney? And if you ever read books about this subject, you'll see that Eisner didn't just turn on a switch that magically restored Disney...it took a few years of work, hard work. Guess what? It was Eisner who was working damn hard so that Disney could be great again. They didn't do it all at once and there were quite a few failures in those early years before Disney took off like a rocket. But it happened, and when it did, it was amazing thing...it still is.

If not for Eisner we would still be stuck with that 1962 version of DisneyLand that some fans still advocate bringing back. I sure hope THAT never happens.

Oh, so sorry, no Tower of Terror, Expedition: Everest or Disney's Animal Kingdom. Rocket Ships anyone? How about a room full of mechanical singing birds?

Like AskMike said, styles are always changing. Technically The Little Mermaid was the last Disney feature to be COMPLETELY hand-drawn. (not counting the special effects in Basil or Oliver and Company) Did Eisner also force Pixar never to make any hand-drawn cartoons? Or DreamWorks or Blue Sky? What about Aardman? How could they make those claymation films, why weren't they making 2d? There are ALL KINDS of art forms that have merit, choosing one over another doesn't make you an evil person.

And lastly...Sprited Away still won the Oscar even after Eisner said he thought 2d was dead. I think you're giving him a lot more power than he actually had.

No, without Walt, there would be no Disney and Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean

I doubt Walt would have gone for Johnny Depp's "unique" interpretion of Captain Jack Sparrow.

Post by **Movie-Man** » April 20th, 2006, 2:14 am

One more thing, John Lasseter at Pixar said that he never liked Eisner so he sounds like my kind of guy too bad he went for the idiotic decision of merging Pixar with Disney.

Post by **askmike1** » April 20th, 2006, 2:55 am

Let's break this post apart piece by piece....

Movie-Man wrote:No, without Walt, there would be no Disney

I'll give this one to you. I guess it would be kind of hard to have Disney without Walt Disney.

However, you fail to acknowledge that without Eisner, Disney would not still be in existance today.

and Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean are better off without Eisner

This makes no sense. Both "The Black Pearl" & "The Lion The Witch & The Wardrobe" were made under Eisner's tenure. Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

other people don't even animation fans, they hate him and so do I.

Hey, all the cool kids are doing it, I should too.

Most people do not hate Eisner. Like it or not, the evidence is there. You might say.....but what about the 40% no confidence vote a few years ago.
1) 40% is not a majority. Most of these people were blindly following Roy anyway without actually looking at both sides.
2) Since then (and before then), he has always gotten under 10%, proving most Disney stock holders approve his performance.

And most of the people who do say they hate him will acknowledge that as a whole (ie, looking at his entire 20+ year career as CEO), they are glad he was there.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 20th, 2006, 3:01 am

Also, Eisner picked Bob Iger to run the studio. If Eisner was so bad, why then is Iger doing such a great job? (Even Eisner-haters have said that he is.) Why is Roy suddenly changing his tune about Iger after his website cruelly ridiculed the guy as Eisner's puppet, pinnochio, whatever you want to call him. Why did Roy threaten to sue Disney because of Iger's appointment, and now approves of Iger like nothing ever happened? Does this seem even a little inconsistent?

1) 40% is not a majority. Most of these people were blindly following Roy anyway without actually looking at both sides.

Exactly. SaveDisney.com....yeesh, now that was scary. How a website that's so unprofessional with such horribly written material could win over so many people. Disturbing.

the idiotic decision of merging Pixar with Disney.

Well, if you want to go by what "most" animation fans think, that's generally not the consensus.

- the guy also ushered in 2-D's hay-day

Uh...I think that would be heyday, Brandon.

(J/K)

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » April 20th, 2006, 3:35 am

ShyViolet wrote:
- the guy also ushered in 2-D's hay-day

Uh...I think that would be heyday, Brandon. (J/K)

=P This is why I spell check stuff I send to the front page.

Post by **Ben** » April 20th, 2006, 7:08 am

Movie-Man wrote:Besides you guys like him but other people don't even animation fans, they hate him and so do I.

Again, I came up with "EAT" and "FONDLE"... You could add "CHASE"?

------------------------------------------

Yeah, we have a bunch of Eisner supporters here "Movie-Man" (if indeed that is your real name), who obviously applaud the guy for what he did (with Frank Wells and Jeffrey Katzenberg) from 1984 onwards.

When Wells died and JK "left" in 1994, things started to slip, but Eisner still made some good decisions, like bringing in ESPN/ABC (and therefore Bob Iger) and handling the whole Comcast/Save Disney thing expertly.

----------------------------------------

As for CGI, well, I strongly believe that had Walt still been around in the early 1980s, we would have seen CGI films come into fashion by 1985. Once he got into live action, he joked with the Nine Old Men that "I can take a crew and make a movie in six months - you guys take two years!" and he was always very tongue-in-cheek about shutting the unit down.

Of course, that was the company's heritage and he continually struggled to keep animation alive at the Studio. When Sleeping Beauty failed, Roy Sr wanted to squash the animation unit down in size, but thanks to Ub Iwerks, the Xerox process was developed and animation could continue at a smaller budget. Walt didn't like the all-black lines of the Xerox process, but it allowed the features to keep coming. That was a process that didn't make the look of the films better, but at least meant we had such gems as 101 Dalmatians and The Jungle Book.

Walt was getting deeply into Animatronics by the time he died, and was heavily looking to computers to run those and EPCOT (as he originally envisioned it)...there's absolutely no doubt that when he saw those first CGI tests in the 1970s that Walt would have started training his artists to work in CGI - the logical "next step" in animation - again perhaps not the best look, but it would have kept the ball rolling.

-----------------------------------------

Finally, you seem to be very much in favor of creating arguments, Movie-Man. If you continue to force your opinions in a way that could be seen as being rude (and we will not tolerate bad language here either) then we will have no choice but to ask you to leave.

Also, stop with the long, long, loooooooooong quotes - a simple choice line or paragraph is all that is needed - if anything - in responding to the post above. It's a pretty linear thing, a forum, and obvious to what you are replying to!

Thanks, kids. Play nice.

Post by **Dacey** » April 20th, 2006, 8:34 am

Well said, Ben.

Post by **ShyViolet** » April 20th, 2006, 11:37 pm

Walt wouldn't have started training his artists to work in CGI - the logical "next step" in animation - again perhaps not the best look, but it would have kept the ball rolling.

Uh, you mean he would have trained them, right?

Karey was brought in by DWs to input some American sensibility

By Karey....do you mean Katzenberg?

Post by **Ben** » April 21st, 2006, 4:01 pm

No, I mean Karey.

Check your credits again.