Roy E. Disney Resigns

[JakeLipson]

Walt Disney Co. Vice Chairman Roy E. Disney, nephew of Walt Disney, submitted his resignation from the company board on Sunday and called for Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner to step down from his own positions. The following is a reprint of his letter in which he resigned and called for Eisner to do the same.

November 30, 2003

Mr. Michael D. Eisner, Chairman
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521

Dear Michael,

It is with deep sadness and regret that i send you this letter of resignation from the Walt Disney Company, both as Chairman of the Feature Animation Division and as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors.

You well know that you and I have had serious differences of opinion about the direction and style of management in the company in recent years. For whatever reason, you have driven a wedge between me and those I work with even to the extent of requiring some of my associates to report my conversations and activities to you. I find this intolerable.

Finally, you discussed with the Nominating Committee of the Board of Directors its decision to leave my name off the slate of directors to be elected in the coming year, effectively muzzling my voice on the Board – much as you did with Andrea Van de Kamp last year.

Michael, I believe your conduct has resulted from my clear and unambiguous statements to you and the Board of Directors that after 19 years at the helm you are no longer the best person to run the Walt Disney Company. You had a very successful first 10-plus years at the company in partnership with Frank Wells, for which I salute you. But since Frank’s untimely death in 1994, the company has lost its focus, its creative energy, and its heritage.

As I have said, and as Stanley Gold has documented in letters to you and other members of the Board, this Company under your leadership has failed during the last seven years in many ways:

1. The failure to bring back ABC Prime Time from the ratings abyss it has been in for years and your inability to program successfully the ABC Family Channel. Both of these failures have had, and I believe will continue to have, significant adverse impact on shareholder value.

2. Your consistent micro-management of everyone around you with the resulting loss of morale throughout this company.

3. The timidity of your investments in our theme park business. At Disney’s California Adventure, Paris, and now Hong Kong, you have tried to build parks on the cheap and they show it and the attendance figures reflect it.

4. The perception by our stakeholders –consumers, investors, employees, distributors and suppliers – that the Company is rapacious, soul-less, and always looking for the “quick buck” rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of public trust.

5. The creative brain drain of the last several years, which is real and continuing, and damages our Company with the loss of every talented employee.

6. Your failure to establish and build constructive relationships with creative partners, especially Pixar, Miramax, and the cable companied distributing our products.

7. Your consistent refusal to establish a clear succession plan.

In conclusion, Michael, it is my sincere belief that it is you who should be leaving and not me. According ly, I once again call for your resignation or retirement. The Walt Disney Company deserves fresh, energetic leadership at this challenging time in its history just as it did in 1984 when I headed a restructuring which resulted in your recruitment to the Company.

I have and will always have an enormous allegiance and respect for this Company, founded by my uncle, Walt, and father, Roy, and to our faithful employees and loyal stockholders. I don’t know if you and other directors can comprehend how painful it is for me and the extended Disney family to arrive at this decision.

In accordance with Item 6 of Form 8-K and Item 7 of Schedule 14A, I request that you disclose this letter and that you file a copy of this letter as an exhibit to a Company Form 8-K.

With sincere regrets,
Roy E. Disney

Cc: Board of Directors

this is a sad day for animation. I too am very glad to see Eisner being pressured to leave and hopefully he will do so before the end of this year. However, I really fear for the future of WDFA without Roy E's involvement. First Eisner lets it fall into the idiotic, incapable hands of David Stanton; then it goes all-CG post-Home on the Range; and now Roy E. Disney is gone. Not good.

And what will happen to Fantasia III without Roy E? His involvement in F2000 really, really benefited the film and I don't think it would have turned out as good without him. I'm nervious.

I agree with pretty much every point Roy made in that letter. Michael Eisner did some wonderful things for the company from 1984-1994, including helping the revival of animation and seeing The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King through to completion. But since Frank Wells' death, and moreso recently, he is doing things -- closing animation studios, laying off thousands of talented people who the company could really benefit from, and letting the Pixar deal fall apart are just some examples -- which are really harmful to the company. He did some great things, but as Roy pointed out in his letter, he just doesn't know when to step down and let someone else take over to revive the company once again.

I will miss Roy's involvement in the company and don't think that it will be the same without him. I loved his work on some of the DVDs and on Fantasia 2000, perticularly. Goodbye, Roy. I hope you will return to steer the company in the right direction after Eisner is fired/replaced or retires.

[Triple HHH]

I agreed with every thing on Roy's list, especially this:

4. The perception by our stakeholders –consumers, investors, employees, distributors and suppliers – that the Company is rapacious, soul-less, and always looking for the “quick buck” rather than long-term value which is leading to a loss of public trust.

I hope Roy does come back. I also liked his prescence on the DVDs and if Fantasia III is true, I would also want him involved. Disney seems to be waiting for a lucky hit these days but they really need a hue, long-term restructuring plan as Roy stated.

[Notoriousaurus]

Incredible news. I definitely agree with every point. Eisner has made the company go to shit. If "new blood" comes into play, I hope they cam make me love this company again.

[reapersaurus]

wow - for this big of an event to be out in the open with DISNEY is amazing.

Disney usually likes to sweep everything under the rug, don't they?
It's not like them to have something this volatile and internal to be seen.

Great read, and too bad about Disney. It's gonna be a LONG time before they get good again.

[Notoriousaurus]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Disney usually likes to sweep everything under the rug, don't they?
It's not like them to have something this volatile and internal to be seen.

Yea but it is not unlike a dissatisfied ex-employee to do something like this and MAKE them display it. Hence...

"In accordance with Item 6 of Form 8-K and Item 7 of Schedule 14A, I request that you disclose this letter and that you file a copy of this letter as an exhibit to a Company Form 8-K."

...Roy's got balls. and Eisner got Own3d

[3DMan]

Disney is officially dead.

[wynterfire]

it would be great if Roy could find a way to take the Disney name with him and save what his uncle started so long ago. but i think Disney has degenerated too far into the "corperate" mentality that it would be impossible to do.

i think Eisner has done things to the company from deep inside to keep this business OUT of the "family owned" enviornment.

very sad indeed, as i loved what Walt had acomplished and Eisner destroyed. it just goes to show you how bad the Corperate enviornment has become.

i wish Roy the best of luck and commend him for the GIANT balls he has grown to stand up to such a pompous ass !!!

maybe the Disney of now will truly die and hopefully be reborn later as something great again through PROPER leadership and guidance from someone who can tap into what Walt was thinking and doing while helming his creation.

[Damian]

Incredible read. I seriously doubt it will prompt Eisner to step down though. He's probably too stuborn and/or greedy to do so. If he left now he'd always be known as the man who practically killed the Walt Disney Corporation. If he hangs around and waits and prays for something lucky to happen, then he'll be known as the man who resurrected a dying company.

I'm not too up on my executive rules and such but can't the CEO be thrown out if there is a majority vote by the board members?


Without Roy though I can only think this..

Walt Disney Company - A Disney = Big Giant 0!

Sad read indeed.

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

This is fantastic! I've known a number of people who worked for Disney under Eisner's reign and everyone has told me that it's a horrible company to work for. What a fantastic letter!

[Damian]

Originally Posted by MurDiddlyUrdler

This is fantastic! I've known a number of people who worked for Disney under Eisner's reign and everyone has told me that it's a horrible company to work for. What a fantastic letter!

How is this fantastic, it's not Eisner leaving, it's Roy Disney. Roy is simply calling for Eisner to leave. It's fantastic that Roy is going public with his displeasure but still...

[wynterfire]

Originally Posted by Damian

How is this fantastic, it's not Eisner leaving, it's Roy Disney. Roy is simply calling for Eisner to leave. It's fantastic that Roy is going public with his displeasure but still...

i think it's fantastic because i see Roy leaving as a reputation thing. Roy can't stand to see his family name being dragged into the ground and shit on, so, to me, his leaving is showing that the Disney name stands for more than just greed and domination. it shows that, like Walt's vision, the Disney name is about respectability, goodness, and trust between the name and the public.

i for one wouldn't stand around and watch some schmuck kill what my family has built, and would rather leave than be known as the guy that just stands around being stifled by the hands of some guy that has taken over his family and not be able to keep in tradition to his uncle's vision of his "kingdom".

...if only Walt could come back and clean the mouse house.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by wynterfire

i for one wouldn't stand around and watch some schmuck kill what my family has built, and would rather leave than be known as the guy that just stands around being stifled by the hands of some guy that has taken over his family and not be able to keep in tradition to his uncle's vision of his "kingdom".

Good point!
Hopefully Roy's letter does have some effect and doesn't just die with him leaving the company.

[larphillips]

Let us keep things clearly in mind here... prior to Eisner taking over Disney, the company was dead. They couldn't make a film (animated or otherwise) so save their lives and they were nearly at the point where things were to be liquidated.

The team of Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg not only saved Disney from the dustbin of history (think RKO, MGM, etc.) and kept it afloat, they returned the reputation of excellence to the name Walt Disney. They figured out not only how to maintain only the highest standards, but also how to turn a very healthy profit. They returned animation to the feature screens and pioneered computer animation with their partnership in Pixar.

Eisner may have done a lot of things wrong in the past ten years, but he did more things right. There would not be a Disney to miss or lament or fear for the future of now if it weren't for Eisner's leadership and vision. Is his time past, and are Roy's points valid? Certainly. But also don't forget how he saved that studio.

[C Roberts]

Didn't Eisner piss off the guy who went and started up Dreamworks SKG (I forget the story behind this) with Spielberg and Geffen?
If so then I'm glad Eisner's in charge because Shrek was better (as a family film at least) than anything Disney's done in the past 20 years. Keep up the good work Mike and drive more people towards finding creative freedom elsewhere.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by larphillips

Let us keep things clearly in mind here... prior to Eisner taking over Disney, the company was dead. They couldn't make a film (animated or otherwise) so save their lives and they were nearly at the point where things were to be liquidated.

The team of Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg not only saved Disney from the dustbin of history (think RKO, MGM, etc.) and kept it afloat, they returned the reputation of excellence to the name Walt Disney. They figured out not only how to maintain only the highest standards, but also how to turn a very healthy profit. They returned animation to the feature screens and pioneered computer animation with their partnership in Pixar.

Eisner may have done a lot of things wrong in the past ten years, but he did more things right. There would not be a Disney to miss or lament or fear for the future of now if it weren't for Eisner's leadership and vision. Is his time past, and are Roy's points valid? Certainly. But also don't forget how he saved that studio.

I don't think anybody is debating what Eisner DID for the company. (I was waiting for your reply since you are our "inside" man)
He certainly did save Disney from death, but what I think we're saying here is it really is time for somebody else to take charge and move Disney in a different direction. Over the past few years most of their animated movies have steadily gone down in quality. Some will argue this point and I agree there have been some very good animated movies turned out. Emporers New Groove and Lilo and Stitch to name a couple. But for every Emporers New Groove, we also have and Atlantis, Return to Neverland, Treasure Planet..etc.
Their direct-to-video sequels are a joke and are really just there to milk a few more pennies from the parents.
As for the parks, I don't have a lot of input on this since I've only ever mostly been to Disneyland. I never did understand why they opened up a park called California Adventure, IN California. Didn't make a lot of sense to me but it was an okay addition. It just doesn't have the same magical feel that Disneyland has.

I think it would be hard to get rid of Eisner after this year. With the success of Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean he probably still has a pretty good foot hold in the company. Not sure how The Haunted Mansion did this past weekend but I'm sure it will make it's money back.

I do agree that it might be time for new management, starting from the top.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by C Roberts

Didn't Eisner piss off the guy who went and started up Dreamworks SKG (I forget the story behind this) with Spielberg and Geffen?
If so then I'm glad Eisner's in charge because Shrek was better (as a family film at least) than anything Disney's done in the past 20 years. Keep up the good work Mike and drive more people towards finding creative freedom elsewhere.

When Frank Wells died, Katzenberg thought that he should get bumped up to Wells old title and position, which was essentially the Number 2 man. Eisner never formally filled Wells old position and left Katzenberg right where he was. Katzenberg, pissed, stormed off and convinced Spielberg and money-man Geffen to start up their own venture. Spielberg had nothing really to gain in this and neither did Geffen, but Katzenberg had everything to gain as well as everything to lose. Katzenberg sold them on this idea, and got his wish, which was to stick it to Disney every single chance he got.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Damian

I do agree that it might be time for new management, starting from the top.

I agree on this point as well. As much as a prick Eisner could be and as much of bastard that he was, I didn't want this to become a slam-fest without adding a dose of history.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by larphillips

When Frank Wells died, Katzenberg thought that he should get bumped up to Wells old title and position, which was essentially the Number 2 man. Eisner never formally filled Wells old position and left Katzenberg right where he was. Katzenberg, pissed, stormed off and convinced Spielberg and money-man Geffen to start up their own venture. Spielberg had nothing really to gain in this and neither did Geffen, but Katzenberg had everything to gain as well as everything to lose. Katzenberg sold them on this idea, and got his wish, which was to stick it to Disney every single chance he got.

hence all the inside-jokes in Shrek that slam Disney.
My favorite being the frying of the eggs that were in the shape of Mickey'shead.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by larphillips

I agree on this point as well. As much as a prick Eisner could be and as much of bastard that he was, I didn't want this to become a slam-fest without adding a dose of history.

Did you ever meet him during your time at Disney? If so, is he as big a prick as they say or was he a personable person?

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Damian

Did you ever meet him during your time at Disney? If so, is he as big a prick as they say or was he a personable person?

I passed him in the halls and ate in the executive dining room in his general presence, but never met him met him. In fact, he was very aloof. I had greater, more frequent contact as a lesser employee with the big three at DreamWorks than I ever had with Eisner at Disney. He was not seen as a 'team player' kind of guy and really played the role of 'king in his castle' to the hilt. Granted, when I was there, they were enduring both his cancer and the Ovitz debacle as well as shuttering the Hollywood Pictures division and still choking on ABC, so it was certainly a time for getting behind closed doors.

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Originally Posted by Damian

How is this fantastic, it's not Eisner leaving, it's Roy Disney. Roy is simply calling for Eisner to leave. It's fantastic that Roy is going public with his displeasure but still...

I was simply referring to the letter that was posted at the top of this page. It's very difficult to dispute any of the points that were made in the letter.

[PALMERLIME]

I suppose ya' all have seen this by now:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ap/20031201/107031906000.html

Seems to be a mass exodus going on. Well...okay, only 2 so far. But a shake-up appeared to be imminent and whether or not these are voluntary resignations remains to be seen in the tell-all book we will no doubt see in the not too distant future.

[papibear]

It is about goddamned time that Roy restored honor to his family name and really stuck it to Eisner for fucking up his uncle's company and ruining its name. Everything he stated were ON THE MONEY. I can't tell you how proud I am to hear of this, although I do have concerns about whether real change can now occur because of Roy's absence from the company.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by papibear

It is about goddamned time that Roy restored honor to his family name and really stuck it to Eisner for fucking up his uncle's company and ruining its name. Everything he stated were ON THE MONEY. I can't tell you how proud I am to hear of this, although I do have concerns about whether real change can now occur because of Roy's absence from the company.

You will probably see the return of Roy, even if in an honorary position, if he succeeds in ousting Eisner.

And again, I'm the last to defend Eisner, but his fucking up the company and ruining its name came after he saved the thing in the first place.

[Hardcore Legend]

It is no secret that I am a large opponent of Eisner's. However, I do give the devil his due. He did save Disney. Of course, he did so under the approval and supervision laid forth by Roy in 1984. Yet, no matter what Eisner did in the past, the corporate world is more concerned about "what have you done for me lately". The outcries against him are beginning to spill outside of the "insiders" conversation and into mainstream America. I can not tell you how many non-industry related people I have heard openly critizes Eisner for driving what was once one of the most dependable stocks into a stock always on the brink of diving.

Roy has taken the initiative to restore order to the Mouse House. What needs to be done, I don't know. But despite some fluke successes recently, Disney is in dire need of help. Disney's stores are closing every 6 months, the amusement parks are becoming more and more bare, ABC now has buzz about only at most 5 programs other than MNF, and the heart and soul of Disney, the 2D animation is now debunk.

In a perfect world, I would hope of one of three (fantasy) things to happen:

• Roy joins Katz at Dreamworks, overseeing the Animation Department as he did at Disney. Roy then focuses on excellence in story telling and simple animation, what took Disney to the top. Dreamworks then becomes the name people associate with great 2D animation, even if they are the last to produce it.
• Steve Jobs' Pixar merges with Disney, leading Jobs to step in, remove Eisner, and take role of CEO.
• Roy wins a viscious court battle over the name and rights to all things Walt created. This leaves Disney without the catalogue of films created by Walt to rape, pillage and repackage time and time again. Roy then forms "Disney Family", an organization focused on 2D animation and restoring the theme parks to a place where "dreams come true"

Of course, none of this will happen. More than likely, this will lead Eisner to create a braintrust of talented writers and producers who will roll out a string of say 3 or 4 consecutive hits, (I guess they'd have to be 3d this time) and thus save himself from the gallows for about 10 years, around the time he is forced to step down as Roy was, due to the mandatory age requirement.

Oh well, no matter what happens, I hope the "souless" company as it has been called will always remember that it started with a mouse and a boy with a dream.

[papibear]

Originally Posted by larphillips

You will probably see the return of Roy, even if in an honorary position, if he succeeds in ousting Eisner.

And again, I'm the last to defend Eisner, but his fucking up the company and ruining its name came after he saved the thing in the first place.

No question that the team of Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg, who were brought in by Roy Disney and Stanley Gold in 1984, saved the Disney company and gave it a much needed shot in the arm. Unfortunately, once Frank Wells died, and then when Jeff Katzenberg left the company, ol' Mikey was left to flounder, and flounder he has. Eisner's long outgrown his usefulness to the company and has instead become a liability. He should have left right after The Lion King.

Hell, even Nolan Ryan knew when to retire. When you can't pitch those fastballs quite so fast anymore, when your curveball isn't curving the way it used to, and when you don't have the same team you won the pennant with, it's time to hang up your glove and say thanks for the memories.

[Notoriousaurus]

Originally Posted by papibear

Hell, even Nolan Ryan knew when to retire. When you can't pitch those fastballs quite so fast anymore, when your curveball isn't curving the way it used to, and when you don't have the same team you won the pennant with, it's time to hang up your glove and say thanks for the memories.

papibear, do you mind if I make this my signature? its too great.

[papibear]

Originally Posted by Notoriousaurus

papibear, do you mind if I make this my signature? its too great.

Yes, I mind terribly. :p

Nah, I don't mind. Knock yerself out.

[wynterfire]

Originally Posted by papibear

No question that the team of Eisner, Wells, and Katzenberg, who were brought in by Roy Disney and Stanley Gold in 1984, saved the Disney company and gave it a much needed shot in the arm. Unfortunately, once Frank Wells died, and then when Jeff Katzenberg left the company, ol' Mikey was left to flounder, and flounder he has. Eisner's long outgrown his usefulness to the company and has instead become a liability. He should have left right after The Lion King.

i think this statement is the key to Eisner's usefulness. yes Eisner gave Disney a shot in the arm in 1984, BUT it took 3 guys to do it...not just Eisner. so what that shows me is that ALONE, Eisner isn't a very good leader. it took 3 guys to bring Disney back from the brink of death.

Eisner may have been a fresh voice in 84, but i don't see ANY positive credibility in anyone saying that there were positive effects from Eisner being part of Disney, and being the one to bring Disney to the height of power it had 10 years ago. cause you can CLEARLY see that Eisner, if anything, was the weak link of Katzenberg, Wells, and Eisner.

when did Disney start to fall? ...when Wells died ...and Eisner was left to rule alone. so i personally can NEVER view Eisner as anything remotely like a savior to Disney's company, so i don't think that Eisner had ANY real redeeming qualities to Disney's success. even if Disney was floundering in 84, they still consistently made decent features and CARED for what they did up until that point. it's just unfortunate that you can't make it in the world just by caring for what you do alone.

i think Eisner's just a schmuck that weaseled his way to the top of Disney by bullshitting the right people. if that's what makes a good businessman, then he is. but as far as saving Disney, i personally don't think he did it. i mean for the last 10 years he's done nothing but bring Disney down. Katzenberg still has Dreamworks pretty well on track, why can't Eisner keep Disney at a steady pace? greed, yea. inability to be a GOOD businessman, yea. not knowing how to do his job, DEFINETLY.

i guess what the simple of it is is that Eisner NEEDS a good team of guys to look any good as a leader. alone, he's just another greedy ass trying to milk the world of any greenback he can get. he CLEARLY cares NOTHING (and probably never has) for Disney's well being (dismantling the 2D dept., not upgrading the Theme parks to keep a high interest, firing the TALENTED people for cheap labor, etc.). so i cannot see Eisner as anything other than the devil in disguise.

[aintnosin]

Mike Eisner was overhead recently: "Who does this guy think he is? He acts like his uncle founded the company or something!"

[larphillips]

I'll play Eisner devil's advocate to point out that he more than lucked into his positions and that he once was able to not only succeed, but to lead great teams forward.

Notable notes:

In 1975, Eisner served ABC as Vice President for Program Planning and Development and as Senior Vice President for Prime Time Production and Development in 1976. In these posts, he fostered programs such as Happy Days, Welcome Back Kotter, Barney Miller, and Starsky and Hutch. During Eisner's years in the programming department, ABC had moved from a perennial third place among television networks to first place.

Eisner was the creative producer of SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK, which entertained and educated a generation.

The average Paramount production during Eisner's tenure cost only $8.5 million to produce, when the industry average was $12 million per picture. During this time, Paramount moved from last place to first place among the six major studios. In October 1978, half of the top ten box office attractions were Paramount films.

Films produced at Paramount during Eisner's reign include: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Saturday Night Fever, Grease, Heaven Can Wait, Ordinary People, Terms of Endearment, An Officer and a Gentleman, The Elephant Man, Reds, Flashdance, Footloose, Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop, Airplane and three installments of the Star Trek cycle.

While at Disney, Eisner was credited with the successful aquisition of Mirimax.

Eisner has received the lion's share of the credit for transforming Walt Disney Productions from a well-known but fading brand name entertainment firm into a powerful multimedia juggernaut. When Eisner came aboard as chairman and CEO in 1984, nearly 80 percent of Disney's revenue, then totaling around $1.7 billion, came from its theme parks. By 1994, corporate coffers were bulging with over $10 billion in revenues with an impressive $4.8 billion streaming in from Disney films, a hefty $3.5 billion from theme parks and a neat $1.8 billion in Disney merchandise.

The aquisition of Capital Cities/ABC is still considered a major coup and the crown jewel in Eisner's career.

[Hardcore Legend]

Well, take this last little tid-bit with a grain of salt:

According to the Drudge Report, Mr. Jobs was the object of some scorn from embattled Disney CEO Michael Eisner. That scorn took form as Mr. Esiner allegedly referring to the Pixar and Apple CEO as being a "Shiite Muslim." This was, according to second hand comments from the Drudge Report attributed to an outgoing Disney board member, a reference to Mr. Jobs having extreme views, as opposed to him actually being a Shiite Muslim. The blurb from the Drudge Report:

In hour-long interview with LA TIMES on Monday departing DISNEY board members Disney and Gold -- Gold claims 'Eisner called him and others -- including Pixar Chairman Steve Jobs -- 'Shiite Muslims.' Gold took that to mean that Eisner believed his critics were extreme in their views. A company spokeswoman said Eisner 'categorically denies' calling anyone a 'Shiite Muslim.' LA TIMES editors will not publish the 'Shiite' claim from Gold, newspaper sources tell DRUDGE. 'We didn't have solid enough grounds to put the statement in the newspaper,' Business Editor, Rick Wartzman, explained late Monday

This controversy comes in the middle of a boardroom fight between Mr. Eisner and dissenting board members who have become critical of the CEO's direction for Disney.

Even if this isn't true, I believe it is safe to say gentlemen that the preverbial gloves are off.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by Hardcore Legend

Even if this isn't true, I believe it is safe to say gentlemen that the preverbial gloves are off.

Most certainly. The minute this thing went so spectacularly public, you knew that it was time to get bloody. Usually this stuff is so behind the scenes that it takes a juice tell-all years later to finally dish the dirt. We are in for quite a show, hopefully the aftermath will be to the benefit of movie lovers.

[GlacierMonkey]

Roy will be on CNN tonight at 8:00 pm EST...I'll be watchin'.

Just finished watching the CNN interview. It was nice to see that Roy mentioned how much public support via phone calls, emails and internet discussions (like this one) there has been.

[larphillips]

Originally Posted by frulad

Just finished watching the CNN interview. It was nice to see that Roy mentioned how much public support via phone calls, emails and internet discussions (like this one) there has been.

Did Roy dish any new dirt, or speculate on his future or the future of his Uncle's company?

[Hardcore Legend]

Not really, he just basically wanted people to realize that he is not seeking to take Eisner's job. He also wanted people to make the distinction between the money the company has earned and the money the company should have earned.

Paula at the top of the interview that Disney value has gone from $1 billion in 1984 to something like $25 billion this year. Roy wanted her to understand that if a person invested $1000 in Disney in 1994, they would right now be able to cash out at $1000 today. He said that "the money would have been better in the bank".

He also cited acquisitions that Disney has made in the past 9 years that should have multiplied the companies earnings, when in truth, they have been "as flat as a pancake".

Didn't seem like a real forceful or persuasive interview, I think he was just trying to get more awareness out there about what is going to be happening (ie: the impending battle).

When asked what he would do if he failed, he said he plans on being around a long time, and isn't going anywhere.


Sure didn't seem to me like a man too old to be a part of his uncle's company.

[larphillips]

Cool... nothing I like more than a good old Hollywood fight. Especially when the lines seem so clearly drawn between good and evil.

[Damian]

Originally Posted by larphillips

Cool... nothing I like more than a good old Hollywood fight. Especially when the lines seem so clearly drawn between good and evil.

This is going to turn out to be the season finally we all expected Carnivale to be.

If he's not out for Eisner's job, then what's the impending battle going to be for? I'm certain he does't want his old job back because even if he got it, he'd be subjected to daily harrasment by Eisner. (not to mention they already filled his job with somebody from Sybase. A company in the bay. My friends father worked for the guy that just left to take Roy's old position.)

Originally Posted by larphillips

Did Roy dish any new dirt, or speculate on his future or the future of his Uncle's company?

Roy also wouldn't speculate on who he would want to take Eisner's position because he said that anyone who he could name would get drug through the mud almost immediately.

This is shaping up into one of the more interesting Hollywood business stories we've seen in a good long while. pop some corn and sit down informt of the tv to watch it all unfold!