Could someone fill me in? There was a time period 1997-2001 that we didn't get a chance to go to Disney....UGH! Don't remember what rides he created and why he is so loathesome to Disney die hards? I heard he wasn't interested in refurbishing the classic rides and just left them looking kind of shabby and out-dated but that's all.
Could you clue me in to the horrors?
This is all I could find out in my quick search for that time period you were looking for:
Wells died in a helicopter crash in 1994 (The Lion King, which went on to become the most successful hand-drawn animated picture of all time, was dedicated to his memory). Shortly thereafter, Katzenberg resigned and formed DreamWorks SKG with partners Steven Spielberg and David Geffen because Eisner would not appoint Katzenberg to Wells' now-available post. Instead, Eisner recruited his friend Michael Ovitz, one of the founders of the Creative Artists Agency, to be President, with minimal involvement from Disney's board of directors (which at the time included Oscar-winning actor Sidney Poitier, the CEO of Hilton Hotels Corporation Stephen Bollenbach, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, Yale dean Robert A. M. Stern, and Eisner's predecessors Raymond Watson and Card Walker). Ovitz lasted only 14 months and left Disney in December 1996 via a "no fault termination" with a severance package of $38 million in cash and 3 million stock options worth roughly $100 million at the time of Ovitz's departure. The Ovitz episode engendered a long running derivative suit, which finally concluded in June 2006, almost 10 years later. Chancellor William B. Chandler, III of the Delaware Court of Chancery, despite describing Eisner's behavior as falling "far short of what shareholders expect and demand from those entrusted with a fiduciary position..." found in favor of Eisner and the rest of the Disney board because they had not violated the letter of the law (namely, the duty of care owed by a corporation's officers and board to its shareholders).[3]
Thats from the Wiki.
Im looking into it more
- 2013 Trip Report!
- My Int3ractiv3 Trip R3port '12 - CLICK HERE!
[url='http://www.wdwforgrownups.com/forum/pick-mases-dinner-disney']- My Interactive Trip Report '11[/url]
I think there's a pervading idea that Michael Eisner was far more about making money, than about standing as sentry over the Disney legacy, and that many of his ideas and projects were cheaply executed. I think most fans blame him squarely for what they see as the monstrosity that was Disney California Adventure (which is now being completely overhauled. I have seen it described as having a "strip mall" feel in its original style.) Other than that...I've never been in the innerworkings of Disney fandom. We just love Disney. So I'm not really sure, and I look forward to seeing some of the answers posted here as well.
I agree with Lizzy B. and on top of that Eisner's appointment came at a very tumultuous time in the corporation. Roy Disney had left and there was talk of a hostile take over. If you read the company chronology of 1984 http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/disnehis/disn1984.htm you'll get an idea of the troubles going on that led to the appointment of Michael Eisner.
Eisner led the company into an era of unprecedented growth, however in doing so he left behind several of the things that made Disney so special. Though he can be credited with some milestones during his tenure, in general I believe that customer service and general upkeep suffered. In his later tenure it seemed like all he cared about was the money and he had no connection to the legacy of his position. Now, as a CEO he had a legal obligation to the company shareholders to make a profit, however what many don't understand is that a lot of Disney Shareholders are a sentimental bunch who care about how that money gets made as well.
Towards the end of Eisner's tenure Roy E. Disney led what could best be described as a shareholder revolt with his website savedisney.com, I had one of their bumper stickers on my car. Eventually Roy and his supporters were able to oust Eisner and make peace with Bob Iger giving those sentimental stake holders a glimmer of hope once again.
I think with Eisner... it was a good thing and a bad thing. I personally didnt see him as what the media and some of the stock holders made him out to be. He did save a lot of things... and if I remember right... one of them was the cartoons. He wanted those Disney movies back, and if I remember right... it was kinda because of him. I could be totally wrong... but he made Little Mermaid and Lion King happen. Granted... im not 100% on this... but yeah. California Adventure was all him... but I think its turning around now. Not because of him... but at least its there.
- 2013 Trip Report!
- My Int3ractiv3 Trip R3port '12 - CLICK HERE!
[url='http://www.wdwforgrownups.com/forum/pick-mases-dinner-disney']- My Interactive Trip Report '11[/url]
I think he was in a hard place. Disney was diving toward the red, and he needed to do something. People talk about how he ruined the parks, blah blah. I think if he hadn't had done what he did, there would be no Disney. 
I makes me cry just thinking about it!. But he didn't do EVERYTHING right, I will give you that.
Viva La Quinta Brigada - y Disney!
I think he was in a hard place.
Absolutely he was in a hard place, and some really great things happened while he was in charge! I don't think that he was the devil, but I think that his time had run it's course. Sometimes when you're in the middle of the forest you simply lose sight of the trees. 
It pretty much that way for anyone in a posstion of power isn't it? The bad things are remembered the most while the good things are overlooked alot.