How would the Disney Company have looked like if Michael Eisner had remained?

[Farerb]

What's your opinion? How would it looked like if Michael Eisner had remained as CEO and hadn't been replaced back in 2006?

[SteelbookCat]

I would still have my annual pass.

[filmbuffTX]

I don't think it would be any different. His successor Bob Iger was already in the upper echelon of Disney management when he took over as CEO. It's not like they brought in an outside person with a drastically different vision. Most of the moves Disney has made since Eisner have been reactionary to what is going on in the industry. Buying up content creators and IPs with their acquisitions of Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, etc. It was inevitable that they'd have a streaming service.

What has Bob Iger done or not done that Michael Eisner certainly would or wouldn't have done?

[Bubbles-11]

probably would've spawned many ideas for Defunctland videos

[Aclea]

As a CEO Eisner was a content creator: Iger is a franchise acquirer. Eisner prefered a large number of modestly budgeted pictures and wild cards, Iger a small number of big $180-250m bets, preferably proven properties. Eisner would have tried more franchises developed in-house from the ground up rather than buying in other companies' hits, but as with much of the late Touchstone and Hollywood films, many woud tank or at best get one disappointing belated sequel. The big difference would be no PIXAR and with that no growth of the kind that would enable them to devour and destroy Fox. Whether that would mean continuing hand drawn animation is the big intangible.

But he signed his own death warrant withe the disastrous Mike Ovitz deal and by pissing off PIXAR into looking for another distributor, so even if he had survived those storms he was losing his touch at the box office and burning too many bridges to have lasted much longer.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Not sure. I think the one big difference is that Disney wouldn't have Fox, Lucasfilm, Marvel and Pixar if it wasn't for Bob Iger. I know I give Disney crap at times, but I really do respect Bob Iger as a businessman. So I don't blame him.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Aclea

As a CEO Eisner was a content creator: Iger is a would-be franchise creator. Eisner prefered a large number of modestly budgeted pictures and wild cards, Iger a small number of big $180-250m bets, preferably proven properties. Eisner would have tried more franchises developed in-house from the ground up rather than buying in other companies' hits. The big difference would be no PIXAR and with that no growth of the kind that would enable them to devour and destroy Fox. Whether that would mean continuing hand drawn animation is the big intangible.

But he signed his own death warrant withe the disastrous Mike Ovitz deal and by pissing off PIXAR into looking for another distributor, so even if he had survived those storms he was losing his touch at the box office and burning too many bridges to have lasted much longer.

Eisner decided to shut down hand drawn animation after Treasure Planet, which is why Brother Bear and Home on the Range are so thoughtless, animators probably thought what's the point. He also treated both Musker and Clements horribly. Used Treasure Planet as a chess piece against Roy Disney and practically showed them the way out. Personally I can't imagine Disney Feature Animation would have headed in a good direction, all I can imagine is many horrible CGI films like Chicken Little.

[J999]

They'd probably be doing "direct to streaming" sequels .....

[BaronVH]

One thing is certain, the parks would be much more consumer centric and centered on the fun of the guest. There would be no requirements of requiring reservations 30 to 60 days out. I am also not so sure on Lucasfilm. The Alien Encounter attraction was made by Lucas, and they had the Star Wars thing for a very long time. He certainly was no Iger, but I suspect he really cared for the parks, and Iger let others take the fun out of them to squeeze the most people in.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by farerb

Eisner decided to shut down hand drawn animation after Treasure Planet, which is why Brother Bear and Home on the Range are so thoughtless, animators probably thought what's the point. He also treated both Musker and Clements horribly. Used Treasure Planet as a chess piece against Roy Disney and practically showed them the way out. Personally I can't imagine Disney Feature Animation would have headed in a good direction, all I can imagine is many horrible CGI films like Chicken Little.

His ego was certainly a problem, and his almost certainly self-leaked memos about Beatty's demands on Dick Tracy and Baldwin and Basinger's atrocious behavior on The Marrying Man or the tough time he gave Joe Johnston picking apart his contract during the shooting of The Rocketeer made it pretty clear that he was going to find it increasingly problematic attracting top talent or keeping it in the fold (not to mention all the problems with Miramax overspending and under-delivering, among, ahem, other things). It was on his watch the studio became known as Mousewitz and, after he banned that name, Duckau, so the toxic culture was gradually making his position more untenable.

With Iger there was a dislike for the company and the behemoth it had become that never really translated into hate for him within the industry - he always seemed almost nondescript, the perfect faceless corporate diplomat - but Eisner was widely disliked both on a personal level and as a hate figure for at least some of the public and put himself forward enough to magnify that. He had a great early 80s run at Paramount and a 80s-90s one at Disney, but he stayed too long after his luck turned to withstand his unpopularity much longer.