Originally Posted By idleHands "ORWEN: I'm not sure. But does this mean we might end up getting a Star Trek attraction some day?" LOL!! Actually, the Star Trek connection is a bit scary, given that Michael Eisner was the Paramount executive instrumental in getting the ST franchise resurrected with the first film.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>Remember what happened to Captain Kirk, when he became Admiral Kirk? I'd hate to see Tony face a similar fate.<< Oooo! That'd be awful! Seeing Tony battling a madman intent on destroying a world so he can get back to some kind of paradise in a quantum string, and ending with Tony dying by falling off a steel catwalk and facedown in a rocky canyon. That's definitely something we don't want happening to Tony Baxter!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I have followed Disney more or less since about 89 and am familiar with the history since say 82. As a shareholder, (be my stake very small compared to what Steve Jobs will soon have) I was never once, not one single time even mildly concerned about Comcast. In fact when I heard it on FOX NEWS I gave a huge belly laugh out loud! You have to understand that the average significant Disney shareholder isn't like the average shareholder of other major corporations. The Disney shareholders are far more concerned with the longevity of vitality of the company than they are the possibility of making a fast dollar on a buyout. Most people understand that (as with Universal how tragic) the one worst thing that could ever happen to the Disney Company would be for the company to be bought out or taken over. For shortly thereafter (the parts almost always worth more than the whole) the parks would be sold off to Mr.A, ESPN would go to Mr.B, ABC would go to Mr. C, and on down the line. This would truly be the disaster of the Disney brand...not just that but it would also be the end of everything that is just as sacred to the shareholder as it is to the original poster of this topic. All would be lost forever. I don't know about Bill Iger, so far the initial indications are that he is going to be fantastic, but perhaps the LAST GREAT ACT that Michael Eisner performed for all of us ( and let us not forget that there were MANY over the years ) is that he protected the company from the possibility of a takeover or buyout by *laughs again* Comcast. Oh? CEO's can't prevent that, its up to the shareholders... I beg to differ, he could because of his position and power within the company and board. So, I appluad Michael and welcome Bill, and I am hanging on to MY seat to see what Steve is going to do on the board.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Seeing Tony battling a madman intent on destroying a world so he can get back to some kind of paradise in a quantum string, and ending with Tony dying by falling off a steel catwalk and facedown in a rocky canyon.< I can't believe I'm going to contribute this and give away my geekdom, but all of the above happened well after Kirk was busted back to captain. He was only Admiral Kirk in the 2nd through the 4th movies. At the end of the 4th, he was busted back to the position he so richly deserved - Star Ship Captain. I'm so embarrassed that I have this knowledge. . .
Originally Posted By danyoung Ahh, you may be right. So there, I'm NOT the ultimate Star Trek geek!!! (I've never been so happy to be wrong about something!)
Originally Posted By idleHands "So, I appluad Michael and welcome Bill, and I am hanging on to MY seat to see what Steve is going to do on the board." Who's Bill?
Originally Posted By idleHands It's all good, DVC Dad. And speaking of such, I heard a good one from Gail Sheehy, author of "Passages." In an interview with Gail for her new book, about women redefining their lives after 45, she referred to "adult" toys as "BOB": Battery Operated Boyfriends. LOL!! Needless to say, whenever I now hear the name Bob, I get an instant mental image of Good Vibrations on Valencia Street. =:^)
Originally Posted By idleHands That would be quite apropos. One of the most popular BOBs is a rabbit. =8^)
Originally Posted By idleHands OK, see what just happened? I got all befuddled, and confused one brand with another! *slaps forehead* I could blame BOB for this, but that would just make it even more pathetic. 8^(
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<You have to understand that the average significant Disney shareholder isn't like the average shareholder of other major corporations. The Disney shareholders are far more concerned with the longevity of vitality of the company than they are the possibility of making a fast dollar on a buyout.>> I think you're romanticizing a perceived difference between a "magical" company and "real" companies. What percentage of Disney stock is owned by fans who bought the stock because of their fond memories of Herbie, Hayley Mills, and Adventures Through Inner Space vs. the rest of the world's impassionate stockholders who own stock to make money -- and who seem completely happy to go for short-term vs. long-term gain? Eisner didn't get away with horrible direct-to-DVD movies, crappy Disney Stores, and cut-rate theme parks by magic. He got away with it because those business decisions produced short-term gains. He crowed about how profitable the company was under his management, and stockholders bought into it. I don't think your "average" stockholder understood the damage he was doing to the company's biggest asset: its reputation for quality. Either that or they just didn't care. The company was making money. I'm not sure they still do understand or care. But there was enough of an internal conflict about the direction of the company, and enough media attention on the minority Disney geek shareholders, to effect some management change. Here's hoping that that change produces a better quality product overall than we've seen in the past several years, and that the stockholders will be intelligent and patient enough to allow the spending that will result in the long-term gain.
Originally Posted By idleHands <<Here's hoping that that change produces a better quality product overall than we've seen in the past several years, and that the stockholders will be intelligent and patient enough to allow the spending that will result in the long-term gain.>> Ditto! IMHO, I feel Iger had no other choice but to purchase Pixar, in order to hasten that "return to quality." The bottom line at Disney has been pumped up artificially by cost cutting for soooo long, that there's not a lot left to cut anymore. And the stock price is still languishing. What other direction does Iger and the Board have, but to return to driving growth as a means of profitability, instead of reducing costs? And driving growth in an entertainment-based company cannot be done without creatives. You know, animators, filmmakers, Imagineers... all those folks who've been basically treated like recycled paper products by the strat planners and bean counters for the past decade. It's time for Disney to quit this "Incredible Shrinking Conglomerate" nonsense, and get back to earning money the old-fashioned way: producing instead of reducing.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad << the minority Disney geek shareholders >> Is geek being used as a good or a bad name calling device here? Becuase pretty soon an incredibly successful geek will be the largest single shareholder.
