Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I am not sure really where this fits (could put it in DLR or Animation or Live Action), but since I banter with the folks here on the WDW Board the most, I thought I'd place it here. The question is how fair is it in our American corporate culture of the 21st century to take credit for things you aren't responsible for? I know this thread would get a whole lot more action over on Lutz's site, but that isn't really the point. Let's look at two examples: DLR Prez George Kalogridis and Disney Studios head Rich Ross. Both men, the first perhaps greater because fanbois are easier than Hollywood types (yeah, I realize the double meaning!), are getting a lot of kudos for the way their business units are running. But is that fair? Really? The Disney Studios just had the first year with two films (Alice and TS3) grossing over a billion dollars at the box office. And another film (IronMan2) brought in bundles of cash, even if it was a Paramount Pictures release. But Ross wasn't responsible for ANY of it. Dick Cook, the longtime Disney Studio head who was axed last fall, was. He greenlighted the films and worked with the folks on the production and talent ends. Ross was busy putting on Hannah Montana and Suite Life of Those Two Blonde Twins marathons on The Disney Channel. Yet, you don't hear Rich (who had a rep in LA as a dude quite adept at taking credit for the work of others) saying to give the credit to the guy he ousted. Nope. You'd think Rich was responsible for Alice and TS3 and Disney purchasing Marvel and reaping the rewards of a Paramount release. You'd also think he was responsible for Depp donning the Pirate garb and mascara again when Cook was used by Iger to hook the good Captain before he was thrown to the sharks. And you'd think he was responsible for Tron Legacy, another film that should be huge for TWDC and that was put together largely on Dick's tenure. So ... just what is Rich responsible for? Jerry Bruckheimer would likely tell you in private that he's responsible for his two summer releases (Prince of Persia and Sorceror's Apprentice) doing less than expected with the latter being a flat out bomb after having perhaps one of the worst tags ever in movie history ... something about the coolest job ever. Without getting too into things, one guy is reaping the benefits of the man he replaced. Is that fair? And do you think people even pay attention? Or should? Bringing us back to P&R, we have good soldier George K. Someone who was a call to the good, old bois club in O-Town from being drummed out of the company after a disasterous run as Cynthia Harriss's No. 2 for 18 months in 2000-02. George comes to Anaheim, takes spirited advice, and charms the fans by posing for pics, kissing babies and handing out pins ... and suddenly he is lauded for everything happening at the resort. WoC, Mermaid, Carsland, Star Tours 2.0 ... almost anything you can think of were greenlit when he was No. 2 in Paris. ED GRIER, Al Lutz's old whipping boy, was running TDA in those days. Not George. Yet, you don't see folks giving any love or shoutouts to Ed, who oversaw the massive funding and construction of many of these projects. Because he didn't appear in the park regularly, he must not have cared, right? And George, because he learned (you can teach an almost 60-year-old dog) new tricks and pal'd up to the fanboi community, gets to preside over WoC's debut ... over DL's 55th ... and over Mermaid's opening next spring etc. There are things you can credit DLR's Prez for ... mostly operational decisions ... WoC did run smoothly ... except on one night in June ... and that was on him and Mary Niven ... and park hours for DCA were extended (costing labor BIG $$$) ... you can even give him some credit for going outside for GlowFest and providing the kind of hip and edgy (that may be stretching it) entertainment that DCA 1.0 was supposed to be about. But how much credit should go to execs who are just basking in the light of the decisions of others? Look ... if Tron somehow bombs, don't you think Rich will be passing the buck and saying he inherited a 'troubling project' ... if it turns out that one day WoC's platform sinks and the show has to take 4-6 months off, don't you already see Lutz saying it was due to corners being cut by the past TDA regime? So ... shouldn't the opposite be true? Just something I was thinking about the past few days ... I'd love to hear what others say ...
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper Awesome thread, Spirit. Reading other MAGICal sites really bring this to life. There were so many praising the fact that Dick Cook was let go, spouting off like he was the soul reason the studios had a little bit of trouble, and now they are raving about Ross, even though these project's were Cook's. As for George, I'm not really up to snuff about the goings on in DLR, so I'd defer to others. But I will say that Dannyboy Cockrell got a lot of praise for things going on in Epcot dealing with aesthetics, but I'm 99% sure that all of them were Jim Macphee's doing.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper And just to add to my thought, I think it has a lot to do with the majority of the Disney fan base dead set on believing the company can do no wrong, and every move they make is a good one.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But how much credit should go to execs who are just basking in the light of the decisions of others?>> Technically and ethically, none. But execs do this all the time, especially at Disney. At the risk of p*ssing off the fanbois, the most infamous Disney exec for this behavior has been and probably always will be Tony Baxter. While he can and does give credit to those responsible for projects he's worked on, Tony all too often eagerly grabs the kudos for ideas that weren't actually his, but merely small changes or additions he contributed to other Imagineers' designs. I think it's the nature of wanting to be in charge. Only successful people maintain leadership roles, hence the desperate need to appear successful at all costs. So it's only natural for power hungry individuals to steal credit for success and shun responsibility for failure. Rich Ross and Special K are no exception.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Very enlightening to the average Disney fan. And disappointing. Seems like standard corporate America, which is frequently disheartening. Not much left in the way of honor in our society. With that said, I don't think the individual has a lot of options in this situation. I think the corporate machine takes over and the choices of an individual to "do the right thing" get steamrolled. It would take a person of uncommon character, and, frankly, from another era, to go against that machine. Do they by any chance give credit to their predecessors when talk runs deeper than publicity hype?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I think that you're right that this thread would get more action at other sites, because they seem to be the ones praising the new execs for their outstanding jobs. It never fails to amaze me when MiceAge articles praise George for doing things that were set in place long before him, or simply following standard protocol. It seems like certain folks there (including the webmasters) just decided before Ed Grier took over that they wouldn't like him, and before George did that he would do well. Simply showing your face in the park does not mean that you're doing a good job. Likewise, staying in your office (you know, where the work gets done) does not mean that you're doing a bad job. Frankly, I saw a lot of improvements to the resort that can be directly attributed to Grier's administration. I really can't think of anything that's been done so far (except possibly the operations for WOC and Glow Fest) that can be attributed to George. I'm not too familiar with the Rich Ross stuff, but I think that's fairly standard practice for the industry. When a new exec takes over, the projects already in action keep going. Similar to the DCA expansion projects, they won't stop simply because the person in charge is different. I don't know his exact quotes, but did he specifically say "I" in them, or was it "we"? That allows for the credit to be more communal, which would accurately represent the efforts that actually go into taking a film from concept to theaters. As Christi said, a lot of it is imply the corporate machine behind disney. There really aren't too many individuals who have much power to change major things like this. Yah, they should have veto power, but those execs aren't going to be the ones coming up with the ideas for every single production. It worked for Eisner, but that's just not the way that most companies are run. As much as anything, I blame media (including fan sites' articles) for hyping the individuals over the teams, but that's simply how it seems to work these days. I suspect that most of these execs deal more with operational and financial decisions than the actual creative ones, yet they recieve all of the credit and the blame. I guess if it boils down to that, they can recieve someone else's glory, but any failure will be theirs. However, a lot of sites seem to ignore a source for failure and credit all success to them, which is where this trouble all stems from in the first place.
Originally Posted By Manfried Spirit, you are absolutely right on both counts. Too many times Al made Ed his whipping boy because he did not fit into Al's conception of what a resort president should. That and the fact that the other fanbois favorite, as mentioned in Skinnerbox's post, Tony Baxter, was spoon feeding Al all the negativity about Ed. Ed helped bring about a lot of the changes you see happening at DCA, and Disneyland. George has only been there a short time. Oh, and in case anyone missed it, George worked with Fitz in Paris and now that Fitz is taking over the Disneyland Resort portfolio, put two and two together please.... And yes, Dick deserves the credit for the successful films. But he also deserves the blame for the unsuccessful ones this year too. Unfortunately Dick was going to go before Bruckheimer. Hollywood, sigh.
Originally Posted By Britain In general, I agree with all points made. However, I don't think that Al Lutz praises George K for the expansion we're seeing. He's simply glad that George is making the rounds in the parks, and therefore, doesn't come off as a fake when it's time for the photo-ops.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Great reading ... I'm glad folks seem interested in the topic ... don't know how much I'll be adding with a TROPICAL STORM WARNING ... OMG!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE ... happening in SoFla and a trip to O-Town soon. But I think some very salient points were made after my OP. I would be a hypocrite -- and the Spirit is many things, but not one of those -- if I didn't agree with Skinner's point about Tony. I really like the guy one on one. Just hanging out and talking with him at EPCOT recently reminded me of the fact 'the dude gets it' ... much like I feel when I enter DLP. ... But he certainly does enjoy taking credit where it should be spread around, no doubt. I do agree that it's also part of the whole corporate America 21st century deal. Does anyone think The Weatherman wants to hear Ed Grier or Dick Cook's names? I heard that Paul Pressler's name was used as a punchline at the weekend's D23 event. I don't know what kind of job Ed Grier did. I do know the parks looked just as well maintained under his leadership. And again, he was the dude in charge in TDA when all these budgets were approved and these projects were started and many almost completed. Yet, because he wasn't seen in the parks often, he was villified. I admit, I thought the man should have been seen every once in a while. But, again, how does that pertain to the job the dude did? George is getting fanboi love and adulation, largely because he has made it a mandate to be seen out in the parks, as if that makes him love them like the fans. But how does that equate with the job he's doing? (and I am not ripping him here, I've often said the man is one of Disney's best at basic park ops) He's somehow a great leader because he's signing autographs?!?! I wonder what people would pay for some items I have (and that is rhetorical, not putting feelers out!) I do get a kick out of Lutz loving him when George actively solicted suggestions on how to 'deal with Al' in his first go around in Anaheim. But don't want to go off-topic. If you don't think this is all cutthroat business ... ask yourself why Grier wasn't invited to WoC's debut. Why not have him there? Oh yeah, because he was forced into 'retiring' to open up a No. 1 job for George, something he never had before, to reward him for being a good soldier to Rasulo and the Co. As to Manfried's point about Tom and George getting close during their tenure together in Paris, that's pretty much how I've been told things went. Without again getting into anything I specifically talked to Tony about of late, I just believe George and Tom have closer personality types. Back to Ross and Bruckheimer and Cook ... if you judge the way Disney performed at the box office this year (all with Cook product), there's no way you justify canning the guy ... especially since he was pretty beloved in the industry and that is almost unheard of. PoP also has been profittable for Disney because it did quite well overseas ... don't think it sold the merchandise expected in the states as the local Disney outlet stores are loaded with Prince of Persia merchandise ... as well as PowerRangers and G-force. So, in essence Disney had one pricey flop in Apprentice. And that's the one Ross's handpicked marketing expert did a wretched job on (not saying the film was good or bad as I never saw it). Again, it just makes you wonder about the culture of business. I think Skipper brought up the fact there are some improvements at EPCOT operationally now under Danny Cockerell, but they are things put in motion when Jim MacPhee was VP. At least, he's still with the company ... even if he won't get credit for them. I do hope Phil Holmes gets all the credit he so richly deserves for his long tenure as MK's chief Magic Maker.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 This slides slightly sideways from the topic, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think, Spirit, when you do see Apprentice. I can't put my finger on what just didn't click. Cast? Script? Neither were horrible, but something prevented it from really filling out what was a pretty clever plot with some clever references to the original animated version. The cast had some veteran powerhouses, but I just couldn't decide how I felt about the younger actors chosen. Isn't that weird? Not that I didn't like them, but that I couldn't decide! But I'm intrigued at the thought that the marketing could sink the movie, regardless of how well received the actual film was. I know nothing of the PR industry, but just assumed a good movie would be blockbuster and a bad one not so much. I've only just caught on to how much the editing can make or destroy a film! This is very educational. (I avoided business like the plague in school and am a biologist. I'm truly not an idiot, but these are subjects I've never spent much time thinking about!)
Originally Posted By Christi22222 I was responding to Spirit because he mentioned not seeing the movie, but I'm always interested in what anyone thinks about these things! Feel free to direct me to a past discussion since this is an old movie!
Originally Posted By MousDad >>But I'm intrigued at the thought that the marketing could sink the movie, regardless of how well received the actual film was.<< This problem seems to particularly hound Disney, especially WDFA, films. It's a nasty pit to climb out of once you're stuck in it.
Originally Posted By SFH Two things... When I was a DL cast member and I'd see Matt Ouimet walking around checking things out BY HIMSELF before the park opened, I would greet him to my area and chat for just a moment. I thanked him for all of the positive changes since he came aboard, and he was very modest, giving credit to others and saying that people were ready for a change. At a non-Disney employer, a Director (THE boss, under the Board) loved to publicly cite the quote that it is amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets credit. It happens at every leval of our society, all the way up to our top elected leaders - taking credit (and they get blamed unfairly, too) for what they had little or no control over.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>But I will say that Dannyboy Cockrell got a lot of praise for things going on in Epcot dealing with aesthetics, but I'm 99% sure that all of them were Jim Macphee's doing.<<<< Agreed. Including all this work in Innoventions plaza. Crockrell has done a good job of maintaining, though. Of course, he'd pass the ultimate test if SSE suddenly "finished" itself. They did it with Space Mountain, no?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<This slides slightly sideways from the topic, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think, Spirit, when you do see Apprentice.>> It may take MONTHS! ... I have a strange feeling I'll be seeing it on my flight to Asia next month! <<I can't put my finger on what just didn't click. Cast? Script? Neither were horrible, but something prevented it from really filling out what was a pretty clever plot with some clever references to the original animated version. The cast had some veteran powerhouses, but I just couldn't decide how I felt about the younger actors chosen. Isn't that weird? Not that I didn't like them, but that I couldn't decide!>> Not weird ... sometimes you have all the ingredients to bake a great cake, but they don't mesh well and you wind up thinking 'I should have had a Dole Whip instead'. ... Not making light of your comment (but had to plug the Dole Whip for old man Pierce) as I think sometimes the parts just don't add up to the whole you expect. <<But I'm intrigued at the thought that the marketing could sink the movie, regardless of how well received the actual film was. I know nothing of the PR industry, but just assumed a good movie would be blockbuster and a bad one not so much. I've only just caught on to how much the editing can make or destroy a film! This is very educational. (I avoided business like the plague in school and am a biologist. I'm truly not an idiot, but these are subjects I've never spent much time thinking about!)>> Marketing is huge in entertainment. Avatar was destined to be HUGE (despite the fact that ... well, it either outright sucks -- my opinion -- or just isn't all that -- most opinions of non-fanbois who dream of sexual escapades with blue flying aliens) because it was marketed so well. You see Studios taking advantage of everything from things like social media and viral campaigns to events like Comic Con. Tron might suck ... but it's the closest thing to a sure thing. Apprentice never had any buzz at all ... and then with a switch in marketing honchos you had someone come in and put one of the worst campaigns possible out. Maybe the film was awful (I'll let you know what I see it) ... but if so that just means the product equaled the marketing!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>But I'm intrigued at the thought that the marketing could sink the movie, regardless of how well received the actual film was.<< <<This problem seems to particularly hound Disney, especially WDFA, films. It's a nasty pit to climb out of once you're stuck in it.>> Absolutely ... they've pushed princesses down the throats of consumers for over a decade, so they make what really was a wonderful film in Princess and the Frog and it does disappointing BO. Now, they take a film that is RAPUNZEL WITH A TWIST and get all nervous that it will bomb (again, see above ... and talk about scaring boys off etc) so they rename it Tangled (lame) in a desperation move and then try and make it look like it's Shrek's Cousins ... as Pee Wee used to say 'I have a very bad feeling about this'. (Oh, and I don't care what you hear from the Jimbo Hills or the Honor Hunters of the world because WDFA has that same feeling as well ... and Iger has basically said heads will role if this doesn't do Pixar money ... and it won't! Take it to the bank!)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Two things... When I was a DL cast member and I'd see Matt Ouimet walking around checking things out BY HIMSELF before the park opened, I would greet him to my area and chat for just a moment. I thanked him for all of the positive changes since he came aboard, and he was very modest, giving credit to others and saying that people were ready for a change. At a non-Disney employer, a Director (THE boss, under the Board) loved to publicly cite the quote that it is amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets credit. It happens at every leval of our society, all the way up to our top elected leaders - taking credit (and they get blamed unfairly, too) for what they had little or no control over.>> I can only say I agree ... and add that unlike Matt, George wants the credit and the spotlight ... to what degree he'll share it, I can't say. But he's very adept at taking credit ... and taking is what gets execs up the ladder.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<Marketing is huge in entertainment. Avatar was destined to be HUGE (despite the fact that ... well, it either outright sucks -- my opinion -- or just isn't all that -- most opinions of non-fanbois who dream of sexual escapades with blue flying aliens) because it was marketed so well.>> I don't agree Avatar sucks. It's a popcorn flick, and a damn entertaining one at that. It was a true event film, and I for one am really glad I saw it in theaters. That being said I'm not going to buy it on Blu Ray, but still, in the theater it was a spectacle. <<Tron might suck ... but it's the closest thing to a sure thing.>> I've got faith in Tron. Mostly just because of Jeff Bridges.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<so they make what really was a wonderful film in Princess and the Frog>> Eh, can't agree here, Spirit. PatF was a very hollow film for me. Bad character development, a basically non-existent villain, and bland music. But hey, to each their own. << Iger has basically said heads will role if this doesn't do Pixar money ... and it won't! Take it to the bank!>> They're crazy to think it'll do Pixar money. Pixar is the leader of the industry currently. That being said, I'm much more excited to see Tangled than PatF. The name change was a success! (Kidding. Not about being excited for the film, about the name change)
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<When I was a DL cast member and I'd see Matt Ouimet walking around checking things out BY HIMSELF before the park opened, I would greet him to my area and chat for just a moment. >> I had the same experience with my brief time at Epcot with Mcphee(is it Macphee or Mcphee, I never remember). It's nice when the boss takes a genuine interest.
