Michael Eisner compares himself to Lincoln, doesn’t care about technology

March 29th, 2007

NewTeeVee’s interview with Michael Eisner just went live this afternoon, and already it’s sparked some disgruntled grumbling (see the comments on the story, and Michael Arrington’s Twitter account [UPDATE: Arrington’s got a full post up now–it’s basically “Blah blah blah, advertising is bad.”] Which is interesting, because when I read the story (full disclosure: I’m a NewTeeVee contributor), I found it refreshing that Eisner really doesn’t seem interested in pretending that he’s anything *but* big/old media. He actually seems to be taking pains to demarcate what he does, what he’s interested in, and what he plans to do with Veoh and Vuguru, from new/”user-generated” media. Exhibit A:

“Well, if old media includes Greek mythology and Shakespeare and Eugene O’Neill and Happy Days, I’m thrilled to be coming out of old media, because old media means you understand motivation, and character, and where the denouement goes, and how to develop interests between characters, and make people laugh, and cry – and new media means technological advancement and expertise in distribution and exhibition, great. So far it hasn’t meant original produced professional high-grade quality entertainment.”

Read: “I’m not interested in redefining narrative. I’m also not convinvced that every tool I know how to leverage — movie stars, 120 minute running times, cameras that cost more than the average bar mitzvah fund — have been rendered meaningless by a six-pack of toilet paper and a cellphone cam.”

Exhibit B:

NewTeeVee: What specifically attracts you about web content?
Eisner: I don’t look at it as web content…I don’t care about the technology, except that it opens up eyes to content.

Read: Frankly, I’m not interested in watching what you do in your dorm room. I’m interested in delivering *my* traditional content to your dorm room, and I don’t think you’re smart enough to reject it on principle. I think you only watch “user-generated” content because professionally-produced content usually isn’t free/easily obtained; I think, if you had to choose between Dick in a Box and a 34 second clip of ladybugs having sex, you’d pick the one produced by the multinational corporation. That’s why this business is attractive to me, because Dick in the Box is the option I know how to make and monitize.

And, finally, Exhibit C:

“I don’t see Viacom as a heavy, I don’t see Google as a heavy either, it’s just the next evolution of the technology. There’s no heavy here, there’s no evil here. It’s just realizing that we’re now ready for the professional world to come in.”

Read: “You guys had your fun with your stolen content, but that’s over now. As of today, you’re free to create and upload your Web 2.0 metajokes and AP American History extra credit projects, but you can’t stop me and my buddies from coming in and trying to make some money off you. We’re not bad people — this is just the way capitalism works. But you’ll figure that out when you graduate.”

I’m not going to argue that Eisner’s use of outside references — comparing himself to Abe Lincoln, pledging lifelong Happy Days superfandom — isn’t inherently douchey. There’s no question that Eisner is annoying, and surely more so to anyone particularly passionate about keeping certain corners of the internet free from corporate corruption. But is he wrong?

Entry Filed under: Twitter, Hollywood, Death of Print, The Internet, Movies, YouTube, Online Video