In this weeks "News + Notes" section of that proud bastion of show biz journalism known as Entertainment Weekly, they have a sidebar discussing potential CEO's to fill in once Eisner gets the boot (and he will, it is just a question of when and with what harm to the company). Included on the list, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, is Walt Disney. It lists his possible "pros" and his "cons". Included in his cons, the fact that he is indeed dead, and then this curious bit: "Also, his live action films sucked." Hmmm. I realize that modern kids may only know of Walt's live-action film work from remakes and from the piss-poor choices Buena Vista has made in regards to releasing Walt's quality films on home video...but shouldn't an entertainment journalist know what the hell he or she or it is talking about before condemning someone's body of work in such a fashion? These films "sucked"?: Treasure Island 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Darby O'Gill and the Little People Mary Poppins So Dear to my Heart Pollyanna Old Yeller The Three Lives of Thomasina Third Man on the Mountain The Light in the Forest Swiss Family Robinson The Parent Trap The Living Desert (Oscar-Winner, added to National Film Registry) The Vanishing Prairie (Oscar-Winner) The African Lion White Wilderness (Oscar Winner) Secrets of Life Jungle Cat Those Calloways The Happiest Millionaire (Uncut Version) His low-budget, made-for-TV comedies released theatrically sucked...no one is going to argue the greatness of The Ugly Dachsund or Monkeys Go Home or The Monkeys Uncle, etc etc etc. But I don't blame Lucas for making the Ewok movies and the SW Christmas special. I don't blame Spielberg for some weak "Amazing Stories" episodes or SeaQuest episodes. Walt Disney made many damned fine live-action films, it's not his fault that Michael Eisner has left them rotting in the vaults while he orders up CGI remakes of Dumbo.