"They let their partnership with Pixar collapse - and Pixar has produced the only decent "Disney" fare in about the past decade."
Did Disney really lose that battle? Consider that Disney owns all the rights to every feature Pixar has made for Disney. Especially the lucrative home video video rights. Along with other provisos, Pixar wanted those back in order to continue to make movies for them. Disney said no. They're keeping their chips. Now, imagine a few years from now when CGI animation is now passe', and everybody is releasing CGI films. Pixar is now operating in a much more crowded marketplace, and as an independent, doesn't have the sequel rights nor the home video rights to its past work to bring in much needed capital. Imagine Lucas trying to build ILM and Lucasfilm and Skywalker Ranch without the revenues from his SW trilogy. Imagine Walt Disney trying to branch out and experiment without owning the rights to Mickey Mouse. That's where Pixar goes from here. Disney, however, has seven more bullets they can fire onto home video whenever they want, and rake in the dough. Did Disney really lose? If you count winners and losers by dollars and cents, only time will tell who the ultimate loser in the Pixar / Disney deal was.
"The Eisner/Katzenberg mess (look who ended up staying)"
Roy Disney didn't especially care for Katzenberg, at least, didn't care for Katzenberg trying to take credit for the success of DFA. It can be argued that the death of Frank Wells was a far, far bigger blow to Disney than the loss of Katzenberg. Katzenberg's hand-drawn films certainly weren't much to crow about. I'll take Tarzan over El Dorado, and Lilo and Stitch over Spirit, any day.
"the Miramax rupture"
Seems odd to call this a loss for Disney right now, since Disney will own the entire Miramax library, and will be able to make money off those films for decades to come. Miramax and Disney were never a good fit, because people who had agendas against certain Miramax titles always called them "Disney" films. Notice, you never heard people calling "Shakespeare in Love" a Disney release, or "The English Patient". As soon as Miramax did something controversial, certain loud voices in the media suddenly used the Disney association as a weapon. "Disney's Priest", "Disney's Kids", "Disney to release anti-catholic film, Dogma", "Disney to release Michael Moore film", etc.
So once again, did Disney lose?
"You name it, Disney has ended up on the losing side of the equation."
Look, I think the company is being run today like some sort of media Wal-Mart, which can't have good long-term effects on the perception of the company, but the frustrating thing for Roy and Stanley and the rest of us "Save Disney" supporters is that Disney has been doing pretty well financially the last two years. Would Disney be stronger giving up the rights to the existing mega-hit Pixar films in exchange for more films from them, or is Disney better off keeping the rights and making their own CGI films, seeing as how the CGI rage is certainly going to die down, once companies start making more and more CGI toon dreck? We don't know yet.
As for Blu-Ray -- Disney and Playstation are enormously powerful media giants. If both have adopted it along with others, that is not to be taken lightly.
As for Divx, nobody could have sold that format. Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts could have gone door to door trying to sell that concept - paying money every time you tried to play a film - and it would have failed. When I got into DVD, the same Disney titles available for Divx (i.e. Mary Poppins, George of the Jungle, etc.) were also available for DVD. I take your word for it that Disney may have fought DVD, but it sure doesn't look like it was a long battle.