What Mickey Views claimed initially was that Iger said the ride is "boring". What imagineer97 is claiming is that Iger said the plot of the ride isn't clear. Those are definitely not the same things.
It's possible to find something entertaining without understanding everything that is going on. Likewise, it is also possible for something to have a 100% clear plot but to also be dull as dirt. Boring and confusing are two completely different types of criticism.
As far as creativity goes, Iger is in fact a dolt. But even on the business side of things, he's not nearly as intelligent as a lot of his supporters try to paint him. Discussing this further will inevitably lead to this post being deleted however as it veers offtopic.
This is a good point and it's what makes me a bit leery of this information. If it were the scenery he had a problem with, then I could buy that being a thing that came up in the discussion. What is shown in CGI ridethroughs isn't always accurately replicated in real life, so perhaps he might say "this doesn't look as good as I expected". But as the CEO, he SHOULD already know full well what the story is and how it relates to each scene without needing to step foot inside the building.
That said, it's important to point out that it isn't a certainty that Iger has bothered to actually keep an eye on the attraction's development. He has a general lack of any interest in the parks. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he had in fact been mostly ignoring the specifics of its development before that supposed on-site tour.
That said, I was also told that Iger supposedly cares about the success of this ride on some significant level. He was a key figure in the decision to remove Splash in the first place. And I gather he even had a hand in raising the budget for the replacement after public reaction towards TBA was much more negative than expected. So while he's usually very disinterested and hands-off with projects like this, I could see this being a rare exception.