News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

[Vegas Disney Fan]

There is such thing as a "poor use of money". I can spend thousands on furniture and appliances, but that doesn't matter much if I didn't spend the money for a house to put it in.

I guess I just don’t see that.

DCA = money well spent.
Galaxy’s edge(s) = money well spent.
Pandora = money well spent.
Shanghai = money well spent
DL Paris improvements = money well spent
Hong Kong DL improvements = money well spent

Not saying I’d have done everything the same but it’s not like he’s leaving us with bad parks like Eisner did with DCA, HS, AK, DL Paris, and HKDL that all needed billion dollar investments by the next CEO to survive. Epcot is the only park that will need major investments and is already a work in progress

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

While prices rose under Iger, he was smart enough to know not to push them like they have done recently. Chapek took the late investment into WDW and ran with it.

it’s a shame Iger went with Shanghai Disneyland rather than further investment in the existing parks but hey, he wanted something that was ‘his’

The “line” is what a lot of the fans are not worried about. They look at chapek and think he’s “enough like” Eisner or even Iger. I see no evidence of that.

Shanghai was done for reasons that has nothing to do with selling tickets or popcorn in the parks.

That $3 billion was never going to be spent on the parks, especially when he was trying to offload them.

And sure enough…it’s never going to be. You’re dead on there.

 

[Indy_UK]

Wasn’t Shanghai was done only to butter up the Chinese market and broaden the market?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I guess I just don’t see that.

DCA = money well spent.
Galaxy’s edge(s) = money well spent.
Pandora = money well spent.
Shanghai = money well spent
DL Paris improvements = money well spent
Hong Kong DL improvements = money well spent

Not saying I’d have done everything the same but it’s not like he’s leaving us with bad parks like Eisner did with DCA, HS, AK, DL Paris, and HKDL that all needed billion dollar investments by the next CEO to survive. Epcot is the only park that will need major investments and is already a work in progress

here we go…

DCA = money well spent.
Fine
Galaxy’s edge(s) = money well spent.
Underwhelming and will suffer IP based degrade unless reinvested into…stay tuned.
Pandora = money well spent.
Fine
Shanghai = money well spent
About legitimizing a place they get their sweatshop labor from…nothing more. Oh wait…developing a box office market…bad news on that front.
DL Paris improvements = money well spent
Agreed…but he hemmed and hawed about getting serious their for 12 years
Hong Kong DL improvements = money well spent
Again…agreed…but little choice also and we don’t want to make “the people” angry

Iger was not Incompetent by any stretch…but he actually accomplished far less in parks than his predecessors…so not a “savior”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Wasn’t Shanghai was done only to butter up the Chinese market and broaden the market?

Yes…and to make sure they get the product that is on every shelf in the developed world

 

[HauntedPirate]

While prices rose under Iger, he was smart enough to know not to push them like they have done recently. Chapek took the late investment into WDW and ran with it.

it’s a shame Iger went with Shanghai Disneyland rather than further investment in the existing parks but hey, he wanted something that was ‘his’

Prices spiraled upwards very quickly once $lappie was installed as the head of Parks & Resorts.

I still find it odd the man who invested more money into the parks than any previous CEO (Iger) is so unpopular on a Disney parks fan site. Especially considering his replacement seems to be a tightwad cutting costs wherever possible.

It’s not how much money is being spent. It’s where and how that money is being spent. See above for one example. GotG is clocking in (reportedly) around $450 million. GE were $1 billion each. Who the hell knows how much was spent on the oil rigs and stargate. FP+ was north of $2 billion.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Prices spiraled upwards very quickly once $lappie was installed as the head of Parks & Resorts.



It’s not how much money is being spent. It’s where and how that money is being spent. See above for one example. GotG is clocking in (reportedly) around $450 million. GE were $1 billion each. Who the hell knows how much was spent on the oil rigs and stargate. FP+ was north of $2 billion.

Geez, for $1 billion you'd think they could have afforded to have the rockwork on the spires go a little further down so the framing isn't visible from other vantage points.

 

[pdude81]

Geez, for $1 billion you'd think they could have afforded to have the rockwork on the spires go a little further down so the framing isn't visible from other vantage points.

Right. Couldn't they spend 1.05 billion?

 

[HauntedPirate]

Geez, for $1 billion you'd think they could have afforded to have the rockwork on the spires go a little further down so the framing isn't visible from other vantage points.

You’d think. You’d also think for $1 billion they could do better than one E and one D. At least we got 14 shops and eateries.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Prices spiraled upwards very quickly once $lappie was installed as the head of Parks & Resorts.



It’s not how much money is being spent. It’s where and how that money is being spent. See above for one example. GotG is clocking in (reportedly) around $450 million. GE were $1 billion each. Who the hell knows how much was spent on the oil rigs and stargate. FP+ was north of $2 billion.

…stargate

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You’d think. You’d also think for $1 billion they could do better than one E and one D. At least we got 14 shops and eateries.

…but at least they used the empire/Jedi era look as the basis…the stuff that made it stick with people for 20 years and beyond with no new material

 

[monothingie]

…but at least they used the empire/Jedi era look as the basis…the stuff that made it stick with people for 20 years and beyond with no new material

Don't you have anything better to do today?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

You’d think. You’d also think for $1 billion they could do better than one E and one D. At least we got 14 shops and eateries.

I honestly think even calling MFSR a D-ticket is generous (I guess it is if demand is the determining factor). It's not even the best Star Wars simulator in the park, in my opinion. Star Tours was a more enjoyable attraction for me, although I think they did a great job with the MFSR queue.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Don't you have anything better to do today?

Until about 15 minutes ago? Yes…

what did YOU do today, buster?

 

[monothingie]

Until about 15 minutes ago? Yes…

what did YOU do today, buster?

I'm just finishing up my Christmas shopping. Apparently Target puts a limit of 5 on how many "Tickle Me Chapek" Dolls you can buy.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm just finishing up my Christmas shopping. Apparently Target puts a limit of 5 on how many "Tickle Me Chapek" Dolls you can buy.

…tonight it’s decorate my fifth tree…

and apply online to a “wdw transportation HR liaison” position

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I honestly think even calling MFSR a D-ticket is generous (I guess it is if demand is the determining factor). It's not even the best Star Wars simulator in the park, in my opinion. Star Tours was a more enjoyable attraction for me, although I think they did a great job with the MFSR queue.

At least it can be reprogrammed…not a bad movie synopsis dark ride they already aren’t bother to keep in good maintenance

(dark ride of Bad movies…just to clarify. Ride is fine …if middling)

 

[UNCgolf]

I guess I just don’t see that.

DCA = money well spent.
Galaxy’s edge(s) = money well spent.
Pandora = money well spent.
Shanghai = money well spent
DL Paris improvements = money well spent
Hong Kong DL improvements = money well spent

Not saying I’d have done everything the same but it’s not like he’s leaving us with bad parks like Eisner did with DCA, HS, AK, DL Paris, and HKDL that all needed billion dollar investments by the next CEO to survive. Epcot is the only park that will need major investments and is already a work in progress

DAK and DHS weren't bad parks. DHS was arguably better than it is right now -- it had less attractions, but it had a more consistent theme, and the overall theming was much better than what exists now along the front sections of the park. Galaxy's Edge is solid, if somewhat disappointing as a whole, but TSL is possibly the worst area at WDW.

As for DAK, while it needed additions, it was still a highly detailed, quality park. Pandora is the only thing that's been added, and while that ended up an excellent expansion, it's kind of a miracle that it worked out as well as it did. Pandora alone isn't the reason some people consider it the best park at WDW right now. And yes, Expedition Everest opened at DAK during Iger's tenure as CEO, but it was an Eisner era project (which is kind of obvious considering Iger's disdain for it).

You actually complained about the wrong WDW parks. It's EPCOT that was significantly hurt during Eisner's term as CEO, although Iger didn't do anything to make it better.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guess I just don’t see that.

DCA = money well spent.
Galaxy’s edge(s) = money well spent.
Pandora = money well spent.
Shanghai = money well spent
DL Paris improvements = money well spent
Hong Kong DL improvements = money well spent

Not saying I’d have done everything the same but it’s not like he’s leaving us with bad parks like Eisner did with DCA, HS, AK, DL Paris, and HKDL that all needed billion dollar investments by the next CEO to survive. Epcot is the only park that will need major investments and is already a work in progress

What is the measure of money being well spent?

Disney’s California Adventure investment was pushed by the City of Anaheim which was threatening to make changes to the Anaheim Resort District. The project had notable wastes such as The Little Mermaid and Luigi’s Flying Tires.

Galaxy’s Edge cost $1 billion each for a couple of rides. Huge chunks were cut to keep it on that huge budget. Despite that plus the few hundred million dollars spent on Toy Story Land and Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway, the capacity of Disney’s Hollywood Studios didn’t really increase and the park is likely stuck as the least visited at Walt Disney World.

Pandora was a temperamental reaction to the success of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. It too cost nearly $1 billion and couldn’t deliver its third attraction and had its C-ticket reduced in scope.

Shanghai Disneyland was all about doing what Eisner could not and even then the deal didn’t include the distribution guarantees that kept Eisner from going forward. Nearly half a billion had to be spent to get the project back on track.

Hong Kong Disneyland was expanded to make up to the government and (keep Shanghai negotiations afloat) who were still upset at the initial park and under performance. Iger was COO when Disney decided to reduce the size of the park for “cultural” reasons.

At Epcot great expense was to be undertaken for a fancy starchitect building that’s purpose was to be a fancy starchitect building just like Mike used to build.

Then there are all of the basic design issues that will be incredibly difficult to fix/improve. The late Eisner parks had issues but we’re also cheap. Even a park like Disney’s California Adventure had decent bones such that a large chunk of even Buena Vist Street has been there since 2001.

 

[HauntedPirate]

What is the measure of money being well spent?

Disney’s California Adventure investment was pushed by the City of Anaheim which was threatening to make changes to the Anaheim Resort District. The project had notable wastes such as The Little Mermaid and Luigi’s Flying Tires.

Galaxy’s Edge cost $1 billion each for a couple of rides. Huge chunks were cut to keep it on that huge budget. Despite that plus the few hundred million dollars spent on Toy Story Land and Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railway, the capacity of Disney’s Hollywood Studios didn’t really increase and the park is likely stuck as the least visited at Walt Disney World.

Pandora was a temperamental reaction to the success of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. It too cost nearly $1 billion and couldn’t deliver its third attraction and had its C-ticket reduced in scope.

Shanghai Disneyland was all about doing what Eisner could not and even then the deal didn’t include the distribution guarantees that kept Eisner from going forward. Nearly half a billion had to be spent to get the project back on track.

Hong Kong Disneyland was expanded to make up to the government and (keep Shanghai negotiations afloat) who were still upset at the initial park and under performance. Iger was COO when Disney decided to reduce the size of the park for “cultural” reasons.

At Epcot great expense was to be undertaken for a fancy starchitect building that’s purpose was to be a fancy starchitect building just like Mike used to build.

Then there are all of the basic design issues that will be incredibly difficult to fix/improve. The late Eisner parks had issues but we’re also cheap. Even a park like Disney’s California Adventure had decent bones such that a large chunk of even Buena Vist Street has been there since 2001.

(Psst! Adding rides and capacity is bad, remember? It's never enough, and just draws more people. )