• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
The cast members know nothing. I had some detailed conversations during the pandemic to feel them out

First, they seem to not grasp the P&R head is beholden 100% to the ceo…in this case that was chapek. It’s their largest revenue source. They’re not “half in”

Second, they see a guy posting selfies on Instagram and Facebook with the serfs and think that matters at all…which it never will.

The deal is/was they hated chapek and needed a saviour so they picked tight pants. It there’s no divergence. Never was
I wish more cast understood this
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
That's one of the problems Iger has to deal with... he bought up a lot of properties and now has to flog then under an inherently socially conservative brand. I'm not saying that people who like Disney are conservative in all areas of life, but when they want Disney product they want a certain image. For some audiences that may mean no hints of anything controversial to a genuinely socially conservative mind (no homosexuality, no interracial relationships) but in general it means no sex, no violence. You know, the stuff that people love to watch on every other streamer?

I felt bad for Chapek when people got on his case for saying that adults want to watch grown up shows after the kids went to bed. Every other streamer is expected to have content for kids and adults. Chapek had this huge money pit of a streaming service that needed more subscribers and he was stuck with kids to "all ages" franchise stuff or he risked the brand. Iger is more smooth but he has the same fundamental problem.
My impression is that one of the things that happened under Iger's tenure is that Disney stopped being associated exclusively with G and PG-rated family fare. It basically just became the biggest film studio which was just as much Avengers Endgame or Guardians of the Galaxy as it was Frozen or Encanto. At least outside of the US, I don't think anyone really bats an eyelid at Disney+ and Star being bundled in together, with one having primarily wholesome family entertainment and the other stuff like Pam and Tommy or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My suspicion is once they manage something similar with Hulu, most people will understand it's a big studio that makes different content for different audiences and it will be a selling point for the streamer rather than a turnoff.

Sure, at the further end of the socially conservative spectrum they may loose some of their audience. I suspect, though, they've lost a lot of that already and the extra subscribes they gain will far outweigh those they loose.
 

"El Gran Magnifico"

I was once held captive by a village of pygmies
Premium Member
My impression is that one of the things that happened under Iger's tenure is that Disney stopped being associated exclusively with G and PG-rated family fare. It basically just became the biggest film studio which was just as much Avengers Endgame or Guardians of the Galaxy as it was Frozen or Encanto. At least outside of the US, I don't think anyone really bats an eyelid at Disney+ and Star being bundled in together, with one having primarily wholesome family entertainment and the other stuff like Pam and Tommy or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My suspicion is once they manage something similar with Hulu, most people will understand it's a big studio that makes different content for different audiences and it will be a selling point for the streamer rather than a turnoff.

Sure, at the further end of the socially conservative spectrum they may loose some of their audience. I suspect, though, they've lost a lot of that already and the extra subscribes they gain will far outweigh those they loose.

Disney had the opportunity to acquire Netflix a decade ago. And while it’s easy to armchair quarterback at this stage and point the recent performance of both companies - things may have turned out very different. I say “may have” because they (Disney) would have still needed the vision and foresight to know what to do with it.

But Netflix would have afforded Disney with the platform and certain “know how” on how to launch it. It would have given them a tremendous head start - forcing everyone to play catch up.

Disney would have reaped the rewards (and revenue) - and who knows - with that revenue maybe a few large/strategic acquisitions. Had that happened we might be looking at a completely different company.

But there’s an equal chance if Disney had pulled the trigger on Netflix - that they would’ve run it into the ground and we’d be at the same place we are now.
 

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
My impression is that one of the things that happened under Iger's tenure is that Disney stopped being associated exclusively with G and PG-rated family fare. It basically just became the biggest film studio which was just as much Avengers Endgame or Guardians of the Galaxy as it was Frozen or Encanto. At least outside of the US, I don't think anyone really bats an eyelid at Disney+ and Star being bundled in together, with one having primarily wholesome family entertainment and the other stuff like Pam and Tommy or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My suspicion is once they manage something similar with Hulu, most people will understand it's a big studio that makes different content for different audiences and it will be a selling point for the streamer rather than a turnoff.

Sure, at the further end of the socially conservative spectrum they may loose some of their audience. I suspect, though, they've lost a lot of that already and the extra subscribes they gain will far outweigh those they loose.
That ship sailed a long time ago under Eisner, possibly even earlier. Its why Disney came up with the Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures monikers for films that were marketed for teenagers and adults.
 

kingdead

Well-Known Member
My impression is that one of the things that happened under Iger's tenure is that Disney stopped being associated exclusively with G and PG-rated family fare. It basically just became the biggest film studio which was just as much Avengers Endgame or Guardians of the Galaxy as it was Frozen or Encanto. At least outside of the US, I don't think anyone really bats an eyelid at Disney+ and Star being bundled in together, with one having primarily wholesome family entertainment and the other stuff like Pam and Tommy or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. My suspicion is once they manage something similar with Hulu, most people will understand it's a big studio that makes different content for different audiences and it will be a selling point for the streamer rather than a turnoff.

Sure, at the further end of the socially conservative spectrum they may loose some of their audience. I suspect, though, they've lost a lot of that already and the extra subscribes they gain will far outweigh those they loose.
I'd say that Marvel, while not exclusively for kids, is still very much a PG brand--and viewers want it to stay a PG brand. Look at the trouble they're having adapting Blade--great premise, huge hit back in the day, had a lot of sequels, but there has to be blood and a black guy "from the hood," as they would say back when the original Blade came out. Feige's vision is very limited in some ways.

Hopefully Hulu becomes the equivalent of Touchstone but they need to step up to Netflix content-wise.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
That ship sailed a long time ago under Eisner, possibly even earlier. Its why Disney came up with the Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures monikers for films that were marketed for teenagers and adults.
Touchstone Pictures was started by Ron Miller. Hollywood Pictures was created as a legal entity during Miller’s tenure but was not used for several years after Eisner arrived.
 

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
I'd say that Marvel, while not exclusively for kids, is still very much a PG brand--and viewers want it to stay a PG brand. Look at the trouble they're having adapting Blade--great premise, huge hit back in the day, had a lot of sequels, but there has to be blood and a black guy "from the hood," as they would say back when the original Blade came out. Feige's vision is very limited in some ways.

Hopefully Hulu becomes the equivalent of Touchstone but they need to step up to Netflix content-wise.
Deadpool 3 is coming, which will be anything but PG.
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
That ship sailed a long time ago under Eisner, possibly even earlier. Its why Disney came up with the Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures monikers for films that were marketed for teenagers and adults.
Also seems that TWDC’s ownership of Miramax in the 90s-00s has been largely overlooked. That was a major feather in the company’s cap.
 

Henry Mystic

Well-Known Member
I have Hulu w/ Live TV and D+. I like that they have different content (besides DWTS, which is a crossover from ABC). Anything that is not PG13 should stay on Hulu.
Given the arbitrary nature of PG-13 (3 f-bombs get you an R, but gun violence without blood does not), I have always been against disallowing R-rated films under the crux of 'family entertainment.” It also disproportionately impacts arthouse/indie films. Let’s not forget the MPAA, now known as the MPA, doubles as a lobby for large studios.

Child locks on profiles are a way better strategy as there are definitely R or TV-MA rated movies and shows that are more suitable for younger audiences than it would seem (ex. Breakfast Club/The Crown), and frankly, I don’t know any under 17 year old that’s never seen an R-rated film. That’s especially true for one that hasn’t played an M-rated video game. Like most things, it’s a win-win to allow and regulate, in this case with parental controls, rather than a blanket ban.

The issue isn't them trying to appeal to all audiences such as having R/TV-MA content; the issue is them thinking throwing money at content will translate to popularity. It's an exceptionally ineffective strategy cost-wise. Allowing creative people to choose what content to produce is better self-selection rather than a bean counting corporate mandate. That’s why Bob Iger will immediately be a better leader since he’s already restructuring based on that.
 
Last edited:

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
I can’t agree with this based on the way almost all of his public appearances went.

Yea, there are many public figures that I vehemently disagree with on many issues, but, many also seem like they’d at least be interesting enough to sit down with to have a chat over a coupla’ beers.
Chapek ain’t one of ‘em.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom