News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[bcoachable]

Possibly THIS was the announcement the board was keeping Chapek from making?

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

I think the sequels are better films in terms of general quality (acting, direction, etc.), but the prequels have a better underlying plot. The prequels feel like they had the potential to be good if Lucas let someone else write the scripts and direct them based off his plots, whereas the sequels are relatively well-made films (although they still have flaws/are far from perfect) that are just kind of meh overall and don't really feel like they had the potential to be better than what they are.

As someone who's never particularly been a fan of Star Wars, I feel the Sequel Trilogy is competently executed but poorly conceived, whereas the Prequel Trilogy has the inverse problem.

Meanwhile, the Original three movies are simultaneously nowhere near as good as people would have you believe and also somehow better than both the Prequel and Sequel Trilogies.

 

[OrlandoRising]

The announcement that Illuminations would be replaced with a new show happened in September 2018 when Iger was still fully the CEO. So I don't know how much blame you can put on Chapek for that. Unless someone has information to the contrary.

Yes, the creative designer said Chapek gave input on it. Lots more credit than he probably deserves. But it's well known that Chapek had his hand in that one.

Chapek was head of the parks when "Harmonious" was in serious development. Some people forget that when trying to pin blame on Iger for anything pre-Feb. 2020.

The hatred towards Kennedy has little to do with reality and what the franchise is actually producing and a lot to do with other factors.

Gee, I wonder what makes Kathleen Kennedy different from many studio heads in Hollywood that gets internet trolls so riled up.

I don't hate KK, but she's had a lot more misses with SW than not. She has not been a good shepard for that franchise. That alone is worth her termination. She's been in the lead for quite some time.

Everything SW-related since Rise of Skywalker has been largely well-received, if you're looking at real critical and audience reviews and merchandise. And the sequel trilogy still produced three $1 billion+ films, despite all the legitimate debates about Rise of Skywalker. Compare that to the financial performance that got Chapek fired.

 

[UNCgolf]

As someone who's never particularly been a fan of Star Wars, I feel the Sequel Trilogy is competently executed but poorly conceived, whereas the Prequel Trilogy has the inverse problem.

Meanwhile, the Original three movies are simultaneously nowhere near as good as people would have you believe and also somehow better than both the Prequel and Sequel Trilogies.

I think this is a much more succinct way to make my point regarding the PT and ST; I agree completely.

I love the OT, and they're far better than the PT or ST, but they're really just fun escapist fantasy. They're among the best in that category -- better than the HP films but not as good as the LOTR trilogy, e.g. -- but they're not really all-time classic great films.

As an aside, the HP films have a wild progression. The first two are essentially children's films, the third is a legitimately good movie on its own, the fourth has some issues but is well done overall and probably the second best film of the bunch, the fifth and sixth are terrible films that don't even really make sense without knowledge of the books, and the seventh/eighth combo are an improvement over 5/6 but still bland and unimaginative for the most part. They're just all over the place from a quality standpoint.

 

[TalkingHead]

Only 12 hours until Iger’s town hall meeting? Here’s hoping the YouTubers go live with the pre-game at 6 am like it’s Disney’s Super Bowl Sunday.

 

[kingdead]

I think the sequels are better films in terms of general quality (acting, direction, etc.), but the prequels have a better underlying plot. The prequels feel like they had the potential to be good if Lucas let someone else write the scripts and direct them based off his plots, whereas the sequels are relatively well-made films (although they still have flaws/are far from perfect) that are just kind of meh overall and don't really feel like they had the potential to be better than what they are.

In Lucas's defense, the man is a giant nerd and the PT was one of the first movie series to take advantage of CGI technology... which meant that the actors didn't know what they were doing with the greenscreen yet. I think most of the blame still attaches to Lucas's legendarily hands off directing but that had to have played a part. (And props to James Cameron for consistently getting watchable performances out of CGI situations.)

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Chapek was head of the parks when "Harmonious" was in serious development. Some people forget that when trying to pin blame on Iger for anything pre-Feb. 2020.

This is where I find it a bit hard to follow who is supposed to be responsible for what among executives. Chapek was head of the parks and then CEO during a period a lot of changes many people don't like were implemented at the parks, but in both positions he was apparently just implementing Iger's vision and never had much time as CEO to get out from under Iger anyway. So, now with Iger back the narrative is that we shouldn't feel too happy because he was ultimately responsible for the bad stuff that happened under Chapek rather than Chapek being a driving force for that in both positions. However, when Chapek was promoted to CEO and Josh D'Amaro became head of the parks, D'Amaro is supposed to be bad because he acts all nice and charming but in reality is just implementing Chapek/Iger's vision.

So, does the head of P&R really have much control over what happens in the division or is it mainly down to the CEO at the time?

 

[TP2000]

Only 12 hours until Iger’s town hall meeting? Here’s hoping the YouTubers go live with the pre-game at 6 am like it’s Disney’s Super Bowl Sunday.

I wonder if he'll mention Strange World in light of it's disastrous box office this weekend.

And if he does mention it, in what context?

He'll probably ignore it and try to go for big picture stuff. But you never know.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

This is where I find it a bit hard to follow who is supposed to be responsible for what among executives. Chapek was head of the parks and then CEO during a period a lot of changes many people don't like were implemented at the parks, but in both positions he was apparently just implementing Iger's vision and never had much time as CEO to get out from under Iger anyway. So, now with Iger back the narrative is that we shouldn't feel too happy because he was ultimately responsible for the bad stuff that happened under Chapek rather than Chapek being a driving force for that in both positions. However, when Chapek was promoted to CEO and Josh D'Amaro became head of the parks, D'Amaro is supposed to be bad because he acts all nice and charming but in reality is just implementing Chapek/Iger's vision.

So, does the head of P&R really have much control over what happens in the division or is it mainly down to the CEO at the time?

Until January 2022, the buck stopped with Bob Iger (and now it does once again). Even by the accidental admission of that WSJ article, Iger was still the one at the top of the food chain until that point in time. According to that article, even during the period that Chapek held the CEO title, Iger's power was not diminished and he had the ability to overrule Chapek's decisions.

To be clear, Chapek did nothing to alter the dangerous course the ship was traveling along, he gladly continued on full speed ahead. But he also wasn't at the wheel when that course was originally set. Iger was. Chapek has only been sailing solo over the past year, the previous captain was still dictating the course up to the point he left the ship entirely.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Until January 2022, the buck stopped with Bob Iger (and now it does once again). Even by the accidental admission of that WSJ article, Iger was still the one at the top of the food chain until that point in time. According to that article, even during the period that Chapek held the CEO title, Iger's power was not diminished and he had the ability to overrule Chapek's decisions.

To be clear, Chapek did nothing to alter the dangerous course the ship was traveling along, he gladly continued on full speed ahead. But he also wasn't at the wheel when that course was originally set. Iger was. Chapek has only been sailing solo over the past year, the previous captain was still dictating the course up to the point he left the ship entirely.

So maybe D'Amaro isn't so terrible then as the buck stops with Chapek and, before him, Iger?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

So maybe D'Amaro isn't so terrible then as the buck stops with Chapek and, before him, Iger?

I haven't met or had any firsthand experience with D'Amaro myself. Just what i've been told by some friends who have. They don't like him and also claim he's a willing participant in park decline. I also know he has a really weird and kind of creepy "fanbase" who obsess and fawn over him to rather extreme degrees.

But what I said still stands. D'Amaro ultimately takes orders from the boss. He's not your friend and I gather that he doesn't really care much about the parks (despite the persona he puts on). But he presumably does what he's told and will continue to do so. For better or for worse. We'll see pretty quickly how much Iger cares about fixing parks-related issues such as maintenance, cuts to entertainment and staff, price hikes etc. If Iger tells him to improve these things, I would assume he will oblige. If Iger tells him to make it worse, then he will also follow that order.

The last person who was in charge of running a Disney park and seems to have actually truly cared was Matt Ouimet. He oversaw the fantastic cleanup of Disneyland post-Eisner. He was apparently ousted by Iger for not being a yes-man, Iger felt he was a threat to his power.

 

[JoeCamel]

I don't think it is a matter of blaming an individual for the systemic rot of the parks. These were decisions made quarterly by those on the ground while the guiding principles came from above.
Some argue it started under Eisner but Iger put his own brand on it and took it to a whole different level when he decided they were a "mature business" and no longer worthy of investment. Even after being proved wrong Bob never has bought into the parks as a growth sector that would be around for decades and deserved the level of investment we the fans think they deserve in the name of GS or some weird service to the company legacy. Bottom line it is all that matters quarter over quarter, just a cow to be milked so he could pursue bright and shiny things. Stock price loves it.
It boils down to personalities, Bob I is likable, was a weatherman and the weatherman is always the likable one on the broadcast, plays the people game well and has had a top notch PR machine looking out for him many years. Chappie is awkward and unlikable and really didn't put any time into putting the velvet on the hammer before dropping it. Bad decisions delivered from on high doomed him and he was dealt a crappie hand as CEO but he knew the score when he accepted the position. Careful what you wish for, can you say career ending move?
We can hash out if Chappie ever had a chance and if Bob I will put a new churro stand in the parks but the truth is for the next two years it will be more of the same old and you pay out the nose for it while they try to salvage the big buy. Make no mistake all resources will be directed at that cause. The parks will run on autopilot making coin to prop up the bottom line while the execs will walk with millions.

 

[Lilofan]

I don't think it is a matter of blaming an individual for the systemic rot of the parks. These were decisions made quarterly by those on the ground while the guiding principles came from above.
Some argue it started under Eisner but Iger put his own brand on it and took it to a whole different level when he decided they were a "mature business" and no longer worthy of investment. Even after being proved wrong Bob never has bought into the parks as a growth sector that would be around for decades and deserved the level of investment we the fans think they deserve in the name of GS or some weird service to the company legacy. Bottom line it is all that matters quarter over quarter, just a cow to be milked so he could pursue bright and shiny things. Stock price loves it.
It boils down to personalities, Bob I is likable, was a weatherman and the weatherman is always the likable one on the broadcast, plays the people game well and has had a top notch PR machine looking out for him many years. Chappie is awkward and unlikable and really didn't put any time into putting the velvet on the hammer before dropping it. Bad decisions delivered from on high doomed him and he was dealt a crappie hand as CEO but he knew the score when he accepted the position. Careful what you wish for, can you say career ending move?
We can hash out if Chappie ever had a chance and if Bob I will put a new churro stand in the parks but the truth is for the next two years it will be more of the same old and you pay out the nose for it while they try to salvage the big buy. Make no mistake all resources will be directed at that cause. The parks will run on autopilot making coin to prop up the bottom line while the execs will walk with millions.

One can say execs walk away with millions but one can also add the Board set up the exec work contract including targeted bonuses and exit packages.

 

[Lilofan]

I haven't met or had any firsthand experience with D'Amaro myself. Just what i've been told by some friends who have. They don't like him and also claim he's a willing participant in park decline. I also know he has a really weird and kind of creepy "fanbase" who obsess and fawn over him to rather extreme degrees.

But what I said still stands. D'Amaro ultimately takes orders from the boss. He's not your friend and I gather that he doesn't really care much about the parks (despite the persona he puts on). But he presumably does what he's told and will continue to do so. For better or for worse. We'll see pretty quickly how much Iger cares about fixing parks-related issues such as maintenance, cuts to entertainment and staff, price hikes etc. If Iger tells him to improve these things, I would assume he will oblige. If Iger tells him to make it worse, then he will also follow that order.

The last person who was in charge of running a Disney park and seems to have actually truly cared was Matt Ouimet. He oversaw the fantastic cleanup of Disneyland post-Eisner. He was apparently ousted by Iger for not being a yes-man.

Ouimet thought the grass was greener on the other side joining Starwood as hotel President only to get laid off during the 2008-09 recession. He's doing fine worth millions being top exec at Cedar.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The last person who was in charge of running a Disney park and seems to have actually truly cared was Matt Ouimet. He oversaw the fantastic cleanup of Disneyland post-Eisner. He was apparently ousted by Iger for not being a yes-man, Iger felt he was a threat to his power.

Ouimet started under Eisner. The Disneyland 50th anniversary started under Eisner. He wanted Jay Rasulo’s job and Iger made it clear that he was going to keep Jay over him.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Ouimet started under Eisner. The Disneyland 50th anniversary started under Eisner. He wanted Jay Rasulo’s job and Iger made it clear that he was going to keep Jay over him.

Yup. Which should serve as further evidence that Bob Iger isn't any kind of savior for the parks and never has been, quite the opposite. I don't even like Eisner, but his appointment of Ouimet was at the very least an admission of mistake and a meaningful effort to correct course. Something Iger has never done, and i'm confident will never do. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about Iger here. But there's just no reason to think so.

 

[Norasusan]

Yup. Which should serve as further evidence that Bob Iger isn't any kind of savior for the parks and never has been, quite the opposite. I don't even like Eisner, but his appointment of Ouimet was at the very least an admission of mistake and a meaningful effort to correct course. Something Iger has never done, and i'm confident will never do. Nothing would make me happier than to be wrong about Iger here. But there's just no reason to think so.

 

[Jaynescout]

Very happy about this. Maybe someday Tables in Wonderland will come back. One can hope.

 

[CastAStone]

I wonder if he'll mention Strange World in light of it's disastrous box office this weekend.

And if he does mention it, in what context?

He'll probably ignore it and try to go for big picture stuff. But you never know.

Can’t imagine he’ll look backwards in any meaningful way.

 

[CastAStone]

Are they annoyed that there is a direct correlation between wage rises and dues, or are they annoyed about the wages going up?

They’re annoyed about dues going up more recently than in prior years. They (probably correctly) point out that it’s largely because of relatively sharp increases in staff wages starting in 2018. Whether or not they are upset that the staff is being paid more varies owner to owner, but they’re definitely upset that their dues went up.

The funny thing is Disney and the union negotiated these wage increases 5 years ago, and by 2021 when the final increase went into affect, Disney would have had to raise their pay to $15 an hour anyway (Food and beverage at Universal now starts at $16.50)