• 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!!

_caleb

Well-Known Member
just think if Disney was still as creative as they once were... they wouldn't have needed to buy so much "other" stuff (or make all these live action remakes / reboots of previous films and bomb out with most of the new movies)
If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.

There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.

So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.

BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff they bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.
 
Last edited:

Slpy3270

Well-Known Member
If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.

There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.

So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.

BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff the bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.
People forget the stock price for Disney rose when the Fox deal was announced. Literally everyone thought it was a great deal at the time (and it may still be, given how the addition of FX and Nat Geo have helped Disney in retransmission fees, and the Fox infrastructure in Europe and Asia is allowing a smooth expansion for Disney+), and shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal.

Yes, they overpaid for the assets. But they couldn't afford not to. To Disney, letting Fox go to Comcast would've been the equivalent of CBS losing the NFL broadcast rights.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
Now this is a good take…

The problem is Peltz can say…as I saw pointed out on Bloomie today: “none of you know anything about entertainment!”

And he Pretty much right.

He can also accuse - with numbers - that Iger hasn’t made a wise decision in about 6 years…and make the case.

The problem is in 2015 it looked like Disney could make money anywhere it wanted…and it’s been a stooges nyuck nyuck show ever since. The case can be made

And, pure coincidence I'm sure - Who was installed as head of P&R in 2015? 🤔
 

monothingie

Peace was never an option.
Premium Member
And, pure coincidence I'm sure - Who was installed as head of P&R in 2015? 🤔
Sheldon Cooper Reaction GIF by CBS
 

Slpy3270

Well-Known Member
Nightmare scenario for Iger, and by extension Disney, would be Peltz fails to get his seat on the board and he buddies up with Elon Musk to launch a joint bid to take the whole company private a la Standard General's hostile takeover of Tegna.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
More or less.

If not him, then Peltz will happily partner with someone else who will, like BlackRock (who's Disney's second-largest shareholder and is known for being as scummy as Elon).
Black rock is such an investors darling…

Make money poisoning puppies if you can!!

But the greater point here is this is about cash attacking a big name and Bob managed to leave them 100% vulnerable to it.

Don’t sleep on this attempt.

Who’s out there to “save” them and let Bob Iger continue?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Unpopular opinion: Disney only has a creative future private…but not based on threat. Wall Street has no interest in qualify…it’s the elephant in the room. All companies are expected to pump and dump and then sell off the body parts.
That’s the 21st century…and Walt would be 122 years old.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.

There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.

So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.

BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff they bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.
After Iger shut down the broader content production and labels.
 

orky8

Well-Known Member
If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.

There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.

So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.

BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff they bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.

Yes, and therein is the problem. Bob went all-in at the expense of everything else. Use the parks to fund the losses and take a bath on a rotten deal to buy more catalog material and subscribers, the purchase of which, besides saddling the company with a mountain of debt has turned the parent company into an unrecognizable brand. So, great, The Walt Disney Company is now the tour du force in the streaming wars. It only cost them their identity as a family-focused entertainment company and reputation as the gold standard in quality, themed, magical vacations. They're burning through goodwill at an alarming pace and facing a proxy war. It has never been a better time to be a Disney fan....
 

Slpy3270

Well-Known Member
Peltz already suggests he doesn't want Peltz as chairman because he's too loyal to Iger.

Yet Peltz says he's not trying to remove Iger. Spoiler alert, old man: you can't have it both ways!
 

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

Top Bottom