News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[MrPromey]

Of course Frank Wells was key. They were co-leaders for the first ten years, Wells had just as much power as Eisner, and in some ways he had more. He was the choice to run the company and he was put in a position where he could essentially do so, while Eisner could be satisfied with the title and running the studio. Things generally went well, at least from an external pov. Then Wells died and things deteriorated, and it wasn't just a few things. There was the Ovitz/Pressler debacle. Katzenberg bolted and animation imploded. Relationships with Pixar, the Muppets and others soured.

I am looking at the totality of the regime, and I am evaluating it based on the context of what was going on during the various points in that regime. Without that it's just a surface level analysis.

And I think nobody was actually more upset about the loss of that Wells/Eisner dynamic than Eisner.

He wanted to be like Walt and he was happy to have someone else play the "Roy" so he could focus on the "fun" stuff.

It seems like after Wells left, the problem became one of personal dynamics.

After more than a decade in a kind of relationship, how do you promote someone new into a position to work with you like that where part of their job is to tell you "no"?

 

[Mmoore29]

given their debt situation and the need for D+ to succeed, I think it’s unlikely they have the cash to make any acquisition that will stop the bleeding.

I’ll go a step further - I think it’s likelier that Disney is acquired in some form or fashion in the next few years than they acquire a hot and valuable IP on the level of Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm.

Okay, let me lay a marker: Bob Iger won’t be coming in to help find the next CEO. Bob Iger is going to be Disney’s last CEO.

Selling assets to meet the debt burden is a panic move. Disney isn't in a true crisis yet, merely the PERCEPTION of one. Things are quite solid.

Everyone saying Iger should sell off ABC and ESPN, or Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel or Fox are just incredibly ignorant. All of these are complementary assets. Disney does need massive scale to stay relevant. If it shrunk down to solely Walt Disney Pictures and the like, it's pretty naked and exposed, and will have too much volatility. These assets help buffer it.

If something HAS to be sold, it would be selling Disney+ to Netflix, but not before 2024, before they can exercise the option to buy out Comcast's stake in Hulu, integrate the Hulu content in Disney+, then sell it all to Netflix under a deal where Netflix gets the content and gives Disney licensing fees, but Disney remains in creative control of the originals, because they'd want to keep that.

But that's an "if all else fails" strategy, and there's plenty of options Iger has available to avoid that, and plenty of time.

And no one would ever let Disney be acquired by another company, not even Iger. No one would ever stand for that, especially after Comcast's hostile bid back in 2004. If Disney could survive that moment, it can survive anything.

 

[Mmoore29]

Of course Frank Wells was key. They were co-leaders for the first ten years, Wells had just as much power as Eisner, and in some ways he had more. He was the choice to run the company and he was put in a position where he could essentially do so, while Eisner could be satisfied with the title and running the studio. Things generally went well, at least from an external pov. Then Wells died and things deteriorated, and it wasn't just a few things. There was the Ovitz/Pressler debacle. Katzenberg bolted and animation imploded. Relationships with Pixar, the Muppets and others soured.

I am looking at the totality of the regime, and I am evaluating it based on the context of what was going on during the various points in that regime. Without that it's just a surface level analysis.

If Iger had been named President and COO in 1996, it would've been different for Eisner. He would've had the same dynamic he'd had with Wells, and Eisner's tenure would've ended happily.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Eisner did not light the place on fire…he stayed too long.

I think there was ample concern that he was trying to do exactly that. He had already facilitated the creation of Dreamworks, which for a time became a viable competitor in the field of animation (the biggest one they had ever faced thus far). He also burned bridges with Pixar, which was in the process of splitting off from Disney to become another independent studio before Iger bought them out. Disney animation would not have survived this. Eisner had no viable strategy to handle this creative loss and seemed uninterested in wanting to fix it (perhaps even unwilling to admit there was a problem).

The parks were also decaying under Eisner's watch. EPCOT was ruined beyond any hope of recovery in only a few short years starting in 1994. Disneyland had a string of safety related scandals that led to multiple guest deaths, and the dilapidated state of the park as a whole was quite well documented. California Adventure and Studios Paris were mostly considered massive disappointments, and Hong Kong DL was also for having nothing to do.

And on the executive level, remember that Eisner was the originator of the strategic planning group. We would never have gotten Bob Iger or any of the others in that circle without Eisner.

Part of me wonders what the company would be like today had he stayed on longer. If would learn ANY lessons from the fear of having his power stripped, but narrowly avoiding it. But I have to be realistic here, he did unfathomable damage before he left. I think "lighting the place on fire" isn't too far from the truth.

Given that the timing of everything going to hell with Frank Wells' death are so precisely coordinated, I have to assume he really was the glue that held everything together. He was seen as the "financial" guy (who you'd more often be against in the creative business world today), but he seems to deserve a lot more credit than that. Just as I believe Roy Disney deserves more credit than he often gets as well (not that Walt didn't deserve his share).

 

[MisterPenguin]

Every audit of "ask all the assistants the same questions and see which ones give the most accurate results" come out in Google's favor. They have better voice recognition and better search.

Here let me look up "ask all the assistants the same questions and see which ones give the most accurate results" for you.

ask all the assistants the same questions and see which ones give the most accurate results - Google Search

 

[Mmoore29]

I think there was ample concern that he was trying to do exactly that. He had already facilitated the creation of Dreamworks, which for a time became a viable competitor in the field of animation (the biggest one they had ever faced thus far). He also burned bridges with Pixar, which was in the process of splitting off from Disney to become another independent studio before Iger bought them out. Disney animation would not have survived this. Eisner had no viable strategy to handle this creative loss and seemed uninterested in wanting to fix it (perhaps even unwilling to admit there was a problem).

The parks were also decaying under Eisner's watch. EPCOT was ruined beyond any hope of recovery in only a few short years starting in 1994. Disneyland had a string of safety related scandals that led to multiple guest deaths, and the dilapidated state of the park as a whole was quite well documented. California Adventure and Studios Paris were mostly considered massive disappointments, and Hong Kong DL was also for having nothing to do.

And on the executive level, remember that Eisner was the originator of the strategic planning group. We would never have gotten Bob Iger or any of the others in that circle without Eisner.

Part of me wonders what the company would be like today had he stayed on longer. If would learn ANY lessons from the fear of having his power stripped, but narrowly avoiding it. But I have to be realistic here, he did unfathomable damage before he left. I think "lighting the place on fire" isn't too far from the truth.

Given that the timing of everything going to hell and Frank Wells are so precisely coordinated, I have to assume he really was the glue that held everything together. He was seen as the "financial" guy, but he seems to deserve a lot more credit than that. Just as I believe Roy Disney deserves more credit than he often gets as well (not that Walt didn't deserve his share though).

Iger could've filled Wells' shoes, if Eisner had chosen him instead of Ovitz. Iger could've easily been groomed more thoroughly to be his successor and done even better in his CEO tenure, and Eisner's own would've ended much happier, and Disney itself performing far better.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Obviously things can be seen from this perspective. But reports are that Iger has been critical of Chapek’s execution/leadership of these things that Iger started. While that’s clearly a PR narrative, it’s one many of us actually agree with. It hasn’t always been a problem of what, but of how.

If Chapek‘s bungled implementation of Iger’s ideas revealed the shortcomings of those ideas, of course Iger is going change (undo his own work)! He’s coming back to repair his legacy, and he has the benefit of a fall guy for some of his worst ideas. In order to be the savior and to raise morale and build trust, you’ve got to believe he will do at least a few things that please the fans/guests/customers/subscribers.

I don’t buy that Iger was bothered by how his ideas actually unfolded. I think he was bothered by Chapek being the focus and not how great he is for setting things up for him.

When did he ever really reverse course? Billions spent on NextGen resulted in them doubling down with Genie when it was clear it didn’t work. The biggest reverse was the panic additions of TRON and Ratatouille. Iger shut down Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures because he thought he didn’t need the content, and then when he did need content he spent billions on Fox instead of getting that production going again.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Iger could've filled Wells' shoes, if Eisner had chosen him instead of Ovitz. Iger could've easily been groomed more thoroughly to be his successor and done even better in his CEO tenure, and Eisner's own would've ended much happier, and Disney itself performing far better.

Wells respected Disney as a brand and as an institution. Iger does not, it is a nondescript media holding company themed to a mouse or whatever.

 

[Mmoore29]

Wells respected Disney as a brand and as an institution. Iger does not, it is a nondescript media holding company themed to a mouse or whatever.

Iger easily could've learned a lot as part of Team Disney in these formative years, in these decisive years, if he'd been chosen to run the show instead of the Ovitz debacle. In fact, he might've even encouraged Eisner to buy Lucasfilm and Pixar in 1996, even.

Also, in my opinion, I think Touchstone could easily coexist as a production unit along with the Fox assets. The more arrows you have in your quiver, the better off you are. So Iger would've learned how to really understand Disney on a deeper level, he would've kept Eisner from most of his egregious mistakes, he would've made Disney bigger and bolder instead of retrenching throughout the late '90s, he would've played hardball with the Weinsteins on a financial level, and the company would've been positioned to basically be double or triple what it is now. By now, it could easily reach $300 a share on the NYSE, under this super-management team of Eisner/Iger, then Iger taking the reins.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Iger could've filled Wells' shoes, if Eisner had chosen him instead of Ovitz. Iger could've easily been groomed more thoroughly to be his successor and done even better in his CEO tenure, and Eisner's own would've ended much happier, and Disney itself performing far better.

I don't think Iger was appropriate. Wells seemed more comparable to the "old guard" of Disney's money people such as Roy Disney and Card Walker. As lazyboy97o said, Wells respected the company, its products and also its customers. Iger never did, regardless of whether Eisner actively attempted to groom him otherwise.

This was also interesting and indicates he took a more active role in the creative process than people give him credit for-



I think Wells could be said to be the last "money guy" running the company who actually respected and liked the products they created himself.

 

[Mmoore29]

I don't think Iger was appropriate. Wells seemed more comparable to the "old guard" of Disney's money people such as Roy Disney and Card Walker. As lazyboy97o said, Wells respected the company, its products and also its customers. Iger never did, regardless of whether Eisner actively attempted to groom him otherwise.

You sell Iger short. He'd easily be able to learn, especially with a board that wasn't yet full of Eisner's loyalists that would never question him. Iger always strikes me as a sponge, who can absorb a lot of things when he applies himself.

You can't honestly say that Iger would be a worse choice than Ovitz.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Welcome to Whose Wall Street Is It Anyway? Where the rules are made up and (small) profits don't matter!

Yes, the question is, will Iger perform a hoedown with Jim Cramer, Wayne Brady and Drew?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well reviewed but not any viewers per the creator of it:

'Andor' Showrunner Admits Show Is "Chasing The Audience" After Expecting To Have a "Gigantic Instantaneous Audience"

Tony Gilroy, the showrunner and creator for the most recent Star Wars series, Andor, recently admitted the show is "chasing the audience."

boundingintocomics.com

​

​

The series, which debuted three episodes when it was released on September 21st, clocked in at 624 million minutes....In its second week the series only brought in 485 million minutes.​

624M minutes was for the first two episodes, so, about 312M minutes each.

The next week, for episode 3 was at 485M minutes.

The minutes watched per episode went up not down.

Someone can't do basic math.

After 6 episodes, Andor has 2.3B minutes watched.

Is it *the top*? No.

But when is consistently being in the top ten a sign that your franchise is dead?

Fandom Menace strikes again!

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Iger shut down Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures because he thought he didn’t need the content, and then when he did need content he spent billions on Fox instead of getting that production going again.

Was the logic behind buying Fox really to produce new content? I thought it was primarily about getting control of their back catalogue and possibly about eliminating a potential competitor.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You sell Iger short. He'd easily be able to learn, especially with a board that wasn't yet full of Eisner's loyalists that would never question him. Iger always strikes me as a sponge, who can absorb a lot of things when he applies himself.

You can't honestly say that Iger would be a worse choice than Ovitz.

You say this as thought Iger wasn’t with the company for decades.

 

[Mmoore29]

Was the logic behind buying Fox really to produce new content? I thought it was primarily about getting control of their back catalogue and possibly also about eliminating a potential competitor.

To be honest, I think Disney is a better owner than Comcast would've been, especially for the Alien IP, and the chance of us getting the proper sequel to Aliens that we deserve.

 

[Mmoore29]

You say this as thought Iger wasn’t with the company for decades.

He was, but the company he entered in our reality is a different one than he would've entered if he'd been chosen to be Eisner's number two in 1996. Very different company. And very different results if he'd been taking care of business then, instead of later, after Eisner's micromanagement had begun breaking things down. Here, Iger would've kept that from happening and Disney would've been doing far better, especially without the Ovitz headache.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

No need to assume financial condition they might just be cheap.....

Both in my case.

 

[Tha Realest]

If something HAS to be sold, it would be selling Disney+ to Netflix, but not before 2024, before they can exercise the option to buy out Comcast's stake in Hulu, integrate the Hulu content in Disney+, then sell it all to Netflix under a deal where Netflix gets the content and gives Disney licensing fees, but Disney remains in creative control of the originals, because they'd want to keep that.

I think you vastly underestimate how much the company has leveraged to simply walk away from streaming. Home media sales are virtually nonexistent and box office returns are less and less of a sure thing.

And no one would ever let Disney be acquired by another company, not even Iger. No one would ever stand for that, especially after Comcast's hostile bid back in 2004. If Disney could survive that moment, it can survive anything.

You do realize Iger became a Disney employee only because the company he worked for was taken over by Disney

 

[Disney Analyst]

I think there was ample concern that he was trying to do exactly that. He had already facilitated the creation of Dreamworks, which for a time became a viable competitor in the field of animation (the biggest one they had ever faced thus far). He also burned bridges with Pixar, which was in the process of splitting off from Disney to become another independent studio before Iger bought them out. Disney animation would not have survived this. Eisner had no viable strategy to handle this creative loss and seemed uninterested in wanting to fix it (perhaps even unwilling to admit there was a problem).

The parks were also decaying under Eisner's watch. EPCOT was ruined beyond any hope of recovery in only a few short years starting in 1994. Disneyland had a string of safety related scandals that led to multiple guest deaths, and the dilapidated state of the park as a whole was quite well documented. California Adventure and Studios Paris were mostly considered massive disappointments, and Hong Kong DL was also for having nothing to do.

And on the executive level, remember that Eisner was the originator of the strategic planning group. We would never have gotten Bob Iger or any of the others in that circle without Eisner.

Part of me wonders what the company would be like today had he stayed on longer. If would learn ANY lessons from the fear of having his power stripped, but narrowly avoiding it. But I have to be realistic here, he did unfathomable damage before he left. I think "lighting the place on fire" isn't too far from the truth.

Given that the timing of everything going to hell with Frank Wells' death are so precisely coordinated, I have to assume he really was the glue that held everything together. He was seen as the "financial" guy (who you'd more often be against in the creative business world today), but he seems to deserve a lot more credit than that. Just as I believe Roy Disney deserves more credit than he often gets as well (not that Walt didn't deserve his share).

I agree with your post fully. Eisner was trouble. The parks were decaying, and safety was genuinely compromised.

The Save Disney campaign started for a reason.

Things only really turned around at Disneyland when Matt Ouimet stepped in as President and got the place into top form for the 50th anniversary, which I believe was already when Eisner was stripped of his Chairman title, and the transition to Iger was beginning.