News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[MerlinTheGoat]

I nominate any of you to run Disney. I'm serious, I think any one of you would bring something to the table that no showman accountant ever could. Sure there would be minor disasters, but it would be totally worth it! Think of the colors!

It'll never happen because you folks don't have the right pedigree. A sad state of affairs.

I humbly accept this nomination.

Now where's my $50 million severance package? The board fired me in a single day after I greenlit the return of Horizons without any cartoon IP attached...

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I humbly accept this nomination.

Now where's my $50 million severance package? The board fired me in a single day after I greenlit the return of Horizons without any cartoon IP attached...

No joke, Disney could bring back Horizons and charge an extra $50/person to ride it and people would pay.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I struggle to be convinced these two attractions and Ouimet represented a complete 180 by Eisner. Walt Disney Studios Paris, by far the most embarrassing park Disney has ever built, opened just a year before Mission: Space. Hong Kong Disneyland, a Magic Kingdom without any major attractions other than Space Mountain that flopped royally, opened between M:S and Expedition Everest. So, it's very hard to know whether he suddenly "got it" or just greenlit two ambitious attractions during that period when there were still skilled Imagineers around to design them. I still think the responses to DCA's lacklustre opening that also opened around the same time as those two attractions were underwhelming and didn't really address the park's issues.

That, again, still leaves the rest of the company, which was in rough shape. In part because of Eisner was a little Chapek-like in his ability to alienate key people by the end. Even in animation, Disney was very lacklustre by that point. Whatever his faults - and there were many-, it's hard to say that Disney wasn't a far stronger company by the time Iger left than it had been when he took over from Eisner.

Not yet a full 180, but Eisner recognized that the parks were built around attractions and needed attractions. Iger’s response to the parks he inherited was to try and get rid of them. Dumping them seems a lot worse than slowly starting to fix them. He dramatically curbed that budding reinvest and then largely had to be forced by outside parties to actually do things like the Hong Kong Disneyland expansion and Disney’s California Adventure investment.

Eisner was showing the willingness to course correct and change. Why would that not apply to other areas? Is pumping out a bunch of streaming content really better than direct-to-video content? A bunch of needless remakes better than needless sequels?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney was already a big, evil corporation in 1994. That era is symbolic because Disney went from riding high on a wave of theme park and resort expansion which cemented their position as the leaders of the field and a new renaissance in animation with an instant classic releasing every year and that suddenly ground to a halt around 1995. That's when you suddenly never knew if a new addition to the parks would be an improvement or if the latest animated film would hit with audiences. As that decade wore on, the films almost never hit and Disney seemed to be increasingly chasing cheap money more than trying to produce quality entertainment, including by letting Disneyland literally decay. They also seemed to suddenly be left catching up to competitors and failing with stuff like Chicken Little meant to be an answer to Dreamworks.

That’s not actually true…

They were tiny in 1984…they grew after but it took a long time to do so.
They’re financial bloat really settled in with abc. At that point they became one of the largest studios, park operators, consumer products makers AND tv juggernaut.

This is all opinion…but if you look at holdings…it was the late 90s where there was no turning back. Not that any company ever would.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

No joke, Disney could bring back Horizons and charge an extra $50/person to ride it and people would pay.

I'm happy to say I don't buy into their upcharge BS like Genie+. But if they did actually do THAT... yeah not gonna lie, that's probably how they'd finally get me...

Fortunately/unfortunately, that's a decision i'll never have to contemplate.

 

[Cliff]

The Atlantic has a depressing article titled:

"The [D+] Streaming Death Spiral Must End"

"This doubling down on exclusive streaming releases appears to have had a cost: Disney+ lost $1.5 billion over the past quarter, more than double what it had lost the year before, according to a recent earnings announcement. Reported revenue and earnings per share were also both below analysts’ expectations, practically unheard-of for the company."

Yes....D+ was thought to be the "savior" for Disney during the pandemic but they are dumping WAY.....W A Y too much money into it and they HAVE to pull back from it. 1.5 Billion loss...in just one quarter? They are feeding D+ money from parks profit and not using that parks money to maintain and grow the parks.

It seems to me that D+ is a massive black hole that is sucking too much resources from the rest of the company. Disney doesnt even expect D+ to break even for 3 more years?

D+ is doing its part to kill local theaters...and is not even able to sustain itself. Its just a nasty black hole swallowing valuable money from other divisions....

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

May i ask what your job was inside the Company?

…I’ll answer you when you become a man, son

(I’m nobody famous…but I did move at “lightning” pace through a couple of management and business unit slots at a fairly young age. I just had an insight for what people think and how they apply that to what they want?…an incredibly useful skill in kiddie Mecca)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney ditching the strategy of smaller budget, adult films and going all franchise/tent pole is what led to a series of expensive box office bombs like John Carter, Lone Ranger, Nutcracker and the Four Realms, and more. Marvel has been propping up the studio division more than anything else since.

The Proposal (2009) was a Touchstone release and a box office smash, grossing over $300 million worldwide on a $40 million budget.

Iger looked at that and felt franchises were better because of sequel and merchandise potential...forgetting the need for movies to make back their money in ticket sales first.

In hindsight, continuing to produce that singles and doubles content also would have provided a catalogue for streaming.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I nominate any of you to run Disney. I'm serious, I think any one of you would bring something to the table that no showman accountant ever could. Sure there would be minor disasters, but it would be totally worth it! Think of the colors!

I'd bring to the table an immensely arrogant swag that would bankrupt the company within a week.

You're welcome.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The Atlantic has a depressing article titled:

"The [D+] Streaming Death Spiral Must End"

"This doubling down on exclusive streaming releases appears to have had a cost: Disney+ lost $1.5 billion over the past quarter, more than double what it had lost the year before, according to a recent earnings announcement. Reported revenue and earnings per share were also both below analysts’ expectations, practically unheard-of for the company."

Yes....D+ was thought to be tge "savior" for Disney during the pandemic but they are dumping WAY.....W A Y too much money into it and they HAVE to pull back from it. 1.5 Billion loss...in just one quarter? They are feeding D+ money from parks profit and not using that parks money to maintain and grow the parks.

It seems to me that D+ is a massive black hole that is sucking too much resources from the rest of the company. Disney doesnt even expect D+ to break even for 3 more years?

D+ is doing its part to kill local theaters...and is not even able to sustain itself. Its just a nasty black hole swallowing valuable money from other divisions....

What’s depressing about it?

There has NEVER been a lot of money in standalone streaming…Netflix has done it best but they’re the grandfather of that biz.

The masses don’t develop loyalty to stream apps. It’s been 20 years

 

[MisterPenguin]

The Atlantic has a depressing article titled:

"The [D+] Streaming Death Spiral Must End"

"This doubling down on exclusive streaming releases appears to have had a cost: Disney+ lost $1.5 billion over the past quarter, more than double what it had lost the year before, according to a recent earnings announcement. Reported revenue and earnings per share were also both below analysts’ expectations, practically unheard-of for the company."

Yes....D+ was thought to be the "savior" for Disney during the pandemic but they are dumping WAY.....W A Y too much money into it and they HAVE to pull back from it. 1.5 Billion loss...in just one quarter? They are feeding D+ money from parks profit and not using that parks money to maintain and grow the parks.

It seems to me that D+ is a massive black hole that is sucking too much resources from the rest of the company. Disney doesnt even expect D+ to break even for 3 more years?

D+ is doing its part to kill local theaters...and is not even able to sustain itself. Its just a nasty black hole swallowing valuable money from other divisions....

Or, D+ is priced at half its value.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It’s a shame Ron Miller is no longer with us to come back. The man really charged the course of Eisner and Wells’ early success.

 

[mightynine]

It’s not the Disney store that was the problem…it was the mall model that is close to dead already

They build medical clinics and hipster apartments in ours now.

The country basically over-malled itself and the closures were the market correction.

And then the ones that remain have anchor stores that are hanging on by a thread and open-air lifestyle centers take their place (and those will hit oversatuation at some point, if not close already).

You do have some online companies moving toward psychical locations - like Warby Parker for example - that at least give those places some new tenants as they discover that there’s a limit to online buyers as well.

As an aside, as someone in the Deep South, I hate open-air malls. Give me my air conditioning!

Or, D+ is priced at half its value.

Are you el Supe’s alter?

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

It’s a shame Ron Miller is no longer with us to come back. The man really charged the course of Eisner and Wells’ early success.

There was a lot of negativity surrounding his brief tenure at the company back in the Eisner era. But in hindsight and reading into the actual details, it seems like he was heavily responsible for setting up a lot of the successes that Disney would experience in the late 80s and early 90s. I think he was a particularly key figure in the Disney Channel and setting the groundwork for the animated "Renaissance".

He probably would have been a good choice to replace Wells.

 

[BobPar]

…I’ll answer you when you become a man, son

(I’m nobody famous…but I did move at “lightning” pace through a couple of management and business unit slots at a fairly young age. I just had an insight for what people think and how they apply that to what they want?…an incredibly useful skill in kiddie Mecca)

Thats awesome. Assuming you no longer work for them? Retired? Moved to better pastures? Did you ever get to deal w Eisner directly?

 

[MrPromey]

I think…and we have been talking about this for going on 30 years…is that 95-05 period is symbolic to a lot of fans…

It was kinda the end of the “innocence”. Eisner is really the figurehead for the transformation of the “family” company into the corporate…

And that is what happened. It’s a psychological transition that many never wanted.

The problem is it was going to happen. The reason Disney is the behemoth it is now…and not bought up like Warner or universal…is because they did make the transition then.

Even if they had to step on some land mines to do it.

Iger didn’t really do anything that wasn’t set up before. He gets far less shade. You build a house from the ground up…but the ground is never the “pretty part”

I’m sure we can go back to Eisner critique another time…not that anybody really wants to.

You make a good point.

Looking back, it's hard to remember that for how outsized it's place was in American culture, Disney really was a relatively small company back then when he started.

 

[HMF]

You don’t have to tell me that it was time to go on him…I worked for him in the “bad years”

But I also know that they went from a small potatoes operation to about ruling the world at an impressive pace.

Iger does nothing…he falls flat…if he didn’t have all that capital to use when he slid in.

You can separate the bad from the good.

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

That’s an important lesson.

I believe 2 of Disney's greatest pieces of art, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and IllumiNations: Reflections Of Earth were created during the "Bad" years.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The country basically over-malled itself and the closures were the market correction.

And then the ones that remain have anchor stores that are hanging on by a thread and open-air lifestyle centers take their place (and those will hit oversatuation at some point, if not close already).

It’s not just that too many were built. How malls were designed changed and they became actively hostile towards their visitors. That’s part of what successful lifestyles centers have corrected. People like well designed, human-oriented spaces, they flock to them and even pay top dollar to experience them, especially in a place like the US where they are not common.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I believe 2 of Disney's greatest pieces of art The Hunchback of Notre Dame and IllumiNations: Reflections Of Earth were created during the "Bad" years.

Eisners main blunders…besides iron fist ruling and vendetta…was he had a hard time evolving with the web world, digital and a movement away from a captive consumer market.

But that was the time of his late tenure. Nobody else had to contend with an on demand, connected, non-captive audience world.

 

[MrPromey]

I'm quite possibly missing something here, but why were Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures a big loss to the company? They didn't seem to struggle to produce content or have box office hits without them.

Those were their "grown up" brands.

The idea was to keep it separate from the Disney name so that parents don't accidentally show up to Splash with their six year old that might see a little too much bare shoulder or leg and so that grown ups wouldn't avoid a movie because they assumed some animal in it was going to burst into song due to it being a Disney release.

That kind of all started to change with Curse of the Black Pearl when they suddenly had a movie under the Disney name that was at least as popular with the adults as with kids and there was more than a little controversy at the time around if it was too shocking to be branded as Disney what with the scary skeletons and Keira Knightley getting her corset cut open with a knife by Johnny Depp so she could breathe.

... Different times.

Anyway, the dynamic and what was to be expected of a Disney movie changed dramatically after all that. I'm convinced it's part of why The Haunted Mansion bombed so badly. Eisner even warned that it wasn't made to be another Pirates and nobody - including me - really listened.

Suddenly, there were no more lower budget moves for adults OR kids anymore. Everything either had to be a tent-pole or it was something for a time slot on the Disney Channel.