Bob Iger is worse than Michael Eisner ever was - A Discussion on Brand Withdrawal

FerretAfros

Well-Known Member
Actually I would saying building a park in main land China is pretty gutsy. Some may not like it because its not "Disney" enough. But that isn't what appeals to the Chinese market. In fact you can't force your ideals on another country and expect them to react the same. That is something that Eisner didn't understand with EuroDisney, a mistake that the company is still trying to fix to this day.
Shanghai started as an Eisner project, but when the Chinese government refused to let Disney have media networks in mainland China as part of the original deal, he walked away from the project. Iger wanted it as a legacy project (because he had/has nothing else other than acquisitions) and was willing to build it regardless of how bad a deal he got, or how far over budget it ended up being. The park may have solid attendance (highlighting how under-capacity the initial build is), but it came at the expense of Disney spending billions of dollars to either counteract fraud and shoddy workmanship or to support outright political bribes, depending on how deeply you want to read into things. During the later stages of construction, it became pretty clear that Disney is going to be on the hook for more than their share of investments in the resort's future, lest the government spurn them again.

As for EuroDisneyland, the mistake was not the focus on Americana but rather the initial overbuilding of hotel and resort infrastructure that saddled them with massive debt from the outset. In its first year of operation, the park became the most-visited paid-admission tourist attraction on the continent and quickly had to expand to meet demand (adding the Storybookland, Casey Jr, the Old Mill, Indiana Jones coaster, and Space Mountain in the first 3 years). Although park attendance was very strong, visitors were spending less time on site (shorter trips and more locals) than anticipated, leaving the six massive hotels, Disney Village, and extensive infrastructure to cause longterm debt issues. The problems were further compounded by the initial agreement that required EDSCA to open a second park within 10 years of the first, which led to the troubled WDSP built as cheaply as possible.

Neither project is perfect, but the flaws from Paris are very different from the flaws in Shanghai, yet they ultimately come down to high-level decisions made early in the process. Unlike many projects, where the problems ultimately lie in creative decisions or trying to do too much with a limited budget, both of these can be traced to the executive leadership at the time.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Shanghai started as an Eisner project, but when the Chinese government refused to let Disney have media networks in mainland China as part of the original deal, he walked away from the project. Iger wanted it as a legacy project (because he had/has nothing else other than acquisitions) and was willing to build it regardless of how bad a deal he got, or how far over budget it ended up being. The park may have solid attendance (highlighting how under-capacity the initial build is), but it came at the expense of Disney spending billions of dollars to either counteract fraud and shoddy workmanship or to support outright political bribes, depending on how deeply you want to read into things. During the later stages of construction, it became pretty clear that Disney is going to be on the hook for more than their share of investments in the resort's future, lest the government spurn them again.
This is the price of doing business in China, so you can't blame Iger for that. Many American companies have faced the same exact issues, Disney is no different. The point was and still is that the park has become a success. And does fit into the culture of the Chinese market. Because you can't just plop down DL and expect Chinese consumers to respond the same.

As for EuroDisneyland, the mistake was not the focus on Americana but rather the initial overbuilding of hotel and resort infrastructure that saddled them with massive debt from the outset. In its first year of operation, the park became the most-visited paid-admission tourist attraction on the continent and quickly had to expand to meet demand (adding the Storybookland, Casey Jr, the Old Mill, Indiana Jones coaster, and Space Mountain in the first 3 years). Although park attendance was very strong, visitors were spending less time on site (shorter trips and more locals) than anticipated, leaving the six massive hotels, Disney Village, and extensive infrastructure to cause longterm debt issues. The problems were further compounded by the initial agreement that required EDSCA to open a second park within 10 years of the first, which led to the troubled WDSP built as cheaply as possible.

Which was and still is a misstep by Eisner. The additional issue which I didn't bring up was trying to partner with the government which lead to issues with the park performance and investment. For example how long did their river attraction sit decaying. Now that Disney owns the whole thing they can invest properly into the park and hopefully bring it up to the standards we expect.

Neither project is perfect, but the flaws from Paris are very different from the flaws in Shanghai, yet they ultimately come down to high-level decisions made early in the process. Unlike many projects, where the problems ultimately lie in creative decisions or trying to do too much with a limited budget, both of these can be traced to the executive leadership at the time.

Yes neither project was perfect, and no CEO is perfect. Which if you read my follow-up post, is why I don't understand this "us vs them" thing on Eisner vs Iger with fans. Its not a competition. They both lead the company at very different times and different consumer landscapes. They've both faced different challenges and both have succeed in their own ways.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I would say by making Shanghai property less about "Disney" and more about the Chinese culture it does fit. And the Chinese market seems to be eating it up, so it appears to be a success. We'll see how it does in another couple years, but with China becoming more industrialize and more western with places like Macau I think the Shanghai property will do just fine.

Perhaps...but how on earth does that matter? Half state owned co-partnerships where they retain all rights and contract leverage? It’s a fool’s errand - ultimately. We’ll see.

Also I don't really know why there is this "us vs them" thing on Eisner vs Iger with fans. Its not a competition. Its more of a relay race. Eisner (with the help of Roy and Wells) rebuilt Disney and then the baton (or torch whatever analogy works for you) was passed to Iger. Iger has continued to build Disney up into a media conglomerate, something that Eisner was already trying to do. I just personally didn't like Eisner in front of the camera.

The indictments of Eisner are very similar to what has happened now...notably “puppet board”, “no line of succession”, being a “soulless and rapacious corporate culture”, “lack of longterm strategy” and even - you can argue “timidity in the parks”.

I’ll get to the parks below...

Now as for the domestic parks. I've said this on this board before, you can't have something new every year. There is just not enough time, space, capital to do that. I would say the stagnation started long before Iger. Part of the issue, and Iger appears to now be correcting it, TWDC only focused on one park at a time. For example DAK was getting Pandora but the other WDW parks were getting nothing. Or here in CA, DCA was getting all the focus but DL was getting nothing. Again that appears to have changed, and now multiple parks are getting stuff all at once. Some think that DLR isn't getting enough with too much focus on WDW right now. But I don't look just on the near term, I look at the horizon and the horizon for DLR looks pretty good for the next 10 years. There will be a time however where it will go back to minimal investment, because again you can't do something new ever year, that is just a fact.


There is enough capital to knock everything down and rebuild it. Are you serious?

Parks are like fruit...if you don’t refresh them, they spoil.

You know who was good at adding/refreshing parks? Disney 1955-2000ish. Check the tape...new additions on about an every other year pace. That’s part of the formula.

So what did bob do when he took over?? Sat on them all. A very good for him PR repair of DCA being the first move. And he actually took things offline in Orlando.

That’s what he controlled at the time. That’s what he did. The tale of the tape.

They are still behind because you can’t let parks stagnate. That’s all now is really doing...trailing the race.

ESPN would have been the fault of any CEO, including Eisner, no matter who was in the position. The world of digital media is changing, its caught ALL the media companies off guard. So now they are scrambling to make sure they can offer what the current landscape wants. The streaming service will likely be a success just because there are enough fans of each content out there to consume it. The bigger question which I don't think anyone can answer right now, will consumers actually continue this ala-cart subscription model long term. I personally don't think so, I think everyone will get tired of having separate subscriptions for each thing and want the old "cable" all-in-one model back. We'll see, but again its a long relay race and its not over.

Eisner scored espn and it was a cash cow. Subscriptions and ad revenue started declining in 2010.

Iger has been slow to respond. Call it what you want...but that’s what happened.

As for SW, since you brought it up. No matter how you feel about what Disney has put out with regards to SW, they have made their money back and have added to the SW universe. Now there have been and continue to be missteps along the way, but the long term outlook for SW in my opinion looks good. We'll see how Ep9 does, but I'm not worried.
Episode 9? You mean the one with 2 unexplained “factions” and only one developed character - the one nobody likes? And everyone else dead? And some so unceremoniously that the silent wealthy fan base is boycotting movies (we think...maybe)?

That episode 9...it’s a dumpster fire. A reboot, followed by nonsense, followed by mr. Reboot again...

The Eisner vs iger thing is valid. I don’t love Eisner...he was my boss, for God’s sakes. But he was better than his empty suit lieutenant...and i’m Not talking paul presser...

It is what it is though...bob iger is not exceeding the predecessor...he’s just as “timid” as his boss was fired for - more or less.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Perhaps...but how on earth does that matter? Half state owned co-partnerships where they retain all rights and contract leverage? It’s a fool’s errand - ultimately. We’ll see.



The indictments of Eisner are very similar to what has happened now...notably “puppet board”, “no line of succession”, being a “soulless and rapacious corporate culture”, “lack of longterm strategy” and even - you can argue “timidity in the parks”.

I’ll get to the parks below...




There is enough capital to knock everything down and rebuild it. Are you serious?

Parks are like fruit...if you don’t refresh them, they spoil.

You know who was good at adding/refreshing parks? Disney 1955-2000ish. Check the tape...new additions on about an every other year pace. That’s part of the formula.

So what did bob do when he took over?? Sat on them all. A very good for him PR repair of DCA being the first move. And he actually took things offline in Orlando.

That’s what he controlled at the time. That’s what he did. The tale of the tape.

They are still behind because you can’t let parks stagnate. That’s all now is really doing...trailing the race.



Eisner scored espn and it was a cash cow. Subscriptions and ad revenue started declining in 2010.

Iger has been slow to respond. Call it what you want...but that’s what happened.


Episode 9? You mean the one with 2 unexplained “factions” and only one developed character - the one nobody likes? And everyone else dead? And some so unceremoniously that the silent wealthy fan base is boycotting movies (we think...maybe)?

That episode 9...it’s a dumpster fire. A reboot, followed by nonsense, followed by mr. Reboot again...

The Eisner vs iger thing is valid. I don’t love Eisner...he was my boss, for God’s sakes. But he was better than his empty suit lieutenant...and i’m Not talking paul presser...

It is what it is though...bob iger is not exceeding the predecessor...he’s just as “timid” as his boss was fired for - more or less.


I'm sorry but you're looking at this stuff through fan eyes (maybe some contempt because you sound like you worked for Disney at one point) and not from a business perspective.

You can't just spend capital on a whim, that is how businesses fail. So even if they do have capital to tear down everything and rebuild doesn't mean that makes financial sense. They would get killed by investors and seen as raiding the corporate coffers. That isn't good for any company or CEO no matter if its Eisner or Iger or anyone else.

You can call Iger timid if you wish, that is your opinion. But overall investors appear to like him, and for all the complaining fans appear to like him as well. Sure every CEO makes missteps, that is part of the job, Walt made missteps too. History will judge if Iger is seen as a positive part of company history or a negative, at this point it looks overall positive.

On Ep9 and suggestions of boycotting, that is an empty threat at this point.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I'm sorry but you're looking at this stuff through fan eyes (maybe some contempt because you sound like you worked for Disney at one point) and not from a business perspective.

You can't just spend capital on a whim, that is how businesses fail. So even if they do have capital to tear down everything and rebuild doesn't mean that makes financial sense. They would get killed by investors and seen as raiding the corporate coffers. That isn't good for any company or CEO no matter if its Eisner or Iger or anyone else.

You can call Iger timid if you wish, that is your opinion. But overall investors appear to like him, and for all the complaining fans appear to like him as well. Sure every CEO makes missteps, that is part of the job, Walt made missteps too. History will judge if Iger is seen as a positive part of company history or a negative, at this point it looks overall positive.

On Ep9 and suggestions of boycotting, that is an empty threat at this point.

What’s your carbon date, friend? Please tell me you’re not another 27 year old economic theorist?

You seem brighter than that so I assume that’s not the case.

We can disagree on business manuals...though we don’t need to cover it from the first page...

But on Star Wars...they already HAVE started to boycott...the evidence is mounting.

When “return of the Ewoks” makes much less than the last Johnson...it will be clear.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
What’s your carbon date, friend? Please tell me you’re not another 27 year old economic theorist?

You seem brighter than that so I assume that’s not the case.

We can disagree on business manuals...though we don’t need to cover it from the first page...

But on Star Wars...they already HAVE started to boycott...the evidence is mounting.

When “return of the Ewoks” makes much less than the last Johnson...it will be clear.

No, I wish I was in my 20s again. I'm in my early-mid 40s thank you.

SW Fans can talk boycott for Ep9, but we both know that the itch will win and fans will cave eventually. The force is too strong of a pull for a complete boycott.
 

yeti

Well-Known Member
Michael Eisner, from the 80's to the late 90's, did a great job as CEO, honestly. He may not have been Walt himself, but he clearly had a creative mind and was willing to try new things. He also did a great job at getting out in front of the camera and really selling the new additions to the parks. Of course, though, after Frank Wells's unfortunate death and the failure of EuroDisney, Disney went into complete dismay under Eisner. The early 2000's saw awful and lackluster theme parks such as Disney's California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios and Hong Kong Disneyland, unnecessary straight to VOD sequels to beloved classics, and terrible movies in the Disney canon such as Home on the Range, Chicken Little, and the Emperor's New Groove. I think a lot of us remember that time and just how bad it was for Disney.

In 2005, Michael Eisner stepped down and was replaced by Bob Iger. In 2006, he oversaw the purchase of Pixar, a wonderful animation company that had worked closely with Disney in the past. In 2009, The Princess and the Frog was released which started the beginning of the Disney revival which also saw Tangled in 2010, Winnie the Pooh in 2011, and Frozen in 2013. Finally it seemed as if Walt Disney Animation was back on track. In that same year, the Walt Disney Co. purchased Marvel. With the parks, he oversaw the complete remodel of Disney's California Adventure turning it into a well rounded theme park that really honored California's history as it was when Walt Disney lived here. This is not to mention the expansions to Hong Kong Disneyland, Disney's Animal Kingdom, and the Magic Kingdom. In 2013, WDC purchased Lucasfilm which seemed to be right at home in Disney seeing as Lucas was a big fan of the company and they had already worked closely together during the Eisner era.

Something has happened to Bob Iger in the past few years, however. What set of this change I do not know, but I want to say it really started with The Muppets (TV series 2015-2016). To be clear, prior to The Muppets reboot there were already problems going on with Disney animation losing its identity but I'm going to assign this to the fact Lasseter was the chief creative officer at WDAS and Pixar, who also were seeing a decline in quality. Back to The Muppets, the show was hated by the original puppeteers such as Frank Oz and even led to the firing of Steven Whitmire, the voice and puppeteer of Kermit. The show had taken the Muppets and stripped them of their charm in favor of racy humor. While The Muppets (2011) was a brilliant, The Muppets (TV series) suffered from a lack of character integrity. If you're unaware, character integrity is a term used by Disney to make sure "friends of" Disney characters in the parks do not act out of character. For example, Cinderella would not attack a child. This is why they do not host the Hyperspace Hoopla at Disney's Hollywood Studios anymore. While it primarily is used in regards to the theme parks, it very much can be applied to other mediums the characters appear in and this is what happened with The Muppets in their return to the small screen. The characters in The Muppets (TV series) just were not the characters from The Muppet Show.

The issues of character integrity is what brought me to actually write this post. In case you missed it, a trailer for Wreck-It Ralph 2 dropped today. In it, we see Ralph visit Oh My Disney.go, a mommy blogging site for all things Disney. We see The Muppets, Star Wars, Marvel, Disney, and Pixar all together in one place (between Ready Player One, Infinity War, and this, crossovers seem to be the thing with 2018). What happens then is Penelope, voiced by Sarah Silverman, enters a room where the Disney princesses live. Remember what I said about how Cinderella attacking a child would be out of character? Well, of course, that's instantly what happens when she sees Penelope; Cinderella breaks her glass slipper, something she would never do, and points the broken glass at Penelope, something she would never do. The entire sequence in the trailer is a self parody of Disney which is very much the lacking of character integrity that caused them to cancel Hyperspace Hoopla and, assumably, why Solo had to be almost completely reshot.

What's most important to address regarding this concept of having all the princesses together in a single movie is that this was an idea by Michael Eisner for Fantasia 2000 (then called Fantasia Continued). This is how that went:

View attachment 287708

Unlike Bob Iger, Michael Eisner did not go through with it and had people to listen to who actually knew what they were doing. They understood that self parody is harmful to their own brand. This could very well be assigned to what Bob Iger has spoken of before as "brand withdrawal."

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2010, Bob Iger states this: "Any time you do something mediocre with your brand, that's a withdrawal. California Adventure was a brand withdrawal." Self parody is a perfect example of this. In an article from 2011, Oren Aviv, former head of production for Walt Disney Studios, states, "You could make the argument that Disney has been reshaped in Apple’s image: brand over everything, and an emphasis on quality." Again, self parody contradicts this statement from Aviv.

It should be noted, this is not the first instance of brand withdrawal, lack of character integrity, and self parody in regards to Disney under Iger. You are all aware of my opinion on Mission Breakout no doubt, but it must be addressed as an example of these problems. In the attractions, when the doors open at the top of the tower, Rocket Raccoon says "Disneyland? That's thematically inconsistent," mocking the lack of effort put into the attraction. While the attraction does lack quality, calling attention to it only makes those matters worse. By not respecting itself, I have no reason to respect it, and that's the why self parodies can be harmful to a brand's name.

While on the topic of Mission Breakout I may as well also bring to light that, under Eisner, there were plans to change Space Mountain into Stitch Mountain. In other words, they were going to take a beloved classic and cheaply overlay it for, what was at the time, a hot property. Fortunately, Eisner was talked out of it. Unfortunately, Iger was not talked out of cheaply overlaying Tower of Terror, a beloved classic, with Guardians of the Galaxy, a hot property of the time. We are seeing this same kind of cheap overlay currently being done to Paradise Pier with the "new" Pixar Pier. Yet again, an instance of brand withdrawal by Bob Iger that he criticized Michael Eisner of with DCA when it first opened.

There's also the issue regarding Star Wars and Lucasfilm but, just like with Pixar's flaws being assigned to Lasseter, I'm assigning that more towards Kathleen Kennedy. Overall, though, I would say Bob Iger simply has been CEO for too long. While he's done wonders for the shareholders and the company as far as finances go, and even at a time seemed like he was really ramping up the quality of the company as a whole, it appears now that the Walt Disney Co. is suffering from the same brand withdrawal that it did in the early 2000's under Eisner but, unlike in the 2000's, no one is there to stop Iger. Self parodies, promoting brands where they do not belong, lowering the quality of products, and lacking character integrity are just some of the harm Bob Iger has done to the Walt Disney Co.'s brand in these past few years and it's only a matter of time before the general public catches on to see what the WDC has become.
Brilliantly put.

Although Emperor's New Groove is a classic and you damn well know it.
 

FigmentForver96

Well-Known Member
No, I wish I was in my 20s again. I'm in my early-mid 40s thank you.

SW Fans can talk boycott for Ep9, but we both know that the itch will win and fans will cave eventually. The force is too strong of a pull for a complete boycott.
Some people can't understand the concept. I am not a fan of a lot of the projects being done currently. Pixar Pier, Toy Story Land, Guardians in Epcot etc. However, I would be naive to say that they are not investing and not giving quality. Mission: Breakout, as much as I hate to admit, was not done on the cheap side. The ride actually works for the narrative it is presenting. The outside is a different story but whatever. People have to realize that it's more then just catering to YOUR belief of how things should be. People, especially those on these boards, get so caught up in nostalgia that it will literally keep them from accepting or liking most if not all of what Disney produces.
Iger, love him or hate him, has been able to continue to grow the company. Star Wars is a huge win for Disney and will continue to do so for many years to come. Marvel has thrived under Disney as well and people love it and honestly they shouldn't be ashamed or put down for liking it. They are producing quality films the masses like and to think that somehow that is not ok is foolish.

ESPN is floundering but that was going to happen either way.

Shangahi Disneyland is doing well and is just as "Disney" as the other parks around the world. (If you haven't been then you cannot really have a say in whether you think it's "Disney" enough.) Now it has some flaws for sure but there are some really golden gems in that park that the states would be lucky to have.

All in all he is not the terrible person people make him out to be. I won't say he is perfect but people only hate him and love Eisner because Eisner is now gone. If Eisner was still around people would hate him just the same.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
No, I wish I was in my 20s again. I'm in my early-mid 40s thank you.

SW Fans can talk boycott for Ep9, but we both know that the itch will win and fans will cave eventually. The force is too strong of a pull for a complete boycott.

Then what’s with the basic stock gambling theory?

We all know about them not wanting to spend a dime and bob sock jockeying...blah blah blah...

But I don’t want to Hear it, ok!!!! I’m of the same vintage and I’ve heard it...bubbles away!


...Star wars...solo WAS boycotted...

And the last Johnson fell 35.5% from the reboot awakens...

And no...that is NOT like empire...which is the dumbest comparison I have never seen.

...It’s begun...
 

TROR

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The only way Episode IX makes less than $200 million opening weekend is if the critics hate it or are 'meh' on it. Having a year and a half to get hyped up for it instead of 12 months (or 5 months with Solo) will help a lot imo.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Some people can't understand the concept. I am not a fan of a lot of the projects being done currently. Pixar Pier, Toy Story Land, Guardians in Epcot etc. However, I would be naive to say that they are not investing and not giving quality. Mission: Breakout, as much as I hate to admit, was not done on the cheap side. The ride actually works for the narrative it is presenting. The outside is a different story but whatever. People have to realize that it's more then just catering to YOUR belief of how things should be. People, especially those on these boards, get so caught up in nostalgia that it will literally keep them from accepting or liking most if not all of what Disney produces.
Iger, love him or hate him, has been able to continue to grow the company. Star Wars is a huge win for Disney and will continue to do so for many years to come. Marvel has thrived under Disney as well and people love it and honestly they shouldn't be ashamed or put down for liking it. They are producing quality films the masses like and to think that somehow that is not ok is foolish.

ESPN is floundering but that was going to happen either way.

Shangahi Disneyland is doing well and is just as "Disney" as the other parks around the world. (If you haven't been then you cannot really have a say in whether you think it's "Disney" enough.) Now it has some flaws for sure but there are some really golden gems in that park that the states would be lucky to have.

All in all he is not the terrible person people make him out to be. I won't say he is perfect but people only hate him and love Eisner because Eisner is now gone. If Eisner was still around people would hate him just the same.

I hope that was just generalities...and not specific to me.

I’m not a nostalgia wonk...nor a anti-iger crusader.
He did fine...but the time has come.

As far as films go...that 10% is nice...but where does it go from here? You can’t crank 6 marvel movies forever...it’s not gonna go into 2050...

And the Star Wars Issue is more real than you think. I see a lot of self convincing on that. It’s not insalvageable...but they don’t know what they’re doing. Look at the state of everything...it is not good.

Espn woulda fallen? Correct...but how would you handle it? Ride the horse til collapse? That is on iger. If they wanted to have a stream service...it’s been there. It’s not like that potential popped up in 2016. Flat footed. Of all the iger criticisms...that is the most truthful/one sided. Fail.

But it padded the stock and he can’t see past that. A stock that is still down around 20%...and was overvalued on the housing crash rebound as is. Analysts can’t seem to tell if it’s gonna go way up or down...lots of 50/50 kinda talk. Opportunity and liability.

Bob has actually done better than I expected. But they should have LEARNED from Eisner...no succession...no direction...no checks...time to replace. Get a new Chevy.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Some people can't understand the concept. I am not a fan of a lot of the projects being done currently. Pixar Pier, Toy Story Land, Guardians in Epcot etc. However, I would be naive to say that they are not investing and not giving quality. Mission: Breakout, as much as I hate to admit, was not done on the cheap side. The ride actually works for the narrative it is presenting. The outside is a different story but whatever. People have to realize that it's more then just catering to YOUR belief of how things should be. People, especially those on these boards, get so caught up in nostalgia that it will literally keep them from accepting or liking most if not all of what Disney produces.
Iger, love him or hate him, has been able to continue to grow the company. Star Wars is a huge win for Disney and will continue to do so for many years to come. Marvel has thrived under Disney as well and people love it and honestly they shouldn't be ashamed or put down for liking it. They are producing quality films the masses like and to think that somehow that is not ok is foolish.

ESPN is floundering but that was going to happen either way.

Shangahi Disneyland is doing well and is just as "Disney" as the other parks around the world. (If you haven't been then you cannot really have a say in whether you think it's "Disney" enough.) Now it has some flaws for sure but there are some really golden gems in that park that the states would be lucky to have.

All in all he is not the terrible person people make him out to be. I won't say he is perfect but people only hate him and love Eisner because Eisner is now gone. If Eisner was still around people would hate him just the same.

I completely agree. I think some just have a need to blame someone when things aren't to their liking. Either way the company is fine and the products they put out are fine overall.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Then what’s with the basic stock gambling theory?

We all know about them not wanting to spend a dime and bob sock jockeying...blah blah blah...

But I don’t want to Hear it, ok!!!! I’m of the same vintage and I’ve heard it...bubbles away!


...Star wars...solo WAS boycotted...

And the last Johnson fell 35.5% from the reboot awakens...

And no...that is NOT like empire...which is the dumbest comparison I have never seen.

...It’s begun...

Say what you want, its your opinion. But the company is doing just fine, even Lucas. There isn't a shareholder revolt happening here trying to get Iger ousted. There also isn't a shareholder revolt to get Kathleen Kennedy ousted, despite the call for it on fan boards.

We'll see as time goes on, but there shouldn't be some panic that the company needs a change.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
Large companies don't get rid of their senior executives because a group of fan boys living in their mom's basement say they should. It's easier to unhinge a multibillionarie then a group of faceless corporate executives.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Say what you want, its your opinion. But the company is doing just fine, even Lucas. There isn't a shareholder revolt happening here trying to get Iger ousted. There also isn't a shareholder revolt to get Kathleen Kennedy ousted, despite the call for it on fan boards.

We'll see as time goes on, but there shouldn't be some panic that the company needs a change.

If it’s good enough for you...that’s your right.

It doesn’t mean there should not be..but we’ll only know if that is true when it’s too late.

The ouster of Eisner was mainly Roy...his decisions made a lot of sense in context in their time as the ones you believe iger makes sense with now.

Bad economies tend to heighten how “awful” people are...until then they get all kinds of similar excuse making.

As always...the road ahead is unknown
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
The only way Episode IX makes less than $200 million opening weekend is if the critics hate it or are 'meh' on it. Having a year and a half to get hyped up for it instead of 12 months (or 5 months with Solo) will help a lot imo.

You’re buying the front/narrative that a movie about one of biggest characters in movie history fell flat because the most loyal legion of fans can’t “deal” with only 5 months of downtime, huh?

How convenient for Burbank...no fault except giving the fans “too much”?

...and not “not enough”?

So if the Revenge is the Abrams falls flat after that $200 opening - I think many fans are “on” to the critics - what will it be then?

What if you’re $600 domestic/1.3 worldwide falls to $400/850?
Putting it in pirates or transformers realm and trailing minions by a lot?

What shall we think then.

My opinion is this is much bigger. And I don’t think mr overrated can do with the dull trio of “heros” and Darth Felicity - without anyone left but a dead Hollywood Party Princess - at least not to a redeeming level.

Just an opinion. End Star Wars jack.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom