Bob Iger Stepping Down, Bob Chapek New CEO


New Member

So many meme possibilities....
I’m honestly kind of shocked more people aren’t talking about Iger’s body language in that interview. He does not seem to want to be there and seemed rather uncomfortable the whole time. If this was all really part of a thoughtful succession plan, it feels like he’d be more engaged and prepared for the optics here.


Well-Known Member
In the Parks


Well-Known Member
every company is built upon the people before it. Eisner would have nothing with out Walt....

i Never said Eisner was bad he was the right person at the right time for Disney. Then like all CEO he had his expiration date. In comes the next. And they either grow it, keep the status quo or take it to new heights.

Iger did the new heights through purchases and Grew the company more Then anyone since Walt.

I don’t think Iger was at his end date yet as he was still doing good for the company. Which is why I think Bob C job is to maintain the status quo as his tenure

Per this it looks like Eisner grew the company more:


Well-Known Member
Do we know if Iger will still take part in future conference calls like today or will those be handled by Chapek moving forward? Iger always made the calls worth listening to providing thoughtful answers and interesting insight into the company. Doubt I'll bother tuning in if its Chapek at the wheel.


Premium Member
Thanks for provided the proof that I didn’t need...good stuff

The Eisner/Wells team did more to expand Disney (with Roy as the steady studio and Hollywood hand) by a multiplication factor than Iger did since.

That’s not to say Iger didn’t do really good job. He did. But the horse has to come before the cart. One built off the other and that is just the facts.

Also the economic context: Iger is on a steroid fueled bubble economy - today - while 1999-2003 was a REALLY bad overall economic outlook.

That makes the lucky look great and the more “unlucky” guy look terrible 9 times outta 10

Not to say Eisner didn’t make huge mistakes...he did. But the successor gets the benefit of learning from those as well.


Premium Member
Captain Marvel actually wasn't highly reviewed by critics. It's one of the worst reviewed Marvel movies with a 64 on Metacritic (only better than the Incredible Hulk, the first two Thor movies, and the second and third Iron Man movies) and a 78 on Rotten Tomatoes (only better than the first two Thors, Incredible Hulk, Age of Ultron, and Iron Man 2).

I personally thought it was fine -- not great, but not terrible. Middle of the road among the MCU.
Generally favorable reviews.


The score is in the green.

While the *rating* for CM from critics was just 'good,' as you mention, on RT, it got 78% Fresh (that's a pretty high 'thumbs up, go see it.'). IOW, they liked it and recommended it, but didn't think it was excellent.

Comparing it to the more favored other Marvel movies doesn't make it bad. If every student got 100% on a test except one who got 99%, you don't start saying how awful that one kid is.

Put on the curve of all movies... it's above average. The average Metacritic score for Disney Studios this decade is around a 56.


Well-Known Member
1. Iger has had a good tenure...but that has nothing to do with Eisner’s labeling him a suit or questioning his creativity. Bob isn’t the same type.
Eisner didn't think he could run the company, and since you admit Iger had a good tenure, Eisner was wrong. Honestly though I think Eisner was just a little miffed about losing the company he loved.

2. That’s a huge assumption. We have no idea what the opinion of chapek by “the board” is? This arrangement is weird and at least raises questions?
You realize only the board has the power to hire/fire the CEO... Right? Which is also why all this talk of it being sudden is silly... paperwork has to be filed with the SEC, the lawyers have to be involved, press and publicity, scheduled interviews arranged for investors and the networks and so on. This has probably been in the works for weeks.

Being an internal Disney employee doesn’t really equate with the size they are now...the street would want someone with broader experience. And chapek is a T-shirt salesman...plain and simple. He’s neither a big money guy nor creative.
And Bob is just a weatherman, and Eisner was just a producer and Walt just made cartoons.

The board has long wanted someone from the outside due to potential internal conflicts with this big Hollywood egos. This happened during Eisner's tenure, and almost sank him. Appointing Kevin Mayer or Kathleen Kennedy as CEO (or even suggesting Kennedy) would have riled the other factions within the studio hierarchy and potentially risked an exodus (which admittedly could still happen).

Keeping all your creatives happily creating means appointing a neutral element from outside the creative circle. I suspect thats why Iger has been pushing for parks guys to take the role since Rasulo amd Staggs switch places.

so fingers crossed this works out but I would think this tenure won’t be taking on big changes and growth. Will be asked more to keep the ship steady and slowly grow with what we have.
The desire for rapid expansion was and acquisition was something that Eisner wanted, and Iger just followed in his footsteps. Back when Iger was first promoted to COO, Disney was fighting off takeover bids from AOL and Comcast. Growing Disney was a way to stave off those acquisitions. The Disney flag is still the only one that has flown over the studio Walt built, and I'm pretty sure its the last of the big Hollywood studios to remain independent their entire life.

But that period of growth may be over, as they are quite large now. Still not so big as to be gobbled up by Apple or Google, but safe now from the bigger internet/media conglomerates like Netflix or Verizon.

So I think you're right in saying there will be less growth and more sustainment during Chapek's tenure, but that is not at all a bad thing.

Tim Cook didn’t build modern Apple, he’s just sort of made sure the place doesn’t blow up. Bob Chapek doesn’t need to be a genius or a creative, he just needs to keep the company moving forward.

I have the feeling that Chapek is being set up as the fall guy when the Coronavirus hits or the other shoe is dropped.
Corona Virus will be the fall guy. People understand that this is an unusual circumstance.

I would like to say CONGRATS @realBobChapek make me proud!
Planning anything for your retirement? Amateur weather forecasting or perhaps some sweater enthusiast clubs?


Well-Known Member
Comparing it to the more favored other Marvel movies doesn't make it bad. If every student got 100% on a test except one who got 99%, you don't start saying how awful that one kid is.

Put on the curve of all movies... it's above average. The average Metacritic score for Disney Studios this decade is around a 56.
I didn't say it was bad, just that the reviews weren't great. Your original comment made it sound like it had overwhelmingly positive reviews along the lines of Black Panther, which has an 88 on Metacritic.


Well-Known Member
Why are you all assuming someone with experience in parks will lead the Parks, Experiences, and Products division? That would make far too much sense. Instead I’d bet Bob will choose someone from consumer products. Or someone even more random.
This decision will be key for me. Does Chapek install someone with intimate knowledge of the parks and an appreciation for them, or does he install someone from DCP? I also hope he doesn’t just pluck Colglazier from the executive ranking (I believe he’s technically the second highest in command). Colglazier has a poor reputation.

I hope he installs someone like D’Amaro or perhaps Bob Weis.


Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Meh. Iger took Disney as it was, and added Pixar, Lucasfilm, Marvel and (fwiw) Fox to its portfolio.

In the parks, he supported: the rebirth of DCA before they started monkeying with it again; repurchasing and starting expansion/renovation of DL Paris; creating Disneyland Shanghai (which ultimately should be great); and has greenlit quite a few WDW projects.

Be as skeptical as you want about stock price, but it does reflect the value of the company. It had been ~$26 for years and recently $150 in a <10 year period. He took a floundering company with a remarkable history and turned it into the entertainment powerhouse in the world. Without hyperbole. Give the man some credit. Jobs was a true once in a lifetime visionary, but Iger has done an amazing job for the company as CEO. Objectively speaking
I mean . . . Pixar, Lucasfilm, and to a lesser extent Marvel were all pretty obvious acquisitions, no one would have considered them risky. Fox has yet to be seen in the long-term, but the board doesn't seem to be pleased with the short-term.

The work at DCA demonstrates an inability to function consistently over his tenure - how in the world did he let DCA falter after doing all that work to pull it back from the edge of oblivion? Jury is still out on Paris - the renovation was useful but the expansion has yet to be seen. Shanghai SHOULD be great, COULD be great . . . we'll have to see. There's some nice work in an otherwise flawed park. Overall it is artistically stilted. And as has been said, the investment in WDW comes in the wake of the $2 Billion failure of MDE to spare them having to actually invest in the parks . . . only to learn they have to anyway, on TOP of that loss.

All this is to say that, while I cannot deny he's been good for the dollar, Bob Iger's tenure hardly screams innovation the way that someone like Steve Jobs' did. While Cook doesn't seem to have shepherded in an era of financial strength quite like Iger, he's definitely more that type.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight...

Right now, the people running the parks are Iger and Chapek.

And for the next year and a half, the people running the parks are Iger and Chapek and someone they handpick.

OMG... Everything's going to immediately change!!!
But you can bet the day that shampoos change in the hotel or a trash can is overflowing over near Dumbo, the ranting will begin.

We are at a point where Disney parks are not the parks Walt originally created. Good or bad it’s just not the same cause the same man isn’t running it (although one must wonder how people on this board would react to Walts crazy ideas. A mountain by the castle! RUINED). I’m glad these boards exist and I’m glad we can discuss old vs new (I consistently vocalize my thoughts on Epcot, GMR etc) but in the end, what’s done to the parks is really just ones opinion for the most part, especially new additions around IP. If cost cutting or lack of additions happen, sure that’s legitimate but nothing is going to change tonight or next week.

The parks hold a special place in my heart but if they turn into something I can’t stand (doubtful at this point) then I can stop going. I can move on and find new ways to have fun and make memories cause they do exist.


Well-Known Member
I didn't say it was bad, just that the reviews weren't great. Your original comment made it sound like it had overwhelmingly positive reviews along the lines of Black Panther, which has an 88 on Metacritic.
I'm replying to myself because I wanted to point out that despite my use of them as shorthand, both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are seriously flawed measurement scales. Rotten Tomatoes is such a simple system that a movie critics greet with a collective shrug and "sure, it's fine" can have a very high score due to a lack of outright negative reviews. It's one of the reasons so many blockbuster films have very high Rotten Tomatoes scores (like many of the MCU films) -- they don't take a ton of risks that would push people away, and they're well-made, so they'll likely get a positive review. But there's very little difference on their scale between a film that's getting a bunch of B/B- reviews from a film that's getting a bunch of A+ reviews. It doesn't really tell you anything about how good a movie is compared to other movies; it just tells you a movie isn't terrible.

Metacritic, on the other hand, has to attempt to assign a number to a review since most reviewers (especially movie reviewers) don't assign a number themselves. I could read a review and decide it sounds like an 85 and another person could read that same review and think it sounds like a 70. It's even possible someone could read a review and think it sounds like a 70 and another person thinks it sounds like a 45 just based on what the individual reader was focused on. Obviously they're trying to tie it to the text of the review, but you basically end up with multiple layers of subjectivity feeding into each other. It at least attempts to differentiate between "levels" of quality in a way that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't, but you end up with a number that's not really tethered to anything substantive.
Top Bottom