Bye Bye Mickey...Disney is Ready for the New Generation (Yahoo Finance Article)

Jimmy Thick

Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with Iger as a businessman.

The problem is that he is nothing but a businessman. He doesn't have Walt Disney or Michael Eisner's concept of showmanship...if he did, I think we'd be seeing a REAL Second Disney Renaissance, including more hand-drawn animated features in conjunction with CGI and a working Yeti.

Hand drawn animation don't sell anymore, its a dodo bird. Everything, even Mickey and the gang has all gone CGI because that's what people want.

The Yeti don't bother me. I saw it when it worked, I saw it in disco mode, I saw it when he wasn't even there, its still a fun ride.


Jimmy Thick- Meh?
 

devoy1701

Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with Iger as a businessman.

The problem is that he is nothing but a businessman. He doesn't have Walt Disney or Michael Eisner's concept of showmanship...if he did, I think we'd be seeing a REAL Second Disney Renaissance, including more hand-drawn animated features in conjunction with CGI and a working Yeti.


Right, he seems the type of person that at the end of the day, when you're left with nothing and wondering what happened, Iger will look at you and say "hey...it was just business. no hard feelings..."
 

rd805

Well-Known Member
A while back I read DisneyWar, a book written by a guy named James Stewart (No relation to the actor I think). The book covered the Eisner years beginning with how he came to the company (I highly recommend this book for any Disney geek that hasn't read it). The picture DisneyWar paints of the WDC after a decade without Walt was pretty ugly. A financial ruin, ripe for a hostile corporate takeover. Whatever you want to say now about Iger, I'd rather have his brand of corporate governance than have a company on the verge of being bought out and broken up. It is obvious from the money that was poured into DCA and now across WDW that the parks division continues to be considered important to this company. As for what this money is buying, I'm going to withhold judgement till I see it. I've never REALLY been let down yet.

Post of the year. Rah Rah.
 

WDW95

Active Member
I don't have a problem with Iger as a businessman.

The problem is that he is nothing but a businessman. He doesn't have Walt Disney or Michael Eisner's concept of showmanship...if he did, I think we'd be seeing a REAL Second Disney Renaissance, including more hand-drawn animated features in conjunction with CGI and a working Yeti.

I 100% agree with this. Iger is more concerned about adding other successful brands to his portfolio whereas Disney and Eisner were more concerned about creating the brands and being innovative.

Since Iger came around, which rides/movies were created that were really innovative and amazing and not just more of the same old stuff/someone else's work?
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with Iger as a businessman.

The problem is that he is nothing but a businessman. He doesn't have Walt Disney or Michael Eisner's concept of showmanship...if he did, I think we'd be seeing a REAL Second Disney Renaissance, including more hand-drawn animated features in conjunction with CGI and a working Yeti.
Iger doesn't need to be creative, he acquires that. You can buy content.

Big massive molochs are seldom creative. Creativity resides in garages, in startups, in boys and girls fresh out of college with big dreams. Not in a bureacratic monster inhabited by cubicle monkeys and bonus-happy short-term thinking management. How creative is Apple without Jobs? Sooner or later, it will have to buy creativity. Even Facebook, itself barely more than a startup has to buy creativity now, for example a billion for Instagram.

Maybe Iger sinmply understood this. And identified as Disney's strength not its creativity (which has been of mixed quality since forever) but its synergy, its ability to do more with IP franchises than anybody else. For example, Star Wars on its own is worth three billion. If you can develop Star Wars via television, movie studios, theme parks, merchandise, stores, theme parks, sales channels, then Star Wars is worth ten billion. Hence why the acquisition of SW for four billion is a good deal for everybody.
 
Last edited:

rd805

Well-Known Member
I 100% agree with this. Iger is more concerned about adding other successful brands to his portfolio whereas Disney and Eisner were more concerned about creating the brands and being innovative.

Since Iger came around, which rides/movies were created that were really innovative and amazing and not just more of the same old stuff/someone else's work?

You don't like the New Fantasyland additions? Or at least don't THINK you'll like the Mine Car coaster?
 

Scuttle

Well-Known Member
The man who acquired Lucas, Marvel, Pixar and has spent billions on improving the parks is nothing more than a puppet?

Oh come on now.


Jimmy Thick- Lolz.

He had no choice to invest in the parks. You know and I know if he didn't have to he would not have.

Iger is to stupid to realize that Disney has so much in house to work with., but he's obsessed with outside property. He doesn't get that a great attraction could just have a great story and original ideas and incredible theming and it'll draw. It doesn't have to have characters people know.
 

Scuttle

Well-Known Member
I 100% agree with this. Iger is more concerned about adding other successful brands to his portfolio whereas Disney and Eisner were more concerned about creating the brands and being innovative.

Since Iger came around, which rides/movies were created that were really innovative and amazing and not just more of the same old stuff/someone else's work?
Exactly don't forget Mission Space and Everest were both Eisners call. Say what you will about both, but original ideas.
 

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
The problem is that he is nothing but a businessman. He doesn't have Walt Disney or Michael Eisner's concept of showmanship...if he did, I think we'd be seeing a REAL Second Disney Renaissance, including more hand-drawn animated features in conjunction with CGI and a working Yeti.

Iger is a leader and seemingly good investor who seems to know a good thing when he sees it. After all, under his leadership, he revived the relationship with Pixar that Eisner had destroyed and then he bought them, which was an extremely smart move considering the amount of creative talent they possess. He also bought back and revived the Disney Stores, another of Eisner's idiotic moves. He bought Marvel, which is at the moment producing mega blockbuster hits and he bought Lucas which is not just the film studios and Star Wars properties, but so much more. Now, that's not to say that I think he's the best thing since Walt, because there is nobody that could fill those shoes. However, Iger's leadership has taken a company that was on the brink of being bought out by Comcast and made it into a entertainment media powerhouse unlike any other. Sure, he's not a showman, but is that really what the company needs? I'll take a strong, visionary leader who's silent yet smart any day over a showman (such as someone like Eisner) who might have a tendency to lead with their ego rather than using intelligence, business smarts and listening to their subordinates who are actually focused on their business segments. I think what we need right now, is a strong visionary leader at the Parks level, more specifically at WDW who can see what's happening in Orlando, and seek out new ideas and plans to expand on content and attractions as well as the experience.
 

Big C 73

Well-Known Member
I love Disney and I think they are doing a good job. I do not like one thing Iger and his "lets but everybody else's success" Disney has created its success by being innovative, doing the impossible and creating new experiences and entertainment for years. Iger better not stop that. Disney is about making their own success.
 

WDW95

Active Member
I do believe acquiring Pixar was the best thing that came out of his leadership. Pixar practically was part of Disney since its inception so it only makes sense that it was purchased outright. Acquiring Marvel and Lucasfilm though I feel came out of nowhere and really did not go with the Disney brand. Instead of Disney animation studios or Pixar creating characters and stories that could have been better than those from Marvel, they just want to exploit already known properties. Instead of Disney creating their own blockbuster movie franchise they just take what was already created 40 years ago.

On the parks end what have we gotten under Iger?
- Finding Nemo the Musical (2007)
- Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage (2007)
- Pirate’s Lair at Tom Sawyer Island (2007)
- Seas with Nemo and Friends (2007)
- Monsters, Inc. Laugh Floor (2007)
- Gran Fiesta Tour starring Three Caballeros (2007)
- Toy Story Mania (2008)
- Pixie Hollow (2008)
- American Idol Experience (2009)
- Kim Possible World Showcase Adventure (2009)
- World of Color (2010)
- Captain EO (2010)
- Under The Sea: Voyage of the Little Mermaid (2011)
- Star Tours: The Adventures Continue (2011)
- Cars Land: Radiator Springs Racers, Mater’s, Luigi’s (2012)
- Buena Vista Street (2012)
- Enchanted Tales with Belle (2012)
- Seven Dwarf’s Mine Train (2014)

- DVC (Grand Californian, Kidani Village, Bay Lake Tower, Aulani)
- Disney Dream/Fantasy
- Golden Oak at WDW (2011)
- Art of Animation Resort (2012)

- Avatarland

Now why is everything that came out in the US parks based on a movie? Why are we going to get an Avatarland when Disney Imagineers could easily come up with their own, even more amazing material to build a land after? Why is WDW being sold off to the rich?

Also who asked for $2 billion in MyMagic+?
 
Last edited:

Scuttle

Well-Known Member
Let WDI have 2 billion and tell them to create some great attractions and see what happens. I guarantee we get timeless attractions that draw huge numbers.
 

Skip

Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with Iger as a businessman.

The problem is that he is nothing but a businessman. He doesn't have Walt Disney or Michael Eisner's concept of showmanship...if he did, I think we'd be seeing a REAL Second Disney Renaissance, including more hand-drawn animated features in conjunction with CGI and a working Yeti.

Agreed, completely. Iger's a wonderful businessman, but a very poor "showrunner," so to speak.
 

Skip

Well-Known Member
Iger doesn't need to be creative, he aquires that. You can buy content.

Big massive molochs are seldom creative. Creativity resides in garages, in startups, in boys and girls fresh out of college with big dreams. Not in a bureacratic monster inhabited by cubicle monkeys and bonus-happy short-term thinking management. How creative is Apple without Jobs? Sooner or later, it will have to buy creativity. Even Facebook, itself barely more than a startup has to buy creativity now, for example a billion for Instagram.

Maybe Iger sinmply understood this. And identified as Disney's strength not its creativity (which has been of mixed quality since forever) but its synergy, its ability to do more with IP franchises than anybody else. For example, Star Wars on its own is worth three billion. If you can develop Star Wars via television, movie studios, theme parks, merchandise, stores, theme parks, sales channels, then Star Wars is worth ten billion. Hence why the acquisition of SW for four billion is a good deal for everybody.

Probably the best defense of Iger I've read yet - great post. I don't think Iger's evil or anything, he's making some very keen business moves... I just think he has an aversion to content creation and the unknown, which bothers me because in its heyday Disney was the king of creating things people didn't even know they wanted. Those things are risky, but the payoff can be incredible - or disappointing. Iger would rather acquire something that's got proven numbers on paper versus something new that can only be speculated.
 

tl77

Well-Known Member
Walt Disney ran his company the way a Fashion Designer runs their own fashion house, it was all about having a unique brand that was instantly recognizable and quality was the number one priority, but Bob Iger seems to be running the Disney company like it's Wal-Mart, which is all about selling other people's merchandise.

The Wal-Mart business model is extremely profitable, and I personally don't care if the Disney brand "includes" outside IP's, Star Wars, Muppets ect... just as long as it doesn't diminish the Disney "brand", which is a one of kind thing beloved around the world and certainly more popular than all the stuff the Disney "company" has been buying up
 

Scuttle

Well-Known Member
Hand drawn animation don't sell anymore, its a dodo bird. Everything, even Mickey and the gang has all gone CGI because that's what people want.

The Yeti don't bother me. I saw it when it worked, I saw it in disco mode, I saw it when he wasn't even there, its still a fun ride.:rolleyes:


Jimmy Thick- Meh?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Hand drawn animation don't sell anymore, its a dodo bird. Everything, even Mickey and the gang has all gone CGI because that's what people want.

The Yeti don't bother me. I saw it when it worked, I saw it in disco mode, I saw it when he wasn't even there, its still a fun ride.


Jimmy Thick- Meh?

Hey Jimmy, Princess and the Frog made 267 million at the worldwide box office and another 75 million in dvd sales so far, but ya hand drawn animation doesn't sell anymore. Lol
 

FigmentJedi

Well-Known Member
Iger is a leader and seemingly good investor who seems to know a good thing when he sees it. After all, under his leadership, he revived the relationship with Pixar that Eisner had destroyed and then he bought them, which was an extremely smart move considering the amount of creative talent they possess. He also bought back and revived the Disney Stores, another of Eisner's idiotic moves. He bought Marvel, which is at the moment producing mega blockbuster hits and he bought Lucas which is not just the film studios and Star Wars properties, but so much more. Now, that's not to say that I think he's the best thing since Walt, because there is nobody that could fill those shoes. However, Iger's leadership has taken a company that was on the brink of being bought out by Comcast and made it into a entertainment media powerhouse unlike any other. Sure, he's not a showman, but is that really what the company needs? I'll take a strong, visionary leader who's silent yet smart any day over a showman (such as someone like Eisner) who might have a tendency to lead with their ego rather than using intelligence, business smarts and listening to their subordinates who are actually focused on their business segments. I think what we need right now, is a strong visionary leader at the Parks level, more specifically at WDW who can see what's happening in Orlando, and seek out new ideas and plans to expand on content and attractions as well as the experience.
To be fair, I think Lucasfilm and Pixar were more willing to play ball with Disney just from the act of getting rid of Eisner. Bridge burning was Eisner's favorite pasttime after all.

Besides Pixar, he scared off the Hensons from selling in the early 90s because he was getting grabby with Sesame Street, the whole mess with Katzenberg that also ed off Spielberg and killed off Roger Rabbit as a franchise, and I'm pretty sure getting on George's bad side was part of why it took forever for Star Tours 2 to happen.
 

Skip

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes::rolleyes:


Hey Jimmy, Princess and the Frog made 267 million at the worldwide box office and another 75 million in dvd sales so far, but ya hand drawn animation doesn't sell anymore. Lol

And that's when it was stupidly positioned against the juggernaut that was Avatar. And then the following year, Winnie the Pooh was mysteriously put up against Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2... both experienced a soft box office debut, but still had pretty solid numbers. Both were very well reviewed. Does that tell you that the market doesn't want hand-drawn animation, or does it tell you that Disney seemed to try and sabotage these films by giving them (pooh!) release dates?

I'm tired of the argument that the medium determines box office success/audience interest. Crap CGI films are a dime a dozen and many are thoroughly rejected by audiences. They're interested in strong story, characters, and art. I don't think it matters so much whether it's rendered by a computer or drawn. They have different looks, sure, but ultimately it's the subject matter, story, and marketing (let's keep in mind Disney has consistently, almost intentionally, squashed some of its films through [pooh!] marketing) that drives audiences to these animated films.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom