News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
From a Motley Fool article: "Despite its size, industry-leading position, diversified media channels, cruise ships, and more, Disney is a very risk-tolerant company. In fact, risk-taking has been a winning move for Disney throughout its history."

Maybe they should have told Bob "De-risk" Iger that in 2005. 🤦‍♂️ Or else the article author has been completely out of touch with Disney since Iger was handed the reigns.


"Personal note... blah-blah-pandering... Lots of PR-written fluff... more pandering... Warmest regards". Written with all the warmth and compassion of $lappie. Meaning - zero.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
From a Motley Fool article: "Despite its size, industry-leading position, diversified media channels, cruise ships, and more, Disney is a very risk-tolerant company. In fact, risk-taking has been a winning move for Disney throughout its history."

Maybe they should have told Bob "De-risk" Iger that in 2005. 🤦‍♂️ Or else the article author has been completely out of touch with Disney since Iger was handed the reigns.



"Personal note... blah-blah-pandering... Lots of PR-written fluff... more pandering... Warmest regards". Written with all the warmth and compassion of $lappie. Meaning - zero.
Disney has become increasingly less risk averse in industries where they're the strongest, most notably movies and theme parks.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
$2 Billion for Star Wars Lands?

I think Pandora was a bigger risk given the age of the movie when the land opened. However, they did an excellent job with the land - certainly better than they did with Galaxy's Edge. Maybe there's a correlation there - bigger risk means more pressure to get it right, while the relatively '"safe" move of spending big on a Stars Wars land helped create an attitude of "we can cut corners and people will still come anyway. "
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
I think Pandora was a bigger risk given the age of the movie when the land opened. However, they did an excellent job with the land - certainly better than they did with Galaxy's Edge. Maybe there's a correlation there - bigger risk means more pressure to get it right, while the relatively '"safe" move of spending big on a Stars Wars land helped create an attitude of "we can cut corners and people will still come anyway. "

Iger did (in)famously say something along the lines of, "I just need to tweet that it's open and people will flock to it".

They absolutely thought playing it safe with GE was the right call. They thought having one ride available at its opening was good enough. They thought a dozen shops and eateries of various sizes was good enough. Imagine opening the Fantasyland expansion and having it be only Mermaid and 14 shops and QS locations. That's what they did with GE. The hammer falls squarely on both Bob's for the shortcomings of GE. Visually, it's great. But peel back a layer and there are many flaws, not the least of which is MF:SR.
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
I think Pandora was a bigger risk given the age of the movie when the land opened. However, they did an excellent job with the land - certainly better than they did with Galaxy's Edge. Maybe there's a correlation there - bigger risk means more pressure to get it right, while the relatively '"safe" move of spending big on a Stars Wars land helped create an attitude of "we can cut corners and people will still come anyway. "
That plus the fact we had Joe Rhode designing Pandora, probably one of the last “old school” imagineers, someone that still actually cared…yeti excluded…
 

Dear Prudence

Well-Known Member
I still feel they really shouldn't have bothered with Galaxy's Edge in California. Should have kept it in DHS only and allowed far more expansion long term.
I feel like this space should have been smaller. Or had more. Because it was A LOT of real estate in a park that doesn't have that much to spare. I do think it's better than Avengers' Campus by leaps and bounds.
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
Iger did (in)famously say something along the lines of, "I just need to tweet that it's open and people will flock to it".

They absolutely thought playing it safe with GE was the right call. They thought having one ride available at its opening was good enough. They thought a dozen shops and eateries of various sizes was good enough. Imagine opening the Fantasyland expansion and having it be only Mermaid and 14 shops and QS locations. That's what they did with GE. The hammer falls squarely on both Bob's for the shortcomings of GE. Visually, it's great. But peel back a layer and there are many flaws, not the least of which is MF:SR.
This is what happens when your CEO thinks he’s a creative genius (he’s not) and your Parks VP came up through merchandise sales and realizes they get a more immediate ROI on retail and food sales - and expensive up charges like lightsaber and droid creations - rather than adding ride capacity.

For all the complaints that GE missed the mark, I completely disagree - the designers absolutely knew the assignment and executed it as directed. We can disagree over the wisdom of these decisions, but they achieved the objectives.
 

pdude81

Well-Known Member
Iger did (in)famously say something along the lines of, "I just need to tweet that it's open and people will flock to it".

They absolutely thought playing it safe with GE was the right call. They thought having one ride available at its opening was good enough. They thought a dozen shops and eateries of various sizes was good enough. Imagine opening the Fantasyland expansion and having it be only Mermaid and 14 shops and QS locations. That's what they did with GE. The hammer falls squarely on both Bob's for the shortcomings of GE. Visually, it's great. But peel back a layer and there are many flaws, not the least of which is MF:SR.
I agree with the premise, other than personally liking MFSR very much.
 

HauntedPirate

Park nostalgist
Premium Member
I agree with the premise, other than personally liking MFSR very much.
Nothing wrong with that. I just think that it should have been a high-quality, signature attraction for something using an iconic piece of Star Wars instead of a life-sized video game simulator. As it stands, it’s going to need multiple different missions to improve overall re-rideability.
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
This is what happens when your CEO thinks he’s a creative genius (he’s not) and your Parks VP came up through merchandise sales and realizes they get a more immediate ROI on retail and food sales - and expensive up charges like lightsaber and droid creations - rather than adding ride capacity.

For all the complaints that GE missed the mark, I completely disagree - the designers absolutely knew the assignment and executed it as directed. We can disagree over the wisdom of these decisions, but they achieved the objectives.
I agree…I’m NOT a Star Wars fan but I think higher ups gave the imagineers their marching orders and their budgets and they were held to those boundaries. That said, again, NOT a SW fan, but we ride RotR and had nothing but praise for the work they did.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom