News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

[Sir_Cliff]

Worth keeping in mind - every Pixar film released in recent years, including the just-released Lightyear, began development and production under Iger's watch. Pixar's significant decline started only a few short years after the aquisition, really only once they started releasing projects Iger had a hand in. If anyone is responsible, it's the man who bought it.

I don't really say that in defense of Chapek, but it should be remembered that their 4 projects released under his tenture were pretty far along by the time he showed up. We haven't really seen his touch on their movies yet.

John Lasseter's spiral into alcoholism and sexual harassment in part fuelled by an out-of-control ego also didn't help Pixar's fortunes.

I honestly don't know how directly Iger meddled in the films and to what extent we can attribute him for the quality of films released under his tenure. If we're crediting him with the declining quality of Pixar films, are we also saying Walt Disney Feature Animation only really turned around when Iger started having a hand in the films? Should we also be patting him on the back for the massive success of the Marvel films?

I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, but honestly I don't know how directly he did meddle in the creative decisions of each division. The impression was that he was more hands-off than Eisner and let people do their own work, which people have been criticising in terms of him being less creative than Eisner in this thread. It can be both true that he didn't interfere creatively in Disney's output but did make decisions that impacted quality, but I would want to hear some account of how that worked before just assuming it in specific cases such as Pixar.

One of these articles had an ex-Imagineer describe the differences in working with Iger and Chapek which I thought was interesting. He did characterise Iger as trying to push and negotiate a little more on timelines and budgets for projects, whereas Chapek would just kill an idea dead if it did't fit what he wanted. So, that could be something of a difference in management styles that will have an impact on creative decisions.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

John Lasseter's spiral into alcoholism and sexual harassment in part fuelled by an out-of-control ego also didn't help Pixar's fortunes.

I honestly don't know how directly Iger meddled in the films and to what extent we can attribute him for the quality of films released under his tenure. If we're crediting him with the declining quality of Pixar films, are we also saying Walt Disney Feature Animation only really turned around when Iger started having a hand in the films? Should we also be patting him on the back for the massive success of the Marvel films?

I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, but honestly I don't know how directly he did meddle in the creative decisions of each division. The impression was that he was more hands-off than Eisner and let people do their own work, which people have been criticising in terms of him being less creative than Eisner in this thread. It can be both true that he didn't interfere creatively in Disney's output but did make decisions that impacted quality, but I would want to hear some account of how that worked before just assuming it in specific cases such as Pixar.

One of these articles had an ex-Imagineer describe the differences in working with Iger and Chapek which I thought was interesting. He did characterise Iger as trying to push and negotiate a little more on timelines and budgets for projects, whereas Chapek would just kill an idea dead if it did't fit what he wanted. So, that could be something of a difference in management styles that will have an impact on creative decisions.

My understanding is that Iger's influence at Pixar was, as you say, less about granular creative decisions with regards to the contents of their films and more about the direction of the company as a whole and changing what sort of work would be greenlit. The difference between Finding Nemo and Finding Dory is that one came from someone having a great idea for a movie and the other came from someone having a great idea for a profit. Yes, he knew better than to get in the trenches and try to tell them how to make that movie, but didn't know well enough to wait for someone to find the right idea before setting a release date.

Telling Pixar what kind of movie they'll be making and then just hoping someone can come up with a good idea for how to do it in time is not anything like the recipe that made them a hit factory in the first place, and unfortunately it shows in much of the work they've produced since the takeover. The exceptions generally prove this rule - their most successful projects of late tend to be the most wholly original. The ones that came from a creative person and sought executive approval, not the ones who came from an executive and then sought creative inspiration.

This seems like a relatively petty claim to lay at the feet of a Hollywood executive, since so many studios operate on some version of this system - but so much of the value in buying Pixar was in the fact that they operated differently and consistently got results. And unfortunately the change of course that Iger headed for them has tarnished their brand significantly and diminished faith in their ability to deliver.

 

[Lilofan]

Oh my comment was not a knock on her abilities. To the contrary, I think she was crucial in helping him navigate this role. Chapek needs a Zenia Mucha, or a wartime consigliere.

Didn’t Chapek fire his PR chief with only 4 months on the job? And the replacement is a new exec who was hired by the guy Chapek fired.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

My understanding is that Iger's influence at Pixar was, as you say, less about granular creative decisions with regards to the contents of their films and more about the direction of the company as a whole and changing what sort of work would be greenlit. The difference between Finding Nemo and Finding Dory is that one came from someone having a great idea for a movie and the other came from someone having a great idea for a profit. Yes, he knew better than to get in the trenches and try to tell them how to make that movie, but didn't know well enough to wait for someone to find the right idea before setting a release date.

Telling Pixar what kind of movie they'll be making and then just hoping someone can come up with a good idea for how to do it in time is not anything like the recipe that made them a hit factory in the first place, and unfortunately it shows in much of the work they've produced since the takeover. The exceptions generally prove this rule - their most successful projects of late tend to be the most wholly original. The ones that came from a creative person and sought executive approval, not the ones who came from an executive and then sought creative inspiration.

This seems like a relatively petty claim to lay at the feet of a Hollywood executive, since so many studios operate on some version of this system - but so much of the value in buying Pixar was in the fact that they operated differently and consistently got results. And unfortunately the change of course that Iger headed for them has tarnished their brand significantly and diminished faith in their ability to deliver.

I am very interested to know Iger's role in Pixar turning so hard toward sequels.

On the one hand, it is entirely in line with his franchise mandate for the company and presumably he had a role in green lighting films and setting the agenda. On the other, it just seems to go against the public line at the time about not interfering. It also strikes me that Pixar showed they weren't averse to sequels pretty quickly and then was in an awkward position for a few years where it was unclear what their relationship with Disney would be, which may have held them back from doing more. In other words, was it Iger's meddling, Pixar operating more or less independently but becoming somewhat lazy when they found they could print money with these sequels, or a combination of the two?

Maybe impossible to really unpick, but I am curious about this dynamic. Either way, personally I feel they have been on an uptick lately, Lightyear not withstanding.

 

[Aurorafan]

Worth keeping in mind - every Pixar film released in recent years, including the just-released Lightyear, began development and production under Iger's watch. Pixar's significant decline started only a few short years after the aquisition, really only once they started releasing projects Iger had a hand in. If anyone is responsible, it's the man who bought it.

I don't really say that in defense of Chapek, but it should be remembered that their 4 projects released under his tenture were pretty far along by the time he showed up. We haven't really seen his touch on their movies yet.

But didnt Chapek have a hand in how those films were distributed? That has made the bigger impact on how the films have bee received

 

[HauntedPirate]

Hopefully films like Soul, Luca, and Turning Red are more what Pixar's future looks like instead of Lightyear. Not that Lightyear is a bad film per se, but it is emblematic of everything wrong with Pixar's approach to sequels in the 2010s.

Pete Sohn's upcoming project sounds promising, like classic Pixar. And the fact that Docter has elevated Domee Shi to a more senior position in the company gives me hope that she'll help guide the next generation of storytellers at the studio with projects as unique and vibrant as her work.

Two out of three ain’t bad. ‘Turning Red’, IMHO, was garbage. Won’t see ‘Lightyear’ because it holds zero interest for me.

 

[yensidtlaw1969]

But didnt Chapek have a hand in how those films were distributed? That has made the bigger impact on how the films have bee received

While that's true, we should remember that Disney+ only launched a few short months before the Pandemic hit, and there was no Pixar release within the window between Disney+ launching and Iger leaving. It seems plenty likely that Iger would have made the same move had he been around, given that audiences were at home and not going to theaters. That decision really was made more by the Pandemic than by Chapek.

That said, it's possible that Iger would have made different moves on the most recent releases - perhaps Turning Red would have been in theatres and Lightyear would have gone straight to Disney+. Perhaps Luca would have been a Premier Access release. That's tougher to know, and tough to know specifically how those choices impacted the films' receptions.

I'll be curious to see if Lightyear's reception changes at all once it hits Disney+ and costs nothing to watch. Encanto became the sleeper hit it did once it was available in everybody's homes and kids could watch it over and over. I don't quite expect Lightyear to do the same for a number of reasons, but I wonder if its popularity will rise once kids can watch it basically whenever they want.

Seeing how people react to Lightyear once it's on Disney+ might be the strongest indicator of Pixar's position so far under Chapek - it will start to tell the story of how much it came down to not wanting to take the family to the movies vs. not wanting to see this movie in particular. While there have been some mega-hits at the box office recently, they are still few and far between, and a huge portion of the theater-going audience has pared back how many movies they're actually willing to go see in theaters. If you've decided you're only going to see one movie this summer, and it's Jurassic World, is that because it beat out Lightyear by a hair or because Lightyear just didn't look appealing? Seeing how it's received on Disney+ may make that clearer.

 

[HauntedPirate]

While that's true, we should remember that Disney+ only launched a few short months before the Pandemic hit, and there was no Pixar release within the window between Disney+ launching and Iger leaving. It seems plenty likely that Iger would have made the same move had he been around, given that audiences were at home and not going to theaters. That decision really was made more by the Pandemic than by Chapek.

That said, it's possible that Iger would have made different moves on the most recent releases - perhaps Turning Red would have been in theatres and Lightyear would have gone straight to Disney+. Perhaps Luca would have been a Premier Access release. That's tougher to know, and tough to know specifically how those choices impacted the films' receptions.

I'll be curious to see if Lightyear's reception changes at all once it hits Disney+ and costs nothing to watch. Encanto became the sleeper hit it did once it was available in everybody's homes and kids could watch it over and over. I don't quite expect Lightyear to do the same for a number of reasons, but I wonder if its popularity will rise once kids can watch it basically whenever they want.

Seeing how people react to Lightyear once it's on Disney+ might be the strongest indicator of Pixar's position so far under Chapek - it will start to tell the story of how much it came down to not wanting to take the family to the movies vs. not wanting to see this movie in particular. While there have been some mega-hits at the box office recently, they are still few and far between, and a huge portion of the theater-going audience has pared back how many movies they're actually willing to go see in theaters. If you've decided you're only going to see one movie this summer, and it's Jurassic World, is that because it beat out Lightyear by a hair or because Lightyear just didn't look appealing? Seeing how it's received on Disney+ may make that clearer.

'Lightyear' came in 5th last weekend at the box office, with a 64% drop from its first weekend box office take. I am interpreting that as "not good" for the movie. Like you said, what it does on D+ will paint a clearer picture, but there is just no buzz (no pun intended) around this movie besides whatever Disney tried to drum up for it.

This one could be in rare territory for Pixar - A dud. And anything that moves us towards a post-Chapek era sooner than later is OK with me. However, I am dreadfully afraid of the "be careful what you wish for" effect, because the next CEO could be even worse, although Bob 2.0 has made that a tall order. His and Iger's toadies lieutenants are strewn about TWDC at all levels. We really need a complete flushing of them, to be honest.

 

[JAN J]

He’s basically Dr Evil at this point, the fact he looks like him and has no charisma doesn’t help his case.

It’s just one negative change after another since he took over, fundamentally changed the AP program, cancelled Magical Express, implemented reservations, invoked a political firestorm, replaced FP with a paid system… his short reign (of terror) as CEO has been a never ending implementation of negative changes.

I think he’s intentionally trying to become a super villain.

You can add closing Disney Store to that list.

 

[Anteater]

My understanding is that Iger's influence at Pixar was, as you say, less about granular creative decisions with regards to the contents of their films and more about the direction of the company as a whole and changing what sort of work would be greenlit. The difference between Finding Nemo and Finding Dory is that one came from someone having a great idea for a movie and the other came from someone having a great idea for a profit. Yes, he knew better than to get in the trenches and try to tell them how to make that movie, but didn't know well enough to wait for someone to find the right idea before setting a release date.

Telling Pixar what kind of movie they'll be making and then just hoping someone can come up with a good idea for how to do it in time is not anything like the recipe that made them a hit factory in the first place, and unfortunately it shows in much of the work they've produced since the takeover. The exceptions generally prove this rule - their most successful projects of late tend to be the most wholly original. The ones that came from a creative person and sought executive approval, not the ones who came from an executive and then sought creative inspiration.

This seems like a relatively petty claim to lay at the feet of a Hollywood executive, since so many studios operate on some version of this system - but so much of the value in buying Pixar was in the fact that they operated differently and consistently got results. And unfortunately the change of course that Iger headed for them has tarnished their brand significantly and diminished faith in their ability to deliver.

'Lightyear' came in 5th last weekend at the box office, with a 64% drop from its first weekend box office take. I am interpreting that as "not good" for the movie. Like you said, what it does on D+ will paint a clearer picture, but there is just no buzz (no pun intended) around this movie besides whatever Disney tried to drum up for it.

This one could be in rare territory for Pixar - A dud. And anything that moves us towards a post-Chapek era sooner than later is OK with me. However, I am dreadfully afraid of the "be careful what you wish for" effect, because the next CEO could be even worse, although Bob 2.0 has made that a tall order. His and Iger's toadies lieutenants are strewn about TWDC at all levels. We really need a complete flushing of them, to be honest.

At least it's outpacing The Good Dinosaur. Not sure it is if you factor in inflation though .
Unlike Marvel, Pixar can't seem to live on sequels and spinoffs. I'm fatiqued by the Marvels ones. But, box office indicates that I'm in the minority on that. Curious when that fanbase catches on to the manipulation. Happened to Transformers. I think the Jurassic series has hit it peak as well. Saw it this past weekend -- ANYTHING but Top Gun.

 

[UNCgolf]

I think the Jurassic series has hit it peak as well. Saw it this past weekend -- ANYTHING but Top Gun.

The Jurassic series hit its peak in 1993. Both of the original sequels and all three Jurassic World films are varying stages of terrible.

 

[Piebald]

I wasn't sure if I read it on this board or that massive Disney FB group but someone posted a complaint that the parks were hot and everyone concurred the buildings were nowhere near as cold as they remembered. Would be the ultimate embarrassment if they got called out like this :

Analysts accuse Bed Bath & Beyond of scaling back AC in stores to save money as sales plummet

Retailers typically want their sales numbers to be red hot, not their customers. But Bed Bath & Beyond is reportedly dealing with cooled momentum and heated customers at its stores.

www.cnn.com

 

[bhg469]

I wasn't sure if I read it on this board or that massive Disney FB group but someone posted a complaint that the parks were hot and everyone concurred the buildings were nowhere near as cold as they remembered. Would be the ultimate embarrassment if they got called out like this :

Analysts accuse Bed Bath & Beyond of scaling back AC in stores to save money as sales plummet

Retailers typically want their sales numbers to be red hot, not their customers. But Bed Bath & Beyond is reportedly dealing with cooled momentum and heated customers at its stores.

www.cnn.com

IMG the problem with the heat is the AC. They turn it up so high that it makes going outside even worse!

 

[HauntedPirate]

I wasn't sure if I read it on this board or that massive Disney FB group but someone posted a complaint that the parks were hot and everyone concurred the buildings were nowhere near as cold as they remembered. Would be the ultimate embarrassment if they got called out like this :

Analysts accuse Bed Bath & Beyond of scaling back AC in stores to save money as sales plummet

Retailers typically want their sales numbers to be red hot, not their customers. But Bed Bath & Beyond is reportedly dealing with cooled momentum and heated customers at its stores.

www.cnn.com

From what I remember reading somewhere around here, they have the AC set at "medium occupancy" for buildings now. The AC will run but never catch up, so it will always feel warm in buildings during the summer. Many have reported that even the ride buildings feel warm to uncomfortably warm, SSE was one example cited.

This just saves Disney money, plain and simple. But people continue to pay for the privilege of being abused by Disney and don't register complaints with Consumer Relations, so nothing will change.

 

[kingdead]

At least it's outpacing The Good Dinosaur. Not sure it is if you factor in inflation though .
Unlike Marvel, Pixar can't seem to live on sequels and spinoffs. I'm fatiqued by the Marvels ones. But, box office indicates that I'm in the minority on that. Curious when that fanbase catches on to the manipulation. Happened to Transformers. I think the Jurassic series has hit it peak as well. Saw it this past weekend -- ANYTHING but Top Gun.

Nothing is immortal--I think a lot of the goodwill toward Marvel came from viewers' love for the original crew (Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans being the main ones). There isn't a character so far that people are ride or die into like they were for Iron Man or Captain America. We'll see how Love and Thunder does--that may not sink Marvel but it could end the age of Peak Waititi.

 

[Tha Realest]

From what I remember reading somewhere around here, they have the AC set at "medium occupancy" for buildings now. The AC will run but never catch up, so it will always feel warm in buildings during the summer. Many have reported that even the ride buildings feel warm to uncomfortably warm, SSE was one example cited.

This just saves Disney money, plain and simple. But people continue to pay for the privilege of being abused by Disney and don't register complaints with Consumer Relations, so nothing will change.

One of the recent Disney Dish podcasts specifically mentioned SSE as being hot, and the contributor said she believed AC was being dialed back

 

[DCBaker]

News -



Here is the statement from Susan Arnold via CNBC -

“Disney was dealt a tough hand by the pandemic, yet with Bob at the helm, our businesses — from parks to streaming — not only weathered the storm, but emerged in a position of strength,” said Susan Arnold, chairman of the board, in a statement Tuesday. “In this important time of growth and transformation, the Board is committed to keeping Disney on the successful path it is on today, and Bob’s leadership is key to achieving that goal. Bob is the right leader at the right time for The Walt Disney Company, and the Board has full confidence in him and his leadership team.”

Disney extends CEO Bob Chapek's contract by three years

Disney has extended CEO Bob Chapek's contract for three more years, the company announced Tuesday.

www.cnbc.com

 

[asianway]

Sweet

 

[Tha Realest]

News -



Here is the statement from Susan Arnold via CNBC -

“Disney was dealt a tough hand by the pandemic, yet with Bob at the helm, our businesses — from parks to streaming — not only weathered the storm, but emerged in a position of strength,” said Susan Arnold, chairman of the board, in a statement Tuesday. “In this important time of growth and transformation, the Board is committed to keeping Disney on the successful path it is on today, and Bob’s leadership is key to achieving that goal. Bob is the right leader at the right time for The Walt Disney Company, and the Board has full confidence in him and his leadership team.”

Disney extends CEO Bob Chapek's contract by three years

Disney has extended CEO Bob Chapek's contract for three more years, the company announced Tuesday.

www.cnbc.com

Chapek marching down to IT to boost ILL prices by 25%

 

[Anteater]

News -

Very disappointed in the board. DIS has lost over 44% of it's market value in the last year. Down 38% on his watch.
Guess that's better than the <$24 it was going for back int 2006 when they acquired the Muppets.