News Chapek FIRED, Iger New CEO

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Eisner (post-Wells) tore down Horizons and gave us Journey Into Your Imagination.

Mission space.

Not saying that either were well accepted…but it wasn’t mothballs.

Wonders of life…with a couple of actual attractions…was mothballed. And still is…any decade now

 

[Brer Panther]

I don't quite get this general way of comparing the two by arguing that the bad things Eisner did that Iger didn't do he would have done if someone hadn't of stopped him from doing it or if Eisner hadn't of done it first.

Iger still wound up making many of the same mistakes.

 

[peter11435]

Iger was the first to shut stuff down with ZERO intention of replacement.

that’s just simply not true

 

[peter11435]

That was never meant to sit for as long as it did…which really wasn’t all that long when Eisner left.

Bobs list is far more impressive for a lot longer. An entire water park…for instance.

Eisner closed 20K 9 years before he left.

The water park closed under Eisner

 

[lazyboy97o]

Eh, Iger stopped the direct-to-video sequels. Whatever you think about the quality of the offerings and the spiralling costs, he also didn't build anything as cheap-looking as Eisner did during those final years and was in charge when they approved spending money to add theming to the parks Eisner left behind. Think about that: they had to spend money to essentially add theming because what was left behind was so threadbare.

Overall, I don't think Iger was great for the parks, or at least for WDW. There's plenty to criticise such as the franchise mandate, generic hotels, underinvestment in WDW, Fastpass+, single-IP lands, etc. This kind of revisionism about what Disney became during the last 5-10 years of Eisner's tenure drives me a bit nuts, though.

The sequels were already slowing down dramatically and stopped by Lasseter.

The look and cost of Eisner’s stuff was cheap but the fundamentals were there. The bones and infrastructure were built on. The biggest change to Disney’s California Adventure was a reskinning of the entrance. Ratatouille will always be behind an awkward corner, even if they went in and redid all of the weird building facades. Unboxing Storybook Castle or Cosmic Rewind would be huge endeavors. It wasn’t great to look at, but the basics were there and it didn’t cost much. Under Iger it doesn’t always look great, the basics aren’t there and it cost a fortune.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

The sequels were already slowing down dramatically and stopped by Lasseter.

The look and cost of Eisner’s stuff was cheap but the fundamentals were there. The bones and infrastructure were built on. The biggest change to Disney’s California Adventure was a reskinning of the entrance. Ratatouille will always be behind an awkward corner, even if they went in and redid all of the weird building facades. Unboxing Storybook Castle or Cosmic Rewind would be huge endeavors. It wasn’t great to look at, but the basics were there and it didn’t cost much. Under Iger it doesn’t always look great, the basics aren’t there and it cost a fortune.

I agree with all these points and don't ultimately think the Iger years were great for the parks. One area in which I think Eisner was superior to Iger right up until the end was that he would champion an original idea without an IP tie-in if he thought it was good, something Iger never did.

In terms of the issues you raise, I am curious about where the problem lies in that it's not like WDI faced tight budgets or, as far as I'm aware, that Iger meddled in the design process beyond suggesting the addition of a few trees here and there. There is something in him apparently not noticing design issues with things he was approving, which might be partly due to the fact that he doesn't seem particularly interested in theme parks. It also seems, though, that WDI has forgotten a lot of the principles that initially differentiated Disney from other theme parks. I know these are small things that have come up time and time again, but I don't understand how no-one within WDI looked at things like the new promotional image in the Jungle Cruise and cartoons in the Main Street confectionary store and told them to go back and make them look like they are from the same time period as the attraction and store. They're little things below what I imagine even the head of Parks & Resorts would be aware of, but so basic that I can't believe Imagineers wouldn't notice the issue.

The difference here for me between late-Eisner and Iger is that in the former case there was basically an edict to build cheaper parks with stripped-down theming. In the latter case, budgets became ginormous and the edict was more toward creating 'immersive' environments that were highly themed. However, the execution of things like the Shanghai castle have at times just been bizarrely bad for some reason.

 

[brb1006]

Yeah, I think costs spiralling out of control and low-capacity attractions were certainly a characteristic of the Iger years. Cheapness, though, wasn't. If anything, he seemed to open the spigot of cash and it was what WDI did with it that was often underwhelming. That is, of course, something he needs to take some responsibility for as CEO.

I find it harder to lay single projects like BOG that were perhaps poorly executed at his feet. The concept was good and I'm sure it had a healthy budget, but the execution was... not great. That, to me, is very different from something like DCA or WDSP in which the CEO clearly had to have signed off on a major project designed and planned to be a budget version of a Disney theme park with the theming stripped down to a minimum.


Isn't River Country closing a little like Discovery Island closing, though? Did WDW really need the older and hokier water park after Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach opened any more than it needed Discovery Island after Animal Kingdom opened? EDIT: I see someone has pointed out Eisner closed River Country anyway!

As for the subs, they did close at Disneyland under Eisner's watch with no replacement until the Iger years. Thankfully they hadn't already filled them in over there. Stuff like the Keel Boats and canoes at MK also disappeared, and I think it was under Eisner that the upper level of JII became dead space. In other words, I'm not sure it's quite so clearcut that one liked to close attractions with no replacement while the other didn't do that at all.


Worse is subjective. I don't like them and haven't seen most of them, but you again can't say they don't at least try and bring in top talent and give the live action remakes a healthy budget. Things like Bambi II were barely above tv animation quality.


And Heimlich's Chew Chew Train is far more cheap-looking than Rise of the Resistance

I don't quite get this general way of comparing the two by arguing that the bad things Eisner did that Iger didn't do he would have done if someone hadn't of stopped him from doing it or if Eisner hadn't of done it first.

I still love Bambi 2 to death, one of the few direct to video sequel/midquels from that era that actually had effort put into it.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

The difference here for me between late-Eisner and Iger is that in the former case there was basically an edict to build cheaper parks with stripped-down theming. In the latter case, budgets became ginormous and the edict was more toward creating 'immersive' environments that were highly themed. However, the execution of things like the Shanghai castle have at times just been bizarrely bad for some reason.

Some would argue that the execution and refocus on Shanghai was bizarre altogether. A better move if TWDC was to assume the risk of entering mainland China and the political risks of navigating the relationship with the Chinese Government would have been to enter into an OLC type of arrangement.

Especially given how over-leveraged the company became in the 90s post Euro-Disney which led to “frugal Eisner era” I would have thought Iger would have learned that lesson and developed more of a contingency plan after swinging for the financial fences with Shanghai Disney.

On the same token: The same can be said with constraining budgets for some of TWDC’s tentpole franchise films going forward (which ballooned significantly under Iger) given the over-reliance of the international box office numbers and the now current absence of certain international markets.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I agree with all these points and don't ultimately think the Iger years were great for the parks. One area in which I think Eisner was superior to Iger right up until the end was that he would champion an original idea without an IP tie-in if he thought it was good, something Iger never did.

In terms of the issues you raise, I am curious about where the problem lies in that it's not like WDI faced tight budgets or, as far as I'm aware, that Iger meddled in the design process beyond suggesting the addition of a few trees here and there. There is something in him apparently not noticing design issues with things he was approving, which might be partly due to the fact that he doesn't seem particularly interested in theme parks. It also seems, though, that WDI has forgotten a lot of the principles that initially differentiated Disney from other theme parks. I know these are small things that have come up time and time again, but I don't understand how no-one within WDI looked at things like the new promotional image in the Jungle Cruise and cartoons in the Main Street confectionary store and told them to go back and make them look like they are from the same time period as the attraction and store. They're little things below what I imagine even the head of Parks & Resorts would be aware of, but so basic that I can't believe Imagineers wouldn't notice the issue.

The difference here for me between late-Eisner and Iger is that in the former case there was basically an edict to build cheaper parks with stripped-down theming. In the latter case, budgets became ginormous and the edict was more toward creating 'immersive' environments that were highly themed. However, the execution of things like the Shanghai castle have at times just been bizarrely bad for some reason.

Where Iger holds responsibility is by allowing the bloated and disfunctional culture to continue to grow unabated. His personal lack of interest in the parks, a business unit he at first wanted to jettison, resulted in not just continuing to put the parks under the leadership of people outside the business but doubling down on it. So many of the big things that are now finding so obnoxious about a visit to Walt Disney World are rooted in this culture. The ultimate leadership of the company and parks is people lacking in both professional and personal experience of them or other similar venues. That’s how billions get pushed into NextGen despite those with experience saying it won’t actually perform. It’s why a slight dip in financial performance results in panicked cuts, leadership can’t explain a normal dip the way they can a movie bombing at the box office as just part of the cycle of the business.

How this impacted Walt Disney Imagineering is by allowing the situation to get worse by occasionally pushing ineffective solutions (rethemes like Mission: Breakout!) and even trying to half heartedly switch the old Universal Creative model (Shanghai Disneyland). Park people aren’t trusted and “failed” designers who couldn’t hack it in the real work of movies and television definitely shouldn’t be trusted. So leaders with no park experience have no idea how to cut the fat without cutting the bone and those with experience aren’t allowed in positions to make such tough decisions. The problems were just allowed to grow and people allowed to walk or be pushed out the door. It’s too many cooks in the kitchen but the head chef and sous-chef never even worked in McDonald’s.

Iger didn’t fancy himself a public creative until he suddenly did with the start of his retirement, but he did have involvement. Large capital projects are getting CEO level of approval. The franchise mandate didn’t just limit Imagineers to pick a franchise but also saw them told to incorporate certain properties into certain places. Avatar wasn’t placed in Disney’s Animal Kingdom because that’s where Imagineering thought it best fit (plenty of senior Imagineers on the project who lack Joe’s charisma stumble trying to explain it), but because Iger wanted the big franchise and said it would go there. World of Color had a pretty dramatic 11th hour re-work that nixed original elements and references to its namesake at Iger’s direction.

While Iger continued Eisner’s missteps, Eisner had a clear passion for the parks. We started to see him reversing some of the decisions. Matt Ouimet was allowed to really take charge at the Disneyland Resort and set the high bar of expectations for Walt Disney World’s own 50th. Big projects were starting up again, the last being Expedition Everest, a project that came with huge Eisner-style publicity which he was so excited he accidentally announced it, while Iger described it as “nondescript”.

 

[Lilofan]

Where Iger holds responsibility is by allowing the bloated and disfunctional culture to continue to grow unabated. His personal lack of interest in the parks, a business unit he at first wanted to jettison, resulted in not just continuing to put the parks under the leadership of people outside the business but doubling down on it. So many of the big things that are now finding so obnoxious about a visit to Walt Disney World are rooted in this culture. The ultimate leadership of the company and parks is people lacking in both professional and personal experience of them or other similar venues. That’s how billions get pushed into NextGen despite those with experience saying it won’t actually perform. It’s why a slight dip in financial performance results in panicked cuts, leadership can’t explain a normal dip the way they can a movie bombing at the box office as just part of the cycle of the business.

How this impacted Walt Disney Imagineering is by allowing the situation to get worse by occasionally pushing ineffective solutions (rethemes like Mission: Breakout!) and even trying to half heartedly switch the old Universal Creative model (Shanghai Disneyland). Park people aren’t trusted and “failed” designers who couldn’t hack it in the real work of movies and television definitely shouldn’t be trusted. So leaders with no park experience have no idea how to cut the fat without cutting the bone and those with experience aren’t allowed in positions to make such tough decisions. The problems were just allowed to grow and people allowed to walk or be pushed out the door. It’s too many cooks in the kitchen but the head chef and sous-chef never even worked in McDonald’s.

Iger didn’t fancy himself a public creative until he suddenly did with the start of his retirement, but he did have involvement. Large capital projects are getting CEO level of approval. The franchise mandate didn’t just limit Imagineers to pick a franchise but also saw them told to incorporate certain properties into certain places. Avatar wasn’t placed in Disney’s Animal Kingdom because that’s where Imagineering thought it best fit (plenty of senior Imagineers on the project who lack Joe’s charisma stumble trying to explain it), but because Iger wanted the big franchise and said it would go there. World of Color had a pretty dramatic 11th hour re-work that nixed original elements and references to its namesake at Iger’s direction.

While Iger continued Eisner’s missteps, Eisner had a clear passion for the parks. We started to see him reversing some of the decisions. Matt Ouimet was allowed to really take charge at the Disneyland Resort and set the high bar of expectations for Walt Disney World’s own 50th. Big projects were starting up again, the last being Expedition Everest, a project that came with huge Eisner-style publicity which he was so excited he accidentally announced it, while Iger described it as “nondescript”.

Matt Ouimet could have really moved up in TWDC but left to find greener pastures only to be laid off by Starwood hotels during 2008 recession , then with luck and hard work became CEO of Cedar Fair a number of years later.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

that’s just simply not true

Different mistakes…not necessarily “lesser” ones

Eisner closed 20K 9 years before he left.

The water park closed under Eisner

20K was “replaced”…temporarily….such that it was. Lots of rumors of the how’s and whys

River country closed and was mothballed…true…
And needed to go…true. I won’t put that on Bob.

Let’s talk pleasure island, wonders of life, and half of studios, shall we?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Matt Ouimet could have really moved up in TWDC but left to find greener pastures only to be laid off by Starwood hotels during 2008 recession , then with luck and hard work became CEO of Cedar Fair a number of years later.

He left because he was not going to move up. He wanted Rasulo’s job and it was clear that he wouldn’t get it.

 

[Touchdown]

Matt Ouimet could have really moved up in TWDC but left to find greener pastures only to be laid off by Starwood hotels during 2008 recession , then with luck and hard work became CEO of Cedar Fair a number of years later.

Not really, he was a park guy. Their is a glass ceiling at Disney for guys like him, it takes a very different set of skills to run the movie side and the marketing side.

 

[HMF]

Eh, Iger stopped the direct-to-video sequels.

Lasseter saw to that as he felt they were cheapening to the brand.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Some would argue that the execution and refocus on Shanghai was bizarre altogether. A better move if TWDC was to assume the risk of entering mainland China and the political risks of navigating the relationship with the Chinese Government would have been to enter into an OLC type of arrangement.

Especially given how over-leveraged the company became in the 90s post Euro-Disney which led to “frugal Eisner era” I would have thought Iger would have learned that lesson and developed more of a contingency plan after swinging for the financial fences with Shanghai Disney.

On the same token: The same can be said with constraining budgets for some of TWDC’s tentpole franchise films going forward (which ballooned significantly under Iger) given the over-reliance of the international box office numbers and the now current absence of certain international markets.

They sort of did. The majority of the costs were paid by Shanghai. Even the $800 million towards the end of the construction to get things back on track was split along the ownership stakes.

 

[VJ]

Lasseter saw to that as he felt they were cheapening to the brand.

and then he ended up making Planes, a direct-to-video sequel that was only okay to him because it was from his beloved Cars brand, a few years later

i really don't understand the love/adoration lasseter gets and i never have

 

[Touchdown]

and then he ended up making Planes, a direct-to-video sequel that was only okay to him because it was from his beloved Cars brand, a few years later

i really don't understand the love/adoration lasseter gets and i never have

He is a horrible person, but:

-He created the computer animated feature the same way Walt created the animated feature
-He was on the main creative team for 90% of Pixar’s greatest movies and helmed the studio during its golden era.
-He is responsible for Cars Land
-He brought back WDFA from being dissolved and help right it’s course and helped guide it through its modern resurgence
-Pixar and WDFA had a noticeable drop in quality when he left

This does not change the fact that he is a horrible person.

 

[VJ]

He is a horrible person, but:

-He created the computer animated feature the same way Walt created the animated feature
-He was on the main creative team for 90% of Pixar’s greatest movies and helmed the studio during its golden era.
-He is responsible for Cars Land
-He brought back WDFA from being dissolved and help right it’s course and helped guide it through its modern resurgence
-Pixar and WDFA had a noticeable drop in quality when he left

This does not change the fact that he is a horrible person.

his ego was his downfall. he wanted to be the next walt. he wanted to turn disney into pixar - that's why, until luca, disney's and pixar's CGI animation styles were indistinguishable from each other. you mentioned cars land, but what about pixar pier, the cheap overlay he drunkenly wobbled onto the stage at D23 to slur his way through an announcement?

 

[Touchdown]

his ego was his downfall. he wanted to be the next walt. he wanted to turn disney into pixar - that's why, until luca, disney's and pixar's CGI animation styles were indistinguishable from each other. you mentioned cars land, but what about pixar pier, the cheap overlay he drunkenly wobbled onto the stage at D23 to slur his way through an announcement?

You were questioning why he was praised, he was never praised for Pixar Pier.

 

[VJ]

You were questioning why he was praised, he was never praised for Pixar Pier.

touche(down)! i see what you mean now, my apologies