News Christine McCarthy to step down from her role as Chief Financial Officer

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It seems that Disney is not affraid of their investors (with the exception if Blackrock) Disney is not affraid of their customers either. It seems to me that the Disney board IS affraid of Nelson Peltz for some unknown reason.

This makes me think: "If Disney and Iger are scared of Nelson Peltz...this must be a very GOOD thing for the fans!"

Help us Nelson Peltz....you're our only hope!

I don’t know about all that drama…

But I think he is a threat to iger’s ego and his hand selected board…so an annoyance for sure…

Oh that’s right…Bob is an Artist…not an egomaniac Hollywood suit

 

[BlakeW39]

Under Eisner they really changed from a movie studio - with parks - to a major media player across the planet. It was successful for awhile but he was there too long and it got too big at the end.

Lots of different things…but when they bought abc/Capitol cities (and inherited a weasel with it)…things pivoted. They were flush with rising amounts of ESPN cash, had sports teams, 1/3 of the cable package, several movie studios, tv studios and the largest animation studios on the planet, Broadway theaters, publishing and music labels, influence on 3 continents via parks, timeshares and ships under construction.

They had arrived…and with that size comes cold Corporate realities and many mistakes.

I think one of the fundamental differences between the Eisner years and the Iger years is that under Eisner, Disney grew significantly as a company but its brand identity stayed basically the same. Mickey, Disneyland/WDW, the princesses/animated films, etc. That's what "Disney" was for most people in 1983, and that didn't change very much up until 2006. Under Iger however, Disney not only grew significantly as a company, but it also changed significantly as a company. It's brand identity now is a lot broader and less defined. It's Mickey, the parks and the princesses still.... but it's also the MCU? and Star Wars. And Hulu. And Pixar. And...The Simpsons? Avatar?

Iger's M&As changed the brand identity of Disney, and how the public views them. I often hear people talk about Disney in the same breath as Amazon or Walmart. Its brand image has become a lot broader and less defined contra ~2006. Eisner took Disney from being a cartoon/animation studio— that was so successful it managed to have its own theme parks —to a major corporation that operated countless divisions (film studios, TV, parks, merchandising, cruise ships, resorts) and had a reach extending all across the globe. Iger on the other hand is the one who made Disney into the Walmart/Amazon of the entertainment industry. A massive, ubiquitous IP conglomerate. Disney today is, in that sense, a fundamentally different company from what it was in 2006.

 

[MrPromey]

Americans have been waging war on culture for hundreds of years!!

Of course we have. How else could anyone explain this?:

You got a problem with that, buddy?!

 

[MrPromey]

No one in Hollywood can judge box office risk right now. No one knows what's going on, and thus every studio is playing it safe. What studios are taking artistic risks?

You ever heard of A24 or Blumhouse?

I think one of them made a movie a few people liked last year. As for the other, I'm sure they'll get there some day.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You ever heard of A24 or Blumhouse?

I think one of them made a movie a few people liked last year. As for the other, I'm sure they'll get there some day.

Blumhouse is one of the LEAST creatively risky studios in Hollywood. Their entire model is cranking out very low budget horror films that can be permanently shelved if they seem unlikely to make a profit. Recently they’ve also started producing films based on established IPs (Halloween, FNaF, Exorcist).

A24 is, to some extent, the exception that proves the rule, but they are an independent, not one of the major studios, and even they are increasingly developing a reliable formula.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Why is it (with a few exceptions) that everyone who has left the company is uncritically lionized as a would-be savior and everyone still in the company is uncritically demonized as an evil twit intent on destroying the company?

Yes, we have witnessed what occurs time and time again within this one thread: an executive is hated and blamed for all kinds of atrocities beyond executing the CEO's agenda, then they leave it turns out they weren't evil after all but a person with a lot of decent qualities sadly slain by the CEO. Having been around for a while, I can only marvel at the powers of image rehabilitation that Disney executives possess once they leave their posts. Almost every time there seems to be some kind of reverse 'secret speech' that filters into the online community in which the villain is suddenly reframed as a hero.

I have plenty of issues with how the parks are being run, but so much of the criticism of Disney on here lately is so scattershot with frankly disturbing political undertones that it becomes hard to even engage with it.

 

[Tha Realest]

Blumhouse is one of the LEAST creatively risky studios in Hollywood. Their entire model is cranking out very low budget horror films that can be permanently shelved if they seem unlikely to make a profit. Recently they’ve also started producing films based on established IPs (Halloween, FNaF, Exorcist).

A24 is, to some extent, the exception that proves the rule, but they are an independent, not one of the major studios, and even they are increasingly developing a reliable formula.

This is utter nonsense. The works for Jordan Peele over the last few years are the among the LEAST creatively risky” ? Whiplash, Get Out, and BlacKkKlansman are just “crank(ed) out…low budget horror films”?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes, we have witnessed what occurs time and time again within this one thread: an executive is hated and blamed for all kinds of atrocities beyond executing the CEO's agenda, then they leave it turns out they weren't evil after all but a person with a lot of decent qualities sadly slain by the CEO. Having been around for a while, I can only marvel at the powers of image rehabilitation that Disney executives possess once they leave their posts. Almost every time there seems to be some kind of reverse 'secret speech' that filters into the online community in which the villain is suddenly reframed as a hero.

I have plenty of issues with how the parks are being run, but so much of the criticism of Disney on here lately is so scattershot with frankly disturbing political undertones that it becomes hard to even engage with it.

Just to be clear…because I lead the left “column” of the army of Disney executive critics…

…for me…it has NOTHING to do with poltiics.


It’s 100% about how this particular management is running Disney according to every whack theory that it is not.

And that argument - unfortunately for everyone INCLUDING me - is being reinforced damn near everyday.

Take “Disney” and our fandom out of it. What if this was JC Penney’s?…would anyone defend this sequence of events:

1. Ceo quits with no notice during global crisis not seen in 100 years. (Fact. It happened…it will never “un-happen”)
2. Executives/board members leaving now practically by the day…no explanations. No plausible ones at least.
3. Product missteps all over the place. Disasters. Also losing ground to competitors in your core market(s)
4. Cozy with a foreign power that is very anti-US. Now that is unfortunately the disaster we got ourselves in back in the “good times 80s at Walmart”…but don’t make yourself the poster child for it…glad handing pseudo-dictators on camera.
5. Ex CEO staged coup (fact) and returns with no questions asked after no corporate succession exists. (Again…fact) which was the ONE thing he promised the founding family head when he took the job.
6. It’s been forever. Waaaaayyyy too long. For these people anyway. You need new voices…from the outside. Especially in a creative company.


Now stack all that up…without the specifics…and who doesn’t call for change?

Only because it’s Disney. Our own fascination with this particular brand often shields an honest look at the brand.

Cause we love the crystal palace and the background music they play on the path outside. Me too. Just can’t shut this brain off. It’s a curse.

Sorry…I know I’m bothering imagineer lazy as they prepare their next talk past everyone (the ultimate kettle)…

But this line of thought Is silly from the overhead view. The same people who have blamed prior management for 20 years - with a lot of merit - have supported this non-creative sitcom yutz until they pass out.
It’s alot of the same issues. Be fair.

Recency bias is huge on Disney fandom. And then they turn like a scorpion. Totally fair when it goes the other way.

Promoting McCarthy and Rasulo - ridiculous - is the symptom of a larger problem. Gotta be willing to consider what that problem is.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This is utter nonsense. The works for Jordan Peele over the last few years are the among the LEAST creatively risky” ? Whiplash, Get Out, and BlacKkKlansman are just “crank(ed) out…low budget horror films”?

What I described is Blumhouse’s business model. Look over their list of releases - it’s overwhelmingly low-budget horror films, sometimes with one or two mid-level celebrities attached (Paranormal Activities, Purge, Ouija, Insidious, etc). Get Out absolutely fits this model - it just happened to be a great film (which is one of the points of the model - if you swing often enough, occasionally you hit a grand slam). Whiplash and BlacKKKlansman were very rare deviations from the formula.

 

[SamusAranX]

Just to be clear…because I lead lead the left “column” of the army of Disney executive critics…

…for me…it has NOTHING to do with poltiics.


It’s 100% about how this particular management is running Disney according to every whack theory that it is not.

And that argument - unfortunately for everyone INCLUDING me - is being reinforced damn near everyday.

Take “Disney” and our fandom out of it. What if this was JC Penney’s?…would anyone defend this sequence of events:

1. Ceo quits with no notice during global crisis not seen in 100 years. (Fact. It happened…it will never “un-happen”)
2. Executives/board members leaving now practically by the day…no explanations. No plausible ones at least.
3. Product missteps all over the place. Disasters. Also losing ground to competitors in your core market(s)
4. Cozy with a foreign power that is very anti-US. Now that is unfortunately the disaster we got ourselves in back in the “good times 80s at Walmart”…but don’t make yourself the poster child for it…glad handing pseudo-dictators on camera.
5. Ex CEO staged coup (fact) and returns with no questions asked after no corporate succession exists. (Again…fact) which was the ONE thing he promised the founding family head when he took the job.
6. It’s been forever. Waaaaayyyy too long. For these people anyway. You need new voices…from the outside. Especially in a creative company.


Now stack all that up…without the specifics…and who doesn’t call for change?

Only because it’s Disney. Our own fascination with this particular brand often shields an honest look at the brand.

Cause we love the crystal palace and the background music they play on the path outside. Me too. Just can’t shut this brain off. It’s a curse.

Sorry…I know I’m bothering imagineer lazy as they prepare their next talk past everyone (the ultimate kettle)…

But this line of thought Is silly from the overhead view. The same people who have blamed prior management for 20 years - with a lot of merit - have supported this non-creative sitcom yutz until they pass out.
It’s alot of the same issues. Be fair.

Recency bias is huge on Disney fandom. And then they turn like a scorpion. Totally fair when it goes the other way.

Promoting McCarthy and Rasulo - ridiculous - is the symptom of a larger problem. Gotta be willing to consider what that problem is.

Add to the list the problems with the parks and how they’ve monetized inefficiencies and lost sight of the guest perspective; hardly need to convince me.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Just to be clear…because I lead lead the left “column” of the army of Disney executive critics…

…for me…it has NOTHING to do with poltiics.


It’s 100% about how this particular management is running Disney according to every whack theory that it is not.

And that argument - unfortunately for everyone INCLUDING me - is being reinforced damn near everyday.

Take “Disney” and our fandom out of it. What if this was JC Penney’s?…would anyone defend this sequence of events:

1. Ceo quits with no notice during global crisis not seen in 100 years. (Fact. It happened…it will never “un-happen”)
2. Executives/board members leaving now practically by the day…no explanations. No plausible ones at least.
3. Product missteps all over the place. Disasters. Also losing ground to competitors in your core market(s)
4. Cozy with a foreign power that is very anti-US. Now that is unfortunately the disaster we got ourselves in back in the “good times 80s at Walmart”…but don’t make yourself the poster child for it…glad handing pseudo-dictators on camera.
5. Ex CEO staged coup (fact) and returns with no questions asked after no corporate succession exists. (Again…fact) which was the ONE thing he promised the founding family head when he took the job.
6. It’s been forever. Waaaaayyyy too long. For these people anyway. You need new voices…from the outside. Especially in a creative company.


Now stack all that up…without the specifics…and who doesn’t call for change?

Only because it’s Disney. Our own fascination with this particular brand often shields an honest look at the brand.

Cause we love the crystal palace and the background music they play on the path outside. Me too. Just can’t shut this brain off. It’s a curse.

Sorry…I know I’m bothering imagineer lazy as they prepare their next talk past everyone (the ultimate kettle)…

But this line of thought Is silly from the overhead view. The same people who have blamed prior management for 20 years - with a lot of merit - have supported this non-creative sitcom yutz until they pass out.
It’s alot of the same issues. Be fair.

Recency bias is huge on Disney fandom. And then they turn like a scorpion. Totally fair when it goes the other way.

Promoting McCarthy and Rasulo - ridiculous - is the symptom of a larger problem. Gotta be willing to consider what that problem is.

I don't really see how that addresses what I was saying, though.

I'm not arguing for Iger or against change. What I'm saying is that "anything and everything" approach to criticising Disney leads to threads going into strange places, including some politically motivated critiques that I'm not entirely sure everyone quite grasps but reflexively supports as part of this whole everything everywhere all at once pile on. Or maybe everyone is on the same page in that regard, who knows.

At any rate, at a certain point it's hard to see any logic or rationale to the criticisms if you are indeed interested in a better Disney. Discontent with pricing at the parks and the IP mandate blurs into barracking for the next Pixar film to flop and cheering on Wall Street investors punishing Disney for not being profitable enough. Within 24 hours, Christine McCarthy goes from a villain wielding the sword of cuts and fat shaming fans to another victim of Iger who had some good ideas. The topic of these particular posts involved a desire to bring back executives that fans complained about for years for creating the culture at the parks they're supposed to dislike. And, of course, at regular intervals we get memes and quips about inclusion and diversity mixed in with it all.

At a certain point, you just throw up your hands.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't really see how that addresses what I was saying, though.

I'm not arguing for Iger or against change. What I'm saying is that "anything and everything" approach to criticising Disney leads to threads going into strange places, including some politically motivated critiques that I'm not entirely sure everyone quite grasps but reflexively supports as part of this whole everything everywhere all at once pile on. Or maybe everyone is on the same page in that regard, who knows.

At any rate, at a certain point it's hard to see any logic or rationale to the criticisms if you are indeed interested in a better Disney. Discontent with pricing at the parks and the IP mandate blurs into barracking for the next Pixar film to flop and cheering on Wall Street investors punishing Disney for not being profitable enough. Within 24 hours, Christine McCarthy goes from a villain wielding the sword of cuts and fat shaming fans to another victim of Iger who had some good ideas. The topic of these particular posts involved a desire to bring back executives that fans complained about for years for creating the culture at the parks they're supposed to dislike. And, of course, at regular intervals we get memes and quips about inclusion and diversity mixed in with it all.

At a certain point, you just throw up your hands.

I get what you’re saying…

I’m just saying - as one of the most vocal critics - that I gave ZERO political motivation on critiques of management. You said “undertones”…which is a dog whistle in the US of politics.

Your post leads to the path that “everything is political”

If anything - people are starting to blame politics/ social “agenda” as an excuse - to themselves - for not recognizing how bad this management is and has been. Particularly in parks.

It doesn’t bleed in, bleed out…nothing. The reedy creek issue is political and I’m 101% with Disney.

But politics isn’t universal when it comes to Disney.

 

[Nubs70]

I think DIS needs to rebrand with the lead entity being some NewCo name and DIS being subordinate to NewCo and lateral with the other business entities such as ABC, ESPN, etc.

The CEO of NewCo can then focus on leading NewCo rather than insisting on being the creative focal point of the entities associated with
Disney and the other entities being secondary.

If one looks at Tim Cook, he is the lead when it comes to the unveiling of a finished product but not the public face of the initiation phase.

Iger needs to stop trying to be a creative and focus on being a CEO of the entirety of NewCo. Leave the creativity to the creatives.

 

[MrPromey]

Blumhouse is one of the LEAST creatively risky studios in Hollywood. Their entire model is cranking out very low budget horror films that can be permanently shelved if they seem unlikely to make a profit. Recently they’ve also started producing films based on established IPs (Halloween, FNaF, Exorcist).

A24 is, to some extent, the exception that proves the rule, but they are an independent, not one of the major studios, and even they are increasingly developing a reliable formula.

Ah, so a genre snob* and someone dismissing A24?

Makes me wonder what your idea of a true Scottsman would be.

Your idea of creative risk is the budgets?

The problem with studios like Disney and Universal and WB is these movies they're cranking out of their well-oiled cg and effects houses have to do over half a billion these days to be considered not a failure.

That's why they aren't taking creative risks. This was already a problem before COVID and it has, for quite some time, been an issue of these studio's own makings.

Their complete aversion to risk is what's causing a lot of their headaches.

A studio like Blumhouse can make what Elemental did in its opening weekend on anything they put out and be judged a financial success. They can put out 4-6 movies for the price that a company like Disney spends on one so if one of them manages to hit, the rest can straight-out flop (though most don't straight-out flop).

i think Blumhouse shows how it's possible to both run a smart business AND take creative risks.

Nearly all of Hollywood used to operate that way and it's what gives them the freedom to do things that don't have to be universally adored.

Concerns about the Chinese market? Heck, they don't care if most American's don't want to see their movies.

I can't say I enjoy even half what they put out but I can appreciate how something like Bodies, Bodies, Bodies (which I didn't like) took a huge left turn on the tired slasher/killer on the loose in an isolated environment trope.

For a studio like Blumhouse, existing IP for some of their stuff is simply part of that strategy unlike the "big" studios where it appears to be their only strategy.

I mean, our beloved auteur of the GOTG movies came up through the ranks of Troma which I'm sure is all un-creative garbage in your eyes, too, right?**

How do you reconcile that?

As for A24, I'm curious what "reliable formula" EEAAO, Pearl (I guess since it's kind-of-sort-of a prequel?), The Whale, and Men - all part of what they released last year (and all of which I saw in theaters) - followed.

Additionally, their release schedule for 2022 was 16 movies, btw, so I'm not sure what it takes for a studio to matter in size or scope in your eyes.

Your comments dismissing A24 alone, are enough for me to not take anything else you say in this conversation seriously.

*and Blumhouse's "entire model" is only horror if you dismiss the documentaries and non-horror fiction their success in horror makes it possible for them to produce.

**They'd probably wear your review like a badge of honor.

 

[MrPromey]

....

I'm not arguing for Iger or against change. What I'm saying is that "anything and everything" approach to criticising Disney leads to threads going into strange places, including some politically motivated critiques that I'm not entirely sure everyone quite grasps but reflexively supports as part of this whole everything everywhere all at once pile on. Or maybe everyone is on the same page in that regard, who knows.

....

Hey, don't drag Michelle Yeoh into this!

 

[Indy_UK]

Iger needs to stop trying to be a creative and focus on being a CEO of the entirety of NewCo. Leave the creativity to the creatives.

He certainly isn’t a creative, he just gives the movie creatives essentially uncapped budgets which if they break even at the box office, is doing well these days.

The extent of Igers creativity is NBA experience…..

 

[el_super]

Yes, we have witnessed what occurs time and time again within this one thread: an executive is hated and blamed for all kinds of atrocities beyond executing the CEO's agenda, then they leave it turns out they weren't evil after all but a person with a lot of decent qualities sadly slain by the CEO.

That just comes from not having any clue what most of these executives do day to day. Too many people here have no idea how Disney actually operates, as a company, but they don't want that to stop them from making their hot takes when news breaks.

It's also weird to see the polarization of Disney news just as it has happened to politics in general. Somehow in this weird black/white world we have to accept that if the price of churros are too high, it's because every executive up to Iger is evil and greedy and personally involved in every bad decision.

It's weird.

 

[lazyboy97o]

He certainly isn’t a creative, he just gives the movie creatives essentially uncapped budgets which if they break even at the box office, is doing well these days.

The extent of Igers creativity is NBA experience…..

That’s not how it works.

 

[Indy_UK]

That’s not how it works.

Shouldn’t be but it’s what’s happening at the moment.

 

[FettFan]

It's more so that certain people didn't like brie larson because of something she said.

Not quite. We don’t like her because of her personality.

Essentially, she tries too hard to be likable, and the result is that she comes off as abrasive and fake.
Charisma On Command did a full breakdown of Brie’s multiple faux pas and how to avoid them.