BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Got it.
I think we agree more than we don't. Where I disagree is that I do think they like the theme parks. Not being great at running them is a whole other issue.
I think there’s pretty good evidence Iger was at best apathetic towards the parks as part of his portfolio. With a few comments out of him that bordered on disdain. He was far more interested in the media side of the business and the hob-nobbing with Hollywood.
He also surrounded himself with a series of parks execs who had absolute disdain of the product, up through Staggs who simply enjoyed them as a means to an end. Numbers to juggle and manipulate. You don’t plunk those type of people around for the product you love.
Now that said, Iger also likes his legacy and I think the constant presence of the parks in his portfolio has led to general softening of his stance. I’d define the last part of his tenure as even a mutual understanding that parks have value, hold serious legacy and synergize with almost all the other facets of the core business. I think his legacy builds (starting around 2016 with Shanghai) have changed his relationship. He’s also been seen in the parks in the last 24 months almost more than the prior 17 years. We also have the first parks exec that inarguably likes the product. Understand is up for ongoing debate.
I think Iger liked the politicking of Shanghai at first way more than the eventual product - and that somehow morphed into legacy as we got towards the end of the SDL build. Mixed with his clear preference for movie creative endeavors… but Pandora and the mix of James Cameron sort of opened a new door for him.