Great article by Robert Iger in Vanity Fair

[rreading]

“We Could Say Anything to Each Other”: Bob Iger Remembers Steve Jobs

As he exits Apple’s board, the Disney chief reminisces about his unlikely friendship with Jobs—and the potential mega-merger that wasn’t.

www.vanityfair.com

It’s an interesting perspective from someone who feels like he’s wrapping up his time as CEO. It is a fond remembrance and while it makes Iger look good, it also sounds quite honest and jibes with the history we know.

His story leads us to wonder whether Disney would have been able to regain its animation footing without acquiring Pixar (a storyline that the mastermind of the move would like to espouse). But: consider the volume of animation produced these days by other players; that Pixar would have been a strong competitor rather than an asset; that Pixar’s brain trust (esp Lasseter) was instrumental in righting the Animation department; and that Disney would not have been able to later purchase either Marvel nor Lucasfilm nor Fox; It’s possible that the foundering Animation department could have led to a devitalized (and likely underfunded) state of the parks and that the company would have been broken apart.

I certainly remember the time on this website that there was serious discussion that TWDC would sell off the parks (and there were some who said-and might still opine-that doing so would be good). No one suggests it these days.

To me, my enjoyment of Disney Animation vs the parks are inextricably linked: separating them would devalue both. So for me, if Iger saved TWDC, then he’s a winner in my book.

Separately, it’s a curious thought: Steve Jobs apparently knew that his cancer was back when he agreed to sell Pixar to Disney. I wonder if he would have done so were he expecting to helm the company over the long haul.

As a long time fan of both Apple and Disney, a great article about the rebirth of my favorite company.

 

[tirian]

Yeah, I read it about an hour ago. He certainly wants people to believe he was the creative mind behind Disney’s last few years of successes. Plus he emphasizes his “close friendship” with Jobs the way a costumed high school mascot name-drops the star football player he high-fives at the beginning of every game.

Yes, I know they were actually friends. That doesn’t make the frequent references less silly. “We talked a couple times a week! We could’ve merged our companies! He hated comic books, but he helped me get Marvel!”

But

I will give Iger due credit for smartly snapping up Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox, and even trying to use the Muppets. People rightly criticize him for buying other IPs and passing them off as “Disney,” but he did it really well. Marketing schools will probably teach how Iger convinced fans “Marvel” was “Disney” by putting a Disney logo on the media and selling merch in the stores. That’s not a backhanded compliment! He integrated many other creative IPs from various minds and corporate structures, and as a company, Marvel wasn’t doing well when Disney bought them (film rights notwithstanding). That’s an impressive achievement in Hollywood.

In his early days, Iger also allowed subject-matter experts to lead each division, adding to his many film and theme park successes.

To draw a parallel, Eisner’s early years included Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, WDW expansions, and DLP—and ended with cheap direct-to-video sequels and poor theme park maintenance. Likewise, Iger’s tenure enjoyed over a decade of strong creativity and business growth, yet is ending with theatrical remakes betraying a corporate cynicism towards creativity*, and an outrageous theme park model that relies on constant price hikes and budget cuts to turn ever-increasing profits.

Maybe nobody but Walt and Roy could operate the company successfully for longer than 10 years. Maybe nobody can control the behemoth it’s become.

IMO, Iger’s legacy will be mixed, just like Eisner’s. Yet I do appreciate the massive improvements and investments Iger made from about 2005–2016.


*I’m excluding the MCU here, since those franchises will continue to mint money for years to come!

 

[Lilofan]

Yeah, I read it about an hour ago. He certainly wants people to believe he was the creative mind behind Disney’s last few years of successes. Plus he emphasizes his “close friendship” with Jobs the way a costumed high school mascot name-drops the star football player he high-fives at the beginning of every game.

Yes, I know they were actually friends. That doesn’t make the frequent references less silly. “We talked a couple times a week! We could’ve merged our companies! He hated comic books, but he helped me get Marvel!”

But

I will give Iger due credit for smartly snapping up Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox, and even the Muppets. People rightly criticize him for buying other IPs and passing them off as “Disney,” but he did it really well. Marketing schools will probably teach how Iger convinced fans “Marvel” was “Disney” by putting a Disney logo on the media and selling merch in the stores. That’s not a backhanded compliment! He integrated many other creative IPs from various minds and corporate structures, and as a company, Marvel wasn’t doing well when Disney bought them (film rights notwithstanding). That’s an impressive achievement in Hollywood.

In his early days, Iger also allowed subject-matter experts to lead each division, adding to his many film and theme park successes.

To draw a parallel, Eisner’s early years included Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, WDW expansions, and DLP—and ended with cheap direct-to-video sequels and poor theme park maintenance. Likewise, Iger’s tenure enjoyed over a decade of strong creativity and business growth, yet is ending with theatrical remakes betraying a corporate cynicism towards creativity*, and an outrageous theme park model that relies on constant price hikes and budget cuts to turn ever-increasing profits.

Maybe nobody but Walt and Roy could operate the company successfully for longer than 10 years. Maybe nobody can control the behemoth it’s become.

IMO, Iger’s legacy will be mixed, just like Eisner’s. Yet I do appreciate the massive improvements and investments Iger made from about 2005–2016.


*I’m excluding the MCU here, since those franchises will continue to mint money for years to come!

Iger has done what every CEO dreams of doing. Increasing the stock price to enrich himself, make Wall Street happy and improve the financial situations of the company stockholders such as myself. One of his latest biggest gambles was the movie of people of color, " Black Panther". He is truly a genius in betting this movie would be successful in a white dominated movie industry. Is WDW ready for a Black Panther attraction? For critics that wealth sham him, it's another form of socially accepted bullying.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It's interesting how he started his tenure much like Walt did - looking for talent - and that he used Jobs as a sounding board for ideas. Maybe that's why we're seeing the IP mandate and so many re-makes and what we feel are bone-headed choices...Iger lost not just a friend and sounding board, but also a connection to an extremely forward-thinking person who really knew how to let creative talent do its job, and to foster an atmosphere conducive to creativity. There aren't very many business leaders who are able to do that, and I really don't believe that Iger is one of them. Then there's also ego added to the mix. Iger had huge successes with purchasing Pixar and Marvel - decisions he claims to have bounced off of Jobs. I would also bet money that Jobs was very vocal about how Pixar and Marvel should be handled, and especially with him as the largest shareholder on Disney's Board, Iger would have listened. Fast forward to the acquisition of Star Wars, and Iger no longer has his sounding board/idea partner...Iger expected a grand slam to match the Pixar and Marvel purchases, but neither the majority of the films, nor the land have been a slam dunk.

 

[rreading]

Yeah, I read it about an hour ago. He certainly wants people to believe he was the creative mind behind Disney’s last few years of successes. Plus he emphasizes his “close friendship” with Jobs the way a costumed high school mascot name-drops the star football player he high-fives at the beginning of every game.

Yes, I know they were actually friends. That doesn’t make the frequent references less silly. “We talked a couple times a week! We could’ve merged our companies! He hated comic books, but he helped me get Marvel!”

But

I will give Iger due credit for smartly snapping up Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox, and even the Muppets. People rightly criticize him for buying other IPs and passing them off as “Disney,” but he did it really well. Marketing schools will probably teach how Iger convinced fans “Marvel” was “Disney” by putting a Disney logo on the media and selling merch in the stores. That’s not a backhanded compliment! He integrated many other creative IPs from various minds and corporate structures, and as a company, Marvel wasn’t doing well when Disney bought them (film rights notwithstanding). That’s an impressive achievement in Hollywood.

In his early days, Iger also allowed subject-matter experts to lead each division, adding to his many film and theme park successes.

To draw a parallel, Eisner’s early years included Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, WDW expansions, and DLP—and ended with cheap direct-to-video sequels and poor theme park maintenance. Likewise, Iger’s tenure enjoyed over a decade of strong creativity and business growth, yet is ending with theatrical remakes betraying a corporate cynicism towards creativity*, and an outrageous theme park model that relies on constant price hikes and budget cuts to turn ever-increasing profits.

Maybe nobody but Walt and Roy could operate the company successfully for longer than 10 years. Maybe nobody can control the behemoth it’s become.

IMO, Iger’s legacy will be mixed, just like Eisner’s. Yet I do appreciate the massive improvements and investments Iger made from about 2005–2016.


*I’m excluding the MCU here, since those franchises will continue to mint money for years to come!

The price hikes at the parks though are in line with other forms of quality entertainment. Getting a ticket with the fast pass at Busch Gardens was something like $150 or more about 3-4 years ago. We went to see Taylor Swift in Arlington in a giant auditorium with 100k other people for almost $500pp. Seeing Wicked in NY? Yep - not cheap.

Sure you can find something cheaper like Six Flags. But if you have the best product and the biggest complaint from everyone is that it’s too crowded, then raising the price or increasing supply is Economics 101. (and in this case increasing supply would need to mean new parks not new gates since more attractions at WDW would increase flow on MK’s Main Street; so Shanghai was a well intentioned idea)

 

[ImperfectPixie]

The price hikes at the parks though are in line with other forms of quality entertainment. Getting a ticket with the fast pass at Busch Gardens was something like $150 or more about 3-4 years ago. We went to see Taylor Swift in Arlington in a giant auditorium with 100k other people for almost $500pp. Seeing Wicked in NY? Yep - not cheap.

Sure you can find something cheaper like Six Flags. But if you have the best product and the biggest complaint from everyone is that it’s too crowded, then raising the price or increasing supply is Economics 101. (and in this case increasing supply would need to mean new parks not new gates since more attractions at WDW would increase flow on MK’s Main Street; so Shanghai was a well intentioned idea)

Everyone knows Disney isn't cheap. But it's gotten to the point that their prices and upcharge events (combined with sagging quality in service, etc.) are souring people's good will for the company, and that is NOT good.

 

[rreading]

It's interesting how he started his tenure much like Walt did - looking for talent - and that he used Jobs as a sounding board for ideas. Maybe that's why we're seeing the IP mandate and so many re-makes and what we feel are bone-headed choices...Iger lost not just a friend and sounding board, but also a connection to an extremely forward-thinking person who really knew how to let creative talent do its job, and to foster an atmosphere conducive to creativity. There aren't very many business leaders who are able to do that, and I really don't believe that Iger is one of them. Then there's also ego added to the mix. Iger had huge successes with purchasing Pixar and Marvel - decisions he claims to have bounced off of Jobs. I would also bet money that Jobs was very vocal about how Pixar and Marvel should be handled, and especially with him as the largest shareholder on Disney's Board, Iger would have listened. Fast forward to the acquisition of Star Wars, and Iger no longer has his sounding board/idea partner...Iger expected a grand slam to match the Pixar and Marvel purchases, but neither the majority of the films, nor the land have been a slam dunk.

I would opine that the main benefit of the Pixar purchase was folded their company into Disney. The content at Pixar remains good, but Disney’s animation product has been great.

I don’t expect anyone could have guessed that Marvel would be as successful as it has been; but I expect that Kevin Feige has been the lynchpin. Were anyone else in charge, I don’t know how it would go.

I truly expect (and certainly hope) that the jury is still out on SW. It’s greatest failure (Solo) was a well done movie that was released at a terribly inopportune time just on the heels of Black Panther iirc. Had it been a November release, it would have (probably) been fine. I do think that the upcoming output with The Mandalorian and Episode 9 are going to be critical to the franchise.

As CEO shepherding TWDC, we can give Iger credit for the broad strokes but I can’t imagine that he’s involved in all of the details (current SW production notwithstanding- I would think that he’s watching this pretty closely at this point).

 

[rreading]

Everyone knows Disney isn't cheap. But it's gotten to the point that their prices and upcharge events (combined with sagging quality in service, etc.) are souring people's good will for the company, and that is NOT good.

I don’t pay for the upcharge events though they must be popular since they keep offering them (at least the tents in Tomorrowland went away).

In my world (pediatrics in TX), I cannot recall anyone who reports that they haven’t had a great time in their visits. Things in CA or FL may be different though.

 

[DDLand]

The fact he has the hutzpah to come out and say what anyone with half a brain thought, that Apple should have bought Disney, is impressive. Disney+ will be the one that got away. In a decade+, Disney will have 150 Million subscribers paying $30 USD a month as Disney slowly ramps up the price. You know what Wall Street likes almost as much as rapid growth? Solid and predictable year after year, decade after decade growth. Disney+ is Wall Street’s dream. 150 Million people paying for a service that will incrementally increase in price year after year. Anyone who feels these streaming services are a win for consumers doesn’t get it. There’s a classic parable about how to boil a live frog. If you start the water boiling and try to put the frog in, it will quickly jump out after feeling the sudden change in temperature. But if you put the frog into water and slowly turn up the temperature, the frog will be used to it. Before long you’ll have boiled frog.

The consumer is, of course, the frog.

Iger won’t admit that someday he sees the price of Disney+ rising by several multiples. Nah, he’s focused on subscriber growth. Once the base is installed, then slow and steady price increases will begin. The under ten dollar product will transform to the above twenty dollar product little by little. Disney has the films and content to lock people in, and keep them there.

Compare this to Apple’s 11th hour panic. Realizing iPhone sales are stagnating, they pivot to services as the future. Their service has a handful of original shows. While admirable, it will not have the pricing power of Disney+. Imagine Disney+, Hulu+, ESPN+, Apple Music, and Apple Arcade bundled into one monthly offering. Imagine how high the price on that could go.

It’s not too late, and with a thoughtful spinoff of Parks and Resorts 70 Billionish could be recouped. But Tim is not Steve. He does not like radical ideas.

Apple missed the chance to own a business with incredible growth potential. Iger will go down as a legend largely because of Marvel and Disney+. Tim will go down as the guy who tried to follow a genius and did okay.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Yeah, I read it about an hour ago. He certainly wants people to believe he was the creative mind behind Disney’s last few years of successes. Plus he emphasizes his “close friendship” with Jobs the way a costumed high school mascot name-drops the star football player he high-fives at the beginning of every game.

Yes, I know they were actually friends. That doesn’t make the frequent references less silly. “We talked a couple times a week! We could’ve merged our companies! He hated comic books, but he helped me get Marvel!”

But

I will give Iger due credit for smartly snapping up Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox, and even the Muppets.

Correction - Iger didn't buy the Muppets. Michael Eisner committed that blunder. And, as I recall, one of the first things Iger did as CEO was go to the Muppets division and pretty much fire everybody.

*sigh*...I had such high hopes for him then...

BUT seriously...wouldn't it be nice if some interviewer would ask Iger intelligent questions, such as, WHY the Yeti AA in Everest remains broken, why Iger is such a contemptuous cheapwad that he just put a strobe light on it, why he keeps cutting corners on new attractions, why he invests gobs of money on attractions that are based on his acquisitions while being content with letting a very popular DISNEY-CREATED/ADAPTED IP-based ride like Peter Pan's Flight remain, technically speaking, in the 1960's? Why refurbs on rides like the Tower of Terror are almost always half-assed? Why he has such disdain for American parkgoers that new rides are cut to the bone while Tokyo Disneyland plusses its attractions with such largesse and splendor that Walt himself would swoon? Etc., etc. ...

What an egregious puff piece that article is. Guess Iger thought he needed one after the shockingly tepid response his Star Wars lands are getting...

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I would opine that the main benefit of the Pixar purchase was folded their company into Disney. The content at Pixar remains good, but Disney’s animation product has been great.

I don’t expect anyone could have guessed that Marvel would be as successful as it has been; but I expect that Kevin Feige has been the lynchpin. Were anyone else in charge, I don’t know how it would go.

I truly expect (and certainly hope) that the jury is still out on SW. It’s greatest failure (Solo) was a well done movie that was released at a terribly inopportune time just on the heels of Black Panther iirc. Had it been a November release, it would have (probably) been fine. I do think that the upcoming output with The Mandalorian and Episode 9 are going to be critical to the franchise.

As CEO shepherding TWDC, we can give Iger credit for the broad strokes but I can’t imagine that he’s involved in all of the details (current SW production notwithstanding- I would think that he’s watching this pretty closely at this point).

Oh, Marvel wouldn't be what it is today without Feige - that much is certain - he even said himself that as a fan, he wanted nothing more his entire life than to make Marvel films. But he was already head of Marvel by the time Disney got involved. Pixar also already had Lasseter - who was also left right where he was (and they seem to be sort of stumbling without him, unfortunately...we'll see what happens on their first non-sequel release that doesn't involve him). Sure, the films coming from Disney Animation have been good and made lots of money...but they haven't really haven't been anything earth-shattering creatively (they still stick to the same basic story-formula), and they haven't been releasing a ton of films from the animation studio, either (the live-action remakes fall under Walt Disney Pictures, and they are just that...remakes).

And now to Star Wars. Plagued with problems since the purchase - major changes involving those making the films with rewrites, poor choices in release dates (poor Solo was just released surrounded by 5 other blockbuster films - 4 of which also fell under the Disney umbrella), story arcs that have left fans incredibly divided, and a land that opened to way less than expected crowds after suffering a lengthy list of cuts. Do I blame Kennedy? Absolutely for the stuff connected to the films. Lucas put her in charge of Lucasfilm in 2012, literally a scant few months before it's sale to Disney was finalized, but after he'd already made some pretty bad mistakes with the IP himself (I'm personally of the opinion that he should have sold much earlier than he did). By the time Disney purchased Lucasfilm, it had only released one film in the prior 4 years (about the Tuskegee Airmen, called Red Tails...I don't think I've ever heard of it). So Disney purchased Lucasfilm, which was headed by a woman who'd never produced anything on her own and never run a film studio (she started at Lucasfilm as a secretary, for Pete's sake). Iger had the perfect opportunity to step in and replace her with someone who not only had experience, but who also had a love for the franchise and the creative vision to choose the right people to make the films...but he left her in charge, just like he did with Feige and Lasseter. I'm curious to see what happens with the FOX studios and whether we see a repeat of "leave the people already there in charge" or whether the problems plaguing Lucasfilm will change that decision-making process. I wonder, had Jobs been around, if she would have kept her position as head of Lucasfilm. Jobs was a creative genius - Iger is not, and Iger admitted in the article that he bounced ideas off Jobs on the regular and that Jobs was an active participant on the Disney board of directors (to the point that he insinuated that Jobs could sometimes be a problem for him).

As for the land and it's less-than-expected crowds...a whirlwind of bad decisions. Opening without the headliner attraction, opening with major cuts to the promised entertainment and activity, opening with no table-service restaurant...if Chapek made these decisions on his own and no one else had to okay them, he should be flat-out fired. If Iger put his stamp on them...

Personally, I've enjoyed the new Star Wars films, but they generally don't have the emotional stranglehold the original trilogy or the Marvel films have on me. There have been a few scenes that get me excited/emotional, but not nearly as many as the OT or Marvel. I'm sort of holding my breath for Episode 9 and hoping it's amazing because I don't want to lose interest and I don't want my husband's love of Star Wars to die off.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Correction - Iger didn't buy the Muppets. Michael Eisner committed that blunder. And, as I recall, one of the first things Iger did as CEO was go to the Muppets division and pretty much fire everybody.

*sigh*...I had such high hopes for him then...

BUT seriously...wouldn't it be nice if some interviewer would ask Iger intelligent questions, such as, WHY the Yeti AA in Everest remains broken, why Iger is such a contemptuous cheapwad that he just put a strobe light on it, why he keeps cutting corners on new attractions, why he invests gobs of money on attractions that are based on his acquisitions while being content with letting a very popular DISNEY-CREATED/ADAPTED IP-based ride like Peter Pan's Flight remain, technically speaking, in the 1960's? Why refurbs on rides like the Tower of Terror are almost always half-assed? Why he has such disdain for American parkgoers that new rides are cut to the bone while Tokyo Disneyland plusses its attractions with such largesse and splendor that Walt himself would swoon? Etc., etc. ...

What an egregious puff piece that article is. Guess Iger thought he needed one after the shockingly tepid response his Star Wars lands are getting...

Wouldn't it be better for those questions to be posed to Chapek and Kalogridis? I really doubt Iger has much to do with the parks other than overseeing Chapek.

 

[tirian]

Correction - Iger didn't buy the Muppets. Michael Eisner committed that blunder. And, as I recall, one of the first things Iger did as CEO was go to the Muppets division and pretty much fire everybody.

*sigh*...I had such high hopes for him then...

BUT seriously...wouldn't it be nice if some interviewer would ask Iger intelligent questions, such as, WHY the Yeti AA in Everest remains broken, why Iger is such a contemptuous cheapwad that he just put a strobe light on it, why he keeps cutting corners on new attractions, why he invests gobs of money on attractions that are based on his acquisitions while being content with letting a very popular DISNEY-CREATED/ADAPTED IP-based ride like Peter Pan's Flight remain, technically speaking, in the 1960's? Why refurbs on rides like the Tower of Terror are almost always half-assed? Why he has such disdain for American parkgoers that new rides are cut to the bone while Tokyo Disneyland plusses its attractions with such largesse and splendor that Walt himself would swoon? Etc., etc. ...

What an egregious puff piece that article is. Guess Iger thought he needed one after the shockingly tepid response his Star Wars lands are getting...

I edited my response to say he *did something* with the Muppets. That’s what I get for posting when I’m halfway asleep after midnight.

Yes, you’re right. This is a puff piece to sell his new book. But who takes Vanity Fair seriously anymore?

 

[tirian]

Oh, Marvel wouldn't be what it is today without Feige - that much is certain - he even said himself that as a fan, he wanted nothing more his entire life than to make Marvel films. But he was already head of Marvel by the time Disney got involved. Pixar also already had Lasseter - who was also left right where he was (and they seem to be sort of stumbling without him, unfortunately...we'll see what happens on their first non-sequel release that doesn't involve him). Sure, the films coming from Disney Animation have been good and made lots of money...but they haven't really haven't been anything earth-shattering creatively (they still stick to the same basic story-formula), and they haven't been releasing a ton of films from the animation studio, either (the live-action remakes fall under Walt Disney Pictures, and they are just that...remakes).

And now to Star Wars. Plagued with problems since the purchase - major changes involving those making the films with rewrites, poor choices in release dates (poor Solo was just released surrounded by 5 other blockbuster films - 4 of which also fell under the Disney umbrella), story arcs that have left fans incredibly divided, and a land that opened to way less than expected crowds after suffering a lengthy list of cuts. Do I blame Kennedy? Absolutely for the stuff connected to the films. Lucas put her in charge of Lucasfilm in 2012, literally a scant few months before it's sale to Disney was finalized, but after he'd already made some pretty bad mistakes with the IP himself (I'm personally of the opinion that he should have sold much earlier than he did). By the time Disney purchased Lucasfilm, it had only released one film in the prior 4 years (about the Tuskegee Airmen, called Red Tails...I don't think I've ever heard of it). So Disney purchased Lucasfilm, which was headed by a woman who'd never produced anything on her own and never run a film studio (she started at Lucasfilm as a secretary, for Pete's sake). Iger had the perfect opportunity to step in and replace her with someone who not only had experience, but who also had a love for the franchise and the creative vision to choose the right people to make the films...but he left her in charge, just like he did with Feige and Lasseter. I'm curious to see what happens with the FOX studios and whether we see a repeat of "leave the people already there in charge" or whether the problems plaguing Lucasfilm will change that decision-making process. I wonder, had Jobs been around, if she would have kept her position as head of Lucasfilm. Jobs was a creative genius - Iger is not, and Iger admitted in the article that he bounced ideas off Jobs on the regular and that Jobs was an active participant on the Disney board of directors (to the point that he insinuated that Jobs could sometimes be a problem for him).

As for the land and it's less-than-expected crowds...a whirlwind of bad decisions. Opening without the headliner attraction, opening with major cuts to the promised entertainment and activity, opening with no table-service restaurant...if Chapek made these decisions on his own and no one else had to okay them, he should be flat-out fired. If Iger put his stamp on them...

Personally, I've enjoyed the new Star Wars films, but they generally don't have the emotional stranglehold the original trilogy or the Marvel films have on me. There have been a few scenes that get me excited/emotional, but not nearly as many as the OT or Marvel. I'm sort of holding my breath for Episode 9 and hoping it's amazing because I don't want to lose interest and I don't want my husband's love of Star Wars to die off.

I don’t want to open a can of worms.

Many industry critics have been pointing out Disney’s new media strategy is “inclusion”—that way, there are no creative risks involving completely new material, and you can stick to the same tried-and-true formula. Just swap out genders, or roles, or identities, or skin color, or whatever. Then you benefit from a tiny-but-vocal minority of bloggers and puff pieces praising you for being “inclusive” (the 2019 Word of the Day), but you don’t have to actually change your storytelling.

Iger’s company is financially successful, but by the time the public gets tired of the formulas, he’ll be long gone. And yes, the public does catch onto oversaturation. It happened with Westerns, procedural crimes, musicals, fantasies, and pirates. A significant break is required before the public accepts those things again.

Iger’s company is a marketing behemoth that mints money. He bought up other people’s IP and for the most part, allowed good leaders to do their thing. Too bad Walt’s visionary company was suffocated in the process; at least we still have the toys and marketing hype.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I don’t want to open a can of worms.

Many industry critics have been pointing out Disney’s new media strategy is “inclusion”—that way, there are no creative risks and you can stick to the same tried-and-true formula. Just swap out genders, or roles, or identities, or skin color, or whatever. Then you benefit from a tiny-but-vocal minority of bloggers and puff pieces praising you for being “inclusive” (the 2019 Word of the Day), but you don’t have to actually change your storytelling.

Iger’s company is financially successful, but by the time the public gets tired of the formulas, he’ll be long gone. And yes, the public does catch onto oversaturation. It happened with Westerns, procedural crimes, musicals, fantasies, and pirates. A significant break is required before the public accepts those things again.

Iger’s company is a marketing behemoth that mints money. He bought up other people’s IP and for the most part, allowed good leaders to do their thing. Too bad Walt’s visionary company was suffocated in the process; at least we still have the toys and marketing hype.

Inclusion is wonderful...when it occurs naturally. When it's forced, it does everyone a disservice, especially those who it affects the most...the ones wanting to be included. (This holds true no matter what kind of inclusion you're discussing...take it from an autism-mom. There are people out there who genuinely don't care and will welcome you with open arms, and there are those who look at you as if you've got some contagious disease. Unfortunately, the latter is still a disappointingly large percentage of the population.)

 

[tirian]

Inclusion is wonderful...when it occurs naturally. When it's forced, it does everyone a disservice, especially those who it affects the most...the ones wanting to be included. (This holds true no matter what kind of inclusion you're discussing...take it from an autism-mom. There are people out there who genuinely don't care and will welcome you with open arms, and there are those who look at you as if you've got some contagious disease. Unfortunately, the latter is still a disappointingly large percentage of the population.)

You’re right, and that’s why I emphasized the can of worms.

Please be assured I’m talking about a business strategy, not actual needs. I think out of all current shows, Sesame Street is probably the most successful at pulling it off the right way—naturally, holistically, and not using it as a selling point.

 

[Ravenclaw78]

I don’t want to open a can of worms.

Many industry critics have been pointing out Disney’s new media strategy is “inclusion”—that way, there are no creative risks involving completely new material, and you can stick to the same tried-and-true formula. Just swap out genders, or roles, or identities, or skin color, or whatever. Then you benefit from a tiny-but-vocal minority of bloggers and puff pieces praising you for being “inclusive” (the 2019 Word of the Day), but you don’t have to actually change your storytelling.

Iger’s company is financially successful, but by the time the public gets tired of the formulas, he’ll be long gone. And yes, the public does catch onto oversaturation. It happened with Westerns, procedural crimes, musicals, fantasies, and pirates. A significant break is required before the public accepts those things again.

Iger’s company is a marketing behemoth that mints money. He bought up other people’s IP and for the most part, allowed good leaders to do their thing. Too bad Walt’s visionary company was suffocated in the process; at least we still have the toys and marketing hype.

There's also a tiny-but-vocal minority that screams bloody murder every time somebody makes a movie with a female or non-white actor in a role that would traditionally have been held by a white male. I'm also not sure the mostly-silent masses don't tend towards preferring inclusion, either. Representation is extremely powerful. Seeing someone who looks like you being the lead instead of a sidekick is something white males take for granted, but everyone else has seen extremely rarely until the past few years.

That said, you're absolutely right that swapping out actors without changing the material doesn't work. It can't just be the same old tired plots with new faces - diversity won't magically make an awful movie better. The genius of Marvel's approach, the spark that made movies like Black Panther and Captain Marvel runaway successes instead of just another superhero film, is that their approach to diversity isn't exclusively in front of the camera. From stage crew all the way up to scriptwriters and directors, they've hired and mentored diverse talent who have new stories to tell from a very different perspective, and given them the freedom to tell those stories without interference.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

You’re right, and that’s why I emphasized the can of worms.

Please be assured I’m talking about a business strategy, not actual needs. I think out of all current shows, Sesame Street is probably the most successful at pulling it off the right way—naturally, holistically, and not using it as a selling point.

Oh absolutely. And using it as an entertainment business strategy only makes those doing it look bad in the eyes of everyone. Kennedy is very likely a fabulous co-producer, but I really don't think she should have been put in charge at Lucasfilm, and her approach to inclusion feels forced both in her choice of staff and on film.

I should add that I'm a woman who has worked in predominantly male industries my entire life and am often the only female at my places of employment. Do I wish things were different? Absolutely...and they are changing, very slowly. But I would never insist that a company I work for use hiring standards that didn't rest solely upon experience and talent.

 

[Lilofan]

There's also a tiny-but-vocal minority that screams bloody murder every time somebody makes a movie with a female or non-white actor in a role that would traditionally have been held by a white male. I'm also not sure the mostly-silent masses don't tend towards preferring inclusion, either. Representation is extremely powerful. Seeing someone who looks like you being the lead instead of a sidekick is something white males take for granted, but everyone else has seen extremely rarely until the past few years.

That said, you're absolutely right that swapping out actors without changing the material doesn't work. It can't just be the same old tired plots with new faces - diversity won't magically make an awful movie better. The genius of Marvel's approach, the spark that made movies like Black Panther and Captain Marvel runaway successes instead of just another superhero film, is that their approach to diversity isn't exclusively in front of the camera. From stage crew all the way up to scriptwriters and directors, they've hired and mentored diverse talent who have new stories to tell from a very different perspective, and given them the freedom to tell those stories without interference.

Nicely said. Thank you.

 

[Nubs70]

Way too many uses of first person pronoun amd name.dropping. Comes off as a bit self indulgent..