deWild
Well-Known Member
Ah, thank you!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Great article by Robert Iger in Vanity Fair
- Thread starter rreading
- Start date
deWild
Well-Known Member
I’ll give it a look. Thank you!
I honestly don't get the comparisons to Walt Disney that Iger is drawing to himself. Iger has been a very safe investor, and while that is good for business, I do think it will eventually be the company's weakness. Disney has a ridiculous amount of goodwill now, so much so that they pretty much destroyed a good portion of Fox internally and were cheered by the MCU fans on twitter for doing so, whereas people would have acted in horror if it was any other studio. I can see why he's so IP centric, especially as a lot of other older and nonIP attempts (Tomorrowland, John Carter and the Lone Ranger for example) flopped hard, but eventually people get tired of the same old IPs over and over again, most of the IP relaunches outside of Disney this decade flopped hard (save some like Jurassic World, mostly for the worse) and you need to take risks in order to evolve. Apple is a good example of this, Tim has been extremely safe with his products, most of them iterating on what Jobs did before or getting into an industry way too late, but nothing has really affected the bottom line for them because of their size, but we are slowly seeing people turn on the company.
Disney is the same, while Marvel and the live action remakes are doing gangbusters, the Star Wars stuff (outside the numbered episodes, those are still doing fine) have had a mixed success as of late, heck Solo bombed as no one cared about him, still the merch is doing fine so we will have a star wars movie a year till the end of time. When Disney eventually reboots Alien, Die Hard, Home Alone, etc., do you think anyone will are about seeing a reboot of them again? That and the parks are going downhill too (get ready for late Eisner era stuff when Chapek gets the wheel), but the public will eat this stuff up no matter what.
Anyways back to Walt and Bob. Walt was always a risktaker, sure he was kind of a dick, stole credit from others and hated unions, but he was a risktaker nonetheless. If Iger ran the comapny in the 50s, we probably wouldn't have seen Disneyland be a thing, nor see the company branch into live action, it would just be more animated stuff, as that would be unprofitable. He'd probably want to shut the studio down altogether after Alice bombed back in the day. Walt on the other hand did take those risks, as he knew they were necessary for the company to survive and last long beyond his death. If we are talking about Fox, do you think Iger would take a risk launching Kingsman when it was a new IP, or Star Wars when no one wanted it before it was released, or anything that wasn't more of the same? He probably wouldn't and cancel everything outright the milisecond something unrelated bombed at the box office. While Iger did save the company from bankruptcy, he has definately worn out his welcome and I would be happy if the company did return to the almost dying state that he took the reigns in. Sorry for the rant, but it seems to be the norm in this thread.
Disney is the same, while Marvel and the live action remakes are doing gangbusters, the Star Wars stuff (outside the numbered episodes, those are still doing fine) have had a mixed success as of late, heck Solo bombed as no one cared about him, still the merch is doing fine so we will have a star wars movie a year till the end of time. When Disney eventually reboots Alien, Die Hard, Home Alone, etc., do you think anyone will are about seeing a reboot of them again? That and the parks are going downhill too (get ready for late Eisner era stuff when Chapek gets the wheel), but the public will eat this stuff up no matter what.
Anyways back to Walt and Bob. Walt was always a risktaker, sure he was kind of a dick, stole credit from others and hated unions, but he was a risktaker nonetheless. If Iger ran the comapny in the 50s, we probably wouldn't have seen Disneyland be a thing, nor see the company branch into live action, it would just be more animated stuff, as that would be unprofitable. He'd probably want to shut the studio down altogether after Alice bombed back in the day. Walt on the other hand did take those risks, as he knew they were necessary for the company to survive and last long beyond his death. If we are talking about Fox, do you think Iger would take a risk launching Kingsman when it was a new IP, or Star Wars when no one wanted it before it was released, or anything that wasn't more of the same? He probably wouldn't and cancel everything outright the milisecond something unrelated bombed at the box office. While Iger did save the company from bankruptcy, he has definately worn out his welcome and I would be happy if the company did return to the almost dying state that he took the reigns in. Sorry for the rant, but it seems to be the norm in this thread.
Be careful what you wish for. The company was in a bit not so magical position in 2004, company stock price stagnant and Comcast in 2004 made a multibillion dollar hostile bid offer to buy Disney and and even offered to pay off Disney's debt at the time of $11 billion. The Disney board said the offer was too low. Every company is for sale if the bid is right and gets the buy in from the Board and the company shareholders.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
“You reach a point where you don’t work for money.”
“Do a good job. You don’t have to worry about the money; it will take care of itself. Just do your best work — then try to trump it.”
“Disneyland is a work of love. We didn’t go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money.”
“I could never convince the financiers that Disneyland was feasible, because dreams offer too little collateral.”
“I don’t make pictures just to make money. I make money to make more pictures.”
“I have never been interested in personal gain or profit. This business and this studio have been my entire life.”
“Money doesn’t excite me, my ideas excite me.”
-Walt Disney quotes
There are plenty more like these. Walt Disney was consistently at odds with the financial wing of the company who were obsessed with short term profit and didn't give a crap about the actual product. After he had established himself as a indispensable powerhouse of profit for them, Walt became increasingly bold and vindictive towards these types. Either through direct quotes attacking them, or by creating or adapting characters that condemned their behavior. Mary Poppins is about a man (and his other associates and superiors at the bank) who was so caught up in obsession over money that he never spent any time with his family and actively repelled any frivolous entertainment or expenditures that he felt were chaotic and a threat to his orderly mundane life.
Disneyland (and later, Disney World) were created on the foundation of a number of principles that were intended to set them apart from other theme parks. One of which being that they would not be dirty, dilapidated and poorly maintained like was expected of other fairs and roadside carnivals. This was indeed something that Walt Disney was very passionate about. Maintenance was once so meticulous that it was even an official company policy to replace any still lightbulbs around property that had only reached 80% of their life expectancy but were still functioning. They didn't want guests seeing broken bulbs. They also had crews which went around and inspected every night to replace any that had failed prematurely.
Disney parks also used to have their own large private army of techs who were trained to build and repair animatronics. They would keep ample amounts of extra parts backstage. And if an animatronic broke down, it was policy for ride operators to close the attraction down until the effect had been repaired. Considering a ride with such major broken elements to be unacceptably poor levels of show quality. They were very fast at fixing things too. This level of meticulous care and pride on Disney property was still present within the company even up through the early-mid 90s, as was their derision of others in the business who they considered to be of far inferior quality. This scene from A Goofy Movie satirizes a crappy broken down roadside knockoff of Country Bear Jamboree-
Ironically A Goofy Movie was released right around the time Disney parks underwent a sharp decline in quality standards. One of many poor decisions that contributed to Eisner's fall from grace in the eyes of park goers (and eventual firing). The poor maintenance culminated not just in the physical deterioration of animatronics and other show elements, but important safety operations being neglected which actually led to the tragic death of several guests (and several other close calls). There was an substantial and partially successful attempt to restore some of the quality standards at Disneyland in 2003 with some leadership changes, but things never fully returned to the immaculate standards they used to have (at least domestically, Tokyo is apparently still brilliantly operated by a non-Disney company called the Oriental Land Company). WDW standards of upkeep have on average been noticeably declining since the mid 90s. And unlike Disneyland's cleanup, WDW hasn't yet gotten a huge cleanup and management shakeup of its own.
An overarching question about the standards of upkeep in the parks compared to the years between 1955 and 1995 (or the standards that are still being upheld today by the non-Disney OLC operated Tokyo resort) would be a perfectly reasonable one for Iger. The Yeti is merely a symptom of an immensely larger problem.
Last edited:
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Uh huh. Let's see: once when Roy Disney managed to get Walt to attend a shareholder's meeting, Walt reluctantly showed up and read them a letter he'd received from a stock investor, which read (paraphrasing): "Mr. Disney, I don't care if I ever make any money from this stock; just keep making great movies." Walt then told his audience: "That's my kind of shareholder. Now if you don't mind, I've got a studio to run." And then Walt left.
True story.
Those were the days.
Mouse Trap
Well-Known Member
If Walt magically appeared in the year 2019 he would drive the company into disaster. The business climate and customer base when he was alive is totally different today.
All this “what would Walt do” “Walt would’ve done...” talk is irrelevant. Having a 1950’s mindset in 2019 won’t get you anything. He was successful during his era which couldn’t be different than today. This is the case for almost every successful business leader - they were a product of their era and their era only.
If he was a business leader today his actions, thoughts and beliefs would be entirely different. He wouldn’t be the guy who didn’t care about shareholders, finance, etc...
Admire him for what he was, not what he hypothetically would be like today because it probably wouldn’t work out.
All this “what would Walt do” “Walt would’ve done...” talk is irrelevant. Having a 1950’s mindset in 2019 won’t get you anything. He was successful during his era which couldn’t be different than today. This is the case for almost every successful business leader - they were a product of their era and their era only.
If he was a business leader today his actions, thoughts and beliefs would be entirely different. He wouldn’t be the guy who didn’t care about shareholders, finance, etc...
Admire him for what he was, not what he hypothetically would be like today because it probably wouldn’t work out.
Last edited:
tirian
Well-Known Member
In that case, we wouldn’t have the theme parks or full-length animated features, because that’s what the banks told Walt at the time. If Iger had founded the company, we’d be getting live-action remakes of animated shorts, and he would’ve bought RKO, MGM, or Warner to round out the company.
On one hand, entertainment companies have to take creative risks to be successful. People who don’t like that should get into a different industry.
On the other hand, companies who take poorly advised risks face significant trouble or go out of business. Hollywood’s examples would include Cleopatra and Heaven’s Gate.
tirian
Well-Known Member
Many analysts have noted that Disney couldn’t be created today, period. Postmodernism has made culture too cynical for a company with Walt’s values. He’d started looking out of touch by the 1960s, and was often criticized for being saccharine. When the company continued in his trajectory after he died, their film division almost went out of business in the ‘70s.*
Walt’s sense of Americana and nostalgia wouldn’t work today, and in 2019, the parks get away with those values because people expect them from Disney—a Disney founded in 1928—and it’s comforting to return to an idealized sense of postwar optimism (while editing out all the problems that existed during that time).
*Contrary to popular belief, the company never risked actually going out of business. The movies from this period were terrible, and many were box office flops (unless you truly think “The Boatniks” is a work of art); but the company remained profitable overall because of the theme parks. The infamous industry sharks wanted to divide the company, and Roy Jr. brought in Eisner and Wells to save it. But now people realize that if Ron Miller has been allowed to complete his plans for Touchstone, the Disney Channel, international parks, and a restored animation division, Eisner might not have been necessary. Miller created Touchstone and the Channel, and greenlighted many other projects projects that the industry credited to Eisner, including Mermaid and Roger Rabbit.
Last edited:
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I liked this post because I agree with most of it. However, I disagree with the premise of the last two sentences of the first paragraph. With the exception of Bedknobs and Broomsticks (which IS a fantastic movie that didn't receive the financial success it rightly deserved and earned when first released, though at least has since been acknowledged as a classic), most of the Disney movies of the 1970s and early-mid 80s were comparatively not as good as the standards set during the years Walt Disney was alive. This is true of both their animated movies and especially live action movies. And I think this quality drop-off had at least a significant contribution to why the studios struggled to stay afloat. It wasn't that people in general were no longer interested in Disney movies or thought they were stupid (just a couple years prior they were still insanely popular and successful), it was because Disney movies were not as good as they were before.
Now I still really enjoy quite a number of the animated movies during the 70s and 80s. There's quality and entertainment to be found in pretty much all of them (even some of the worst ones I have still enjoyed more than a fair number of Disney's post-renaissance animated movies). But there is no question that they were not as good as what had come to be expected from the studios when Walt Disney was still alive. This stood in particularly stark contrast at the time, Walt Disney had only been dead for a relatively short time and the drop-off in quality was rather sudden without his influence.
I like to compare the final animated movie that Walt was still alive through much of its active production (The Jungle Book) to the first animated movie that had virtually none of his influence during active production (The Aristocats). The disparity between these two movies is absolutely massive. I don't hate The Aristocats (though it is one of my least favorite pre-renaissance animated movies), but Jungle Book is just staggeringly superior.
Last edited:
Genie_naughty_whispers
Well-Known Member
Iger is the worst.
tirian
Well-Known Member
Oh, I know that and you’re right about the movie quality of the late ‘60s through early ‘80s.
In fact, when I read your response, I first thought that I DID point out the film division was suffering, but I forgot to type it. That’s why I said the company was profitable because of its parks—that’s where I meant to note their films were mostly terrible, contributing to the proposals to split it up.
I’ll go back and edit that post since you brought my oversight to my attention.
Last edited:
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I wasn't disagreeing that the film division was seriously struggling after Walt's death throughout the 70s and 80s. My disagreement was in regards to the reason it was suffering. The primary reason why Disney movies began to struggle in this Walt-less era is simply because they weren't as good as before. There was a certain standard of quality that people had come to expect from the company by then, a standard that was still present just a few years prior. I think the general public still very much hungered for great Disney movies, ones built on the template of what came before. The issue was not demand, but supply.
The people who said Walt was out of touch and overly saccharine IMO were the same people who said this about him from the start- generally people who either never liked his movies to begin with and/or short sighted financial analysts who wanted him to cut costs and cheap out to maximize profit. I think the general public however were still very much into classic Disney movies and wanted more. The animation, music, story and characters of most Walt era animated movies have time-tested charm and overall quality entertainment value.
Incidentally and half-way ontopic, I believe there's huge unacknowledged demand from younger generations to see a return to traditional animation. You pretty much never see traditionally animated movies these days. But there's actually a considerable amount in an area you wouldn't necessarily expect- video games. Especially recently. Most intriguing was Cuphead, insane dedication from its developers to faithfully copy the art style of 1930s Disney and Fleischer animation specifically. A goal they succeeded spectacularly in. The game was a huge hit both critically and financially, selling over 1 million copies in the first two weeks of release and over 4 million to date. The animation in particular garnered huge praise and awards (there's now a Netflix cartoon in the works too).
The problem with Disney Studios in the 70s and 80s wasn't that they were continuing down the same trajectory Walt Disney had set. It's that they DIDN'T follow that trajectory. Again while I still find many of these movies entertaining in their own ways, they were quite simply not of the same level of overall quality of most of the movies produced when Walt Disney was still alive. The only exception again is Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
Last edited:
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
I don't think the reason Disney couldn't be run today as it was in the past has anything to do with cultural postmodernism but rather the fact the economy has changed to prioritise endless growth. Being profitable is no longer enough to stay in business for a publicly traded company. Instead, you have to make ever-higher profits each quarter and, if not, you'll get swallowed up by a bigger company and used for parts (as Disney itself is doing with smaller entertainment companies). Disney as Walt ran it was essentially a boutique company that allowed him the freedom to oversee a new animated film every few years and tinker with his theme park in Anaheim. The only way a company like that could survive now would be if it was privately owned.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Disneyland seriously weren't kidding when they were going through a huge cleanup. Especially as the 50th Anniversary of the park was approaching between 2004 and 2005.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
He’s on GMA plugging his book this morning. He’s really an interesting personality...whether you agree with all the management decisions or not
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
This is brilliant
I have talked about private ownership for the last 5 years...it really is the only way to save it longterm
Private companies may issue stock and have shareholders but their shares do not trade in public exchanges. Only chance Disney is going private is when " hell freezes over".
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It will never happen...but it would be best.
Disney does NOT have unsustained profit potential...which means corners will be increasingly cut.
One question that is never asked is this: why do we assume that stock markets are “inherently good”?
I feel like that more of doctrine/dogma issue now than it is an analysis of just how unwieldy of a monster they have become.
Last edited: