Rumor Hollywood insiders say there's growing tension at Disney as CEO Bob Chapek chafes at Bob Iger's 'long goodbye'

[WizardofDestiny123]

Wait a second…i thought spray Tan Bob has “no official involvement”??

What the actual hell is going on??

My guess is that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Personally, I don't think Iger will come back to lead the company. I am also skeptical as to whether or not Chapek is really finished like some people seem to think he is. At the end of the day, the people who really decide these things are shareholders, and the overwhelming majority of Disney's shares are held by institutional investors.

I think the only thing that could force Chapek out is either a massive, humiliating Save Disney campaign, a depleted stock price, or something more serious than badly controlled PR disasters. I am not a Chapek fan, but that is how I see it. I hope he leaves, along with most of the company's executive management. I wish Disney would bring in new leadership with a love for the brand and the vision to bring it into the future. Streaming is just one component of that.

Ideally, my choice would be for Disney to be run by a creative person and a financial person like they were during the Walt and Roy days or Michael Eisner and Frank Wells. Perhaps Peter Rice could be a possibility? He certainly has solid relationships with the Hollywood community.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

The more Chapek falters, the more incompetent Iger looks for choosing him as a successor and failing to prepare him for this role.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The more Chapek falters, the more incompetent Iger looks for choosing him as a successor and failing to prepare him for this role.

Agree…and Iger knows it. That’s why he won’t go away and continues to appear to be leaning on the board. All ego…legacy.

That’s on Bob…quit like coward when the going got tough. Suck on it.

We are still along way from a change…but it’s not looking impossible that a “we feel like we need a new direction” move could be out there.

 

[Mmoore29]

It really is becoming Eisner and Ovitz redux at this point.

But who knows? Maybe Iger really did think Chapek had the goods and was ready to leave, rather than leave just to avoid making hard decisions in the era of COVID.

I don't think Iger would've made Turning Red be streaming-only, for example, and that he would've stayed committed to more theatrical exclusivity, even for Mulan, and insisted on delaying it more and more until it could possibly turn a profit in the box office. Iger wouldn't have done the centralizing under Kareem Daniel, either.

Maybe Iger really did think Chapek was it, rather than just purposefully setting him up.

What is clear is that both men are now absolutely at daggers drawn, and something is bound to give. Hell, at this point, maybe Iger will play the Roy equivalent in that hypothetical new Save Disney campaign, if he gets angry enough.

If Chapek does end up out by February without a contract extension, would Kareem Daniel be forced out, too?

 

[UNCgolf]

You can’t claim to be the biggest entertainment company when you don’t take advantage of one of the most popular entertainment mediums.

Video games and theme parks aren't a great mix.

Generally speaking, a theme park land or ride based on a video game will fall flat for the same reason video game movies typically fall flat. If it's a straight remake of the game, what's the point? And if it's something different, does it really have any draw for fans of the game? Plus, video games are already an interactive medium.

Nintendo is really an outlier with the type of games/IP they have available for theme park use; they're a good fit in a way most video game companies/IPs are not. There are a few others that would work relatively well, but I don't think anything Disney could acquire would be worth it over other options.

They were really dumb to close down their own game development, though. That was just giving away money.

 

[willtravel]

Still more creative than the current "Bob".

For me, I do not want the current Bob to be creative.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Video games and theme parks aren't a great mix.

Generally speaking, a theme park land or ride based on a video game will fall flat for the same reason video game movies typically fall flat. If it's a straight remake of the game, what's the point? And if it's something different, does it really have any draw for fans of the game? Plus, video games are already an interactive medium.

Nintendo is really an outlier with the type of games/IP they have available for theme park use; they're a good fit in a way most video game companies/IPs are not. There are a few others that would work relatively well, but I don't think anything Disney could acquire would be worth it over other options.

They were really dumb to close down their own game development, though. That was just giving away money.

Conceptually it's still world building. If that's done effectively, the source material should become irrelevant.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It really is becoming Eisner and Ovitz redux at this point.

But who knows? Maybe Iger really did think Chapek had the goods and was ready to leave, rather than leave just to avoid making hard decisions in the era of COVID.

I don't think Iger would've made Turning Red be streaming-only, for example, and that he would've stayed committed to more theatrical exclusivity, even for Mulan, and insisted on delaying it more and more until it could possibly turn a profit in the box office. Iger wouldn't have done the centralizing under Kareem Daniel, either.

Maybe Iger really did think Chapek was it, rather than just purposefully setting him up.

What is clear is that both men are now absolutely at daggers drawn, and something is bound to give. Hell, at this point, maybe Iger will play the Roy equivalent in that hypothetical new Save Disney campaign, if he gets angry enough.

If Chapek does end up out by February without a contract extension, would Kareem Daniel be forced out, too?

I think That’s a totally different scenario…if you Study the ovitz story…

And who the hell is Kareem Daniel? I’ve never heard of him…and I’m a “student”…which means he’s likely just a suit in his job…whatever that may be?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Video games and theme parks aren't a great mix.

Generally speaking, a theme park land or ride based on a video game will fall flat for the same reason video game movies typically fall flat. If it's a straight remake of the game, what's the point? And if it's something different, does it really have any draw for fans of the game? Plus, video games are already an interactive medium.

Nintendo is really an outlier with the type of games/IP they have available for theme park use; they're a good fit in a way most video game companies/IPs are not. There are a few others that would work relatively well, but I don't think anything Disney could acquire would be worth it over other options.

They were really dumb to close down their own game development, though. That was just giving away money.

Conceptually it's still world building. If that's done effectively, the source material should become irrelevant.

I agree with Heel here…it’s a bad match for Disney.

They are painfully slow to change things…which means video material isn’t ideal for them.

That consistency used to be a strength when they had proper park offerings…but Iger let that advantage go and it really highlights the deficiencies in philosophy.

People want the beauty and the beast show back…but they don’t really want it. Not the only thing

 

[Rteetz]

I think That’s a totally different scenario…if you Study the ovitz story…

And who the hell is Kareem Daniel? I’ve never heard of him…and I’m a “student”…which means he’s likely just a suit in his job…whatever that may be?

He's fairly new-ish...

"Daniel has had numerous positions in the Walt Disney Company. He originally started out as an MBA intern. Then he worked as a Senior Business Planner, rising to become Director of Corporate Strategy, where he facilitated numerous mergers and acquisitions. He also served as Vice President of Distribution Strategy at Walt Disney Studios.[3] Daniel worked on Disney's acquisition of Marvel in 2009.[5]

Daniel then moved to Walt Disney Imagineering; he first served as Executive Vice President of Global Business Operations, but in 2019, he was promoted to President of WDI Business Operations, Product Creation, Games, and Publishing.[6]

In May 2020, Daniel was named President of Consumer Products, Gaming and Publishing.[7][8]

In October 2020, Kareem Daniel was promoted again to be over a new single, global media and entertainment distribution unit, in an effort to streamline costs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Daniel will be in charge of making sure streaming services become profitable, as the company continues to invest in those platforms.[9][10]"

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

He's fairly new-ish...

"Daniel has had numerous positions in the Walt Disney Company. He originally started out as an MBA intern. Then he worked as a Senior Business Planner, rising to become Director of Corporate Strategy, where he facilitated numerous mergers and acquisitions. He also served as Vice President of Distribution Strategy at Walt Disney Studios.[3] Daniel worked on Disney's acquisition of Marvel in 2009.[5]

Daniel then moved to Walt Disney Imagineering; he first served as Executive Vice President of Global Business Operations, but in 2019, he was promoted to President of WDI Business Operations, Product Creation, Games, and Publishing.[6]

In May 2020, Daniel was named President of Consumer Products, Gaming and Publishing.[7][8]

In October 2020, Kareem Daniel was promoted again to be over a new single, global media and entertainment distribution unit, in an effort to streamline costs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Daniel will be in charge of making sure streaming services become profitable, as the company continues to invest in those platforms.[9][10]"

Yeah…I read his bio…

Seems highly competent and highly disposable

Accountant type background who started with them…the mandatory chapek assignment in the crap division…then stuck in WDI with no real artistic background - always a plus…

Might be a great dude. Doesn’t knock boots off

 

[UNCgolf]

Conceptually it's still world building. If that's done effectively, the source material should become irrelevant.

That's kind of my point, though.

If the source material becomes irrelevant, then it's no longer a draw -- that makes licensing it a waste of money over other options (or something original). I've played video games my whole life and I can think of very few that would work remotely well in a theme park, and they generally wouldn't work well enough to make it worth the effort. There are some exceptions (as I said, Nintendo has the largest library of good options), but there just aren't many other options that would actually move the needle in terms of attracting guests.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That's kind of my point, though.

If the source material becomes irrelevant, then it's no longer a draw -- that makes licensing it a waste of money over other options (or something original). I've played video games my whole life and I can think of very few that would work remotely well in a theme park, and they generally wouldn't work well enough to make it worth the effort. There are some exceptions (as I said, Nintendo has the largest library of good options), but there just aren't many other options that would actually move the needle in terms of attracting guests.

The combined longevity/resiliency of Nintendo - which has always been great at staying the course on its branding - is really the only fit.

Universal has two leased IPs that translate really perfectly to theme parks. The wizards are the other one.

Disney should have ONE…beyond the Disneyland banner brand…they just kinda pooch it.

 

[UNCgolf]

The combined longevity/resiliency of Nintendo - which has always been great at staying the course on its branding - is really the only fit.

Universal has two leased IPs that translate really perfectly to theme parks. The wizards are the other one.

Disney should have ONE…beyond the Disneyland banner brand…they just kinda pooch it.

I think the biggest reason Nintendo works is not only that those main characters have existed for decades and decades, but that they've been used in multiple different ways across genres. When people think of Mario, they think of the character more than any specific game, or even genre. Link is more closely tied to a genre, but there's a lot of variety across the different Zelda games. There's a lot more freedom in how to make them work in a theme park.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Video games and theme parks aren't a great mix.

Generally speaking, a theme park land or ride based on a video game will fall flat for the same reason video game movies typically fall flat. If it's a straight remake of the game, what's the point? And if it's something different, does it really have any draw for fans of the game? Plus, video games are already an interactive medium.

Couldn’t you say the same thing about rides based on movies that strictly copy what the film did? It’s all dependent on how the attraction is executed.

My point was, Disney is very foolish if they think they can beat Universal with IP alone. They continue to parade the same few film franchises, while their competitors have tons of beloved film and game IP, covering a larger audience than they did in the past (and upping their quality while they are at it).

 

[doctornick]

You can’t claim to be the biggest entertainment company when you don’t take advantage of one of the most popular entertainment mediums.

Or you can?

Much like with movies, I’m not sure video games translate well into a theme park setting.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Couldn’t you say the same thing about rides based on movies that strictly copy what the film did? It’s all dependent on how the attraction is executed.

My point was, Disney is very foolish if they think they can beat Universal with IP alone. They continue to parade the same few film franchises, while their competitors have tons of beloved film and game IP, covering a larger audience than they did in the past (and upping their quality while they are at it).

I definitely think you overestimate the IP universal has…but they can contract the next big thing and Disney really cannot.

Without wizarding…they don’t bring in Cameron…

Imagine how bad wdw would be on regurgitation now?? And they tend to underdeliver when they do build.

I suggest people read the backstory of Disney’s proposal to Rowling’s…it was there’s for the taking and they couldn’t be bothered to realize the potential. The success of MCU…which started with nothing to do with Disney…gave them the hubris to misread LFL too…

For all his back patting…look and see what IPs iger left in better shape when he left than when he started?

I’d say 1

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Or you can?

Much like with movies, I’m not sure video games translate well into a theme park setting.

If not movies…you better let TWDC know…

Every single thing under construction is 1:1 with movie IP…across the entire planet.

Easy to overlook

 

[UNCgolf]

Couldn’t you say the same thing about rides based on movies that strictly copy what the film did? It’s all dependent on how the attraction is executed.

My point was, Disney is very foolish if they think they can beat Universal with IP alone. They continue to parade the same few film franchises, while their competitors have tons of beloved film and game IP, covering a larger audience than they did in the past (and upping their quality while they are at it).

You could to an extent, but are there really any of those? I'm sure they're out there, but other than a handful of book report dark rides (which people generally complain about), they usually aren't just a repeat of the film.

The bigger issue, though, is that games are already interactive. If you built a Skyrim/Elder Scrolls land, e.g., it's almost definitely going to be less interactive than the video game already is, so what's the real draw? It's also essentially generic high fantasy, but that's a separate issue.

Also, most games don't have anywhere near the fan base of a blockbuster film. Video games make a tremendous amount of money as an overall medium, but individual games aren't generally on the same level as a major movie. Minecraft is supposedly the highest selling game of all time with over 200 million copies, and nothing else is even close. But that still pales in comparison to a film like Avengers: Endgame, which sold something like 400 million tickets at the box office plus all of the additional people who saw it later at home.

You're just casting a much wider net with film IP (and likely TV/streaming as well, although it's harder to get numbers for that) than you are with video game IP.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I was able to get bits and pieces of it through refreshing. It seems the gist of this article is that Chapek and Disney are in a difficult position, the two Bobs have differing strategies, but time will have to tell.

My guess is the Bob 1.0 doesn't give a rats butt about what Bob 2.0 does. At this point Bob 2.0 will systematically get blamed for everything including afternoon and evening thunderstorms.