Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
What's that supposed to mean?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Iger out in 2018
- Thread starter enomi
- Start date
What's that supposed to mean?
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
Just buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy flight. The writings on the wall for anyone who cares to read it.
Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
No. I'm not happy that a greedy is going to fly a great American institution into the side of a mountain.
But, you go girl at cheering him on.
mickey v-neck
Active Member
Good explanation. Clear and concise. Sound reasoning and logic. 10/10.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
In terms of "fandom" (i.e., sites like these), Eisner was just as, if not more, hated than Iger. Heck, Eisner was so bad by the end that Walt Disney's family have to intervene. In fact, I'd err on "more" because there are an awful lot of us who don't think Darth Iger is quite the Sith Lord some very, very vocal folks may lead us to believe, yet you found very few Eisner defenders back then.
Outside of our rather insignificant fandom? HA! Iger is nearly beloved. He is leaving the company with a whole lot more assets than it had when it started, single-highhandedly has made Disney the darling of the live-action feature film business (something even Walt himself never really did - Eisner tried and was briefly successful, but never in this league), and if you've checked lately, you'd know he's leaving the animated film business a darn sight better than it was, as well.
In contrast, Eisner left in public, mainstream headline-grabbing, disgrace. The shareholders fired him. It's that simple. Just like any figure, in retrospect some would like to gloss over this period, much like you find people doing with someone like Nixon, but while folks could argue the coulda/shoulda/woulda's for eternity, there is no question at the time that it was most public and embarrassing ousting of a corporate head in recent memory.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
No, he simply only views Iger, like a good many around here do, through the eyes of Disney Park fans, not his overall performance. Outside of Disney Parks fandom, the guy is very well liked and admired.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
The only thing Iger has is rediculously expensive tent pole films proping up the entire company. He has decimated the venerable Parks and Resorts division and ESPN (the DisCo.'s go to ATM machine) is tanking hard.
Things are going to get ugly. But hey, look! A new burger place in Disney Springs! Disney ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
In the post right below this one I mentioned 3 things that Iger has, oh never mind. What t ever!
You guys knock yourselves out patting yourselves on the back.
Disone
Well-Known Member
I don't understand the venom for Bob Iger as over all he has been very good for the Disney Company and the parks and resorts. There have been negatives, but the positives out weight. Both Eisner and Iger have raised prices far to much but Iger fixed alot of damage from Eisners last 10 years. He stopped the off the shelf ride policy Eisner had instituted believing putting Disney decorations on an off the shelf ride was good enough. Iger welcomed back Pixar into the fold and continues to let Pixar be themselves. Eisner had divorce Pixar and ruined a good relationship. Iger brought Oswald the lucky rabbit back to the Disney Family just for the sake of doing so. It was a charming little heritage piece he brought home and did little more then some merch and character meet and greet. Iger did not have to do that. Iger bought Marvel and then steer it to movie juggernaut every hollywood studio is in envy of.
Back to parks and resorts.... Finally he reinvested in Walt Disney World, though agreed he took too much time getting there, But Eisner had little to nothing in the works for WDW during his last years in charge. Iger may have been slow getting there but has now several multi billion dollar projects in the works. Eisner did Hong Kong, Iger did Shanghai.
Theme park wise, I believe Iger was rare ceo willing to invest. Many here are angry that WDW builds so slowing their expansions, but honestly Universal is playing catch up, even after a hugely success Universal attraction hit parade of many years running, they are still WAY behind Disney. Just just a little behind, WAY behind. Its easy to tout there 40% growth to Disney's 3 or 4 percent, but that ingores the fact the even after universal has stole so much market share, WDW still comands 70 % of the market to Universals roughly 25%. WDW does not need to rush. Under Eisner I suspect it would not have done much more then a few attraction projects. But Iger has Disney Springs, Pandora, TSL and SWL all in the works. I too want them yesterday, but I do understand why they are not feeling pressured to rush them to completion.
I fear after Iger we will see a return of Eisner type corporation management with very little theme park and resort investment at WDW. A return to the mentality that it is a cash cow.
Back to parks and resorts.... Finally he reinvested in Walt Disney World, though agreed he took too much time getting there, But Eisner had little to nothing in the works for WDW during his last years in charge. Iger may have been slow getting there but has now several multi billion dollar projects in the works. Eisner did Hong Kong, Iger did Shanghai.
Theme park wise, I believe Iger was rare ceo willing to invest. Many here are angry that WDW builds so slowing their expansions, but honestly Universal is playing catch up, even after a hugely success Universal attraction hit parade of many years running, they are still WAY behind Disney. Just just a little behind, WAY behind. Its easy to tout there 40% growth to Disney's 3 or 4 percent, but that ingores the fact the even after universal has stole so much market share, WDW still comands 70 % of the market to Universals roughly 25%. WDW does not need to rush. Under Eisner I suspect it would not have done much more then a few attraction projects. But Iger has Disney Springs, Pandora, TSL and SWL all in the works. I too want them yesterday, but I do understand why they are not feeling pressured to rush them to completion.
I fear after Iger we will see a return of Eisner type corporation management with very little theme park and resort investment at WDW. A return to the mentality that it is a cash cow.
ShoalFox
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
There's also a certain niche in the Disney animation fandom that despises Iger because traditional animation was discontinued on his watch.
mickey v-neck
Active Member
Wow. I've never seen someone so triggered by Bob Iger. Maybe go out to Disneyland and enjoy all the new attractions? Maybe visit one of the new overseas parks or attractions? That should keep you entertained until Avatar and Star Wars.
mickey v-neck
Active Member
Good post. Quite the contrast to the obvious other poster in this thread.
Disneyhead'71
Well-Known Member
I want what you're smokin'!
Eisner built a titch more than Hong Kong Disneyland.
Disney-Mgm, EuroDisney, Disney's Animal Kingdom, Disney's California Adventure, Walt Disney Studios Paris, and Tokyo DisneySea along with Hong Kong Disneyland.
But you perceive Iger's one park as an increase in investment.
Mmmm, OK.
Last edited:
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I read your post. I don't disagree the direction the management of the parks is atrocious, and while it seems things are brightening up on the attraction front, I'll believe that when I see it. That said, even though I lost my favorite ride, I think NFL was sorely needed (we had the most embarrassing Fantasyland of all the MK-style parks) - it just cost too much due to WDI-Creep.
Finally, as much as I hate to admit it - financially, the parks are gangbusters. Why I don't subscribe to the Darth Iger theory is because I don't think anyone else would have done anything different with the parks in the current Wall Street climate.
Parks aside, I can't see how ESPN can be laid at his feet. Blaming him for that would be like blaming the President for the the print news industry being on life support.
Overall, public interest (and profits) for organized professional sports have peaked. There are simply less folks interested in 24/7 sports "news" coverage. Some of this is because of cord-cutting, or just the attention of so many different media. Some of it is again, that professional sports has been taking a beating in the public eye for awhile, and the amount of die-hards who spend thousands of dollars a year on their favorite team just isn't what it used to be. It's also the Internet, of course. Finally, and probably most significantly, really - the very people who were the "whales" of the ESPN-fueled professional sports frenzy post-9/11 now are playing "Fantasy" sports with the dollars they used to spend (which I believe ESPN covers, but that's sort of like a TV show about video games - if you need to see a clip, you are going to YouTube).
That said, I don't think ESPN is dead, yet. There always will be sports fans. And sports fans with money. It simply needs to get with the digital age. I think it can turn around like Netflix did. Let's not forget, before it was a behemoth making something like 100 different series on it's own, Netflix was just a DVD rental company not that very long ago. The streaming thing was a free add-on, and let's not forget that when they tried to split the two it was a public embarrassment that drove the stock to the basement.
Now, just a few years later - Netflix is so wildly successful, and a true disruptive technology to the television industry now that it has become such a producer of content on it's own. Ironically, as much of a crap storm that the DVD/streaming split caused, no one gives a turd about the DVDs anymore (I don't know anyone who doesn't just use Redbox for new releases and Netflix Streaming for old stuff - do you?).
Netflix completely turned around in an impressive way and ESPN can do similarly. They just need to jump head first into the digital stuff - and I think they will find that as professional teams (and scandals, and lack of interest, etc.) are selling many less $200 jerseys then they used to, they will be more amenable to getting the games out there in an open way and get rid of as much of the peeing contests that all those lockout contracts and such cause.
Disone
Well-Known Member
well, you can't have it, its mine! lol
Rteetz
Well-Known Member
I know you're new here but most people on this forum don't like Iger. I'm not saying I'm one of them but he hasn't been the best in terms of the US parks. You also realize one of the reasons overseas parks get new attractions and are opened is because Disney isn't the majority owner so they don't have to pay for everything. Paris thankfully (which now is majority owned by Disney) is getting a much needed makeover. Tokyo isn't owned by Disney at all. Hong Kong is struggling. Shanghai is a massive overbudget mess.
Pam Hates Penguins
Well-Known Member
So are you saying Disney is getting a bit lazy? Because the way you said that makes me think they need to wake up.
Marc Davis Fan
Well-Known Member
In terms of Parks and Resorts from a worldwide perspective:
After the disappointing start of Disneyland Paris and the death of Frank Wells, Eisner's/Pressler's regime underinvested in new parks and attractions, resulting in huge cuts to AK's plans, DCA 1.0, WDSP, and HKDL. These projects included going against fundamental Imagineering principles, such as a lack of emphasis on placemaking (in DCA and WDSP), disregarding whether the outside world is visible from inside the park (especially DCA), inclusion of off-the-shelf rides (DCA), under-budgeting for new attractions, a huge brain drain that sent some of WDI's greatest minds to the competition, among other problems.
Iger started his tenure by immediately ending the "stategic planning group" that was cutting budgets on new attractions, and investing heavily into the incomplete/low-quality parks that were opened by the prior administration: 1.1 billion to fix DCA and hundreds of millions for WDSP and HKDL. Those investments were first priority because of the actions of the prior administration. If those had been full parks from the beginning, Disney would have been much more likely to invest more of that in WDW. But those parks were apparently viewed as emergencies.
There is much to discuss about things like the merits of SDL (I can understand how they viewed it as necessary to get a second chance at entering the Chinese market before it was saturated), the emphasis on IPs throughout the parks (I would prefer more original content), the quality of NFL (I wish it had one E rather than two Ds), price increases (to keep the revenue up while Disney catches up on development that will increase actual attendance), magic bands, etc. However, to me, it seems that Iger's biggest influence on the parks has been the reinvestment in opening major, high-quality attractions and immersive placemaking, even though I wish this trend had arrived at WDW sooner.
(Of course, this is a simplification that excludes details such as the role of Staggs in various decisions, the current placement of Chapek and whether it will mark a backslide in some of these things, etc.)
After the disappointing start of Disneyland Paris and the death of Frank Wells, Eisner's/Pressler's regime underinvested in new parks and attractions, resulting in huge cuts to AK's plans, DCA 1.0, WDSP, and HKDL. These projects included going against fundamental Imagineering principles, such as a lack of emphasis on placemaking (in DCA and WDSP), disregarding whether the outside world is visible from inside the park (especially DCA), inclusion of off-the-shelf rides (DCA), under-budgeting for new attractions, a huge brain drain that sent some of WDI's greatest minds to the competition, among other problems.
Iger started his tenure by immediately ending the "stategic planning group" that was cutting budgets on new attractions, and investing heavily into the incomplete/low-quality parks that were opened by the prior administration: 1.1 billion to fix DCA and hundreds of millions for WDSP and HKDL. Those investments were first priority because of the actions of the prior administration. If those had been full parks from the beginning, Disney would have been much more likely to invest more of that in WDW. But those parks were apparently viewed as emergencies.
There is much to discuss about things like the merits of SDL (I can understand how they viewed it as necessary to get a second chance at entering the Chinese market before it was saturated), the emphasis on IPs throughout the parks (I would prefer more original content), the quality of NFL (I wish it had one E rather than two Ds), price increases (to keep the revenue up while Disney catches up on development that will increase actual attendance), magic bands, etc. However, to me, it seems that Iger's biggest influence on the parks has been the reinvestment in opening major, high-quality attractions and immersive placemaking, even though I wish this trend had arrived at WDW sooner.
(Of course, this is a simplification that excludes details such as the role of Staggs in various decisions, the current placement of Chapek and whether it will mark a backslide in some of these things, etc.)
Disone
Well-Known Member
Epcot was a massive over budget mess. And the same Disney that did Hong Kong and Shanghai is the one that thankfully is rescuing Paris so a little bit of a mix message there. That said, I would rather have a massive over budget mess then a 1989 Disney-MGM, 1998 DAK or a 2005 Hong Kong. All of which opened with, or all intents and purposes, single digit number of attractions. Its nice to have an over budget park with more then 10 rides on opening day.