Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
That was stupid as well. If Iger buys Twitter, I'll hate him even more.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Iger rumored to extend his term as CEO
- Thread starter Darth Sidious
- Start date
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
Most recent 10-K filing does show positive EBITDA since 2011 on an annual basis.
CJR
Well-Known Member
See, that's part of my problem with Iger, he didn't really grow DCL, someone else did and then Iger looked at some proposals and then approved them. He's very happy to take the credit for all the work involved though. The man's not humble at all. Even Steve Jobs was more influential than Iger in bringing the Dream and Fantasy to life (Iger wanted a licensing deal).
The cruise line's success is mostly due to the fact upper management left it alone all this time.
Actually, now they they've touched some stuff, I've heard some people express some dissatisfaction in areas they didn't before. I'm cautiously optimistic with the new ships. If they're full of markups though, it could be shaky waters ahead as people could turn more easily to the competition. DCL is a top rated cruise line, but it's also a much more competitive business than the theme parks are so things can quickly change without proper care. We'll see though, again, cautiously optimistic.
Iger's specialty has been more in the film business, which has excelled financially and critically. I get people don't like reboots and sequels, but that's working out really well right now and Iger put the right people in charge there (after some hit and miss success in Disney live action in the late 2000's).
You look at Walt/Roy, Eisner/Wells, Disney always did well in teams where each person had an area they reached. When one man runs a company this big and focuses his attention to specific areas (film business, foreign theme park expansion), other areas suffer. Disney needs a two person team that can work with all the different departments and grow the company as a whole rather than piece by piece. It's something both Eisner (post-Wells) and now Iger have struggled with now. It's probably even more difficult for Iger as the company's much larger than Eisner's years. I said this earlier, but it's about time to split the President and CEO positions again. Disney's too big for a one man team.
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
LOL! I can tell you really dislike Twitter.
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
Where are you seeing these numbers? Google shows negative opearting income (pretty much EBIT) since 2012.
Operating Income (by year) -450.04 -538.87 -635.83 -77.08
They don't even show and any DA.
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
Their most recent 10-K from 2/29/16. Next one should be filed this month.
Note the "Non-GAAP" positive net income for 2014/15 and positive EBITDA since 2011. I don't agree with their accounting methods either but numbers like that make them look like a sweet acquisition opportunity.
Attachments
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
Oh, now I see what they did. That's Non-GAAP shenanigans
As an example, they added back $682M in stock based compensation in 2015. THIS IS TOTAL FICTION and makes me hate TWTR even more. What a joke. Just because the $682M is not cash, they simply add it back as if it's not an expense. It's an expense whether or not they pay it in cash. It's still compensation. I need to raise this to Iger if he doesn't already know.
What a joke. Meaningless number. So they could just pay every employee in stock and have $0 in compensation expense?
http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2014/02/stock-based-employee-compensation-value.html
I'd advise reading that if you want what I think is the truth on stock based compensation. This is nothing more than accounting magic.
As an example of a good company, Apple doesn't even report this BS "adjusted EBITDA."
Laketravis
Well-Known Member
Here's a nice little graphic that incorporates today's just released results. Could explain why Iger is interested in some sort of social media platform to bolster that shrinking (primarily due to ESPN) subscriber-based segment. And for a CEO of Iger's stature, today's financial results didn't exactly set the stage for a successful exit from the company. Shrinking revenue with increased earnings due primarily to higher prices and lower re-investment demand attention in one form or another over the next several years.
Attachments
HMF
Well-Known Member
Walt adapted Classic Fairy Tales and made them in his own style. He didn't simply buy out the rights to a pre-existing property wholesale.
PB Watermelon
Well-Known Member
Sure he did -- contemporary works like Bambi, Dumbo, Lady and the Tramp, Winnie-the Pooh, the Oz books, 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, Mary Poppins (famously), he even owned The Hobbit for a while. He bought rights to "Rite of Spring" and "The Firebird" from Stravinsky, Old Yeller from Fred Gipson, he bought rights to tons of stuff. Sure, he made a lot of films based in the public domain (20,000 Leagues, Treasure Island, Kidnapped, Alice, Zorro, etc.), the Great Ormond orphanage allowed him to make Peter Pan -- I'm sure you guys know all this. When Walt had to purchase rights, he did so.
Last edited:
HMF
Well-Known Member
I would turn WDI back to WED and have it consist of divisions.
*WED Imagineering
*WED Illusioneering
*WED Productions (For Theme park film material.)
*WED Research & Development
and of course buy Garner Holt Productions and bring it into the company as the new MAPO.
HMF
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I believe Al Lutz had a description for fans like you. He even made a graphic for it. I can't seem to find it on the internet anymore and out of respect I will not use it.WDW was and is very strong already, now it's about be stronger still. Theme park fans were clamoring for a "Potter Swatter", Disney didn't panic and start building things just to build them, now everything is falling into place. Sorry, I'm not on board with the Kevin Yees of the world who look at the parks and perpetually see negatives, "declining by degrees", etc. I've never confused cynicism with wisdom, negativity with acumen. Balanced criticism and praise is preferable to "what have you done for me lately?" or Dudley Dursley complaining he needs more presents than last year. I'm excited and optimistic for everything happening at the parks - all the parks, including the west coast. Your mileage may vary. Keep moving forward.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
For WDW at least, it seems unlikely that they would remove this. Disneyland may be able to afford the loss but Hollywood Studios really, can't.
If they still care enough about theme continuity to worry (hopefully, they do), it seems like they would be more likely to rework it to change the entrance/exit to the other end of the building and route a queue behind the Muppets Courtyard to get guests there.
Soarin' in Epcot has proven that they aren't adverse to long indoor pathways to get people to and from ride experiences and the changes coming to TSMM show they aren't adverse to rethinking the entrance locations and experiences of established attractions.
HMF
Well-Known Member
The "Disney Parks" branding was the brainchild of Jay Rasulo.
Chef Mickey
Well-Known Member
Some of that is seasonality. Y/Y, it's only down 2% from a sales perspective and some of the operating income decline Iger has said they've started to address in media. I know it's an issue, but their other businesses are killing it.
If they want to get into more streaming, I think they'll have to pay up for NFLX or partner with a quality streaming service. NFLX might already too big fo DIS to absorb.
Disney and Apple have such a good relationship, I'd like to see them somehow join forces. Apple also wants to get into content and they have plenty of money to facilitate it while Disney has the content.
HMF
Well-Known Member
I can guarantee you that he never had the rights to The Hobbit. Professor Tolkien was very clear about his opinions of the Disney style. Hell, The Tolkien Estate isn't even happy with what the people who DO own the rights to The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings are doing.
PB Watermelon
Well-Known Member
Just checked, because I've heard this so many times...
"Many sources reference this Disney-Tolkien connection. The Wikipedia entry for Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated adaptation of The Lord of the Rings notes that a young Bakshi first expressed interest in the epic fantasy while working for Terrytoons in the late 1950s, but, "At the time, the film rights to the story were held by Walt Disney." In the book, The Animated Movie Guide, author Jerry Beck states that "Walt Disney held the film rights to The Lord of the Rings for ten years, passing it on to United Artists in 1968."
It seems that these notions of Disney ownership of the property were heavily perpetuated in the late 1970s when Rankin-Bass produced an animated television version of The Hobbit, and Bakshi's film arrived in theaters. In an article about The Hobbit television program, the New York Times noted, "The Walt Disney Studio considered animating The Hobbit, but decided against the project because the work lacked the kind of humor that audiences expect from Disney animation and because any attempt to alter Tolkien's story to inject such humor might result in bad will and vocal resentment among Tolkien devotees." In its review of the Bakshi film, Time Magazine observed that, " . . . the task of translating this ring-cycle to the screen had stymied some of the most formidable names in Hollywood, including Walt Disney."
Turns out the New York Times was wrong, Jerry Beck himself was wrong, which is how Urban Legends get started. Disneyland Records released some albums and 45 rpm storybooks based on The Hobbit and Return of the King, and Disney - through Miramax - briefly owned the rights to The Lord of the Rings in the 90's. But that's about it. Walt never actively pursued the rights to Tolkien's works.
RobidaFlats
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with a lot of the opinions expressed by this poster, but those are just opinions and everyone gets their own. However, in this last bit, PB made a statement that was challenged on a factual basis. Rather than dig in and get defensive, he took a moment to research it and posted his findings despite it refuting his earlier statement.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you conduct a discussion. Bravo to you. I mean that sincerely.
SorcererMC
Well-Known Member
Buying rights is not the same as the creative process which transforms the original work into a 'new' work that stands on its own merit; Disney's versions (especially the fairytales) were so popular as to become definitive. TWDC has only just started to do this with SW and Marvel....and they must hew fairly closely to the original or they will lose their audience. That may seem like splitting hairs to you, but it's an important distinction with respect to artistic integrity, ie creating vs copying. (All my opinion, as there is a spectrum between what constitutes 'derivative' and 'original'.)
Anyhow, Iger gave himself a nice pat on the back about this during the earnings call in the Q&A session when it came to his acquisitions. From my notes, may not be exact quote.
re: Big picture of [film] slate ahead, what gives us confidence that it [Disney's success] is due to what has been invested and not
just positive streak?
Iger: Since we bought Pixar, ~10 years ago, and then Marvel, SW or Lucasfilm, avg $800 mln per film in global box office,
we don’t think it’s a coincidence to this. Risk associated in creative business, we think we’ve done a great job of
de-risking the business, but also the talent that we are attracting to make those films. We have a lot of visibility and
feel great about the programs that have been chosen and progress made on them.