On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

Askimosita

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Yeah, he kinda did. And he also got sued by his shareholders for stealing from the company. Iger never pulled that.

Seriously, Walt wanted to, and definitely got paid for what he did. Any discussion of Iger or Chapek being greedy has to acknowledge that Walt was far more aggressive in accumulating wealth than any other Disney leader. There is nothing wrong with that.

I would argue, though, that—at least the way it presented itself—that it was mainly in the name of innovation. Sure, I’m sure one wants to be wealthy. But there were MANY other things he could have done that weren’t so risky. He was a storyteller first and business man second. There were multiple times that he lost it all or gambled it all in the name of pushing the envelope in animation or his parks. He went bankrupt trying something new early on in Kansas City and he took money against his life insurance to fund the parks when banks said no to loans. He was personally sacrificing his finances For something he believed in, and sometimes, it just didn’t work. Plus, it was Roy that was the money guy; Walt just did his thing and Roy had to cover logistics. Not saying he wasn’t involved at all (of course not) but Walt was a visionary that wanted that creative execution, even if it meant figuring out a lot of new ways to do things. In my opinion of reading biographies and watching documentaries at least.

With Iger at least, it seems that it is less creative and more “easy and quick”. Rather than putting in the effort to launch into brands similar to Star Wars, why not just throw some money at it to acquire it? Same with marvel, etc.
and for rides, why come up with unique and in-park-only IP when you can just use stories and characters already used and invested in? Just slap those characters on an existing ride. It saves money while bringing something new.

So in summary, under Iger it seemed more like a blatant and easier money grab with everything because of so many corners so obviously cut on the way to $$$, at the sacrifice of quality and storytelling. I don’t feel that was the case with Walt; if he had to play it safe and cut corners, we wouldn’t have this company. No Mickey, no Snow White, no theme parks. While there were some questionable moments where he clearly was wearing the same CEO pants as Iger, I truly feel He just was lucky that the decisions and innovation led to the $$$.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Yeah, he kinda did. And he also got sued by his shareholders for stealing from the company. Iger never pulled that.

Seriously, Walt wanted to, and definitely got paid for what he did. Any discussion of Iger or Chapek being greedy has to acknowledge that Walt was far more aggressive in accumulating wealth than any other Disney leader. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, he kinda did NOT. He wanted to be adequately compensated by the company he created. He went about it in the wrong way - because he was not the money-handler of the business; Roy was. The breach between them happened because Walt wanted to be treated fairly, and, based on that, could not understand why what he was doing was wrong. Roy was wisely insistent that it WAS wrong, or at least illegal, and thus the fireworks. BTW, the breach ended when Roy overheard a bunch of corporate lawyers insult Walt over the shareholder business. Roy, despite his agreement that his brother was out of line, stormed into the meeting and told the lawyers off, pointing out that none of them would have jobs if it weren't for Walt. Shortly afterward, Walt came to Roy and said words to the effect, "It's amazing how much of an *** a man can be" and gave Roy a genuine Native American peace pipe, and with it a letter that ended with the words "And I love you."

Again, that Walt - what a stinker! :D
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
I would argue, though, that—at least the way it presented itself—that it was mainly in the name of innovation. Sure, I’m sure one wants to be wealthy. But there were MANY other things he could have done that weren’t so risky. He was a storyteller first and business man second. There were multiple times that he lost it all or gambled it all in the name of pushing the envelope in animation or his parks. He went bankrupt trying something new early on in Kansas City and he took money against his life insurance to fund the parks when banks said no to loans. He was personally sacrificing his finances For something he believed in, and sometimes, it just didn’t work. Plus, it was Roy that was the money guy; Walt just did his thing and Roy had to cover logistics. Not saying he wasn’t involved at all (of course not) but Walt was a visionary that wanted that creative execution, even if it meant figuring out a lot of new ways to do things. In my opinion of reading biographies and watching documentaries at least.

With Iger at least, it seems that it is less creative and more “easy and quick”. Rather than putting in the effort to launch into brands similar to Star Wars, why not just throw some money at it to acquire it? Same with marvel, etc.
and for rides, why come up with unique and in-park-only IP when you can just use stories and characters already used and invested in? Just slap those characters on an existing ride. It saves money while bringing something new.

So in summary, under Iger it seemed more like a blatant and easier money grab with everything because of so many corners so obviously cut on the way to $$$, at the sacrifice of quality and storytelling. I don’t feel that was the case with Walt; if he had to play it safe and cut corners, we wouldn’t have this company. No Mickey, no Snow White, no theme parks. While there were some questionable moments where he clearly was wearing the same CEO pants as Iger, I truly feel He just was lucky that the decisions and innovation led to the $$$.


THANK YOU.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I wish Lucas would admit what the rest of us already know.....the CGI remakes of the OT are garbage and the theatrical cuts would sell like hot cakes.
Supposedly there is another set of cuts to the OT films that removes certain changes (ie Han shot first) and updates the SE VFX in places.
 
Last edited:

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I completely agree that it's a lesser experience. However, two people would pay, what, 0.3% of the price for decent tickets to a Broadway show? And stuff like The Lion King and Frozen would have dramatic appeal.

I'm not saying that I expect it to happen often, but I do think it's the sort of thing Disney would consider as a novelty on the streaming service. I mean, BroadwayHD has been around five years and done well enough that NBCUniversal is trying to rip them off.

I can definitely see them putting more shows on Disney+. But they didn't charge extra for Hamilton, and that's one of the biggest Broadway shows of all time. Seems like that would have been the place to float an extra payment for a stage show.

Of course, charging for the newest Pixar movie would have made more sense than charging for Mulan, so those were likely just attempts to get more subscribers to boost numbers while the parks were shut down.
 

rreading

Premium Member
That’s the biggest point. I have no idea how to convince people that they need to care about other human beings

Nice. The truth is that we are going to catch corona - sooner or later. It is not going away, as much as the quarantiners would like to think so. As long as there are hospital beds to support those who need them, that's about all we can do. Someone who is hoping for the vaccine to save the day for them may find that that works out but until then needs to keep a N95 mask on them routinely
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Nice. The truth is that we are going to catch corona - sooner or later. It is not going away, as much as the quarantiners would like to think so. As long as there are hospital beds to support those who need them, that's about all we can do. Someone who is hoping for the vaccine to save the day for them may find that that works out but until then needs to keep a N95 mask on them routinely

To add to that. We have to be smart about school systems and how we do things to avoid another lock down level spike. I agree with you, just adding that in there. I do not think there is science to support you only get severe symptoms from the virus once.
 

Sorcerer Mickey

Active Member
Nice. The truth is that we are going to catch corona - sooner or later. It is not going away, as much as the quarantiners would like to think so. As long as there are hospital beds to support those who need them, that's about all we can do. Someone who is hoping for the vaccine to save the day for them may find that that works out but until then needs to keep a N95 mask on them routinely

We don't know what the lasting effects of COVID-19 are. Some reports document reduced heart function, similar to that of a heart attack victim, after COVID has passed, symptoms or not. Do not give in to the defeatist attitude. Health insurance is still trash in the States, and you don't know what will stay with you after COVID is gone.
 

ParkerLoLs

Well-Known Member
Nice. The truth is that we are going to catch corona - sooner or later. It is not going away, as much as the quarantiners would like to think so. As long as there are hospital beds to support those who need them, that's about all we can do. Someone who is hoping for the vaccine to save the day for them may find that that works out but until then needs to keep a N95 mask on them routinely.

And spread it to everyone else. N95 valves expel unfiltered carbon dioxide. It may protect the wearer but god save everyone around you.
 

HollyAD

Well-Known Member
Nice. The truth is that we are going to catch corona - sooner or later. It is not going away, as much as the quarantiners would like to think so. As long as there are hospital beds to support those who need them, that's about all we can do. Someone who is hoping for the vaccine to save the day for them may find that that works out but until then needs to keep a N95 mask on them routinely
You are correct...it isn't going anywhere. We just need to work around it at this point. I work COVID and this is still an unpopular opinion but I'm glad you said it.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
You take a look at how Harry Cohn, Louis B. Mayer, and the Warners ran their movie studios, and then you'll see greed and abuse and exploitation. Walt WAS a saint compared to the other studio heads of his day. He drove his kids to Sunday school, he defended an animator who was outed as being gay (during a time when that was a career-killer, at the very least), he proclaimed that "poor kids will never have to pay to go to Disneyland"...wow, what a stinker.

Take it from someone who isn't inclined to put people on pedestals...Walt Disney really was a good guy. He was NOT a racist, he was NOT an anti-Semite, he was NOT a sexist/misogynist...he was none of the things you hear from people who NEED to believe all the slanderous negative rot because they see wholesome family values as a threat (how pitiful is that?). He's the glue, for me. He's the reason I still call myself a Disney fan despite the TRUE greed of the people running the company he suffered two nervous breakdowns building. And, BTW, he NEVER got a fraction of the money that toads like Iger pull down.

Walt was flawed. Who isn't? But his instincts and inclinations were laudable, and he tended to follow his instincts, to his credit. And to our benefit.
Thank you so much. Seriously, nobody's allowed to have flaws anymore - you have ONE flaw but are otherwise a pretty nice dude, you're an awful person. I can't help but feel the Walt slandering might be due to Seth MacFarlane and the anti-Disney jokes that he allows the writers of Family Guy to make.

Also, I love how you called Iger a toad.
 

DisneyJoe

Well-Known Member
I can definitely see them putting more shows on Disney+. But they didn't charge extra for Hamilton, and that's one of the biggest Broadway shows of all time. Seems like that would have been the place to float an extra payment for a stage show.

Of course, charging for the newest Pixar movie would have made more sense than charging for Mulan, so those were likely just attempts to get more subscribers to boost numbers while the parks were shut down.
IMO, the reason that they didn't charge for Hamilton was it was used as a "carrot" to get new subscribers for Disney+; I lost count of how many people I had to tell that they needed to get a Disney+ subscription just to see Hamilton - or find a friend or relative that already had it.
 
Top Bottom