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

[tirian]

Yeah, Disney World, the fantastic achievement of a comparatively small animation studio, left to be neglected and riding its own coattails in the age of the Disney Media Empire

Hard truth.

 

[tirian]

This narrative is revisionist, but go off.

Not really. WDW’s legacy is the result of the Disneyland standards built within a relatively small creative studio, and its reputation is based on nostalgia for quality that was there “once upon a time.” I haven’t been keeping up with this thread and don’t know how the comment fits into a greater context, but this one post is accurate.

 

[tirian]

I’d give him 5/10 for the following reason:

Movies. Buying marvel (&pixar) was probably Iger‘s smartest move. MCU was already in progress but disney reaped a lot of the benefits. Lucasfilm has been a mess but could be ok in the long run. The rest of the movie business has been disappointing rehashing of the past. Live action remakes and sequels very few original films withdrawing from hand drawn animation, ending the relashonship with ghibli, bruckhiemer etc. Pre Isner disney was much more rounded with touchstone, Hollywood pictures, miramax and new franchises like Pirates, National treasure etc if this had continued Disney probably wouldn’t have needed to buy fox for adult content.

tv. Not living in the US I know enough about the us tv market to really comment on this. Others im sure will know more about the ecconomics of ESPN etc. From a UK perspective Disney lost sky to comcast. Longer term Disney+ will help the transition from cable but disney need to develop a whole household solution worldwide rather than just kiddy content.

parks. Shanghai got built. Money was spent to undo some of the timid investments of the late Eisner era with DCA redo and investment in Hong Kong. DLP was fully bought out. Too much spent on the wrong things like the whole magic band project rather than building things so the parks stagnated for too long. Lots of cost cutting and closures with no replacements, reduction in show quality to improve bottom lines and brand harvesting from charging top dollar for reduced experience will harm Disney long term. Changing the resorts, especially WDW to child based marketing rather than whole household is a mistake IMO creating retreating back to the 70/80s dorky image
Much of recent spend was reactionary and in response to Universal - galaxy edge & Pandora are attempting to replicate Harry potter land rather than be their own thing (See various attempts to make a marketable butterbeer through blue milk etc) Too much reliance on IP which will date product. DVC became more prominent at the expense of regular resorts. Expansions away from the parks was timid Hawaii was built but projects like national harbour were dropped. Elsewhere the cost cutting and price rises are risking long term gains for short term profit. I think the best you can say is that after Iger you still have to go to Japan for the best experience

corporate/other rising share price and growth but from acquisitions and raising prices rather than growing into new businesses, except streaming. Fox may or may not be a good move longer term but Disney probably overpaid. Reduced quality in other areas like turning disney stores into toy shops

overall - Disney has grown by addition rather than creation often at the expense of reducing the value of existing assets Iger did well financially but not creatively and may have harmed the company in the longer term from short term gains.

It’s a fairly accurate take on things. I’ll also give Iger credit for restoring the parks during his first few years, but it didn’t take long for him to lose interest and re-focus on becoming a media behemoth. Considering how things have turned out with Pixar and Lucasfilm, and how the company now gushes money and depends on tentpole films and crowded parks to be profitable, I’d also give him a 5/10.

Maybe we could knock it to a 4 if we considered the ultra-low creative quality of almost every WDP film or Disney Channel series. The company is making money hand over fist, especially through the MCU, yet the majority of its Disney-branded output is creatively below its past standards. It feels like we’re heading back to the levels of ‘70s live-action, but now including animation and television.

 

[SteamboatJoe]

How about more stand-alone resorts? Maybe try venturing outside of their warm-weather comfort zone with something like a ski resort? It was one of the projects that Walt wanted to develop.

I'd like to see Disney's take on agritourism. It could also mix-in some old-school Frontierland attractions, a Fort Wilderness campground, and an indoor water park.

 

[_caleb]

I'd like to see Disney's take on agritourism. It could also mix-in some old-school Frontierland attractions, a Fort Wilderness campground, and an indoor water park.

Agritourism!

 

[_caleb]

Not really. WDW’s legacy is the result of the Disneyland standards built within a relatively small creative studio, and its reputation is based on nostalgia for quality that was there “once upon a time.” I haven’t been keeping up with this thread and don’t know how the comment fits into a greater context, but this one post is accurate.

Thanks. Edited my post calling @Prog 's take "revisionist."

 

[Ldno]

If you get laid off do you get to keep the benefits? I am pretty sure one of the low key perks is employee pricing for ticketing, but still

 

[JoeCamel]

If you get laid off do you get to keep the benefits? I am pretty sure one of the low key perks is employee pricing for ticketing, but still

Pricing? If you work for the mouse you are granted so many entrances a year. If you are laid off you get nothing, if you are furloughed they are paying health care benefits nothing more.

 

[Lora Baines Bradley]

Pricing? If you work for the mouse you are granted so many entrances a year. If you are laid off you get nothing, if you are furloughed they are paying health care benefits nothing more.

My roommate is furloughed and her maingate pass still works, she's been going lately (unless she has an AP she hasn't mentioned, but I don't think so).

 

[RSoxNo1]

I’ve often wondered how Disney could make successful run at smaller regional entertainment centers. DisneyQuest wasn’t cutting it. I used to think it would have to legitimately be “Magic Embassies” in buildings themed to the nines, TDS fortress quality, you know.

But I didn’t think of a business model would support anything like that.

THEN I just recently heard about how Congress is now permitting studios to own movie theaters.

Muah-HA!

It’s not a miniature park crammed in a themed entertainment center. It’s an AMC reinvented to Disney Cruise Line levels of quality. The only place you can see the newest Marvel movie, dine with Elsa, and play an interactive Jedi VR game.

This was a study / concept I reviewed back in college. I believe it was pitched as a smaller entertainment venue starting in Chicago with a resort / theater and a handful of attractions. It was pitched as a long weekend type experience. I don't remember all the details, I just remember not really thinking it was viable. Of course, I'm often wrong.

 

[flynnibus]

I have trouble how a Disneyfied ski resort would be received.

To theme areas with a bunch of toons would be tacky. To theme the resort as a ski resort, it already is a ski resort.

All one has to do is look at the cruise lines to see that Disney knows how to do classy - not just All Stars resorts.

 

[doctornick]

Seems like regional parks pretty much live off the crumbs that fall from Disney’s table. But I could see something slotting in between, say, a Six Flags/Cedar Fair park and WDW that would draw in families and make them shift what might have been an annual Disney/Universal trip to every other year. Maybe I’ll reach out to a Saudi prince to raise $500M, hire a couple former Imagineers and furloughed CMs and see what we can come up with.

Like Busch Gardens Williamsburg? I wonder how it would do if it were more north and closer to the population center of the DC to Boston corridor. Would the trade off of being more convenient for a mass of additional people outweigh the shorter season it would be open due to weather?

 

[_caleb]

Like Busch Gardens Williamsburg? I wonder how it would do if it were more north and closer to the population center of the DC to Boston corridor. Would the trade off of being more convenient for a mass of additional people outweigh the shorter season it would be open due to weather?

Yeah, Busch Gardens is sort of what I’m thinking. I like Busch Gardens, but (in my opinion) the quality theming and environment is hurt by the dependence on big coasters and gimmicky things (like the low-quality Battle for Eire thing). Maybe if they added lots of dark rides?

 

[GimpYancIent]

Yeah, Busch Gardens is sort of what I’m thinking. I like Busch Gardens, but (in my opinion) the quality theming and environment is hurt by the dependence on big coasters and gimmicky things (like the low-quality Battle for Eire thing). Maybe if they added lots of dark rides?

Busch Gardens is owned by SeaWorld Entertainment. Nuff said.

 

[Jrb1979]

Busch Gardens is owned by SeaWorld Entertainment. Nuff said.

Yeah, Busch Gardens is sort of what I’m thinking. I like Busch Gardens, but (in my opinion) the quality theming and environment is hurt by the dependence on big coasters and gimmicky things (like the low-quality Battle for Eire thing). Maybe if they added lots of dark rides?

Why is it such a bad thing to have amazing coasters? IMO Disney is hurt by not having some world class coasters.

 

[UNCgolf]

Why is it such a bad thing to have amazing coasters? IMO Disney is hurt by not having some world class coasters.

It's not a bad thing to have great coasters. It just depends on the type of park and what you're interested in.

If you're looking for something heavily themed, it's difficult to have big coasters because they almost inherently detract from any surrounding theming unless you hide them in themed facades. But there's only so much you can do with a hidden coaster; you can't build the really giant, intense coasters inside a box because the costs would be astronomical.

It's a trade-off for Disney. If they build some giant, exposed coasters, it would make some people happy, but it would significantly detract from the experience for other people. Considering most of Disney is built around theming and they're already far behind other parks in terms of thrill ride coasters, it likely wouldn't make any sense for them to pivot to coasters. They wouldn't attract enough new people to make it financially worthwhile.

If Disney really wanted to get into the coaster race, their best option would be to build a 5th gate that was entirely for coasters. There's almost no way to put them in any of the existing parks without causing serious problems for the sightlines, theming, and so on.

EDIT: Of course they didn't theme the Guardians of the Galaxy box at all, but that's also caused a whole lot of complaints. And Future World is the one area that doesn't really have obvious theming (although no one could argue it doesn't ruin sightlines). It still has it to an extent, of course, it's just more subtle -- a giant box certainly doesn't fit, but it's not quite as jarring to the general public as it would be if it was in the middle of the Magic Kingdom or Animal Kingdom (which is also why people are concerned about the Tron building not being effectively hidden from sight).

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Busch Gardens is owned by SeaWorld Entertainment. Nuff said.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. When they, and SW, were owned by Busch, those parks were top notch. Blame the InBev merger and the Blackstone Group for its current sorry state.

*minor detail, but Busch Entertainment bought the SeaWorld parks from Harcourt (Houghton Mifflin). The company was renamed after SeaWorld when Blackstone bought it.

 

[Disorbust]

Can Disney even do layoff prior to fiscal close? Don't they have to do a 60 day notice according to WARN ?

 

[natatomic]

It's a trade-off for Disney. If they build some giant, exposed coasters, it would make some people happy, but it would significantly detract from the experience for other people. Considering most of Disney is built around theming and they're already far behind other parks in terms of thrill ride coasters, it likely wouldn't make any sense for them to pivot to coasters. They wouldn't attract enough new people to make it financially worthwhile.

If Disney really wanted to get into the coaster race, their best option would be to build a 5th gate that was entirely for coasters. There's almost no way to put them in any of the existing parks without causing serious problems for the sightlines, theming, and so on.

For me, a giant swan or fish statue is far more distracting from the experience than a giant roller coaster.

 

[UNCgolf]

For me, a giant swan or fish statue is far more distracting from the experience than a giant roller coaster.

It's the same type of thing, though. Those may be worse for you; roller coasters would be worse for other people.

Personally I think they're both bad solely in the context of Disney parks and what they're trying to do (or at least what they were trying to do in the past).