News Reflections – A Disney Lakeside Lodge (Project 89 - Development near Fort Wilderness)

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Which leads to the whole other issue of how they did this to themselves with their urban sprawl development of the property
Well…Animal kingdom…if we’re honest…which included all stars and wide world of sport and blizzard.

But it was also in the decision to build phase 3 without expanding the transportation grid. That was a decision of the 80s/early 90s
 
Last edited:

ctrlaltdel

Well-Known Member
They didn’t have the deep pockets at that time that they do now.

Love him or hate him…Eisner built/acquired the deep pockets

The Bobs just are cheap and stock drunk
Eisner gets a lot of hate but modern, all-powerful Disney is his doing. The expansion of the parks on all fronts in the first half of his tenure (heck, even the 2nd half, though obviously much diminished comparatively) is a sight to behold in hindsight.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Eisner gets a lot of hate but modern, all-powerful Disney is his doing. The expansion of the parks on all fronts in the first half of his tenure (heck, even the 2nd half, though obviously much diminished comparatively) is a sight to behold in hindsight.
He stayed too long…

But anyone scoffing at him and holding up Bob is not correct. You don’t build a house from the top down.

Even after his visceral, contentious break with Roy Disney…he also left far more graciously. People don’t give any credit there either. Hasn’t really meddled/said much since.

As opposed to Bob…who DIDNT do his job, left in a rush, and now is scheming behind the scenes/throwing darts when the only yutz with no dignity that stayed around long enough was put in charge (and predictably turned on him).
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Eisner gets a lot of hate but modern, all-powerful Disney is his doing. The expansion of the parks on all fronts in the first half of his tenure (heck, even the 2nd half, though obviously much diminished comparatively) is a sight to behold in hindsight.
This is what I always come back to for the Bob lovers…who just bought brands and has thoroughly exploited them in ridiculous time. Charts of box office revenues - not profits - just revenues.

Marvel has been excellently run - no question. But are Pixar and LFL stronger today? That’s a much harder question. To say nothing of the Fox purchase…which just seemed like a rooster measuring contest with Comcast.
 
Last edited:

ctrlaltdel

Well-Known Member
He stayed too long…

But anyone scoffing at him and holding up Bob is not correct. You don’t build a house from the top down.

Even after his visceral, contentious break with Roy Disney…he also left far more graciously. People don’t give any credit there either. Hasn’t really meddled/said much since.

As opposed to Bob…who DIDNT do his job, left in a rush, and now is scheming behind the scenes/throwing darts when the only yutz with no dignity that stayed around long enough was put in charge (and predictably turned on him).
Tbf I think Iger did a decent job. Obviously the shareholders would say that he did. He didn't have the creative side that Eisner had nor the almost insane ambition. His biggest accomplishments were buying other IP, which served Disney extremely well, getting a theme park built who's long term future has to be in doubt with US-China relations being what they are now, and somewhat fixing the Parks messes that the late Eisner-era introduced around the globe, with the domestic parks lagging in investment until the end of his tenure. Although biggest of all will likely be Disney+, which he somehow got ahead of the curve on and has been a wild success, even if everything about streaming has a somewhat uncertain future.

But yes, I think Eisner was more impactful and Iger really just followed up on strengthening the company that Eisner created without the wild and ambitious creative swings in parks that Eisner did over and over again. Iger's biggest strength was pretty clearly easy to deal with personal style that got a lot of acquisitions done and being willing to spend money on those things.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Tbf I think Iger did a decent job. Obviously the shareholders would say that he did. He didn't have the creative side that Eisner had nor the almost insane ambition. His biggest accomplishments were buying other IP, which served Disney extremely well, getting a theme park built who's long term future has to be in doubt with US-China relations being what they are now, and somewhat fixing the Parks messes that the late Eisner-era introduced around the globe, with the domestic parks lagging in investment until the end of his tenure. Although biggest of all will likely be Disney+, which he somehow got ahead of the curve on and has been a wild success, even if everything about streaming has a somewhat uncertain future.

But yes, I think Eisner was more impactful and Iger really just followed up on strengthening the company that Eisner created without the wild and ambitious creative swings in parks that Eisner did over and over again. Iger's biggest strength was pretty clearly easy to deal with personal style that got a lot of acquisitions done and being willing to spend money on those things.
Sorry…

I should have said “part of his job”…line of succession.

Which was right at the top of the list when Roy had Eisner offed

And they were kinda late on D+/Hulu/etc.

The espn Gravy train peaked in 2009 and he kept riding it like a donkey. It worked out fine in the end…but that wasn’t a guarantee
 

ctrlaltdel

Well-Known Member
Sorry…

I should have said “part of his job”…line of succession.

Which was right at the top of the list when Roy had Eisner offed
That is true. Him leaving in a panic left no one but Chapek. Who has been a pretty big disaster. I'm not even sure if he has any strengths as a CEO. His skillset screams upper-middle management to me. Doesn't appear to have a willingness to spend the gobs of money necessary to maintain/grow the parks, and no creativity to make up for that, nor does he have any discernable skill in surrounding himself with top advisors or talent (which is always necessary for a successful Chief Executive in any field).

All he is seemingly able to do is execute cost-cutting and money-making schemes to increase per guest spending which is great for your quarterly reports until they are not.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
That is true. Him leaving in a panic left no one but Chapek. Who has been a pretty big disaster. I'm not even sure if he has any strengths as a CEO. His skillset screams upper-middle management to me. Doesn't appear to have a willingness to spend the gobs of money necessary to maintain/grow the parks, and no creativity to make up for that, nor does he have any discernable skill in surrounding himself with top advisors or talent (which is always necessary for a successful Chief Executive in any field).

All he is seemingly able to do is execute cost-cutting and money-making schemes to increase per guest spending which is great for your quarterly reports until they are not.
…the prosecution rests
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Messes he was part of creating and that he only started to address when outside parties pressured him to do something.
“Half assed fixes”….I might add.

When I walk through studios today…it just looks “newer”…not really that much “better”

Epcot looks worse…magic kingdom not much better. Much bigger crowds need much bigger responses
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Sorry…

I should have said “part of his job”…line of succession.

Which was right at the top of the list when Roy had Eisner offed

And they were kinda late on D+/Hulu/etc.

The espn Gravy train peaked in 2009 and he kept riding it like a donkey. It worked out fine in the end…but that wasn’t a guarantee
I'm generally a defender of Iger's tenure - But I agree with you here. One of the most important jobs to CEO has is picking their successor. So much so that a bad pic can overshadow and otherwise good tenure as CEO. And I think that's the case here. Iger couldn't have picked worse unless he had picked Ike - and Ike was too old.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I'm generally a defender of Iger's tenure - But I agree with you here. One of the most important jobs to CEO has is picking their successor. So much so that a bad pic can overshadow and otherwise good tenure as CEO. And I think that's the case here. Iger couldn't have picked worse unless he had picked Ike - and Ike was too old.
That was in the “save Disney” announcement as a top 3 “failure”

No need to debate it. Especially in these conglomerates. It is essential to have at least a couple capable Lt.s. Eisner drove them away. Bob was “just hanging around”

Bob had lesser capable leave…and ONLY chapek was hanging around and frankly isn’t qualified for Hollywood. At least Iger new contracts and Hollywood.
 

bpiper

Well-Known Member
I'm generally a defender of Iger's tenure - But I agree with you here. One of the most important jobs to CEO has is picking their successor. So much so that a bad pic can overshadow and otherwise good tenure as CEO. And I think that's the case here. Iger couldn't have picked worse unless he had picked Ike - and Ike was too old.
I wonder if that pick was deliberate? Maybe he picked Chappie because he wasn't up to the task and the board wouldn't have been able to replace him. Thus allowing Iger to continue. If covid hadn't happened, Chappie would have gone away like Staggs and Rossullo did as heir apparent.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom