Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
No kidding. The Robert Iger Company, ladies and gentlemen!
Let's see Iger try to run for office with THIS!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Shareholders Reject Bob Iger Compensation Package
- Thread starter mikejs78
- Start date
No kidding. The Robert Iger Company, ladies and gentlemen!
Let's see Iger try to run for office with THIS!
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
Good news ladies and gents,
ISS Analytics, the data analysis arm of the proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services, estimates that Iger could earn as much as $423M over the next four years if he hits all the performance goals in his compensation package, according to Reuters.
If Iger hits maximum goals the package would make him the 12th-highest paid U.S. CEO on an annual basis in the past 10 years.
The analysis by ISS Analytics done at the request of Reuters showed the agreement could yield Iger roughly $423 million over four years if he hits all goals, or $274 million as the base case targeted by the board.
The analysis assumed that the Fox deal closes early next year and excluded elements such as stock appreciation. After the deal closes, Iger’s target annual pay would be about $55 million per year including salary and some stock awards.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...estors-question-igers-rich-deal-idUSKCN1GS224
ISS Analytics, the data analysis arm of the proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services, estimates that Iger could earn as much as $423M over the next four years if he hits all the performance goals in his compensation package, according to Reuters.
If Iger hits maximum goals the package would make him the 12th-highest paid U.S. CEO on an annual basis in the past 10 years.
The analysis by ISS Analytics done at the request of Reuters showed the agreement could yield Iger roughly $423 million over four years if he hits all goals, or $274 million as the base case targeted by the board.
The analysis assumed that the Fox deal closes early next year and excluded elements such as stock appreciation. After the deal closes, Iger’s target annual pay would be about $55 million per year including salary and some stock awards.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...estors-question-igers-rich-deal-idUSKCN1GS224
Sadly, I don't think the spineless BoD will do much in terms of reducing Iger's comp package or raising performance goals, given the statement by Aylwin Lewis that the Board will "take the vote result under advisement for future CEO compensation".
We really need regulators to step in and shoot down the Disney acquisition of Fox.
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
Luckily that's over 150 nations to my understanding.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
If Bloomberg is to believed Iger's pay over the next 4 years will be 423 Million Dollars. In comparison. Akio Toyoda (CEO of Toyota) will make 7.6 million in the same period of time.
Shareholders are correct in objecting to Igers obscene compensation
Shareholders are correct in objecting to Igers obscene compensation
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
Obviously Bob Iger did not invent the tentpole film. He just developed and honed the strategy that has now mutated to it's current iteration. Focusing solely on large franchise brands helps with corporate synergy and has proven to be profitable at the box office but for someone who enjoys films that don't involve blowing up buildings, this has been a bad decade.
It's not like I cannot find smaller independent films if I search or go to my local art house(more during the Oscar season) but I'm sure you remember not too long ago there were bigger budget films that catered to an adult audience. I go to the multiplex now and I see 10-10 films either geared towards children/teens or some form of adult pabulum. Take a look at the top 20 movies of 2017, animated films, superhero movies, live action Disney films.
This is a very recent phenomenon, Disney has made an effort(and doing a good job of it) to reshape the way we watch movies. Films and stories we would have seen in the past are now segregated to small studios. Miramax hasn't produced anything of note in over a decade ( unless you count Gnomeo and Juliet). Movies like Kramer vs Kramer, Ordinary People, Places in the Heart, Wings of a Dove films that are small personal stories told by people with big talent. Todays these films if they were ever produced would be independent films shown in select cities.
I'm sad to see what is happening to the industry. Tentpole, franchise, popcorn films for the masses and yes Iger and his strategy team was the impedes for this revolution and we (fans of character driven films) are the ones that are suffering.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Again, you've mistakenly attributed all this to Iger, when this was set in motion long before he took charge. He simply has done very well at navigating the waters.
That said - you just showed your own hand by complaining about "catering to the masses" like it is a bad thing or somehow wrong. People talk with their wallets. Pretending everyone is some victim of Hollywood is completely off the mark. If people wanted to see less of these films, they would be making less money and therefore...be made less. And vice versa.
If you avoid that trap of seeing everything Disney through a microscope, frozen in time under a bubble, and look at the industry as a whole, you see this for what it is. The biggest theatrical films of the 21st century aren't much different from those in the 20th, especially the latter portions as the industry matured - it always has been about spectacle.
It is true that there are less of these smaller pictures out there, but that's where "longer form narrative" has come in (aka, "television" which met it's mate "streaming"). Do you know there are over 500 (!!!) scripted shows in production right now? And no longer are they in the clutches of a Network TV industry with wholly artificial demands in terms of pacing, season length, etc. It's a superior format for telling "character driven" stories, and it's absolutely flourishing right now.
You are giving Iger wayyyyyy too much power, to be honest. He simply has been really good at riding the waves that have very complex origins and variables - from the Internet and finally living in the VOD world we were promised in the 80's, to even how the practicalities of visiting a theater have changed for the audience (more screens than ever, in less locations than ever; growing expense and time commitment, etc.). This was all the natural progression of a profit-driven art form once it met digital technology, for better or worse.
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
I am normally a very limited government conservative, but in this case, I agree. Disney/Fox would be just too big and too consolidated. It should be blocked.
Nj4mwc
Well-Known Member
Wasn't modern Disney's first big tent pole with johnny drop and Pirates under Eisner after changing from his strategy of singles and doubles? So Iger just rode the wave left for him and I totally agree modern audiences are also to blame. Once fans started lining up days in advance for everything tent poles became the way to go.
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
Your tone suggests that this new philosophy is something that should be lauded. This "natural progression" is not something that should be shrug off because people are still buying movie tickets. Listen if you are a fan of seeing some variation of a superhero film 10 times a year instead of One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, Serpico, Chinatown, Network, All the President's men etc. you know films that actually speak to an adult audience this has been a great decade.
The end result is the other big production companies need to keep pace. Sony for example, once a major player is on it's heel's trying to figure out how to keep solvent (they got lucky with Jumanji this year). This trend is exacerbating a consolidation in the media landscape. There are now only 6 major studios with the possibility of 5 after the Dis/Fox merger. Having so few voices making these decisions can and will change the way we see art and the world.
Agree we are in peak television right now but anything was a step up from 20-30 years ago besides a few outliers. Film is an art form and the people that make them are artists. The people with the money (production companies) refuse to fund anything that takes risk or could potentially scare off an audience. Do I give the American audience too much credit but maybe if given the alternative people may actually prefer a big studio project film like Shawshank Redemption over Thor 17. Movies define you era and culture and what are we going to look back and say about the 20-teens? No Bob Iger did not create this monster but he has been damn good at exploiting it.
njDizFan
Well-Known Member
"Disney" branded live actions films up to very recently have been mostly singles and doubles. It seems like when they do decide to give it a big budget they fail (John Carter, Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland). The heavy hitters are usually the animated, SW and Marvel films. But I would argue that even smaller films like The Might Ducks, The Rocketeer and the Princess Diaries have more heart and more social relevance than any Marvel film.
That seems to be the problem, they are milking the gravy train of these acquired IPs (and reimagining Disney classic animation) to the point where it has become mind numbing. But box office doesn't lie, either people like these films or perhaps there just aren't any better options.
Gitson Shiggles
There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
Has Iger ever had his package rejected before?
AEfx
Well-Known Member
It's a response to your tone which has such a dystopian view of the landscape. One which also ignores that many of the types of films you are talking about are still being made - just look through the list of the Oscar nominees this year. The big difference is...they just aren't that commercially popular right now, compared to big budget extravaganzas.
You also are completely ignoring the cultural changes outside the industry that have affected the current big budget theatrical landscape. American kids who are in high school today have never lived in a country that wasn't at war. The world is a very bleak place. It's also a very busy and expensive place. People who are going to spend $10-15 bucks a head and arrange their day around going to a theater want to be taken away from reality, they want to experience something big and epic.
The reasons "comic books" are such the focus is really simple - super heroes traditionally have their Renaissances in times of political and social upheaval (check), and now the technology is there to make convincing theatrical films of them (check).
You are making some very broad assumptions there that I wish I had time to really pull apart (the very complex relationship between art defining era/culture versus culture/era defining the art). You seem to hold some very extreme views on that. In short, though, there is plenty to analyze and study, even among "comic book" films - that is very descriptive of our culture. Movies have never been a direct mirror - any more than everyone in the 1930's was a wise-cracking shop-girl or mobster.
In any case, I think they key part of what I am saying that you missed with the reference to "television" is that "filmed media" is blending in a way that it hasn't before. The arbitrary line between film and television (and all the artificial constrictions of both media) is quickly blurring to a point where one is no more "artistic" than another. Much of the stuff you cry is missing due to Darth Iger and his buddies is actually flourishing - just on a different screen.
Well finally - we agree! LOL. That was my original point - Iger has leveraged the hell out of the situation, like any great businessperson, but he didn't create the situation as it is today. That said, it really is more about technology and audience, though, than you would like to think. It's all about perception there - I mean, what we regard as some of the finest novels of all time were actually disposable newspaper serials in another time. Art and technology change and have various affects, effects, and interactions with their audiences and on each other that are way more complex than you are giving credit to.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Well, we are six months into the post-Weinstein era, and he has yet to be subect of a "#metoo" expose, but you never know...
The_Jobu
Well-Known Member
Iger can thank Walt Disney for building a company even an arrogant individual like Iger couldn't destroy if he tried.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I'm not some Marvel fan boy (I've seen about 2/3 of the films), but I daresay some (like "Civil War", among a number of others) would have a word or two about that LOL. I think the part that trips you up is you can't get past "super hero" and don't see that the very fact that the genre is being used to tell such different stories is a statement about social relevance in and of itself.
At this point, it's also undeniable (unless you haven't seen them, but even with the portion I have seen it is really obvious) that there is no such thing as a "Marvel" film per se, other than they are films starring characters that appeared in comic books by that publisher. The stand-alone franchises are such different films. Some are action-comedies. Some almost straight up dramas. Some are buddy war flicks. They cover a vast swath of genre.
I so want to agree with some of this - particularly when it applies to the remakes of Disney classic animation. But here is the thing that I can't just shake - it's because, overall...dang it, in spite of everything...you have to admit - they are doing a rather good job.
I have been right here rolling my eyes since they started talking about these Disney properties again. My head filled with thoughts of Country Bears and Haunted Mansion. Pirates was an anomoly, right (especially since it had jack, no pun intended, to do with the ride)? Then they started coming out.
I still haven't seen Jungle Book, but people seemed impressed. Last weekend I saw Beauty and the Beast finally - and will you believe...I was...impressed? Kind of still in shock, myself. They managed to almost make a shot-for-shot remake that a) somehow managed to update the story in subtle and appropriate ways, b) was nearly as entertaining as the original, and c) made me go back and watch the original the next week, and realized what a great companion piece they are to each other.
Again, no one more in shock than I am that I felt this way.
So I'm a bit more open minded on these now. I thought Christopher Robin sounded dumb until I saw the trailer, got a look at the visual style of how they are doing Pooh, and realized for the first time that Ewan McGregor was in it, and I'm kinda sold. I even had nice thoughts watching the Mary Poppins Returns trailer...it's not a reboot, looks totally respectful...I mean...it might actually, be...good?
Ugh, I guess I have been snorting the 'dust lately...
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Disagree completely...I think there are many things established and developing under iger that could wreck the place in 10 years or less if the waves don't break right...
Actually I agree with you. I was just trying to be semi diplomatic.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
To hell with diplomacy