News Shareholders Reject Bob Iger Compensation Package

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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...

It's not that any of these milking remakes are awful...though I thought the jungle book wasn't very good...its that what do you do AFTER?

Well...you don't care if you're retiring to lanai and that's the real problem. No longterm plan.

They're making "live action" everything and that is a dead end. I saw the other day something about the live action Lady and the Tramp...

...I mean...it's too hard to even be sarcastic about. Sensory overload

 

[Tom P.]

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...

You know, it's become quite a cliched thing around here to ask "what would Walt do" or "what would Walt think" because in most cases we have no way of knowing. We're just taking (un)educated guesses about things Walt never had to deal with. What would Walt think about the quality of quick service at a value resort is kind of hard to answer accurately.

However, in this case, Walt Disney was on record as saying that he disliked sequels and didn't want his company to do them. I mean, we have the actual interviews with him where he said so. He felt that relying on such things showed a lack of creativity and he wanted his company to always be moving in new directions.

For example: "I've never believed in doing sequels. I didn't want to waste the time doing a sequel; I'd rather be using that time doing something new and different." Or this: "You hate to repeat yourself. I don't like to make sequels to my pictures. I like to take a new thing and develop something, a new concept."

So, for whatever it's worth, I think it's very fair to say that Walt Disney would not have approved of his company relying so heavily on sequels and remakes, and would be disappointed at the lack of original content.

 

[larryz]

Has Iger ever had his package rejected before?

Not touching that line with a ten-foot-pole.

Spoiler

But that might explain a lot of his behavior...

 

[njDizFan]

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.

I agree with much of what you said, especially noted is the way that times can alter and shape art. Sure in the 40's (as an example) it seemed like every other film was about the armed forces and war. Although I think at that time with patriotism at an all time high this was mandated by both the audience and the government to show us in a certain light.

Also the lines are blurring around the different ways we watch media. There are a at least a dozen TV series that I think are better at the same level as any Oscar nominated film. Steven Soderbergh recently produced a series on HBO (Mosaic) that also was an app, with additional story lines and narrative. But at the core all the Marvel films fall into the genre of speculative fiction. Sure they may mimic or allude to current issues or themes (which has become a backlash of BP) but at their core they are fantasy with fantastical characters possessing fantastical abilities. And for the record I love speculative fiction, I find the genre to be much maligned but also important in the context of human myths. Within that context there is only so much realism that can be conveyed. This whole sub-conversation is going way OP.

My main premise still stands. I don't like the direction and current state of mainstream American cinema and Disney/Iger are the driving force. Times are changing, cinema is not dead but it's different and in my opinion not for the better

 

[the.dreamfinder]

You know, it's become quite a cliched thing around here to ask "what would Walt do" or "what would Walt think" because in most cases we have no way of knowing. We're just taking (un)educated guesses about things Walt never had to deal with. What would Walt think about the quality of quick service at a value resort is kind of hard to answer accurately.

However, in this case, Walt Disney was on record as saying that he disliked sequels and didn't want his company to do them. I mean, we have the actual interviews with him where he said so. He felt that relying on such things showed a lack of creativity and he wanted his company to always be moving in new directions.

For example: "I've never believed in doing sequels. I didn't want to waste the time doing a sequel; I'd rather be using that time doing something new and different." Or this: "You hate to repeat yourself. I don't like to make sequels to my pictures. I like to take a new thing and develop something, a new concept."

So, for whatever it's worth, I think it's very fair to say that Walt Disney would not have approved of his company relying so heavily on sequels and remakes, and would be disappointed at the lack of original content.

Or, to use a Waltism the company would never use today, “you can’t top pigs with pigs.”

 

[ford91exploder]

I agree with much of what you said, especially noted is the way that times can alter and shape art. Sure in the 40's (as an example) it seemed like every other film was about the armed forces and war. Although I think at that time with patriotism at an all time high this was mandated by both the audience and the government to show us in a certain light.

Also the lines are blurring around the different ways we watch media. There are a at least a dozen TV series that I think are better at the same level as any Oscar nominated film. Steven Soderbergh recently produced a series on HBO (Mosaic) that also was an app, with additional story lines and narrative. But at the core all the Marvel films fall into the genre of speculative fiction. Sure they may mimic or allude to current issues or themes (which has become a backlash of BP) but at their core they are fantasy with fantastical characters possessing fantastical abilities. And for the record I love speculative fiction, I find the genre to be much maligned but also important in the context of human myths. Within that context there is only so much realism that can be conveyed. This whole sub-conversation is going way OP.

My main premise still stands. I don't like the direction and current state of mainstream American cinema and Disney/Iger are the driving force. Times are changing, cinema is not dead but it's different and in my opinion not for the better

Iger is working hard to kill American filmmaking, By the time he's done we'll be watching Chinese propaganda films like this one because Chinese Studios will be the only ones left.

Behold 'The Founding of a Party'

 

[AEfx]

You know, it's become quite a cliched thing around here to ask "what would Walt do" or "what would Walt think" because in most cases we have no way of knowing. We're just taking (un)educated guesses about things Walt never had to deal with. What would Walt think about the quality of quick service at a value resort is kind of hard to answer accurately.

However, in this case, Walt Disney was on record as saying that he disliked sequels and didn't want his company to do them. I mean, we have the actual interviews with him where he said so. He felt that relying on such things showed a lack of creativity and he wanted his company to always be moving in new directions.

For example: "I've never believed in doing sequels. I didn't want to waste the time doing a sequel; I'd rather be using that time doing something new and different." Or this: "You hate to repeat yourself. I don't like to make sequels to my pictures. I like to take a new thing and develop something, a new concept."

So, for whatever it's worth, I think it's very fair to say that Walt Disney would not have approved of his company relying so heavily on sequels and remakes, and would be disappointed at the lack of original content.

I know that seems like some mic drop type of comment, but like many arguments we tend to make here - it only works in a bubble. You are talking about a statement that a man who has been dead for over 50 years said about a very different business in an almost foreign time and place.

The practical application and concept of the term "sequel" was just comptelely different at the time. It was for cheap horror knock-offs and extended vaudeville shorts ("Andy Hardy" films, 3 Stooges etc). This was in an age before Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens...

You also need to be really careful when using Walt as an example and then inserting the term "original" in there - yes, he had fresh takes on things, but the bulk of what he did was retell existing stories, rather directly.

Basically, what you are describing his disdain for would be more appropriate to the Eisner-era "Cinderella II" bullcrap, not the live-action being produced by the company today, which is either part of planned, multi-part installments or in the case of the stuff like Mary Poppins Returns is a more than respectful time since the original.

Think of it this way - Mary Poppins the film was made in 1964, based on a book series created in 1934. It's now 2018 and they are doing what appears to be a very respectful follow-up of it. Similarly with Christopher Robin, it's like - they have waited a half-century. It's hard to call these films "sequels" as they are not cut-rate nor rushed into production to take advantage of sudden popularity (which the Eisner-era animated sequels were, even though the original films were older, it was because of their huge popularity on home video in the 90's that started Eisner demanding they be pumped out).

It's just not the same thing at all to compare to the planned cincematic universes or what are turning out to be rather clever and well-received re-imaginings/revisitings.

 

[Cesar R M]

There are many legitimate things to criticize Bob Iger for. But do you really think that he, personally, gets involved in making decisions about repairs to individual rides at an individual theme park? I think as the CEO of the entire Disney company, he has bigger things to worry about than calling up the folks at Animal Kingdom and telling them not to fix Everest.

He controls and approves the budgets, so yeah.
If yougive a park barely enough money to run on fumes, you really think they will repair the Yeti?

 

[TJJohn12]

I know that seems like some mic drop type of comment, but like many arguments we tend to make here - it only works in a bubble. You are talking about a statement that a man who has been dead for over 50 years said about a very different business in an almost foreign time and place.

The practical application and concept of the term "sequel" was just comptelely different at the time. It was for cheap horror knock-offs and extended vaudeville shorts ("Andy Hardy" films, 3 Stooges etc). This was in an age before Godfather II, Empire Strikes Back, Aliens...

And no matter what Walt said on *any* subject, you can always find a few glaring exceptions.

The 1964 film "The Misadventures of Merlin Jones" was followed up by its sequel "The Monkey's Uncle" in 1965. Diane held that her father begrudgingly green-lit direct sequels when there was good script material left on the cutting room floor. Professor Brainard showed up not once, but twice in the 1960s - first in the 1961 "The Absent-Minded Professor," then again in the 1963 "Son of Flubber." Zorro and Davy Crockett both tried to top pigs with pigs on the big screen - and theirs weren't just sequels, they were literally just taking previously-aired television content and recutting/repackaging them as "feature films."