So no Star Wars in the forseeable future

[JordanNite]

A CEO is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of a company. That success is measured in profit.

If his pay is not based off profit, what should it be based off of?

Long term damage to the parks will hit the next CEO .... if Disney don't invest in the parks, let them rot, eventually people will move on. For the immediate future it's okay as people are still coming, but it won't be long before the queues stop.

This is how business works when you have a CEO who is being too clever with the accounts sheet. He knows if he invests 200 million in an attraction, the payback on that attraction will be a decade down the line. But if he invests in 200 million in a movie franchise, within 2 years he will have his money back and profit. That's his love - the movies, not the parks. And to be honest, anyone arguing that he is doing a good job cos disney shareholders are making good profits are utterly missing the point. Look at the state of the parks - this is the man who has taken 5 years to do a simple Fantasy land expansion. A man who has invested in no major attraction.

Iger's salary is based on profit. If he spends 200 million on a new attraction it eats into the profit. But this is bad for the parks in the long term as he has spent next to nothing on doing anything with the parks. The man is an utter disgrace and the sooner he goes the better.

How can anyone support a CEO who has built not one major attraction at any park !?

 

[JordanNite]

And anyway, look what's being done with Frozen - a huge worldwide hit and cultural phenomenon - and all Iger's done with it is do some quick, mostly-tacky makeovers of existing attractions. You're right, he IS a disgrace. All he gives a darn about is the stockholders - the people Walt cared least about. He's the Darth Vader to Walt's Obi-wan Kenobi.

You are rite. This is a CEO who looks after shareholders, he has zero love for the parks. Anyone actually praising him makes no sense, if you have a love for the parks. Walt himself, wasn't a profits man, he wanted the parks at their best, new attractions, entertaining people - but even as it is the parks make a ton of money.

You see what they have done at Hollywood Studios, they've stripped Epcot down a fair bit too - without adding anything. It's beyond me how anyone can sit their and say that's a good thing.

 

[danlb_2000]

There are definate quotes of Iger out there saying the film is top secret, hence why they can't develop any attraction at the moment. Lies. It's all lies.

They have computer games in development, and they have merchandise all well into development ready for the release - the sole reason he doesn't want to invest in the parks is the cost, and the length of time it takes to recoup that money. Any attraction in a park is a long term investment.

Well all know Iger is a movies man. He doesn't care for these parks. An utter disgrace of a CEO when it comes to the parks.

I do hope the next CEO of disney doesn't have his salary determined on profit else there will never be any big investment in the parks.

The quotes I posted are very recent, and it's clear they are already doing design. So they are not waiting until the movie opens to give the info to the designers.

 

[danlb_2000]

I bet Iger is waiting to see if the films deliver. I think the first film will be a huge hit - it's a no-brainer - because the original cast will be in it. The follow-up films, however...I think that's a crap shoot. I think Star Wars is more of a nostalgic thing than a vibrant franchise...but we'll see.

And anyway, look what's being done with Frozen - a huge worldwide hit and cultural phenomenon - and all Iger's done with it is do some quick, mostly-tacky makeovers of existing attractions. You're right, he IS a disgrace. All he gives a darn about is the stockholders - the people Walt cared least about. He's the Darth Vader to Walt's Obi-wan Kenobi.

If Iger didn't wait to see how well the next Avatar movies do, he surely doesn't have to wait to see how the Star Wars movies will do.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Iger's salary is based on profit. If he spends 200 million on a new attraction it eats into the profit.

No. It doesn't. Honestly you have NO idea what you're talking about. You're in way over your head. All of your opinions are based on factual innacuracies and ignorance of how "profit" works.

 

[Otterhead]

How can anyone support a CEO who has built not one major attraction at any park !?

You know the "simple Fantasyland extension" you mentioned in your post?

It's the biggest expansion of the Magic Kingdom since it opened.

 

[danlb_2000]

You know the "simple Fantasyland extension" you mentioned in your post?

It's the biggest expansion of the Magic Kingdom since it opened.

But you didn't actually see Iger building the attraction did you?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You know the "simple Fantasyland extension" you mentioned in your post?

It's the biggest expansion of the Magic Kingdom since it opened.

EACH new cruise ship cost as much as DAK.

 

[Otterhead]

EACH new cruise ship cost as much as DAK.

Yes, they're very expensive, those hugely successful ships. Is... that a bad thing? I'm not following how that relates to New Fantasyland.

 

[marni1971]

That's not true in the slightest. Besides completely ruining Maelstrom

Fixed that for you.

 

[marni1971]

You know the "simple Fantasyland extension" you mentioned in your post?

It's the biggest expansion of the Magic Kingdom since it opened.

It is not. Tomorrowland was, as discussed previously.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Yes, they're very expensive, those hugely successful ships. Is... that a bad thing? I'm not following how that relates to New Fantasyland.

I'm agreeing with you. Supplementing your point that TP&R has built loads of stuff under Iger.

 

[jmancan]

There are definate quotes of Iger out there saying the film is top secret, hence why they can't develop any attraction at the moment. Lies. It's all lies.

Well all know Iger is a movies man. He doesn't care for these parks. An utter disgrace of a CEO when it comes to the parks.

 

[Otterhead]

I'm agreeing with you. Supplementing your point that TP&R has built loads of stuff under Iger.

Oh, okay, cool

Tomorrowland was, as discussed previously.

Well, that's sort of hedging the idea of an 'expansion'. Tomorrowland was there when the park opened, it just didn't have many rides in it. At all, really. Rides were added bit by bit over the years. Whereas New Fantasyland was an all-in expansion -- a whole new area of the park. But if you'd prefer, I'll say New Fantasyland was the biggest expansion in the past 30 years.

 

[Otterhead]

Fixed that for you.

Oh, so you've ridden the new ride? How is it?

 

[marni1971]

Oh, okay, cool

Well, that's sort of hedging the idea of an 'expansion'. Tomorrowland was there when the park opened, it just didn't have many rides in it. At all, really. Rides were added bit by bit over the years. Whereas New Fantasyland was an all-in expansion -- a whole new area of the park. But if you'd prefer, I'll say New Fantasyland was the biggest expansion in the past 30 years.

Fantasyland was there when the park opened too.
Tomorrowland had 4 attractions added, on top of the 5th added a year before the project started. A project that lasted just over 2 years.
Fantasyland gained 2 and lost 2.
Tomorrowland also revealed a whole new area of the park.

So yes. New Fantasyland was the biggest guest area Mk expansion in 30 years. But certainly not the parks biggest.

 

[Master Yoda]

Long term damage to the parks will hit the next CEO .... if Disney don't invest in the parks, let them rot, eventually people will move on. For the immediate future it's okay as people are still coming, but it won't be long before the queues stop.

This is how business works when you have a CEO who is being too clever with the accounts sheet. He knows if he invests 200 million in an attraction, the payback on that attraction will be a decade down the line. But if he invests in 200 million in a movie franchise, within 2 years he will have his money back and profit. That's his love - the movies, not the parks. And to be honest, anyone arguing that he is doing a good job cos disney shareholders are making good profits are utterly missing the point. Look at the state of the parks - this is the man who has taken 5 years to do a simple Fantasy land expansion. A man who has invested in no major attraction.

Iger's salary is based on profit. If he spends 200 million on a new attraction it eats into the profit. But this is bad for the parks in the long term as he has spent next to nothing on doing anything with the parks. The man is an utter disgrace and the sooner he goes the better.

How can anyone support a CEO who has built not one major attraction at any park !?

You still did not answer the question.

What should his pay be based off of?

 

[Nick Wilde]

Oh, so you've ridden the new ride? How is it?

You don't have to ride the ride. You just have to know what they're going to do to it. Which we all do know.....

 

[marni1971]

Oh, so you've ridden the new ride? How is it?

Its not open yet silly. Didn't you hear it's taking an unbelievable 18 months?

But by removing Maelstrom by definition it has been ruined.

 

[Otterhead]

You don't have to ride the ride. You just have to know what they're going to do to it. Which we all do know.....

No. We don't. We know it's based on Frozen. You can imagine that it'll be awful, but you and I know exactly as much about the actual new ride as anyone else here (unless there's an Imagineer lurking the thread). Sure, it might be terrible. But is it crazy to be open to the idea that it might not be terrible? I'm willing to actually ride it before making silly assumptions.