LSUxStitch
Well-Known Member
I bet he decided to leave the company after watching the Star Wars "stage show"
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Staggs resigns
- Thread starter Rider
- Start date
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
I think the response you will get here is this....
"Anyone could have made that acquisition. It carried no risk, of course Marvel is making boatloads of cash now, so obvious."
Of course, this line of thinking means you have to ignore the fact that no other media company went after Marvel, or that Iger and co, at the time, seemed to overpay for an asset that many thought didn't fit with the Disney brand. Marvel was a stroke of genius by Dis.
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
How is it a stroke of genius when you can't even use all the characters within the company you bought, you can only use certain characters in your biggest parks, and you can't make films off one of the most popular film characters without having your competitor distribute it? Like it makes no sense in the least. The only benefit Disney got from Marvel is assured non box office flop with whatever Marvel picture they put out that will always break even. It was a safe bet.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
If I can whittle this down...
Marvel is a break even proposition for Dis? That's the hill you're choosing to die on?
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
That makes it more impressive, not less. Anybody can slap Spiderman or Batman on a crap movie and have a box office success. Creating box office dominance with B- and C-list characters is far more impressive.
Disney made that the case, they didn't inherit it. If Ant-Man were released in 2004 it would have made maybe $200M.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
BTW, BvS will do more damage to the DC characters than Phantom Mennace did to Star Wars.
Possibly, but it does not really matter because we won't know differently now. The reason would bold that is because it was bold to say, as X-men and The Fantastic Four are secondary to the popular Spider-Man and Batman types that lead Marvel and DC. Yet, they still launched careers of now famous stars as well as the want to see those characters more prominently. And technically, the fox studio would be the ones who launched DeadPool Interest.
Quinnmac000
Well-Known Member
Yep, you guys forget that for all the phase one films were distributed by Paramount which got a huge cut and then you had Avengers/Iron Man 3 which Disney had to pay Paramount to get distribution for plus a 8% cut of all profits from those films. Then in China, they get even less of a cut due to the fact they themselves didn't get to distribute the big hits.
THe only win Disney gets from marvel is merchandising. The ABC shows aren't getting solid ratings to bring in advertisers, the films as stated do well but not star wars well. Most of the cast is leaving after the next avengers film so they have to hope the rest of the films are hits. However toys sell like crazy so thats a win. BUt lets not forget Disney has Dr. Who rights as well but still are just sitting on them.
betty rose
Well-Known Member
First good news I've read about Disney lately.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Or heard about the GOTG overlay on Tower of Terror. Or putting Muppets in the Hall of Presidents. Etc., etc.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Turning this back to China, a member of President Xi Jinping's family as well as members of other prominent Chinese political families have been ensnared by the Panama Papers.
https://www.wbez.org/shows/marketpl...a-papers/d4185f46-4ca3-427c-93cd-6096d278ee4d
https://www.wbez.org/shows/marketpl...a-papers/d4185f46-4ca3-427c-93cd-6096d278ee4d
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
And has been attacked by Xinhua as 'western propaganda' to discredit the chinese leadership, Once again in China it's WHO you know I really hope no one currently unpopular over there is named as their family will shortly be paying for a bullet.
RIDEinSPHERE
Member
First post. Been reading and enjoying the forums here for years.
I have been traveling to Disney World literally since I was 1+ year old. It is my favorite place to vacation. That being said, major change is needed. Today's Disney literally lives solely off the magic and nostalgia that Walt created. Gone are the days of lands that present their theme without shoe-horned money-grab attractions. Gone are the days when a ride like Horizons would get built. Gone are the days where proper upkeep and good show were what separated Disney, not what dogs Disney. Gone are the days where there is a balance between business and amazing (not good, not great) product.
Epcot, my personal favorite park, has a full pavilion and a central restaurant left virtually abandoned. A once lavish and colorful and engrossing Journey Into Imagination is now a bare, stripped down, slow moving ride through, in one scene, the dark, and in another scene, a virtually empty room with a pull-down screen. A fantasyland and/or Hollywood studios ride is *REPLACING* (not being built in addition to) a ride in Norway pavilion. Cartoons have been lazily injected into the ride in Mexico pavilion. Why not build them where they are most appropriate based on theme of land? Why not build "in addition to" rather than, so often, replace?
Magic Kingdom, the most popular theme park in the world, opened New Fantasyland on a plot of land held vacant for many years where a ride once sat. It also caused the *replacement* of a classic dark ride. Mine Train is laughably short. Laughably. You literally are stunned when it ends.
Hollywood Studios has a new construction wall image that shows a scaled back version of Toy Story Land. Scaled back version of Toy Story Land, really? A new land with one beautified carnival ride and one small-scale coaster has actually been seemingly downgraded in the mere 8 months since it was announced. What has been cut? The details and plussing that made this ride even halfway worthy of the Disney name. I have very high hopes for Star Wars land, and truly believe even with this unbalanced business model of current Disney execs (who think only for the dollar of now as other theme parks around them grow and grab market share for the future... while Disney withers and loses what made it special for the next generation of guests) they understand the magnitude of this project.
Animal Kingdom mostly (mostly) gets it right, and only suffers a bit from a lack of nostalgia as the newest of the 4 parks and a lack of full development, yet, for the same reason. I have high hopes for Avatar Land and only hope that the boat ride has a length and details worthy of a new major land being built in Disney World in 2016 that will, likely, stand for decades. To cheap out on 1 of likely 2 rides would be a senseless decision that hurts the park, and the brand, for the future.
Time for some new, more balanced leaders to heal Disney World. Much of the Disney brand and power grows directly from the parks -- time for leaders that are ready to amaze and captivate a new generation of park-goers and Disney brand lovers, not simply satisfy them. My opinion anyways.
I have been traveling to Disney World literally since I was 1+ year old. It is my favorite place to vacation. That being said, major change is needed. Today's Disney literally lives solely off the magic and nostalgia that Walt created. Gone are the days of lands that present their theme without shoe-horned money-grab attractions. Gone are the days when a ride like Horizons would get built. Gone are the days where proper upkeep and good show were what separated Disney, not what dogs Disney. Gone are the days where there is a balance between business and amazing (not good, not great) product.
Epcot, my personal favorite park, has a full pavilion and a central restaurant left virtually abandoned. A once lavish and colorful and engrossing Journey Into Imagination is now a bare, stripped down, slow moving ride through, in one scene, the dark, and in another scene, a virtually empty room with a pull-down screen. A fantasyland and/or Hollywood studios ride is *REPLACING* (not being built in addition to) a ride in Norway pavilion. Cartoons have been lazily injected into the ride in Mexico pavilion. Why not build them where they are most appropriate based on theme of land? Why not build "in addition to" rather than, so often, replace?
Magic Kingdom, the most popular theme park in the world, opened New Fantasyland on a plot of land held vacant for many years where a ride once sat. It also caused the *replacement* of a classic dark ride. Mine Train is laughably short. Laughably. You literally are stunned when it ends.
Hollywood Studios has a new construction wall image that shows a scaled back version of Toy Story Land. Scaled back version of Toy Story Land, really? A new land with one beautified carnival ride and one small-scale coaster has actually been seemingly downgraded in the mere 8 months since it was announced. What has been cut? The details and plussing that made this ride even halfway worthy of the Disney name. I have very high hopes for Star Wars land, and truly believe even with this unbalanced business model of current Disney execs (who think only for the dollar of now as other theme parks around them grow and grab market share for the future... while Disney withers and loses what made it special for the next generation of guests) they understand the magnitude of this project.
Animal Kingdom mostly (mostly) gets it right, and only suffers a bit from a lack of nostalgia as the newest of the 4 parks and a lack of full development, yet, for the same reason. I have high hopes for Avatar Land and only hope that the boat ride has a length and details worthy of a new major land being built in Disney World in 2016 that will, likely, stand for decades. To cheap out on 1 of likely 2 rides would be a senseless decision that hurts the park, and the brand, for the future.
Time for some new, more balanced leaders to heal Disney World. Much of the Disney brand and power grows directly from the parks -- time for leaders that are ready to amaze and captivate a new generation of park-goers and Disney brand lovers, not simply satisfy them. My opinion anyways.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
I still have no idea what my point has anything to do with"ohio valley". Nor was related to that.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Also, pretty sure there was the talent on Marvel to continue the movie franchise witouth the need of Disney.
Disney just pushed it harder to expand and make it cohesive for merchandising purpose.
Just like comics has forced you to buy a ton of different comics from different characters to get the full story arc.
And then sell a "condensed" arc collection in a year or so.
I mean, Disney already sells collection of the Marvel cinematic phases, right?
I honestly believe that most people went to see the movie just to see....
the battle and then the death of superman.
While having to survive the bore-fest of the first two hours.
While having to survive the bore-fest of the first two hours.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
You cant beat Marvel for letting fanbohys get their wee chubbies out for a quick shuffle of excitement.
Just cant figure out the biggest sad act.
Just cant figure out the biggest sad act.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
They still made a lot of money.
Reminds me of the TMNT bayverse movie (pretty much transformers with turtles).
The "need" for a new TMNT movie and live action was there.
And the character popularity was also there.
Despite the movie being a big flung of turd story wise. (I mean..
Last edited:
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Regarding many rumors about Sheryl Sandberg taking over, i know very little about her. But from what i have read about her, i'm far from convinced she is a good fit to run Disney. Disregarding my dislike of Facebook in general, her primary role in turning a profit there is reportedly injecting ads all over the site. While I will keep my opinions of web page ads neutral in this post, i do not believe decisions like that makes someone qualified to run a creative juggernaut corporation like Disney. I know this is not the only factor in her rise to success, but it has been the most commonly cited business decision in many bios of her career. It makes me extremely wary of her being another repeat of the Iger, Staggs, Rasulo bean counter variety...
Perhaps someone with better knowledge of her can shed some more light, let me know whether my concerns about her are warranted or not. Or if she is even a real contender. 74 said the board would likely be looking outside the company, given that she is herself a board member i wonder whether it would disqualify her from being a choice.
Perhaps someone with better knowledge of her can shed some more light, let me know whether my concerns about her are warranted or not. Or if she is even a real contender. 74 said the board would likely be looking outside the company, given that she is herself a board member i wonder whether it would disqualify her from being a choice.
IowaHawks7
Well-Known Member
What about James Murdoch? He is the current CEO of 21st Century Fox and is only 43.. He could be a guy that comes in like Eisner and has a 20 year run. As long as he has a good number 2, then why wouldnt he work?