The Spirited Sixth Sense ...

[Rodan75]

I do appreciate your insight @WDW1974 , just don't understand the strong push to to make Eisner the end all be all.

 

[Funmeister]

I do appreciate your insight @WDW1974 , just don't understand the strong push to to make Eisner the end all be all.

I don't think he is making a push. Eisner is probably the best CEO Disney has ever had outside of the DIsney family (not including Ron Miller...I mean Walt and Roy)

Eisner tarnished his time towards the end but you cannot sum up his tenure by the last five years.

 

[wdisney9000]

hold on....let me take a selfie...

Pretty sure you completely misunderstood the meaning of my post.

What's not to understand? I don't think social media is any type of inhibitor or security issue for an executive.

My point was simple. Eisner is already rocking IG and twitter and would use them to his advantage and not be worried about security issues, Or grammatical errors on the internet. Weak sauce, you reek of it.

For the sake of Igers grandkids, I truly hope he does take them to the parks. Even if it's just to enjoy what's left of Eisners legacy and those before him.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

A note I received from an entertainment business insider and friend this morning regarding another way to look at Disney, then and now:

<<$1.9 Billion -- DIS market cap in 1984

$59 Billion -- DIS market cap in 2005 (Q1)

$137 Billion -- DIS market cap today.

Now, who grew DIS? Who grew DIS better? Smarter?

Under Michael Eisner's stewardship, DIS saw its value grow by more than THIRTY times. Under Robert Iger, DIS saw its market cap do little more than double.

Yeah, I get that it is a big number. 137. These are all big numbers. And, yeah, the growth under Eisner was not sustainable. But...

Who was the more effective executive? Who did more for DIS? Who did more for Wall Street?

...weird how folks keep banging on that drum of 'the Iger premium' because -- from my standpoint -- why would there ever be one? By comparison on just the numbers, is he not an abject failure? Or, was Eisner just that remarkable?

I am going with neither of those. Just illustrating a stunning fact using stunning numbers. To all who hail DIS as being a well-run company under a top notch chief executive, I ask for an explanation. (Oh, I know of the quarter to quarter 'magic'...I am looking for something of actual substance.) The Wall Streeter in me does not see it. Not at all. That, and the Street really does believe that at that valuation of $137 billion there is an "Iger Premium" meaning it is an inflated number based on a questionable and soon to be departing intangible...>>

Nah, I'm sorry, using those numbers in this manner is barely meaningful.

If I buy a Chicago mac&cheese stand for ten dollar, swap the cheese for provolone, and sell the stand for a thousand dollars a month later, I have increased its value by 100 x 12 = 1200 times per annum.

If I buy IBM for $100 billion, and manage to return it from $5 loss to $15 profit per year, selling it ten years later for $200 billion, I'll have doubled its worth in ten years,

By using the numbers in your fashion, in my example, the street stand vendor would be a twelve thousand times better businessperson than the CEO who oversaw one of the great turnarounds of modern US industrial behemoths. Using the numbers of market capitalization growth in this sense is meaningless.



Should one wish to do so regardless, here are more meaningful, because comparable, data sets. The two most recent decades, the first under Eisner (1995-2004), the second under Iger (2005-2014):

DIS Market Cap 1995: $54.26 billion
DIS Market Cap 2004: $49.35 billion
DS Market Cap 2014: $138.4 billion
Ouch!
Eisner sans Wells lost five billion. Iger exploded market cap.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

One other quickee on Eisner, Iger and the numbers (and maybe @ParentsOf4 can add financial perspective, although this is pretty self evident), did you read my post where I quoted an email I got from a friend in the business?

The one where it mentioned how Michael grew the company MORE THAN 30 TIMES before being forced out in 2005, while Bob has simply doubled it?

And yet Bob is somehow viewed as the better financial (and ... excuse me while I puke a bit ... creative leader)? And how has Bob done his financial MAGIC? How much of those numbers are the result of buying Pixar and Marvel -- we'll leave Lucas on the sidelines here?

How much of those numbers are the result of buying Pixar and Marvel?

Well considering Iger increased market cap from $50 to $138 billion, and Pixar cost $7,4 billion and Marvel $4 billion - and I'll be generous and throw in $4,05 Star Wars too for a tiny grand total of 11.45 billion of acquisitions for 88 billion market cap increase - it means that either Iger made the acquisitions of the century, or 'a small amount'.

And I'll leave you with this to chew on. It's something I have never put out and not something I can prove. I know it to be true and you can either believe it or not. Doesn't change a damn thing.

But to all who think Bob was a genius for buying Pixar and that it couldn't have happened with Michael, well, you are right.

A very similar offer was on the table from Disney's standpoint when Michael was still running Disney. And almost everyone, including John Lasseter (even if you'd have to get him drunk to admit this ... admittedly not the most difficult of tasks) wanted it to happen. Almost everyone.

Except a petty man that people worship these days that went by the name of Steve Jobs. Even Jobs saw that the only smart, viable option for Pixar was to officially become part of TWDC but he had this little thing called an ego. And it was bruised because the guy that ran Disney also had this little thing. So ... Jobs sat back and waited ... waited for Michael to step down. Then, following the same script the Iranians followed when releasing the American hostages as soon as Ronald Reagan took over to stick the knife in Jimmy Carter a bit more, he said 'let's do it''.

Just a little history lesson on giving people credit and not realizing how petty, petulant and poorly bred many of our top business leaders can be.

Sure. But this is not kindergarten. This is a fifty billion dollar multinational. Eisner can not cry to mama that the other side are mean and petulant.

If you run a $50 billion business, it is up to you to behave in a fashion that allows your company to close the deal, rather than pointing fingers at the other kids. Instead you do what you need to do for your compny.

Eisner could not close the Pixar deal, so all fingers are correctly pointed at him. That he couldn't do so only (as you remind us) because his insufferable personality deterred others, makes matters only worse.

The shareholders were right. Eisner had come to give preference to his ego over the pensions of his investors. It was time to oust him, tarred and feathered.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Bob Iger was just at the Disneyland Resort with his grandkids. The family was set up with a private meet n’ greet with Frozen’s Elsa & Anna, bypassing the 3 hour wait at that popular Fantasyland location. Then they buzzed to the front of the line at all three Marvel meet n’ greets in Innoventions, before zipping to the front of the two hour Standby line at Radiator Springs Racers. "

That gives a very poor impression to the ordinary guest. Having to wait in the cattle hall while the boss directs his children in front of yours. I'd have thrown my ice cream at him and punched Iger in the stomach until he gave me my money back.


As an aside, I do not think a Disney CEO needs to visit the parks. I do not hold that against Iger. TWDC has grown too large for such micromanagement. Nor does the CEO need to watch live football games on ESPN or see Once Upon a Time on ABC or read the latest Spiderman comic.

What a modern TWDC CEO needs to do is appoint park and resort leadership who do visit the parks. And who experience it like ordinary guests.

 

[Captain Neo]

Under Bob Iger's leadership:

-There has been a renewed sense of pride at Walt Disney Animation. In large part to the acquisition of Pixar and putting their top people John Lasseter and Ed Catmull in charge of revamping the then edge-of-closure animation house. Thanks to me people no longer ignore or cringe when Disney announces a new movie. Now just like it was when I was little during the Katzenberg era fans/children/etc. can look forward with the next movie with excitement that it will be a quality product that will be entertaining for all ages. Films like Tangled, Frozen, and Big Hero Six are putting WDFA back on the map as the premier American animation house the way it ought to be. With the acquisition of Pixar, Disney can output 2 quality animated feature films a year without rushing productions. On top of that short films are back playing before movies, non ironic Mickey Mouse cartoons are playing on Disney channels, no more direct to video sequel money grabs that corrode the brand, Disney's tv cartoons are back at a level they haven't been since the mid 90s with shows such as Ultimate Spider-Man, Avengers, the upcoming Star Wars Rebels, the previously mentioned new Mickey Mouse cartoons, and the short-lived Tron Uprising series (A shame a lot of people ignored it as it was an outstanding series and now available on Netflix so check it out!)

-After attempting an ambitious revival of Mickey Mouse and Oswald in the world of gaming with Epic Mickey. Disney has found a niche in the video game industry with their hit game Disney Infininty as well as beautiful HD remakes of old SNES and Sega Genesis classics like Castle of Illusion and Ducktales: The Video game. This is all in addition to the legendary Kingdom Hearts series that currently has a third installment in the works for next generation game consoles.

-Thanks to Bob Iger, I and millions of other fans can actually be excited about Star Wars and Indiana Jones again. No longer having to dread how Lucas is going to mess it up or make it more childish. I know that he will treat Lucasfilm with the same respect that he has given Pixar and Marvel (and they have SOARED to new heights under Iger) and with Lucas now retired, Kathleen Kennedy in charge and folks like Lawerence Kasdan back in the saddle we can rest easy knowing that Star Wars Trilogy 3 and the inevitable new adventures of Indiana Jones will be of the highest quality.

-Bob Iger and Tom Staggs have commited to a quality over quantity approach to the Disney theme park empire. Whereas Eisner would green light cheap, inexpensive attractions to the parks (DINO RAMA anyone?) often times replacing beloved experiences (the entirety of Epcot Center, Tiki Room, The Peoplemover, etc.) with new cringe worthy versions (See the current crop of Epcot rides that nobody is happy with, Tiki Room Under NEW management, empty people mover tracks). Eisner and his team are also directly responsible for closing many attractions without any replacement (America Sings, 20k Under the Sea, The Skyway, the canoes at WDW, I can go and on) as well slashing maintenance costs that resulted in the deaths of several people (Eisner made his homegirl Cynthia Harris take the fall for that tragedy on Big Thunder Mountain) and Disneyland's Space Mountain was on the verge of a serious disaster when it was shut down for 3 years for "extensive refurbishment". Iger has been far more careful with what goes on at the parks, the additions have been far more meaningful mainly using unused land in creative ways rather than replacing beloved attractions. New Fantasyland restores an area that was sitting abandoned for over a decade and breathed some new life in the tired Magic Kingdom, Cars Land was built on what used to be an auxiliary parking lot, and the upcoming Avatar Land at Disney's Animal Kingdom will also use unused land (well unless you count CMM which most won't and even then they are keeping the Lion King show and actually moving it to an area where it's appropriate to appease fans). Indeed one could argue that the few times they have gone and in and redone an existing attraction it was for the better (Star Tours 2, Tron Track). If Eisner was still in charge we would not be getting Avatar Land, Cars Land would have just been a barebones version of Radiator Springs Racers, there would be no star tours upgrades because he continuously ed off George Lucas with his budget cutting, and Maelstorm would already be replaced with a Frozen overlay that would remove all uniqueness and mystique from the attraction, replace the animatronics with a few static figures littered through the ride, and call it a major new addition to Epcot Center. Don't even try to deny it you all saw DINO RAMA, Stitch's Great Escape, DCA's version of Tower of Terror and Expedition Everest. You know Eisner's MO and what he thinks is acceptable.

In Conclusion, Bob Iger will be hailed a hero when he steps down from the CEO position in about 2 years time (Something Eisner never wanted to do because he was a power hungry and arrogant maniac who felt he OWNED the company) for saving a company that was on it's way to becoming irrelevant forever.

 

[PeterAlt]

I don't think he is making a push. Eisner is probably the best CEO Disney has ever had outside of the DIsney family (not including Ron Miller...I mean Walt and Roy)

Eisner tarnished his time towards the end but you cannot sum up his tenure by the last five years.

He stepped down at the wrong time. He should have stepped down around the time he had that heart attack. The heart attack by itself was an indicator that he was working too hard and was beginning to loose his grip on things. The attempts in the years that would follow to control costs is yet another indicator of the extreme tactics he was employing in order to tighten his grip on the company. This is a move by a desperate person who is actually loosing his grip and is in denial about it. His efforts to tighten his grip is reactionary to his subconscious telling him he is loosing his grip and must tighten it in order not to loose it.

It's all downhill from there, once he started down that road. Instead of digging himself deeper and deeper into the abyss, he should have just walked away, with his reputation still unbruised.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Nah, I'm sorry, using those numbers in this manner is barely meaningful.

If I buy a Chicago mac&cheese stand for ten dollar, swap the cheese for provolone, and sell the stand for a thousand dollars a month later, I have increased its value by 100 x 12 = 1200 times per annum.

If I buy IBM for $100 billion, and manage to return it from $5 loss to $15 profit per year, selling it ten years later for $200 billion, I'll have doubled its worth in ten years,

By using the numbers in your fashion, in my example, the street stand vendor would be a twelve thousand times better businessperson than the CEO who oversaw one of the great turnarounds of modern US industrial behemoths. Using the numbers of market capitalization growth in this sense is meaningless.



Should one wish to do so regardless, here are more meaningful, because comparable, data sets. The two most recent decades, the first under Eisner (1995-2004), the second under Iger (2005-2014):

DIS Market Cap 1995: $54.26 billion
DIS Market Cap 2004: $49.35 billion
DS Market Cap 2014: $138.4 billion
Ouch!
Eisner sans Wells lost five billion. Iger exploded market cap.

I like your post but have a few comments.

Suggesting the multi-billion dollar Disney is somewhat similar to a mac&cheese stand is disingenuous. The simple truth is that it was Eisner, not Iger, who turned Disney from a small cap company with great name recognition into the multi-billion dollar megacorporation it is today.

The old adage "It takes money to make money" holds true for Iger. Iger inherited a megacorporation and grew it. In today's economy where wealth is being concentrated, Iger's performance is by no means unique. Heck, Iger doesn't even make Forbes' list of best CEOs.

Comparing market cap really depends on points in time. The Disney in 2004 under Eisner had been devastated (like most companies) by a post-9/11 economy. In 2000, Disney's market cap was something around $78B. Meanwhile, at the start of 2013, Disney's market cap was around $93B. Add in the $11B in acquisitions and, until the recent run-up in stock price, Disney's market cap has barely moved. Seriously, what has happened in the last 12 months to justify Disney's run-up from $57/share 12 months ago to today's $79/share? External market forces are at play as much as anything and, at $79 per share, Disney appears to be overvalued.

Eisner was a victim of a bad economy as much as his own character flaws. Had he not alienated Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, Eisner probably would still be running Disney.

Again, I like your post. It brings up some really good points. However, it's not telling the whole story.

Iger is an effective corporate CEO but it was Eisner who created the mega conglomerate Disney.

 

[GoofGoof]

I like your post but have a few comments.

Suggesting the multi-billion dollar Disney is somewhat similar to a mac&cheese stand is disingenuous. The simple truth is that it was Eisner, not Iger, who turned Disney from a small cap company with great name recognition into the multi-billion dollar megacorporation it is today.

The old adage "It takes money to make money" holds true for Iger. Iger inherited a megacorporation and grew it. In today's economy where wealth is being concentrated, Iger's performance is by no means unique. Heck, Iger doesn't even make Forbes' list of best CEOs.

Comparing market cap really depends on points in time. The Disney in 2004 under Eisner had been devastated (like most companies) by a post-9/11 economy. In 2000, Disney's market cap was something around $78B. Meanwhile, at the start of 2013, Disney's market cap was around $93B. Add in the $11B in acquisitions and, until the recent run-up in stock price, Disney's market cap has barely moved. Seriously, what has happened in the last 12 months to justify Disney's run-up from $57/share 12 months ago to today's $79/share? External market forces are at play as much as anything and, at $79 per share, Disney appears to be overvalued.

Eisner was a victim of a bad economy as much as his own character flaws. Had he not alienated Roy Disney and Stanley Gold, Eisner probably would still be running Disney.

Again, I like your post. It brings up some really good points. However, it's not telling the whole story.

Iger is an effective corporate CEO but it was Eisner who created the mega conglomerate Disney.

I agree with all of this. The only thing I would slightly disagree with is the current $79 share price being overvalued. The run up over the last year corresponds to the general run up of the broader market, but in the case of Disney a strong argument can be made that the stock was undervalued to begin with and is now adjusted to a reasonable level. I'm not saying there is a ton of upside, but in my amateur opinion DIS is a hold right now leaning more towards a buy then a sell.

What Eisner did as CEO was remarkable. There is no comparing Iger to Eisner. In Iger's defense he didn't need to do what Eisner did. The company didn't need saving it just needed steady guidance and leadership. In sports terms Eisner inherited a struggling franchise with a near last place record. He turned the whole thing around and built a champion. Iger inherited the championship team, signed some additional big name free agents here and there and now has won another championship. What remains to be seen is if those big name free agents are all really worth their huge contracts. So far Pixar is a slam dunk winner, Marvel is looking pretty solid and Lucas Films has the most potential of the 3.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I agree with all of this. The only thing I would slightly disagree with is the current $79 share price being overvalued. The run up over the last year corresponds to the general run up of the broader market, but in the case of Disney a strong argument can be made that the stock was undervalued to begin with and is now adjusted to a reasonable level. I'm not saying there is a ton of upside, but in my amateur opinion DIS is a hold right now leaning more towards a buy then a sell.

What Eisner did as CEO was remarkable. There is no comparing Iger to Eisner. In Iger's defense he didn't need to do what Eisner did. The company didn't need saving it just needed steady guidance and leadership. In sports terms Eisner inherited a struggling franchise with a near last place record. He turned the whole thing around and built a champion. Iger inherited the championship team, signed some additional big name free agents here and there and now has won another championship. What remains to be seen is if those big name free agents are all really worth their huge contracts. So far Pixar is a slam dunk winner, Marvel is looking pretty solid and Lucas Films has the most potential of the 3.

That's the beauty of the stock market. Prices represent the general view of a company's relative worth at one instant in time, influenced by a broad range of factors, both internal and external to the company. Investors constantly are looking for places to park their money. A few years ago, it was gold and predictions of gold exploding through $2000/ounce were rampant. Not anymore.

The rhetorical question is, is today's Disney the place where investors are parking their money now? There's no right or wrong answer really. Talk with two different analysts and you'll get two different answers.

Some want to paint Iger as a bad CEO. That's just not the case. IMHO, Iger has been bad for WDW, but WDW is only one company asset. Iger has been an effective CEO of Disney as a whole. His greatest attribute is not possessing Eisner's polarizing personality. IMHO, everything that Iger has accomplished in the last 9 years could have been equally accomplished by scores of other CEOs. That simply means Iger is qualified to be a CEO. It does not make him a remarkable CEO.

Conversely, Eisner completely turned around Disney and transformed it into something it was not. Disney's performance under Eisner was remarkable. However, Eisner was his own worst enemy and without someone to moderate Eisner's excesses, Eisner brought about his own downfall.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Under Bob Iger's leadership:

I'll respond to much of your post, but let me preface this by saying that most of your points are crediting the wrong people for these achievements, blaming the wrong people for the failures, or outright making assumptions that you have no way of proving (whether making assumptions on things that wouldn't have happened or have yet to happen).

-There has been a renewed sense of pride at Walt Disney Animation. In large part to the acquisition of Pixar and putting their top people John Lasseter and Ed Catmull in charge of revamping the then edge-of-closure animation house. Thanks to me people no longer ignore or cringe when Disney announces a new movie. Now just like it was when I was little during the Katzenberg era fans/children/etc. can look forward with the next movie with excitement that it will be a quality product that will be entertaining for all ages. Films like Tangled, Frozen, and Big Hero Six are putting WDFA back on the map as the premier American animation house the way it ought to be. With the acquisition of Pixar, Disney can output 2 quality animated feature films a year without rushing productions. On top of that short films are back playing before movies, non ironic Mickey Mouse cartoons are playing on Disney channels, no more direct to video sequel money grabs that corrode the brand, Disney's tv cartoons are back at a level they haven't been since the mid 90s with shows such as Ultimate Spider-Man, Avengers, the upcoming Star Wars Rebels, the previously mentioned new Mickey Mouse cartoons, and the short-lived Tron Uprising series (A shame a lot of people ignored it as it was an outstanding series and now available on Netflix so check it out!)

As i've stated, the core Disney animated movies made under Iger have largely only been a little better at best than they were under Eisner. While they weren't as good as the 90's fare (hell one could argue the company had never made better animated movies before the 90's and may never again make movies that can top those), I still enjoyed almost all the core Disney animated movies a lot until Home on the Range. But even with their couple of failures, there's still not enough of a trend of poor movies at that point to indicate that there was no chance Disney animation would improve after a flop or two, Pocahontas was a disappointment but they recovered from that road bump nicely. I think Fantasia 2000, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis the Lost Empire, Lilo and Stitch and Treasure Planet were all extremely good movies at the very least, some of them great. And while not quite as good, even Brother Bear still had some quality in it (i'd still call it a very solid movie despite some flaws).

It actually showed just how spoiled we were in the 90's, because i'd still call many of the movies under Eisner's later years to still be really good even if they weren't AS good as the previous decade. There were some real stinkers no doubt, but they are far fewer than people have tried to claim (they're really only negatively seen because of the utter brilliance of the 90's films, coming off of those would make almost anything seem like a step down). Home on the Range and Chicken Little both sucked and you're not going to see me defending them under any circumstances. But given that Eisner didn't remain past those movies, it is difficult to say whether there would have been an upturn eventually. My guess is that had he stayed, Disney animation would have still made some good movies. Overall though, I enjoyed the vast majority of the theatrical movies under Eisner even after the renaissance era ones. The only real consistent garbage I find came from the direct to video sequels, but they at least didn't replace the main feature films.

Movies made under Iger have been very hit or miss, and he has far fewer under his belt thus far and hasn't yet reached the heights Eisner had in the 90's (and won't at this point with him leaving within a few years). The best of the Iger era animated films are no a match for almost all the 90's films, and only slightly come up to par with the still good post-2000 Eisner era movies. Princess and the Frog is merely decent at best, somewhat entertaining with gorgeous animation and some good ideas hidden underneath but rather mediocre music (courtesy of Randy Newman) with messy story and characters to hold it back from the return to form it should have been (I love that they revived hand drawn animation but that point is kind of moot when Iger just killed it off again, breaking his promise). Tangled was a massively boring disappointment to an even greater extent than P&TF (music wasn't all that much better). Bolt I actually highly dislike, I find it comparable in quality to Chicken Little. So that's three massively disappointing Iger era films within not a very large pile in the first place. As to the good ones, I enjoyed Winnie the Pooh (which is unfortunately probably going to end up an obscure gem, it along with P&TF's disappointing financial success is sadly likely why Iger has again killed off 2D animation). I also enjoyed Wreck it Ralph to some extent as well. And Frozen is also good, though highly overrated with a ton of problems including disappointing music, a couple of really poor characters and awkward pacing (not a match for the 90's era films). I also really enjoyed Meet the Robinsons, though given the release date it's possible this counts more as an Eisner era project (i'm betting much of the development began when Eisner was still in power). So overall, not much to work with yet, but the quality of films under Iger are split pretty firmly down the middle. His reign has seen some of the same amount of bad to mediocre movies as under Eisner, but even the best movies under Iger have only come up about par with the good post-2000 Eisner era movies at best IMHO.

As for the TV related stuff you mentioned, my guess is that for most of them Disney has little to do with their development apart from just acquiring the brands. The Mickey Mouse cartoons are the only ones that really should be counted (which I enjoy but find a little bit too weird and "Ren and Stimpy" like on the animation at times). Under Eisner's reign though Disney had their own studios to develop the cartoon shows, and they absolutely oozed with quality, especially pretty much ALL the Disney afternoon from the 80's to mid 90's. Nothing developed in house under Iger can even hope to touch the brilliance of Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, Gummi Bears, Gargoyles, etc etc etc. Too many to list, there are actually a ton more than that. Even shows like Aladdin based on their theatrical movies were really entertaining. And even in his later years as CEO, Eisner's era STILL saw a lot of good cartoon TV series such as Tarzan, Recess and Kim Possible. Perhaps not AS high up as the early years under him, but still some really good stuff nevertheless. Not so much under Iger, their best TV shows (none of which I would place anywhere close to the quality of the Disney Afternoon fare) are generally handled by outside companies and Disney has likely VERY little input on them besides pasting their logos on and allowing them to broadcast them on their channel. Like much of the other aspects of the company, Iger's successes have been largely based on looking outside the company for talent instead of building their own in-house talent organically.

-After attempting an ambitious revival of Mickey Mouse and Oswald in the world of gaming with Epic Mickey. Disney has found a niche in the video game industry with their hit game Disney Infininty as well as beautiful HD remakes of old SNES and Sega Genesis classics like Castle of Illusion and Ducktales: The Video game. This is all in addition to the legendary Kingdom Hearts series that currently has a third installment in the works for next generation game consoles.

Most if not all of Disney's video games were handled by non-Disney companies, whether under Eisner or Iger. Disney may have provided the licenses to work with but Capcom, Virgin and Sega generally were the big three companies responsible for most of the fantastic Disney video games from the 80's and 90's. Particularly Capcom and Sega were already established as quality developers (Capcom had Mega Man and other franchises and Sega were popular arcade developers and had the immensely popular Sonic the Hedgehog). Kingdom Hearts was handled by Squaresoft (now Square Enix). Though again if you're going to bring these into the argument, the best and largest quantity of them by far happened when Eisner was in power, and longtime gamers miss those years. The game industry as a whole has seen changes that don't sit well with many gamers from the 80's, 90's and early 2000's because of an unfortunate shift in the demographic developers began targeting a few years ago. Particularly the focus on phone gaming and trying too hard to create games that appeal to non-gamers, leading to the creation and push of games targeting a less discerning audience that have lower standards. Shovelware is a common word used to describe such games, made cheaply and poorly but also often packed with microtransactions designed to siphon money away from you WHILE you play.

The first Kingdom Hearts game was conceived and released well before Eisner was kicked out, as well as its GBA "spinoff" Chain of Memories. Kingdom Hearts 2 was also effectively and Eisner era project as well, pretty much its entire development cycle was still during Eisner's years. Ducktales Remastered along with Castle of Illusion HD (while very good) were both handled by non-Disney developers and were either remakes or reimaginings of games already made during the Eisner era. I've nothing against the remakes at all being a huge gamer of the 80's and 90's generations, but it goes to show another problem with Iger's reign overall- copying previously successful work and coasting on nostalgia instead of trying to create something new or original.

Epic Mickey was an interesting experiment that I personally enjoyed, it kind of harkened back to the era of 3D platformers from the mid-90's to early 2000's and I liked that. Many people did not like the games though (its sequel which I have yet to try got panned critically). Disney Infinity is more than anything an attempt at a blatant moneygrab rather than being a really good game, copying the financial success of the Skylanders series previously established by a different company. But besides the more famous and popular ones, a lot of Disney games in the recent past (under BOTH Eisner in his later years as well as now under Iger) have been dire shovelware cash grabs made in order to sucker in the generally non-gaming casual audience who have no standards of what makes a good game (anyone who has followed the game industry over the course of the last 10 years or so will know what I'm talking about with words like shovelware and casual gaming).

-Thanks to Bob Iger, I and millions of other fans can actually be excited about Star Wars and Indiana Jones again. No longer having to dread how Lucas is going to mess it up or make it more childish. I know that he will treat Lucasfilm with the same respect that he has given Pixar and Marvel (and they have SOARED to new heights under Iger) and with Lucas now retired, Kathleen Kennedy in charge and folks like Lawerence Kasdan back in the saddle we can rest easy knowing that Star Wars Trilogy 3 and the inevitable new adventures of Indiana Jones will be of the highest quality.

You should probably wait and see how the movies turn out before handing out premature praise. Even good film makers can still make flops, so lets hold off the celebration until they're actually released. Hope exists, and I myself am excited for the new Star Wars movies, but it's probably best at this point to keep expectations in check. It won't be difficult for them to be better than the prequels at least, but then again it's pretty easy to improve from such a ridiculous low point anyways. We'll see what occurs with Indiana Jones, if anything. Pixar on the flipside, previously a consistent beacon of quality entertainment, has now suffered three crushing disappointments (outright mediocre to bad movies) in a row the past three years. Don't know who is to blame for that but it is a little worrisome. The Marvel movies have been hit or miss. Liked Iron Man 1 (which was before Disney bought Marvel), but hated IM2 and only thought IM3 was ok (both of the sequels were under Disney's wing). Amazing Spiderman was kind of a mixture of decent and bland (the original two from Raimi were extremely campy but at least entertaining in their own ways), and didn't care for either Thor movie much (with the exception of Tom Hiddleston's scenes). Avengers I enjoyed a lot though, extremely entertaining. Captain America was decent to good (not sure whether i'll like the sequel).

-Bob Iger and Tom Staggs have commited to a quality over quantity approach to the Disney theme park empire. Whereas Eisner would green light cheap, inexpensive attractions to the parks (DINO RAMA anyone?) often times replacing beloved experiences (the entirety of Epcot Center, Tiki Room, The Peoplemover, etc.) with new cringe worthy versions (See the current crop of Epcot rides that nobody is happy with, Tiki Room Under NEW management, empty people mover tracks). Eisner and his team are also directly responsible for closing many attractions without any replacement (America Sings, 20k Under the Sea, The Skyway, the canoes at WDW, I can go and on) as well slashing maintenance costs that resulted in the deaths of several people (Eisner made his homegirl Cynthia Harris take the fall for that tragedy on Big Thunder Mountain) and Disneyland's Space Mountain was on the verge of a serious disaster when it was shut down for 3 years for "extensive refurbishment". Iger has been far more careful with what goes on at the parks, the additions have been far more meaningful mainly using unused land in creative ways rather than replacing beloved attractions. New Fantasyland restores an area that was sitting abandoned for over a decade and breathed some new life in the tired Magic Kingdom, Cars Land was built on what used to be an auxiliary parking lot, and the upcoming Avatar Land at Disney's Animal Kingdom will also use unused land (well unless you count CMM which most won't and even then they are keeping the Lion King show and actually moving it to an area where it's appropriate to appease fans). Indeed one could argue that the few times they have gone and in and redone an existing attraction it was for the better (Star Tours 2, Tron Track). If Eisner was still in charge we would not be getting Avatar Land, Cars Land would have just been a barebones version of Radiator Springs Racers, there would be no star tours upgrades because he continuously ed off George Lucas with his budget cutting, and Maelstorm would already be replaced with a Frozen overlay that would remove all uniqueness and mystique from the attraction, replace the animatronics with a few static figures littered through the ride, and call it a major new addition to Epcot Center. Don't even try to deny it you all saw DINO RAMA, Stitch's Great Escape, DCA's version of Tower of Terror and Expedition Everest. You know Eisner's MO and what he thinks is acceptable.

While I don't see the Iger era attractions as "cheap" in the traditional sense (money) because of the absurd red tape and bloat causing everything to become stupid expensive for the company, I don't see them as quality OR quantity for the large part. There have been some successful exceptions, either due to the intervention of people like Lasseter (ensuring Cars Land was't value engineered by using political blackmail) as well as Hong Kong's new rides, but there have also been huge flops like New Fantasyland, Toy Story Midway Mania and Little Mermaid in CA. Eisner's early years

Had Eisner remained in charge we would not have gotten Cars because Pixar would likely have been long gone (unless egos on both sides somehow quelled and a deal was worked out). Likely no Avatar either, or anything Marvel or Lucas related. Though some people would consider that ok depending on what would have happened going forward. We don't fully know what we would have gotten instead of those, though there are some signs that Eisner was beginning to learn his lesson and become more hands on with the parks and their attractions shortly before he was forced out. The appointment of Matt Ouimet as '74 said would indicate he was taking measures to clean the parks up operations wise. And Expedition Everest, though still rushed and far from perfect, was a marked step up and a very GOOD ride from what we had come to expect from Eisner during the last decade. I'd readily place Everest immensely above anything built at WDW under Iger's watch, and there's already indications Avatar will be value engineered to death just like Fantasyland...

Besides Everest there were other ambitious plans intended for WDW before Eisner's firing. So all in all, while I am definitely not one to praise Eisner for his dark ages, there were clear signs that steps towards internal recovery were at least being attempted well before his reign was over. I'll probably never forgive him for allowing the ruination of EPCOT or for cutting the maintenance budgets as he did, or the many other messes occurring under his reign, but I would have liked to have seen what would have become of Disney had he been allowed to remain for at least a few more years to see where his repairs would have lead. If Tokyo Disneysea can at all be traced to Eisner, that would indicate he could also create new amazing parks and rides even later on in his career. Bad events and attractions happened under Eisner, but when given proper hands on he still seemed to favor quality things. The worst attractions under his reign seemed to be ones he had the least influence on. Like EPCOT's destruction which was likely not his personal doing, we've heard of his hatred of Imagination 2.0 after riding it. So the messes that occurred don't seem to have been all his fault (and again there was some evidence that he was attempting recovery projects nearer to the end, so he seemed to realize there needed to be a quality improvement to the parks).

Disney still suffers internally regardless of how many companies Iger buys. Iger's solution is largely to just buy up a bunch of buffer supports (chewing gum) to attempt to cover up internal problems that are still being largely ignored. Eisner has shown in the past that when he wants to, he has talent to grow a company organically from within, without relying on acquisitions to cover up the internal engine problems. There are again signs that he was making attempts to do just that near the end and I would have been interested to see what became of it before Iger further screwed things up (likely beyond repair at this point). That is saying a lot coming from me, because I detest what happened during the mid-late 90's. I'd be infinitely more willing to have given Eisner another chance, knowing now the mess Iger has caused of things...

 

[spacemt354]

Under Bob Iger's leadership:
-Bob Iger and Tom Staggs have commited to a quality over quantity approach to the Disney theme park empire. Whereas Eisner would green light cheap, inexpensive attractions to the parks (DINO RAMA anyone?) often times replacing beloved experiences (the entirety of Epcot Center, Tiki Room, The Peoplemover, etc.) with new cringe worthy versions (See the current crop of Epcot rides that nobody is happy with, Tiki Room Under NEW management, empty people mover tracks). Eisner and his team are also directly responsible for closing many attractions without any replacement (America Sings, 20k Under the Sea, The Skyway, the canoes at WDW, I can go and on) as well slashing maintenance costs that resulted in the deaths of several people (Eisner made his homegirl Cynthia Harris take the fall for that tragedy on Big Thunder Mountain) and Disneyland's Space Mountain was on the verge of a serious disaster when it was shut down for 3 years for "extensive refurbishment". Iger has been far more careful with what goes on at the parks, the additions have been far more meaningful mainly using unused land in creative ways rather than replacing beloved attractions. New Fantasyland restores an area that was sitting abandoned for over a decade and breathed some new life in the tired Magic Kingdom, Cars Land was built on what used to be an auxiliary parking lot, and the upcoming Avatar Land at Disney's Animal Kingdom will also use unused land (well unless you count CMM which most won't and even then they are keeping the Lion King show and actually moving it to an area where it's appropriate to appease fans). Indeed one could argue that the few times they have gone and in and redone an existing attraction it was for the better (Star Tours 2, Tron Track). If Eisner was still in charge we would not be getting Avatar Land, Cars Land would have just been a barebones version of Radiator Springs Racers, there would be no star tours upgrades because he continuously ed off George Lucas with his budget cutting, and Maelstorm would already be replaced with a Frozen overlay that would remove all uniqueness and mystique from the attraction, replace the animatronics with a few static figures littered through the ride, and call it a major new addition to Epcot Center. Don't even try to deny it you all saw DINO RAMA, Stitch's Great Escape, DCA's version of Tower of Terror and Expedition Everest. You know Eisner's MO and what he thinks is acceptable.

In Conclusion, Bob Iger will be hailed a hero when he steps down from the CEO position in about 2 years time (Something Eisner never wanted to do because he was a power hungry and arrogant maniac who felt he OWNED the company) for saving a company that was on it's way to becoming irrelevant forever.

I can concede to Iger's success in a corporate business sense regarding the company, buying Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, etc, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this section of your post.

Eisner would only green-lit "cheap" things? Really? He was CEO of the company from 1984-2005 and only references to park additions you can make is Dino-rama?

What park is Dino-rama in? Animal Kingdom? You wouldn't have the opportunity to criticize Eisner for Dino-rama if he didn't oversee the construction of Animal Kingdom in the first place. And that's not the only thing. The expansion of WDW from a 2-3 day experience, to a full-on family vacation destination is thanks to Mr. Eisner. He expanded faster and built more for Disney parks and resorts than Iger has or will ever accomplish. From entire parks around the world to hotel additions, rides, dining. I'm not going to write a novel but all I have to say is

"The Disney Decade"

In addition you claim the only other Disney parks and resorts influence Eisner had were cost cuts, attraction closings, and replacing beloved experiences.

I don't really want to go tit for tat again because I would be here all day, but take a look at WDW today. The same cost-cuts are happening as we speak. Discrediting one person while crediting another person who commits the same actions is just playing favorites.

 

[spacemt354]

I'll respond to much of your post, but let me preface this by saying that most of your posts are crediting the wrong people for these achievements, blaming the wrong people for the failures, or outright making assumptions that you have no way of proving (whether making assumptions on things that wouldn't have happened or have yet to happen).


As i've stated, the core Disney animated movies made under Iger have largely only been a little better at best than they were under Iger. While they weren't as good as the 90's fare (hell one could argue the company had never made better animated movies before the 90's and may never again make movies that can top those), I still enjoyed almost all the core Disney animated movies a lot until Home on the Range. There's nothing to indicate that there was no chance Disney animation would improve after a flop or two either, Pocahontas was a disappointment but they recovered from that road bump nicely. I think Fantasia 2000, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis the Lost Empire, Lilo and Stitch and Treasure Planet were all extremely good movies at the very least, some of them great. And while not quite as good, even Brother Bear still had some quality in it (i'd still call it a very solid movie despite some flaws). It actually showed just how spoiled we were in the 90's, because i'd still call many of the movies under Eisner's later years to still be really good even if they weren't AS good. There were some real however, but they are far fewer than people have tried to claim. Home on the Range and Chicken Little both sucked and you're not going to see me defending them under any circumstances. But given that Eisner didn't remain past those movies, it is difficult to say whether there would have been an upturn eventually. My guess is that had he stayed, Disney animation would have still made some good movies. Overall though, I enjoyed the vast majority of the theatrical movies under Eisner even after the renaissance era ones. The only real consistent garbage I find came from the direct to video sequels, but they at least didn't replace the main feature films.

Movies made under Iger have been very hit or miss, and he has far fewer under his belt thus far and hasn't yet reached the heights Eisner had in the 90's (and won't at this point with him leaving within a few years). The best of the Iger era animated films are no a match for almost all the 90's films, and only slightly come up to par with the still good post-2000 Eisner era movies. Princess and the Frog is merely decent at best, somewhat entertaining with gorgeous animation and some good ideas hidden underneath but rather mediocre music (courtesy of Randy Newman) with messy story and characters to hold it back from the return to form it should have been (I love that they revived hand drawn animation but that point is kind of moot when Iger just killed it off again, breaking his promise). Tangled was a massively boring disappointment to an even greater extent than P&TF (music wasn't all that much better). Bolt I actually highly dislike, I find it comparable in quality to Chicken Little. So that's three massively disappointing Iger era films within not a very large pile in the first place. As to the good ones, I enjoyed Winnie the Pooh (which is unfortunately probably going to end up an obscure gem, it along with P&TF's disappointing financial success is sadly likely why Iger has again killed off 2D animation). I also enjoyed Wreck it Ralph to some extent as well. And Frozen is also good, though highly overrated with a ton of problems including disappointing music, a couple of really poor characters and awkward pacing (not a match for the 90's era films). I also really enjoyed Meet the Robinsons, though given the release date it's possible this counts more as an Eisner era project (i'm betting much of the development began when Eisner was still in power). So overall, not much to work with yet, but the quality of films under Iger are split pretty firmly down the middle. His reign has seen some of the same amount of bad to mediocre movies as under Eisner, but even the best movies under Iger have only come up about par with the good post-2000 Eisner era movies at best IMHO.

As for the TV related stuff you mentioned, my guess is that for most of them Disney has little to do with their development apart from just acquiring the brands. The Mickey Mouse cartoons are the only ones that really should be counted (which I enjoy but find a little bit too weird and "Ren and Stimpy" like on the animation at times). Under Eisner's reign though Disney had their own studios to develop the cartoon shows, and they absolutely oozed with quality, especially pretty much ALL the Disney afternoon from the 80's to mid 90's. Nothing developed in house under Iger can even hope to touch the brilliance of Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers, Gummi Bears, Gargoyles, etc etc etc. Too many to list, there are actually a ton more than that. Even shows like Aladdin based on their theatrical movies were really entertaining. And even in his later years as CEO, Eisner's era STILL saw a lot of good cartoon TV series such as Tarzan, Recess and Kim Possible. Perhaps not AS high up as the early years under him, but still some really good stuff nevertheless. Not so much under Iger, their best TV shows (none of which I would place anywhere close to the quality of the Disney Afternoon fare) are generally handled by outside companies and Disney has likely VERY little input on them besides pasting their logos on and allowing them to broadcast them on their channel. Like much of the other aspects of the company, Iger's successes have been largely based on looking outside the company for talent instead of building their own in-house talent organically.


Most if not all of Disney's video games were handled by non-Disney companies, whether under Eisner or Iger. Disney may have provided the licenses to work with but Capcom, Virgin and Sega generally were the big three companies responsible for most of the fantastic Disney video games from the 80's and 90's. Or Kingdom Hearts by Squaresoft (now Square Enix) in the 2000's. Though again if you're going to bring these into the argument, the best and largest quantity of them happened under Eisner, and longtime gamers miss those years. The first Kingdom Hearts game was conceived and released well before Eisner was kicked out, as well as its GBA "spinoff" Chain of Memories. Kingdom Hearts 2 was also effectively and Eisner era project as well, pretty much its entire development cycle was still during Eisner's years. Ducktales Remastered along with Castle of Illusion HD (while very good), were both handled by non-Disney developers and were either remakes or reimaginings of games already made during the Eisner era. I've nothing against the remakes at all being a huge gamer of the 80's and 90's generations, but it goes to show another problem with Iger's reign overall- copying previously successful work, coasting on nostalgia and not trying anything new or original.

Epic Mickey was an interesting experiment that I personally enjoyed, it kind of harkened back to the era of 3D platformers from the mid-90's to early 2000's and I liked that. Many people did not like the games though (its sequel which I have yet to try got panned critically). Disney Infinity is more than anything an attempt at a blatant moneygrab rather than being a really good game, copying the financial success of the Skylanders series previously established by a different company. But besides the more famous and popular ones, a lot of Disney games in the recent past (under BOTH Eisner in his later years as well as now under Iger) have been dire shovelware cash grabs made in order to sucker in the generally non-gaming casual audience who have no standards of what makes a good game (anyone who has followed the game industry over the course of the last 10 years or so will know what I'm talking about with words like shovelware and casual gaming).


You should probably wait and see how the movies turn out before handing out premature praise. Even good film makers can still make flops, so lets hold off the celebration until they're actually released. Hope exists, and I myself am excited for the new Star Wars movies, but it's probably best at this point to keep expectations in check. It won't be difficult for them to be better than the prequels at least, but then again it's pretty easy to improve from such a ridiculous low point anyways. We'll see what occurs with Indiana Jones, if anything. Pixar on the flipside, previously a consistent beacon of quality entertainment, has now suffered three crushing disappointments (outright mediocre to bad movies) in a row the past three years. Don't know who is to blame for that but it is a little worrisome. The Marvel movies have been hit or miss. Liked Iron Man 1 (which was before Disney bought Marvel), but hated IM2 and only thought IM3 was ok (both of the sequels were under Disney's wing). Amazing Spiderman was kind of a mixture of decent and bland (the original two from Raimi were extremely campy but at least entertaining in their own ways), and didn't care for either Thor movie much (with the exception of Tom Hiddleston's scenes). Avengers I enjoyed a lot though, extremely entertaining. Captain America was decent to good (not sure whether i'll like the sequel).


While I don't see the Iger era attractions as "cheap" in the traditional sense (money) because of the absurd red tape and bloat causing everything to become stupid expensive for the company, I don't see them as quality OR quantity for the large part. There have been some successful exceptions, either due to the intervention of people like Lasseter (ensuring Cars Land was't value engineered by using political blackmail) as well as Hong Kong's new rides, but there have also been huge flops like New Fantasyland, Toy Story Midway Mania and Little Mermaid in CA. Eisner's early years

Had Eisner remained in charge we would not have gotten Cars because Pixar would likely have been long gone (unless egos on both sides somehow quelled and a deal was worked out). Likely no Avatar either, or anything Marvel or Lucas related. Though some people would consider that ok depending on what would have happened going forward. We don't fully know what we would have gotten instead of those, though there are some signs that Eisner was beginning to learn his lesson and become more hands on with the parks and their attractions shortly before he was forced out. The appointment of Matt Ouimet as '74 said would indicate he was taking measures to clean the parks up operations wise. And Expedition Everest, though still rushed and far from perfect, was a marked step up and a very GOOD ride from what we had come to expect from Eisner during the last decade. I'd readily place Everest immensely above anything built at WDW under Iger's watch, and there's already indications Avatar will be value engineered to death just like Fantasyland...

Besides Everest there were other ambitious plans intended for WDW before Eisner's firing. So all in all, while I am definitely not one to praise Eisner for his dark ages, there were clear signs that steps towards internal recovery were at least being attempted well before his reign was over. I'll probably never forgive him for allowing the ruination of EPCOT or for cutting the maintenance budgets as he did, or the many other messes occurring under his reign, but I would have liked to have seen what would have become of Disney had he been allowed to remain for at least a few more years to see where his repairs would have lead. If Tokyo Disneysea can at all be traced to Eisner, that would indicate he could also create new amazing parks and rides even later on in his career. Disney still suffers internally regardless of how many companies Iger buys. Iger's solution is largely to just buy up a bunch of buffer supports (chewing gum) to attempt to cover up internal problems that are still being largely ignored. Eisner has shown in the past that when he wants to, he has talent to grow a company organically from within, without relying on acquisitions to cover up the internal engine problems. There are again signs that he was making attempts to do just that near the end and I would have been interested to see what became of it before Iger further screwed things up (likely beyond repair at this point). That is saying a lot coming from me, because I detest what happened during the mid-late 90's. I'd be infinitely more willing to have given Eisner another chance, knowing now the mess Iger has caused of things...

I give you a lot of credit. It's a lot of information in this post. I responded to the member you did as well and I thank you for saying all the details I didn't say.

 

[GoofGoof]

That's the beauty of the stock market. Prices represent the general view of a company's relative worth at one instant in time, influenced by a broad range of factors, both internal and external to the company. Investors constantly are looking for places to park their money. A few years ago, it was gold and predictions of gold exploding through $2000/ounce were rampant. Not anymore.

The rhetorical question is, is today's Disney the place where they are parking their money now? There's no right or wrong answer really. Talk with two different analysts and you'll get two different answers.

Some want to paint Iger as a bad CEO. That's just not the case. IMHO, Iger has been bad for WDW, but WDW is only one company asset. Iger has been an effective CEO of Disney as a whole. His greatest attribute is not possessing Eisner's polarizing personality. IMHO, everything that Iger has accomplished in the last 9 years could have been equally accomplished by scores of other CEOs. That simply means Iger is qualified to be a CEO. It does not make him a remarkable CEO.

Conversely, Eisner completely turned around Disney and transformed it into something it was not. Disney's performance under Eisner was remarkable. However, Eisner was his own worst enemy and without someone to moderate Eisner's excesses, Eisner brought about his own downfall.

I agree. Iger has not been good for WDW overall. With the exception of a possible Star Wars Land none of his "crowning achievements" has added any value to WDW. Marvel is even contractually excluded from the resort. Iger's biggest impacts to WDW will likely be MyMagic+, DVC expansion and AvatarLand (with a little bit of FLE/Disney Springs thrown in). Avatar will need to be a huge, amazing expansion to overcome magic bands and FP+. Even if StarWarsLand is announced before Iger steps down it will be hard to credit him with a positive improvement at WDW.

 

[Nubs70]

That's the beauty of the stock market. Prices represent the general view of a company's relative worth at one instant in time, influenced by a broad range of factors, both internal and external to the company. Investors constantly are looking for places to park their money. A few years ago, it was gold and predictions of gold exploding through $2000/ounce were rampant. Not anymore.

The rhetorical question is, is today's Disney the place where they are parking their money now? There's no right or wrong answer really. Talk with two different analysts and you'll get two different answers.

Some want to paint Iger as a bad CEO. That's just not the case. IMHO, Iger has been bad for WDW, but WDW is only one company asset. Iger has been an effective CEO of Disney as a whole. His greatest attribute is not possessing Eisner's polarizing personality. IMHO, everything that Iger has accomplished in the last 9 years could have been equally accomplished by scores of other CEOs. That simply means Iger is qualified to be a CEO. It does not make him a remarkable CEO.

Conversely, Eisner completely turned around Disney and transformed it into something it was not. Disney's performance under Eisner was remarkable. However, Eisner was his own worst enemy and without someone to moderate Eisner's excesses, Eisner brought about his own downfall.

Stock price is the combination of current worth + future expectation.

 

[bhg469]

I agree. Iger has not been good for WDW overall. With the exception of a possible Star Wars Land none of his "crowning achievements" has added any value to WDW. Marvel is even contractually excluded from the resort. Iger's biggest impacts to WDW will likely be MyMagic+, DVC expansion and AvatarLand (with a little bit of FLE/Disney Springs thrown in). Avatar will need to be a huge, amazing expansion to overcome magic bands and FP+. Even if StarWarsLand is announced before Iger steps down it will be hard to credit him with a positive improvement at WDW.

Agree 100% but if the acquisition of star wars was in the works, it should have taken precedence over pandora. Love it or hate it, it is the biggest franchise to grace Disney other than their own IPs. Now, we're not looking at anything star wars related in the parks for at least 5 years.

 

[GoofGoof]

Stock price is the combination of current worth + future expectation.

The future expectations part is real the real differences of opinion come in. In my mind there are real concerns with the network TV and cable business long term. Is ESPN capable of evolving and remaining relevant with the push by sports and college conferences to have their own dedicated networks. Is ABC capable of continuing to produce long term value. The bright spot is the success of Disney channel itself which is growing in popularity and value. The live action film studio seems to be well positioned to make some big money from the acquisitions, especially Lucas Films. It's a matter of opinion if you think the comic book movies will remain popular long term. IMHO they have to be close to a saturation point by now, but they keep making them and people keep paying to see them. Pixar and Disney animation appear to be have a pipeline of potential hits (although they may be relying too heavily on sequels). P&R is a well oiled machine churning out earnings and cash which can be used to fund big money movies. Record domestic park attendance and a runaway hit in DCL coupled with a new park in China looks really positive on the surface.

It really depends on how far out you look. If your window is 5 years or less it's a bright future for TWDC. If you try to look longer term, it's a lot more muddy. Wall Street tends to think shorter term these days. That's why the stock is way up.

 

[GoofGoof]

Agree 100% but if the acquisition of star wars was in the works, it should have taken precedence over pandora. Love it or hate it, it is the biggest franchise to grace Disney other than their own IPs. Now, we're not looking at anything star wars related in the parks for at least 5 years.

This has been a problem dating back to Eisner. They never fully took advantage of runaway hits like LM, Lion King or Aladdin in the parks back in the 90s outside of a few shows. It took 20 years to get a LM ride and the Aladdin spinner doesn't count in my book. I hope we get a positive confirmation that SW Land is coming soon. I agree it will be years before it opens lets hope it's not 20 years

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

So to recap the last 20 pages are a urinating contest about who is the least biggest egotistical whose failings outweigh the successes if you are a product user rather than shareholder.

Smashing.