Who said there was a plan? There isn't one. Peltz and his group were pitched as a potential replacement for Iger, and that isn't a valid solution. The solution to a curable illness isn't to hand someone a loaded gun. Or taking an endangered species enclosure and letting a bunch of starving lions inside.
The solution to Iger is not Peltz.
I don’t disagree but right now nobody is really talking something like Eisner’s old singles and doubles strategy. That’s not the choice currently being presented. Rasulo was never nor would be some different voice arguing for quality and creativity. Cheap churn would be the mantra. Direct to video sequels revived but with theatrical releases.
Aside from moderate tech upgrades (such as improving animatronic movement and whatnot), if the general consensus on an attraction is that it's still great and doesn't NEED to be changed, then there's not really a good reason to do so. This goes doubly for when there's so much vacant space elsewhere that should be developed first before worrying about the older classics.
Why not a common sense approach? Change out attractions that are not popular and leave popular classics alone.
Rasulo as CEO is a recipe for disaster. Full stop.
It’s not a good thing when you know they want to do things that are worse. Iger’s come around a good bit on spending on the parks. People who think the parks need even more cuts aren’t a good thing. Rasulo killed the “Potter Swatters”. He pushed back on Disneyland’s cleanup and the Disney’s California Adventure redo.
…also known as “lying”
Quite a pickle big shot bobby lead us to, huh?
Second time:
It’s not…
I know you don’t like this fact, but all of Hollywood is beholden to the franchise model. They are beholden to that model due to profound structural and economic reasons, not the whims of individual stakeholders. With the arguable exception of Oppenheimer, 2023’s hits were franchise films. Disney does produce mid level and budget films out of its Searchlight label, but those are struggling as well. Hollywood doesn’t have an alternative to the franchise model at the moment. Dumping Iger doesn’t get rid of the franchise model - as Lazy points out, it will make it worse.
When Rasulo left Disney approx 9 years ago he has no work history except serving on some boards in CA.
The board were really just in a panic and desperately thought Iger would give them a return to "normalcy". Iger doesn't want to leave though, not unless there's yet another Covid-like scenario that causes him to jump ship again. But even during Covid, he never really "left". Just kept on running things while Chapek held the CEO title and took all the blame.
Why are you asking me? I'm not a Disney executive, nor do I own any shares. Do YOU have a plan? I'm not presenting a solution to the problem. My solutions would never be considered even if I WAS a board member. I'm just informing people of what would happen if Peltz and his groups took control, and that it would be far worse than what Iger has done.
Correct. Though this ended up backfiring on them with Tiana for a change. The backlash actually prompted them to up the budget a substantial amount. And what they're building there is going to be at least as costly to maintain as Splash, if not a lot moreso.It’s almost like those moves are to fake “new” rides while covering maintenance costs the don’t want to spend on normal wear and tear?
…Stanford is worth every penny
…they let chapek do it
