I actually respect you for giving some concrete reasons for opposing this. I will review your worst case scenario list.
Try to place Rasulo on the throne.
This is possible. Though, I'm not convinced he's materially worse than the other candidates that have been suggested. He might be, but what's the material difference between Rasulo and Staggs? The Seven Dwarfs incident is perhaps the biggest feather in Staggs' cap.
I suppose if you believe that Staggs or Mayer is materially better than Rasulo, then I can't really disabuse you of that position. Fair enough.
Force out Feige (are we pretending Perlmutter has forgiven him?)
After the success of Phase 4, Feige is not at all vulnerable. Do you think Disney's board of directors would give up on the chance to make more Marvels, Quantumanias, or Secret Invasions?
In all seriousness, it might be time for Feige to move on. Despite the puff pieces, Kevin Feige was never the singular architect behind the MCU's success. He contributed to be sure. But as much credit should go to the Russo Brothers, Whedon, Favreau, Markus and McFeely, and many others. Feige has been doing this for nearly 20 years. He might be burning out.
With that said, I think he still has a few more years to try to get Marvel back on course. We shall see.
Insist upon the dismemberment of the company for short term gain.
There are various methods of running a business. On one pole is the streamlined business, and the other pole is the conglomerate business. Apple under Steve Jobs (though, increasingly less under Tim Cook) is an example of a streamlined business. Each product in a streamlined business reinforces the other. They work together. Siemens, 3M, and GE are examples of the conglomerate form of business. These firms might own completely unrelated businesses in order to maximize shareholder value. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type.
At different points one style of business might become more stylish than the other. For a time in the 1980s conglomerates were all the rage. That's how Coca Cola ended up owning Columbia Pictures... That's a weird footnote in history. Then a period of divestment will follow.
I'm not always in favor of divestment and streamlining. Having diverse businesses can help ensure the health of the parent business. However, creative businesses are somewhat different. When they become buried within layers upon layers of reporting structure, this can sometimes stifle creativity. Creatives won't be able to talk to the CEO and board of directors because they're off in some remote division way down the chain.
The Walt Disney Company is massive. And I think there's reasons to consider shrinking the size of the firm. Not for short term gain (though, it would unlock shareholder value), but because it would bring the creatives closer to the CEO and board of director. There was a time when Walt Disney Imagineering reported directly to the CEO and not to the Chairman of Parks and... DPEP. Shrinking the business would lead to renewed discipline and focus.
What does my ideal Walt Disney Company look like?
1) Disney Parks and Resorts
2) Disney Consumer Products and Services
->Disney+
->Product Licensing
->Gaming
->Theatrical Distribution
3) Walt Disney Animation
4) Walt Disney Pictures
-> National Geographic
5) Pixar
6) Marvel
7) Lucasfilm
This new structure would make each of Disney's core brands directly accountable to the CEO and board of directors. Businesses that lack synergy with the parks division and consumer products division could jettisoned. More focus would be on the core Disney businesses. Just because Michael Eisner decided to buy Capital Cities in 1996, doesn't mean ABC and ESPN are stuck with Disney forever.
I think you're letting a sentimental attachment to ESPN and ABC get in the way of what's best for the future of the entire Walt Disney Company. ESPN is not a storied part of the business like Disneyland or Walt Disney Animation. I care about Walt Disney's legacy, Pixar's legacy, Lucas's legacy, and the MCU's legacy. ESPN is just a middleman for sports teams and the consumer. It could fade away and it would be forgotten. It just doesn't matter. Teams like the Dallas Cowboys, the New England Patriots, and the Kansas City Chiefs are the real strong brands in sports. Not a beleaguered sports channel.
Make enormous cuts to the studios and theme parks. Initiate mass layoffs at both. Block any expansion of the theme parks (which, yes, has happened, though not fast enough in Florida). Kill the plans for Disneyland that Anaheim just approved.
The studios could be shrunk dramatically. No doubt about that. I don't see Peltz harming the parks though. He's basically said that he views the parks as the only valuable part of the business. Everything else is imploding or losing money. He's also said he views the parks as dilapidated (which admittedly, they are) and in need of investment to compete with Universal.
The Disneyland expansion is going to be cemented with a contract. Disney can't get out of it, or else they would be failing to maintain their side of the contract with Anaheim.
Insist on using AI to develop new animated characters (Blackwell suggested this).
Interesting. AI, barring some unforeseen catastrophe, will completely demolish the movie business. AI is insane. It's not something you can avoid. But it's also incredibly dangerous to use. I'd outlaw it outright. It's that dangerous. But if everyone else is doing it, Disney probably should too. It's too dangerous not to.
Shutter or sell Searchlight.
Hmm, maybe you're a Searchlight fan. I don't care about Searchlight one iota. Who cares if they sell it?
Start shelving finished projects like Warners.
This is actually a good thing. If a product is garbage, it's better to never let it see the light of day. It's better to take the financial loss than ever ship something mediocre. Disney, Lucasfilm, Marvel, and Pixar should represent excellence every single time. Period.
End the development of original animated IPs like Encanto or Elio or Soul (this would be a priority, since animation, particularly at Disney, is the only genre that has partially escaped the IP focus). Increase the IP focus of the studios even further.
This is what Iger has already said he's doing. This is his strategy. So, you're worried that Peltz is going to follow Iger's strategy?
Block risky IP projects like Andor or Black Panther or Moon Knight or Ms Marvel. Cut film budgets to the bone.
I think we need to accept that the great streaming boom of the late 2010s/early 2020s is over. Experimental and wacky stuff might not get made as much, because the free money is over. A lot of interesting and cool stuff got made over the last decade. And a lot of bizarre garbage was also made. Hollywood is going to be more disciplined moving forward.
One gets the idea that if Iger was accused of sexual harassment, some of his current critics would start defending him very passionately.
This argument I don't respect. I disagree with many of your arguments, but I didn't think a single one of your earlier arguments betrayed a lack of intelligence or character. This comment I do take issue with. You're doing two objectionable things. You are suggesting that fans of Lasseter's work and those who see him as essential to Disney's success are somehow attracted to sexual harassment. This is not only absurd on its face, but it's also just offensive. I've never seen
@Vegas Disney Fan argue that you have a moral defect because of a position you have here.
You're also ignoring the exonerating evidence and investigation that SkyDance conducted. They concluded that there were no further incidents beyond those reported. And while Lasseter showed a lack of professionalism, he owned up to the mistakes and took corrective action. Two reasonable and moral people may feel completely differently about Lasseter's behavior and employment. Look at the controversy surrounding James Gunn. It's an individual decision.
@Vegas Disney Fan (and myself!) can reasonably believe that Lasseter has suffered enough, and that he should not continue to be shunned. The same can be said for your position, which is to play more conservative and continue to socially sanction him. Each one is defensible. I don't think we should view each other as morally deficient because we disagree.
