Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
If you’re convinced a government entity has “retaliated for speech” successfully but use the opportunity to poke at a “flawed executive” he targeted, your priorities are disastrously out of whack.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Maybe, though I struggle to identify an original franchise starter from this decade from any other company that would overtake Encanto? Not to undersell Barbie or Mario, but those are Mattel and Nintendo deposits on long running IP.
I don't want to overcall Elemental quite yet either, but that's probably currently seated second this decade across the entire industry.
WoundedDreamer
Well-Known Member
But the point of this thread is not to lament a Governors decision. It's to judge Iger's work as CEO of the Walt Disney Company. There's a time and a season for all things. Teasing Iger for abandoning the ideals he claimed to believe in, shows he's impulsive. If you're going to take a stand, take the stand until they carry you out of Burbank. But he didn't. Once he was no longer as confident in the victory outcome, he ended up cowering.
But I understand if you feel differently. It's up to you.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
In general, the only folks making original properties over the last 12 or so years are animation studios and, in particular, Disney and Pixar. The usual suspects who claim they want innovation ignore this, of course, and are now cheering on a guy who wants to stop it.
JD80
Well-Known Member
Not this decade but within a decade: Moana, Inside Out, Zootopia, Coco. If you want to go back 10 years and 5 months it gets you Frozen.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
I think you’ve got a point. This is a Hollywood problem more than a specifically Disney problem.
But other studios have figured out ways to reinvent their core franchises, admittedly with mixed success. Top Gun at Paramount. Todd Phillips’ Joker (and Barbie even if it wasn’t a core franchise) at Warners. Universal got the first-look deal with The Daniels. Cruise and Chalamet have deals with Warners now. Where’s the big SW announcement of a stand-alone title with big names? Instead they keep barreling down the path of SW content getting the serialized Marvel treatment. Where’s the on-ramp for this stuff to attract a new audience who hasn’t been following for fifteen years? It’s mind-boggling.
Disney’s kinda botched so many projects that might have ended up feeling fresh and might have pointed a way forward for live action, and instead they’re doing Tron 3 with Leto? This is why they’re getting side eyed.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Oh, I meant all companies as well. Despicable Me/Minions being the biggest 2010's non-Disney success that immediately comes to mind
Yes that's true. Though Disney circa 2019 wasn't really in a positional need to re-invent their franchises like the other studios. In hindsight they needed to, but the mantra was definitely being on top was driving more of the same.
Maybe Star Wars had the only overt red flags up at the time - but Mandalorian was an undeniably successful pivot. Incidentally Grogu was Star War's strongest marketing success story in a long time.
It is an industry problem and exceedingly unfortunate the market and fan reception has taken it out on animation. Pixar had an incredible run of originality just now and WDAS cannot be denied its exceptionally long bench of franchises, even if its historical run leads to dry spells and uneven periods. I'm disheartened people feel that animation needs to pivot, because we are pivoting away from originality.
Now Disney live action on the other hand... Even company champions like @MisterPenguin has been critical of that arm for a decade now. It sucks that Animation is being dragged down with it.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
It is a Hollywood issue, and until 2023 Disney was the unquestioned King of franchises.
Disney's Avatar 2 is more recent and more successful then Top Gun... so odd people forget that.
Joker is 100% based on audience familiarity with the property. Absurdly, it dodges superhero hate and garners praise for being an auteurist film... even though the relevant auteur didn't even direct the film.
Warners is signing big stars because they're selling the studio and don't intend to pay them - it's an effort to attract suitors.
And if you're upset about Star Wars being serialized, you're 44 years late.
The last successful non-IP non-horror live action franchise launch was John Wick in 2014. Before that was Avatar in 2009 and F&F in 2001. I'm not sure there have been many others in the 21st century.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Key point. They hit max success just before the bottom dropped out of the industry with 2020, so there was no thought of Plan B, and since then streaming has virtually necessitated Plans C, D, and E.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
Part of the problem Hollywood has going forward is today many don't have the attachment to IP like in years past. Especially the younger generation, most watch YouTube, TikTok for their media fix
Ad hominem.
Brian
Well-Known Member
You're wrongly assuming bad faith when in reality, I'm merely trying to assess just how confident @Casper Gutman is in the company, since he speaks so highly of its board nominees and the content and products it has put out in the last few years.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
I'll own this one, I actually very luckily bought around the bottoming out. Not that I strongly believe or even recommend individual stock owning over a whole market strategy, I really felt strongly about the metrics of the company (I clearly follow too much) being mis-judged in the Fall and the future potential of the company this year with a streaming pivot. Unlike others, I think the current trajectory isn't a misdirect or temporary false read. I also am on record as saying the Q4 profitability read seems inaccurate and it should be sooner... though I'll admit if it was profitable this current quarter - I'm surprised Iger hasn't dropped that bomb yet to help with the proxy fight.
My receipt:
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
I explained why I don’t own Disney stock.
I’ve never spoken highly of Disney board members or Iger. They’ve made a lot of mistakes. They have been bad for the parks (they could easily have been worse). I’ve spent years on these boards making that clear. Ask Penguin - I’ve argued with him often enough. I stay at Universal when I go to Orlando.
That doesn’t mean I want to make things much worse by empowering a bunch of twisted, vengeful old men whose stated plans for the company and past track record indicate they would be disastrous for the entire company. I don’t and never have wanted to burn Disney down to teach it a lesson.
As for Disney studios - yes, I do think highly of the box office leader for seven years straight, the producer of the most successful film franchise in history, pretty much the only Hollywood studio creating fresh (animated) IPs. Any honest person with a passing knowledge of Hollywood history would be impressed. They had a bad 2023 (they finished second) during the biggest upheaval in the entertainment industry since the Paramount decrees.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
And speaking of upheaval, Disney is rapidly on pace to be the only Big 7 Hollywood Studio to actually not be gobbled up by another entity.
This is a major point of success for a company that has only really been run by Eisner and Iger through this entire era. It's a bit funny for anyone to cast doubt that Disney has underperformed its peers. The company has outlived its peers... apparently it has new peers?
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
Of course, no one can agree who those “new peers” are.
As a fan of old Hollywood, it makes me a bit sad - but yes, Disney is really the last studio standing, even if they weren’t one of the eight great studios of the golden era. From that perspective, Disney’s continued ability to not just survive but to thrive is miraculous.
RKO, UA, MGM, and Fox are gone. Paramount’s going to be sold. It will probably be dismembered first. Warner Bros. will likely be bankrupt in two years if they aren’t sold first. Columbia is a tiny little afterthought at Sony. Universal is thriving, but it’s still just a chunk of a conglomerate.
Of course, vultures like Peltz look at this history and just see it as proof of Disney’s unrealized potential, an invitation to chop Disney up and sell it for bits. After all, If it’s good enough for every other great, storied studio, it’s good enough for Disney. It’ll yield a few quick bucks.
And some angry folks here are eager to help.
Shouldn't Disney get credit for also being Fox?
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
New York City Retirement Systems Back Disney Board In Bitter Proxy Fight
The New York City Retirement Systems are in Disney's corner in the company's bitter proxy fight with activist investor Nelson Peltz.
deadline.com
New Yorkers stick together ( Iger / NYCRS ).New York City Retirement Systems Back Disney Board In Bitter Proxy Fight
The New York City Retirement Systems are in Disney's corner in the company's bitter proxy fight with activist investor Nelson Peltz.