News Walt Disney Imagineering makes organizational changes and new creative leads at the theme parks

tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Iger gets praise for spending billions to acquire Fox but would he have needed to buy so much content if he had not shut down Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures? Not sold Miramax (which is obviously more problematic now)? If Walt Disney Pictures had not only focused on tentpoles? Actually revived a means of making the sort of singles and doubles that more easily make a profit and make a streaming service look nice and full.
Click to expand...

That’s a strong point, and I think it goes back to where Eisner had placed the company at the time Iger took over.

On one hand, Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures were needed to diversify Disney’s film division, but they were always square pegs in Mouse-shaped holes, and people within the company were uncomfortable about the content Hollywood Pictures was putting out. Disney’s agreement with Miramax was based more on distribution than anything else, and it was ALWAYS problematic for the Mouse House. There were two films Disney refused to release.

BUT

On the other hand, those divisions enabled Disney to create prestige, award-winning content targeted to adults. Miramax swept the Oscars repeatedly. Touchstone reliably put out inexpensive hits—mostly comedies—between their action movies. Hollywood Pictures created adult-oriented content that could compete with other major studios.

Then everything went haywire around 1997, and Disney animated films became formulaic as theme park budgets were cut and ABC became an albatross. (As you know, ABC brought us Iger too.)

When he took over, Iger shelved those other brands to focus on Disney because it felt like that was the part of the company Eisner had squandered with direct-to-video cheapquels and his “Blue Ocean” strategy for cutting park investments while building DVCs.

Iger was praised for doing so. As long as Lasseter oversaw animation and WDI, things went well. Except for DCA 2.0, the theme park division continued to tread water (and Iger almost sold it) until Uni opened Harry Potter; then Disney started firing on all cylinders until...

...well, until Chapek became head of P&R, Lasseter got canned, and Iger became obsessed with collecting other people’s IP (in no particular order).

And as long as Marvel prints its own money, and Lucasfilm somehow doesn’t self-destruct, and the parks bleed money out of guests, Iger will leave the company as a hero riding high on his Disney+ streaming service (if they ever get it to work).

*shrug*
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
That’s a strong point, and I think it goes back to where Eisner had placed the company at the time Iger took over.
Click to expand...
Where Eisner, Iger and Staggs placed the Company. This, more than anything, is what I think gets completely ignored in evaluating Iger. Like in that episode description, he is portrayed as a hero riding in and that just is not how he came to lead Disney. He was Eisner’s choice, his second for five years before getting his job, five years where he was not known as the guy constantly trying to reign in Michael and stop him from listening to the Strategic Planning Group that Tom Staggs had finally come to lead.
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Where Eisner, Iger and Staggs placed the Company. This, more than anything, is what I think gets completely ignored in evaluating Iger. Like in that episode description, he is portrayed as a hero riding in and that just is not how he came to lead Disney. He was Eisner’s choice, his second for five years before getting his job, five years where he was not known as the guy constantly trying to reign in Michael and stop him from listening to the Strategic Planning Group that Tom Staggs had finally come to lead.
Click to expand...
Thanks to his wife’s experience at the Huffington Post, Iger is in full PR spin mode to create his legacy, and the media is eating it up. He certainly has an expert spin doctor in his corner; they’re not known for objective or factual articles so much as writing to their audience.

He can invent his legacy and claim to have been best friends with a dead Steve Jobs—who was known for creativity, risk-taking, and quality products—and nobody will ever question him.
 
Last edited:
mary2013

mary2013

Active Member
tirian said:
On one hand, Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures were needed to diversify Disney’s film division, but they were always square pegs in Mouse-shaped holes, and people within the company were uncomfortable about the content Hollywood Pictures was putting out. Disney’s agreement with Miramax was based more on distribution than anything else, and it was ALWAYS problematic for the Mouse House. There were two films Disney refused to release.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what 2 films?
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Couple points
  1. Now that we’re 20 plus years out from the ABC/CapCitites deal, who acquired who? To what extent has the ABC part of the merged company subsumed control from the Disney part of the company. Who does the Fox deal make sense to on the Disney side, where fanboys make shallow arguments in favor because of rights issues, or to the ABC side, where they will have a greatly expanded TV business, especially in global markets where the bundle is still strong?
  2. It’s time to really rethink our understanding of Roy E Disney and his role in Disney history. Roy and Stanley Gold were responsible for orchestrating both Michael Milken’s hostile takeover attempt, where Roy E would have bought the studio as the company was split apart, and Comcast’s attempted acquisition. Aside from his contributions on “Fantasia 2000” its aborted sequel (see “Destino”, “One By One”, “Lorenzo” and “The Little Matchgirl”) Roy E’s role in Disney Animation’s resurgence was largely overplayed to make it appear as though he was deeply involved in the department.
 
Last edited:
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
mary2013 said:
Out of curiosity, what 2 films?
Click to expand...
lazyboy97o said:
One was Fahrenheit 9/11 which Eisner said he wouldn’t distribute when he agreed to finance it.
Click to expand...

—and Kids. I’ll let you look that one up yourself. Miramax has been around in one form or another since 1981. Compared to Miramax’s full history, Disney’s distribution deal didn’t last very long, but Disney was lucky enough to have it during the Ghibli contract and Tarantino’s big hits.
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
TrainChasers said:
Disney acquired muppets in 2004, so that would have been Eisner. (Of course Eisner had been trying to get the muppets long before that).
Click to expand...
Ah, you’re right. They made so many acquisitions within a few years that I lost count. Jim Henson tried to sell the Muppets to Disney in the late ‘80s, hence why Muppet Christmas Carol is a Disney release.

My point still stands that the company is wasting the Muppets IP.
 
tirian

tirian

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Couple points
  1. Now that we’re 20 plus years out from the ABC/CapCitites deal, who acquired who? To what extent has the ABC part of the merged company subsumed control from the Disney part of the company. Who does the Fox deal make sense to the Disney side, where fanboys make shallow arguments in favor because of rights issues, or to the ABC side, where they will have a greatly expanded TV business, especially in global markets where the bundle is still strong?
  2. It’s time to really rethink our understanding of Roy E Disney and his role in Disney history. Roy and Stanley Gold were responsible for orchestrating both Michael Milken’s hostile takeover attempt, where Roy E would have bought the studio as the company was split apart, and Comcast’s attempted acquisition. Aside from his contributions on “Fantasia 2000” its aborted sequel (see “Destino”, “One By One”, “Lorenzo” and “The Little Matchgirl”) Roy E’s role in Disney Animation’s resurgence was largely overplayed to make it appear as though he was deeply involved in the department.
Click to expand...
You sure hit the nail on the head.

My favorite line was about the shallow arguments for acquiring Fox. People were coming unglued to bring X-Men into the MCU, because compared to the history of filmmaking and the wealth of the award-winning Fox library, it apparently matters that much. ;)
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
tirian said:
—and Kids. I’ll let you look that one up yourself. Miramax has been around in one form or another since 1981. Compared to Miramax’s full history, Disney’s distribution deal didn’t last very long, but Disney was lucky enough to have it during the Ghibli contract and Tarantino’s big hits.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: Tarantino gets the rights back to his movies after 20+ year. Two of the Disney era Tarantinos, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, will soon revert to him.
Also, this is a plug for “Jackie Brown”, it is probably my favorite Tarantino film.
 
TalkingHead

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
Fun fact: Tarantino gets the rights back to his movies after 20+ year. Two of the Disney era Tarantinos, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, will soon revert to him.
Also, this is a plug for “Jackie Brown”, it is probably my favorite Tarantino film.
Click to expand...

When does that happen? Jackie Brown was 98 and Pulp was 94 — maybe 25 years?
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Rteetz

Rteetz

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
One more thing.

The creative leads on Tokyo DisneySea were laid off, the creative lead of Walt Disney Studios Park is still with the company as a senior executive in WDI.
Click to expand...
In defense of WDSP they didn't throw much of anything at it due to them not really wanting to build the park to begin with. Tom also worked on Epcot. It certainly was a trying or strange time at the company then.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom