Eric Smith
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2017
- Messages
- 2,086
It's not Walt vs Chapek. There have been a few other CEOs in the interim. You can't argue with the results.I'm not going to debate Walt versus Chapek. You are entitled to your opinion.
It's not Walt vs Chapek. There have been a few other CEOs in the interim. You can't argue with the results.I'm not going to debate Walt versus Chapek. You are entitled to your opinion.
Can we stop with the political slant for at least a day?I fear if Walt is alive today that the modern press would Vilify him. He was a conservative and in this hyper PC environment his views and actions would be not be received well. Heck, it was only a couple of years ago Meryl Streep took some real unsavory potshots on Walt's legacy (you can google it).
The Disneyland passholders that crowded the parks were primarily local. Unless they are willing to move to Central Florida, they would not have anywhere near the same impact at WDW. Non-local passholders' impact would be similar to WDW day ticket purchasers, IMHO, which are freely available now.There are a ton of Disneyland passholders though. Even a small percentage of them would have an impact.
Those other CEOs are no longer in charge, either.It's not Walt vs Chapek. There have been a few other CEOs in the interim. You can't argue with the results.
I understand that they operate as two separate units, however they have a shared history, destiny and public image. Also, largely shared IP.
And, yes, Walt has nothing to do with it. He's dead. And what a pity, because he was the heart and soul of the business. Which has been sorely lacking in both since his untimely demise. We need leaders like Walt. Now more than ever.
*Sigh* having ridden WDW's version of POTC, I concede your point.Walt died 5 years before WDW even opened. If you think there’s been no heart and soul since he died, why do you even want an AP at all?
*Sigh* having ridden WDW's version of POTC, I concede your point.
No political slant intended, just stating an opinion. Did not say if I agreed or not. Historically speaking, one of the biggest problems I have with all politicians and pundits is we take historical figures out of the context of their day.Can we stop with the political slant for at least a day?
Anyway, the original point of my post was not whether the parks (or the company) is declining by degrees. Sometimes, it seems that way, but it is capable of creative brilliance, too, and I hope that will continue.I am much more concerned about the impacts of the retirements/departures of legacy imagineers like Joe Rohde and Kevin Rafferty than wondering what Walt would think about things right now.
You said Walt was the "heart and soul of the business" which has declined since his passing. That's patently false.Those other CEOs are no longer in charge, either.
It's not Walt vs Chapek. There have been a few other CEOs in the interim. You can't argue with the results.
I would say that, in my opinion, the company's "heart and soul" has declined. Admittedly, this is highly subjective, and depends on what one does and does not value about a company and it's moral, as opposed to financial, compass.You said Walt was the "heart and soul of the business" which has declined since his passing. That's patently false.
That's what OP saidwell, Walt was never CEO ....
Walt crushed a union strike and made it so that the girl who voiced Snow White never found work again. I like Walt and I think he did good things, but there's a lot of romanticizing going on here.I would say that, in my opinion, the company's "heart and soul" has declined. Admittedly, this is highly subjective, and depends on what one does and does not value about a company and it's moral, as opposed to financial, compass.
But, the fact is, we simply cannot know how Walt, or anyone else would have handled this absolutely unprecedented pandemic. I can romanticize past leaders, but they were also a product of their times and context, so it is just conjecture and fantasy to imagine that they could have done anything differently, let alone better.
He was a product of his times, for good and bad.Walt crushed a union strike and made it so that the girl who voiced Snow White never found work again. I like Walt and I think he did good things, but there's a lot of romanticizing going on here.
The point is that they have done as much as Walt did for the company, if not individually at least collectively. Pile on top of Eisner and Iger, Jobs, Feige and Lucas, and Disney's most passionate supporters are going to eventually have to come to grips with the fact that the company that bears Walt's and Roy's name is much more a product of what it has become than what it was when Walt died. People trying to claim that it should all be about Walt sometimes flippantly say that if it isn't going to be exact as they personally think Walt would want it to be then it shouldn't be called the Disney Company anymore. Perhaps they're correct. "Industrial Light and Magic" would probably be a better corporate name.Those other CEOs are no longer in charge, either.
OK, I concede that all of those folks, collectively, and given the foundation, time, vast resources and etc. at their disposal, accomplished a lot with the park/parks they inherited.The point is that they have done as much as Walt did for the company, if not individually at least collectively. Pile on top of Eisner and Iger, Jobs, Feige and Lucas, and Disney's most passionate supporters are going to eventually have to come to grips with the fact that the company that bears Walt's and Roy's name is much more a product of what it has become than what it was when Walt died. People trying to claim that it should all be about Walt sometimes flippantly say that if it isn't going to be exact as they personally think Walt would want it to be then it shouldn't be called the Disney Company anymore. Perhaps they're correct. "Industrial Light and Magic" would probably be a better corporate name.