So, who has led since Eisner....and do we like him/her?

[rutgers1]

I started the original Eisner thread (very interesting, thanks for the feedback!). Now I am wondering who has been running the show since he left and if the die-hards here are happy with that leadership.

So, here are the questions:
1) Who is leading?
2) Are you happy?
3) What is the direction that you see the parks going, and how does that differ from where they have been in the past? Better? Worse? Predictions?!?!?!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jheigl]

As far as I know it is Bob Iger, and I am happy with him, but don't get too much involved in the politics of who runs Disney and how...it kinda detracts from the magic..at least for me.

 

[DC7800]

So, here are the questions:
1) Who is leading?
2) Are you happy?
3) What is the direction that you see the parks going, and how does that differ from where they have been in the past? Better? Worse? Predictions?!?

1. Bob "Caveman" Iger - you know, the guy who actually thought making a TV show out of those stupid Geico commercials was a good idea.

2. I'm happy to enjoy elements of what Disney once was, such as what's left of Epcot Center before they dumbed down most of the Future World attractions. As for the present and future of Disney, I'm remarkably pessimistic.

3. The parks, the company, the whole of Disney seems to be circling the drain, so to speak, at least compared to what it once was. There is no comparison to the past; I'm sure Iger sees no need to reference "the dead guy" (or his legacy) any more than Eisner did.

 

[Condorman]

Bob Iger received the position of Disney CEO because he was all business, and groomed during the final days of Eisner to take over. There is nothing creative about Iger's decisions or his abilities - he is all dollars and sense, and will keep his title as long as the company sees positive growth.

That said, he is the best possible person to helm a multimedia conglomerate, but the worst possible person to helm Disney. One of the first things Iger did was buy Pixar and put Disney into an $8 billion dollar hole. Yes, I love Pixar films, but they need to remain films, not attractions in every theme park with promised sequels every other year. Iger made the heads of Pixar the heads of various Disney departments and thus the dumbing "Pixaring" down of the company has begun. In ten years, you will not recognize Disney anymore. It will most likely have sold off its theme parks, as well as various divisions, and will merely receive royalties from licensing.

Say what you will about Eisner's final decisions in his waning years - for the first half of his tenure he made the company what it needed to be. He was dismissed with good reason, but I respect the better half of his legacy. Iger has done nothing to impress me so far. I hope his shareholders are happy. I don't think most of his customers are, and if they are, I don't think they will be. But then again, I'm speaking for myself.

 

[DancingBear]

Condorman, you're all wrong about Pixar (except perhaps that they're becoming overrepresented in the parks). Eisner is the one that put Disney in the position that it HAD to buy Pixar to maintain any credibility in the core business of animated features. As Iger put it, he was watching a Disney parade and realized that Disney itself hadn't developed a memorable character in a decade--it was all Pixar.

Pixar had become more Disney than Disney. Lasseter is fond of saying that "quality is a great business plan." Living that philosophy is what has given Pixar an amazing run of success. We can only hope that more "Pixaring" of the company occurs. It's certainly not Pixar that has been dumbing down Disney.

 

[minnie61650]

Condorman, you're all wrong about Pixar (except perhaps that they're becoming overrepresented in the parks). Eisner is the one that put Disney in the position that it HAD to buy Pixar to maintain any credibility in the core business of animated features. As Iger put it, he was watching a Disney parade and realized that Disney itself hadn't developed a memorable character in a decade--it was all Pixar.

Pixar had become more Disney than Disney. Lasseter is fond of saying that "quality is a great business plan." Living that philosophy is what has given Pixar an amazing run of success. We can only hope that more "Pixaring" of the company occurs. It's certainly not Pixar that has been dumbing down Disney.

Well said.

 

[Condorman]

Iger did NOT have to buy Pixar and made a devastatingly poor decision in doing so. Disney was doing, let's say "pretty well" with such little films as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. Then they stopped altogether when Pixar came along. I don't see any theatrical shows based upon Pixar films, but I do see all of them based on their traditional animation. There was no reason why Iger couldn't have gone back to what made Disney famous in the late 80s. Eisner's decision was to let go of Pixar, realizing they were not worth the money or the headache on the executive board. Iger's decision was to abandon traditional Disney animation and dump $8 billion on a company whose entire roster has made half - that's right - half the total dollar amount of the traditional animated films Disney made prior.

I love Pixar as much as anyone. I think they can do no wrong. But they weren't worth $8 billion - a bill Disney will be paying off for the next ten years. I've heard Lasseter say he will bring back traditional Disney animation. That was years ago, with plenty of time to churn out the promise. What are we waiting for? The Princess and the Frog? Uh, no. Live up to the promise.

Bad decision by Iger. But hey, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'd just hate to work at Disney, knowing we'd given up on ourselves and outsourced our very own heartbeat.

I do recall the story of Iger watching a Disney parade and saying he saw nothing indicative of Disney's talents from the past ten years. It was then that he decided to join Team Pixar. What he should have done was march right into Disney Animation and flick on the light switch.

 

[mitros]

1. Bob "Caveman" Iger - you know, the guy who actually thought making a TV show out of those stupid Geico commercials was a good idea.

2. I'm happy to enjoy elements of what Disney once was, such as what's left of Epcot Center before they dumbed down most of the Future World attractions. As for the present and future of Disney, I'm remarkably pessimistic.

3. The parks, the company, the whole of Disney seems to be circling the drain, so to speak, at least compared to what it once was. There is no comparison to the past; I'm sure Iger sees no need to reference "the dead guy" (or his legacy) any more than Eisner did.

Excellent comments, my friend........

 

[deej696]

Is Bob Iger Michael Eisner? No.

But does anyone remember why Eisner came about to begin with? The company was utterly stuck in the mud and was the target of raiders on Wall St. The company had failed to evolve for 20 years, because they were stuck in the past, and were living in the shadow of a ghost. The best way for a company to fail, is to fail to evolve to the needs of their customers. When things change at WDW people scream bloody murder, and the argument is usually "Its not the Disney way."

I am not a big fan of Iger's license craze, but it is how the company is evolving and I have adjusted accordingly. People want to criticize Iger for being a dollars and sense guy, but I dont really know of another way to judge the success of a company. Theme parks has driven Disney's growth for years, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Is the service as good as it used to be? No. Do I like finding "non-Disney" brands on property? No. But this is the direction the company is going, and until my stock price starts to go down as a result, I'm not going to fault them.

 

[mitros]

Is Bob Iger Michael Eisner? No.

But does anyone remember why Eisner came about to begin with? The company was utterly stuck in the mud and was the target of raiders on Wall St. The company had failed to evolve for 20 years, because they were stuck in the past, and were living in the shadow of a ghost. The best way for a company to fail, is to fail to evolve to the needs of their customers. When things change at WDW people scream bloody murder, and the argument is usually "Its not the Disney way."

I am not a big fan of Iger's license craze, but it is how the company is evolving and I have adjusted accordingly. People want to criticize Iger for being a dollars and sense guy, but I dont really know of another way to judge the success of a company. Theme parks has driven Disney's growth for years, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Is the service as good as it used to be? No. Do I like finding "non-Disney" brands on property? No. But this is the direction the company is going, and until my stock price starts to go down as a result, I'm not going to fault them.

OK, so your last line says it all...as long as your Disney stock is in an upward motion, you don't care what happens at the parks.

 

[~Kik-Kik~]

Park wise, I'm not too sure. At this very moment in time I am not too happy, but with what Lasseter has said about the future of the parks and the rumored coming attractions in Shanghai Disneyland I would be happy.

Right now they are putting all their time, money and energy in WDW in Pixar and things like resorts, DTD, ect... They aren't putting enough focus on the Disney aspect of Walt DISNEY World. At this point I just with they opened a 5th gate and shoved all the Pixar rides in there because they are taking away the magical feel the parks had and they just keep popping up!

I don't mind Pixar in the parks if it's done right, but they are just whoring (selling them selves, couldn't think of a better word, sorry) Pixar to sell merchandise.
-TSM in DCA fits in flawlessly, PP is theamed to Midway games.
-A Bugs Life in the tree of ife fits.
-If Tomorrowland got WALLE, great! I think it would fit in great.
-Woody, Jessie and Bullseye in Westernland in Shanghai Disneyland is great.
-Nemo's Subs is an amazing way to bring a dead attraction from the grave too.
-Buzz in Tomorrowland, which in theory could be pushing it too far, fits in tomorrowland amazingly!
It's Monsters in Tomorrowland, Nemo in the future of the Seas, Toy Story and Monsters in a backlot, Race Cars on a basic road in Tomorrowland and a Nemo Musical in AK that get me upset. In the later why no use the stage for an actual Disney musical about the Jungle and it's animals (The Jungle Book)? I say if it fits in like it was there for years, give it the ride. If you are grasping for ideas just to put something in, dont bother or MAKE it's own place in a park where it would fit. I personally think TSM should have gone in Frontierland and a Nemo ride in an expansion to Fantasyland (if a Little Mermaid ride was included in the expansion). But whatever, they see money, and though we all see what could be they dont.

On to what I do like, Lasseter has said that in the future rides and attractions will be built in time for that movie's release. This to me is a HUGE step forward in so many ways. If the movie flops or just does ok, but the ride is amazing for instance this could make them take risks like the did with Haunted Mansion, Small World, Jungle Cruise and Pirates. I believe this would start with Rapunzel, which comes out in 2012. And on the other side, it the ride flops(ala The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh at DLC) at least they took that step forward and took a risk, hopefully they will devlop on the huge ammount of land right behind Fantasyland and extend the whole land with The Little Mermaid Dark Ride, Repunzel's Tower and whatever else will fit in well.

I see the parks going into more and more Pixar, untill Disney proves that it can in fact make relevant movies with The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel (the later imo will be like Aladdin, romantic, but funny). Then I think Disney will get back on the REAL Disney train, and stop with the whoring of Pixar. I would love to see Pixar get it's own park in WDW in the future. Wether DHS is converted into DPS, or it's the 5th gate it will be a great addition.

 

[ChrisFL]

Iger did NOT have to buy Pixar and made a devastatingly poor decision in doing so. Disney was doing, let's say "pretty well" with such little films as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. Then they stopped altogether when Pixar came along. I don't see any theatrical shows based upon Pixar films, but I do see all of them based on their traditional animation. There was no reason why Iger couldn't have gone back to what made Disney famous in the late 80s. Eisner's decision was to let go of Pixar, realizing they were not worth the money or the headache on the executive board. Iger's decision was to abandon traditional Disney animation and dump $8 billion on a company whose entire roster has made half - that's right - half the total dollar amount of the traditional animated films Disney made prior.

I love Pixar as much as anyone. I think they can do no wrong. But they weren't worth $8 billion - a bill Disney will be paying off for the next ten years. I've heard Lasseter say he will bring back traditional Disney animation. That was years ago, with plenty of time to churn out the promise. What are we waiting for? The Princess and the Frog? Uh, no. Live up to the promise.

Bad decision by Iger. But hey, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'd just hate to work at Disney, knowing we'd given up on ourselves and outsourced our very own heartbeat.

I do recall the story of Iger watching a Disney parade and saying he saw nothing indicative of Disney's talents from the past ten years. It was then that he decided to join Team Pixar. What he should have done was march right into Disney Animation and flick on the light switch.

Finding Nemo has a theatrical show (if that's what you're referring to) and Disney didn't stop making traditional animation, they stopped making GOOD traditional animation. And until The Princess and the Frog comes out, who knows how good it will be.

Sure Iger could have turned away Pixar and then been in competition with them and Dreamworks and Fox animation every year but that doesn't sound like the best idea to me. Pixar has become a big name in a short time.

 

[DisneyFanatic1072]

My 2 cents on the topic.

I feel that Disney has lost some of it's traditional magic for 2 reasons, one is cost. I think the cost of exceptional service has skyrocketed in the past 10 years, the economy is to blame for the most part. With the "family" being broken up more and more 2 earner incomes, the kids that make up most of Disney's staff have become lazier and lazier, yet want more and more money for doing less work. Disney confronts this with a high turnover rate for employees, which costs more money... and the cycle continues. Also i think Disney doesn't need the WOW factor as much anymore as people look to a vacation as a get-away from work, and not so much taking time with the family anymore.

Secondly,
We are arriving at a age when people do not remember anything at all about Walt Disney, or his early works in movies and T.V. The whole "It started with a mouse" era is starting to fade. I am in my mid 30's and can barley remember Disney on T.V. as for the generations that follow me, there is not much to spark a memory or anything out there to get kids to do some history on a amazing man and his dreams.

I personally am trying to keep Walt's dream alive for my kids, but everyday that dream get's a bit more disolved.

 

[DancingBear]

Disney was doing, let's say "pretty well" with such little films as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. Then they stopped altogether when Pixar came along.

As said above, they didn't stop making films, they stopped making good ones, and they killed the feature animation department with stupid decisions.

I don't see any theatrical shows based upon Pixar films, but I do see all of them based on their traditional animation.

So what?

There was no reason why Iger couldn't have gone back to what made Disney famous in the late 80s.

Yeah, no reason except that Eisner had shut down facilities, outsourced, driven away talent, allowed Pixar to become the mecca for animation creativity, and chased Katzenberg away to create a second credible alternative. Disney was THE place for animation talent to go, and they chased it away (including Lasseter).

Eisner's decision was to let go of Pixar, realizing they were not worth the money or the headache on the executive board.

Too bad he was making that decision at the same time he was decimating Disney's feature animation and helping build Pixar.

Iger's decision was to abandon traditional Disney animation and dump $8 billion on a company whose entire roster has made half - that's right - half the total dollar amount of the traditional animated films Disney made prior.

That's a meaningless statistic. In any event, it's not the $8 billion that's ruining the company.

I love Pixar as much as anyone. I think they can do no wrong. But they weren't worth $8 billion - a bill Disney will be paying off for the next ten years. I've heard Lasseter say he will bring back traditional Disney animation. That was years ago, with plenty of time to churn out the promise. What are we waiting for? The Princess and the Frog? Uh, no. Live up to the promise.

I'm waiting also. But given the sorry state that Disney was in, the competition for talent that Disney is in (and Eisner allowed to develop), and the lead time for creating an animated feature (how long have they been working on Rapunzel?), I wouldn't yet say he's had "plenty of time."

 

[deej696]

OK, so your last line says it all...as long as your Disney stock is in an upward motion, you don't care what happens at the parks.

Its not that I dont care what happens, its that what other way is there to determine success? Disney is a company, one that is required by shareholders to make a profit. How else are we to guage success? Can you put a number on "How 'Disney' the parks feel these days," because I cant. And I dont think in Igers contract it says, "We reserve the right to fire you if you arent Disney enough."

My point was that anytime there is change people throw up there hands and say "Thats it! WDW is going to pot and I'm not going back." There is another thread about this and I used the examples of MGM, Pleasure Island, and the huge expansion into hotels. Back then I'm sure people said Disney was losing its way. That MGM was a copy of Universal. That no one would want to go to a night club at Disney. That Disney didnt need more hotels. All those decisions turned out to be good ones.

So again I say, until people stop going to the parks and my share price is effected as a result, then I'll just flow with the winds of change. Even if I am not a huge fan of them myself.....

 

[rantnnravin]

Sure, there are profits- but you have to ask why.
For the most part, it's because the "sharp-pencil guys" have been whittling away at the product quality over the past several years. Will crowds still be willing to pay Disney prices for six flags amenities? That is where they are headed.
and as for the Pixar thing- DB put it better than I ever could. Eisner decimated the animation department- the core of the company. All of the quality animators were fired/driven away. The current Disney cannot [read: will not] afford to win them back from other studios. Eisner lost Pixar not because he didn't feel they weren't worth the money. He lost them because his own over-inflated ego could not contend with the creative genius (and similarly - but justifiably - inflated ego) of Steve Jobs.
When all is said and done, Disney as we know it will become no more than the facades we see at DHS- and when was the last time you spent a substantial amount of time and money on the "Streets of America"?
Then there will be nothing left pare down to show a profit - except the pieces. You know- like when a clothing store goes out of business and sells the racks?
Iger doesn't understand that sometimes you need to shrug off the sharp-pencil guys and create the quality product the right way. You know, like "spending a million dollars on a castle-spire you don't need, then in the end realizing that you needed it all along"? People will be far more willing to pay first class prices for first class experience.

 

[DancingBear]

My point was that anytime there is change people throw up there hands and say "Thats it! WDW is going to pot and I'm not going back." There is another thread about this and I used the examples of MGM, Pleasure Island, and the huge expansion into hotels. Back then I'm sure people said Disney was losing its way. That MGM was a copy of Universal. That no one would want to go to a night club at Disney. That Disney didnt need more hotels. All those decisions turned out to be good ones.

Really? You sure about that?

The Studio is the messiest park on the property--the fact that it was rushed out really shows. There is no logic to the layout. Three of the big attractions at its opening were the backlot tour, which is a shadow its former self, the Great Movie Ride, which was never updated and now never draws a line, and the Animation studios, which really died when they fired all of the actual animators. Disney never put enough actual production at the Studios to make the connection meaningful. A major attraction right off of the hub has been empty for a long time, and thanks largely to Eisner's ego clashing with George Lucas we've never gotten an update to Star Tours.

Pleasure Island is a memory.

The second half of Pop Century is rotting away. Eisner's attempt at upscale hotelry was such a failure that they've effectively sold off a big chunk of Walt's land to Four Seasons.

 

[DancingBear]

Its not that I dont care what happens, its that what other way is there to determine success? Disney is a company, one that is required by shareholders to make a profit. How else are we to guage success? Can you put a number on "How 'Disney' the parks feel these days," because I cant. And I dont think in Igers contract it says, "We reserve the right to fire you if you arent Disney enough."....So again I say, until people stop going to the parks and my share price is effected as a result, then I'll just flow with the winds of change. Even if I am not a huge fan of them myself.....

What I'd be worrying about as a stockholder is that what Eisner largely did was to exploit all of the "magic" created by the "true Disney" and then destroy the elements of the Company that created that magic (feature animation and Imagineering). The marketing campaigns seek to evoke the sentimental emotional connection folks have with Disney from their childhoods, but they're undermining the elements of the Company that created that connection. A-V can say this much better than I, but the "magic" didn't just happen, it was the creation of people. And management hasn't valued that.

I don't think Iger really gets it, but he showed a glimpse of understanding the long-term problem for the Company in his moment watching the parade and realizing that Disney hadn't created a memorable character in a decade.

The issue is not with any individual decision, but with the whole Philosophy. For example, merchandise has become standard throughout the parks, and between the sections of the parks. I'm sure this makes perfect sense in terms of lowering costs, and they're all slapping themselves on the back for the profits. What they don't realize, however, is that the original merchandising scheme, where the shops carried out the themes of where they were located, was part of an overall Show, and contributed to the "magic". At some point, long term you pay a price for that.

 

[deej696]

All valid points, but I still stand by mine. The Disney of my generation is not the Disney of my parents, and my children's Disney will not be the same as mine. Many could argue that the expansion of the 80's was a change in Philosophy, and I think we turned out ok. Clearly WDW is no less popular today than it was in the early days when the "Philosophy" you speak of was intact.

What defines the "True Disney" is up to the guest in my opinion, and they are flocking in by the millions.

 

[mitros]

All valid points, but I still stand by mine. The Disney of my generation is not the Disney of my parents, and my children's Disney will not be the same as mine. Many could argue that the expansion of the 80's was a change in Philosophy, and I think we turned out ok. Clearly WDW is no less popular today than it was in the early days when the "Philosophy" you speak of was intact.

What defines the "True Disney" is up to the guest in my opinion, and they are flocking in by the millions.

And I also must state that a goodly number of those millions have been "dumbed down" by the "dumbing down" of the resorts and parks by the Corporation.
Of course, I would not include anyone here on disboards to be a part of those "dumbed down" millions.............................. {To quote Rodney Danderfield in Caddyshack,: What, do you get a bowl of soup with that hat?, Oh, but it looks good on you though"