HairyChest
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
I hope Chapek loves IP's so much, he will throw in Darth Luke Leia Han in galaxies edge including food and merchandise inspired by the classics and prequels.
Not to hijack the thread but this is not true. They can choose to increase(maximize) shareholder value but they are not legally required to do this.We are all friends here, and I respect your opinion, but it seems to me this displays a fundamental lack of understanding at how business works. (Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, which is probably more likely!) The Disney Corporation is a giant multinational corporation governed by a Board of Directors, whose purpose for existing is to increase shareholder value. There is no such thing as a "reasonably profitable business" because shareholders are always looking for maximum return on their investment.
Just sayin'!
I hope Chapek loves IP's so much, he will throw in Darth Luke Leia Han in galaxies edge including food and merchandise inspired by the classics and prequels.
I have no doubt Chapek is very good at what he's done. I don't dislike him nearly as much as some do either. Nobody will top Pressler as the worst park executive. I still have my worries about him with handling major things like the Lucasfilm situation and potentially Marvel.
As a side note and a personal thing, I don't think he is a very good public speaker. I hope he gets better at that over time as he will have to do more of it.
I have Marvel in there because they won't be continuing the huge Avengers arc they did for 10 years. Yes the stories will still be connected but Endgame was such a closure to that. These newer films will do well but likely not on that stage and you don't have those big Avengers tie in films. So Marvel won't be bringing in the money like before. Feige also has some Star Wars work to do too.I worry less about Marvel as long as Kevin Feige's there. Except how every movie between now and Thor 4 will be branded a failure because it probably won't print money hand over fist like endgame, infinity war and black panther or it involves characters we don't know or what have you. Although I think Feige's heavier load will be "fixing" the fox portfolio of characters....
Lucasfilm has made some questionable decisions on the theatrical side (I still wonder if I could get in a time travel machine and convince them to write episodes 7/8/9 at once and film back to back to back). As my friend put it, Mandalorian being so amazing just makes the theatrical releases more disappointing. The franchise does need to be benched from theatrical releases until they figure out what they want from it.
They wanted to make lots and lots of money from it .. from merchandising and new movies/tv-shows/toys, books, comics, etc. .. and it feels like they could have had that with the amazing start Force Awakens had.Lucasfilm has made some questionable decisions on the theatrical side (I still wonder if I could get in a time travel machine and convince them to write episodes 7/8/9 at once and film back to back to back). As my friend put it, Mandalorian being so amazing just makes the theatrical releases more disappointing. The franchise does need to be benched from theatrical releases until they figure out what they want from it.
It is interesting isn't it how well received a roughly 30min show is.As my friend put it, Mandalorian being so amazing just makes the theatrical releases more disappointing.
It is interesting isn't it how well received a roughly 30min show is.
We're on episode 6 right now (just watching it slowly over the days and weeks) but there's something so engaging in it, something that seems to work quite well. Can't quite put my finger on it.
Completely different company today vs 2005. IMO, Chapek has it much easier today than Iger did. Eisner deserves the whole range of opinions. He was really good in the beginning and quite bad at the end.I've been reading through this thread and trying to figure out why Chapek is getting so much hate. Can someone Reader's Digest it for me? Personally, yes, I thought Iger was doing a great job. But then again, there was Eisner, and people defended him to his last day. Let's face it, some of the nonsense he green-lit has scarred several of the parks far more than anything I can imagine Chapek doing. For example;
All Eisner, not to mention dude pulled in unprecedented bonuses. We can't possibly expect similar damage from Chapek...can we?
- Dinoland, DAK
- Peoplemover -> Rocket Rods, DL
- 90% of DCA (Superstar Limo, a "land" devoted to farm equipment, the golden hubcap entrance, all of the "extreme sport" tweaks - you can't make this stuff up!)
I have a C suite spouse, who is also a board member, and concur with your original assessment.
Companies of Disney's magnitude don't blindside Wall St willingly.
With more thought I would add a D- Major health issueThank you!!!! Appreciate your post!
With more thought I would add a D- Major health issue
page-9What were A, B and C?
The one thing you can say about Eisner though is that he took risks, and the risks he took brought it back from the brink. Sure he had some major flops, but during his time we also had a major push of expansion in the parks. I mean 3 Domestic parks during his time and Euro Disney plus a large hand in Hong Kong Disney with Iger. Thats not to mention the acquisition of ABC or ESPN. I do understand each of these parks opened with some of there own issues, but over all he took risks. We need to see if Bob Capek will be a risk taker and innovator or just live off the legacy Iger built. I want to see the company expanding and being innovative to increase profit and dividends to the shareholders and not get stuck in a holding pattern of just cutting cost and small tweaks to maximize the profits streams that are already there. Hopefully we see some risk taking from Capek and not more of the bean counting he has been en charge of rolling out in the parks division.Completely different company today vs 2005. IMO, Chapek has it much easier today than Iger did. Eisner deserves the whole range of opinions. He was really good in the beginning and quite bad at the end.
Not to hijack the thread but this is not true. They can choose to increase(maximize) shareholder value but they are not legally required to do this.
I worry less about Marvel as long as Kevin Feige's there. Except how every movie between now and Thor 4 will be branded a failure because it probably won't print money hand over fist like endgame, infinity war and black panther or it involves characters we don't know or what have you. Although I think Feige's heavier load will be "fixing" the fox portfolio of characters....
Lucasfilm has made some questionable decisions on the theatrical side (I still wonder if I could get in a time travel machine and convince them to write episodes 7/8/9 at once and film back to back to back). As my friend put it, Mandalorian being so amazing just makes the theatrical releases more disappointing. The franchise does need to be benched from theatrical releases until they figure out what they want from it.