Tom Staggs promoted to COO

[Brian G.]

Variety reports he becomes the #2, and likely successor to Iger as CEO.

http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/di...ositioning-him-as-igers-successor-1201423601/

 

[JungleSkip]

Disappointing, but not surprising.

It will be a continuation of the Iger methods then. The question is will they work when there's nothing left to buy?

 

[Mad Dog]

Better than Next Gen Jay R. though. At least Staggs seems to have an interest in the parks. And he did become involved in changing the original New Fantasyland plans when he said it was too princess centric and added the Mine Train while cancelling some of the little girl stuff. So that showed he has a feel for P&R. And he does show his face in the parks, unlike Iger & Jay R. Would rather have someone who loves the parks like Matt Oumit(Cedar point now) to come in as a P&R oriented CEO , but that's unlikely. But Iger's retirement is still a bit in the future. They still could bring an outsider in for CEO, but I would think the next two years are Staggs opportunity to make or break.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

Disappointing, but not surprising.

It will be a continuation of the Iger methods then. The question is will they work when there's nothing left to buy?

Are you saying Iger's M.O. of acquiring outside franchises and bringing them into the Disney fold is a bad thing?

 

[JungleSkip]

Better than Next Gen Jay R. though. At least Staggs seems to have an interest in the parks. And he did become involved in changing the original New Fantasyland plans when he said it was too princess centric and added the Mine Train while cancelling some of the little girl stuff. So that showed he has a feel for P&R. And he does show his face in the parks, unlike Iger & Jay R. Would rather have someone who loves the parks like Matt Oumit(Cedar point now) to come in as a P&R oriented CEO , but that's unlikely. But Iger's retirement is still a bit in the future. They still could bring an outsider in for CEO, but I would think the next two years are Staggs opportunity to make or break.

Staggs's interest in the parks isn't much more than the other two's, and lets not act like he wasn't just as behind Next Gen as the others. As for the Mine Train, yea, he changed it. But that's also because the original Fantasyland plan was nearly as reviled with the casual fanbase as it was the hardcores.

The guy is an Iger yes man. It's going to be the same old, same old if he gets the top job.

EDIT: With that being said, I'd love to see him surprise me and change course.

Are you saying Iger's M.O. of acquiring outside franchises and bringing them into the Disney fold is a bad thing?

Yes, quite honestly. It transforms Disney from a creative company to an IP holdings company. Marvel and Star Wars will be extremely profitable for a number of years, but what happens when they aren't? It's not easy to fire up the creative juices to make new areas of profit when they start to peter out. Hell, we've seen that from Disney in the past decades with bungles like TRON: Legacy, Lone Ranger, and John Carter. From a Wall Street perspective, Iger is gold, and he will leave gold. But Wall Street is always looking for increases. I'm not sure the next person can do what Iger did.

There are only so many Marvels and Star Wars's out there. Once that well is dry, they're gonna have to scramble, and I don't know if they can recover from that.

 

[Nick]

Tron: Legacy Basically made it's money back, including advertising, but that's it. Not an excessive failure, but not a win for the company either. John Carter was a Terrible Misfire and The Lone Ranger was as well, but if it wasn't for a massive budget and advertising campaign, it would have done fairly well.

They need to learn how to make these movies on smaller budgets and most wouldn't be considered failures at all.

 

[UniversalCityFL]

Yes, quite honestly. It transforms Disney from a creative company to an IP holdings company. Marvel and Star Wars will be extremely profitable for a number of years, but what happens when they aren't? It's not easy to fire up the creative juices to make new areas of profit when they start to peter out. Hell, we've seen that from Disney in the past decades with bungles like TRON: Legacy, Lone Ranger, and John Carter. From a Wall Street perspective, Iger is gold, and he will leave gold. But Wall Street is always looking for increases. I'm not sure the next person can do what Iger did.

There are only so many Marvels and Star Wars's out there. Once that well is dry, they're gonna have to scramble, and I don't know if they can recover from that.

Yes, I get what you're saying, but a couple points:

--Disney has always relied on outside creative for success. I mean, the company was built upon outside IP, everything from Snow White to Pinocchio to Tom Sawyer Island to modern-day Tower of Terror. The company isn't really as creative as most people think.

--I don't think the "You did great, but now how are you going to top that?" is a valid argument. The counterpoint is resting on your laurels and being left in the dust which, who knows, could have happened if they didn't start their IP acquisition spree with Pixar.

--I personally think that if another brand, like Marvel or Star Wars, feels right brand-wise, then buying it is a good idea.

But again, I totally get what you are saying as well. It would be nice to churn out some original ideas instead of just being a house of IPs.

 

[JungleSkip]

Counter points:

--Disney has always relied on outside creative for success. I mean, the company was built upon outside IP, everything from Snow White to Pinocchio to Tom Sawyer Island to modern-day Tower of Terror. The company isn't really as creative as most people think..

Technically true, but all of these examples were made their own by Disney. The Disney versions of the fairytales are vastly different from their origins, to the point where you can question whether they're even the same stories.

And whether the source material was "original" or not, the company pushed their mediums other ways. Snow White was the first full length cartoon. Disneyland was the first theme park. Mickey was the first cartoon to talk. Disney World. Epcot. Etc.

--I don't think the "You did great, but now how are you going to top that?" is a valid argument.

I mean, that's Wall Street's mantra though, not my expectations. Every year has to be bigger and better than the last or you're a failure. I'd much rather Disney become smaller and focus on innovation and creativity, but Wall Street's demands don't allow that.

--I personally think that if another brand, like Marvel or Star Wars, feels right brand-wise, then buying it is a good idea. .

I'm of the opinion that more, competing companies is always for the best. Sure, it makes sense for Disney. But it stifles creativity, competition, and potential.

Also, I don't think Marvel is a good fit at all to be contained under the Disney banner, but I'm much more of a Marvel fan than I am a Disney one.

But again, I totally get what you are saying as well. It would be nice to churn out some original ideas instead of just being a house of IPs.

The IP thing makes financial sense until it doesn't. I don't see it happening any time soon, but I think as long as Disney leans on acquisitions while dropping the ball creatively they're always a few bombs away from becoming a company in turmoil. Not saying it's going to happen, but I'd become a fan of theirs again if they got their creative juices flowing to match the IP race

 

[UniversalCityFL]

^ All good points and very true.

I'm really curious to see how the opening of Shanghai goes, being that it's Iger's last hurrah.