Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Didn't Kathleen Kennedy go on record saying that she wanted to stay at Lucasfilm to work with the creative folks there? Perhaps she was just being modest and making a political move, but she seems happy to continue doing what she does (and she's very good at it, so it would be a shame to lose her from that role)<<< Maybe TWDC is too big for her, and maybe she wants to stay at Lucasfilm, which would be a good thing, but she comes from the entertainment industry. She is one of the most successful producers ever, worked with the greates talents and Disney could use these talents again to make other movies than Marvel and Star Wars too. I guess Disney is such a big company with so many different divisions that they want to get someone with an economic background. Staggs was perfect. He had that background, worked for so many years at Disney, he was part of all the acquisitions, he knew the company, but still he seemed to be interested in creative things and he had an impact on the parks.
Originally Posted By dagobert What about the Pixar guys, like Catmull or Lasseter? Any chance that one of them is able to handle the world's biggest entertainment company?
Originally Posted By dagobert One last thought: Maybe someone from outside the company would e the best solution. Take a look at the management change in 1984. Maybe it's time again for a management team like Eisner/Wells instead of a one man show.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Apparently this is bad news for DLP, because Staggs was always a proponent for Europe's Disney resort.<< In general, he seemed like a good force for the parks. He's the reason that MK got the Mine Train instead of the additional princess meet & greet experiences. In addition to reaching a wider audience demographic, that represents a huge capacity increase (relative to the other option), which is always welcome in the world's most-visited park I don't think Staggs would have done a bad job as CEO, but I think he would have played it safe. He would probably follow a similar approach to what Iger has done. Although the future is uncertain, I'm hopeful that it will be a positive change, similar to the 1984 shakeup
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>What about the Pixar guys, like Catmull or Lasseter?<< I've gotten the impression that Pixar is a pretty tight group, and none of them would want to risk messing it up. I read Catmull's management book a few months ago, and his general attitude seemed to be "I don't know why this works, but let's keep doing it!" Although he's happy with Pixar, I could see him struggling with a larger group I don't think Lasseter would be a good choice since he's purely from the creative side. The business-related decisions we've seen from him all skew heavily toward the IP that he's created, with little interest for other ideas. He's done some great stuff, but I've always gotten the impression that he doesn't play well with others
Originally Posted By dagobert As I've written in the SDL topic, I feel sorry for him, since it seemed certain that he would succed Iger. Maybe he would have been a good CEO, maybe he would have been a bad one or a safe one like Iger. I don't know, but he seemed like a nice guy, at least I got that impression at the D23 Expos. So now Rasulo, Staggs and Bruce Vaughn are gone. That seems to be a lot of top managers of TWDC leaving the company within a year. I wonder if it has something to do with Iger and if he plans to stay longer.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I agree that he seemed like a nice guy. Of all the current/recently-former Disney execs, he seemed to be one of the few who actually got it. He may not have been the most exciting person in the world, but I think it would be fun to pick his brain about everything
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I don't think Staggs would have done a bad job as CEO, but I think he would have played it safe. He would probably follow a similar approach to what Iger has done." I'd imagine that the board will insist on someone who will follow a similar approach. As long is its working.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Is it working? The parks have had two high-profile multi-billion dollar blunders in recent years (MyMagic+ and Shanghai), the darling of broadcast TV (ESPN) is giving all the investors heartburn, and Disney continues to struggle with how to release its massive library of existing content. I will admit that the studio has been on a roll lately, but it seems just as likely that we could get another year full of John Carters and Lone Rangers as getting more Star Wars and Frozen-style success; remember that lightning rarely strikes the same place twice
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "The parks have had two high-profile multi-billion dollar blunders in recent years (MyMagic+ and Shanghai)." << In what way are either of those blunders?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros MM+ blew its budget, while simultaneously increasing the permanent operations costs, by requiring additional in-park staffing and a huge IT crew to keep the system operational. It was intended to help guests avoid crowds, but has increased wait times across the board, added crowds to paths, and highlighted capacity problems in all 4 parks. And in the meantime, there's nothing to suggest that guest spending has increased in any meaningful way, as was a key reason for implementing it. Iger has publically said that he's disappointed with the result of the program. Seems like a blunder to me Shanghai is harder to tell at this point, since it's not open yet. It hasn't stayed anywhere near budget, and has been a source of endless construction headaches, to the point of bringing in western crews to (re)do the work while still having to pay the Chinese crews to sit around and do nothing. The schedule for the park's opening slipped several times, and it now looks like the park will be substantially unfinished on opening day. The Chinese government appears to be calling all the shots, and there appears to be nearly a billion dollars that vanished into thin air (or the pockets of government officials) without having any bearing on the park. And this is all without Disney being able to have a media network in mainland China, as was one of the original key negotiating terms (and the reason that Eisner backed out of it) Shanghai is clearly tough to prove either way at this point. Part of the park's original mission was to establish a Disney presence in mainland China, to build a fanbase and cut down on blackmarket products. There's still a decent chance that the project will ultimately be successful, but for the moment it seems like it's messy at best
Originally Posted By dagobert Five theories for Staggs' departing. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-shake-up-5-theories-881266">http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...s-881266</a> All sound plausible, but my favourite theory is #1.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros If Staggs lost the board, I doubt it's due to lack of experience. What other potential candidate could possibly be as familiar with so many different aspects of the company? With a company as big and diverse as Disney, no one candidate will know it all before starting The others seem plausible, but the most likely one to me seems to be that they needed a fall guy for Shanghai (and other stuff?). It's the only reason that would explain why it was done so quickly without any warning or rumors. But I'm sure there's still a lot that we dont know
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Is it working?" Obviously. And if it wasn't, Iger would be booted out.
