DVDizzy Forum

Well, um guess Iger has some interesting high aspirations for 2020....

Disney CEO Bob Iger is reportedly considering a presidential run in 2020
https://www.aol.com/article/finance/201 ... /21865896/

He'd certainly be an improvement, not that that's saying much

Onwards with the plutocracy.

Disney Extends Bob Iger’s Contract To July 2019
http://deadline.com/2017/03/disney-exte ... 202049671/

What? Again!?

He'd better start thinking about that presidential run soon. I'm tired of him and his obsession with franchises.

Jules wrote:What? Again!?

He'd better start thinking about that presidential run soon. I'm tired of him and his obsession with franchises.

I don't know about him being president,but I agree I'm tired of Iger's obsession with franchises. If I was an investor (I'm not), I could maybe see why some would be happy he was staying around. As a long time fan of the classic brand however, I think he sucks. This man took the "Disney"out of Disney! While I didn't care for Eisner either, one thing I felt he at least got right was creating films and shows from within. I am not a fan of Iger's push for buying outside IPs.

My one concern for after Iger leaves however is what will the next guy (or gal) be like? It could get worse!

No Virtual Reality attractions in Disney’s theme park future, says Bob Iger
http://www.insidethemagic.net/2017/03/n ... -bob-iger/

Sorry for bumping this thread, but there were some discussion here which I wanted to quote.

The_Iceflash wrote:Like the shows or not but there was something special and magical about that 2005-2010 Disney Channel era. I look back at that era fondly. The channel is in need of another revamp. In 2010 we saw "Fish Hooks" and "Shake It Up" debut, and "Hannah Montana" and "Suite Life on Deck" end in 2011. 2011 also saw "A.N.T. Farm", "PrankStars", "Jessie" and "Austin & Ally" debut. Add "Good Luck Charlie" and "Dog with a Blog" and this makes up the bulk of the current line up. I find the 2005-2010 line up to be exponentially superior. They struck gold in 2005-2006 and IMO in 2010 it started to loose steam and in those shows' places' they put shows that didn't hold up as well as the shows they were replacing.

Yet the 2001-2005 era is still the period which is perceived (by purists) to be the most credible and superior era. Though of course every generation has their bias, there's no denial that the major public were still neglecting the 2006-2011 era at the expense of the former decade. And that's a fact.

I should be biased to Lizzie McGuire due to having a fondness to it in my late teens (mostly to my interest in Hilary Duff, who personally had much more charisma and star potential than Miley Cyrus, despite the latter having more energy and vivacity). But it's funny how Hannah Montana was so instantly labeled as a Lizzie carbon copy, when they're different genre's. However, Lizzie and Phil of the Future were different genre's than both That's So Raven and The Suite Life, the latter fun and enjoyable in their own right (I did appreciate Phil, but I never went crazy for it.

Personally I did have a fondness for the 2009-2010 shows back then. The overexposure of the DC sitcoms were inescapable. But they were getting to homogeneous after a while, despite that Good Luck Charlie has been the strongest shows of that era and rightfully praised for it.

Plus, IMO, musically they stepped down. At least HSM, Camp Rock, and Hannah Montana had some very catchy music which really wasn't that bad in hindsight. Simple, fun, well-written and performed pop music. I can't ask for more that that for pop music. The Disney Channel music of 2010-today has been very largely been a very heavily electro-pop, auto-tune effects infused soundtrack.

Yeah, but I still don't see the difference. The 2010-era has still some catchy songs and the former songs were still having an electronic vibe to them.

When you see a scene in "Austin and Ally" that is just Austin sitting there on acoustic guitar singing and his voice sounds fake and too heavily processed for a stripped down acoustic set which is supposed to be just his plain voice, something is wrong. When Miley Cyrus was shown on Hannah Montana sitting, strumming a guitar, they were tasteful about it and any processing done was mostly inaudible.

Though this may seem irrelevant, it's funny how you compare Austin & Ally to Hannah, due to how blatantly Austin borrows components, storylines and the same premise from Hannah! Of course the former isn't an exact carbon copy of the latter show (which really became the biggest phenomenon and actually set the peak for Disney Channel franchises and made them noticeable, in both good and bad ways). But the similarities are overt and obvious. It's funny how I've yet seen one person to bring it up, due to the aforementioned reasons.
However, I don't regard the similarity as a bad thing (I did genuinely enjoy Hannah during it's first seasons, after declining in the third season and being more redeemable at it's fourth season, despite neglecting Oliver, the best character on the show). Despite of it's faults, I still thought that Austin & Ally was the best of the post 2010 shows, having more enjoyable characters and even more catchy songs.

DisneyFan09 wrote: Yet the 2001-2005 era is still the period which is perceived (by purists) to be the most credible and superior era. Though of course every generation has their bias, there's no denial that the major public were still neglecting the 2006-2011 era at the expense of the former decade. And that's a fact.

Wait, what? Purists? Who are these purists? Were talking about a time period that ticked off the last Disney family member with any say in the company (Roy E. Disney) to finally go rogue and fight the powers that be with his "Save Disney" campaign. This of course is what lead to Eisner finally stepping down in the first place, so please, tell me who these purists are? Most purists I'm aware of stood by Roy and his campaign. Very early in Iger's reign, it actually looked like classic Disney might make a modern come back. Instead he made it even more corporate than it was before, but let's not forget that the years that lead to his rise were also crap. Honestly, Disney really started going off course in the mid-90's. It's just they had enough going on that was right that it was easy to avoid the cracks in the armor.

Look, to be fair, for me personally that may be the last time period I was proudly a Disney fan and would take those days over today any day of the week. However it was far from perfect and was in many way the very early sign of the dark time we find ourselves in today. Right off the bat that era gave us the death of hand drawn at Disney and the start of the current tween/teen crap at Disney Channel.

It's OK to like or dislike that or any era, but let's be a bit more fair about it in our assessment.

Purists was probably a wrong term, but there's no doubt about that the Disney Channel era of Lizzie McGuire, Phil of the Future and such is labeled as being more credible than the High School Musical and Hannah Montana era. And that's a fact. It's not hard to look it up, since most of the fans from the former era have passionately cited their opinions on boards and YouTube. Of course every generation has their bias and while the High School Musical era was more overexposed (and probably reached more people), it's no secret that the Lizzie era is perceived to be superior.

And yes, of course I understand why you bring the animation department into this discussion, but frankly I find it irrelevant to my statement. I was just discussing the mere fact of which era is labeled to be superior. And though of course animation is and should be Disney's cornerstone, but at least I didn't tap into that discussion.

Bob Iger Tops The Hollywood Reporter’s Most Powerful People
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news-stories/bob ... ul-people/

Disney CEO Bob Iger teases another theme park in a new Chinese city
http://thedisneyblog.com/2017/06/23/dis ... nese-city/

If this is Iger's successor, I'm terrified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Z9Y7V ... u.be&t=663

disneyprincess11 wrote:If this is Iger's successor, I'm terrified

Why? Franchising is a tried and true business strategy and has proven incredibly succussful for Disney in particular over the years. They're not going to abandon it regardless of who succeeds Iger.

Sotiris wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote:If this is Iger's successor, I'm terrified

Why? Franchising is a tried and true business strategy and has proven incredibly succussful for Disney in particular over the years. They're not going to abandon it regardless of who succeeds Iger.

Because the rumors are he is taking away original two classic Opening Day Disney World rides (one Walt himself had a hand in) for the sake of "IP".

https://wdwnt.com/2019/06/rumor-walt-di ... niversary/
https://wdwnt.com/2019/06/rumor-disney- ... niversary/

The Enchanted Tiki Room is a classic and it would be a shame if it was replaced, although it helps that I'm not exactly beholden to Moana. However, I have no love for the Country Bears and I feel like it's the type of attraction that people get up in arms about if there is talk about it being replaced but otherwise no one actually cares for it. I wouldn't mind the Toy Story show or even if they brought back Mickey's Revue. Anyway, the Country Bears attraction always reminds me of those godawful movies.

I recently completely a CP at Disney World and in the year I spent there, the Country Bear Jamboree became my favorite classic attraction. I love the characters, the show, and the songs— I think the Country Bears still hold up as an entertaining and yes, a little weird, offering. Now that I’m home, I don’t listen to the HEA recording, but I do listen to the Jamboree soundtrack from time to time. It’s an unique and important part of Walt Disney World history, and I think it’s a tragedy that it may not live to see it’s 50th Birthday— especially to make room for yet another Toy Story offering.

I am not as fond of The Enchanted Tiki Room as The Country Bears. At least if the Tiki Room were to be replaced, the original would still exist at its home in Disneyland. However, in a pretty unprecedented move, Disney has strongly clapped back against the rumors regarding the Tiki Room. Their rebuttal conveniently leaves room for a Moana overlay that still features the singing birds. Perhaps they will just replace all the songs with the Moana soundtrack and feature Dwayne Johnson in some capacity.

I’m unconfident that either attraction, in their current forms at least, will make it to the 50th anniversary. And that’s a shame. I’ve resigned myself to the idea that I will probably not experience the Bears again before I return to the parks— ironically, I’m planning a trip for the 50th. Not to mention the rumors that a third classic attraction could be on the chopping block. Perhaps the Carousel of Progress...

I wonder if the Country Bear Jamboree's days have been numbered since the early 2000's, when Disney made the unusual decision to close the attraction in Disneyland shortly after the "Country Bears" movie had finished filming.

disneyprincess11 wrote:If this is Iger's successor, I'm terrified

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Z9Y7V ... u.be&t=663

Well, Bob Cheapek has certainly been campaign and sucking up to higher ups and cutting whatever he needs to look better

The official Disney Parks Blog just released a similar statement on the Country Bears, so it appears both attractions are safe at least up to the anniversary. I am incredibly relieved. And unlikely to continue reading WDWNews.