Eisner Calls Chapek Era 'A Marriage Made in Hell' and Says Disney Parks Are Now Too Expensive

25 days ago in "The Walt Disney Company"

Gallery / 1 Photo
Walt Disney Company headquarters in Burbank, California

Posted: Friday February 13, 2026 10:35am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner hasn't held back in a new interview with Graham Bensinger, criticizing the cost of visiting Disney's theme parks and calling the Bob Chapek era "a marriage made in hell" - while giving his successor Bob Iger high marks for steering the company.

Eisner, who led Disney from 1984 to 2005, sat down with Bensinger for an episode of In Depth with Graham Bensinger, covering everything from his decision not to buy Pixar to his battles with Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Park prices: "I'm not wild about it"

Eisner didn't hold back when the conversation turned to how much it costs to visit Disneyland and Walt Disney World today.

"I'm not wild about the fact that it's so expensive now to go to Disneyland or Walt Disney World," he told Bensinger. "I'm not wild about the fact that it's harder than ever to have everybody be a VIP at a Disney park because they're selling certain things."

The comments echo a philosophy Eisner championed during his own tenure - one rooted in a Walt Disney quote he recently shared publicly: "We love to entertain kings and queens, but the vital thing to remember is this- every guest receives the VIP treatment."

It's not just about the price of getting in. The paid upgrades, Lightning Lane tiers, and premium add-ons that now define a Disney park visit are what appear to trouble him most - a structure where how much you spend determines how good your day is.

Eisner's comments echo concerns that Iger himself acknowledged when he returned as CEO. Returning as CEO in late 2022, he wasted little time criticizing the pricing direction the parks had taken under Chapek. At a quarterly earnings call in February 2023, Iger said: "It is clear that some of our pricing initiatives were alienating to consumers. I have always believed that accessibility is a core value of the Disney brand. We were not perceived to be as accessible or as affordable to many segments as we probably should have been."

Steps followed - lower-priced tickets at Disneyland Resort and the removal of parking fees at Walt Disney World Resort hotels among them. Chapek had consistently argued the opposite, defending price hikes as a sound response to demand.

On Bob Iger and Josh D'Amaro

Eisner praised his successor Bob Iger, noting that he personally recommended him and helped push his appointment through the board.

"I think the company's in great shape. I think Bob has been an excellent CEO," Eisner said. "He was a president under me for a decade. He understands the company."

Eisner also acknowledged he's running the company better than he himself would at this point - though he was clear that some things would be done differently.

When Iger steps down in March 2026 and Josh D'Amaro takes over as CEO, Eisner has already publicly backed the transition, posting congratulations on X and urging D'Amaro to stay true to Disney's creative roots.

Chapek: "A marriage made in hell"

Eisner was considerably less diplomatic about Bob Chapek's short stint as CEO.

"That was a marriage made in hell," Eisner said. "Bob really wasn't ready to leave completely, and Chapek was going to prove that he was the boss - doing stupid things, not necessary things - separating the distribution from the creative."

He stopped short of placing full blame on Chapek, acknowledging the situation was also partly Iger's doing, and said Chapek did good work running home video and the parks division earlier in his career. "He was just the wrong choice. That's all."

Co-CEO: "It doesn't work"

With reports swirling that Disney considered a co-CEO structure to follow Iger, Bensinger pressed Eisner on the idea. His response was direct.

"It is ridiculous. It doesn't work. It is not to run the bakery."

Eisner acknowledged that Netflix operates with a similar structure, but argued Disney is a fundamentally different company. "It's not applicable. And I still think it's a bad idea. I think it would be a really big mistake for Disney."

He drew on his own experience, noting that when he joined Disney in 1984 alongside Frank Wells, the arrangement only worked because Wells voluntarily took the number two role. "Frank said, Michael should be the CEO. It should be run from a creative point of view. I'll be happy to be number two - and it was great."

Eisner added: "Pick the person you think should be the CEO, and hopefully the second person would be number two."

One more thing

Despite the Team Disney headquarters building in Burbank still bearing his name, Eisner revealed he hasn't set foot in it since the day he left in 2005 - and has no plans to change that. "Once you sell your house, you move on," he said.

The full interview is available on the In Depth with Graham Bensinger YouTube channel.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

MerlinTheGoat20 days ago

I think a lot to be honest. There was an extremely sharp and noticeable decline throughout the company immediately following his death. It took a few years to be felt within their theatrical and TV output (because those can take years to produce), but it was very noticeable in the immediate years following this in the way the parks were managed and maintained. It was visible at WDW, but especially so (and well documented) at Disneyland. Which I believe is no coincidence. And it just kept getting worse and worse until well into the late 90s and early 2000s where it finally began to become quite apparent in their movie and TV content. There isn't a whole lot of information about Wells compared to Eisner. Like how he viewed the parks and movies, what sort of creative ideas he wanted to foster etc. It wasn't all that common to see Wells in a ton of park and media promos compared to Eisner, especially by himself. He'd still do dedications and such alongside Eisner of course, but he wasn't often one to put his face into everything like Eisner liked doing. That said, there is a photo of Wells posing by himself behind an early model of Tokyo Disneysea. I interpret this as him probably having some sort of interest in that project, which is interesting. By contrast, it's known that there were different pitches earlier on for a Studios like clone for Tokyo's second park instead, likely pitched by Eisner as he was known to be a fan of those. They ultimately (and thankfully) settled on the Disneysea project instead, which ended up being one of the best theme parks ever created. California got a mediocre Studios clone instead under Eisner's authority due to extreme penny pinching (canceling the Westcot plan), and Paris got an even worse version a year later. Ron Miller on the other hand legitimately deserves FAR more credit than he gets, he inherited a lot of prior messes that weren't at all his fault. And he set into motion most if not all of the successes that Eisner/Wells enjoyed in the 90s. If Ron Miller had stayed on just a few more years for his foundational work to begin bearing fruit, he most likely would not have been ousted and would have gotten the proper credit he deserved. The Disney Channel exists because of Ron Miller, and he was also heavily involved the push for home video releases. The successes of both of these things cannot be overstated. And while the theatrical animated movie studios began their "renaissance" under Eisner and Wells, Miller set up much of that foundation. I do not believe Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Little Mermaid would have happened without Ron Miller's foundational work. Remember that it takes years to produce a movie, and a lot was already set into motion under Miller. The theme parks were also still treated with great respect and care under Miller too, they hadn't yet become a vehicle for endlessly ripping people off with mass price hikes and ever diminishing quality. It was again during Eisner's regime (particularly following Wells' death though there were some warning signs even before that) that the parks began to experience a significant amount of neglect and degradation with corporate beginning to cynically treat them and their guests like trash to be taken advantage of for money. It should also be noted that Miller was heavily trusted by Walt Disney, he trained him for future executive roles in his final years. A lot of people like to create what-if scenarios in their mind for Wells having survived or Eisner being allowed to remain at the company for a few years longer. But in hindsight, I would have liked to have seen a longer Ron Miller term. I think we would have seen much of the same successes as the early Eisner/Wells years, and perhaps less of the bad stuff that ended up happening.

HMF20 days ago

Trust me Iger was not Roy's ideal choice for a successor. Save Disney ultimately failed in its intentions sadly

BasiltheBatLord20 days ago

It's always fascinating how history changes perspectives. I joined my first Disney parks forum in 2004 (WDWTrivia), and I remember clearly that Eisner was not viewed favorably by most of the fan base near the end of his tenure. I think a lot of fans at that time bought into the Save Disney campaign and were desperate for a new CEO.

Splash4eva20 days ago

Always loved Eisner but i guess the real question needs to be. How much of his success was do to Wells?

dlfan131320 days ago

I think Miller's decisions didn't have time enough to see the success that would come before Eisner came in.

Tom P.20 days ago

You know who repeatedly gets forgotten in these CEO discussions? Poor Ron Miller. I'm only half-joking, actually. I know Ron Miller was largely disliked as president and CEO, and had a relatively short tenure, but conversations often seem to jump from Walt to Eisner as if there was no one in between. And I have to give Miller credit for giving us Touchstone Pictures and The Disney Channel, and also for being willing to take a chance on a little experimental film known as Tron.

dlfan131320 days ago

Eisner made some terrible decisions. But he had a passion for what he was doing. He enjoyed it. He also raised the value of the company 4,000% during his tenure, which I'm sure gave him a lot more leeway in terms of what the board and investors would tolerate from him. I was all for his ouster, and maybe it was time for him to move on, but in hindsight, we didn't know how good we had it. The cold reality of the matter is, we're not like (this is correct grammar, Grammarly) to see the likes of him again.

Andrew C20 days ago

I liked his hotel expansion choices.... :)

Tom P.20 days ago

I think Eisner "gets it." If that makes any sense. He made some really good decisions, and some really bad ones too, but at his core, I think he gets it. I don't think Iger ever has "gotten it." It remains to see if D'Amaro "gets it" or not, but it at least looks promising that he might. That's about the best way I can phrase my feeling about them.

Bill in Atlanta20 days ago

Always liked Eisner. Reminded me of a dad you'd see in line at Delta Dreamflight in 1988. I think he was a real one.

DCBaker21 days ago

The full interview has been released:

Splash4eva22 days ago

Scary part about Disney is this. Altho buybacks will always be a part of their future(as with most big companies now) they are not afraid to spend money. Issue is they just dont choose to spend it wisely or projects just end up costing a staggering amount and almost impossible to comprehend the final cost.

Disstevefan122 days ago

I agree, TWDC must act to preserve or increase the stock price. The majority of the stock is held by institutional owners and there are pensions that rely on the stock remaining stable or slowly increasing over time, although I feel sorry for the folks who got in during the Chapek time when it was at $200. Personally, I only care about WDW and whatever we get between now and 2030 will be it for a while no matter what it turns out to be. Now that Josh is CEO, his main focus cannot be on the theme parks; not sure this matters since under Josh we had the destruction of RoA, Muppets 3D and Dinosaur. For Josh and TWDC, my hope is the brand could be rebuilt to the family brand it once was and not one of activist.

AidenRodriguez73122 days ago

Tbh, that's just not how business is really done if you're one of the big boys in the public stock. You are tied to the shareholders in a lot of ways. And fully appeasing fans is very expensive and simply won't get the returns the stocks are used to seeing. If the holders think Disney is being a little too handsy with the money, they pull out and you lose more of it. It's a balancing act. I think Josh does genuinely care. I hear all the time that he's in the parks, talking to guests. I was at Disney when he was announced and numerous guests and cast members were talking about how he was a good choice, they liked him, and he was a humble guy when they met him