'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[CaptainAmerica]

I've long thought executives/white collar workers working from home while theme park workers have to go into work each day is a divide that has to create animosity within a company.

Those two groups of people never interact.

The conflict is between white collar workers and white collar management.

Work from home as an option when someone is feeling under the weather- or if there's extenuating circumstances of some kind. But going to the office should 100% be the norm for most jobs.

Until very recently, there was a labor shortage that made workers very powerful relative to management. If companies wanted talent, particularly in areas like technology, they had to be flexible. But now there's going to be a hiring freeze (and likely layoffs) anyways, so companies don't have to give in to every little worker demand.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Exactly. See above with the mess they created themselves by handling Disney+ releases as they did.

What would you have had them do when theaters were closed and people were masked and/or afraid?

People are mixing pandemic strategy with streaming strategy like they're the same thing. If not for COVID, Disney never would have collapsed their windows and abandoned the multiplexes. That wasn't a Disney+ thing that they're now regretting, it was a COVID thing that they had no choice but to do.

 

[DKampy]

I mean, the running time is three hours and ten minutes long. The last movie I remember with this long of a running times was Reds, and it came with an intermission.

Yeah…I mentioned to my wife that maybe we should wait for Disney pus As it is a bit long…but she Says that is a movie we should see in theaters…so I guess we are going Christmas Day…it has been a tradition to see a movie on Christmas Day for like the last 10 years

 

[erasure fan1]

Disney needs to position itself for the future. They see the writing on the wall that people are not going to theaters in the same way they used to and that the past business model, no matter how successful, is not sustainable in the future.

I don't agree with your assessment of future. A good story was a good story 100yrs ago. A good story will be a good story 100yrs from now. A great story is timeless. That's what Disney needs to get back to, tell great stories. That's the key. Like I said earlier, the theatrical vs streaming is something that Disney needs to figure out. But regardless of the strategy to get it to the consumer, it starts with a great story.

But a film that is a hit across all generations is an increasingly illusive thing.

So they shouldn't try? It wasn't that long ago Disney was doing it. I don't think it's really as hard as you think. Again, it starts with great storytelling.

And there’s TONS of money to be made by going deep with niche audiences,

Oh I agree. There always has been. That's what D+ should be for. Not a movie you spend 150mil plus on. Niche is fine when budgets are modest.

 

[TP2000]

What would you have had them do when theaters were closed and people were masked and/or afraid?

People are mixing pandemic strategy with streaming strategy like they're the same thing. If not for COVID, Disney never would have collapsed their windows and abandoned the multiplexes. That wasn't a Disney+ thing that they're now regretting, it was a COVID thing that they had no choice but to do.

I wouldn't have changed anything about their strategy in 2020. Theaters were closed all over, and Governor Newsom kept Disneyland closed for 13 months. The panic was real, and I don't fault Burbank for it. In 2020.

But then in 2021 things shifted, at least beyond the fashionable parts of LA and NYC. America went back to normal for the most part by late '21, but Burbank didn't pick up on that. Burbank's exit strategy for 2021 and 2022 was really awful. It cemented the bad habits of waiting for Disney+ to watch a bloated-budget tentpole film for practically free.

Again, hindsight is 20/20 so this is all so easy for me as an amateur fan to say now, but I would have...

-Held Luca's opening to the Holiday '21 season and released it in theaters. Like Spiderman.
-Pushed Turning Red's opening back 3 months due to the Luca delay, and released it in theaters Summer '22.
-Lightyear should have been known to be weak artistically, so pushed to an October '22 release and deal with it.
-Same strategy for Strange World, but actually market it to families; McDonald's Happy Meals, Target toy aisles, etc.

And most importantly, I would not send anything branded Pixar or "Walt Disney Animation" (or Lucas or Marvel, for that matter) to Disney+ until at least 60 days after its theater run. 90 days or more if the movie is a legit hit like Wakanda or Dr. Strange. Even if the movie sucks, if it was branded Pixar or Disney it should have cachet and value, not given away for practically nothing. And when those big, tentpole movies from Pixar or Disney or Marvel do show up on Disney+, you have to pay extra to watch them for at least the first few months, maybe a year or more.

Just like Amazon Prime does with their movies. A lot you get for free, but the good/new stuff you pay extra for via your Amazon Prime account.

Only later, after every last cent of actual profit has been wrung out of them, those big budget movies can be streamed on Disney+ "for free!" just like an old 1970's episode of Mickey Mouse Club or Herbie Goes Bananas.

The Covid exit strategy that Burbank and Bob Chapek came up with for 2021-22, or didn't come up with perhaps, has been disastrous for them. It will take time to reel that all back in and reset audience expectations for how and when they can see a film "for free!" that cost $200 Million or more to produce.

 

[TwilightZone]

Just like Amazon Prime does with their movies. A lot you get for free, but the good/new stuff you pay extra for via your Amazon Prime account.

I don't know, I remember a lot of people got mad that "Raya" was a pay movie when it released. Idk if it is still one now, but I guess something about it ticked people off.

 

[TP2000]

I don't know, I remember a lot of people got mad that "Raya" was a pay movie when it released. Idk if it is still one now, but I guess something about it ticked people off.

I think because they'd already sent Pixar's Soul to Disney+ for free, and were rumored to do it for others.

People got trained very quickly that new big budget films would be on Disney+ for only 8 bucks a month. Then Burbank kept doing it. Now they have to figure out how to put that genie back in the bottle and get Americans to buy movie tickets to, you know, a movie. It doesn't have to be a paper ticket at the multiplex, it could be a $25 charge to watch a Marvel movie at home on Saturday night.

The way they are eeking out profits now on these films isn't sustainable. Especially when their film budgets and lavish studio campuses are so incredibly bloated. Lightyear cost $200 Million??? Strange World was $180 Million??? Why?

 

[erasure fan1]

I don't know, I remember a lot of people got mad that "Raya" was a pay movie when it released. Idk if it is still one now, but I guess something about it ticked people off.

I think it was the price that made everyone mad. They were in a lose lose situation. A family of 4 was like, yea that's not too bad. I'd spend more than that going to the theater. But someone wanting to see it alone or with their significant other. It was a tough pill to swallow. They went on the side of charging more, selling less and being called greedy. Rather than the smarter choice of take a bit of a hit and make it the price of a Blu-ray, most likely sell a ton more while not making everyone mad at you.

 

[_caleb]

So they shouldn't try? It wasn't that long ago Disney was doing it. I don't think it's really as hard as you think. Again, it starts with great storytelling.

Yes, great storytelling is key. But do you know how few movies hit it big at the box office? If it were so easy, don’t you think the studios would have figured out how to do it reliably? They knew how to do it when people went to movies all the time and multiple new movies were released every weekend. But as I keep saying, those days are over.

Oh I agree. There always has been. That's what D+ should be for. Not a movie you spend 150mil plus on. Niche is fine when budgets are modest.

Yes, I think Strange World was a huge overspend for Disney. But as I said, I think they’re still trying to figure out how much they need to spend in order to keep people buying/subscribing.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Disney needs to position itself for the future. They see the writing on the wall that people are not going to theaters in the same way they used to and that the past business model, no matter how successful, is not sustainable in the future.

Hence their huge bet on direct-to-consumer. They’re hoping that’s the model that will prevail after the last AMC multiplex closes (which could be sooner than you might think).

That has been true in the past. But a film that is a hit across all generations is an increasingly illusive thing. And there’s TONS of money to be made by going deep with niche audiences, which Disney has been talking about for some time now.

There are four generations in Disney’s audience: Boomers, GenX, Millennials, and Gen Z. They all have members who are old enough to drive themselves to a movie, but all of them are going less than people did in the past.

But they also can’t stay stuck with an audience who is shrinking, changing their spending habits, and literally dying.

What we’re seeing in the production (and box office failure) of Strange World is a misstep as Disney trys to sort out the balance between catering to the base and positioning for the future.

I agree it’s a smart strategy to future proof themselves with streaming but I still don’t think that requires sacrificing box office, Walt embraced TV when the other movie execs were worried it would destroy the industry, he used TV to hype the movies and get people excited to see them and that made the movies even more successful, I think D+ could be a similar situation where it becomes a compliment to theaters rather than a replacement.

As a D+ subscriber I love seeing movies for “free” a couple months after they are released but as a Disney fan I worry it’ll result in fewer movies being made, as a Disney parks superfan I worry the theatrical losses will ultimately lead to huge cuts at the parks to cover the losses.

I love when Disney is successful and making big profits, that means more content and better parks for us. Disney losing money is bad for everyone though, the company, its employees, its fans, Disney doesn’t just sit idly by when they lose money, they make cuts everywhere to offset it. Thats my biggest concern with the current strategy.

 

[_caleb]

I wouldn't have changed anything about their strategy in 2020. Theaters were closed all over, and Governor Newsom kept Disneyland closed for 13 months. The panic was real, and I don't fault Burbank for it. In 2020.

But then in 2021 things shifted, at least beyond the fashionable parts of LA and NYC. America went back to normal for the most part by late '21, but Burbank didn't pick up on that. Burbank's exit strategy for 2021 and 2022 was really awful. It cemented the bad habits of waiting for Disney+ to watch a bloated-budget tentpole film for practically free.

Again, hindsight is 20/20 so this is all so easy for me as an amateur fan to say now, but I would have...

-Held Luca's opening to the Holiday '21 season and released it in theaters. Like Spiderman.
-Pushed Turning Red's opening back 3 months due to the Luca delay, and released it in theaters Summer '22.
-Lightyear should have been known to be weak artistically, so pushed to an October '22 release and deal with it.
-Same strategy for Strange World, but actually market it to families; McDonald's Happy Meals, Target toy aisles, etc.

And most importantly, I would not send anything branded Pixar or "Walt Disney Animation" (or Lucas or Marvel, for that matter) to Disney+ until at least 60 days after its theater run. 90 days or more if the movie is a legit hit like Wakanda or Dr. Strange. Even if the movie sucks, if it was branded Pixar or Disney it should have cachet and value, not given away for practically nothing. And when those big, tentpole movies from Pixar or Disney or Marvel do show up on Disney+, you have to pay extra to watch them for at least the first few months, maybe a year or more.

So, your prescription for the movie industry is “do things the way you did before the internet existed?”

 

[Prince-1]

Well how many laugh reactions have you got today? I’ve gotten quite a few. Haha

I’ll have to count but if it helps I gave you one more for this comment.

 

[TwilightZone]

This budget talk got me curious, so I decided to look up the budgets for dreamworks and illumination films since 2019 (just so its for recent comparison). No sony since they are still new. All from wikipedia, so might not be totally accurate.

The actual quality of these movies are subjective, but theyre all lower budget than Disney's fare and all seem to be making back their budget or getting decent money.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I saw an ad for the film a few months ago in theaters- I think it's the only ad I've seen for it. I do remember thinking 'wow this looks like crap, what has happened to WDA?'

I didn't know it had anything gay until this thread. My boss mentioned it today, and it sounds like the only thing she knew about the film was that it had something gay in it.

So really it seems like marketing for this film just sucked. Disney needs to make animated films that are timeless and financially viable. It's awesome if they made the film thinking 'maybe a gay boy will see this and feel accepted'. And I hope that someone, somewhere did. But unless these films actually make money Disney's going to start hurting.

But I think the first step is firing whoever was in charge of marketing this film.

 

[TwilightZone]

This budget talk got me curious, so I decided to look up the budgets for dreamworks and illumination films since 2019 (just so its for recent comparison). No sony since they are still new. All from wikipedia, so might not be totally accurate.

View attachment 681613
View attachment 681614
The actual quality of these movies are subjective, but theyre all lower budget than Disney's fare and all seem to be making back their budget or getting decent money.

On a side note, its sad these movies are more visually appealing than Lightyear OR Strange World and they all had a smaller budget. Where did the budget to Lightyear and Strange World go? It's certainly not the marketing for the latter.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I saw an ad for the film a few months ago in theaters- I think it's the only ad I've seen for it. I don't remember anything overtly gay about it, I do remember thinking 'wow this looks like crap, what has happened to WDA?'

I didn't know it had anything gay until this thread. My boss mentioned it today, and it sounds like the only thing she knew about the film was that it had something gay in it.

So really it seems like marketing for this film just sucked. Whether or not it's poor box office can be attributed to the gay crush is irrelevant- Disney needs to make animated films that are timeless and financially viable. It's awesome if they made the film thinking 'maybe a gay boy will see this and feel accepted'. And I hope that someone, somewhere did. But unless these films actually make money Disney's going to start hurting.

But I think the first step is firing whoever was in charge of marketing this film.

"Bad marketing" is an excuse. It has the lowest CinemaScore of any Disney movie ever. CinemaScore is an exit survey of people who actually saw the movie. Bad marketing might lead to people skipping the movie, but it didn't cause people that saw it to dislike it.

 

[TP2000]

So, your prescription for the movie industry is “do things the way you did before the internet existed?”

Not really. I love streaming myself! And if it's top quality stuff, I'll gladly pay for it. Per month, or per view.

My prescription for Burbank is...

"Charge a premium for your premium products. Don't give your hard-earned cachet away for free."

At least that's my advice if they want to stay "The finest name in family entertainment" and keep all those LA hipsters on their payroll comfortable and working from home via Zoom with Merlot in their coffee cups.

 

[SuddenStorm]

"Bad marketing" is an excuse. It has the lowest CinemaScore of any Disney movie ever. CinemaScore is an exit survey of people who actually saw the movie. Bad marketing might lead to people skipping the movie, but it didn't cause people that saw it to dislike it.

I mean there are tons of bad movies that are financially viable. The first step is getting people to actually go see the film.

It sounds like it's an average to poor film that was poorly marketed.

I'd say the implication that it bombed due to rampant homophobia across the country is the bigger excuse.

 

[TP2000]

No one even knew this movie existed until a week ago. And a week ago it had to be explained to me via this thread that there was a gay angle to one of the characters in it. Scanning all the media coverage of it, the gay character wasn't even mentioned until after it had opened and bombed, and even then the gay kid gets a passing reference in the media coverage of its historic bomb. No one cared, it was just a movie that America didn't want to see.

Now, that said, it's becoming a talking point in media stories a few days after it already bombed. Will that keep some parents away from allowing their 8 year old to go see it? Likely, some. And that's their perfect right to make that financial and cultural decision as the parents. I respect that immensely. Plus, we need the future tax money that child bearing and future wage earners bring to our society and nation.

But did Strange World's gay character have any real impact on its utter box office failure of historic proportions this past Thanksgiving holiday? Nope! That's like saying people stayed away because they already knew the plot twist ending. They didn't, and they don't.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Not really. I love streaming myself! And if it's top quality stuff, I'll gladly pay for it. Per month, or per view.

My prescription for Burbank is...

"Charge a premium for your premium products. Don't give your hard-earned cachet away for free."

At least that's my advice if they want to stay "The finest name in family entertainment" and keep all those LA hipsters on their payroll comfortable and working from home via Zoom with Merlot in their coffee cups.

View attachment 681618

I wonder- should the old vault titles been pay per view?

It's interesting that at one point Disney practiced forced scarcity and was very careful about protecting the legacy of their beloved animated films. But then a few years ago they said 'nevermind!' and it all went out the window.

There definitely needs to be two tiers of Pixar/WDA films- theatrical budget stuff, and straight to D+ stuff. Let the A team take over the theatrical stuff, and the interns experiment on the streaming platform before proving themselves for the big leagues.

But when their theatrical stuff is Strange World quality getting beat by such modern classics as The Minions: Rise of Gru I guess it doesn't matter.