Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Jedijax719]

If D+ did not have it's own studio films, it would have to fill its library by buying or renting films from other studios. Income from D+ subs would have to be used in order to pay those other studios.

If Disney studios did not have their own streaming service, then they would be able to rent or sell their movies to other companies' streamers and get paid.

So...

The rental/sale of the films of Disney studios with the Disney streamer needs to be accounted for. If not, the people who worked on the film wouldn't see residuals due to them. They'd tell Disney "Don't put my film on your streamer for free! Send it to the streamers of other companies so that the film can get more money and we'd get paid more."

It is not unusual at all -- and let me emphasize this to dispel conspiracy theories that feed into people's personal agendas -- It is not unusual at all for a conglomerate to treat their divisions as separate companies and make those divisions have real cash transactions for the services they provide to other divisions so that the accounting shows what divisions are profitable or unprofitable.

There is no trickery here. And for the people who work on the films, it's a matter of compensation and justice.

So does this mean that Disney actually pays MCU, Pixar, and Lucasfilm (etc) for the movies on streaming?

 

[MisterPenguin]

So does this mean that Disney actually pays MCU, Pixar, and Lucasfilm (etc) for the movies on streaming?

Yes. Even if no money moves from one account to another, it's in the accounting tables.

It's like depreciation. No actual money is leaving a bank account, but the net worth of assets 'on the books' has decreased. And the overall worth of a company on the balance sheet has gone down without any money leaving the tills.

It allows a business to see what the 'true cost' or the 'true revenue' of various department are.

Its why some content is being removed from D+ if it's costing them in residuals, but it's not getting the views. Even if their own studios made that content. They can write off the lifetime of that asset which isn't preventing churn because no one's watching it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I keep seeing mention of Disney creating new animation technology as though it’s something that is just a wasted expense. It’s not something that is one and done. Things like RenderMan are even sold to others which means the effort generates revenue outside of a single film’s box office.

 

[Jedijax719]

Yes. Even if no money moves from one account to another, it's in the accounting tables.

It's like depreciation. No actual money is leaving a bank account, but the net worth of assets 'on the books' has decreased. And the overall worth of a company on the balance sheet has gone down without any money leaving the tills.

It allows a business to see what the 'true cost' or the 'true revenue' of various department are.

Its why some content is being removed from D+ if it's costing them in residuals, but it's not getting the views. Even if their own studios made that content. They can write off the lifetime of that asset which isn't preventing churn because no one's watching it.

But then a division like MCU or Lucasfilm can use some (or most) of that money to create more content which could theoretically generate more subscriptions (but probably not all that many at this point) or at LEAST maintain subscriptions. Then either revenue increases a bit or at least stays the same so that money could (I guess) just keep moving around in that circle?

I'm dizzy thinking about this.

 

[MisterPenguin]

But then a division like MCU or Lucasfilm can use some (or most) of that money to create more content which could theoretically generate more subscriptions (but probably not all that many at this point) or at LEAST maintain subscriptions. Then either revenue increases a bit or at least stays the same so that money could (I guess) just keep moving around in that circle?

I'm dizzy thinking about this.

Yes... if the content is popular and actually makes money in the theaters and gets eyeballs watching it on D+. It's just making a profit. And then using profit to make more content to make more profit. It;s what studios do with or without streaming.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But then a division like MCU or Lucasfilm can use some (or most) of that money to create more content which could theoretically generate more subscriptions (but probably not all that many at this point) or at LEAST maintain subscriptions. Then either revenue increases a bit or at least stays the same so that money could (I guess) just keep moving around in that circle?

I'm dizzy thinking about this.

Those different divisions still receive the money. It's not unlike the different meet and greets that pop up around the release of a movie. The reason some movies get them and others don't, or some get more elaborate ones is because they are paid for by the studio out of the film's marketing budget. That's why they will end even when incredibly popular, the funding is gone so it goes too.

 

[TalkingHead]

You’re trying to argue Disney is playing a different game from the other studios, and it simply isn’t. All of the majors (Uni, Paramount, Sony, and WB) rely on a slate of big-budget sfx IP films and, to a lesser extent, animated films and low-budget horror. Look at the release schedule for any of the studios for 2023. The two major exceptions are Oppenheimer and Flower Moon, and those are outliers, just like the rare R-rated comedy No Hard Feelings. Disney also has some outliers like Haunting in Venice and The Creator (again, I’m not including Indy divisions). The game may be changing, but all the studios have been playing the same game, just not as well as Disney - and no one knows what the new game is.

Barbie is IP but not budgeted like it. Both it and Oppenheimer are $100m. When was the last time a Disney release was in that range? The Marvel movies start at $200m.

None of the other studios have gone about welding their streaming series and theatrical features together like Disney has. WB was reportedly doing that with Dune and Batman, but that studio is also the most like Disney in terms of having poor leadership that’s betting the house on franchises that have no clear future.

Disney has shaped the movie landscape over the past decade leading to the diminishment of mid-budget fare. Other studios have more options; Disney has the new guy in Captain America 4 or whatever.

 

[TP2000]

I don't understand the streaming losses. If 150 million subscribe and pay an average of $7/month, that's over $12 billion a year. What is the overhead operating cost of maintaining the streaming service, especially considering they own all the rights to what they put on D+ ?

I've read a few articles about how much money it costs in electricity and water to keep the giant data centers humming around the world where all the movies are digitally stored. It's a big story up in rural Oregon, where corporate data centers have been built there to use the cheap energy rates there but also suck down millions of gallons of water to keep them cool, angering the local farmers and ranchers who need that water too.

That has to add to the need to host your own streaming service, keeping all those energy sucking data centers going ready to stream The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes to Americans at their casual convenience.

In other news, the overseas box office from last weekend has been updated for all countries today, except for perennial slowpokes Turkey and Romania. Mermaid '23 has finally crested $500 million in box office, but seems to be flatling fast now. Will it make it to the most-optimistic target we'd talked about earlier of $570 Million to break even? I don't know that it's going to make it to $570.

 

[Disney Irish]

I've read a few articles about how much money it costs in electricity and water to keep the giant data centers humming around the world where all the movies are digitally stored. It's a big story up in rural Oregon, where corporate data centers have been built there to use the cheap energy rates there but also suck down millions of gallons of water to keep them cool, angering the local farmers and ranchers who need that water too.

That has to add to the need to host your own streaming service, keeping all those energy sucking data centers going ready to stream The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes to Americans at their casual convenience.

In other news, the overseas box office from last weekend has been updated for all countries today, except for perennial slowpokes Turkey and Romania. Mermaid '23 has finally crested $500 million in box office, but seems to be flatling fast now. Will it make it to the best-estimate target we'd talked about earlier of $570 Million to break even? I don't know that it's going to make it to $570.

View attachment 726953

Disney doesn't run their own data center for Disney+, they use Amazon's AWS Cloud for the service just like most other streaming platforms like Netflix.

 

[TP2000]

Disney doesn't run their own data center for Disney+, they use Amazon's AWS Cloud for the service just like most other streaming platforms like Netflix.

And Amazon gives Disney that service for free? Or did Iger convince Andy Jassy to throw that in with his annual Prime membership?

 

[Disney Irish]

And Amazon gives Disney that service for free?

There is a cost for sure, and while the terms are not publicly known we do know its not a huge expense given that the operating income for DTC keeps going down. So Amazon is likely giving Disney a sweet deal on rack space.

 

[Casper Gutman]

From ‘Mario’ to ‘The Flash’: The Good, the Bad and the Meh of the 2023 Box Office (So Far)

It was supposed to usher in a great revival of movie-going, but as 2023 approaches its mid-point, the year has hosted more near-misses and outright disasters than genuine blockbusters. Not that the…

variety.com

So to bring this back on topic a bit, if TLM has Flounder-ed, it’s done so oversea and particularly in China. Now, I’m not ready to say this is due to Bailey’s casting - the Chinese box office has turned on American films in general. But let’s hypothesize the casting played a significant role - do posters want China to get a veto over the content of American media? Because a lot of the folks glorying in TLM’s failure are the same who lambast Disney for making itself hostage to an authoritarian regime with its parks (a point on which I largely agree). Is catering to authoritarian regimes good now?

 

[LittleBuford]

Same argument is being made about Mermaid. Happily, such urging didn't work in either case.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mermaid and would recommend it to others on that basis alone, not for any ideological reasons.

Millions of people have seen the film, so it certainly isn’t short of viewers.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Well, the good news is, this thread is back on track

 

[Disney Irish]

.....this company needs to figure something out. Can we all at least agree on that?!

Disney is a company that has survived for a 100 years, and can likely survive for a 100 more. So I'm pretty sure that any perceived issue is short term and is already being "figured out".

 

[Trauma]

People are still discussing this flop?

We have another major tent pole disaster coming this weekend!

Exciting times!

 

[Disney Irish]

Investors don’t want to hear about “survival”…they want to make money.

I am an investor, and first and foremost in order to make me more money the company has to continue to survive.

Second, the majority of the investment community isn't concerned about x, y, or z pictures not performing well. Its looking at the overall health of the company, and currently D+ profitability, both of which are fine long term.

Lastly, Investors long term aren't concerned about the culture war issues as those are short lived and honestly Disney is on the right side of them.

 

[Jedijax719]

You haven’t been paying attention to the woke storyline and the horrendous box office results that are about to come to fruition?

Please explain how the storyline is woke. Is it because there is a female?

 

[ElvisMickey]

“I’m only concerned about the money which is why I keep lying about it.”

Who’s lying besides the apologists?

How much money has Disney creative lost? Avatar doesn’t count. They had zero input into the creation. Back your comments up…

 

[Farerb]

Disney is a company that has survived for a 100 years, and can likely survive for a 100 more. So I'm pretty sure that any perceived issue is short term and is already being "figured out".

Disney might survive. I'm not so sure about Pixar though.