Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Disstevefan1]

Then why does Bob, either Iger or Chapek and now Iger again, keep having to say on earning's calls every three months that Disney+ lost such-and-such hundreds of millions of dollars the past three months, but that eventually Disney+ will turn a profit?

Disney+ hasn't delivered any profit yet to The Walt Disney Company, so how can Disney+ also be subsidizing traditional box office failures?

LOSSES SHRINKING YaY!!!!!! GIVE BOB A BONUS!!!!!!!

 

[Disstevefan1]

Or finish Disneyland's Tomorrowland entrance or even the Treehouse.

OR FINISH WHATEVER THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IN EPCOT!!

 

[Phroobar]

OR FINISH WHATEVER THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IN EPCOT!!

How hard is it to put a simple splash pad in? Not like they are going to turn it on anyway.

 

[MisterPenguin]

As for the the D+ money, assuming that as a revenue stream for the film, though not wrong, is certainly misleading. Disney+ can pay $100m and that goes 100% for the film, so it makes it profitable. In that train of thought, they could just pay $2 billion and call it the most profitable remake in history. Does not change the fact there is no money being made.

I know you know, but I want to get the semantics airtight for those who are confused...

So, a small correction: There is indeed revenue from D+ for TLM. It's real and not just on paper or in an accounting spreadsheet.

D+ gets revenue. Real revenue in dollars from subscriptions. If D+ didn't have Disney attached to it, it would have to pay other studios for their content. And it pays that user fee for content it airs from the subscription revenue. Money coming in to D+ pays for TLM to be on D+.

If TLM were to go to Netflix. Netflix would pay Disney for TLM from its subscription revenue. Which is exactly what D+ is doing in order to show TLM. Otherwise, how would one characterize the sub revenue for D+? "It just happens?" Revenue coming into D+ is spent on content. Sometimes to other production companies for content (O Hai! Bluey!) and sometimes to its own Disney studios.

TLM will most definitely not make a profit in the theatrical window. If that is the measure of "a flop", then, it flopped.

But TLM will have other pay windows: digital download, DVD bluray, and then D+, which is taking in money so that it can pay to have TLM on its streamer to entice people to remain subscribed.

It's likely that TLM will, in the post-theatrical window, in all these Pay-2, Pay-3, and so on in all these 'windows' of opportunity will finally break even and not have been a net loss for TWDC. TLM will not be responsible for bankrupting TWDC.

Now, could D+ say it paid WDS $2B dollars for TLM and proclaim it to be one of the most profitable movies ever? Technically... yes. But everyone would know that's a lie. And, in fact, I've never seen Disney comment on how profitable or not any of their movies have been in the post-theatrical window. It's just not a thing that they care to promote.

E.g. Disney will put out a PR statement about how one of their movies had a record-breaking first weekend. But it doesn't put out PR statements about how much money a movie made once it left theaters.

So, there's no incentive (and, in fact, disincentive) to play those games.

Post-theatrical profit or loss is only a thing right now because people who want Disney to fail (or just the remakes to fail) will proclaim that a loss in the theatrical window is... DOOM!!! They forget that for TWDC, the post-theatrical window can reverse the fortunes of "a flop."

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

They can lose $73 million BUT THEY CAN'T RUN THE TRAMS IN EPCOT.

The unfortunate reality is it’s all connected.

Movies losing money and D+ losing money does affect the parks, those losses have to be made up where they’re making a profit, that often means the parks.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The unfortunate reality is it’s all connected.

Movies losing money and D+ losing money does affect the parks, those losses have to be made up where they’re making a profit, that often means the parks.

Totally agree. The failing movie business sucks money from parks and ships, then the movie business loses money, that money is gone.

 

[TP2000]

It was just explained to you.

And explained to you in other threads, too.

So when you say you can't understand it, it's because you refuse to.

No, I get it now. It's a classic accounting trick. But it doesn't mean the Company actually made money on Mermaid at the box office.

Disney is getting regular cash flow from Disney+ subscribers. So they move some of that cash, to the tune of $100 Million for a film like Mermaid, from one division to another.

And yet both divisions are losing lots of money now. Disney+ lost $600 Million in the last three months, while Mermaid lost $70 Million at the box office. But when Disney+ moves $100 Million over to one of the studios to internally "pay" for Mermaid on Disney+, suddenly Mermaid will have made $30 Million. Yay, Mermaid finally made money?

This is great. Can we get Disney+ to "pay" the Parks division $100 Million to fix the Yeti and make a new night parade?

 

[TP2000]

The unfortunate reality is it’s all connected.

Movies losing money and D+ losing money does affect the parks, those losses have to be made up where they’re making a profit, that often means the parks.

Thank you. I thought I had gone insane for a moment.

If company has two divisions that both are losing money on their products, but one division with cash flow pays the other division $100 Million for their product, that still means both company divisions are losing money on their products.

 

[Disstevefan1]

When Disney pays itself when it puts its own content on D+ is so fake and stupid.

If D+ did not exist and Disney sold right to put even a loser like TLM to Netflix, they really are lessening the loss.

 

[MisterPenguin]

No, I get it now. It's a classic accounting trick.

No, you don't get it if you think it's a trick.

Movies that made a profit in the theatrical window get even more money for their studios when their product winds up on D+.

It's not hiding anything.

Don't you think that Disney would use that accounting trick to make D+ look better by transferring the theatrical profits from Guardians Vol 3 to D+?

 

[TP2000]

No, you don't get it if you think it's a trick.

One money-losing Company division is paying another money-losing Company division for their own Company product, using the free cash flow that is coming in monthly from subscribers.

The end result is that the parent Company is still losing money on their products. A lot of money.

 

[Disstevefan1]

No, you don't get it if you think it's a trick.

Movies that made a profit in the theatrical window get even more money for their studios when their product winds up on D+.

It's not hiding anything.

Don't you think that Disney would use that accounting trick to make D+ look better by transferring the theatrical profits from Guardians Vol 3 to D+?

It's so stupid to move fake money around inside an organization.

It's much better to sell something to someone external to the company and bring real money in from the outside.

All this is so stupid.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It's so stupid to move fake money around inside an organization.

It's much better to sell something to someone external to the company and bring real money in from the outside.

All this is so stupid.

The money is real, not fake.

Giving an allowance to one's children does not make the household's overall finances 'fake' even tho there is still the same amount of cash in the house.

The parent has less money, the child has more. There is no deception going on or just numbers in a spreadsheet... yet...

If the parent instead of giving an allowance as cash, gave it in the form of topping off a debit card, then there's no cash moving around and it's all on a spreadsheet... and yet it's just as real and not fake as to who has what money and who can spend it.

Otherwise, the money you have in the bank and then wire to your mortgage holder or landlord is just "fake!" Because it's not actual cash exchanging hands. Stop paying your mortgage or rent and just claim it's all just fake and see where that gets you. If they protest, just point out that the country's wealth doesn't change when you wire them money, and thus, it's just fake money.

 

[Casper Gutman]

When you don’t understand something, it’s not because the thing you don’t understand is stupid.

If D+ wasn’t paying to show Disney films and TV shows, it would be making a lot more money, very likely turning a profit. But that would be misleading.

When a Universal film decides to shoot on the Universal lot, that film is billed for the facilities it uses. It’s part of its budget. This is not surprising or exceptional.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The money is real, not fake.

Giving an allowance to one's children does not make the household's overall finances 'fake' even tho there is still the same amount of cash in the house.

The parent has less money, the child has more. There is no deception going on or just numbers in a spreadsheet... yet...

If the parent instead of giving an allowance as cash, gave it in the form of topping off a debit card, then there's no cash moving around and it's all on a spreadsheet... and yet it's just as real and not fake as to who has what money and who can spend it.

Otherwise, the money you have in the bank and then wire to your mortgage holder or landlord is just "fake!" Because it's not actual cash exchanging hands. Stop paying your mortgage or rent and just claim it's all just fake and see where that gets you. If they protest, just point out that the country's wealth doesn't change when you wire them money, and thus, it's just fake money.

The money is real; it's just not coming in from the OUTSIDE.
It's like moving a $20 bill from my right pocket to my left pocket. I still only have $20
If my friend gives me a $20, NOW I have $40

We can agree to disagree on this one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The money is real; it's just not coming in from the OUTSIDE.
It's like moving a $20 bill from my right pocket to my left pocket. I still only have $20
If my friend gives me a $20, NOW I have $40

We can agree to disagree on this one.

No, you can’t agree to disagree with facts. The money is coming from the outside, it is coming from Disney+ subscribers.

 

[Disstevefan1]

No, you can’t agree to disagree with facts. The money is coming from the outside, it is coming from Disney+ subscribers.

Money that comes in from D+ subs is money that is coming in from the outside yes.

Fact is D+ is losing money every quarter, so more money is leaving then is coming in.

Fact is most of the recent movies they will put on D+ cost more to make and market then they made at the box office.

Folks sign up for D+ for many different reasons.

And Disney is free to rationalize a given person subscribed to D+ because Disney added TLM to D+

 

[MisterPenguin]

The money is real; it's just not coming in from the OUTSIDE.

It is indeed coming from the outside: Box Office receipts and subscription fees.

After D+ "buys" the movie from one of the studios, the fees that have come in and continue to come in from monthly subs pays for the movie to be on D+.

When a Disney movie comes to D+, no one watches it 'for free.' You're continually paying for that content library to be there.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Money that comes in from D+ subs is money that is coming in from the outside yes.

Fact is D+ is losing money every quarter, so more money is leaving then is coming in.

Fact is most of the recent movies they will put on D+ cost more to make and market then they made at the box office.

Folks sign up for D+ for many different reasons.

And Disney is free to rationalize a given person subscribed to D+ because Disney added TLM to D+

And if D+ was making a monthly profit?

Same accounting mechanics takes place.

There is no subterfuge here.

The accounting show D+ is taking a monthly loss... for now. But money is still coming in from subs and going out paying for content, even their own Disney studios' content. As well as other studios' content, like Bluey.

If D+ wasn't paying Pixar to make a loss eventually break even, it would be Netflix doing so.

Yes, D+ is in the red. Disney told everybody it would be in the red for its first five years. No one is playing tricks about this.

It's heading to be in the black. And when it's in the black it will keep 'buying' Disney studios' content.

 

[doctornick]

Fact is D+ is losing money every quarter, so more money is leaving then is coming in.

Right. And most of that “money leaving D+” is because they are paying for content… in many cases paying other divisions of Disney. If Disney didn’t do the proper accounting for payments between divisions then D+ would already be “profitable” as a service. The reason it still losing money is because it is actually responsible for paying for its content.