A Spirited Perfect Ten

[MrTomHamilton]

I think the larger issue is that Disney has become just a BRAND in a giant stable of BRANDS (Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Lucas, ABC, ESPN etc.) They are all sort of mashed together into this giant IP stable that while impressive isn't all complementary. But when I see die cast cars at my Disney outlet store of Lightning McQueen as Luke Skywalker and Fillmore as Yoda, I'm so very convinced that JK Rowling is even smarter and savvier than her billions would suggest.

Wholeheartedly agree. I've been somewhat dumbfounded over the last few years of media acquisitions when people seem to automatically be able to just turn a switch in their heads and be instant fans of Marvel and Lucasfilm just because they are now "Disney." I was a fan of both Marvel and Lucasfilm IPs before the acquisitions, but I didn't turn into some superfan just because Disney bought them. Just because momma buys the crunchy and the creamy, it doesn't mean you have to be a slave to both.

What scares me these days is that Disney is putting so much of their media/film/TV attention to these peripheral "brands" instead of the heart of the company. As a result, Disney is getting lost in Disney. I mean, it's pretty sad that Turner Classic Movies has to show classic Disney programming because none of Disney's channels will.

 

[Lord_Vader]

Case in point would be Spider-Man. Sony is able to now able to stall and have to be negotiated with over bring Spider-Man to the Marvel Cinematic Universe because Disney traded the time limits on the rights for the merchandise rights to Sony's films. Marvel Studios is stuck having to negotiate, instead of being able to pressure Sony to just give up because people are done with their films, because Disney was far more interested in selling Andrew Garfield action figures.

I try to stay out of these but I digress... Merchandising rights are much more lucrative than the movies in general and feed into your revenue stream over the long-term for mature franchises. Not an apologist but this is/was a no brainer for revenue generation and means Spiderman toys can be marketed right next to and with Avengers toys. Toys sales generate roughly three times the revenue in the case of SW, making the decision made by Disney leadership a very smart one over the long term and makes the revenue generation from all Spiderman movies much lower for Sony as they get nothing from toy sales.

Take a look at SW net worth as an example:

Total Net Worth: $27,000,000,000
Toy Sales: $12,000,000,000
Box Office Sales: $4,277,000,000
DVD Sales: $3,775,000,000
Video Games: $2,900,000,000
Other: $3,124,000,000

http://www.statisticbrain.com/star-wars-total-franchise-revenue/

 

[doctornick]

Which is evidence for the whole point of Disney fans who suddenly became Marvel fans at the end of 2009. They're not interested in any of the Sony produced Spider-Man films, despite Spider-Man being a popular and commercial success that helped to resurrect Marvel and start them on the path towards the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

That's a pretty bold and difficult to prove statement. All of the Spider-man films -- even the clunker ASM 2 which undershot expectations -- had decent Box Office takes. Who's to say that many of these "Disney fans" do not indeed watch/enjoy/follow Spider-Man in the movies?

I think some people here tend to use a few extreme cases on the internet and make unsubstantiated generalizations to wider groups. I suspect there are precious few people who only care about "Disney" products and nothing else or who will start to like something simply because "Disney" now owns them.

YMMV.

 

[DisDan]

Forget giving autographs. I doubt anyone would want Iger's autograph in the first place.

I doubt most people in the park would even know who Bob Iger is and most who do would probably not really recognize him anyhow.

 

[DisDan]

Since Iger became CEO, Disney has spent over $40 billion on stock buybacks. (Just think what one-tenth of that could do for WDW. )

Buybacks do not generate revenue or profit. They inflate stock price but otherwise are like stuffing cash in a mattress.

Excluding 2009, the year of the Marvel purchase, Iger has averaged $4.9 billion in stock buybacks annually.

The Marvel purchase cost Disney $4.6 billion. Stock buyback that year were $138 million. (That's $2.5 billion less than Iger's next lowest year.)

$4.6 billion + $138 million = pretty darn close to Disney's average annual stock buyback.

In 2009, some administrative genius no doubt figured that it was smarter to actually invest in something rather than stuff more cash in the mattress.

@ParentsOf4 I want to get my facts straight when I talk with friends and family who think Disney is being run so great and can do no wrong.

So, under Iger, Disney has spent $40 Bil on Stock Buybacks right? In that same tenure how much total $$$ has been invested in P&R and specifically at WDW?

 

[drew81]

I doubt most people in the park would even know who Bob Iger is and most who do would probably not really recognize him anyhow.

His security detail would tell you differently. You should see the security at a Shareholder meeting.

 

[twebber55]

That's a pretty bold and difficult to prove statement. All of the Spider-man films -- even the clunker ASM 2 which undershot expectations -- had decent Box Office takes. Who's to say that many of these "Disney fans" do not indeed watch/enjoy/follow Spider-Man in the movies?

I think some people here tend to use a few extreme cases on the internet and make unsubstantiated generalizations to wider groups. I suspect there are precious few people who only care about "Disney" products and nothing else or who will start to like something simply because "Disney" now owns them.

YMMV.

I agree
I actually think you see a similar demographic of people who like marvel/star wars etc
and there is zero ways to quantify who became fans after the acquisition

 

[George]

Licensing deals are not ownership. If Fox does not keep making movies they lose the rights. Sony was smart and traded their merchandise rights in exchange for being able to take their time on the films.

Correct. I licensed Fish Police for 8 million. I'm making 8 movies. I think that Val Kilmer as Inspector Gill will resurrect his career. I am going to let Disney sell t shirts.

 

[DisDan]

His security detail would tell you differently. You should see the security at a Shareholder meeting.

Well yea, but I was referring to the hypothetical situation where he wanders around the park on his own without the security detail.

 

[George]

Forget giving autographs. I doubt anyone would want Iger's autograph in the first place.

I would slip a brass totem that was shaped like this -

into has hand and say, "This will show you the way" as he finished signing my autograph. So, I would make use of the autograph session.

 

[tigger1968]

Well yea, but I was referring to the hypothetical situation where he wanders around the park on his own without the security detail.

I assume the hypothetical part of this would be that he was in the park at all...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

That's a pretty bold and difficult to prove statement. All of the Spider-man films -- even the clunker ASM 2 which undershot expectations -- had decent Box Office takes. Who's to say that many of these "Disney fans" do not indeed watch/enjoy/follow Spider-Man in the movies?

I think some people here tend to use a few extreme cases on the internet and make unsubstantiated generalizations to wider groups. I suspect there are precious few people who only care about "Disney" products and nothing else or who will start to like something simply because "Disney" now owns them.

YMMV.

But the failure of those films comes down to Box Office 101, you need to make more than you spend. Sure TASM 1 made $757 million, but the film had a production budget of $230 million and a marketing budget that can be, it was not announced by Sony, $100-$200 million. In America, Studios get half of the gross and that percent can vary country to country. For these tentpole films, anything less than $800 million - 1Billion would be considered a failure. TASM 2 cost about the same amount, but it only made $700 million.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

But the failure of those films comes down to Box Office 101, you need to make more than you spend. Sure TASM 1 made $757 million, but the film had a production budget of $230 million and a marketing budget that can be, it was not announced by Sony, $100-$200 million. In America, Studios get half of the gross and that percent can vary country to country. For these tentpole films, anything less than $800 million - 1Billion would be considered a failure. TASM 2 cost about the same amount, but it only made $700 million.

It should also be mentioned that these Spider-Man movies keep making less and less at the domestic Box Office. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 barley made more than $200 million in the US, something the Sam Raimi trilogy never had to worry about.

Audiences are getting tired, and Sony can't just keep putting out weak movies to justify a contract forever.

 

[Goofyernmost]

This was Walt's usual dress code on working visits to Disneyland, seen here on Main Street USA and mobbed for autographs by Disneyland guests circa 1962. Walt had been driving Disneyland's Fire Engine down Main Street, but had to pull over to the curb to sign autographs. Can you imagine Bob Iger doing this?!?

Forget giving autographs. I doubt anyone would want Iger's autograph in the first place.

It is pure silliness to even use the name Walt Disney and Bob Iger in the same sentence, but, especially in a comparison manner.

The two are no more comparable then comparing the Sun and the Moon. Except for them being orbs and Walt and Bob being human, there is nothing to compare. Walt Disney was a visionary and creative genius and courageous. Bob is a very good financial manager, but, nothing more. Even Roy Disney had more creativity then Bob has. And Walt was willing to risk all to be the greatest. Bob will be quite content to retire with massive wealth because although he didn't destroy Disney, he certainly did nothing to maintain the image that was once so important to the Disney Company.

That is the big error in overpaying CEO's in this era. They have absolutely no incentive to rock the boat. They are guaranteed a posh life forever and all they ever have to do is obtain the title. What they do after that, unless illegal, will not change their outcome. It is probably one of the dumbest trends that Boards of Directors have latched onto and only proves that they are no more intelligent then the people that they hired to run their companies. I don't know if I will live long enough to see that attitude change, but, I'm afraid that some seriously bad stuff has to happen before that message gets through to the leaders of today. I say today because they have not even recognized that there is a tomorrow, nor do they care. It's all about filling the wallet within their tenure and couldn't care less about what happens down the road.

Also just as a side note... In Walt's era men wore coats and ties relaxing at home. It wasn't business dress alone it was the standard, above blue collar, attire. Not so much anymore! I can't remember the last time that I wore a coat and tie to watch TV.

 

[71jason]

It's insane the amount of people who now love Star Wars or Marvel movies but had no interest in them whatsoever prior to the Disney purchase.

This is one of those online Disney memes I just don't buy into.

Put bluntly, the adolescent mindset that drives most hard core Disney fans also makes most of them Star Wars fans. Also Harry Potter fans. Living in the mecca of Disney fans, I can tell you they were interested in--ok, obsessed with--all three long before theme park rights were divvied up. While not quite at the level of that trifecta, a significant number are into Dr. Who, as well, if they want to feel intellectual. (BTW, British friends correct me if I'm wrong, it's a kid show, right?)

As for Marvel, thank Robert Downey Jr. (and Jon Favreau, who nailed the right tone for the Marvel Universe). But that's not just Disney fans. The #1 movie of the year is never a cult classic. Disney fans and everyone else are Marvel movie fans because they are the epitome of crowd-pleasing four-quadrant movies that are extremely well-made.

 

[71jason]

Which is evidence for the whole point of Disney fans who suddenly became Marvel fans at the end of 2009. They're not interested in any of the Sony produced Spider-Man films, despite Spider-Man being a popular and commercial success that helped to resurrect Marvel and start them on the path towards the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Sorry friend, I remember seeing a sold-out midnight showing of Spiderman 3 at DTD. Just like Potter 7.5 sold out every theater weeks in advance. Those aren't tourists in costume at the midnight shows*, that's fanbois, fangirls and lifestylers.

* [Back when they were still a thing. Pretty much phased out last year.]

 

[doctornick]

Sorry friend, I remember seeing a sold-out midnight showing of Spiderman 3 at DTD. Just like Potter 7.5 sold out every theater weeks in advance. Those aren't tourists in costume at the midnight shows*, that's fanbois, fangirls and lifestylers.

* [Back when they were still a thing. Pretty much phased out last year.]

I think 71jason has nailed it. While there might be a significant overlap between "Disney fans" and "Marvel fans" (or "Star Wars fans" etc.), the cause and effect of Disney buying those properties seems specious. I'm sure a lot of those fans also went ga-ga over The Dark Knight as well.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think a lot of the perception some have of fans only becoming fans post merger is anecdotal, so not something anyone can prove. I definitely see it though. I know lots of girls who have seem to have only started to really like Star Wars since Kennedy took over, who weren't remotely interested in it during the Clone Wars or back when Revenge of the Sith was released, and just from the Halloween costumes at Mickey's Not So Scary you can tell the presence of Marvel characters has gone up many times over.

I agree on the perception being mostly anecdotal. The number of true Disney nuts is pretty small in comparison to the number of people who actually went to the Avenger movies. While there is a subsection of pixie dusters who suddenly became Marvel fans there are probably also some teens and young adults who are turned off by Disney's involvement since Disney is for kids.

Probably a large portion of people who saw Marvel movies aren't even aware that Disney owns the rights. Many who weren't into comic books don't understand why Superman and Batman don't join Captain America and Spider-Man. This is just anecdotal evidence as well, but to your point on the costumes, between my 2 kids they have been all 4 of the major Avengers for Halloween. They have no idea Disney owns the rights to the movies especially since the characters aren't at WDW. They also went as Batman and Robin one year. My oldest son does know which characters are Marvel vs DC comics. Not sure how, must be something the kids in school talk about.

I think both sides are correct in this debate. There are definitely some Disney fanboys who only have interest in Marvel and Star Wars since Disney bought the products. On the other side those fanboys are not why the Marvel movies were successful. They make up an insignificant portion of the total viewing public. The Marvel movies made hundreds of millions at the box office. That's not just blind Disney loyalty.

 

[71jason]

I think 71jason has nailed it. While there might be a significant overlap between "Disney fans" and "Marvel fans" (or "Star Wars fans" etc.), the cause and effect of Disney buying those properties seems specious. I'm sure a lot of those fans also went ga-ga over The Dark Knight as well.

I still think Marvel a unique case; prior to the MCU, it was Spidey and Wolverine and that was it. But the number of Disney/Star Wars/Potter/Who fans in Orlando is staggering. Again, it's a permanent adolescent mindset.

 

[George]

Except for them being orbs and Walt and Bob being human, there is nothing to compare.

Wow. That is the most roundabout way to call a couple of dudes fat that I've ever seen.