If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.just think if Disney was still as creative as they once were... they wouldn't have needed to buy so much "other" stuff (or make all these live action remakes / reboots of previous films and bomb out with most of the new movies)
People forget the stock price for Disney rose when the Fox deal was announced. Literally everyone thought it was a great deal at the time (and it may still be, given how the addition of FX and Nat Geo have helped Disney in retransmission fees, and the Fox infrastructure in Europe and Asia is allowing a smooth expansion for Disney+), and shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal.If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.
There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.
So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.
BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff the bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.
Now this is a good take…
The problem is Peltz can say…as I saw pointed out on Bloomie today: “none of you know anything about entertainment!”
And he Pretty much right.
He can also accuse - with numbers - that Iger hasn’t made a wise decision in about 6 years…and make the case.
The problem is in 2015 it looked like Disney could make money anywhere it wanted…and it’s been a stooges nyuck nyuck show ever since. The case can be made
And, pure coincidence I'm sure - Who was installed as head of P&R in 2015?![]()
Elon has money?Nightmare scenario for Iger, and by extension Disney, would be Peltz fails to get his seat on the board and he buddies up with Elon Musk to launch a joint bid to take the whole company private a la Standard General's hostile takeover of Tegna.
More or less.Elon has money?
Black rock is such an investors darling…More or less.
If not him, then Peltz will happily partner with someone else who will, like BlackRock (who's Disney's second-largest shareholder and is known for being as scummy as Elon).
Just when they got the trains running again…Feels more like a train wreck now
More of a chance they get bought/broken up now than then…or 1984…in a bizarre contrarian sense
After Iger shut down the broader content production and labels.If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.
There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.
So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.
BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff they bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.
Maybe on paper.Elon has money?
Searchlight still exists. Would not have been the case under Comcast (who already have Focus Features).After Iger shut down the broader content production and labels.
If you think this, you may not fully grasp the scope of Disney's plans. They did not want to be left behind in the streaming era. So they went all in on "Direct-to-Consumer" as their main business. De-emphasizing theatrical/box office and broadcast; competing with (beating) Netflix, NBCUniversal, and all the rest. Not only in the U.S., but globally.
There was NO way they could do that with just their existing catalog. They did not want to be a niche $5/mo. add-on platform or a channel on jointly-owned Hulu, which is all their existing content would have got them.
So they bought a bunch of stuff and started cranking out a bunch of stuff.
BTW, this is relevant to people here: the stuff they bought and cranked out was--on purpose--not more of the same type of stuff they already had (and that many here might prefer). It was to deliberately broaden their audience. Disney fans were already going to subscribe to D+/Hulu+. They needed to be able to offer content that appealed beyond the base.
Eventually it has to make money or they will shut it down.LIV wasn’t designed to make money…oligarchies doesn’t file taxes
It was to generate buzz and PR.
Mission: accomplished
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.