News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[Elijah Abrams]

The level-headed Alex with another good take: Disney should have more people with media credentials/experience on the board.

Disney slams Peltz for lack of media experience, but its board is light on it, too

Disney's board is almost entirely made up of executives who lack media and entertainment experience.

www.cnbc.com

He is right for once! Stop insulting him! Iger should also be ashamed of himself for his choice of board members. They don’t have the Disney magic, as they are corporate dum-dums. This is NOT the Disney I remember and the Disney I don’t want!

 

[Tha Realest]

The level-headed Alex with another good take: Disney should have more people with media credentials/experience on the board.

Disney slams Peltz for lack of media experience, but its board is light on it, too

Disney's board is almost entirely made up of executives who lack media and entertainment experience.

www.cnbc.com

Peltz may not be the answer anyone’s looking for, but why hasn’t anyone been pushing for this level of sophistication before?

Looking at their bios the Board members all appear to be splendid people. But Proctor & Gamble/Eli Lilly/lululemon aren’t known for their media or tech sophistication.

If the credentialism and experience is the new standard, than about 3/4 of the board needs to resign.

 

[_caleb]

They will jump to whatever platform is cheaper. Wasn't that the reason people cut the cord to begin with?

Yes. But they’re all raising prices or adding commercials, trying to reach profitability.

And just like cable, they’re going to do all they can to make it hard to switch: long-term contracts, slow releases (weekly episodes), etc.

 

[Jrb1979]

Yes. But they’re all raising prices or adding commercials, trying to reach profitability.

And just like cable, they’re going to do all they can to make it hard to switch: long-term contracts, slow releases (weekly episodes), etc.

That's why cable is dying, people don't want that. In the end I don't ever see streaming ever being a big revenue generator for any company. It will never make the money cable/box office did. I can them getting to the point they stop losing money but to expect high profits I don't see it.

 

[celluloid]

Yes. But they’re all raising prices or adding commercials, trying to reach profitability.

And just like cable, they’re going to do all they can to make it hard to switch: long-term contracts, slow releases (weekly episodes), etc.

Oversaturated Star Wars Market.
Oversaturated Marvel Market.

Not producing theatrical releases for families that resonate.

All of their major money makers are already rocky for their own platform.

 

[_caleb]

Oversaturated Star Wars Market.
Over saturated Marvel Market.

Not producing theatrical releases for families that reasonate.

All of their major money makers are already rocky for their own platform.

I see what you’re saying, but it’s really only true in the old paradigm. In the new, those properties are only oversaturated in mainstream audiences.

And the whole idea behind the pivot to streaming is that they’re making theatrical releases less and less important to their business.

Careful not to mistake “recent releases haven’t resonated with people like me” for “recent releases don’t resonate with anyone.”

 

[celluloid]

Careful not to mistake “recent releases haven’t resonated with people like me” for “recent releases don’t resonate with anyone.”

They don't resonate with enough to be financially lucrative to continue to pursue. Not just streaming but theatrically.

 

[_caleb]

They don't resonate with enough to be financially lucrative to continue to pursue. Not just streaming but theatrically.

They haven’t on their own, you’re right. But as Disney combines those things together into more of an ecosystem of content that appeals to diverse audiences, I think it will add up to something that attracts and keeps subscribers in significant numbers.

 

[celluloid]

They haven’t on their own, you’re right. But as Disney combines those things together into more of an ecosystem of content that appeals to diverse audiences, I think it will add up to something that attracts and keeps subscribers in significant numbers.

So a bunch of one or two seasons of shows are still an eco system of a bunch of one or two season shows that cost more to produce than they can earn. Same issue.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes. But they’re all raising prices or adding commercials, trying to reach profitability.

And just like cable, they’re going to do all they can to make it hard to switch: long-term contracts, slow releases (weekly episodes), etc.

The diffenece with cable is most places had one game In town…it was monopolized

And if you didn’t have cable, you had nothing. No entertainment.

You remember those days?

 

[Jrb1979]

The diffenece with cable is most places had one game In town…it was monopolized

And if you didn’t have cable, you had nothing. No entertainment.

You remember those days?

IMO The only way streaming ever becomes highly profitable is if a bunch of them merge.

 

[_caleb]

So a bunch or two seasons of shows are still an eco system of a bunch of one or two seaso.shows that cost .kre.tk.produce than they can earn. Same issue.

Oh, sorry- by “ecosystem,” I mean “a bunch of stuff that’s MUCH cheaper to produce,” like fan shows, interviews, documentaries, shorts, making-of, fan-made content, etc. Oh, and integrated product sales.

Lightyear was a dud at the box office. But combined with the old Toy Story stuff (films, tv series, shorts, etc.) it works as a bridge to connect the franchise to new or “fringe” audiences.

 

[_caleb]

IMO The only way streaming ever becomes highly profitable is if a bunch of them merge.

You’ve just invented Hulu c.2007!

 

[UNCgolf]

And the whole idea behind the pivot to streaming is that they’re making theatrical releases less and less important to their business.

Another thing that interests me is how this affects moviemaking in general. Movies are pretty expensive to produce, and without a box office return, I'm not sure it makes financial sense to keep making movies the way we're used to. Why spend $200m on a film when you almost certainly won't be able to recoup those costs via your streaming service? Make smaller/cheaper films and series instead.

I suppose the argument would be that those tentpole movies would still be released in the theater -- but the problem there is if there's no longer regular movie releases, many movie theaters will close. And then the overall market shrinks and those massive tentpole films are going to bring in significantly smaller returns because there just aren't enough places for people to go and see them.

 

[celluloid]

Oh, sorry- by “ecosystem,” I mean “a bunch of stuff that’s MUCH cheaper to produce,” like fan shows, interviews, documentaries, shorts, making-of, fan-made content, etc. Oh, and integrated product sales.

You mean like Prop Culture or Imagineering Story?
The shows with one or two seasons that they abandoned. I understood what you meant. It is just not showing any promise of the company getting it to work.

 

[_caleb]

You mean like Prop Culture or Imagineering Story?
The shows with one or two seasons that they abandoned. I understood what you meant. It is just not showing any promise of the company getting it to work.

Yes, you did get what I was saying. Thanks.

Like those, but maybe even lower budget/quality. I see Imagineering Story and Prop Culture as being for parks fans like us. I expect more of that sort of thing aimed at other niche audiences, Zenimation, or like the Ryan Seacrest Holiday Singalong thing that probably cost next to nothing, or the Hollywood Bowl concerts for Coco and Encanto.

It all adds up to something. Disney’s advantage is its ability to “wrap 360º around fandoms.”

Personally, the Kate Bishop apartment yule log loop from last Christmas was worth that month’s subscription cost.

 

[celluloid]

Yes, you did get what I was saying. Thanks.

Like those, but maybe even lower budget/quality. I see Imagineering Story and Prop Culture as being for parks fans like us. I expect more of that sort of thing aimed at other niche audiences, Zenimation, or like the Ryan Seacrest Holiday Singalong thing that probably cost next to nothing, or the Hollywood Bowl concerts for Coco and Encanto.

It all adds up to something. Disney’s advantage is its ability to “wrap 360º around fandoms.”

Personally, the Kate Bishop apartment yule log loop from last Christmas was worth that month’s subscription cost.

So you think the solution is looking forward to lower quality? Sounds like a great business plan that continues to be lost.

Also, a Ryan Seacrest hosted production will cost far more than The Imagineering story, Behind The Attraction or Prop Culture.

I assure you, there are not enough people that think that the Kate Bishop Yule log was worth the 8-10 dollars to support the multi to hundreds of million dollars in production budgets.
,

 

[_caleb]

So you think the solution is looking forward to lower quality? Sounds like a great business plan that continues to be lost.

No. Niche content that only Disney can make but doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.

Also, a Ryan Seacrest hosted production will cost far more than The Imagineering story, Behind The Attraction or Prop Culture.

It was literally shot on webcams. I have no idea how much it cost.

I assure you, there are not enough people that think that the Kate Bishop Yule log was worth the 8-10 dollars to support the multi to hundreds of million dollars in production budgets.

How much do you think it would cost to add similar ambient videos for all their major properties? Have you seen the Vehicle Flythroughs they did for Star Wars ships?

Like I said, I think it all adds up to something. Maybe not for you, but I think it does for lots of people who are passionate fans (and willing to pay $14/month).

 

[GhostHost1000]

Oversaturated Star Wars Market.
Over saturated Marvel Market.

Not producing theatrical releases for families that reasonate.

All of their major money makers are already rocky for their own platform.

Yep

 

[celluloid]

No. Niche content that only Disney can make but doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.

That is vague and a fallacy. Disney was never an entity that had magic that only they could do. They had the best quality most of the time and were better at being competitive. That has currently shifted with no signs of Change going as much as other companies have grown. It is almost am oxymoron as everything They do is inflated. They got rid of their middle budget movies and well designed but low cost theme park attractions.

You keep posting like people don't understand things have changed, but I think you are not realizing it is not the company you think it is or was.

It's a repeat of Waking Sleeping Beauty on a larger scale.