News Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!

[MisterPenguin]

You never know how Rupert's kids feel about having TCF getting sold to Disney than Rupert himself. They might have different feelings.

It doesn't matter what their feelings are; Disney isn't going to sell them back those studios.

 

[Jrb1979]

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.

Problem is outside of hardcore fans like on this board don't want that stuff. D+ will never be profitable if they just cater to the niche Disney fan.

 

[MrPromey]

You were trying to make a point the big corps can't compete with these viral sensations.

That's your takeaway?

If you say so.

I thought the point I was trying to make was that Disney is going to to have serious trouble competing with EVERYTHING out there now including stuff that is low/no cost like these "viral sensations". Be it free, as in you pay nothing to them to get it, or you pay in your time watching/listening to ads or you pay a one-time fee, like when buying a game with 40 or more immersive hours of play geared toward adults, or with someone like Apple or Amazon who don't have to turn a profit on their content and can continue to push for quality as a lossleader and keep their prices competitively low.


But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong about what I meant.

To which I say 'follow the money'. 100+million subs.. ok.. and how much ad revenue did they get out of him? 100-150million? You think that's the kind of target Disney and others have?

Out of who?

Oh, you're still wanting to make this about a single content creator vs. all of Disney+.

Cool.

I'd like to call that a straw man argument but I'll be nice and say you are missing my point... or dodging it.

But in terms of how much "they" whoever "they" is made off of, I assume you mean Mr. Beast, how much did "they" pay to develop that content?

If "they" is Youtube, that price is zero.

If "they" is MrBeast, I can tell you that his newer stuff can cost as much as a million at the top end for an episode where he's crushing an exotic car or giving away a jet or a huge pile of money.

His early episodes cost a few thousand dollars.

And everything else falls somewhere in between.

That's according to him in in his Forbes interview, anyway.

But he also has sponsorships that cover huge amounts of those costs. You don't want to watch the videos so you wouldn't know that but he's sponsored by companies like Paypal and Shopify - not the purple dragon smoke emporium - and he has paid endorsements for a handful of these companies on ads that appear on other Youtube channels as well as other platforms.

At this point, most of his money is probably coming from sources other than direct Youtube monetization but... I'm guessing you're talking about Youtube since you keep trying to make this just about the platforms for some reason (and that only matters if you're Disney in this discussion)

So again, I'll remind you that if you want to focus on Youtube, they pay absolutely nothing for the production of this creator's content.

I'm not aware of any content they're paying to produce at this point. Are you?

Just offhand, do you happen to know how much an episode of SheHulk costs Disney to produce?

I'm sure it's ballpark close to Youtube's costs, right?

And there is tons more out there that the algorithm doesn't surface for us... um, mature folks, either that is pulling younger viewers.

Clearly, not apples to apples

Your argument basically boils down to 'big corp can't compete with free!' -- with you pointing out how the free content folks are getting eyeballs that is too expensive for the big corps to chase.

I supposes if you want to continue to willfully ignore me repeatedly mentioning things like Apple, Amazon, Audible (yes owned by Amazon), the gaming industry, sure, why not?

Also, youtube, of course. I hear they're doing just fine.

What I think is that a big corp pushing a subscription service like Disney+ where they somehow have to put the breaks on development costs while raising prices isn't going to be what dominates the landscape and creates another cable-like hellscape.

But we'll see what happens with HBO Max since they seem like a portal into the future right now.

I hear people are overwhelmingly loving the first of their newer lower budget content like Velma over there, btw.

Others have already pointed out how big corp reachs out into communities to leverage them without the big budget spending. Podcasts, sponsorships, support, invites, etc. The big corps also have their own foothold in these free platforms - they are not excluded.

What does this have to do with making Disney+ profitable and your argument that the overpriced bundled cable business model is inevitable?

You trying to tell me that Disney is somehow leveraging communities to bring down the cost of producing an episode of the Mandalorian or that it will help them with getting people to accept a steady rise in their price?

Are they somehow using podcasts, and support they are providing others to make season two of Loki cheaper to produce or making people willing to pay more to see it?

I mean, I guess it's possible Disney has their Facebook and Youtube pages monetized so they can help cover the cost of whatever they're cooking up for the future of The World According to Jeff Goldblum. That seems... not impossible... maybe.

Oh, you mean low-budget marking efforts on other platforms to garner attention for their paid offerings - not sure how that plays into this discussion but, okay.

How many of those 100+million MrBeast or whomever followers are paying for that content? Very few... how many would still pay for it if forced? Very few.. they'd flock to other low barrier formats. Loyalty is weak.

A few hours ago, you'd never even heard of MrBeast and now you're obsessed and have a complete grasp of his business strategy?

That's pretty amazing.

But seriously, what's your point?

Are you saying Disney will outlast this guy?

Of course they will.

Are you saying Disney will make more money than this guy?

Again, of course they will.

But who cares?

That's one guy's Youtube channel.

He employs about 30 people, most of which are childhood friends. We aren't exactly talking about a big production, here.

I know you know how totally screwed they'd already be if that's all it took to even come close to catching up to them.

Point being what you are really advocating for is ad-supported funding... which is easily applied to the big corp streamers to. This is not some 'either or' model. Today they are simply pushing subscriber fees... history has shown that will not hold up over time and they'll do ads too. Then what? The 'big spend' argument is diminished.

Just follow the ad dollars...

I'm not advocating for anything. I'm not advocating for any platform or any creator.

And what I'm talking about is much broader than ad-supported funding or free content.

I'm talking about Disney trying to charge $10-$20 on during a few months they don't have a new incoming tentpole theatrical release or a new Star Wars or Marvel series with a theatrical release-like budget afforded to it.

They've already indicated that period is going to have to come. How are they going to grow to the numbers Chapeak promised and retain customers who are already familiar with their existing catalog as they raise prices?

I used Avatar as an example.

I was alluding to the unfounded claims it would need to make $2 billion to be profitable.

It didn't need $2 billion but it apparently did need about $1.5 billion.

M3gan came out a couple weeks ago. It had a production budget of around $12 million and made $30 million opening weekend.

It only came in second place but do you think they cared Avatar beat it?

Disney is Avatar* and most of their competition is M3gan (or a whole, whole lot smaller). These other guys don't need to make Avatar money to be wildly successful. Disney needs that kind of money just to be okay and not worry about hostile shareholders.

Those guys don't need a hundred million people to consistently like most of their output to be doing just fine and they don't really need to beat most of the other players in their own niche spaces, either.

Disney+, on the other hand, has to be able to suck the air out of the room.

They've built a business model where they have to be one of the biggest if not the very biggest online subscription based platform to sustain themselves in that space. They have to win, just to be okay.

Most of the others (besides Netflix, maybe) don't have to win, they just have to not lose to be doing just fine and some, like Apple in particular, can lose and still be fine if they're getting awards and attention for their content even if it costs them as long as they're still selling iPhones.

You say consolidation and higher prices are coming. I say let 'em try.

How much bigger is the federal government going to let a company like Disney get?

Even without antitrust concerns, how much more can Disney consolidate at this point?

Is bigger even an asset if they have to increase pricing by 2x or 3x and find a way to maintain it to make all that consolidation pay off?

No, I don't think a cable-like scenario is going to happen.

The only thing that even makes the Disney bundle appealing is if you happen to be really into certain sports as well as Disney.

I'm sure a lot of people fall into that demographic. I'm sure a lot also don't.

Oh yeah, and Hulu, the one they offer $2 a month deals for every year is thrown in there, too.

I think Disney will be fine but I don't think Disney+ is going to be the profit-center powerhouse that they've been promising.

I don't think their streaming customers are going to be like their theme park fans where they are willing to put up with less and pay more due to misguided emotional attachments and loyalty to the brand.


*metaphorically - obviously, Avatar is now Disney, literally

 

[Joel]

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.

Disney did not spend what they did on Lightyear to be a bridge for the handful of people that either were previously unfamiliar with the Toy Story franchise or had been intentionally avoiding it for whatever reason. I'm not nearly as certain about all this stuff as everyone else here, but I'm pretty sure of that.

"One huge global audience" is the old paradigm, "thousands of overlapping niche audiences" is the new.

Does Disney even have the resources to serve each of these thousands of overlapping niche audiences with sufficient content to keep them subscribed long enough at a high enough price to make this whole enterprise as wildly profitable as some here think investors are silly for now doubting it will be? That is an absolutely massive question (literally -- that sentence is way too long) that people seem to just be taking as an article of faith. Are we doomed to a future of a handful of blockbusters and tons of weirdly specific soap operas?

I've got a feeling that when the dust settles in the next few years, this is going to end up looking a lot more like a changing of the guard than a paradigm shift. New boss, same as the old boss, but at least now you can cancel without totally losing access to the Internet.

 

[Joel]

Oh yeah, and Hulu, the one they offer $2 a month deals on every year is thrown in there, too.

Uh, yeah. I could have renewed my annual Disney+ before the price hike, but instead I signed up for Hulu (with ads) and added on Disney+ (ad-free) for the grand total of $5/month. Going Wreck-It Ralph to that ARPU.

 

[flynnibus]

That's your takeaway?

If you say so.

I thought the point I was trying to make was that Disney is going to to have serious trouble competing with EVERYTHING out there now including stuff that is low/no cost like these "viral sensations". Be it free, as in you pay nothing to them to get it, or you pay in your time watching/listening to ads or you pay a one-time fee, like when buying a game with 40 or more immersive hours of play geared toward adults, or with someone like Apple or Amazon who don't have to turn a profit on their content and can continue to push for quality as a lossleader and keep their prices competitively low.

No one stays in this without money coming in - for youtube its selling ads primarily. You think apple or amazon are going to escape the scrutiny disney is feeling now? No - their time is coming too.

Out of who?

Oh, you're still wanting to make this about a single content creator vs. all of Disney+.

Out of advertisers. The part that actually matters in the ‘everything’/free universe that you think is going to be so hard for big disney to compete with.

My point is even you highest profile example is still on a much smaller tier of money.

But in terms of how much "they" whoever "they" is made of of, I assume you mean Mr. Beast, how much did "they" pay to develop that content?

If "they" is Youtube, that price is zero.

Don’t carr about how much the creator pays - what matters in this conversation is how much the platform is able to monetize it - and in the case of youtube that is advertising.

The revenue is what defines the long term potential.

But he also has sponsorships that cover huge amounts of those costs. You don't want to watch the videos so you wouldn't know that but he's sponsored by companies like Paypal - not the purple dragon smoke emporium - and he has paid endorsements for a handful of these companies on ads that appear on other Youtube channels as well as other platforms.

Oh you mean like other content creators and influencers? ZOMG… see you can understand the ecosystem without giving a f about just one example.

So again, I'll remind you that if you want to focus on Youtube, they pay absolutely nothing for the production of this creator's content.

I'm not aware of any content they're paying to produce at this point. Are you?

Just offhand, do you happen to know how much an episode of SheHulk costs Disney to produce?

I'm sure it's ballpark close to Youtube's costs, right?

Costs you can control by your own decision- revenues you have to try to earn. That’s why you focus on the revenue and just deal with costs.

I supposes if you want to continue to willfully ignore me repeatedly mentioning things like Apple, Amazon, Audible (yes owned by Amazon), the gaming industry, sure, why not?

Because it makes sense to focus on the big fish and market setters. Youtube is the interesting one because of how it sources and the market it has. Apple will fight the same issues disney is… as will amazon. Amazon just uses extreme bundling but is already facing huge scrutiny about the amounts dumped into alexa/echo trying to force this economy.

Things like tiktok are about the format and less about the competitor itself. Twitch is still niche in the grand scheme.

What does this have to do with making Disney+ profitable and your argument that the overpriced bundled cable business model is inevitable?

You trying to tell me that Disney is somehow leveraging communities to bring down the cost of producing an episode of the Mandalorian or that it will help them with getting people to accept a steady rise in their price?

When did i bring up cost? You are saying these other avenues are competing for eyeballs making it more difficult for disney. I am saying its not mutually exclusive… disney and others are pumping in those enviroments to help support their interests. They are leveraging those content providers and platforms to get dirt cheap promotion of their own stuff.

You are dead set on costs above all else — costs are a choice. They are in your control. You decide the scale.

A few hours ago, you'd never even heard of MrBeast and now you're obsessed and have a complete grasp of his business strategy?

You trying to say he’s some unicorn?

And what I'm talking about is much broader than ad-supported funding or free content.

I'm talking about Disney trying to charge $10-$20 on a month or two they don't have a new incoming tentpole theatrical release or a new Star Wars or Marvel series with a theatrical release-like budget afforded to it.

And now you know why they are getting into content besides movie tent poles. And why i was talking about all the providers needing to get away from the adhoc monthy subs.

People watch more than new shows

Unfortunately i think the access to content from a browsing/recommendation side is one of disney+’s weaker points. Imagine when the streamers start getting good vault UIs and effective recommendation engines.

That will be another angle they will help their retention in the future. But as i said awhile back — they’re been aiming for the ‘own all the things’ first… and less about their feature set.

 

[MrPromey]

Uh, yeah. I could have renewed my annual Disney+ before the price hike, but instead I signed up for Hulu (with ads) and added on Disney+ (ad-free) for the grand total of $5/month. Going Wreck-It Ralph to that ARPU.

Where were you when I needed you, Joel?

I thought we were friends, Joel.

I mean I don't know that we've ever talked directly but we've liked each other's posts.

Does that mean nothing to you, Joel?!

 

[_caleb]

Three issues:
1. I have no idea how you make “cheap” Star Wars or marvel
2. There are no fans on earth that want to watch cheap Star Wars or marvel
3. Every actor, agent, lawyer, publicist and pool boy in Hollywood is 100% aware of 1 and 2

Keep in mind, I’m not talking strictly about films.

Marvel: One Shots, Werewolf by Night, and its accompanying documentary, Director by Night were all relatively budget-friendly. And even more efficiently when produced simultaneously to other films/features. Animation can be cheaper (M.O.D.O.K, Hit-Monkey, etc.), too.

Obi-Wan Kenobi was $90M, and they’re using the Stagecraft Volume to keep costs down on the Mandalorian and Book of Boba Fett. But have you seen all the Star Wars auxiliary stuff? The Vehicle Flythroughs, Galaxy of Sounds, and the Biomes things?

 

[_caleb]

Disney did not spend what they did on Lightyear to be a bridge for the handful of people that either were previously unfamiliar with the Toy Story franchise or had been intentionally avoiding it for whatever reason. I'm not nearly as certain about all this stuff as everyone else here, but I'm pretty sure of that.

If they were going solely for the existing Toy Story audience, it seems like they would have just made Toy Story 5. I’m not saying it was only aimed at the fringes, but you don’t think it was an attempt to broaden the audience? With the same-sex kiss, the thriller vibes, and more grown-up story?

Does Disney even have the resources to serve each of these thousands of overlapping niche audiences with sufficient content to keep them subscribed long enough at a high enough price to make this whole enterprise as wildly profitable as some here think investors are silly for now doubting it will be? That is an absolutely massive question (literally -- that sentence is way too long) that people seem to just be taking as an article of faith. Are we doomed to a future of a handful of blockbusters and tons of weirdly specific soap operas?

I think Disney will track what resonates with different kinds of users and use that data to find what people like that doesn’t cost too much. But I think it’s the “extra” content that they’ll fill the gaps with.

I've got a feeling that when the dust settles in the next few years, this is going to end up looking a lot more like a changing of the guard than a paradigm shift. New boss, same as the old boss, but at least now you can cancel without totally losing access to the Internet.

Maybe. Guess we’ll see!

 

[_caleb]

That is vague and a fallacy. Disney was never an entity that had magic that only they could do.

I meant things only Disney can do legally. As in, they’re the only one who have the rights to produce.

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.

Have you scrolled through Disney+? The majority of content there is “middle budget.” Some of it is quite good, some is pretty bad.

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 entirely possible I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m just a guy on the internet sharing my thoughts and reporting what I’ve seen Disney (and analysts) say and do. I like hearing other takes.

I think Iger being back is going to be interesting, because streaming is at the center of the proxy fight stuff and will certainly be a priority over the parks, which seems to be more about PR than actual revenue.

 

[Joel]

If they were going solely for the existing Toy Story audience, it seems like they would have just made Toy Story 5. I’m not saying it was only aimed at the fringes, but you don’t think it was an attempt to broaden the audience? With the same-sex kiss, the thriller vibes, and more grown-up story?

I think the simplest answer is that they had a fun concept (that Toy Story fans above all would theoretically be interested in -- I was) that just ended up not working out as well as they'd hoped for a variety of reasons. Regardless of what they intended or not, I have a hard time believing even a single person signed up for Disney+ because of Lightyear, so what's the point? I know it's not just about one movie, but how many Lightyear-tier attempts at broadening the audience can Disney afford?

 

[_caleb]

I think the simplest answer is that they had a fun concept (that Toy Story fans above all would theoretically be interested in -- I was) that just ended up not working out as well as they'd hoped for a variety of reasons. Regardless of what they intended or not, I have a hard time believing even a single person signed up for Disney+ because of Lightyear, so what's the point? I know it's not just about one movie, but how many Lightyear-tier attempts at broadening the audience can Disney afford?

Not many more, that’s for sure! But it was greenlit back when the strategy was “spend like our business depended on it!” With Iger’s mandate to get to profitability NOW, I’m sure we won’t see more of that approach anytime soon. Maybe Lightyear could have worked to that effect as a short film or “Special Presentation…”

 

[MrPromey]

No one stays in this without money coming in - for youtube its selling ads primarily. You think apple or amazon are going to escape the scrutiny disney is feeling now? No - their time is coming too.

I think AppleTV+ is a rounding error for Apple.

I don't expect they'll be feeling and pressure to do anything with AppleTV+ unless other parts of the company go seriously into the crapper for an extended period.

That could of course happen, but I think they're more worried about the potential loss of their margins in the app store as a result of the attention the Epic Games' lawsuit got them in Washington.

I think Amazon could try to spin their PrimeTV into it's own thing but it started and continues to be just another throw-in to the most disparate bundle the world has ever seen, all as a scheme to make their free-but-not-really shipping look like a better deal.

I think they're also using it as a loss-leader to promote pay-for content on their platform the same way they do with no-rush shipping credits but I'm not going to pretend I have any insight into how well they think that's all working out for them.

I think if Bezos has had his fill of corporate-liability-free fun going to space and decides to come back, the company could go back to growth with razor thin returns or something closer to it the way they somehow managed to get away with for most of his tenure the first time without wallstreet batting an eye.

The world seems to hate him but best I can tell, he's not letting that get him down so who knows?

Out of advertisers. The part that actually matters in the ‘everything’/free universe that you think is going to be so hard for big disney to compete with.

Why do you keep saying this? How many times do I have to say, it isn't just about the everything/free?

It's about the everything that isn't Disney.

This is a problem of Disney's creation.

They're the traditional media company that built Disney+ on unsustainable business practices and have done nothing to show a road to clear profitability other than to tell everyone "trust us - we got this!".

They're the ones who have to win by getting to the top so they can, as you've alluded yourself, start employing monopoly-like tactics (you know, like the cable companies did in the good old days) to raise their revenue to profitability.

Don’t carr about how much the creator pays - what matters in this conversation is how much the platform is able to monetize it - and in the case of youtube that is advertising.

The revenue is what defines the long term potential.

Why is that the only thing that matters? Who anointed you the conversation-overloard?

I think cost absolutely matters.

Apparently Disney does, too or they wouldn't be discussing the need to cut back on their content spending, right?

Oh you mean like other content creators and influencers? ZOMG… see you can understand the ecosystem without giving a f about just one example.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean - "ZOMG"! Glad something, I'm trying to say is getting through.

And no, I absolutely do not think this guy is a "unicorn" and that is my point.

That non-unicorn has an estimated net worth of around $100 million and there are articles discussing his efforts to take his business public with an initial value of $1.5 billion. Even if all of those numbers end up being off by 4x higher than reality, what does that mean for the world we are living in?

How far behind him is #2 right now? How far is #3?

You trying to say he’s some unicorn?

To reiterate, I don't think he's a unicorn at all.

I think there are a lot more people on that platform with the same potential to come behind him.

Do you agree with the above or are you the one who thinks he's a unicorn?

Costs you can control by your own decision- revenues you have to try to earn. That’s why you focus on the revenue and just deal with costs.

So why is Disney talking about the need to cut costs while raising revenue? Is it just because you aren't the one in charge over there?

Because it makes sense to focus on the big fish and market setters. Youtube is the interesting one because of how it sources and the market it has. Apple will fight the same issues disney is… as will amazon. Amazon just uses extreme bundling but is already facing huge scrutiny about the amounts dumped into alexa/echo trying to force this economy.

Things like tiktok are about the format and less about the competitor itself. Twitch is still niche in the grand scheme.

How do we go from you saying "Your argument basically boils down to 'big corp can't compete with free!' -- with you pointing out how the free content folks are getting eyeballs that is too expensive for the big corps to chase."

To me saying "I supposes if you want to continue to willfully ignore me repeatedly mentioning things like Apple, Amazon, Audible (yes owned by Amazon), the gaming industry, sure, why not?"

To you then saying the inline quote above?

Did you stop for a bathroom break in the middle of your reply and forget where we were in this no-stakes debate?

If not, how is your "Because it makes sense to focus on the big fish and market setters" any kind of a rebuttal to me calling you out for conveniently ignoring things I said that run entirely counter to the the straw man you keep trying to build for some reason?

When did i bring up cost? You are saying these other avenues are competing for eyeballs making it more difficult for disney. I am saying its not mutually exclusive… disney and others are pumping in those enviroments to help support their interests. They are leveraging those content providers and platforms to get dirt cheap promotion of their own stuff.

You are dead set on costs above all else — costs are a choice. They are in your control. You decide the scale.

Yeah, I brought up costs - it was me.

I'm saying these other avenues are competing for eyeballs and magically are making more money than they're spending in the process.

Maybe I'm crazy but I think Disney should look into finding a way to do that without scaring off their subscribers, somehow. I don't know what the fool-proof strategy is there and that's exactly why I should get paid the big bucks.

After all, if this guy can get $20 million for being bad at his job, why can't I?

Anyway, I see what you're saying - Disney's getting dirt cheap promotion by slyly leveraging the same platforms any dude with a cell phone has access to.

How devious.

Who cares?

They're probably monetized on Youtube with that crap, too. Clearly they're not a big earner on the platform but if you'd try to at least suggest they were using it to both advertise AND monetize, I'd have tossed a touché your way.

But you didn't and I'm the one who had to suggest it for you so I'm keeping my touché, thank you very much.

That said, how many Disney+ subs you think they've gotten from those sly underground marketing efforts?

Just wondering what your rough estimate is.

And now you know why they are getting into content besides movie tent poles. And why i was talking about all the providers needing to get away from the adhoc monthy subs.

Ah, you didn't say they needed to, you said it was inevitable.

A lot of people need new hearts and kidneys. That doesn't mean they all get them.

What companies like Disney and Warner need isn't necessarily what they'll get, either.

Are consumers dumb enough to fall into the same trap again in the numbers they'd need to make it work?

Maybe.

But there are a lot of youngish adults out in the world now who've never had to pay for cable and who've had unlimited high-speed internet their whole lives and who saw metered cellphone data go to unlimited usage for reasonable prices (with no required commitments) who are going to be hard pressed to understand why they have to sing a long-term contract for, of all things, a friggin' streaming service.

Even I would say, at least with cable, they're sending a guy out to your house with a drill and a ladder and entrusting you with a hundred dollars worth of equipment which would make a contract seem... sort of more okay but around here, competition has forced even cable companies to drop any length of time commitment.

Instead, they're guaranteeing not to raise prices for a period of a year if you don't cancel on them before that.

People watch more than new shows

Of course they do!

Want to list all the old stuff you re-watched or that was new-to-you on Disney+ last month?

If it's too much to list all of, I'll take just your top five.

I'll give you that touché I teased you with earlier if you can put them in chronological release date order without looking that info up.

I trust you so we'll go by the honor system that you didn't look up the dates but you understand, I'll probably need to to verify if you got it right, right?

Unfortunately i think the access to content from a browsing/recommendation side is one of disney+’s weaker points. Imagine when the streamers start getting good vault UIs and effective recommendation engines.

I'm sure kids will love watching old episodes of "That's So Raven" between movies like "That Darn Cat" and "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo".

Nobody's having any trouble finding things like the Little Mermaid, the animated Beauty and the Beast or Lion King on Disney+ today.

In all seriousness, I'm sure a recommendation would actually help getting people (both kids AND adults) started looking at old stuff they've never seen before but I wonder what the average time to abandon is going to be on most of those hidden gems after people press play.

That will be another angle they will help their retention in the future. But as i said awhile back — they’re been aiming for the ‘own all the things’ first… and less about their feature set.

I think it's pretty clear we're not going to see eye-to-eye on all of this.

I've had fun poking at you and I hope you've had fun poking at me but regrettably, I have responsibilities in life that go beyond doing my darnedest to completely derail the 291 page "Bob Iger is back! Chapek is out!!" thread.

I'm guessing you still do to but if you want to respond to any of this, I'll read it and be happy to let you have the last word as long as you don't try to say I think MrBeast is a unicorn again (he's an American Quarter Horse, at best) an you don't try to continue to say I think free content is the problem for Disney - I think it's A problem but I think there are a lot of other problems, too.

And lastly, I'm not a fan of most of that free crap you may think i seem enamored with. I don't like what platforms like Snapchat, Tik-Tok and the like with their 30 second to a minute or so of content seem to be doing in pandering mostly to society's most base levels of entertainment. It makes me wonder how far we are away from the breakout hit "ow my balls!" but I also can't deny the number of kids and young adults I see choosing to watch stuff like that, even in leu of longer-form and higher quality free crap.

Also lastly (for real this time), for what it's worth, I watched "That Darn Cat" on Christmas of 2019 with my then seven year old son and seventy-something year old aunt.

Everyone enjoyed it but I'm pretty sure "That's So Raven" and "Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo" would still be a hard pass, no matter how much Disney's algorithm tied to force them on us.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

It doesn't matter what their feelings are; Disney isn't going to sell them back those studios.

You don’t even know what Disney could do. You don’t work for them, meaning that you don’t have insider access nor knowledge.

Anyway, perhaps the Murdochs could have a change of heart and give up control of/sell Fox Corp. once Rupert finally croaks, allowing whoever would be the new person in charge of Fox Corp. (said person would also revitalize Fox News) to get back 20th Century Studios from Disney.

 

[ohioguy]

You don’t even know what Disney could do. You don’t work for them, meaning that you don’t have insider access nor knowledge.

Anyway, perhaps the Murdochs could have a change of heart and give up control of/sell Fox Corp. once Rupert finally croaks, allowing whoever would be the new person in charge of Fox Corp. (said person would also revitalize Fox News) to get back 20th Century Studios from Disney.

They're not giving up intellectual property like Star Wars (the first three were partially still "owned" by Fox), Avatar, and The Simpsons.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Amazon and Disney could merge

Combine Amazon Prime, Hulu, D+

Use Amazon data centers/technology and tech teams to build apps and websites that actually work and are stable

All Disney merch on Amazon.com

Free grocery delivery to the resorts lol

Bezos and Iger fight to the death as to who becomes “the” CEO in the Indiana Jones theater. Let’s get ready to rumble


jk

 

[Lilofan]

Amazon and Disney could merge

Combine Amazon Prime, Hulu, D+

Use Amazon data centers/technology and tech teams to build apps and websites that actually work and are stable

All Disney merch on Amazon.com

Free grocery delivery to the resorts lol

Bezos and Iger fight to the death as to who becomes “the” CEO in the Indiana Jones theater. Let’s get ready to rumble


jk

Compared to his younger years when he was skinny Bezos, currently Bezos is jacked , working out more since he has more time on his hands no longer CEO of Amazon. In the exec world of Disney , former exec Staggs was a workout freak, and Iger works out in his personal home gym with his trainer prior to going to work.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Compared to his younger years when he was skinny Bezos, currently Bezos is jacked , working out more since he has more time on his hands no longer CEO of Amazon. In the exec world of Disney , former exec Staggs was a workout freak, and Iger works out in his personal home gym with his trainer prior to going to work.

maybe Iger can tag-team with She-Hulk then pay-per-view it on D+

win-win for the fans and shareholders

 

[LSLS]

Three issues:
1. I have no idea how you make “cheap” Star Wars or marvel
2. There are no fans on earth that want to watch cheap Star Wars or marvel
3. Every actor, agent, lawyer, publicist and pool boy in Hollywood is 100% aware of 1 and 2

If I had to guess, stuff like What if and Clone Wars were not super expensive to make, and they are probably 2 of the most highly regarded of all shows done for Star Wars/Marvel.

 

[Lilofan]

maybe Iger can tag-team with She-Hulk then pay-per-view it on D+

win-win for the fans and shareholders

In the early 1990s , guests were treated to wrestling in the parking lot of MGM Studios one day.