News Bob Iger outlines the need to transform the Walt Disney Company resulting in 7000 job losses and $5.5 billion in cost savings

[flynnibus]

Why is the binary choice “high hopes” vs “bombs no one wants to see.”

Please go back to the original statement...
"What we ALL must agree on no matter what side we are on is this: Disney MUST find some way to make financially sucessful movies and shows again. Disney MUST find a way to make movies that people WANT to go to see!!"

So if they must find some way to make movies that people WANT TO SEE... do you not find the outlook of that list of movies as something in the vein of trying to make movies people want to see?

When the beef is 'they gotta do something!!!' -- How can you not look at that list of titles and believe there they are not aiming to do that?

 

[Cliff]

So you're dodging the question. Are you going to go on record right now and predict all those films are going to be bombs that no one wants to see? We're talking about the forward looking slate... so put your money where your mouth is and either accept that slate has promise or claim it doesn't.



So you're ready to conclude they can't do it... but not ready to actually judge their plan. That's why your post just comes off as emotional rant vs rational argument.

I dont know how well future Disney movies will do. Nobody does....not even you. Market forces make these decisions. So far...market forces are NOT in Disney's favor. Yes,...this COULD change and turn around. I agree with you. It IS "possible".

I just dont have "high hopes" anymore. I don't think that Disney understands how deep their problems are. I believe they will continue to ignore their problems and continue to make the exact same choices that lead to the exact same outcome...over and over again.

I believe that Disney holds the idea that

"The problem is NOT "us"...the problem is that we have "bad" customers...that's what we are fighting. Too many bad customers."

Disney seems to believe that there is something wrong with "you" if you dont like what Disney makes.

Dont like Ant Man?...you are the problem.
Dont like Galactic Starcruiser Hotel?...you are the problem.
Dont like Captain Marvel?...you are the problem.
Dont like Harmonious?...you are a bad person.

Disney's entire defense is: "You are bad customers if you dont like what we make." Disney blames the market whenever they fail and that NEVER used to be the case!

I dunno why this seems to be happening but something just feels rotten today and I can't explain it. Maybe I'm 100% wrong??

 

[flynnibus]

I dont know how well future Disney movies will do. Nobody does....not even you. Market forces make these decisions. So far...market forces are NOT in Disney's favor. Yes,...this COULD change and turn around. I agree with you. It IS "possible".

My point is... you're saying THEY GOTTA DO SOMETHING like this car needs to be turned before crashing.

What I'm saying is... if you were the exec having to green light projects based on trying to decide what movies do you think people will want to go see... do you not see that list as worthy of picking as good ideas that you hope will succeed.. and even could be considered good bets to succeed?

Avengers
Indiana Jones
GOTG
Avatar
etc
etc

I believe that Disney holds the idea that

"The problem is NOT "us"...the problem is that we have "bad" customers...that's what we are fighting. Too many bad customers."

Disney seems to believe that there is something wrong with "you" if you dont like what Disney makes.

I think you are way over thinking the classic situation movie studios are always in... trying to pick their winners and styles.. and not always winning. The vast majority of films don't end up being Avatar or titanic... the studio economies are built for this.

 

[Tha Realest]

Please go back to the original statement...
"What we ALL must agree on no matter what side we are on is this: Disney MUST find some way to make financially sucessful movies and shows again. Disney MUST find a way to make movies that people WANT to go to see!!"

So if they must find some way to make movies that people WANT TO SEE... do you not find the outlook of that list of movies as something in the vein of trying to make movies people want to see?

When the beef is 'they gotta do something!!!' -- How can you not look at that list of titles and believe there they are not aiming to do that?

I don’t think they set out to make bad or unsuccessful films. I just think the algorithm is broken. Whether they broke it themselves by conditioning people to wait for their films on D+, or oversaturating the viewers with endless content, it almost doesn’t matter. I don’t want to wade into whether entertaining the customers is really the principal goal anymore. Regardless of intent, I think the reliable model of releasing 2-3 MCU, a Pixar, and a Disney Animation film a year is based on old math and doesn’t really work anymore. Each silo - Pixar, MCU, Disney Animation - has its own challenges.

Look at May and June. They have FOUR huge movies coming one after another. In just that two month window they have Guardians 3, The Little Mermaid, Elemental, and Indy. Each of those from a separate film division. Each one clamoring for paid media buys and promotional tours. While the marketing arm is being eviscerated. Each of those films is going to step on the BO of the one that came a few weeks before.

Lets also not forget they cannibalized their home media and TV rights revenue on these films to recapture the rights for D+.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There is absolutely no reason to think Guardians will underperform.

The animated films may have problems because Disney normalized watching such content on streaming, which was a huge mistake. But it may only take one big hit to break that pattern.

I think guardians will be a solid hit. Because it’s got a screwball comedy kinda charisma…

You forget that the movie theater business is not expected to survive. That was before Covid and certainly after.
So I get Disney hedging gets there.

A big problem with streaming is that Iger waited too long. He tried to hide behind espn profits until they were into the ground. Because he’s a tv yutz.

That’s just one of many problems coming to a head.

Bob

Plain and simple.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I don’t think they set out to make bad or unsuccessful films. I just think the algorithm is broken. Whether they broke it themselves by conditioning people to wait for their films on D+, or oversaturating the viewers with endless content

I think there’s a lot of truth to this, I didn’t even realize Ant Man 3 was already out in theaters, I think that’s partially because I don’t watch TV anymore (so I don’t see commercials) and partially because I wait for Disney movies on D+ now so there’s no reason to pay attention to release dates.

I don’t think Disney has adjusted very well to the new ”cord cutting” society and their own self inflicted D+ reality.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The last three Marvel films made far far less than the previous films in the series. Thor Love and Thunder and Ant Man Quantumania each made about $100M less than the earlier entries, and Black Panther Wakanda about $500M less than Black Panther.

Theres multiple reasons to think Guardians will similarly underperform.

Thor surpassed the previous films in the markets in which it was allowed to open, which did not include China and Russia - they made up the difference in overall box office. Black Panther did quite well given the very unique circumstances surrounding the film.

Guardians has always stood a bit apart from the general MCU and is unique in being a pretty definitive end to a trilogy. Anyone betting against it is probably rooting against the MCU for other reasons.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think there’s a lot of truth to this, I didn’t even realize Ant Man 3 was already out in theaters, I think that’s partially because I don’t watch TV anymore (so I don’t see commercials) and partially because I wait for Disney movies on D+ now so there’s no reason to pay attention to release dates.

I don’t think Disney has adjusted very well to the new ”cord cutting” society and their own self inflicted D+ reality.

…don’t feel bad…

I don’t think anyone else knew antman was out either

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Thor surpassed the previous films in the markets in which it was allowed to open, which did not include China and Russia - they made up the difference in overall box office. Black Panther did quite well given the very unique circumstances surrounding the film.

Guardians has always stood a bit apart from the general MCU and is unique in being a pretty definitive end to a trilogy. Anyone betting against it is probably rooting against the MCU for other reasons.

The last 3 marvel films all underperformed…continuing a trend that is irrefutable since avengers.

Can you tell me the sky is purple? You’re gonna have a better time convincing me that’s true.

They’re overextended…
And they offed their two main characters…

It would be like if Star Wars killed luke Skywalker and Han Solo…
It would be so stupid that the whole franchise popularity would head south and people probably wouldn’t even bother to remember the movies…
…luckily Hollywood isn’t that stupid

 

[Tha Realest]

Thor surpassed the previous films in the markets in which it was allowed to open, which did not include China and Russia - they made up the difference in overall box office. Black Panther did quite well given the very unique circumstances surrounding the film.

Guardians has always stood a bit apart from the general MCU and is unique in being a pretty definitive end to a trilogy. Anyone betting against it is probably rooting against the MCU for other reasons.

I said it would do “fine” but would “underperform.” I guess that passes for rooting against the MCU.

I like the Guardians, but the second film was critically and box office wise in the bottom to lower tier of the Phase 3 films.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I said it would do “fine” but would “underperform.” I guess that passes for rooting against the MCU.

I like the Guardians, but the second film was critically and box office wise in the bottom to lower tier of the Phase 3 films.

I actually think it will do better than recent because the MCU appears to be in trouble and some to the more casual fans who have strayed may show up out of some nostalgia

Just a hunch though

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

We can all debate and argure about the "type" of movies and content that Disney needs to make in the future. Politics and culture war topics aside....yes, we can all debate in many different ways about this issue. I get it....

What we ALL must agree on no matter what side we are on is this: Disney MUST find some way to make financially sucessful movies and shows again. Disney MUST find a way to make movies that people WANT to go to see!! Other animation studios ARE doing this....under the exact same economic and social conditions that Disney is.

Again....super simple...Disney must make movies that people....want...to...see. [sigh]

Rigjt now?...for whatever reason...this is just not happening and this NEEDS to change fast. If Disney continues to get more of the same? The studios will suffer and so will Disney +.

This means more and more Parks money will be taken away from the parks to prop-up failing studios and D+. This will continue to hurt the parks.

I think Disney needs to do what it will not…especially as long as Bobby is around.

And that’s embrace the simple concepts…

Maverick…in other words.

You know what the Disney market would get a kick out of?
Don’t laugh…heroes with testosterone.

I’m serious…some good guy beats bad guy kinda simplistic theme. Not everything has to be from “a different lense”…
Because they’re not really doing that now…and it lessens the effects of all the other stuff.

 

[LSLS]

The last three Marvel films made far far less than the previous films in the series. Thor Love and Thunder and Ant Man Quantumania each made about $100M less than the earlier entries, and Black Panther Wakanda about $500M less than Black Panther.

Theres multiple reasons to think Guardians will similarly underperform.

The underperform term is rough for me because I want something tangible to look at. So underperform is doing worse than their previous movies? It's a tough comparison when you are looking at 2 movies that were DEEP into the saga, and directly leading into one of the most anticipated movies in MCU history.

 

[Tha Realest]

The underperform term is rough for me because I want something tangible to look at. So underperform is doing worse than their previous movies? It's a tough comparison when you are looking at 2 movies that were DEEP into the saga, and directly leading into one of the most anticipated movies in MCU history.

I think in the box office sense “underperform” can mean different things. One way would be if it made less than a previous film in the franchise. Films series are generally expected to do as well or better than their predecessor.

Another way is if it doesn’t meet general expectations when budgeted or for its release. Deadline breakdowns often discuss what a movie had been tracking to make vs what it actually did.

I do not think Guardians 3 will exceed the box office of Guardians 2 ($868M worldwide). I think it will settle in to the $650M-$775M range. It might be the lowest grossing Guardians film. Mid to late May gets very crowded at the box office, as Fast X comes out two weeks after Guardians’ release.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Disney is stinky. -.-

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The underperform term is rough for me because I want something tangible to look at. So underperform is doing worse than their previous movies? It's a tough comparison when you are looking at 2 movies that were DEEP into the saga, and directly leading into one of the most anticipated movies in MCU history.

How about tickets sold?

Because If a 2022 Marvel sequel makes the same or less than it’s 2017 predecessor…it sold FAR fewer tickets.

And people buy stuff

And Disney makes all of its money ultimately off stuff

 

[Disstevefan1]

How about tickets sold?

Because If a 2022 Marvel sequel makes the same or less than it’s 2017 predecessor…it sold FAR fewer tickets.

And people buy stuff

And Disney makes all of its money ultimately off stuff

I agree.

The talking heads love to use the box office revenue alone to measure the success of a move like it's the old days when it WAS the only measure.

I think the box office is an outdated measure today.

As for box office performance (whatever it means today) I think tickets sold is the true measure.

But box office revenue is only one measure. Then there is revenue from when the movie is streamed, and revenue from physical media and merch related to a movie.

As for a movie to be determined a success, the movie needs to make (some significant amount) more, (combining all the mentioned above) than the cost of making the movie plus the marketing cost.

 

[el_super]

I think in the box office sense “underperform” can mean different things. One way would be if it made less than a previous film in the franchise. Films series are generally expected to do as well or better than their predecessor.

Really? In the before times (maybe in the WAY before times) sequels were always assumed to make less than the original. It was considered a risk to propose a sequel. Trilogies were something only Lucas or Spielberg could pull off.

Movie theaters in general are still struggling. They were down some 35% last year, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear they are trending lower this year. Streaming, inflation, the bad weather all playing a part so far.

Ant-Man may be underperforming compared to prior Ant-Man films, but it still seems to be doing well enough for itself compared to the other films that have come out this year. Shazam! opening in 4000+ theaters and still only pulling 30 million is .... quite disturbing to see. I think at this point, if you are a theater operator, you are concerned about your long term prospects.

 

[LSLS]

How about tickets sold?

Because If a 2022 Marvel sequel makes the same or less than it’s 2017 predecessor…it sold FAR fewer tickets.

And people buy stuff

And Disney makes all of its money ultimately off stuff

So then Empire Strikes Back is considered an underperforming movie? I don't think tickets sales are compared to other movies are really what expectations should be, there is SO much else involved. I do agree Marvel has lost steam right now, and I think the large part of it is they waited way too long to try to start bringing things together from the start of phase 4. And to be totally honest, I'm not sure I disagree that GotG 3 should outperform #2, but I'm not sure I like that idea as the metric to judge performance without a lot of other factors considered.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So then Empire Strikes Back is considered an underperforming movie? I don't think tickets sales are compared to other movies are really what expectations should be, there is SO much else involved. I do agree Marvel has lost steam right now, and I think the large part of it is they waited way too long to try to start bringing things together from the start of phase 4. And to be totally honest, I'm not sure I disagree that GotG 3 should outperform #2, but I'm not sure I like that idea as the metric to judge performance without a lot of other factors considered.

You’re comparing the media market in 1977-80 to today?

Why stop there? They showed gone with the wind for like 12 years…

All must KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!


Now I had to suffer this nonsense when Disney pooched the sequels…so let’s just clarify the ESB thing…
Star Wars was a first of its kind that ran for 2 years…so empire was speculated as a “letdown” by some and has conveniently been brought up when it suits Disney defenders now…

But what it did was turn an event movie into an entire universe/phenomenon. It established the aesthetic/feel (along with Jedi) that’s sold bout $100,000,000,000 in stuff.

That’s what empire did.

So maybe a little apples to oranges?