News Bob Iger talks about attendance declines, ticket pricing, the feud with Ron DeSantis, and his huge optimism for Disney Parks and Resorts

[SirLink]

Not to be rude, but from anyone with actual knowledge? Twitter is not exactly trustworthy, especially with the paid blue checks all trying to get "engagement" in hopes they'll be the next-in-line for Elon's bribes revenue sharing.

No its people retweeting Bloombergs article which is speculative based on CNBC interview. essentially he marked the TV networks as non-core to TWDC. So it does echo the sentiments provided previously with two much general entertainment being produced for ABC, Freeform, FX, FXX Disney+/Star and Hulu. Then you have their investment in A+E network and A+E EMEA network as well.

Its sensationalism at its worst ... but at the same time its time to stem the bleeding of the corpse of TV.

 

[FigmentFan82]

Not to be rude, but from anyone with actual knowledge? Twitter is not exactly trustworthy, especially with the paid blue checks all trying to get "engagement" in hopes they'll be the next-in-line for Elon's bribes revenue sharing.

Prob not, but interesting when a friend hits you up that their feed is showing this rumor, thought it was worthy to discuss. I don't think it's credible, but that's why we're here

 

[JD80]

The argument for stores or combine store and experiences that are more local to more people is it does make Disney "more accessible" like Iger said he wanted to do and reinforces the brand.

I agree just straight up stores in malls is not going to rmp ovide good RoI in a vacuum though

I mean sure, a local taste of Disney like a store is wonderful. I really liked them when they were around. But I'm not sure that's a viable business model.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I mean sure, a local taste of Disney like a store is wonderful. I really liked them when they were around. But I'm not sure that's a viable business model.

and a money losing streaming service is?

 

[JD80]

and a money losing streaming service is?

I think streaming will eventually be profitable. Brick and mortar won't be.

 

[Beacon Joe]

It's the humidity.

 

[FettFan]

Lol, no.

You're kidding yourself if you think that'll ever happen. If you can un-clutch your pearls for 2 seconds you'd know that adult profiles can be locked behind a separate password, and kid profiles do not show this content.

1. If you believe that's a viable safeguard in a society where kids have smartphone access as young as 5, I've got some prime Wyoming property to sell you, right on the white sandy Gulf beach.

Boy, 4, secretly orders more than $2,600 in SpongeBob popsicles from Amazon

The ordeal left the boy's mother with quite the bill - until generous strangers stepped up on GoFundMe.

www.wagmtv.com

2. More than just pearl clutching, the entire principle of the matter. Walt would never have stood for such a move attached to his name. Ron Miller knew this was an issue and that's why he created Touchstone Productions. Michael Eisner carried this further and he created Hollywood Pictures, so that more adult oriented films and television could be produced without sullying the Disney name or brand.
Even in the parks, when Eisner wanted to include Ridley Scott's Alien as a thrill ride (in which you would use laser guns to shoot the aliens while on a rescue mission), there was so much pushback inside the company that even George Lucas was picking up the phone and telling Eisner it was a bad move. Eisner then relented and we got Alien Encounter, which was still so way far out for Disney (you get splattered with warm water that simulated blood from one of the alien's victims) that it didn't even last 10 years before being replaced by Stitch.

 

[Indy_UK]

I still believe Iger wants to be the last CEO of Disney

 

[flynnibus]

2. More than just pearl clutching, the entire principle of the matter. Walt would never have stood for such a move attached to his name. Michael Eisner knew this was an issue, and that's why he created Hollywood Pictures and Touchstone Productions, so that more adult oriented films and television could be produced without sullying the Disney name or brand.

Wrong boss Touchstone was the brain child of Ron Miller

 

[FettFan]

Wrong boss Touchstone was the brain child of Ron Miller

Ah. Well, the idea behind both was the same: the separation of more mature content from the Disney name. I'll edit it asap.

The Disney brand was always about family entertainment, Touchstone was created for more mature content.

 

[FigmentFan82]

1. If you believe that's a viable safeguard in a society where kids have smartphone access as young as 5, I've got some prime Wyoming property to sell you, right on the white sandy Gulf beach.

Boy, 4, secretly orders more than $2,600 in SpongeBob popsicles from Amazon

The ordeal left the boy's mother with quite the bill - until generous strangers stepped up on GoFundMe.

www.wagmtv.com

2. More than just pearl clutching, the entire principle of the matter. Walt would never have stood for such a move attached to his name. Ron Miller knew this was an issue and that's why he created Touchstone Productions. Michael Eisner carried this further and he created Hollywood Pictures, so that more adult oriented films and television could be produced without sullying the Disney name or brand.
Even in the parks, when Eisner wanted to include Ridley Scott's Alien as a thrill ride (in which you would use laser guns to shoot the aliens while on a rescue mission), there was so much pushback inside the company that even George Lucas was picking up the phone and telling Eisner it was a bad move. Eisner then relented and we got Alien Encounter, which was still so way far out for Disney (you get splattered with warm water that simulated blood from one of the alien's victims) that it didn't even last 10 years before being replaced by Stitch.

Parents should parent, quit blaming others, simple as that. But someone is always looking to point a finger

 

[Dranth]

1. If you believe that's a viable safeguard in a society where kids have smartphone access as young as 5, I've got some prime Wyoming property to sell you, right on the white sandy Gulf beach.

Exactly how would a smart phone circumvent parental controls on D+?

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

parental controls or not it confuses the brand and that’s a bad thing for a business.

It also devalues the “Disney classics” by putting them next to ice age, etc. but that doesn’t mean the Disney company shouldn’t have a larger streaming service. It’s just poorly branded.

Why not put mighty ducks on espn+!? That makes as much sense for that brand to me.

 

[Lilofan]

Twitter rumors firing up about Iger selling Disney.

Quite the opposite in 2016 when Iger was thinking of buying Twitter who was led by former Disney board member Jack Dorsey.

 

[Br0ckford]

Exactly how would a smart phone circumvent parental controls on D+?

Hackers gonna hack

 

[Indy_UK]

parental controls or not it confuses the brand and that’s a bad thing for a business.

It also devalues the “Disney classics” by putting them next to ice age, etc. but that doesn’t mean the Disney company shouldn’t have a larger streaming service. It’s just poorly branded.

But it works fine everywhere else outside of the US?

 

[TheIceBaron]

It’s not talked about that much for whatever reason but I think Disney needs to be more aggressive on the video game side of things. I’m not sure Iger fully realized it’s potential especially after they did that 10 year exclusivity deal with EA. Star Wars video games were absolutely amazing during the 1998-2008 era of Lucasfilm and there is strong evidence it helped augment revenue growth and brand loyalty. Video games as a business can be very lucrative and with the amount of properties Disney has it should be licensing them out to studios left and right. Especially with the Hollywood strikes, video games can offer better returns.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

But it works fine everywhere else outside of the US?

I’m not sure what you’re saying?

 

[Professortango1]

1. If you believe that's a viable safeguard in a society where kids have smartphone access as young as 5, I've got some prime Wyoming property to sell you, right on the white sandy Gulf beach.

Boy, 4, secretly orders more than $2,600 in SpongeBob popsicles from Amazon

The ordeal left the boy's mother with quite the bill - until generous strangers stepped up on GoFundMe.

www.wagmtv.com

2. More than just pearl clutching, the entire principle of the matter. Walt would never have stood for such a move attached to his name. Ron Miller knew this was an issue and that's why he created Touchstone Productions. Michael Eisner carried this further and he created Hollywood Pictures, so that more adult oriented films and television could be produced without sullying the Disney name or brand.
Even in the parks, when Eisner wanted to include Ridley Scott's Alien as a thrill ride (in which you would use laser guns to shoot the aliens while on a rescue mission), there was so much pushback inside the company that even George Lucas was picking up the phone and telling Eisner it was a bad move. Eisner then relented and we got Alien Encounter, which was still so way far out for Disney (you get splattered with warm water that simulated blood from one of the alien's victims) that it didn't even last 10 years before being replaced by Stitch.

Walt has been dead for awhile now. Disney almost folded a few times because first their live action films were terrible and then their animated films started being surpassed by former Disney animators. And unfortunately, Disney has begun to repeat that track record with their live action films failing more and more and their animated films no longer being cultural icons or even downright duds.

Why would I want to pay for a streaming network dedicated to Disney's family library? A handful of great animated movies and a smaller handful of decent live action? If you don't love Marvel and Star Wars and cartoons that you have seen a billion times, then the service and studio don't have much to sell you. I'm not going to pay to see longer and uglier remakes of their good films. Or the 5th Pirates film. Or a Marvel movie that didn't do well in theatres. Heck, I can't even watch Something Wicked This Way Comes on Disney+.

And if you take Touchstone Miramax movies out of the lineup, it becomes a lot more limited. Not even Nightmare Before Christmas would survive, one of the only movies that comes up when you search "horror."

Sorry, Disney can be a brand on someone else's service, but an entire streaming service only serving Disney is like doing a meal order subscription for In n Out. It might hit the spot now and then, but it isn't good and they don't have variety.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Not even Nightmare Before Christmas would survive,

Nightmare is Disney branded.