Captain America 4

[Agent H]

Of course they did…and if you want to know when?…it was right around them tanking 10 movies a couple years back

Include Lucas and Marvel movies

Then the incessant excuse making/goalpost moving about D+ started.

And at the end of the day…those bad movies have been forgetten and make about ZERO in additional revenue

And tomorrow the sun will rise in the east…even if the Iger fan club tries to convince you it’s the west

There was no goal post movement for Disney+. It was never going to be profitable until 2024.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There was no goal post movement for Disney+. It was never going to be profitable until 2024.

That wasn’t what I was saying

A history lesson:

For about 10 years…as MCU, live action remakes, Pixar sequels and bad Star Wars kept scoring bigger and bigger box office takes…Disneys studios were lauded.

As they should have been. Results based industry

For the last five or so the batting average has dropped tremendously…mostly because bad ideas are being made.

They should be crushed…

But no…all of a sudden the growing drumbeat of the same 5 or so people “redefined” box office success.

Now…it’s “all movies are a hit in the long term…”

And that was always a part of Disney products…they pump them forever and they need every nickel.

But hits were still hits. Those sell the crap.

Disney plus doesn’t blunt that. They have a content issue and they need GOOD content to drive revenue. Bad movies doesn’t help.

So that’s where we are.

Inside out and Moana? Big hits…lots of cash.

Lion king? Breakeven…a wash. Cap? A fail

The definition of “success” doesn’t change as to not hurt Disneys feelings (that they don’t have)

 

[BrianLo]

Some more fun and better sourced history.

From 97-2014 Disney's worldwide market share in the theatrical landscape fell between 10-17%. 2001, 2005, 2008 were notable lulls around 10%. 99 (Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2), 2003 (Nemo, Pirates) and 2006 (Cars, Pirates) were stronger years around 17%. Pretty interesting that they were all banded around essentially one live action and one Pixar big success.

Sequentially their two studio problem started to unlock. WDAS came back. Marvel joined the fold and then Star Wars.

Starting in 2015, theatrical market share surged above 20%, a level it hadn't previously enjoyed since 95/96. It remained above this threshold for a great 5 year run (not 10); running 20-26% for 2015-18 and then completely blew the doors off the industry in 2019 when it owned 33.34% of the market.

During this time Disney became the number one distributor from 2016-2019. It missed out in 2015 by a hair as Universal owned a tad more share.

In 2022 Disney had a good year by historical standards, owning 18% of the market. Still above the entirety of 1997-2014. In 2023 Disney had a "bad year". Falling to 16% of the market share. Then rebounded into another exceptional year at 21.44% of the market again. If 20th Century is included, market share is actually almost 29% (thanks Way of Water) in 2022 and 20.6% (thanks Way of Water) in 2023.

Ultimately, the market is not where it was pre-pandemic, but Disney seems to still be commanding it.


So anyways, that's the less myopic history lesson. 2022 and 2024 were still strong years even without Cameron. More importantly, as I've highlighted a lot: flops and misses and barely break evens occur almost every year of the companies modern history. Even most of the great ones.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Some more fun and better sourced history.

From 97-2014 Disney's worldwide market share in the theatrical landscape fell between 10-17%. 2001, 2005, 2008 were notable lulls around 10%. 99 (Sixth Sense, Toy Story 2), 2003 (Nemo, Pirates) and 2006 (Cars, Pirates) were stronger years around 17%. Pretty interesting that they were all banded around essentially one live action and one Pixar big success.

Sequentially their two studio problem started to unlock. WDAS came back. Marvel joined the fold and then Star Wars.

Starting in 2015, theatrical market share surged above 20%, a level it hadn't previously enjoyed since 95/96. It remained above this threshold for a great 5 year run (not 10); running 20-26% for 2015-18 and then completely blew the doors off the industry in 2019 when it owned 33.34% of the market.

During this time Disney became the number one distributor from 2016-2019. It missed out in 2015 by a hair as Universal owned a tad more share.

In 2022 Disney had a good year by historical standards, owning 18% of the market. Still above the entirety of 1997-2014. In 2023 Disney had a "bad year". Falling to 16% of the market share. Then rebounded into another exceptional year at 21.44% of the market again. If 20th Century is included, market share is actually almost 29% (thanks Way of Water) in 2022 and 20.6% (thanks Way of Water) in 2023.

Ultimately, the market is not where it was pre-pandemic, but Disney seems to still be commanding it.


So anyways, that's the less myopic history lesson. 2022 and 2024 were still strong years even without Cameron. More importantly, as I've highlighted a lot: flops and misses and barely break evens occur almost every year of the companies modern history. Even most of the great ones.

And yet…failure is still a consistent concept. We haggle over the “fringes”

So don’t bomb movies…is the takeaway

Somebody’s stock is still where it was 10 years ago and Everybody else is rich

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

Reporting live from Avengers Campus at DCA. There is a meet and greet currently with Captain America... not Captain Falcon.

Hilarious being Captain Falcon is supposed to be the hot thing at this moment.

Steve and Sam are both out on Campus at different times during the day. Sam gets a special show moment to assemble the Avengers and do photo ops.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Ah yes.

A super piece on the amazing turnaround the company has made!

Disney Touts Two-Year Turnaround Behind Studio’s Stellar Quarter.

The company’s fiscal fourth quarter that ended in September was one of the best ever in the studio’s history. Pixar’s Inside Out 2 and Marvel’s Deadpool & Wolverine became the top films of the year so far, setting box office records. Disney became the first studio to cross $4 billion globally in 2024.

In executive commentary around the numbers this morning, Iger and CFO Hugh Johnson cited renewed creative strength, “a result of the extensive work we began two years ago to restore creativity to the center of the company.”

“We are encouraged by this momentum in our studio business going into the holiday season,” they said, with upcoming Moana 2 later this month and Mufasa: The Lion King in December.

The studio, housed in Content Sales/Licensing — one of three divisions in Disney’s Entertainment Segment with streaming and linear TV — saw revenue jump by 39% to nearly $2.6 billion last quarter. It swung to a $316 million profit from a $149 million loss.

I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.

I'll put you down for "I was wrong. Disney does indeed acknowledge a movie that doesn't do well financially," and say to you, "you're welcome."

 

[Disstevefan1]

I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.

I'll put you down for "I was wrong. Disney does indeed acknowledge a movie that doesn't do well financially," and say to you, "you're welcome."

The word salad was taken directly from the article where Disney was acknowledging their mistakes

 

[WoundedDreamer]

There’s plenty of things they don’t consider a success. Even from the example you gave, Disney clearly was extremely disappointed in Harmonious. A hugely expensive infrastructure that they ditched in record time and rushed a complete replacement of.

I think the missed expectations are you own, everything isn’t black and white. Things people want called as missed aren’t fully so. But when something is really bad, there usually isn’t argument about it.

See something like Strange World. There’s no ambiguity from nearly any source, trade nor Disney, it was a successful product.

Disney’s ‘Strange World’ to Lose $100 Million in Theatrical Run

Disney's animated feature "Strange World" bombed over Thanksgiving, leaving the studio to mop up oceans, mountains and rocky terrains of red ink.

variety.com

‘Strange World’ To Lose $147M: Why Theatrical Was Best Decision For Doomed Toon — Not Disney+ — As Bob Iger Takes Over CEO From Bob Chapek

‘Strange World’ To Lose $147M: Why Theatrical Best Decision For Doomed Toon

deadline.com

‘Strange World’ Box Office: Why the Disney Animated Pic Spun Out of Orbit

As the family movie faces a $100 million-plus loss, analysts point to terrible audience scores, Bob Chapek-era streaming priorities and the now-dismantled distribution goliath created by the recently ousted CEO.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Here’s very early in the run major trades using language like doomed, bomb, flop, etc. When it’s actually deserving of those accolades, they call it like it is. Nor is this revisionist, all these articles are from its release month still.

You're right in a way, but I also think the OP has a point.

On the edges of the box office gross bell curve, the ability to sell different narratives becomes more difficult. For example, a film that grosses $2 Billion is a success. A film that grosses $2 is a failure. It's somewhere in the murky middle of the two extremes that Disney has room to spin performance.

Generally, Disney (like any firm) will be loathe to admit a mistake or even middling performer. They have an incentive to tell the public and investors that all is going well. Of course, in legal filings and public statements, Disney must disclose more concrete information and avoid directly misleading claims. That still gives a lot of room to portray films that did alright as a "success." In some sense, describing a film as a "success" means almost nothing. A film that barely breaks even and a film that makes multiples of its budget might both be described as a "success." That doesn't mean Disney is happy with the performance or views the brand as healthy.

The examples you provided are when a film does so poorly that not acknowledging it did poorly discredits your leadership. Arguing "Lightyear was a big success" would make the executive saying it look like a fool. It also probably crosses the line into misleading investors. There are other instances where Disney can use ambiguity to its advantage.

A similar complication arises in media coverage. Trade publications and the mainstream media can be more oppositional and daring in their coverage of Hollywood, but they have a fundamental flaw. Much of their reporting relies on access to the very firms they are covering. Inside scoops, early previews, access to events, and other information is all dependent on keeping a good relationship with the studio. That doesn't mean they'll always do what the studio says or wants, but that they have a strong incentive to avoid being exceptionally confrontational. It's an awful tightrope that these journalists have to walk.

Captain America 4 has done well enough that it's not in total humiliation territory (unless a new budget figure comes out that is significantly higher). It will therefore be described as a "success." Neither Disney or the media has an incentive to describe it in a different way. Do I think this was a great reintroduction of Captain America to the big screen? Probably not. Its gross is likely to fall comfortably below Ant Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. The primary difference between these two entries is the budgets. That's why I can comfortably say that Captain America 4 is not a total humiliation. Still, this performance doesn't indicate to me that the Sam Wilson Captain America brand is in strong shape.

Ultimately, I view this film as one of the last vestiges of the great Marvel overproduction crisis. Marvel needed to get these last few wonky films out the door before they can create great content again. I would happy to be wrong, but the Thunderbolts reeks of an impending poor performer. The new quality control regime turnaround story is really going to start with Fantastic Four. That's the film that needs to be extraordinary.

 

[Tha Realest]

You're right in a way, but I also think the OP has a point.

On the edges of the box office gross bell curve, the ability to sell different narratives becomes more difficult. For example, a film that grosses $2 Billion is a success. A film that grosses $2 is a failure. It's somewhere in the murky middle of the two extremes that Disney has room to spin performance.

Generally, Disney (like any firm) will be loathe to admit a mistake or even middling performer. They have an incentive to tell the public and investors that all is going well. Of course, in legal filings and public statements, Disney must disclose more concrete information and avoid directly misleading claims. That still gives a lot of room to portray films that did alright as a "success." In some sense, describing a film as a "success" means almost nothing. A film that barely breaks even and a film that makes multiples of its budget might both be described as a "success." That doesn't mean Disney is happy with the performance or views the brand as healthy.

The examples you provided are when a film does so poorly that not acknowledging it did poorly discredits your leadership. Arguing "Lightyear was a big success" would make the executive saying it look like a fool. It also probably crosses the line into misleading investors. There are other instances where Disney can use ambiguity to its advantage.

A similar complication arises in media coverage. Trade publications and the mainstream media can be more oppositional and daring in their coverage of Hollywood, but they have a fundamental flaw. Much of their reporting relies on access to the very firms they are covering. Inside scoops, early previews, access to events, and other information is all dependent on keeping a good relationship with the studio. That doesn't mean they'll always do what the studio says or wants, but that they have a strong incentive to avoid being exceptionally confrontational. It's an awful tightrope that these journalists have to walk.

Captain America 4 has done well enough that it's not in total humiliation territory (unless a new budget figure comes out that is significantly higher). It will therefore be described as a "success." Neither Disney or the media has an incentive to describe it in a different way. Do I think this was a great reintroduction of Captain America to the big screen? Probably not. Its gross is likely to fall comfortably below Ant Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. The primary difference between these two entries is the budgets. That's why I can comfortably say that Captain America 4 is not a total humiliation. Still, this performance doesn't indicate to me that the Sam Wilson Captain America brand is in strong shape.

Ultimately, I view this film as one of the last vestiges of the great Marvel overproduction crisis. Marvel needed to get these last few wonky films out the door before they can create great content again. I would happy to be wrong, but the Thunderbolts reeks of an impending poor performer. The new quality control regime turnaround story is really going to start with Fantastic Four. That's the film that needs to be extraordinary.

I appreciate this post, I really do. Given all the extensive work undertaken in multiple reshoots, I don’t have much confidence that the true production budget was only $180M.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

There was no goal post movement for Disney+. It was never going to be profitable until 2024.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. There has been some goalpost shifting along the way. Let us go back in time to December 2020. How did they do?

Disney+ and Disney+/Hotstar had ~158.6 million subscribers at end of FY2024. That falls massively short of even their low end prediction of 230 million subscribers. The obvious rebuttal is that the price increases and slashing content spend led to the subscriber growth shortfall. That's a reasonable rebuttal, but it's somewhat besides the point. Disney was aiming for 230 million to 260 million subscribers and missed the threshold by 70-100 million subscribers.

This isn't Iger's fault as he had the original April 2019 numbers that were more conservative. He wisely wanted to underpromise and overdeliver. I don't compliment Iger often, but he was right about that. Still, Disney made a promise a pretty obviously underdelivered.

Hulu is a different story as Disney's forecasting was excellent. FY2024 end Hulu subscriptions were at 52 million. That's well within the range established by Iger and reaffirmed by Chapek.

ESPN+ subscribers also were also met with 25.6 million subscribers at the end of FY2024.

Total global subscriptions across the three business lines ended up at ~235 million subscribers.

Investors have been a on a wild ride. Blame for this can be rested on Chapek, and those critics might well be right. I still don't know how his CFO presented these numbers to investors if she didn't believe in them. That seems dubious. The board of directors and many executives are directly implicated in this blunder. This seems like a total failure across the board.

It's too bad, if they had stuck to Iger's original numbers this would be a solid beat.

I appreciate this post, I really do. Given all the extensive work undertaken in multiple reshoots, I don’t have much confidence that the true production budget was only $180M.

It's totally reasonable to be skeptical about this. I have to admit that the wounds of the Multiverse of Madness budget rug pull are still fresh for me. We're in a tricky place, though. If we just say we don't believe in the $180 million number then it's really hard to have any discussion. We can't just make up numbers, so I'm trying swallow my skepticism and go with the official number. Your mileage may vary!

 

[Disney Irish]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. There has been some goalpost shifting along the way. Let us go back in time to December 2020. How did they do?

View attachment 847360

Disney+ and Disney+/Hotstar had ~158.6 million subscribers at end of FY2024. That falls massively short of even their low end prediction of 230 million subscribers. The obvious rebuttal is that the price increases and slashing content spend led to the subscriber growth shortfall. That's a reasonable rebuttal, but it's somewhat besides the point. Disney was aiming for 230 million to 260 million subscribers and missed the threshold by 70-100 million subscribers.

This isn't Iger's fault as he had the original April 2019 numbers that were more conservative. He wisely wanted to underpromise and overdeliver. I don't compliment Iger often, but he was right about that. Still, Disney made a promise a pretty obviously underdelivered.

View attachment 847361
Hulu is a different story as Disney's forecasting was excellent. FY2024 end Hulu subscriptions were at 52 million. That's well within the range established by Iger and reaffirmed by Chapek.

View attachment 847362

ESPN+ subscribers also were also met with 25.6 million subscribers at the end of FY2024.


View attachment 847363
Total global subscriptions across the three business lines ended up at ~235 million subscribers.

Investors have been a on a wild ride. Blame for this can be rested on Chapek, and those critics might well be right. I still don't know how his CFO presented these numbers to investors if she didn't believe in them. That seems dubious. The board of directors and many executives are directly implicated in this blunder. This seems like a total failure across the board.

It's too bad, if they had stuck to Iger's original numbers this would be a solid beat.

This however I wouldn't put as goalpost moving, as that comment was really in context to discussions about D+ and its impact on a movies bottomline in threads here anyways not Disney's guidance on D+. But overall there is a reason why many streamers including Disney and Netflix stopped giving guidance on subs because at a certain point, right around the time that Netflix missed their guidance on subs, Wall St stopped paying attention to sub numbers and started to pay attention to profitability and only cared about that moving forward. And on that mark Disney has been solid and consistent with their guidance that end of 2024 would have D+ profitable, which they hit. So in the end the sub numbers are only for bragging rights, its the profitability that really matters, and D+ so far has achieved that.

It's totally reasonable to be skeptical about this. I have to admit that the wounds of the Multiverse of Madness budget rug pull are still fresh for me. We're in a tricky place, though. If we just say we don't believe in the $180 million number then it's really hard to have any discussion. We can't just make up numbers, so I'm trying swallow my skepticism and go with the official number. Your mileage may vary!

I agree with this, the problem here is that some continue to try to use budgets as a way to take negative swipes at certain movies for whatever reason.

 

[BrianLo]

View attachment 847360

Investors have been a on a wild ride. Blame for this can be rested on Chapek, and those critics might well be right.

If a single slide could forewarn Chapek's job loss, it was this one. Underpromise, overdeliver.

But he was addicted to riding that wave to his complete undoing.

Not sure if you ever watched Succession, but the fact the writers had landed on a faked Indian subscriber count as a hidden scandal struck me as more close to home than expected. WayStar Royco always felt Rupert Murdoch adjacent, but the more they started to reference parks, resorts and their cruise business I couldn't unsee the aspects of Disney that inspired the fake 7th major media conglomerate.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This however I wouldn't put as goalpost moving, as that comment was really in context to discussions about D+ and its impact on a movies bottomline in threads here anyways not Disney's guidance on D+. But overall there is a reason why many streamers including Disney and Netflix stopped giving guidance on subs because at a certain point, right around the time that Netflix missed their guidance on subs, Wall St stopped paying attention to sub numbers and started to pay attention to profitability and only cared about that moving forward. And on that mark Disney has been solid and consistent with their guidance that end of 2024 would have D+ profitable, which they hit. So in the end the sub numbers are only for bragging rights, its the profitability that really matters, and D+ so far has achieved that.


I agree with this, the problem here is that some continue to try to use budgets as a way to take negative swipes at certain movies for whatever reason.

You always forget the key detail that the movie actually sucks too

 

[Disney Irish]

You always forget the key detail that the movie actually sucks too

Personally I like it, but ymmv

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Personally I like it, but ymmv

I had a feeling it would exceed my expectations…

Nah…can’t win em all

 

[MagicMouseFan]

Can’t win’’em all… thought it would do much better.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Can’t win’’em all… thought it would do much better.

This is a bit surprising to me also, I really thought this would pull in $500-600 million worldwide, its opening weekend had it on pace for about $500-550 million but it seems to be sputtering out.

I think it’ll ultimately end in the $400-450 million range but that’s gotta be a little disappointing for Disney, not a bad result, not a great one either though, should be around break even territory at least.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is a bit surprising to me also, I really thought this would pull in $500-600 million worldwide, its opening weekend had it on pace for about $500-550 million but it seems to be sputtering out.

I think it’ll ultimately end in the $400-450 million range but that’s gotta be a little disappointing for Disney, not a bad result, not a great one either though, should be around break even territory at least.

This one was DOA…for multiple reasons

Maybe we find out exactly what the hit was in the future? But no way to look at it as anything other than a failure

 

[networkpro]

Casting had some very glaring issues such as the head of security (Shirra Haas), but nothing as bad as the poor directing and wooden acting. Sad, as the first third's performance by Giancarlo Esposito and the ever awesome hatman were wonderful. Reshoots were the best they could to attempting to salvage this turkey.

 

[Screamface]

I still don't understand how they're making films now where it's basically, "It's ok, if you're bored and can't find something to watch on Disney+, maybe check it out."