Captain Marvel 2: "The Marvels" -- Nov 10, 2023 Theatrical Release

[Disney Irish]

So someone correct me, but when they put the Marvels on D+ Disney's movie business charge TWDC fake money as if they sold the Marvels to Netflix.

They move some fake money from one pocket to another pocket and they can say The Marvels made this much more fake money from putting it on D+

Its not fake money, the money really exists. Its just transferred from one business division to another. This is normal accounting practices within companies, happens all day every day of the year, its not just Disney. Do you call your paycheck fake money since it was transferred from "one pocket to another pocket" so they can pay you?

 

[TP2000]

At least the Marvels is ahead of Five Nights this week.

Lets hope the Marvels can beat Five Nights in total gross eventually

What's alarming is that now it's not entirely clear that The Marvels will actually get to Freddy's box office totals.

The trajectory for domestic box office is abysmal for The Marvels, and it's not much better overseas. And Freddy's only cost $25 Million to make, while The Marvels cost Disney $220 Million to make after that $55 Million gift from British taxpayers.

 

[erasure fan1]

Its not fake money, the money really exists. Its just transferred from one business division to another.

You're correct, it's not fake money. But it really shouldn't be a defense to say, see the film made money. And that defense has come up on multiple occasions. Because it really is fake profit for the film.

 

[Disney Irish]

You're correct, it's not fake money. But it really shouldn't be a defense to say, see the film made money. And that defense has come up on multiple occasions. Because it really is fake profit for the film.

Well the money does come from somewhere, ie the subs fees and ads. Thus its real profit toward the film as its still paid for content, ie its not free for the company just because it was made by another division within the same company.

If I make a widget and sell that widget publicly, but its also used by another division within the company, I mark that I sold that widget to that division and account for it as profit in my division while the other division marks that it made the purchase.

This is how corporate accounting works. I'm sorry if some disagree with it but its a standard practice.

 

[erasure fan1]

If I make a widget and sell that widget publicly, but its also used by another division within the company, I mark that I sold that widget to that division and account for it as profit in my division while the other division marks that it made the purchase.

And the end result is you made no actual profit, as a company, on said widget. If I sell one of my super awesome star wars figures on ebay, and my wife buys it. Guess what? I didn't make any profit. Sure it counts on my account that I sold $100, but I didn't actually make a dime because the money came out of our bank account.

 

[Disney Irish]

And the end result is you made no actual profit, as a company, on said widget. If I sell one of my super awesome star wars figures on ebay, and my wife buys it. Guess what? I didn't make any profit. Sure it counts on my account that I sold $100, but I didn't actually make a dime because the money came out of our bank account.

Except everyone keeps missing the point that there are subscription fees and now ad revenue coming into D+ which pays for that content that is purchased, ie profit which is attributed to the films in question.

So either that content is free and D+ is making Billions in profit, or the content is being paid for which is resulting in an operating loss for the service. You can't have both. In the end money is coming into TWDC which is being used to pay for that content, ie profit for the content. End of story.

 

[erasure fan1]

So either that content is free and D+ is making Billions in profit, or the content is being paid for which is resulting in a loss for the service. You can't have both. In the end money is coming into TWDC which is being used to pay for that content, ie profit for the content. End of story.

You know darn well that just because D+ Transfers money to the studios, it will not make film xyz profitable. It is not a valid argument that a film like Antman was a big success because, look at all the money we were transferred from D+. And that's the point, Disney has to account for the money for their bookkeeping. But you can't claim victory for a film because of that.

 

[BuddyThomas]

The film’s failure making the op-ed rounds….

“The worst Marvel movie yet is also the cringiest”

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/worst-marvel-movie-yet-also-cringiest

Fox Noise. LOL.

 

[Disney Irish]

You know darn well that just because D+ Transfers money to the studios, it will not make film xyz profitable. It is not a valid argument that a film like Antman was a big success because, look at all the money we were transferred from D+. And that's the point, Disney has to account for the money for their bookkeeping. But you can't claim victory for a film because of that.

I don't think anyone is claiming victory, nor that x was a big success because of money paid out to the studios from D+ for the content. I think it was only used as far as talking about breakeven and making some profit.

However as I mentioned earlier a paycheck is not fake money just because its money transferred from one division to another. The same applies here, there are deals in place for profit sharing and such for monies received on films and multipliers based on profit. You can bet the farm that actors/directors/producers/etc all make sure that money is properly accounted for as that affects their paycheck. That is part of what the recent strikes were all about, more streaming transparency so they can ensure all monies are accounted for.

So if that money payed out by D+ for the content is used to pay for the backend deals of those involved in the films, you sure as hell can bet its counted toward profit just like any other ancillary money.

 

[MrPromey]

Except everyone keeps missing the point that there are subscription fees and now ad revenue coming into D+ which pays for that content that is purchased, ie profit which is attributed to the films in question.

So either that content is free and D+ is making Billions in profit, or the content is being paid for which is resulting in an operating loss for the service. You can't have both. In the end money is coming into TWDC which is being used to pay for that content, ie profit for the content. End of story.

I think everyone gets that point that there are subscription fees and now ad revenue coming in but do you get the point that to date, they have yet to get enough of any of that to actually cover what they are spending for content and overhead?

Like, if you run a lemonade stand and sell ten cups of lemonade and make a whopping $10 but your parents spent $30 bucks on the lemonade, cups and materials to build your stand and then spend a few hours sitting on the porch to make sure nobody kidnaps you on the curb while you're selling it, you understand that $10 isn't really profit, right?

If you're eight, maybe you don't but assuming we are all adults having this discussion, you do understand that, right?

To date, there has been no profit of any kind from D+. They have only ever lost money. They have brought in outside money but not enough to come even close to covering the cost of their existence.

Which isn't to say it will always be that way but until the situation changes and D+ stops losing the company money, how much they bring in really doesn't matter if they have to keep spending more than that and Disney has to take it from other divisions to keep the lights on over there.

So yeah, if D+ is spending gobs of money making the studios look better and part of that money comes from the price increase they make in the parks on a Mickey bar, that's not profit.

The plan is for that to change some time next year. This year they raised prices and reduced spending on content to move closer to that. They already are planning to spend a couple billion less than this year, next year... probably while also increasing prices.

It'll be interesting to see if the raising prices and offering less strategy they've employed in the parks will work for them in DTC video content, too.

None of this really fixes their movie problem, though and it's pretty obvious they have one. (just a reminder: I was one of the people who went to see this movie and liked it) We can all debate why* but they've got some serious work to do because I don't see how what's happening now is sustainable.

*I think there are a number of contributing factors, some within their control and some not.

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

Interesting!

Why was the previous Ms. Marvel character in Avenger's Campus so rude? I thought her character was a perky, "adorkable" teenage girl?

I'll answer this in a second because it was about poor guest experience, and messing up a lot of the "keys" from Courtesy onward.

But once again with your casting comments, you're so busy being snarky, you don't care that you're being dismissive (to put it kindly) of some really wonderful young people who are just trying to make some silly magic all day every day for thousands of strangers in the midst of some tough times. And as someone who interacts directly with the people you're making fun of, that's not okay.

Yes, looking the part is important, but BEING the character (or not) makes a WAY bigger impression on guests. I interacted with all the girls you are mocking. And all of them were great.

Last year's Ms. Marvel friend was repeatedly rude to me as I tried to talk to her even though I was one of pretty few who was even paying attention to her. She clearly did not want to talk to adults, and kept searching out kids to talk to - and even if no one else was stopping to talk to her, she was grumpy and curt and repeatedly cut me off and walked away when I tried to interact with her. Just blatantly unfriendly. I finally gave up, pretty upset that one of my fave characters had been so poorly cast with such an antisocial person. Glad she's not back and glad this girl, who gets the essence of the character as bouncy and fun, and looks the part just fine in person, is here instead. And I'm hoping to see her again soon.

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

Count me as someone who - if Disney+ doesn't do a Black Friday deal like many of the other streamers are - will buy in for a month when The Marvels drops onto the service. Which I expect will be in February. Probably for "Gal-entine's Day".

In December, they have Indy 5.

In January, they have Echo.

They'll probably hold Wish back until at least March.

February will be 90 days from release date. That's when I expect to sub for a month, watch The Marvels, Indy 5 and Echo, and bail out again until there's something else I want to watch, whenever that may be.

 

[TP2000]

I interacted with all the girls you are mocking. And all of them were great.

This is not "mocking", this is stating visual facts. In the publicity shot Disney released, the three ladies seem to be the wrong age range for all three of them, and the wrong ethnicity for one of them. Just based on visuals, no "mocking" needed.

This is tough casting because the faces don't have masks and helmets like the male superheros, but even so this doesn't seem to work well. The Brie Larson character looks like a second string Cinderella, the Teyonah Paris character looks much younger than the Iman Vellani "teenager" who actually looks Hispanic instead of Pakistani. Odd casting here, but at least it won't last but a week or two.

But why does she look like the oldest one? She's supposed to be the teenager, and she looks 32. Meanwhile, Brie Larson looks 25 and Teyona Paris looks 18.

I just Googled. There are 63,000 people of Pakistani descent living in California (population 39.2 Million and falling). That's 0.2% of the population, and half of them are men. So that's 0.1% of the population of California that are Pakistani women, and something like only 0.02% of the population of California would be Pakistani women aged 18 to 30. LA and Orange County has a combined population of 13.5 Million, so that would be about 8,000 women of Pakistani descent living in LA or OC. And around 1,000 of those women in SoCal would be 18 to 25. How many of the 1,000 are actresses who wanted a Disneyland gig?

So no wonder they had to choose a Latina to play Ms. Marvel. But did they have to choose the one who looks 32?

 

[Disney Irish]

I think everyone gets that point that there are subscription fees and now ad revenue coming in but do you get the point that to date, they have yet to get enough of any of that to actually cover what they are spending for content and overhead?

Like, if you run a lemonade stand and sell ten cups of lemonade and make a whopping $10 but your parents spent $30 bucks on the lemonade, cups and materials to build your stand and then spend a few hours sitting on the porch to make sure nobody kidnaps you on the curb while you're selling it, you understand that $10 isn't really profit, right?

If you're eight, maybe you don't but assuming we are all adults having this discussion, you do understand that, right?

To date, there has been no profit of any kind from D+. They have only ever lost money. They have brought in outside money but not enough to come even close to covering the cost of their existence.

Which isn't to say it will always be that way but until the situation changes and D+ stops losing the company money, how much they bring in really doesn't matter if they have to keep spending more than that and Disney has to take it from other divisions to keep the lights on over there.

So yeah, if D+ is spending gobs of money making the studios look better and part of that money comes from the price increase they make in the parks on a Mickey bar, that's not profit.

The plan is for that to change some time next year. This year they raised prices and reduced spending on content to move closer to that. They already are planning to spend a couple billion less than this year, next year... probably while also increasing prices.

It'll be interesting to see if the raising prices and offering less strategy they've employed in the parks will work for them in DTC video content, too.

None of this really fixes their movie problem, though and it's pretty obvious they have one. (just a reminder: I was one of the people who went to see this movie and liked it) We can all debate why* but they've got some serious work to do because I don't see how what's happening now is sustainable.

*I think there are a number of contributing factors, some within their control and some not.

Yes its 100% understood that D+ is running at a loss right now. But that doesn't preclude the fact that the money they spend on content goes to pay for something, ie toward the profitability of said content. And that if they weren't spending money on same said content they would be making Billions yearly for the company.

So you can't have it both ways. Either the content costs money, ie there is money spent on said content. Or the content is free and the service is making Billions in profit.

 

[MrPromey]

Yes its 100% understood that D+ is running at a loss right now. But that doesn't preclude the fact that the money they spend on content goes to pay for something, ie toward the profitability of said content. And that if they weren't spending money on same said content they would be making Billions yearly for the company.

So you can't have it both ways. Either the content costs money, ie there is money spent on said content. Or the content is free and the service is making Billions in profit.

You aren't telling us anything we don't know.

At this point, I have to assume you're intentionally ignoring the hole in your logic.

The only thing that matters is new money. Circulating the same money from one side of the company over to the other only to have it go back and forth as decent chunks are lost to outside parties in the form of residuals is not profit for Disney.

I understand this, erasure fan1 understands this. Based on how the stock continues to perform, I'm pretty sure Wall Street understands, too.

I don't understand why you don't.

When Disney has to siphon profits from other parts of the company to pay for D+ losses, that is lost money. When D+ is losing money to make theatrical release failures "profitable" for the studios that's "Hollywood accounting".

They can only keep getting away with this until D+ has to turn a profit.

Then the party is over.

That's sometime within the next twelve months.

Between now and then, they need to figure out either how to make their movies more profitable in theaters and Blu-ray (good luck on that second one) by making them better to get more people to go rather than wait, by doing a better job of marketing them to get more people to go rather than wait, by reducing production costs or probably, a combination of the three OR how to make D+ fantastically profitable while still being able to pay top dollar to the studios for exclusive streaming rights if it's still going to be expected to act as what they expect to save just about every movie they now release, at this point.

That last option seems like a tough ask when for the second year in a row D+ is about to reduce their spending year-over-year on content, meaning, less this year than last and even less next year than this year.

I'm arguing they can't keep going the way they're going indefiently without fixing something.

To be clear, are you saying you think they can?

 

[MrPromey]

Count me as someone who - if Disney+ doesn't do a Black Friday deal like many of the other streamers are - will buy in for a month when The Marvels drops onto the service. Which I expect will be in February. Probably for "Gal-entine's Day".

In December, they have Indy 5.

In January, they have Echo.

They'll probably hold Wish back until at least March.

February will be 90 days from release date. That's when I expect to sub for a month, watch The Marvels, Indy 5 and Echo, and bail out again until there's something else I want to watch, whenever that may be.

You planning to shell out big (the $13.99 for the no ads) or go cheap (the $7.99 for with ads)?

How many in your household will be taking advantage of this one-time fee to knock out three movies and whatever else you can squeeze in for that $8 or $14 over the course of a month instead of seeing these in the theater or renting/buying them individually?

What you're describing sounds like an example of the problem Disney has with making this business model profitable long-term, not an example of it working.

More power to you, btw.

I'm not faulting you in the least for being a smart consumer.

 

[Disney Irish]

You aren't telling us anything we don't know.

At this point, I have to assume you're intentionally ignoring the hole in your logic.

The only thing that matters is new money. Circulating the same money from one side of the company over to the other only to have it go back and forth as decent chunks are lost to outside parties in the form of residuals is not profit for Disney.

I understand this, erasure fan1 understands this. Based on how the stock continues to perform, I'm pretty sure Wall Street understands, it too.

I don't understand why you don't.

When Disney has to siphon profits from other parts of the company to pay for D+ losses, that is lost money. When D+ is losing money to make theatrical release failures "profitable" for the studios that's "Hollywood accounting".

They can only keep getting away with this until D+ has to turn a profit.

Then the party is over.

That's sometime within the next twelve months.

Between now and then, they need to figure out either how to make their movies more profitable in theaters and Blu-ray (good luck on that second one) by making them better, by doing a better job of marketing them, by reducing production costs or probably, a combination of the three OR how to make D+ fantastically profitable while still being able to pay top dollar to the studios for exclusive streaming rights if it's still going to be expected to act as what they expect to save just about every movie they now release, at this point.

That last option seems like a tough ask when for the second year in a row D+ is about to reduce their spending year-over-year on content, meaning, less this year than last and even less next year than this year.

I'm arguing they can't keep going the way they're going indefiently without fixing something.

To be clear, are you saying you think they can?

I'm not ignoring anything. Is D+ losing money, yes. Why are they losing money, mostly because they are paying for content. Everyone wants to look at Disney as one single company, but in reality and as is the case with most large corporations, its made up of different smaller companies that all contribute to the whole. So this isn't some mom and pop store that is pulling money from the till to pay for pops beer here. I get that some can't understand because its not "new outside money" how Division A while running a loss paying for something from Division B is somehow making Division B profit, but that is how accounting works. Division A still writes that as an expense and Division B still writes that as income, even if its not "new outside money" as that is still money that leaves one division's P&L and goes into another division's P&L via each divisions balance sheets. And again is 100% accountable as part of contracts tied to residuals of content, ie real money. So this is not fake money, or some accounting trick. This is real money spent on content that must be accounted for on both sides of the transaction, and one of the main points of the recent strike, ie more transparency into streaming numbers and larger residuals on streaming content.

So if you want to say that D+ isn't making enough outside money yet to cover its losses, I 100% agree with you. But to say that the Studio isn't making money off of content sold to D+, I'll disagree with you and die on that hill.

As far as your question, I've been clear on this topic. I think they will be able to turn a profit for D+ in 2024 as they've projected. How they do that has been up for debate, but its clear its by reduced costs and price increases. Now the reduced costs are going to come in the form of reduced operational costs by merging D+ and Hulu and by reduced content spend. That doesn't mean no content spend, that just means reduced content spend. And we've already seen that by them pulling content from the service and cancelling under performing content.

 

[TP2000]

You planning to shell out big (the $13.99 for the no ads) or go cheap (the $7.99 for with ads)?

How many in your household will be taking advantage of this one-time fee to knock out three movies and whatever else you can squeeze in for that $8 or $14 over the course of a month instead of seeing these in the theater or renting/buying them individually?

What you're describing sounds like an example of the problem Disney has with making this business model profitable long-term, not an example of it working.

More power to you, btw.

I'm not faulting you in the least for being a smart consumer.

I've said it a dozen times now, but when the streaming industry made it easy and simple to cancel, re-subscribe, and cancel again with just a few clicks of the remote control on your couch they destroyed their own business model.

Back when we all had cable, you had to call them, wait on hold and battle on the phone for an hour with a person who didn't want you to cancel. Now, cancelling is easier than adjusting the color on your screen. Big mistake!

I just recently did the one-month subscribe thing to HBOMax to watch The Gilded Age (I liked it!) because my sister insists it will be a mandatory discussion topic at Thanksgiving. But 3 weeks from now I'm cancelling it. I've seen a few things to check out in the next couple weeks, but I already know I'll cancel.

And finally, I will never understand how Disney+ is supposed to be profitable for them while they simultaneously spend $200 to $300 Million to make bloated tentpole movies for theaters. And then, like The Marvels, they flop horribly.

 

[MrPromey]

So if you want to say that D+ isn't making enough outside money yet to cover its losses, I 100% agree with you. But to say that the Studio isn't making money off of content sold to D+, I'll disagree with you and die on that hill.

I'm saying DISNEY is not making money this way (they are currently losing it*) and that is all that really matters because the studios and D+ are not their own publicly traded companies.

By your logic, why not just have D+ pay the studios a billion dollars for the streaming rights for The Marvels and fix a whole bunch of the studio problems for 2023?

The answer of course is because sooner or later, that money has to actually appear somewhere other than just on a spreadsheet.

*Someone in another thread made the argument that they are creating monetary value in D+ to the tune of billions with all these streaming rights but realistically, it is value they will never see realized because the Disney Co. will never sell D+ with exclusive rights to their entire catalog to anyone else. They may be able to use that estimated value to secure favorable loan terms but they can't build a cruise ship with it or pay dividends with it... maybe get a lower interest rate for the loan on that curse ship, I guess. Maybe make them worth more when another company tries to buy Disney Co?

 

[MrPromey]

I've said it a dozen times now, but when the streaming industry made it easy and simple to cancel, re-subscribe, and cancel again with just a few clicks of the remote control on your couch they destroyed their own business model.

Back when we all had cable, you had to call them, wait on hold and battle on the phone for an hour with a person who didn't want you to cancel. Now, cancelling is easier than adjusting the color on your screen. Big mistake!

I just recently did the one-month subscribe thing to HBOMax to watch The Gilded Age (I liked it!) because my sister insists it will be a mandatory discussion topic at Thanksgiving. But 3 weeks from now I'm cancelling it. I've seen a few things to check out in the next couple weeks, but I already know I'll cancel.

And finally, I will never understand how Disney+ is supposed to be profitable for them while they simultaneously spend $200 to $300 Million to make bloated tentpole movies for theaters. And then, like The Marvels, they flop horribly.

I just canceled my D+ annual plan in anticipation of the Disney/Spectrum deal. I thought I did it when I got the renewal notice but got an alert from my card company when the charge went through.

Later that day, I canceled and got a refund through chat and they never even asked why I was leaving.

I'm not complaining - this is exactly how I wanted it to go - but I thought it was interesting there was absolutely no effort being put to retention at all.

Anyway, I'm a subscriber since day one who has now left to be part of that group that goes into some lower-margin deal with a cable provider I can't "cut the cord" from thanks to my home owners' association.