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

[Disney Irish]

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.

Some divisions within corporations run losses, sometimes for years on end. As long as the overall company can offset those losses with other parts of the company it isn't affecting the overall profitability of the company.

Disney is a profitable company overall, even if D+ is losing money right now. Yes that cannot continue forever, just like the Studios cannot sustain loses at the box office forever. But for periods of time in both scenarios they can, because the rest of the company still brings in enough money to offset those losses.

D+ will eventually make money, and the Studios will eventually make money at the box office again. When either one or both happen, this discussion of how can Studios mark D+ payment for content as profit will go away on forums like this. I just hope that happens sooner rather than later.

 

[Disney Irish]

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'm honestly surprised you aren't watching Season 6 of the Crown. Better get on that re-subscription of Netflix, you're missing out, last season and all.

 

[MrPromey]

Some divisions within corporations run losses, sometimes for years on end. As long as the overall company can offset those losses with other parts of the company it isn't affecting the overall profitability of the company.

Wait, what happened to your "Everyone wants to look at Disney as one single company" line?

If they're not one single company, how does other parts of the company offsetting D+ losses come into play?

I agree with what you're saying here and obviously, that's what has been happening for D+ up until now.

Disney is a profitable company overall, even if D+ is losing money right now. Yes that cannot continue forever, just like the Studios cannot sustain loses at the box office forever. But for periods of time in both scenarios they can, because the rest of the company still brings in enough money to offset those losses.

So we actually agree.

D+ will eventually make money, and the Studios will eventually make money at the box office again. When either one or both happen, this discussion of how can Studios mark D+ payment for content as profit will go away on forums like this. I just hope that happens sooner rather than later.

When/if D+ turns a profit while buying studio content, this entire discussion becomes moot - they've succeed.

Currently, the deadline is sometime in late 2024 when that needs to happen for current leadership.

It's going to take more than faith, trust, and pixie dust to get them there, though.

If D+ continues to reduce spending, that means they either need to fork over a bigger % of their budget to content that is not D+ original so they can afford to pay the streaming rights for the movie studos' duds or they have to start paying the studios less for those rights... or the studios have to start producing movies more economically that do well enough in the box office to make them a bigger draw for D+, making up for the reduction in new original content on that end.

None of this is going to save The Marvels, though.

I've paid twice for it in theaters now so I've done my part, at least.

 

[Disney Irish]

Wait, what happened to your "Everyone wants to look at Disney as one single company" line?

If they're not one single company, how does other parts of the company offsetting D+ losses come into play?

Did you miss the part where I said each was contributing to the whole, this is how corporations work, and I'm pretty sure you know that. This isn't some gotcha moment, I'm pretty sure you know that too. It still doesn't mean any goods or services transferred between divisions are free there is still profit/loss associated with it, and I'm pretty sure you know that as well.

I agree with what you're saying here and obviously, that's what has been happening for D+ up until now.


So we actually agree.

I never said it could go on forever. They obviously want both D+ and Studios to make profit and not lose money, and appear to be making internal changes to try and make that happen. But they can sustain losses as needed for both, and in terms of Studios have in the past over its 100 years of existence.

When/if D+ turns a profit while buying studio content, this entire discussion becomes moot - they've succeed.

Agreed.

Currently, the deadline is sometime in late 2024 when that needs to happen for current leadership.

Q4FY24 to be exact.

It's going to take more than faith, trust, and pixie dust to get them there, though.

No its going to take raising prices, increased ad revenue, and cost cutting, all of which are already underway.

If D+ continues to reduce spending, that means they either need to fork over a bigger % of their budget to content that is not D+ original so they can afford to pay the streaming rights for the movie studos' duds or they have to start paying the studios less for those rights... or the studios have to start producing movies more economically that do well enough in the box office to make them a bigger draw for D+, making up for the reduction in new original content on that end.

I'm pretty sure overall they want to have movies that are both successful at the theaters and on D+. How they accomplish that is the question that is being asked by many, not just on this site. We'll see if they can execute on that over the next year.

Content spend is going to happen. The balancing act as you know will be to spend on the right targeted content in order to bring in both new subs and maintain existing subs while increasing ad revenue. Its no different than content spend for linear.

None of this is going to save The Marvels, though.

No one said it was, I didn't start this conversation in this thread. But its one that continues to be had in this section of the forums in many threads.

I've paid twice for it in theaters now so I've done my part, at least.

I've seen it in theaters as well, opening night.

 

[MrPromey]

Did you miss the part where I said each was contributing to the whole, this is how corporations work, and I'm pretty sure you know that. This isn't some gotcha moment, I'm pretty sure you know that too. It still doesn't mean any goods or services transferred between divisions are free there is still profit/loss associated with it, and I'm pretty sure you know that as well.

No gotcha - just pointing out an inconsistency.

I never said it could go on forever. They obviously want both D+ and Studios to make profit and not lose money, and appear to be making internal changes to try and make that happen. But they can sustain losses as needed for both, and in terms of Studios have in the past over its 100 years of existence.

And my point is, something has to give. They can't keep releasing the way they've been these last couple of years.

Agreed.


Q4FY24 to be exact.


No its going to take raising prices, increased ad revenue, and cost cutting, all of which are already underway.

All while retaining/growing their customer base.

Did I mention I canceled my annual plan this week?

No one said it was, I didn't start this conversation in this thread. But its one that continues to be had in this section of the forums in many threads.

I just felt I should mention it as a reminder of where we were since this conversation about the studios and D+ had hijacked a thread about The Marvels.

 

[Disney Irish]

No gotcha - just pointing out an inconsistency.

Not inconsistent at all.

And my point is, something has to give. They can't keep releasing the way they've been these last couple of years.

And I don't think anyone disagrees with this, especially Disney themselves.

All while retaining/growing their customer base.

Outside of India they continue to grow and retain subs in other regions. India had the cheapest subs anyways, so it wasn't any great loss. So the increase the highest paying subs in other regions is greater than any loss in India, ie exactly what they want.

Did I mention I canceled my annual plan this week?

And they gained subs domestically this last quarter, so your cancellation wasn't felt. We'll see if they continue to gain domestically over the next several quarters.

I just felt I should mention it as a reminder of where we were since this conversation about the studios and D+ had hijacked a thread about The Marvels.

Welcome to the forums where threads get hijacked all the time. This conversation has been had in almost every movie thread this year.

 

[MrPromey]

And they gained subs domestically this last quarter, so your cancellation wasn't felt. We'll see if they continue to gain domestically over the next several quarters.

Well, my cancellation was this quarter and if you've been paying attention to my comments in this thread, it's in anticipation of the upcoming bundling where I expect it to be included in my cable package (whether I wanted it that way or not) at what I think it's safe to guess is not going to be their DTC rate, from Spectrum... along with possibly a few million more people.

But again, they spent less this year than last on content and they are budgeting to spend less next year than this year (I thought inflation was making costs go up, not down?) so if they expect those highest paying customers to stick around, I'm curious what the plan is.

Time will tell but they had a plan and according to this Bob, the other one screwed it up raising prices too quickly, only to raise them even more after he came back (kind of like what he said and then did in another division) so I really wonder what the current plan is.

 

[Disney Irish]

Well, my cancellation was this quarter and if you've been paying attention to my comments in this thread, it's in anticipation of the upcoming bundling where I expect it to be included in my cable package (whether I wanted it that way or not) at what I think it's safe to guess is not going to be their DTC rate, from Spectrum... along with possibly a few million more people.

We don't have to guess as its public knowledge, the Spectrum rate will be a wholesale rate versus the standard retail DTC rate, which is about half. It'll be the ad tier, ie you get no choice, which means Disney also gets ad revenue from it. We also know the approximate number of subs too, ~9-10M based on Spectrum TV Select Service plan. So its a win for Disney as the sub numbers increase plus ad revenue, and a win for consumers (you) as its only likely a minor increase in your monthly Spectrum bill instead of paying the full price for D+. So yeah I don't think Disney cares all that much you cancelled since they gain not only you back but others through another source. Heck once those ~9-10M subs come online and ad revenue starts rolling in, that itself could be enough to push D+ into profitability without any further changes by Disney.

But again, they spent less this year than last on content and they are budgeting to spend less next year than this year (I thought inflation was making costs go up, not down?) so if they expect those highest paying customers to stick around, I'm curious what the plan is.

Time will tell but they had a plan and according to this Bob, the other one screwed it up raising prices too quickly, only to raise them even more after he came back (kind of like what he said and then did in another division) so I really wonder what the current plan is.

The new plan is the same as the old plan, which was always to spend less on content on the longer term as the service matures. Also Iger stated the exact opposite about pricing of D+, that they were too low initially in an effort to gain subs quickly, which I agree. D+ price increases were always baked into the equation in terms of long term profitability of the service. It was Parks where he said Chapek was too aggressive in price increases, which I also agree.

 

[MrPromey]

So yeah I don't think Disney cares all that much you cancelled since they gain not only you back but others through another source. Heck once those ~9-10M subs come online and ad revenue starts rolling in, that itself could be enough to push D+ into profitability without any further changes by Disney.

I don't think Disney cares what any of their customers do one way or another in any direction pertaining to them or anything they do. They only care about the actions of the aggregate. It's worth keeping in mind that a percentage of those 9-10m subs coming online will not be new customers but a group Disney will be making less money off of.

The new plan is the same as the old plan, which was always to spend less on content on the longer term as the service matures. Also Iger stated the exact opposite about pricing of D+, that they were too low initially in an effort to gain subs quickly, which I agree. D+ price increases were always baked into the equation in terms of long term profitability of the service. It was Parks where he said Chapek was too aggressive in price increases, which I also agree.

Iger's old plan was to raise streaming prices gradually a little at a time. When watching from the sidelines, he was taking pot-shots at Chapek for raising them more aggressively. It's not difficult to find the articles from that period talking about this if you want to break out Google and see for yourself.

He changed his tune when he got back in the driver's seat, though.

Anyway, I don't see how the service "matures". This is the same bs idea that the domestic parks were "mature" and needed minimal further investment.

They have three seasons of the Mandalorian - great. That's a bunch of content for a new subscriber who cares but has been living under a rock for the last four years to enjoy but how many times are existing subscribers going to rewatch it to justify paying for their sub?

Goosebumps was a great holiday series. Now what?

They've been in linear long enough to understand that problem never goes away.

Not saying they won't pull it off but Brigadoon is still looking like a muddy patch of land off in the distance to me.

Anyway, you've got your opinion, I've got mine and we're just going round in circles wasting each other's time.

I think we agree though they have their work cut out for them.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't think Disney cares what any of their customers do one way or another in any direction pertaining to them or anything they do. They only care about the actions of the aggregate. It's worth keeping in mind that a percentage of those 9-10m subs coming online will not be new customers but a group Disney will be making less money off of.

Sure there will be some cross-over as some, such as yourself, that were already subs. But as you said, in the aggregate they don't care as long as they get new subs and new ad revenue. So say even if its ~6-7M new subs, that is still ~6-7M new subs on the ad tier they didn't have before. Plus those remaining subs might have not been on an ad tier, so that is new ad revenue they weren't otherwise getting.

Iger's old plan was to raise streaming prices gradually a little at a time. When watching from the sidelines, he was taking pot-shots at Chapek for raising them more aggressively. It's not difficult to find the articles from that period talking about this if you want to break out Google and see for yourself.

He changed his tune when he got back in the driver's seat, though.

I'd be very curious and would like to see any of those articles that state Iger's comments on being opposed to D+ pricing increases during Chapek's time. As I've been following D+ very closely since prior to launch and I don't remember him ever having that stance, nor am I able to find any via a quick search. I know he's had that stance regarding Parks pricing, and has been very public about that. But not so for D+, and I could be wrong, but I don't think that was ever his stance.

Anyway, I don't see how the service "matures". This is the same bs idea that the domestic parks were "mature" and needed minimal further investment.

They have three seasons of the Mandalorian - great. That's a bunch of content for a new subscriber who cares but has been living under a rock for the last four years to enjoy but how many times are existing subscribers going to rewatch it to justify paying for their sub?

Goosebumps was a great holiday series. Now what?

They've been in linear long enough to understand that problem never goes away.

Not saying they won't pull it off but Brigadoon is still looking like a muddy patch of land off in the distance to me.

At some point all services mature, as sub growth is not sustainable, moving from growth to maintenance. And at some point there will be enough content on the service that maintains existing subs, without breaking the bank on content spend for new content. Sure content spend will always be a thing, just like in linear. But it doesn't have to require unsustainable cost growth. Netflix is starting to see this where the last 3 years they've spent less than their highest content spend year but still maintained and even grew subs.

 

[TP2000]

Box office is out for the first part of Thanksgiving week, and The Marvels hasn't shown legs going into the big holiday week.

In reality, The Marvels is showing no legs at all. Our three lady superhero's are dressed up as prim Pilgrim women in long skirts.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

Poor thing is a double amputee.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Box office is out for the first part of Thanksgiving week, and The Marvels hasn't shown legs going into the big holiday week.

In reality, The Marvels is showing no legs at all. Our three lady superhero's are dressed up as prim Pilgrim women in long skirts.

View attachment 755027

Oh boy.... lt's flat lining already...

Look on the bright side, the sooner its out of the theaters, the sooner its on D+

 

[Tha Realest]

Oh boy.... lt's flat lining already...

Look on the bright side, the sooner its out of the theaters, the sooner its on D+

So what are the negotiations between D+ and Marvel/Pixar/WDAS for when a movie faceplants like this? Like, how do they arrive at an honest valuation for what the film’s worth to D+? If this film only makes $200-250M WW (a distinct possibility) it would seem silly to pay $100M for the rights to that film

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

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.

There is no such thing as "visual facts". It is an OPINION you are expressing. I've met them. You haven't. Nor, I believe, have you even seen the shows and films these characters are featured in. I have. And it is my OPINION, having both met them and watched their characters' onscreen adventures, that these women are well cast in their roles.

I guarantee you Disney did NOT cast someone Hispanic/Latina in this Pakistani Muslim role.

And if you think the casting of these roles is the wrong age, you've clearly never seen who they've cast as children characters like Peter, Wendy and Alice. They're not 10 years old either.

You think that just because you're trying to be funny in your cracks at cast members that it excuses the behavior. It doesn't. And if you're going to engage with me, I'm going to call you out on it. Again.

 

[MarvelCharacterNerd]

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.

Definitely the cheap plan. No ads on three things isn't worth the extra $7 for me.

However, if I unexpectedly love (or just really really like) The Marvels - and I hope I do - I'll buy the blu-ray.

 

[TP2000]

There is no such thing as "visual facts". It is an OPINION you are expressing. I've met them. You haven't. Nor, I believe, have you even seen the shows and films these characters are featured in. I have. And it is my OPINION, having both met them and watched their characters' onscreen adventures, that these women are well cast in their roles.

I guarantee you Disney did NOT cast someone Hispanic/Latina in this Pakistani Muslim role.

The ages are wrong, it's obvious to anyone with eyes. You can't cast a 32 year old to play a 17 year old girl and expect people to believe it.

Iman Vellani is supposed to be a teenager in High School, Teyonah Paris is in the middle age-wise, and Brie Larson just turned 34 this year.

But that's not how TDA chose to cast these roles for this blink-and-you'll-miss-them character appearance this month.

And if you think the casting of these roles is the wrong age, you've clearly never seen who they've cast as children characters like Peter, Wendy and Alice. They're not 10 years old either.

There are labor laws that prevent 10 year old children from working in theme parks. You have to be 16 at the youngest. No one expects a real 11 year old boy from Holland Park to play Peter in the Christmas Parade. On the other hand, casting women aged 18 to 35 to play characters aged 17 to 34 is entirely legal and should be expected from a very successful company like Disney.

You think that just because you're trying to be funny in your cracks at cast members that it excuses the behavior. It doesn't. And if you're going to engage with me, I'm going to call you out on it. Again.

There were no cracks about the Cast Members work performance at all. The blatantly obvious issue for anyone with decent vision is that TDA chose to cast actresses who were the wrong age ranges and seemingly wrong ethnicity to play The Marvels. Why they made that choice I have no idea, but it has nothing to do with the 19 year old lady playing Monica Rambeau or the 32 year old Latina playing Kamala Khan.

I don't blame those three women one bit for taking the Disneyland gig. Who would blame them? But TDA should've had a wider casting call and/or offered more money to cast these roles for The Marvels if they really felt they were important.

 

[Phroobar]

Poor thing is a double amputee.

Did Tiffany do that?



(Chucky TV show reference)

 

[BuddyThomas]

There is no such thing as "visual facts". It is an OPINION you are expressing. I've met them. You haven't. Nor, I believe, have you even seen the shows and films these characters are featured in. I have. And it is my OPINION, having both met them and watched their characters' onscreen adventures, that these women are well cast in their roles.

I guarantee you Disney did NOT cast someone Hispanic/Latina in this Pakistani Muslim role.

And if you think the casting of these roles is the wrong age, you've clearly never seen who they've cast as children characters like Peter, Wendy and Alice. They're not 10 years old either.

You think that just because you're trying to be funny in your cracks at cast members that it excuses the behavior. It doesn't. And if you're going to engage with me, I'm going to call you out on it. Again.

I wonder if he was extremely upset that John Travolta was 23, Olivia Newton John was 29, and Stockard Channing was 33 when they played high school students in Grease. I wonder if he was extremely upset when Mary Martin was 41 playing Peter Pan on Broadway.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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+

Maybe I got it wrong, but lets say Disney sold the rights to show the Marvels to Netflix.

Netflix would actually send real money to Disney and the movie made that money.

Where is Netflix getting this real money in order to buy content to put on Netflix?

Subscription fees. (And now, advertiser dollars.)

That's where D+ gets its real -- not fake -- money in order to pay its sister-studio for content.

Yes, D+ is operating at a deficit. But the reason it's running at a deficit is because it's paying real money to its sister-studio.

"BUT THIS LOSS CAN'T GO ON FOREVER!!"

Well, it can if TWDC continues to run D+ at a continual loss like Apple+ and Prime do. But D+ is on track to get in the black.

So, next year, when D+ is in the black, and people think this is all an accounting trick, they'll be hard pressed to claim "accounting trick" when D+ is making a profit and, out of that profit, is paying its sister-studios.