Rumor D23 2024 WDW Rumors, Predictions & Discussion

[Brer Oswald]

And people like you need to pay attention.

For the past five years, both Bobs had said over and over again that streaming would be the company's top priority. And it was. All their free cash went into that rather than a pickle measuring match against Universal in Orlando.

Again, let me clear: TWDC very purposely and intentionally chose not "to answer EU." At least not in the way you wanted in your timeframe because, instead, they chose to go all in on investing in streaming.

If it was up to you, they would have dumped that money into WDW with ten new rides (on tops of the 6 they already made) for a small gain in profits and let their linear/cable TV business (which brings in a big chunk of their profits and kept the company afloat during the lockdowns) wither on the vine.

Disney doesn't owe you or anyone else the 'idea' that the Orlando theme parks have to be significantly better than Universal's theme parks. Stop personalizing the issue. People aren't "making excuses." They're explaining reality.

Oh we've paid plenty attention. Doesn't stop us from pointing out that it is a bad decision for both their brand and financials. WDW has been bailing them out for their flop streaming series'.

 

[Surferboy567]

And people like you need to pay attention.

For the past five years, both Bobs had said over and over again that streaming would be the company's top priority. And it was. All their free cash went into that rather than a pickle measuring match against Universal in Orlando.

Again, let me clear: TWDC very purposely and intentionally chose not "to answer EU." At least not in the way you wanted in your timeframe because, instead, they chose to go all in on investing in streaming.

If it was up to you, they would have dumped that money into WDW with ten new rides (on tops of the 6 they already made) for a small gain in profits and let their linear/cable TV business (which brings in a big chunk of their profits and kept the company afloat during the lockdowns) wither on the vine.

Disney doesn't owe you or anyone else the 'idea' that the Orlando theme parks have to be significantly better than Universal's theme parks. Stop personalizing the issue. People aren't "making excuses." They're explaining reality.

I understand what you are saying and I agree it would be irresponsible to not dump any capex into streaming. It’s a necessary business that can generate lots of capital for the company.

That being said, I can’t possibly believe the lack of investment in the park is warranted? For the sector of the company that consistently preforms well. Their has to be some middle ground, maybe we don’t get 10 rides as you said but instead get 5 and the funds for the other hypothetical 5 can go to the film division.

Disney hasn’t really invested in the parks in a few years. On the surface, yes they did open new things but these projects were all projects that were LONG in development before COVID and were pushed so much into the future because they didn’t want to spend on construction. They have barely started work on anything new or green lit any projects.

TRON - This was a project in development before COVID and was pushed

Guardians - This was a project in development before COVID and was pushed

EPCOT Spine - This was a project in development before COVID and was pushed

Rat - This was a project in development before COVID and was pushed

Tiana’s Bayou Adventure- This is an example of a new project (it is an retheme of an existing attraction though) and represents actual investment in the park. Green lit probably around COVID time.

EDIT: Test Track - This is an example of a new project (it is an retheme of an existing attraction though) and represents actual investment in the park. Green lit probably after COVID time. Disney also isn’t paying for this one.

 

[Ayla]

And people like you need to pay attention.

For the past five years, both Bobs had said over and over again that streaming would be the company's top priority. And it was. All their free cash went into that rather than a pickle measuring match against Universal in Orlando.

Again, let me clear: TWDC very purposely and intentionally chose not "to answer EU." At least not in the way you wanted in your timeframe because, instead, they chose to go all in on investing in streaming.

If it was up to you, they would have dumped that money into WDW with ten new rides (on tops of the 6 they already made) for a small gain in profits and let their linear/cable TV business (which brings in a big chunk of their profits and kept the company afloat during the lockdowns) wither on the vine.

Disney doesn't owe you or anyone else the 'idea' that the Orlando theme parks have to be significantly better than Universal's theme parks. Stop personalizing the issue. People aren't "making excuses." They're explaining reality.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Oh we've paid plenty attention. Doesn't stop us from pointing out that it is a bad decision for both their brand and financials. WDW has been bailing them out for their flop streaming series'.

TV/Cable kept the company afloat during the pandemic lockdowns. Not the parks.

Parks are profitable and will still be profitable even taking a hit for a year or two when EU opens.

The brand and company is more than the four theme parks in Orlando. And even with the streaming push, they still gave those parks some new rides.

You're advocating that Disney should have cut off a leg in order to buy a nicer hat.

Tell me, what financials are you looking at that says what TWDC did for streaming is a 'bad decision'?

 

[Brer Oswald]

TV/Cable kept the company afloat during the pandemic lockdowns. Not the parks.

Parks are profitable and will still be profitable even taking a hit for a year or two when EU opens.

The brand and company is more than the four theme parks in Orlando. And even with the streaming push, they still gave those parks some new rides.

You're advocating that Disney should have cut off a leg in order to buy a nicer hat.

Tell me, what financials are you looking at that says what TWDC did for streaming is a 'bad decision'?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Surferboy567]

 

[MisterPenguin]

There's a difference between:

​

1. The decision to go all-in on streaming in order to save the profits from home entertainment (cable TV).​

​

2. The decisions regarding *how* to go all-in on streaming. Netflix, Comcast, Paramount, and others all made the same mistake of too much content in order to try to win the streaming wars.​

The stance of those who are fans of the park can rightly criticize #2. Iger admits that was a mistake.

However, that really isn't your point, isn't it? It's all about how TWDC should have ignored #1 and just gave you more and better rides at WDW regardless about saving the home entertainment market. Isn't it?

 

[Zummi Gummi]

Both Bobs were very up front about prioritizing streaming. If you wanted a CEO who prioritized investment in the parks...then Michael was your guy.

 

[Brer Oswald]

There's a difference between:

​

1. The decision to go all-in on streaming in order to save the profits from home entertainment (cable TV).​

​

2. The decisions regarding *how* to go all-in on streaming. Netflix, Comcast, Paramount, and others all made the same mistake of too much content in order to try to win the streaming wars.​

The stance of those who are fans of the park can rightly criticize #2. Iger admits that was a mistake.

However, that really isn't your point, isn't it? It's all about how TWDC should have ignored #1 and just gave you more and better rides at WDW regardless about saving the home entertainment market. Isn't it?

Not at all what I was saying. They spent millions on these big budget Marvel and Star Wars shows, as well as moving several theatrically animated Pixar films to “free” streaming debuts. All of these have far larger budgets than traditional “made for TV programming”, but where does the money come from? And where do the profits come in?

There’s obviously a balance that needs to be struck, but it’s quite clear that the money allocation has been skewed towards D+, and it hasn’t exactly paid off.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Not at all what I was saying. They spent millions on these big budget Marvel and Star Wars shows, as well as moving several theatrically animated Pixar films to “free” streaming debuts. All of these have far larger budgets than traditional “made for TV programming”, but where does the money come from? And where do the profits come in?

There’s obviously a balance that needs to be struck, but it’s quite clear that the money allocation has been skewed towards D+, and it hasn’t exactly paid off.

Bob was at an Upfront yesterday to plug to advertisers how they can advertise on D+ and their other streamers now that viewership on linear/cable channels are cratering. (Hulu has had a robust advertising component for a long time already -- and Disney is getting 100% of that, now that it doesn't have to share it with Comcast.)

Having streaming ready right *now* is of utmost importance. Disney's streamers no longer have a billion dollar deficit, but are just about breaking even and will soon be profitable.

Meanwhile Comcast's Peackock just threw a half billion dollar loss *for the quarter.*

And Paramount is cratering with other companies ready to buy its corpse.

WBD is also floundering, which is why they agreed to bundle up with Disney.

If the Bobs didn't do what they did, we'd be looking at a big portion of TWDC losing money... which would affect the parks even more so than having to go all-in on streaming.

 

[peter11435]

Both Bobs were very up front about prioritizing streaming. If you wanted a CEO who prioritized investment in the parks...then Michael was your guy.

Michael left Disney before he even knew what streaming was. There’s no telling how Eisner would have handled the last ten years. Based on his track record it’s a pretty good bet he would have invested heavily in streaming too.

 

[Haymarket2008]

I have a feeling that we may get some update on some plans for Wonders of Life....

 

[eddie104]

I have a feeling that we may get some update on some plans for Wonders of Life....

Me too..fingers crossed.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I like the idea but that wouldn't solve the outside look of IASW.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your primary concern about iasw in Florida the exterior facade?

 

[BrianLo]

Bob was at an Upfront yesterday to plug to advertisers how they can advertise on D+ and their other streamers now that viewership on linear/cable channels are cratering. (Hulu has had a robust advertising component for a long time already -- and Disney is getting 100% of that, now that it doesn't have to share it with Comcast.)

Having streaming ready right *now* is of utmost importance. Disney's streamers no longer have a billion dollar deficit, but are just about breaking even and will soon be profitable.

Meanwhile Comcast's Peackock just threw a half billion dollar loss *for the quarter.*

And Paramount is cratering with other companies ready to buy its corpse.

WBD is also floundering, which is why they agreed to bundle up with Disney.

If the Bobs didn't do what they did, we'd be looking at a big portion of TWDC losing money... which would affect the parks even more so than having to go all-in on streaming.

As a fellow Bob(s) defender translator, mistakes were however made in retrospect. Quite a few, mostly by Chapek.

1) Lake Nonna
2) Hot star - and India prioritization
3) Sacrificing later films (beyond Soul as a one off) to plump subscribers
4) Some of the excessive D+ content spend, but mostly India
5) Chapek's myriad of social whoopsies
6) Star Cruiser and core Galaxies Edge cuts
7) D+ degradation of the Marvel brand

Their streaming profiles could have largely been the same or better in retrospect. With money also left over for a better Galaxies Edge on both coasts, entertainment having been brought back earlier, a DAK project being ready for 2025, an Avengers attraction opening on the horizon at DCA and an actual Avengers film having probably already been in the can.

But not to throw Chapek under every Magical Express Bus. I think I can point to one definable decision he made that I don't think Iger would have... that I actually think was kind of a genius move. That was buying the Disney Adventure cruise ship for peanuts.


Edit-Also Disneyland Forward? But I don't know who really made that call per say.

 

[doctornick]

from another thread...

From what I can tell, and this is by no means foolproof... they're prepared to announce final details of Tropical Americas, a "first peek" at their major MK expansion with vague previews of Moana and Coco, 50/50 another "Blue Sky" look at what's "possible" further behind BTMRR, new entertainment in FL and more details on the DL plans.

But - many grains of salt - D23 announcements are being edited and cut entirely mere hours before the event based on any number of ridiculous factors.

We'll see if they get gun shy over the next few months.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I'm not sure I understand. Is your primary concern about iasw in Florida the exterior facade?

Primary concern should be maintenance. Then the exterior facade.

 

[mysto]

I like the idea but that wouldn't solve the outside look of IASW.

Something must be done about that earworm!

 

[DisneyDreamerxyz]

I’m looking forward to another awkward presentation full of random musical performances to try to distract that they are only announcing a new cupcake for the 42nd Anniversary of some random movie and maybe a new character spotting on select days. Anything talked about will be in any other park or line of business except Disney World because they hate Florida. (And if anything does get announced it will get cancelled/scaled down and or take 5+ years to create.