• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

News Dismal Q3 Earnings

ParkPeeker

Well-Known Member
I literally answered this survey last week (We just came back from an early August visit to WDW)..... Nothing in the questionnaire was about perception of cost. It was about experience, ability to express your opinion to a "roving manager wearing a blue shirt" and if we received an email upon arrival from A VP of the parks telling us about the people with the Blue Shirts.

The parks were packed to the gills while we were there (4 days) and it was Florida Hot with afternoon showers all four days. It was a great time and while I wished GE was open, that the Gondolas were running, and that we didn't miss one of our fast passes because a ride was down, good times were had by all.....
My survey was from Disneyland. They asked about that exactly. If it was worth going. They asked about cost of ticket prices. About income yearly so they could organize you into income groups. About how much money I spent aside from the tickets like merch and food, and opinions about that. So yes there were questions about cost, and perception.
 

bubbles1812

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
It actually could. Not Star Wars single handedly, but with the purchase of all of these studios/properties under Iger and not a great turn around, it could actually put Disney in a really bad bind. Their debt has gone up significantly over the last few years and they have to service that debt and if big investments like Star Wars movies and SWGE aren't paying off it really could do some damage.

Add to that with Pixar not really producing great movies like they did before the acquisition and everything a retread/sequel plus all of their cash spent to bring the parks out of the 1990s, it starts adding up. It's going to have to pay off for it all to work and there are limitations involved that Disney doesn't seem prepared for:

1) It's not whether a family CAN afford to go to Disney but rather if they see it being worth it. I could easily afford to go to Disney. I don't. It's no longer worth it.
2) They keep raising their prices in the parks to help cover their losses elsewhere. This adds to the problem.
3) The next 4-5 Avatar movies seem like big budget failures just looming on the horizon. Outside of WOW-3D!, there was nothing else to carry those movies.
4) What are they going to do with Fox? It seems like a random purchase that they're now tasked with, "Well.. How do we make money out of this??"

My guess: About 5 years down the line you're going to see Disney selling off these properties at a loss, perhaps shuttering Pixar or "rolling it into" their own animation studios (shuttering, essentially - just sounds better), and trimming the fat everywhere they can while raising prices (cutting hours and $200/head/day for entry into their parks). This will likely keep more people away (cue the guy: "Oh, that just means more room for me - This is exactly what Disney wants") and Iger's successor will have to clean up the mess.

Realistically, I think that anything that isn't under construction now, isn't going to start after the 50th. I suspect there'll be 20 years of stagnation after the 50th. I don't see Tomorrowland getting any more than Tron (weirdly shoe-horned into that corner) and the pain job. Epcot?? They may tear down a building a plant some trees but it's cheaper to leave the buildings in place. I can't imagine new monorails at this point as all of the current ones have been upgraded to "good enough".

You can look and say, "...but Iger is a brilliant CEO!" Maybe. Maybe not. Other companies have been brought down by similar huge purchases with some great vision of the future that never panned out and then became too expensive to operate.
Ok, so, I can be pretty cynical about the choices Disney makes but most of your predictions go aggressively swan diving off the deep end. 200$ day entry to the parks someday? Maybe. Pixar shutting down in 5 years? Uh, no. The 20 year old property that is Toy Story just made a billion dollars. I think someone mentioned you could argue that Pixar is down a bit creatively but their sequels are still making bank, as do the majority of their films. Pixar is a valuable distinct brand the same way Marvel is. No way they are just going to lump it into Disney animation, unless all their films start tanking [unlikely].

Your idea of 20 years of stagnation after the 50th is also pretty laughable. I'm not saying I wish Disney wouldn't do more or shouldn't do more in each of the four parks. Everyone including myself wishes for that. In fact, I think most of Future World needs to be scrubbed and redone. Yes, they all need work and will continue to need work and are currently getting work done but the thought that Disney is going to stop investing completely beyond culling shrubbery seems wildly unrealistic. Their biggest competitor just announced a new park and I'm glad for it. Competition fosters investment and hey, I like Universal generally, so more rides for me! But back to the point, if Disney wants to keep people coming, they'll have to continue with some investment. It just may not be an E ticket every single year.

I don't have Pixie Dust in my eyes. Iger ain't perfect but his purchases have overall panned out [thus far]. They literally just bought Fox. Let's see how it goes before jumping to the point where Disney is apparently selling off everything.

[Also, the monorails are good enough... Would you really want a new monorail or a new ride? Cause that probably ends of being your likely choice. The monorails are only used by a limited segment of guests. So, I'm fine with them the way they are for the 5 minutes at a time I'm on them]
 

bartholomr4

Well-Known Member
My survey was from Disneyland. They asked about that exactly. If it was worth going. They asked about cost of ticket prices. About income yearly so they could organize you into income groups. About how much money I spent aside from the tickets like merch and food, and opinions about that. So yes there were questions about cost, and perception.
They have magic bands in Florida. No need to ask about spending..... they already have it! Probably the difference!
 

LuvtheGoof

Title Removed by Request
Premium Member
It actually could. Not Star Wars single handedly, but with the purchase of all of these studios/properties under Iger and not a great turn around, it could actually put Disney in a really bad bind. Their debt has gone up significantly over the last few years and they have to service that debt and if big investments like Star Wars movies and SWGE aren't paying off it really could do some damage.

Add to that with Pixar not really producing great movies like they did before the acquisition and everything a retread/sequel plus all of their cash spent to bring the parks out of the 1990s, it starts adding up. It's going to have to pay off for it all to work and there are limitations involved that Disney doesn't seem prepared for:

1) It's not whether a family CAN afford to go to Disney but rather if they see it being worth it. I could easily afford to go to Disney. I don't. It's no longer worth it.
2) They keep raising their prices in the parks to help cover their losses elsewhere. This adds to the problem.
3) The next 4-5 Avatar movies seem like big budget failures just looming on the horizon. Outside of WOW-3D!, there was nothing else to carry those movies.
4) What are they going to do with Fox? It seems like a random purchase that they're now tasked with, "Well.. How do we make money out of this??"

My guess: About 5 years down the line you're going to see Disney selling off these properties at a loss, perhaps shuttering Pixar or "rolling it into" their own animation studios (shuttering, essentially - just sounds better), and trimming the fat everywhere they can while raising prices (cutting hours and $200/head/day for entry into their parks). This will likely keep more people away (cue the guy: "Oh, that just means more room for me - This is exactly what Disney wants") and Iger's successor will have to clean up the mess.

Realistically, I think that anything that isn't under construction now, isn't going to start after the 50th. I suspect there'll be 20 years of stagnation after the 50th. I don't see Tomorrowland getting any more than Tron (weirdly shoe-horned into that corner) and the pain job. Epcot?? They may tear down a building a plant some trees but it's cheaper to leave the buildings in place. I can't imagine new monorails at this point as all of the current ones have been upgraded to "good enough".

You can look and say, "...but Iger is a brilliant CEO!" Maybe. Maybe not. Other companies have been brought down by similar huge purchases with some great vision of the future that never panned out and then became too expensive to operate.
Sorry, but you really need to share some of what you are smoking. None of your opinions about what is going to happen in 5 years, or over the next 20 hold any water at all. The acquistions have done nothing but bank billions for Disney. They are firing on all cylinders right now, and there is no end in sight.
 

ParkPeeker

Well-Known Member
They have magic bands in Florida. No need to ask about spending..... they already have it! Probably the difference!
Yea probably. And we probably also answered the questions differently leading to different questions. I’m thinking I answered no to ‘would you come again soon,’ or no to ‘if you go yearly.’ (Don’t remember the questions) and Because I put no I was asked why, and the answers had options including being able to afford it and it being worth it, etc. And it went on etc.
 
Last edited:

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Sorry, but you really need to share some of what you are smoking. None of your opinions about what is going to happen in 5 years, or over the next 20 hold any water at all. The acquistions have done nothing but bank billions for Disney. They are firing on all cylinders right now, and there is no end in sight.
Well, yes for Pixar and Marvel.

Whether LucasFilm is going to make back the investment is yet to be seen, depending on merch sales. Because, for the films so far, the *profit* hasn't made up for the $4B price tag. And that's because of the budget and advertising and theater-profit-sharing that eats into the Box Office. Disney has only made $660M in profit in the theatrical window for their new SW movies.

Now, the old movies and the post-theatrical window and the merchandising are certainly bringing in big buck. But, I don't know if all that has surpassed the $4B investment (plus another billion for SWL).

Also, Disney Movie Studios, my usual whipping boy, is still only breaking even on average in the theatrical window (I'm sure post-theatrical puts it far into the black). But, that studio still needs to be straightened out as much as the current Fox movie studio, IMO.
 

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
Well, yes for Pixar and Marvel.

Whether LucasFilm is going to make back the investment is yet to be seen, depending on merch sales. Because, for the films so far, the *profit* hasn't made up for the $4B price tag. And that's because of the budget and advertising and theater-profit-sharing that eats into the Box Office. Disney has only made $660M in profit in the theatrical window for their new SW movies.

Now, the old movies and the post-theatrical window and the merchandising are certainly bringing in big buck. But, I don't know if all that has surpassed the $4B investment (plus another billion for SWL).

Also, Disney Movie Studios, my usual whipping boy, is still only breaking even on average in the theatrical window (I'm sure post-theatrical puts it far into the black). But, that studio still needs to be straightened out as much as the current Fox movie studio, IMO.
The handling of Star Wars, at least the films themselves and the parks implementation, has been shockingly bad, especially considering how well Marvel has been managed, at least on the film end of things.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
The handling of Star Wars, at least the films themselves and the parks implementation, has been shockingly bad, especially considering how well Marvel has been managed, at least on the film end of things.
Well, I've never heard anyone express that sentiment before!

My point was: Don't assume that the SW movies have made a profit like the Marvel or Pixar ones have. And it's not because of any mishandling of the movies -- they simply haven't even had enough movies made for an appreciable retun, as with much larger number of Marvel and Pixar movies. And before anyone shouts "Solo!", remember that both Pixar and Marvel had movies that weren't profitable in the theatrical window, too.

If we're talking the handling of movies and the profits they brings, the SW movies (during their theatrical run) had a return of investment of 38%. Pixar was only marginally higher at 42%. [Marvel at 63%, Blue Sky at 150%.]
 

SteamboatJoe

Well-Known Member
Well, I've never heard anyone express that sentiment before!

My point was: Don't assume that the SW movies have made a profit like the Marvel or Pixar ones have. And it's not because of any mishandling of the movies -- they simply haven't even had enough movies made for an appreciable retun, as with much larger number of Marvel and Pixar movies. And before anyone shouts "Solo!", remember that both Pixar and Marvel had movies that weren't profitable in the theatrical window, too.

If we're talking the handling of movies and the profits they brings, the SW movies (during their theatrical run) had a return of investment of 38%. Pixar was only marginally higher at 42%. [Marvel at 63%, Blue Sky at 150%.]
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. My assessment came less from a business angle and more from just a fan angle.
 

bartholomr4

Well-Known Member
Well, I've never heard anyone express that sentiment before!

My point was: Don't assume that the SW movies have made a profit like the Marvel or Pixar ones have. And it's not because of any mishandling of the movies -- they simply haven't even had enough movies made for an appreciable retun, as with much larger number of Marvel and Pixar movies. And before anyone shouts "Solo!", remember that both Pixar and Marvel had movies that weren't profitable in the theatrical window, too.

If we're talking the handling of movies and the profits they brings, the SW movies (during their theatrical run) had a return of investment of 38%. Pixar was only marginally higher at 42%. [Marvel at 63%, Blue Sky at 150%.]
If your only reason for purchasing Lucas Films was for the SW movies, you may be true.... There is alot more to the investment. Your point is well taken, in the law of large numbers, SW movies haven't made the same percentage as Blue Sky......
 

WDW Pro

Well-Known Member
The handling of Star Wars, at least the films themselves and the parks implementation, has been shockingly bad, especially considering how well Marvel has been managed, at least on the film end of things.
That's because Feige is a genius. Geniuses are exceedingly rare. Lucasfilm is lacking a genius. Lucasfilm had unprecedented control over SWGE.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
If your only reason for purchasing Lucas Films was for the SW movies, you may be true.... There is alot more to the investment.
That reminds me, when we are talking about Lucasfilm... I would think Disney makes some decent money from Industrial Light & Magic and maybe even Skywalker Sound. We don't typically include them when thinking about revenues from the Lucasfilm purchase, but ILM in particular isn't some small mom and pop thing. Do they ever break down revenue/profit numbers for divisions like that?
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
Chapek is a moron who is full of S***

His actions speak more than words and there ARE people in very high places who want him out. He's hurt the Disney brand!

Honestly, for all the park's faults, I hope Universal's third park stabs Disney's arrogance in the deepest place possible: the wallet. If he's even remotely in tune with Disney then props to him, he's reading this or knows his criticisms, but if not, hey, he has no one to blame but himself when the inevitable comes.

But it doesn't stop with him. Lucasfilm's leadership (or lack of thereof) is so focused on secrecy (on and off the set) and shoving their heads up their a**es that they refuse to focus on creativity and art in their filmmaking, making both a quality product and a meaningful one within Star Wars Universe.

Disney+ will be successful, but Star Wars is a monster IP and they've mishandled that somehow. Maximizing it, they have not, and that's frankly because the product isn't loved by many of the people making it. We need the Dark Knight of Star Wars. We need DisneySea level of storytelling in the parks. We need good leadership like Marvel. We need people that understand what their working with. For all its faults, Marvel understands what it IS, and what bringing in talented individuals who love the material can do. Investing hundreds of millions in those films make sense because they are surefire

I worry that if these things do not get addressed it could prove to be a very large problem for Disney lovers and shareholders alike.

We all know what happens what good leadership becomes stagnant. I feel Bob Iger (albeit a bit out of 'touch with the parks') is a talented businessman, but many of his cohorts are less than desirable.

In the end Disney will be fine because things are cyclical, but if we go into a recession, or some people don't clean up their act, we'll reap the consequences of it for a decade+.

#SaveDisney?
You make a lot of great points but how is DisneySea storytelling any better than the rest of the parks ?
 

The Walrus

Active Member
You make a lot of great points but how is DisneySea storytelling any better than the rest of the parks ?
Star Wars Land does a lot of things right, but all the criticisms can find solutions in better design ala DisneySea; particularly that it wasn't micromanaged to oblivion. And it's also the highest attended non-Castle park. Ignore TEA's numbers. TWDC fudges them to make themselves look better. Oriental Land, to back up my initial point, reaping the benefits. They're making bank.
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
Star Wars Land does a lot of things right, but all the criticisms can find solutions in better design ala DisneySea; particularly that it wasn't micromanaged to oblivion. And it's also the highest attended non-Castle park. Ignore TEA's numbers. TWDC fudges them to make themselves look better. Oriental Land, to back up my initial point, reaping the benefits. They're making bank.
It’s no doubt the most immersive Disney park but you didn’t answer my question.
 

Dan deesnee

Active Member
Well, yes for Pixar and Marvel.

Whether LucasFilm is going to make back the investment is yet to be seen, depending on merch sales. Because, for the films so far, the *profit* hasn't made up for the $4B price tag. And that's because of the budget and advertising and theater-profit-sharing that eats into the Box Office. Disney has only made $660M in profit in the theatrical window for their new SW movies.

Now, the old movies and the post-theatrical window and the merchandising are certainly bringing in big buck. But, I don't know if all that has surpassed the $4B investment (plus another billion for SWL).

Also, Disney Movie Studios, my usual whipping boy, is still only breaking even on average in the theatrical window (I'm sure post-theatrical puts it far into the black). But, that studio still needs to be straightened out as much as the current Fox movie studio, IMO.
Star Wars merchandise is a multi Billion dollar industry annually. They've likely already made their 4 billion back.

https://fortune.com/2015/09/03/star-wars-disney-toys-force-awakens/
 
Top Bottom