Disney’s Q1 FY23 Earnings Results Webcast - Wednesday, Feb 8, 2023

[MrPromey]

Disney's working on a Tiana and Moana Animated Series as we speak for Disney+.

That'll sure make for an interesting series.

Wonder if they'll go on in-world adventures together or if they will be making it meta like the Rescue Rangers movie.

I could see them having their hoodies from WIR2.

 

[flynnibus]

One bright note is if you are laid off this is one of the most opportune times to have it happen. Lots of companies not laying off that need good people.

Dunno... I think it really depends on your segment. For many the hiring surge has cooled and companies are in the post-pandemic 're-adjustment' phase. So many ramped up to deal with pent up demand, and then that demand doesn't sustain as the backlog is cleared. Just look in tech... basically the common message is "we built assuming this was the new norm... but it wasn't".

The good news is of course post-pandemic the idea of being far more mobile and having access to more mobile work, including work outside your immediate area (for most white collar workers).

 

[Ghost93]

Back to Zootopia. The world that Zootopia originally premiered was hugely different. I’m certain that if Zootopia came out today, it would be hailed as the pinnacle of “woke” Disney, with its anti-discrimination and racism message and tone.

That said, since then, we’ve had national and even international movements that protested discrimination, and a lot of them centered around police.

Zootopia, is a buddy-story about two cops.

And with its social justice underpinning…

Some people have criticized Zootopia as "copaganda." The conversation around race and policing has greatly evolved since 2016 and I too wonder how Zootopia 2 will address this. There is potential for the sequel to be VERY controversial, among both left and right leaning people.

I'm not saying a Zootopia sequel can't be good. It definitely can. But I think it's a bigger can of worms than one might think. I think we are much, much more polarized as a society than we were in the spring of 2016.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Also, I rewatched Zootopia last night, and it really is a fantastic film. Falls apart a bit at the end, but overall great film.

There’s really no excuse for Toy Story 5 and Frozen 2 outside of a cash grab. I really, really disliked Frozen 2. Toy Story 4 worked as a b-tier movie. Fun to watch, wasn’t anything special, they ruined buzz as a character, which was upsetting. I doubt either of these films got approved because a great script fell on someone’s table, but regardless.

Back to Zootopia. The world that Zootopia originally premiered was hugely different. I’m certain that if Zootopia came out today, it would be hailed as the pinnacle of “woke” Disney, with its anti-discrimination and racism message and tone.

That said, since then, we’ve had national and even international movements that protested discrimination, and a lot of them centered around police.

Zootopia, is a buddy-story about two cops.

And with its social justice underpinning…

Zootopia 2 could be interesting. They can take it A LOT of directions. It could lack the nuances, grandeur, and storytelling of the original and just be a cheap-cash grab, or it could resume its legacy of social justice themed.

In 2023 and beyond, I think there’s a reason Zootopia 2 should be made, whether it’s a story of unity, or something else entirely. I just hope they actually capture what made the original great (unlike a Ralph Breaks the Internet).

Zootopia is such a flop of an allegory.

The whole message is supposed to be how the prey animals are bigots against the predator animals, and how unjust that is. When in reality, the predator animals are ACTUALLY monsters whose apparent "civilization" is artificial and the prey animals are right to be terrified of them all along.

 

[SplashJacket]

Zootopia is such a flop of an allegory.

The whole message is supposed to be how the prey animals are bigots against the predator animals, and how unjust that is. When in reality, the predator animals are ACTUALLY monsters whose apparent "civilization" is artificial and the prey animals are right to be terrified of them all along.

There’s definitely different ways to interpret the movie, but I don’t think prey or predators are intended to represent a specific group.

The movie works a lot less if you have a rigid perception of a group being the abuser/abused and instead works a lot better for showcasing different kinds of injustice.

 

[Ghost93]

Zootopia is such a flop of an allegory.

The whole message is supposed to be how the prey animals are bigots against the predator animals, and how unjust that is. When in reality, the predator animals are ACTUALLY monsters whose apparent "civilization" is artificial and the prey animals are right to be terrified of them all along.

I think the movie often can't decide whether it wants the predators or the prey to represent minorities. In some scenes, the predators are portrayed as marginalized people, while in other scenes, the prey is made out to be the one discriminated against. While I like the movie and think it's well-intentioned, it's extremely messy when you start to really analyze it.

 

[SplashJacket]

Some people have criticized Zootopia as "copaganda." The conversation around race and policing has greatly evolved since 2016 and I too wonder how Zootopia 2 will address this. There is potential for the sequel to be VERY controversial, among both left and right leaning people.

I'm not saying a Zootopia sequel can't be good. It definitely can. But I think it's a bigger can of worms than one might think. I think we are much, much more polarized as a society than we were in the spring of 2016.

Exactly. I wonder if they go safe or try to open that can of words. Will be very interesting.

 

[Ghost93]

Exactly. I wonder if they go safe or try to open that can of words. Will be very interesting.

The safer route would be to avoid the topic of police and instead have the whole thing be a metaphor for interracial relationships, with Nick and Judy getting in a relationship and having to deal with their parents' reaction.

 

[TP2000]

And this is what got Chapek in trouble. Especially being nonchalant about it...

View attachment 697273

I've said this before, and I'm saying it again, so I apologize. But, Streaming...

I will NEVER wrap my pea-sized Capitalist brain around how streaming makes any of these giant legacy studio companies any money. How on earth did they convince anyone they could make a profit with this model??? Especially when the big studios still spend huge amounts of money on pictures like it's 2005 when people still willingly left their house on a Saturday night to "go to the movies" for first-run fare. It's 2023! The world has changed, but Hollywood's bloated budgets and labor costs refuse to acknowledge it.

I have permanently filed "Streaming" in the same category with "Cryptocurrency" of things that didn't make sense to me as a profit generator when they started, and still don't make sense to me.

Which is the only reason why I have a teeny, tiny shred of sympathy for the unlikable Bob Chapek. He didn't start this streaming mess, but he's getting blamed for it?

 

[SplashJacket]

I think the movie often can't decide whether it wants the predators or the prey to represent minorities. In some scenes, the predators are portrayed as marginalized people, while in other scenes, the prey is made out to be the one discriminated against. While I like the movie and think it's well-intentioned, it's extremely messy when you start to really analyze it.

Like I said, I don’t think it’s trying to make prey/predators represent a particular marginalized group.

If you make one group bad throughout the whole movie, and one group good, people will only want to see themselves within the group showcased as good. If someone sees themself within the bad group, and feels targeted by the message of the movie, they’re just going to shut it out and move on with their life. Ostracizing the audience accomplishes nothing.

I think there’s benefit in people seeing themselves as part of the problem, because regardless of your stances, there’s no doubt we can all do better with regards to just about anything.

Depending on how you view, analyze, and perceive the film, it’s interpretation varied wildly. Try viewing it without trying to assign the prey/predator allegory to a specific group. The film is just trying to showcase discrimination and it’s negative effects as a whole

 

[SplashJacket]

The safer route would be to avoid the topic of police and instead have the whole thing be a metaphor for interracial relationships, with Nick and Judy getting in a relationship and having to deal with their parents' reaction.

I don’t really see how that’s the safer route, but I really do wonder whether the movie will return to its social commentary roots or pander to the lowest common denominator.

Or maybe they could play it smart and just create an entertaining movie without any hidden agenda or anything else that could potentially cause issues

I do think it’s interesting that having a moral to a story is considered a hidden agenda. Basically everything we put out into the world with any societal value has an argument.

Comedy is important in this regards because it allows us to discuss taboo or uncomfortable subjects with lower defenses. People can say, “oh it’s just a joke,” but jokes have immense power and cultural relevance.

Plays like Hannibal and A Clockwork Orange are masterpieces in their own right, and they both make social commentaries without directly saying them. Only books like a political tell-all highlight their stance.

But that’s essentially my fear. Taking everything interesting and thought-provoking in the movie and dwindling it down to the lowest common denominator. That’s not interesting, innovative, or worthy of my time. It’s forgettable nonsense.

There’s a place for boring popcorn flicks that just mindless consume the consumer, but I don’t think that’s what you should aspire to be.

Also, I do think it’s interesting that you deem creating a movie with an underlying social commentary an issue. Companies, directors, writers, cinematographers, and everyone else involved should be able to produce the movie they want to produce.

If you’re not making someone mad, you’re probably not addressing something relevant to the society (in terms of social commentary, not necessarily a basic moral).

China famously has caused movie studios to pander to their censorship requirements so that they can tap into their audience. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is entirely a bad thing.

Ratatouille, masterfully employs its social commentary. Not only does it make its argument, but it appropriately nuances it, especially with this quote from Ego near the end, “I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook." But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist *can* come from *anywhere*.”

Ratatouille is undoubtedly a social commentary about disregarding someone because of their origin, shape, size, color, gender, etc. But it does so effectively and without ostracizing it’s audience, but saying movies shouldn’t have societal messages is laughably anti speech.

I’d much rather live in a world where I disagree with the messaging of most every film, and agree with some, rather than a world where every film is mindless.

 

[Ghost93]

That'll sure make for an interesting series.

Wonder if they'll go on in-world adventures together or if they will be making it meta like the Rescue Rangers movie.

I could see them having their hoodies from WIR2.

Maybe Tiana can recruit Moana to join the co-op in the crossover episode?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I will NEVER wrap my pea-sized Capitalist brain around how streaming makes any of these giant legacy studio companies any money. How on earth did they convince anyone they could make a profit with this model???

Well, Netflix did it.

By charging 3 times what D+ was charging.

If D+ was charging the same as Netflix, they'd be in the black.

But D+ has been purposely loss-leading to drive up subs and hook people. Now that they have a regular churn of new content (which they didn't last year due to COVID slow-downs) they're hiking up the price. And they added the ad-supported tier (which makes more money than the sub tier).

Don't forget the advantages that D+ has:

​

1. huge catalogue of very favorable content​

​

2. new content made exclusively for D+/Hulu at the same rate as Netflix​

​

3. each year, everything that gets made for TV (ABC, FX, Disney Channel, etc...) and everything made for the theaters wind up, on demand, on D+/Hulu​

In the end, D+ will be able to command the price level that will make it profitable.

 

[wtyy21]

Here's the image about the final structure of the company under Iger. According to Variety, they have different tasks according to each business divisions, and it contained the memo from him.

Disney’s Reorg Revealed: Dana Walden and Alan Bergman Divide Entertainment Assets, International Chief Rebecca Campbell to Exit

Disney leadership broke down the specifics of the company-wide restructuring Thursday, following CEO Bob Iger's initial earnings re-org announcement

variety.com

 

[BrianLo]

I do think the commentary on Hulu is fairly interesting, but watching the interview I think the cagey-ness compared to ESPN has to be contextualized to something they outright own versus something they still need to bid on.

That said, if Comcast wants the entire package for a reasonable price, why keep it really? It's not terribly needed by Disney to goose their subscriber numbers anymore. We all know one way or the other its either getting folded into D+, or sold and all the content is still folded into D+.

If Comcast wants to pay 20 billion for 40 million subscribers (theoretically I don't know how that works with the bundle), Disney has proven fully capable of burning through less money to generate those numbers.

 

[TP2000]

In the end, D+ will be able to command the price level that will make it profitable.

That sentiment should be part of the farewell spiel the thousands of laid off employees get this month...

"In the end, Disney+ will be profitable and your jobs may come back. Check back with us in Fiscal '26! Don't be a stranger!"

 

[Tjaden]

The Onyx Collective is a great band name.

 

[TP2000]

Maybe Tiana can recruit Moana to join the co-op in the crossover episode?

OT, but as a longtime Disney observer I can confidently say that the "employee-owned cooperative" garbage from the Tiana ride backstory is going down in history as one of the most ridiculous things they've ever done in the Parks.

Even more embarrassingly stupid than Rocket Rods. Or that time in '02 when DCA tried to celebrate "Happy Noon Year!" on December 31st at 12 Noon because no one wanted to stay in that crummy park past 4:00 PM.

 

[doctornick]

Well, Netflix did it.

By charging 3 times what D+ was charging.

If D+ was charging the same as Netflix, they'd be in the black.

But D+ has been purposely loss-leading to drive up subs and hook people. Now that they have a regular churn of new content (which they didn't last year due to COVID slow-downs) they're hiking up the price. And they added the ad-supported tier (which makes more money than the sub tier).

Don't forget the advantages that D+ has:

​

1. huge catalogue of very favorable content​

​

2. new content made exclusively for D+/Hulu at the same rate as Netflix​

​

3. each year, everything that gets made for TV (ABC, FX, Disney Channel, etc...) and everything made for the theaters wind up, on demand, on D+/Hulu​

In the end, D+ will be able to command the price level that will make it profitable.

To put some numbers on it, they basically need to make ~$2.25 (a little less but I'm rounding up) per month more per subscriber worldwide on Disney+ to break even for streaming. They just jumped it by $3/mo in December in the US and seemed to not adversely affect sub rate - and the quarterly report had less than a month of those increased rates included. So, I think they will likely get closer to their target price and have less loss the next quarter. And if they can do a similar jump in price - whether in 1 or 2 steps - by the end of 2024, they should be able to reach their target timeframe for being profitable.

I do not think $13.99/mo for ad free Disney+ seems unreasonable given the streaming market. That is cheaper than HBO Max or standard Netflix is now.

(Also, this isn't even considering any increase in revenue from Hulu or ESPN+ to balance the streaming books.)

 

[MisterPenguin]

OT, but as a longtime Disney observer I can confidently say that the "employee-owned cooperative" garbage from the Tiana ride backstory is going down in history as one of the most ridiculous things they've ever done in the Parks.

Even more embarrassingly stupid than Rocket Rods. Or that time in '02 when DCA tried to celebrate "Happy Noon Year!" on December 31st at 12 Noon because no one wanted to stay in that crummy park past 4:00 PM.

We already have three threads for Tiana potshots. And plenty of threads for potshots at DCA in the DL section.

This is the Quarterly report thread.