Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Stating facts and data about their current situation on one of their core products is not "bashing", it is stating facts and data about their current situation on one of their core products. You may be upset about those facts as a shareholder, but that doesn't make them untrue.

Right now, for about the 4th year in a row, Disney+ continues to lose hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars every 3 months. Specifically, today they announced that in Q3 '23 they just lost another $512 Million on Disney+, and their subscribers declined by 7.4%. Thats's a Billion or more per year they're losing on Disney+. As a longtime Disney fan, I find that very alarming.

Don't you?

And I still can't figure out how Disney+ will ever pencil out for them, to be honest.

Disney+ Global Subscribers by Fiscal Quarter

Q3 2022 = 152.1 Million
Q4 2022 = 164.2 Million, gain of +7.9%
Q1 2023 = 161.8 Million, loss of -1.5%
Q2 2023 = 157.8 Million, loss of -2.5%
Q3 2023 = 146.1 Million, loss of -7.4%

Heh, remember when you were on a tear about the bottom line financial loss of D+ when subs were growing everywhere?

And now that D+ is clearly on a trajectory to profitability in 2024, which had been the guidance given for the past 5 years, all of a sudden, you are all "WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SUBS??!1!1?"

World wide, the subs outside of India have grown. The ARPU is up. The amount of loss has gone down substantially.

Nice try.

So, put away your smelling salts and fainting couch. You don't have to find this *very* alarming, because it isn't.

Your concern for the company has been duly noted.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
From the 3Q 2023 presentation...

1691672933206.png
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
If anything people like you are gatekeepers, not me. Gatekeepers are the people that say "Disney ruined Star Wars" and "Metallica sucks since '86" and the like. These are the people that run into cults and dare to call themselves real fans and anyone else is a pretender, a sheep, a shill, a brainless zombie mindless consuming product. They determine themselves to be utterly superior to everyone else and to know what a true fan is, and the rest of us strike them as heretical.
A forum member once said "I know you are but what am I" is not a valid rebuttal.

I "show" you that it's wrong and I tell you. But I also encourage you to look and find it. And you know damn well if I gave you a very lengthy, detailed explanation of everything, nailed all the specifics and gave footnotes and mountains of evidence, people like you will ignore it condescendingly
But that's the kicker. Again you are telling people that their speculation is wrong by saying your speculation is right. I'm not inflating box office to make Disney look worse like you say. Indy, by all reports I can see or find, has a budget of $300mil. Not my number, not inflated by me or anyone on this site. If that budget is wrong, then show where it's wrong. But you defend the movie and it's performance. So what is the break even point of this movie? Or better yet, what is the formula we should be using to approximate box office profitability? If there's a more accurate way, I'm all for knowing.
 

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member
A forum member once said "I know you are but what am I" is not a valid rebuttal.


But that's the kicker. Again you are telling people that their speculation is wrong by saying your speculation is right. I'm not inflating box office to make Disney look worse like you say. Indy, by all reports I can see or find, has a budget of $300mil. Not my number, not inflated by me or anyone on this site. If that budget is wrong, then show where it's wrong. But you defend the movie and it's performance. So what is the break even point of this movie? Or better yet, what is the formula we should be using to approximate box office profitability? If there's a more accurate way, I'm all for knowing.
I'm not engaging in the same as you, because I don't declare people to be heretics or automatically shut them out. If that's what you think I'm doing, you're profoundly mistaken. But nothing I do or say will ever convince you or make you understand. You are wedded to your viewpoint so solidly and you can't budge. That's human nature, of course, no one at all is above that, and I've certainly never denied that fact. But I always challenge myself and question myself. And the data that people like you pull out, cherry-picked without the proper context, does not tell the whole story.

I also never declared myself superior to you or that I know more than you. Don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said. I've never said anything of the sort. I do nothing different than what your side does. But you don't call out people on your side for that behavior, only people that challenge you. He who lives in glass houses, after all.

And the fact you never engaged with the rest of my last post only proves my point. That you deliberately will ignore what I say no matter what. And if I gave you chapter and verse, you would ignore it too, because I know how things work around here. But the truth is that I couldn't care less. Despite what you may believe, I don't spend all my time ruminating about y'all and your constant negativity. I've got my own life to live, I've got plenty of things to do, and I'm an optimist my nature. The constant responses your side gives, it rings hollow and I barely give it any thought. I'm not here to convert you, because I know you can't be converted. All I do is leave a paper trail of the truth, so that it's not lost. That's perfectly fine with me, and that's all I want.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
I just love how Bob talks like he was stranded on a deserted island for 5 years and is working hard to reintegrate himself into society. :rolleyes:

In reality, he took an 11 month sabbatical, still lived in his main home in SoCal during his sabbatical, and he still dined and socialized with all the same industry leaders he had been dining and socializing with for the previous 20 years.

But he pretends that he was gone for 5 years and is just now discovering all these new things (that he was in charge of from 2005 to 2021).
I mean seriously. It’s almost like he planned it this way on purpose to absolve himself of the mess he knew he was facing.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
Just to have this data nugget during inevitable discussions about box office flops getting money from Disney+ subscriptions to subsidize losses, here's some fun stats from today's earnings call.

Disney+ Global Subscribers by Fiscal Quarter

Q3 2022 = 152.1 Million
Q4 2022 = 164.2 Million, gain of +7.9%
Q1 2023 = 161.8 Million, loss of -1.5%
Q2 2023 = 157.8 Million, loss of -2.5%
Q3 2023 = 146.1 Million, loss of -7.4%


Yup, this is fine.

But they’re charging more! Just like with the parks! Maybe they can claim that with less people streaming the performance of the service is better…. or something. Someone should get an intern working on that story.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
And the fact you never engaged with the rest of my last post only proves my point. That you deliberately will ignore what I say no matter what.
I'll start here. Pot meet kettle. You just ignored my whole post. You didn't once address how we should be calculating anything.
I'm not engaging in the same as you, because I don't declare people to be heretics or automatically shut them out. If that's what you think I'm doing, you're profoundly mistaken.
You do shut them out. When someone talkes negative about Disney, you jump in to defend them and immediately try to shut them down.
But I always challenge myself and question myself. And the data that people like you pull out, cherry-picked without the proper context, does not tell the whole story.
As do I. But I'm still confused about this cherry picked data and not telling the whole story. I'm generally not trying to tell the whole story. Any budget/profit talk has been focused on the theatrical window. I agreed that mansion could find an audience, but that's just speculation. The reason I stick to theatrical window is we have zero information as to what post revenue streams will do for a film until we get to that point. Even then we might not know. We can absolutely see what a film is doing, day by day, week to week. That's hard data we can speculate on.
I also never declared myself superior to you or that I know more than you. Don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said.
You called me a liar and a troll who cherry picks information. I've been very clear with how I come to my opinions with box office. And that's budget + marketing x 2 = what a movie needs to become profitable in its theatrical run. Like I said before, if you have a more accurate way, by all means I would like to know. Because unlike what you say about me not wanting to learn, I would like to know if there's a better way. The difference between you and I is I can admit that there's a possibility of these films that we have been talking about finding a life post theatrical window. But you can't admit that there's a chance they might not. I'd say I've gone against the doom and gloom more than you go against the sunshine and roses crowd.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
But they’re charging more! Just like with the parks! Maybe they can claim that with less people streaming the performance of the service is better…. or something. Someone should get an intern working on that story.

Thank you. Disney+ just lost more subscribers and another $512 Million in three months time.

Disney+

Domestic subs ARPU is $7.31.
Domestic subs decreased by 300,000 (a 0.6% decline).
Monthly loss of revenue: $2.2M

International subs ARPU (excluding India) is $6.01.
International subs increased by 1,100,000.
Monthly increase of revenue: $13.2M

India subs ARPU is $0.59.
India subs decreased by 12,500,000.
Monthly loss of revenue: $7.4M

=================

Total increase of monthly revenue = $13.2 - $2.2 - $7.4 = $3.6M increased revenue per month.

Subscription fee revenue went *up*.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Disney+

Domestic subs ARPU is $7.31.
Domestic subs decreased by 300,000 (a 0.6% decline).
Monthly loss of revenue: $2.2M

International subs ARPU (excluding India) is $6.01.
International subs increased by 1,100,000.
Monthly increase of revenue: $13.2M

India subs ARPU is $0.59.
India subs decreased by 12,500,000.
Monthly loss of revenue: $7.4M

=================

Total increase of monthly revenue = $13.2 - $2.2 - $7.4 = $3.6M increased revenue per month.

Subscription fee revenue went *up*.
Not to mention -

Advertising revenue went UP by $173M last quarter.
Operating Expenses went DOWN by $158M last quarter.

Both of which should continue in those directions quarter after quarter.
 

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member
I'll start here. Pot meet kettle. You just ignored my whole post. You didn't once address how we should be calculating anything.

You do shut them out. When someone talkes negative about Disney, you jump in to defend them and immediately try to shut them down.

As do I. But I'm still confused about this cherry picked data and not telling the whole story. I'm generally not trying to tell the whole story. Any budget/profit talk has been focused on the theatrical window. I agreed that mansion could find an audience, but that's just speculation. The reason I stick to theatrical window is we have zero information as to what post revenue streams will do for a film until we get to that point. Even then we might not know. We can absolutely see what a film is doing, day by day, week to week. That's hard data we can speculate on.

You called me a liar and a troll who cherry picks information. I've been very clear with how I come to my opinions with box office. And that's budget + marketing x 2 = what a movie needs to become profitable in its theatrical run. Like I said before, if you have a more accurate way, by all means I would like to know. Because unlike what you say about me not wanting to learn, I would like to know if there's a better way. The difference between you and I is I can admit that there's a possibility of these films that we have been talking about finding a life post theatrical window. But you can't admit that there's a chance they might not. I'd say I've gone against the doom and gloom more than you go against the sunshine and roses crowd.
At no point did I ever say or offer that it was my place to say how to calculate. Because I don't ask you where you get the info from (you always offer it up), I'm under no obligation to to respond back or offer it. As I said before, it's not my job to hold your hand and tell you where to go. Figure it out for yourself. But odds are you won't find it because of how the algorithm suppresses it. If you want to "find a better way," that's your job to go look for it. Not mine to show you. And I never claimed I was going to.

I don't shut people out at all. I'm only offering a counterpoint to be heard. Your side is the one that doesn't want to hear it. The side of optimism is laughed at, mocked, jeered and continuously belittled here. I don't do the same thing to you at all. But if you can't see that, I can't help you. That's all I'm going to say on that particular front.

The idea that I "can't admit the possibility of failure" is simply not true. Everything always has the chance of failure. I'm simply saying I'm confident that the case is otherwise.

And I've never said I follow Disney uncritically, especially with regards to people like Alan Horn, Chapek and Daniel, and I didn't appreciate Iger's comments about the strike, and I'm glad he pivoted quite well on that moment, as I figured he would. I'm only here to say that "Disney in disarray" is a tired media trope, a horse so dead it's no longer even being part of new glue bottles. And I find it strange that more people here are content to kick the company in the teeth than show support.

I have said the last I'm ever going to say on these particular matters. I will certainly not fire off something to your inevitable response. Because I've covered it all so many times before. Like I said, I simply don't care about you and others like you, and I live my life focused on the future and the bright things ahead of us all. You have your way, I have mine, and it's clear that never the twain shall meet.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Question regarding LFL. The big complaint is that the sequels had no vision and outline. It is true. But the question is have they learned? Does Mandalorian have a vision or clear pathway either?

Why is it so hard to create story ideas with the end in mind or actually START with the end and go back from there?
In the case of shows, it's because, unless it's a limited-run series, nobody knows how much time they've got.

If you come up with an arc that you plan to conclude at the end of season three, what happens if you get canceled at the end of season two?

What happens if the network/streamer comes back and says, it's such an amazing hit they want you to sign a contract for another two seasons?

If you haven't produced the full third season, you can try to stretch out the pacing to get to that end point, at which point, the show is going to start moving a lot slower for viewers or there is going to be unevenness as you try to squeeze in unnecessary plot points to string things along or if you're already too far along in production, you reach your big ending at the end of season three and try to piece together some crap story to push it forward for another couple of years and everyone talks for the next decade about how it was a great series except for those last two seasons when it really took a nosedive.

Obviously, if it gets canceled early, that's even worse for the creators and whatever fans there were.

Some producers/show-runners/creators will say that in broad strokes, they always had an idea of how they wanted things to end up. Obviously, "How I Met Your Mother" telegraphed in the very first episode what to expect on some level for the ending, for instance, but I think it's dangerous to plan much beyond that in Hollywood.

As fans who watch it for entertainment and story, it's easy to forget that on the other side, it's basically a sausage factory - a big plant pumping out product until someone turns the lights off.

To some degree, it's the same for movies. Someone somewhere may start off with a plan but then things get canceled because the first or second movie doesn't do as well as expected (Narnia) or a character or story arch proves more or less popular and they want to push things more in that direction or because it does so well, they just don't want it to end even though there isn't necessarily a reason for the story to continue after the first... or second... or third or ____ movie (John Wick).

I remember that when they made the Matrix, the Whiskowskis had absolutely zero intent on making any sequels. They didn't write for it or direct for it. The first one was such a big hit that WB convinced them to make it a trilogy and the problem was, they used all the ideas they had in the fist one and they completed the story they wanted to tell.

The second and third movies were made strictly to make money by all creatives involved - not art or entertainment.

The recent one... well, you can guess, I'm sure.

I was one of the people eager for those sequels and after seeing them, wished they'd left it at one. :/
 
Last edited:

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Heading into the second weekend in August and the only real unknown at this point is how long Barbie can hold on to the top spot.

But Haunted Mansion is losing steam faster than anyone thought possible. Disney+ fodder for the low, low price of $157 Million.

August 9th.jpg
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
And context still matters my friend.

Those subscriber losses that you keep pointing out are primarily for the cheaper subs in India with D+/Hotstar which has an average ARPU of $0.59.

D+ actually GAINED 800k subs in the higher cost subs, which has an average ARPU of $6.01 up from $5.93 last quarter.

So yeah they lost some subs which weren't adding to the bottom line, but gained 800k of the subs that do add to the bottom line.

So no I don't find that alarming at all, for a subscription service to be profitable the goal is to have more subscribers that have a higher APRU, ie spend more. So they can shed all the lower ARPU subs as far as I'm concerned as long as they keep gaining on the subs that have a higher ARPU.

Heh, remember when you were on a tear about the bottom line financial loss of D+ when subs were growing everywhere?

And now that D+ is clearly on a trajectory to profitability in 2024, which had been the guidance given for the past 5 years, all of a sudden, you are all "WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SUBS??!1!1?"

World wide, the subs outside of India have grown. The ARPU is up. The amount of loss has gone down substantially.

Nice try.

So, put away your smelling salts and fainting couch. You don't have to find this *very* alarming, because it isn't.

Your concern for the company has been duly noted.

Disney+

Domestic subs ARPU is $7.31.
Domestic subs decreased by 300,000 (a 0.6% decline).
Monthly loss of revenue: $2.2M

International subs ARPU (excluding India) is $6.01.
International subs increased by 1,100,000.
Monthly increase of revenue: $13.2M

India subs ARPU is $0.59.
India subs decreased by 12,500,000.
Monthly loss of revenue: $7.4M

=================

Total increase of monthly revenue = $13.2 - $2.2 - $7.4 = $3.6M increased revenue per month.

Subscription fee revenue went *up*.

Not to mention -

Advertising revenue went UP by $173M last quarter.
Operating Expenses went DOWN by $158M last quarter.

Both of which should continue in those directions quarter after quarter.


So interesting how these FACTS, which are undeniable, keep being ignored by those who keep declaring the Disney+ is now failing because the subs are dropping.


We want bad subs to drop, we want more people on good subs.

That is what is happening.

Trajectory to profitability is still seemingly on schedule for next year.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
So interesting how these FACTS, which are undeniable, keep being ignored by those who keep declaring the Disney+ is now failing because the subs are dropping.

I'm not ignoring them, as they confirm that Disney+ is still losing hundreds of millions of dollars every three months. And now losing monthly subscribers in North America.

And that actually makes sense to me, because the Disney+ business model makes no sense to me. Of course they're going to lose a Billion or two per year on the thing, because it just can't pencil out.

Trajectory to profitability is still seemingly on schedule for next year.

Throwing this out there, just so I can put this on a sticky note, what's the exact timing 2024 goal for Disney+ profitability? Fiscal 2024 starts in two and a half months, so it's obviously not going to be profitable at the start of the '24 Fiscal Year. Is its profitability coming at any point in Fiscal '24, or any point in calendar '24 up to the first three months of Fiscal Year 2025?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TP2000

Well-Known Member
What if the Meg 2 makes more than the Haunted Mansion AND Elemental?

At least domestically, I doubt Meg 2 will beat Elemental. Globally, however, Meg 2 might get to Elemental levels.

But Haunted Mansion? Meg 2 already ate it for lunch yesterday. What's increasingly obvious is that Haunted Mansion is doing profoundly bad in the overseas box office. Domestically it's doing awful, but overseas it's disastrously awful.

Foreigners really, really don't want to see Haunted Mansion, apparently. At least not in summer.

Meg Vs. Mickey.jpg
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom