the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
They do for specialty chains. Per screen averages on well platformed releases can be insane.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Disney announces strategic restructuring of media and entertainment divisions.
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Sure, but that's a relatively small niche.
Even going back to the 60s (and earlier, like Gone With the Wind) the most successful films tended to be westerns or other big budget epics like Cleopatra and Spartacus. Even the really successful non-blockbuster type films tended to rely heavily on headline stars.
I think the biggest difference now is the sheer volume of films specifically designed as giant blockbusters. They used to be more of an event; now there's one out every few weeks.
FutureCEO
Well-Known Member
I see about one or two movies a year in theaters if that. But hearing people chomp on popcorn, operate cell phones and talk is not very enjoyable.
Mouse Trap
Well-Known Member
I love reading all these folks who think theaters are on their way out just because of what they’re seeing in the United States. Meanwhile Tenet and The Eight Hundred are doing very strong numbers abroad theatrically in countries that actually have COVID under control.
If Disney was ditching theatrical then we wouldn’t have seen Black Widow or Eternals pushed back again which could have been their strongest D+ release ever.
No studio has been brave enough to drop a giant film franchise on streaming/PVOD yet and we won’t see the landscape truly change until we see studios comfortable enough to release major blockbusters just weeks apart from each other instead of making each release an event film.
If Disney was ditching theatrical then we wouldn’t have seen Black Widow or Eternals pushed back again which could have been their strongest D+ release ever.
No studio has been brave enough to drop a giant film franchise on streaming/PVOD yet and we won’t see the landscape truly change until we see studios comfortable enough to release major blockbusters just weeks apart from each other instead of making each release an event film.
Slpy3270
Well-Known Member
Yet neither of them will turn a profit in those markets alone.
Mouse Trap
Well-Known Member
The Eight Hundred will make a nice profit — not sure why you think it won’t. Again, someone who doesn’t understand what’s happening outside of the USA.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think you shot past the point...those theaters have to be packed Friday - Sunday. The math will not work otherwise. They can’t wait 2 years while “people get over it” and forget and start sitting on top of each other. That’s likely never to happen. The world has changed. There was no instant global digital media in 1919.
I’m not a debt hawk...but the government’s will not pay the movie theaters to operate. I’m not even sure they’ll pay the airlines for long...or cruise ships...or hotel operators.
Captain Neo
Well-Known Member
I feel like ABC and ESPN should be sold off. They were bought during Eisner's crazy spending spree in the 90s and never really fit Disney's Core business model.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Disney's not going to sell off the most profitable part of their company.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Plus ABC has so much advertising for Disney product, even on their morning and evening news. It has value beyond just selling ad slots.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Eisner’s spending spree was a housewife going a little crazy buying things not needed at the sams club.
Iger went out and spent his winning lottery ticket on luxury items just to show off and say “look at me!”
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
They already tried to sell the parks ten years ago.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I don't think theaters are on their way out, just that worldwide theater-oriented filmmaking is going away. These days, even the big blockbuster films have to be edited into different versions for the sensibilities of the biggest emerging markets. Movies don't need astronomical budgets (production and marketing) in order to do well internationally, they just need to be good. The streaming model is leaning into the reality that lower-budget movies targeting niche audiences will result in more revenue than gambling big on a blockbuster that may or may not do well around the world.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
The parks aren't as profitable as the media networks overall (and ESPN especially).
Plus, Disney needs that type of steady revenue stream far more right now than they did 10 years ago. Not to mention the fact that that potential sale was more of a business fit issue (based on the company Iger wanted Disney to be) than anything else. ABC and ESPN fit in very well as part of a media conglomerate.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
More along the lines of working out rent payments, forcing them to actually do wide scale drive ins next summer etc.
Mouse Trap
Well-Known Member
I’m a fan of anything that makes good content more accessible and in demand. Streaming does this and I think it’s a net positive for the industry.
This is Hollywood’s largest experiment ever. Even Netflix doesn’t exactly profit a whole lot of money right now, so it’s going to be interesting to see what the future holds. Obviously higher prices are in the future.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I can’t tell if you’re joking?
There are going to be “industry casualties” from this...movie theaters are high on the probability list.
The most contentious election in American - probably the world when you consider money at stake - has masked the economic fallout to this point...but that’s near an end.
There is going to be MASSIVE economic losses for an extended period. What another one? Retail has been dying...its gonna be a blood bath this year. It happens every year...but you think spending is gonna be up?!?
No way in hell.
The reason Disney made an announcement is they see the writing on the wall...they are going to controlled outlet of content. Which they were always gonna do...but I believe years ahead of schedule.
It is what it is.
The "linear channels" were the only profitable segment in all of the Disney Company the past quarter (that we have financials for). They offset the losses of all the other segments such that the last quarter was a net wash (that is, they didn't have a loss, but, they didn't profit $4B like they would have per quarter).
If anything, the linear channels -- which push content directly to homes -- was proven to be pandemic-proof.
And that is why Disney is all-in on streaming. It's pushing content directly to homes bypassing the middleman of cable/broadcasters. It's the future of home entertainment. And again... pandemic-proof.
Now, I'm not going to say that Disney will give up on theatrical releases. As much as Iger has said in every quarterly call since D+ was announced that D+ was their top priority, Iger equally stressed (when badgered by analysts in every call to give up the theatrical window) that Disney movies are committed to the traditional 'windows' (theaters, PPV, premium cable, broadcast/cable, DVD, streaming). Each window is an opportunity to make money from the film.
The recent restructuring announcement clearly states there still is a division producing content for theaters.
But when there are no (functionally operational) theaters, well, Disney can make an exception for a while and go direct to stream... if they think it will bring in a premium, or, increase/retain subs.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think it's going to eventually revert back to something like the cable model. I've actually been saying that for years. Whether it's a streaming package or they all just consolidate under one service like Netflix, I just don't believe it will be economically feasible for 10-15 different places (if not more) to all have their own streaming service with their own exclusive content without eventually having to charge $15-20 per month or more for access. People aren't going to pay that for every service; they'll either subscribe to a couple all the time and ignore the rest or they'll subscribe for one month to watch something and then drop it. I don't believe either of those options will work long-term for the people operating the services.
I think Hamilton was the first bellwether.
