Disney Stock Approaching 9 Year Low

[Disstevefan1]

Wish and Elio are looking like great films, imo.

Aiming for the widest audience possible would be detrimental to movies and result in all sorts of compromises.

Compromises has always been part of the movie business. I guess to make a great movie you got to be lucky and make the right compromises.

The original Jaws was a good example of a forced compromise. For that film they built a sophisticated animatronic shark but the moment it was in the water if failed. They had no other choice but to NOT have the multiple appearances of the shark and just have the fin and the music. Until I saw a documentary on the film I never knew this, but this compromise made the movie BETTER and built suspense in my mind.

 

[Mmoore29]

Thanks for the name calling. I won’t do that. Is that Ren and Stimpy or a Minions reference? Hmmm, both NOT Disney IPs.

So you feel Disney is making films for the widest possible audience. That’s great. You are entitled to your opinion.

Do you think is possible for Disney to do that and also at least break even on ROI?

Just asking.

Disney is in fact doing that 4 times out of 5. That is simple, unavoidable fact.

 

[Mmoore29]

Compromises has always been part of the movie business. I guess to make a great movie you got to be lucky and make the right compromises.

The original Jaws was a good example of a forced compromise. For that film they built a sophisticated animatronic shark but the moment it was in the water if failed. They had no other choice but to NOT have the multiple appearances of the shark and just have the fin and the music. Until I saw a documentary on the film I never knew this, but this compromise made the movie BETTER and built suspense in my mind.

That's not the compromise being talked about. That's referring to watering down and using only marketing teams, advisors, focus groups and the like to make changes, and changes coming in the form of executive meddling. Not force majeure.

Don't forget, "forced compromise" kept Terry Gilliam from finishing The Man Who Killed Don Quixote as planned during the 2000 shoot with Johnny Depp and Jean Roquefort.

 

[Disstevefan1]

That's not the compromise being talked about. That's referring to watering down and using only marketing teams, advisors, focus groups and the like to make changes, and changes coming in the form of executive meddling. Not force majeure.

Don't forget, "forced compromise" kept Terry Gilliam from finishing The Man Who Killed Don Quixote as planned during the 2000 shoot with Johnny Depp and Jean Roquefort.

I will stay with my opinion that compromise is, and always was part of movie making, and is usually forced, it doesn’t matter why. It could be compromise due to budget constraints, or things like DEI/SEG requirements or other things.

I think good writing can more than make up for any type of comprise.

There is always compromise and sometimes we get a good movie anyway.

Just my opinion.

 

[Disney Irish]

By the way, Nelson, Disney didn't overpay, Murdoch refused to be prudent and close off Comcast. For all those who say "If Murdoch didn't entertain Comcast, he'd be open to a shareholder lawsuit," let's be real here. Murdoch has run his empire like a god. If Rupert says jump, everyone says how high. He could easily get away with a lower bid and sell it by just straight up telling them, "You can't touch me. I'm Rupert Murdoch, deal with it!"

You say all this, and then not realizing that Murdoch is actually like on his third shareholder lawsuit this year. And he can't just say "deal with it", he and the company are going to end up paying out Billions when these lawsuits are finished. So yeah, no shareholders don't treat him like the god of his empire. An empire by the way that he is no longer the head of, as he stepped down just a couple weeks ago.

Shareholders tend to get very upset when CEOs/Board affect the value of the company and don't see a return on investment. Something that Disney has contended with already this year, and something they have to be careful of moving forward, especially when an activist investor circling.

 

[Mmoore29]

You say all this, and then not realizing that Murdoch is actually like on his third shareholder lawsuit this year. And he can't just say "deal with it", he and the company are going to end up paying out Billions when these lawsuits are finished. So yeah, no shareholders don't treat him like the god of his empire. An empire by the way that he is no longer the head of, as he stepped down just a couple weeks ago.

Shareholders tend to get very upset when CEOs/Board affect the value of the company and don't see a return on investment. Something that Disney has contended with already this year, and something they have to be careful of moving forward, especially when an activist investor circling.

I'm aware of all those facts, but 2017-2019 was a different time. I'm talking about THEN, nothing to do with NOW. Rupert could've easily made them fall in line by virtue of his presence and tight control. That's the way the News Corp. empire was run for decades.

Disney has had massive return on investment. All its acquisitions, including Fox, have made Disney far more money than those companies ever had with previous owners or independently. The stock market is not the arbiter of everything as the only source of value. After all, in some respects, economics is dealing with something doesn't actually exist, because of all the arguments you can make that money isn't real and all that.

Disney has made incredible return and is an undervalued company. Allowing Iger not to complete the multi-year plan would actually create a real crisis where there wasn't one before and make its decline a self-fulfilling prophecy. In short, Iger is the best choice we have, and given the full turn of his contract, he'll have done amazing things with it.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm aware of all those facts, but 2017-2019 was a different time. I'm talking about THEN, nothing to do with NOW. Rupert could've easily made them fall in line by virtue of his presence and tight control. That's the way the News Corp. empire was run for decades.

Disney has had massive return on investment. All its acquisitions, including Fox, have made Disney far more money than those companies ever had with previous owners or independently. The stock market is not the arbiter of everything as the only source of value. After all, in some respects, economics is dealing with something doesn't actually exist, because of all the arguments you can make that money isn't real and all that.

Disney has made incredible return and is an undervalued company. Allowing Iger not to complete the multi-year plan would actually create a real crisis where there wasn't one before and make its decline a self-fulfilling prophecy. In short, Iger is the best choice we have, and given the full turn of his contract, he'll have done amazing things with it.

Its not a different time, shareholders are still looking for the same return on their investment today as they were 4-5 years ago. If a CEO/Board does something that shareholders thinks will mess with their investment they will sue. Again something that both News Corp and TWDC have both had to contend with over the last year.

Also one thing that you may not realize when you keep making statements like "Murdoch could have taken a lower bid and not entertained Comcast's offer and told everyone to stuff it", who was News Corps largest single shareholder at the time....... Why it was the Murdoch family themselves. So of course they were always going to get the most value out of the sale of the company. They would have never taken a lower bid as it wasn't financially beneficial to them, doesn't matter how many times you say it just was never going to happen.

As for Iger finishing his multi-year plan, personally I'm of the opinion that he should be allowed to. However I can understand why some in the fandom and even in the investor market think his time has past and a new CEO should step in.

 

[drod1985]

I think if they made a couple of moves that actually had mass appeal, is it still possible to make a couple of box office hits and TWDC would be back.

Agreed, but part of the problem is
1) it seems they've burned out both the Star Wars and Marvel fanbases
2) they're also too cost conscience to take a risk on something fresh that could breakout.

 

[TsWade2]

Nelson Peltz Tilts At Windmills-Still Has Same Delusion

Peltz has no more standing than he did at first, especially if he still is serving Ike Perlmutter's behalf. Adding Perlmutter to the board would ruin things, because he'd do nothing but be a real-life Scrooge McDuck at the company and get pay that dwarfs Iger's...especially if he tries to oust Iger as CEO and take the job himself.

Iger is doing great things and people simply don't have the patience to let multi-year plans work out. Greedy vultures, the lot of them. Only wanting a short-term payout and not willing to see where long-term infrastructure work leads.

By the way, Nelson, Disney didn't overpay, Murdoch refused to be prudent and close off Comcast. For all those who say "If Murdoch didn't entertain Comcast, he'd be open to a shareholder lawsuit," let's be real here. Murdoch has run his empire like a god. If Rupert says jump, everyone says how high. He could easily get away with a lower bid and sell it by just straight up telling them, "You can't touch me. I'm Rupert Murdoch, deal with it!"

But seriously, if this is the case, then I think it’s better that Peltz just fire Bob Iger and hire Tom Staggs or Kevin Mayer, or both as the new CEO of Co CEOs of Disney. But I guess that’s just me.

 

[Mmoore29]

Agreed, but part of the problem is
1) it seems they've burned out both the Star Wars and Marvel fanbases
2) they're also too cost conscience to take a risk on something fresh that could breakout.

Neither of those points are true. Disney is clearly eager to develop something impressive. Star Wars and Marvel are evergreens that have phenomenal appeal, value and potential even now. "Burnout" is just a press invention in this case, because the press doesn't like to be truthful, relying on presold, prechewed narratives to peddle to us.

 

[Willmark]

Nothing is to big to fail --if it were not for government bail outs Chrysler and GM would have one belly up. Disney management needs to get their act together.

And they should have been allowed to fail. Same for Disney.

 

[seascape]

Compromises has always been part of the movie business. I guess to make a great movie you got to be lucky and make the right compromises.

The original Jaws was a good example of a forced compromise. For that film they built a sophisticated animatronic shark but the moment it was in the water if failed. They had no other choice but to NOT have the multiple appearances of the shark and just have the fin and the music. Until I saw a documentary on the film I never knew this, but this compromise made the movie BETTER and built suspense in my mind.

There was only one deadline Universal kept when filming Jaws. That was being off the property where the end of the dock was pulled off by the shark.

 

[BrianLo]

Netflix posted earnings and it will be very interesting to see the medium term ramifications on Disney. For better or worse the Netflix subscriber loss in Jan 2022 flipped the switch and kickstarted negative streamer sentiment. It really was the biggest initial instigator of Disney stock slump (at least in terms of Direct to Consumers weighing on the stock price, which I think we all agree is significant).

Now however the password crackdown has them suddenly soaring again above Wall Street expectations.

If Wall Street is starting to see streamers again in growth territory, one of the (admittedly many) shackles on DIS is perhaps releasing.

The other interesting data point is despite the epic 3$ price hike on D+, Netflix has done the same in many markets. Meaning Disney oddly has not yielded its ad-free discount as much as it should have.

 

[TP2000]

DIS down -2% for the week at Friday's closing bell. The stock is down -18.75% for the past year.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

DIS down -2% for the week at Friday's closing bell. The stock is down -18.75% for the past year.

View attachment 750170

…but unprecedented demand?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Not surprising considering the current news about Disney Corporation and its financials. I mean, you are considering that in your analysis, are you not?

 

[TP2000]

DIS slipped below $80 today.

In my defense, I waited until after the closing bell this afternoon before I posted over in the Disney Box Office movie forum thread that Disney has now lost $792 Million at the box office so far this year.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

…unprecedented demand.

Like after hours on sparsely crowded days in January

 

[TP2000]

DIS fell again today, and at the closing bell ended the week down 3% at $79.33. TGIF!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Someone was was saying that the fed is “redefining” growth and inflation??

Something to the effect of “inflation is up 4-5% on certain things (including Disneys core business) and wages are up 0.7%…so we feel that’s great for the future…”



Yeah…I’ll never get new math