That’s the story as I recall hearing/reading it...He and Roy stopped speaking to each other for almost two years due to Walt's greed. Walt was siphoning off money from the studio into WED for himself and his family. The mortgage house story fails to mention that the house in question was his second house, not his primary residence. Borrowing off of life insurance at that time was common. Cheaper to do that then to pull a loan from the bank. I'd explain more but this is way off topic. Here's some reading for you:
WED Enterprises was the private family holding company of Walt Disney, through which he amassed a fortune alongside his shares of Walt Disney Productions.www.joshuakennon.com
The most accurate take is probably that he was both.He siphoned off money into WED for Disneyland development. WDP became a public company and he didn’t want the stock holders getting in the way of his extravagant and expensive plans for the parks. He liked having complete control.
He was a control freak. Not a money freak.
Yeah, that’s been kicking around the Internet a lot lately. IDK why it’s hard for people to accept he was a businessman who also cared about quality and innovation. Those kinds of leaders do exist.A couple things. Walt was never CEO. Walt also wasn’t fuelled by greed. I’m not sure where this perception comes from? He was a notorious spender when it came to his company projects, and would mortgage his house, borrow off his life insurance, etc.
No, he wasn’t the perfect Uncle Walt character he created. He was ruthless when you contradicted his vision, he was a sucker for love and attention, and definitely had a bit of an ego when it came to his endeavours. A money man? Not sure where you came to that inclusion. He wasn’t a businessman. He was an entertainer. That’s why he needed Roy so badly.
The rest of your assessment is pretty accurate though.
He siphoned off money into WED for Disneyland development.
I would not bank on Mulan making a big splash in China due to elder reverence.This circles back to the market's maturation. The Lion King earned $120 million in China despite being a lousy copy of the original. Name recognition carried that one, and it wasn't based on a Chinese legend.
If I'd worked at Walt Disney Pictures, I would have pushed *hard* for Mulan due to its Chinese box office potential and accompanying long-term revenue streams. And the tracking for the film was extremely strong right when the pandemic hit. Variety had it at $85 million, which would have made it a likely $300 million film in the US. And that's about the right number for a $1 billion blockbuster worldwide.
At $30 bucks a pop and not having to share with movie theaters Disney is looking at nice profit. It will probably do about $900 million in home sales worldwide easy.
I would not bank on Mulan making a big splash in China due to elder reverence.
Disney selling Mulan at $30 a pop (really, $37 since you need the subscription) means that 1 million sales would provide $337 million in revenue (technically, it might be as little as $256 million, based on current non-Star ARPU, but I think that's low in this specific instance).
No, I just made a stupid math error because I'm too distracted by my cat asking for dinner. Yes, I meant 10 million/15 million. Thank you for the important correction.One million sales at $37 each is $37 million. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
And the metric goal is even smaller for Disney this way. When the studio releases a movie in theaters, it splits the take. By dropping this on Disney+, the company takes everything, which is why exhibitors are saying nasty things about Disney right now.
Disney selling Mulan at $30 a pop (really, $37 since you need the subscription) means that 10 million sales would provide $337 million in revenue (technically, it might be as little as $256 million, based on current non-Star ARPU, but I think that's low in this specific instance).
For perspective, Deadline had Aladdin's total profit as $356 million.
I think a fair estimate for when Mulan matches/surpasses Aladdin in "theatrical" revenue is 15 million in Disney+ sales.
NOTE: This post has an edit because Rowrbazzle correctly pointed out that I mistakenly said 1 million originally when I meant 10 million. I've updated the information to prevent additional confusion.
It's fairly basic: The Disney Company has lost Disney's main spirit of "Affordable family entertainment."
They have lost their way by looking at the bottom line only and that has devastated "company" morale.
As a side note, I hate the new massive hotels that resemble "Biff's Pleasure Palace" from BTF II and the ticket prices are just plain insulting.
I haven't been since they started work in the new ToyStoryLand and Star Wars Galaxy's Edge and I don't see myself returning soon.
With Florida being the #2 state in case numbers, I just assume stay away for everyone's sake. And don't forget the gastronomic unemployment rate in Orange and Osceola Counties!
Funny how Disneyland is still closed but the "world" is open? That's DeSantis and his "everything's fine" mentality and the now "not happenin' Republican Convention in Jacksonville. I think they were banking on thousands going to the convention and then going to DW and leaving from Orlando. It spreads the money around along with the virus. And don't forget the basket ball bubble! I'm really surprised DW has remained open this long. I thought they had the upper hand with early notification at their parks in China.
Not only layoffs coming but another closure as well with flu season and a possible virus resurgence.
Not entirely accurate. Most of Disneyland's development was funded thru WDP and ABC. Walt arranged to keep the Monorail and Steam Trains under his private company and Disneyland leased them back from Walt for millions upon millions. That money didnt go to any development, but to Walt's pockets directly.
Isn't that number net profit? Meaning after all expenses? That would mean they would need enough buys to cover all that as well. I think its highly possible, but not sure it gets that much profit.
So whats your solution? Layoff 90,000 employees and drive them all into bankruptcy and ruin? Be real.. Either we get back to work as a country or we're done.. You can't have it both ways.
Do you think people would dish out $29 to see the original Star Wars on Disney +??There's a bunch of unknowns here since digital sales remain a largely hidden subject. Thankfully, Disney is better than most at transparency.
My point here is more than when a movie earns a billion dollars at the box office, the studio only earns a fraction of that, as referenced with Aladdin.
That film theoretically earned $1.05 billion. Deadline calculates its profit as one-third of that. With a vertically integrated release on Disney+, the new equivalent to home video, Disney only to sell a fraction to make the same money.
When we discuss Mulan debuting day and date on Disney+, we're talking about the modernization of Disney's theatrical release system.
During its latest earnings report, Disney has just threatened to throw out the theatrical distribution playbook that's been in place for nearly a century. And they're the studio with the marketshare to do it.
FWIW, just like you, I don't -think- Mulan will do that well. However, Universal bragged that Trolls World Tour earned close to $100 million during its first few weeks on digital. And it's...you know, a far cry from a Disney animated movie.
Do you think people would dish out $29 to see the original Star Wars on Disney +??
I meant the original releases of the three movies before Lucas started adding and altering the movies.Well, they don't have to do that since it's already on the service. I do think that when Star Wars X or whatever it's called comes out in December of 2023, people will happily pay $29 to watch it in, say, January or early February of 2024 at home.
This Mulan release sets the stage for that.