On layoffs, very bad attendance, and Iger's legacy being one of disgrace

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Advertisement
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:

That’s the story as I recall hearing/reading it...

And Roy got a little payback when he bought Walt’s name...sour grapes From he Walt family Branch if I recall?
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.
The most accurate take is probably that he was both.
 

tirian

Well-Known Member
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.
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.

I also read a blog from a film history professor who said the only differentiation between Walt Disney and Fleischer was that Disney marketed animation as “hard to do” and gained public respect. That’s one of the most idiotic statements I’ve ever read. The alleged professor didn’t mention animation quality, story, music, characterization, etc. I wonder how he feels about Chuck Jones or Studio Ghibli.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
He siphoned off money into WED for Disneyland development.

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.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
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.
I would not bank on Mulan making a big splash in China due to elder reverence.
 

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
I would not bank on Mulan making a big splash in China due to elder reverence.

Well, it certainly won't now, as China primarily reopened and managed a whopping $17 million for the weekend.

However, back in March, most people involved in my industry felt strongly that as long as China didn't make an issue of Liu Yifei again, Mulan would perform better than any other Disney live-action movie there.

To be fair, those were primarily American and Canadian people talking about a foreign market, though. So, we all could have had it wrong.
 

rowrbazzle

Well-Known Member
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).

One million sales at $37 each is $37 million. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 

spock8113

Active Member
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!
To me, Disney has turned the whole organization into what my German relatives would call "Ein Clǘster Riesendurcheinander."
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.
 

wdw71fan

Well-Known Member
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!
To me, Disney has turned the whole organization into what my German relatives would call "Ein Clǘster Riesendurcheinander."
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.

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.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

He siphoned a ton off... resources, personal, etc. That was the rub... he basically started a private company, raided WDP storehouses and hallways at will, then kept it all under WED... and around that same general time was the whole name licensing deal that was decried by everyone.
 

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
 

Jefro

Active Member
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.

I'm not sure that we can get back to work as a country. Not on the scale with this looming. It's not an either/or - that ship has sailed and sunk. We tried opening up and here we are. I think it's more about what now either we take our medicine and get this thing done or we keep on opening and closing indefinitely till there's nothing left to open.
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
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 +??
 

GoneViral

Well-Known Member
Do you think people would dish out $29 to see the original Star Wars on Disney +??

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.
 

HauntedMansionFLA

Well-Known Member
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.
I meant the original releases of the three movies before Lucas started adding and altering the movies.
 
Top Bottom