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

[lazyboy97o]

Not sure zooming in on 1971 helps put things into perspective. Maybe zoom out to see all that Disney had gotten into during the 1950s and 60s: diversification in film and television (live-action, distributing their own films, comics, etc.) educational initiatives/materials, several major corporate (and governmental) partnerships, technology developments (with patents and licensing), in addition to the merchandise, etc.

While Disney had diversified they still paled in comparison to the other studios. They had grown but were still a relatively small, family-controlled company.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Not all the post-Walt movies are bad. Many are more charming and palatable than the lackluster blockbusters Disney cranks out these days. In particular:

Candleshoe, The Rescuers, Escape to Witch Mountain, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Love Bug, Apple Dumpling Gang, Something Wicked This Way Comes, Child of Glass (TV movie)

Even the "swing and a miss" stuff like The Black Hole, Pete's Dragon, The Watcher in the Woods and Island at the Top of the World were at least interesting curiosities.

Candleshoe, Something Wicked this Way Comes, Pete's Dragon, and The Watcher in the Woods were (and still are) favorites of mine.

 

[legwand77]

Interestingly, I have Disney's annual report for 1972 (which covers from October 1971 to September 1972, the first 12 months of WDW operations).

Total film rental revenue from all sources (i.e. live action and animation) was $78.3M, about $485M in inflation-adjusted dollars.

By comparison, theme park revenue from WDW and Disneyland was $223.4M, or 67.8% of total company revenue.

An often forgotten fact of corporate Disney history is that from 1972 to 1990, The Walt Disney Company derived more than half of its annual revenue from its theme parks.

For nearly 2 decades, Disney primarily was a theme park company.

View attachment 495585

The split is not not dramatically different today, it is less but roughly a healthy (not this year) 35-40% of total revenue from the parks .

Also WDW phase 1 cost 2.5 Billion in today's dollars.

Disney Studios was still considered a major film studio in the 70’s but had the smallest market share of the 70’s at around 6%. Biggest thing that hurt them was being tied to G rated movies and not paying points the producers, directors as the other studios began doing. Losing out on Raiders, ET. etc. That caused them to lose a lot of animators bringing the Studios further down.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Also WDW phase 1 cost 2.5 Billion in today's dollars.

I know that's adjusting for general inflation, but it's doubtful Disney could build something comparable for that much today.

 

[legwand77]

I know that's adjusting for general inflation, but it's doubtful Disney could build something comparable for that much today.

True Galaxy's Edge cost $1 billion

 

[GimpYancIent]

True Galaxy's Edge cost $1 billion

I take it the price tag for the Galactic Star Cruiser hotel, that was supposed to start taking reservations soon, is not a part of the Galaxy's Edge price.

 

[legwand77]

But also note, when Magic Kingdom opened there were no Mountains, only rides were

Railroad, Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Hall of Presidents, Small World, Snow White, Mr. Toads, Carousel, Dumbo, Tea Party, Skyway and Grand Prix Speedway. The Contemporary, Poly and Fort Wilderness also opened.

They opened the a Riverboat, Peter Pan and 20,000 Leagues three months later

 

[legwand77]

I take it the price tag for the Galactic Star Cruiser hotel, that was supposed to start taking reservations soon, is not a part of the Galaxy's Edge price.

Correct

 

[Tom P.]

A tip is a tip. Or it would be called a subsidy.

Or is like football vs soccer?

Football vs. soccer is a much simpler conversation.

Americans are right. Europeans are wrong. That's just fact.

 

[Ldno]

LOL Europeans? To be more specific the US is wrong, the rest of the Americas (Central, South) and Europe are Right LOL

 

[Tom P.]

LOL Europeans? To be more specific the US is wrong, the rest of the Americas (Central, South) and Europe are Right LOL

I have always wondered about using the term "Americans" to denote people in the United States, when there are numerous other countries in the Americas. But it is commonly accepted usage. And what is the alternative? Saying "people in the United States" is a bit more cumbersome. United Statesians?

 

[Miss Bella]

I have always wondered about using the term "Americans" to denote people in the United States, when there are numerous other countries in the Americas. But it is commonly accepted usage. And what is the alternative? Saying "people in the United States" is a bit more cumbersome. United Statesians?

It's not the United States. It's "The States". You are from "The states". People in Europe seem to know all the states so you can actually tell them what state you are from and they will know where it is. Most of us United Statesians are really bad at geography or we just don't care about the rest of the world.

 

[Tom P.]

It's not the United States. It's "The States". You are from "The states". People in Europe seem to know all the states so you can actually tell them what state you are from and they will know where it is. Most of us United Statesians are really bad at geography or we just don't care about the rest of the world.

"The States" is a place, though. I'm talking about how to refer to the people. Americans is a widely used, widely understood description for people who live in the United States. I can't think of an equally succinct and easily understood word that would include people from the United States but not from other American nations.

 

[Ldno]

LIke for example yes they are Taught North America Is Mexico/US/Canada, but growing up in central america is easier to say North American and it means north of Mexico, since they like to genelarize the rest as “Latin” America, BUT with that said everyone just says gringos or North Americans, it’s easier to say I’m from such and such country, i.e Colombia, Guatamelan, Than American as a whole.

 

[larryz]

Football vs. soccer is a much simpler conversation.

Americans are right. Europeans are wrong. That's just fact.

LOL Europeans? To be more specific the US is wrong, the rest of the Americas (Central, South) and Europe are Right LOL

Well, if you want to name the sport based on how it's played, what we Americans call "football" should have been named "Carryball" or "Throwball." It's only Soccer that has the "no-hands rule," making it the truer representation of "football" (or futbol).

 

[celluloid]

But also note, when Magic Kingdom opened there were no Mountains, only rides were

Railroad, Jungle Cruise, Haunted Mansion, Hall of Presidents, Small World, Snow White, Mr. Toads, Carousel, Dumbo, Tea Party, Skyway and Grand Prix Speedway. The Contemporary, Poly and Fort Wilderness also opened.

They opened the a Riverboat, Peter Pan and 20,000 Leagues three months later

Some of those were E tickets of the time though. Not to mention a Steam Train around the park, an an entire infastructure including Utilidoors, manmade lakes transportation and support.

 

[Miss Bella]

"The States" is a place, though. I'm talking about how to refer to the people. Americans is a widely used, widely understood description for people who live in the United States. I can't think of an equally succinct and easily understood word that would include people from the United States but not from other American nations.

I agree. Aren’ we the only country that has America in our name like Unites States of America. I think we get to claim it. I was just pointed out that when in Europe they will ask if you’re from the states not United States.

 

[flynnibus]

Not sure zooming in on 1971 helps put things into perspective. Maybe zoom out to see all that Disney had gotten into during the 1950s and 60s: diversification in film and television (live-action, distributing their own films, comics, etc.) educational initiatives/materials, several major corporate (and governmental) partnerships, technology developments (with patents and licensing), in addition to the merchandise, etc.

the problem is you are looking at a Disney history lesson and looking at this as if it were all some expansion... as if the company was doing everything it had and was growing.
Most of that was the company SHIFTING.

the post war era was a change in the markets. Shorts were going away...labor changes made animation less practical so Disney got into live action. Disney got into tv and documentaries but was mothballing other stuff. What people see today as diversity into new fields was actually Disney scrambling to find viable new products as their prior stable burned.

disney was not a studio on the scale of the Hollywood peers.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

the problem is you are looking at a Disney history lesson and looking at this as if it were all some expansion... as if the company was doing everything it had and was growing.
Most of that was the company SHIFTING.

the post war era was a change in the markets. Shorts were going away...labor changes made animation less practical so Disney got into live action. Disney got into tv and documentaries but was mothballing other stuff. What people see today as diversity into new fields was actually Disney scrambling to find viable new products as their prior stable burned.

disney was not a studio on the scale of the Hollywood peers.

“Walt Disney: An American Original” by Bob Thomas, available from your local bookseller, library or Amazon.

 

[_caleb]

the problem is you are looking at a Disney history lesson and looking at this as if it were all some expansion... as if the company was doing everything it had and was growing.
Most of that was the company SHIFTING.

the post war era was a change in the markets. Shorts were going away...labor changes made animation less practical so Disney got into live action. Disney got into tv and documentaries but was mothballing other stuff. What people see today as diversity into new fields was actually Disney scrambling to find viable new products as their prior stable burned.

disney was not a studio on the scale of the Hollywood peers.

“Walt Disney: An American Original” by Bob Thomas, available from your local bookseller, library or Amazon.

Thanks for the perspective. I’ll read more on the history of the company. I’ve read the Thomas book (though I will admit to having bought it for the cover), and I’m familiar with the ups and downs Disney experienced over the years.

But the 1968 market capitalization was around $500 million and went up to $1 billion on Jan. 20, 1970. While this would not have put Disney in the same scale of other Hollywood studios, it doesn’t seem to be accurate to paint Disney in 1970 as the scrappy little animation studio it was in the 30s and 40s (or even upon its IPO in 1957), as @Prog seemed to be doing.