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

[_caleb]

Yeah, Disney World, the fantastic achievement of a comparatively small animation studio, left to be neglected and riding its own coattails in the age of the Disney Media Empire

This narrative is revisionist, but go off.

[EDIT: A few people here (see posts down-thread) that I trust have indicated that it is not, in fact, revisionist to say that Disney was a comparatively small animation studio when WDW was built in 1971. I thank them for the input, rescind my objection, commit to further reading on the matter, and apologize to @Prog for saying that his take was revisionist.]

 

[Brer Oswald]

This narrative is revisionist, but go off.

Revisionist? Where?

 

[_caleb]

Revisionist? Where?

Disney wasn’t a “comparatively small animation studio” when WDW opened in 1971.

 

[Brer Oswald]

Disney wasn’t a “comparatively small animation studio” when WDW opened in 1971.

Comparatively. I guess to today?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney wasn’t a “comparatively small animation studio” when WDW opened in 1971.

It was very small. At most Walt Disney Productions was a mini-major, but definitely not one of the major studios.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

It was very small. At most Walt Disney Productions was a mini-major, but definitely not one of the major studios.

Putting things into perspective:

Disney released 5 movies to theaters in 1971 [the previous year, only 3]. They had one TV show (The Wonderful World of Disney), two theme parks and the other components of WDW at the time. The Disneyland Hotel was not owned by them. Merchandising, educational films/licenses and reissues were their only other sources of revenue.

It wasn't until the 80s that Disney had its own cable channel, other studio brands, international parks, retail stores, home video etc.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Disney wasn’t a “comparatively small animation studio” when WDW opened in 1971.

It was very small. At most Walt Disney Productions was a mini-major, but definitely not one of the major studios.

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.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

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.

And that was with fewer parks than they have now.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

This is probably why Eisner was so bullish about expanding WDW and building Euro Disney within his first 5 years of being CEO.

He knew where most of the money was coming from.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

You can find scans of the 1971 Annual Report online. Total revenue in 1970 and 1971 didn’t even top $200 million. What makes that really crazy is when you consider that Walt Disney World Phase 1 cost about $400 million.

 

[Prog]

Disney wasn’t a “comparatively small animation studio” when WDW opened in 1971.

I meant compared to what it is today. And not even necessarily in 1971; even since 1998, when DAK opened.
My main point, though, was that being a fan of the parks should not necessitate simping for the empire

 

[ParentsOf4]

It was very small. At most Walt Disney Productions was a mini-major, but definitely not one of the major studios.

And that was with fewer parks than they have now.

As you an @lazyboy97o both note, Walt Disney Productions was one of the smaller Hollywood studios. Even though it was known for its cutting edge animation, other studios were cranking out cheap-to-produce, high volume animation. Many of Disney's famous "classics" were money losers during their initial runs.

Once Disneyland opened in 1955, corporate Disney derived nearly half of its revenue from Disneyland. Disneyland largely kept corporate Disney solvent from 1955 to 1971. Once WDW opened in October 1971, Disney became a theme park company.

I was a child during Disney's lean years - most Disney productions were pretty bad after Mary Poppins in 1964. Just look at the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films#1960s

It took Michael Eisner years to revive Disney's studio productions.

 

[ParentsOf4]

You can find scans of the 1971 Annual Report online. Total revenue in 1970 and 1971 didn’t even top $200 million. What makes that really crazy is when you consider that Walt Disney World Phase 1 cost about $400 million.

Disney spent $31M in theme park capital expenditures (capex) in 1969, $65M in 1970, $228M in 1971, and $141M in 1972.

We all owe Roy Disney for creating Walt Disney World.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I was a child during Disney's lean years - most Disney productions were pretty bad after Mary Poppins in 1964. Just look at the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films#1960s

It took Michael Eisner years to revive Disney's studio productions.

Fun quote from Roger Ebert circa 1975, when he thought Disney might be on its upswing:

"Escape to Witch Mountain," as well as "The World's Greatest Athlete" and (I'm told, though I didn't see it) "The Strongest Man in the World" seem to indicate that the Disney studio has snapped out of its doldrums and returned to the business of making movies with life and spirit."

Escape to Witch Mountain movie review (1975) | Roger Ebert

"Escape to Witch Mountain" is the Disney organization's annual Easter movie, and a pretty good one. Too often in the past, the Disney liveaction features have been impossibly bland, too scrubbed and innocuous, to really hold the attention of all but the younger members of the family. But now...

www.rogerebert.com

 

[Animaniac93-98]

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.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Fun quote from Roger Ebert circa 1975, when he thought Disney might be on its upswing:

"Escape to Witch Mountain," as well as "The World's Greatest Athlete" and (I'm told, though I didn't see it) "The Strongest Man in the World" seem to indicate that the Disney studio has snapped out of its doldrums and returned to the business of making movies with life and spirit."

Escape to Witch Mountain movie review (1975) | Roger Ebert

"Escape to Witch Mountain" is the Disney organization's annual Easter movie, and a pretty good one. Too often in the past, the Disney liveaction features have been impossibly bland, too scrubbed and innocuous, to really hold the attention of all but the younger members of the family. But now...

www.rogerebert.com

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.

I was a kid when most of these movies were released and (probably) was Disney's target audience.

At the time, me and my friends all thought these movies sucked!

It was a different age, no longer the 1950s when some of these might have succeeded.

Even though we were in grade school, we were aware of what was going on and had lived through the 60s protests, the Vietnam War, an oil crisis, Watergate, Disco, and more.

Kids weren't kids anymore, at least not the way they had been in the 1950s. Corporate Disney management was stuck in the 1950s.

As I remember it, Star Wars (1977) was the first great movie that kids could enjoy.

 

[_caleb]

It was very small. At most Walt Disney Productions was a mini-major, but definitely not one of the major studios.

Are you talking about animation studios, or movie studios?

 

[_caleb]

I meant compared to what it is today. And not even necessarily in 1971; even since 1998, when DAK opened.
My main point, though, was that being a fan of the parks should not necessitate simping for the empire

I agree that we can be fans of the park and not necessarily fans of everything the Company does. My statement about a revisionist narrative had to do with the idea that Disney was just a small, scrappy animation studio in 1971 when they had (with varying degrees of success) branched out into live-action features, television (Mickey Mouse Club, Disneyland television show, serials like Davy Crockett, Zorro, etc.), film distribution, and were partnering with major corporations on things like attractions for the World’s Fair.

 

[_caleb]

Putting things into perspective:

Disney released 5 movies to theaters in 1971 [the previous year, only 3]. They had one TV show (The Wonderful World of Disney), two theme parks and the other components of WDW at the time. The Disneyland Hotel was not owned by them. Merchandising, educational films/licenses and reissues were their only other sources of revenue.

It wasn't until the 80s that Disney had its own cable channel, other studio brands, international parks, retail stores, home video etc.

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.dreamfinder]

Indeed, that’s a very fun philosophical conundrum, but I guess I’m more a fan of preventing the paving of the way that allowed Iger to build up a cartoonishly evilly large multimedia empire than I am interested in guillotining him personally for having done it

Michael Eisner: “did you forget me?”