ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
And yet they still work with him. He presently has a show airing new episodes on D+. I guess that’s indicative of their level of desperation for content?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026
- Thread starter DCBaker
- Start date
Mostly agree. Turning Red was just bad, but I did not like Raya either. Elemental was way better than I thought it would be. Luca was good. What a pity on Soul--wish they could have stuck in a vault and released now, it would be a big hit. So much is riding on "Wish". An original that goes back to Disney roots, musical princess movie. If this scores big, maybe it will remind everyone how important these stories are to those who still love Disney.I agree, you can't slam both sequels and original titles and think you'll have any standing.
FWIW, 'Turning Red' is the only movie I wish had never been made. Truly awful. 'Soul'? Good. 'Luca'? Good. 'Raya'? Good. 'Elemental'? Good. Saw both of the latter in the theater, as well.
(After release, I think my daughter was personally responsible for dozens of hours of 'Luca' viewing per month.)
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Disney is not monolithic. Decisions made at Pixar at some point in time don't mean that some other division of the company can't make a seemingly contradictory decision at a different point in time.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Am I the only one getting the feeling Wish won’t be a smashing success? I’m sure it will do fine. But with Disney budgets, “fine“ doesn’t make much money.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Depends entirely on the soundtrack as far as I'm concerned.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Sure. I presume he will voice Buzz in TS5.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
They’ve released all the songs. They’re...fine.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
You're thinking in the old way. DTC is built for interaction and has endless opportunities for monetization.
Disney is trying to sort out the future of the business. Disney doesn't just make content, they foster the biggest fan communities in the world, who also make content (YouTube, TikTok) and generate revenue (like this site, Etsy, etc.). Moving into the new era, Disney's films and parks are primarily going to be treated as ways to find/build fan communities.
They've been fostering these niche audiences for years (vloggers, influencers, creators). They really haven't even begun to sell to them yet, but they are much more loyal and lucrative customers than any general audiences ever were. None of this was possible in linear, all of is it possible through DTC.
You think DTC is what, a fad? A scam? The writing has been on the wall for YEARS; Netflix moved from mailing DVDs to streaming back in 2007. We're two generations in to adults who've never had to wait until Tuesday primetime to watch their favorite show. Theaters are competing with home entertainment systems. You think the way forward is back?
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
The current DTC model cannot afford to keep content it’s already produced on its service.
CaptainMickey
Well-Known Member
Activist investor ValueAct has been building a stake in Disney
On CNBC TV the guys were saying ValueAct could actually be Bobs ally to counter Peltz. They have been buying shares since the Summer and "They have already been in dialogue with Disney management." Bob's would much rather work with ValueAct then Peltz. They would much rather give a board seat to ValueAct then Peltz. AND ValueAct has a strong track record of helping companies it's invested in find new CEOs.
Hugh Johnson seemed a little out of the blue to be the new Disney CFO, until you realize he is on the Board of Directors of Microsoft, one of ValueActs largest investments.
If you start connecting the dots, these guys will want a board seat or two and be very involved with finding Disney's next CEO, with Bob's blessing.
The current DTC model is broken. Other than Netflix which streaming services past and present made money? The failure has nothing to do with the technology, it has everything to do with the business models being used. (To much expensive low quality content spread out across way to many streaming platforms)
It cost a reported $200M plus another reported $150M for marketing.
It grossed $425M in theaters world wide. Subtract the 50% cut of the box office going to theaters and you have $215M. It lost about $100M+ for Disney.
JD80
Well-Known Member
Interaction? AR/VR? Maybe in the future but we're no where near that and I don't think Disney wants to create a social media platform like Tiktok. If anything they'll add popups to buy merch or something
BaconPancakes
Well-Known Member
AGI is expected in less than 10 years. All of this discussion will be irrelevant soon.
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
It's interesting because yes, the math shakes out this way, but the wider narrative is that no, it wasn't a money loser for Disney. I wonder what the truth is, unless the victory is being claimed only when factoring in merch sales?
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Are you familiar with YouTube?
This first sentence is true, the second strikes me as a conclusion based on old-model thinking.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I think Disney is closer to this than it might seem. I agree that Disney doesn't need to create any social media platforms, they're already leveraging existing ones. I hope they DON'T fall back on the old tools that "worked" under the old paradigm, but I'm afraid that under the pressure of this in-between time, they'll panic and reach for old-model solutions like longer commercial breaks, premium channels, popups, etc. rather than innovating them like I know they'd planned to do.
YouTube operates on a very different model than D+, Apple TV+, Netflix, Hulu, Peacock, Max, P+, etc. Taking Youtube Premium offerings out, the vast majority of YouTube content is user created and revenue is driven by Ad Sales (which have been down for the last several quarters BTW).
Depending on the analyst you ask, the success or failure of DTC streaming may or may not depend on: the number of subscribers, ARPU, Ad Revenue, development costs, or some or all of the above.
None of this however has offered a consistent metric for success because all the major players are still loosing money.
The one thing that is consistent, is the in terms of new/original content, is that there are way too many shows that cost way to much money to develop on too many streaming platforms with not enough subscribers watching.
It's too many "experts" in the access media that believe the studio pockets 100% of the Box Office gross and murky reporting of production and marketing costs. Except of course productions that utilized generous UK tax credits can be more easily track because of mandatory public reporting of ALL production costs is required by law. It's how some sleuths found that Indy 5 was well north of $350M.
Studios are lucky to even pocket 50% of the box office. In places like the "coveted" Chinese Market , Studios are lucky to even get 10%.
Just as too many "experts" look only at a movie's profit/loss in its theatrical window and pay no attention to the following pay windows to evaluate a movie's monetary worth. Making a profit in the theatrical window is bragging rights. But it's the net profit from the final window that matters to the studios as a business.
If studios had to rely solely on the theatrical profit of their movies, there'd be no studios left.