The 2023 Disney Failure Thread
POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Thursday, January 25, 2024 20:58
VIEWED: 8549
PAGE 7 of 13
Disney Losses for 2023 as of 09/05:
TOTAL NET GAIN/LOSS FOR DISNEY 2023 [2.0x RoT]: -$65,756,533
TOTAL NET GAIN/LOSS FOR DISNEY 2023 [2.5x RoT]: -$766,256,533
*NOTE: Results this week include Monday 09/04, Labor Day. Next week's results will only be for the 6 days after Labor Day.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Idiot Second used to defend Disney and has said that Disney goes up and down with the S&P 500.
Disney stock dipped below $80 a share today before settling at $80.57.
Let's see what the S&P looks like.... Hmmmmmm... $4,451.14
March 12, 2021:
- Disney peaks at $197.16 per share.
- S&P 500 sits at $3,943.34.
September 7th, 2023:
- Disney ends the day it dipped below $80 at $80.57 per share.
- S&P 500 is $4,451.14.
Disney's loss in that time: $116.59 per share or -59.13%
S&P 500's gain in that time: $507.80 or +12.88%
Disney hasn't been this low since March 1st of 2014 when it was $80.41 per share, which was the highest it had ever been at that point after a 12 year consistent rise in price after the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s.
Bob Iger is getting sued now a 2nd time for defrauding investors and lying about Disney+ results after it was revealed they lost another $800 Million in streaming last quarter.
Theme Park attendance has never been lower.
Disney might go bankrupt if it is forced to buy Hulu.
Disney has lost over $775 Million in the Box Office so far in 2023.
Toys for 8 year old movies still rot on shelves, even at discount stores like Ollie's because nobody wants to buy their diversity hire woke crap that the since fired DEI team of college educated morons insisted get made only to eventually find their way into a landfill whenever Ollie's decides it wants the shelf space back and cuts its losses. At least Ollie's will get a tax writeoff for that terrible mistake.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hollywood’s Slo-Mo Self-Sabotage
The industry’s pursuit of I.P. at the expense of originality has all but trained younger audiences not to expect novelty or surprise at the multiplex, assuming that they’re going to the theater at all. Hollywood has never been known for overestimating the audience’s intelligence, but it’s hard not to wonder how it is supposed to be inculcating a love of cinema in children—that is, future moviegoers—when the splashiest films on offer are explicitly buckets of regurgitation. Early summer gave us the live-action “Little Mermaid,” the latest in Disney’s cannibalization of its archives. The animated film was one of the first movies that I remember seeing, and it really did feel magical. Even then, Ariel’s coming of age was criticized in some circles for making its heroine a boy-crazy shopaholic, but the fact that millennials continue to lovingly mock it years later attests to its endurance as a classic. The 1989 film swelled with passion and longing, transported us to unseen worlds, and left us with indelible characters and glorious earworms. It convinced girls that it was O.K. to want more (even if it was more thingamabobs). There’s a measure of progress, to be sure, in recasting Ariel as a Black mermaid played by Halle Bailey, but the mixed reviews all but confirm that it’s a dead-eyed knockoff of the original. It’s true that early impressions can forge a childhood attachment to almost anything, but the way that kids grow to love movies as adults is by offering them, well, great films and relevant themes, instead of a parade of listless remakes with stories that were meant to speak to a generation three decades ago.
Perhaps we should have seen the breakdown of the star-making machine as a preview of things to come. Screen celebrity is nearly as old as the movie industry itself, but the device seems to have stopped minting household names sometime in the past twenty years. The movie stars of yesteryear are still the movie stars of today. A study by the National Research Group, a market-research firm that specializes in entertainment, life style, and technology, found that, of the twenty actors most likely to pull audiences to a theater, only one was under the age of forty (Chris Hemsworth), and the average age of that group was fifty-eight. (The sexagenarian Tom Cruise topped the list.) In lieu of finding and launching the next Denzel Washington or Julia Roberts, studios have poured millions into digitally de-aging graying A-listers. Hollywood stardom is becoming something unthinkable in any other era of its existence: a gerontocracy.
I.P. is again to blame. Franchises killed the movie star. Spider-Man can be played by Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield or Tom Holland, Batman by Michael Keaton or Christian Bale or Ben Affleck or Robert Pattinson or Michael Keaton again. An industry famous for worshipping youth is more clueless than ever about what to do with its young people. (What’s “a Tom Holland movie”? Who can say?) And, for those emerging actors who used to see background work as an entry point to a notoriously gate-kept industry, it turns out the studios might prefer to digitally scan their likeness instead, possibly locking them out of opportunities for more days on set.
After “Top Gun: Maverick” broke box-office records, sequels may have been seen as the key to luring audiences back to theatres, which have been languishing since the pandemic. But this summer’s long-in-the-tooth franchises—“Mission: Impossible,” “Transformers,” “Indiana Jones,” and “The Fast and the Furious”—have performed just satisfactorily, if not disappointingly. “Barbie,” meanwhile, saw the director Greta Gerwig infuse the half-century-old blond blank slate with her own idiosyncratic anxieties to produce a Zeitgeist-capturing film with an unmistakable authorial imprimatur. But Hollywood’s ignoring the obvious takeaway, which is that viewers appreciate novelty. Instead, Mattel has announced that it will follow up “Barbie” by raiding its toy closet for more I.P., and has
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Hollywood’s Slo-Mo Self-Sabotage
Yup. It's been a slo-mo ride for sure. But it's been going on a LOT longer than The New Yorker has noticed. There have been people trying to warn Hollywood of this, but it's fallen on deaf ears until 2023. TNY is coming out and saying this now, but when it brings up very valid points in the article about how no new movie stars are being created today, it's inadvertintely admitting that this has been an ongoing problem lasting decades, with Chris Hemsworth being the "only under-40 name in the 20 actors that would pull audiences to a theater" study.
Quote:
The industry’s pursuit of I.P. at the expense of originality has all but trained younger audiences not to expect novelty or surprise at the multiplex, assuming that they’re going to the theater at all. Hollywood has never been known for overestimating the audience’s intelligence, but it’s hard not to wonder how it is supposed to be inculcating a love of cinema in children—that is, future moviegoers—when the splashiest films on offer are explicitly buckets of regurgitation. Early summer gave us the live-action “Little Mermaid,” the latest in Disney’s cannibalization of its archives. The animated film was one of the first movies that I remember seeing, and it really did feel magical. Even then, Ariel’s coming of age was criticized in some circles for making its heroine a boy-crazy shopaholic, but the fact that millennials continue to lovingly mock it years later attests to its endurance as a classic. The 1989 film swelled with passion and longing, transported us to unseen worlds, and left us with indelible characters and glorious earworms. It convinced girls that it was O.K. to want more (even if it was more thingamabobs). There’s a measure of progress, to be sure, in recasting Ariel as a Black mermaid played by Halle Bailey, but the mixed reviews all but confirm that it’s a dead-eyed knockoff of the original. It’s true that early impressions can forge a childhood attachment to almost anything, but the way that kids grow to love movies as adults is by offering them, well, great films and relevant themes, instead of a parade of listless remakes with stories that were meant to speak to a generation three decades ago.
While they still appear to be applauding woke ideology here, it does warm the heart to know that even a magazine like The New Yorker is finally addressing the serious problems with lazy and uninspired "cannibalism" of old properties as a cash grab instead of just mindlessly proclaiming what a great film The Little Mermaid was because of how stunning and brave their casting choice was.
Baby steps.
I'm a man myself. One that is very capable of using tools, remodeling houses, fixing cars and doing all sorts of laborious tasks. I didn't grow up with any sisters. Arguably, the 1989 animated version of The Little Mermaid was not made for me at all. But I'll tell you what... I must have seen that movie a dozen times with my brothers when we were kids. We loved Disney movies growing up. My old man rented a ton of old Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons and animated features for us at the library, and even got a 2nd VCR at one point to record the ones we wanted to watch again.
I was in High School when The Lion King came out. Back then there really was no such thing as cartoons for adults like we've got all over the place right now (unless you were into Anime). By all rights, I shouldn't have loved that movie as a 16 year old. But I did. I probably saw that movie a dozen times as well.
I wasn't "represented" in either of them. I'm not a woman. I'm not a mermaid. I'm not a lion. But the writing, animation and acting was so good that the audience made real connections to these characters. This is an art that has been completely lost in the last two decades, when the only two things Hollywood cares about anymore are making the most money in the laziest wa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hollywood has been slowly killing movie theater ticket sales for twenty years.
Death might be closer than Hollywood cares to know:
July 25, 2005 Hollywood’s Death Spiral
The secret numbers tell the story.
In 1948, with studios earning all their revenues from the box office, that audience was moviegoers. Even as late as 1980, when the audience had television sets and video players, studios still earned 55 percent of their money from people who actually went to movie theaters. In 2005, however, those moviegoers provided the studios with less than 15 percent of their worldwide revenues, while couch potatoes provided it with 85.8 percent.
https://slate.com/culture/2005/07/hollywood-s-death-spiral.html
Aug 01, 2005 Hollywood’s Death Spiral, Part 2
Are movie theaters facing extinction?
The $64 billion question in Hollywood these days is what to do about collapsing the boundary between a movie’s theatrical and video release—the so-called video window. Gradually, this window has shrunk from six months to four months—and, in the case of many children’s movies—to three months. Even worse, DVD releases are often announced while a movie is still playing in the multiplexes. As a result, more moviegoers now wait to buy or rent a movie on DVD, which leads to shorter theatrical runs and a fall in worldwide theater attendance, which in turn puts more pressure on the studios to shorten the window even further.
This death spiral was set in motion by the studios themselves about four years ago. The decision to shorten the video window did not proceed from a new technological development—such as TV in the 1940s or the video cassette in the 1970s—or a change in popular taste. As a top studio executive explained to me, “It was a voluntary decision made for purely financial reasons by the major players. It was done to satisfy quarterly profit goals, nothing more, nothing less.” In short, the studios changed their business model so that they could opportunistically sell DVDs, which, after all, are a conventional retail product like soap or toys.
The most radical proposal is to eliminate the windowing system entirely. In this scenario, the studios would simultaneously release a title in theaters, video stores, and on pay-per-view, and the title would require only a single marketing campaign. The audience could then choose which format best fits its wallet and clock. Proponents of this plan envision that it will shift some part of the theater audience to either DVD (which has higher profit margins than theatrical distribution) or pay-per-view (which has higher profit margins than DVD). Even so, they hold that movie theaters will retain a core audience, since there will always be people who prefer the theater experience or who just want to get out of the house.
https://slate.com/culture/2005/08/hollywood-s-death-spiral-part-2.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Hollywood has been slowly killing movie theater ticket sales for twenty years.
Death might be closer than Hollywood cares to know:
July 25, 2005 Hollywood’s Death Spiral
The secret numbers tell the story.
In 1948, with studios earning all their revenues from the box office, that audience was moviegoers. Even as late as 1980, when the audience had television sets and video players, studios still earned 55 percent of their money from people who actually went to movie theaters. In 2005, however, those moviegoers provided the studios with less than 15 percent of their worldwide revenues, while couch potatoes provided it with 85.8 percent.
I still don't know what your point is, even with that underlined.
Show me one streaming service that has ever been profitable. Including Netflix.
Disney+ certainly has never earned a profit.
And the worst part about it for them, is that the streaming model that we have today has also killed their network and cable TV revenue. In the race to be the best digital service, they destroyed the market of the couch potato.
And when Disney is losing on every other front that used to be cornerstones for them like their parks and merchandising on top of it, that's why Disney stock is now in the low $80s with talks of impending bankruptcies by the actual legacy media.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The $64 billion question in Hollywood these days is what to do about collapsing the boundary between a movie’s theatrical and video release—the so-called video window. Gradually, this window has shrunk from six months to four months—and, in the case of many children’s movies—to three months. Even worse, DVD releases are often announced while a movie is still playing in the multiplexes. As a result, more moviegoers now wait to buy or rent a movie on DVD, which leads to shorter theatrical runs and a fall in worldwide theater attendance, which in turn puts more pressure on the studios to shorten the window even further.
And this is 2023. Not 2005. Nobody buys that shit anymore either.
I pointed this out just yesterday in the Hollywood thread. Equalizer sold around $45 Million worth of BluRay and DVD. Equalizer 2 did half of that. Equalizer 3 will be lucky if it sells $2 Million worth of it.
It's all about streaming now.
And they haven't figured out a way to make streaming profitable.
And with over a decade of commercial-free streaming services, they're pissing off their customer base by constant price hikes and making people who don't want to pay them sit through commercials, essentially making streaming services nothing more than Cable TV again.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And as I mentioned in my previous post, Universal has managed to gross over $1.3 BILLION in the 2023 Box Office so far after taking 2 and 1/2 times the budget into account.
Disney meanwhile has lost nearly $800 Million this year. And even with Barbie's success, Warner Bros has only made half a billion.
Don't discount these numbers because you're an idiot if you do.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Two ideas that you need to grasp:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I still don't know what your point is, even with that underlined.
Show me one streaming service that has ever been profitable. Including Netflix.
Disney+ certainly has never earned a profit.
1) Revenues are not the same as profits. Disney can pull in revenue from streaming that is several times larger than movie theater ticket sales and still not make a "profit".
2) The ONLY number you know on a daily basis, 6ix, is movie ticket sales. Disney does not let you know what its revenue is from streaming the same movie. The studios found new ways to cheat actors out of their pay, now that there are new ways to make money beyond ticket sales. That is also why the cost of making a movie has ballooned into the hundreds of millions; it is a new way to cheat by lowering the apparent profitability of a movie. If the movie is not "profitable" the movie stars are not paid a cut of the "profits" which leaves more money for the head of the studio. It is a corrupt industrial practice. See "Hollywood accounting":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You've used this exact argument before and it was debunked before. Several times.
I'm not wasting any time having this conversation with somebody who doesn't understand anything again.
--------------------------------------------------
How you do anything is how you do everything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi (1983), despite having earned $475 million at the box office against a budget of $32.5 million, "has never gone into profit".[7] 6ix, you debunked nothing. You understand nothing about how corrupt Hollywood has always been.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You've used this exact argument before and it was debunked before. Several times.
I'm not wasting any time having this conversation with somebody who doesn't understand anything again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#1980s
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME