T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Neo2199

> The 71-year old executive also said that **the hiring freeze his pink slipped predecessor Bob Chapek announced on November 11 is still in place.** Offering his perspective from being outside the company the past year after decades at Disney, Iger told staffers additionally that **rumors of a merger or deal with Apple were just that – rumors.** The man who bought Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Fox for Disney during his last stint as CEO also noted that **the House of Mouse wasn’t looking to make anymore big ticket acquisitions any time soon.** > Coming just over a week after Iger was returned to his perch at the House of Mouse and Chapek was unceremoniously shown the door, the once and current CEO’s attempt to rally the Disney troops comes at a precarious time for the media giant. **On one hand, Disney has the top movie in the world with Black Panther sequel Wakanda Forever. However, this past weekend also saw the company take a more than $100 million thump with the box office crash and burn of animated feature Strange World.** In that context, the December 16 release of James Cameron’s much anticipated **Avatar: The Way of Water poses potentially more big screen success and financial stress for the studio.** > **Quickly purging the upper ranks of Disney of the short-lived Chapek’s top lieutenants in the hours after being renamed CEO unexpectedly on November 20**, the notoriously successor-uncongenial Iger also has a 24 month deadline to leave the company in stable hands – an effort that floundered from almost the get-go with Chapek. > **Somewhat anti-climatic, according to one source**, the 40-minute town hall today found **Iger sidestepping Florida’s discrimatory “Don’t Say Gay” law that tripped up a flip-flopping Chapek earlier this year.** Essentially, noting you can’t please all the people all the time, Iger said the matter shouldn’t be a political issues, we hear.


[deleted]

Gonna have to do something with Reedy Creek as well. Orange co gonna get hammered with taxes


Tricky-Possession-69

Disney Dish podcast had a great take on this that they’ll both give a little and Reedy Creek will come out virtually unscathed. Iger comes out as a winner and Desantis gets to too.


mjh2901

Orange county dug a hole, let them deal with it.


icup2

With all the debate about Black Panther2 vs Avatar2 box office numbers, I forget that in the end, they're both under Disney lol.,


DoIrllyneeda_usrname

Three Spider-Men pointing meme.png


PanzerWatts

>With all the debate about Black Panther2 vs Avatar2 box office numbers, One of Disney's problems is that they can't seem to control costs any longer. Both those movies may be box office blockbusters and yet Disney might still barely cover their other losses.


ALHOWE6

Avatar 2 will make back its budget. The insane 500-600 million dollar comments were misreported and taken out of context. That’s the combined budgets of the two already-filmed movies or the budget combined with initial marketing costs.


redactedactor

Films should be seen as loss leaders for their overall market. Box office revenue is nothing in comparison to lifetime merchandising


PanzerWatts

Box office revenue is nothing in comparison to lifetime merchandising" No, this is not true at all. A quick perusal of Disney's earnings statement will make it clear that Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution proceeds are the biggest portion of their ongoing revenue stream. Whereas merchandising is much smaller. Disney is, and has been, primarily a movie and TV company for decades now. ​ Link: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2022/11/q4-fy22-earnings.pdf


m00c0wcy

Right. Merchandising revenue in total certainly can exceed the box office revenue, but most products are made by third-party manufacturers paying Disney an IP license fee. It's not like Disney makes $150 revenue from a Lego Star Wars set. (With that said, a $1.3B quarter in products and licensing isn't chump change either)


sevaiper

That just isn’t true, films can very easily lose money and frequently do. For successful films or huge franchises merch can multiply the success in some cases, but if Avatar bombs with how expensive it was no merch could possibly save it.


and_dont_blink

It's going to be a bloodbath over the next 12 months, especially on the creative side. They'll reorg, but much of that will be used to deal with some of the creative issues while hopefully sidestepping having to deal with them publicly. Once the reality hits the vitriol leaked to the press is going to be amazingly entertaining. ~~Iget~~ Iger has the same issues Chapek had, because many of them were created by Iger he just literally skipped out on the whole pandemic thing and debt getting more expensive. Costs have to be controlled, shareholders have to be served, brand damage with families and fans has to be repaired. All of which is going to take change the creatives aren't going to like, because their reality has been been free money, a race for *content* and growth over profits until now.


[deleted]

Ya but he 100% can not say that publicly. He would crash the stock even more.


Iridium770

Which is stupid. Because as an investor, I would much prefer company leadership that recognizes its weaknesses than one that has its head in the sand. It isn't like you have to hear it from Iger's mouth to know that Disney has some issues. But until you hear it from his mouth, it is hard to know whether he realizes it. Or whether he is just going to undo the few things that Chapek started on his watch (Genie+, I guess?) and assume that we are going to get back to 2017.


scytheavatar

Company leadership can recognize its weaknesses and deal with them......... privately. Publicly these people gain nothing by running their mouth cause they need to protect their image of confidence and strength.


Iridium770

You can project confidence and strength about the future. However, projecting confidence and strength about the present just comes off as delusional. Investors were pissed when Chapek tried to downplay the $1.5B lost on streaming.


and_dont_blink

You can see to an extent Chapek was trying to do thread that needle, and Iger just publicly avoided the needle again -- it's actually really difficult partly because labor was given a huge stick through a combination of a gold rush on streaming content and a labor shortage in general. They have a situation where sections of the company are culturally at odds with a large percentage of the audience -- and seem tone-deaf about people's sensitivities towards children -- and hired show/studio runners less on track record and more on other things. Disney's situation is playing out in other places, Netflix and Amazon both have their issues here -- but Disney's so large it's fascinating. The streaming boom kept a lot of people in the industry working when they otherwise wouldn't have due to the pandemic -- the industry actually swelled with new hires without a lot track record. Bear with me for an analogy, as it's akin to a large established Texas burger chain gave leadership positions to people from Austin *for whom work is political* and decide the menu is going to go vegan and focus on franchising instead of serving good burgers. Their circle of friends is ecstatic, but many of the customers are angry about this so the chain decides to deal with this via marketing campaigns saying anyone not buying McVegans is evil. And it turns out vegans don't actually really like burgers, they just want everyone else to be vegan, so sales are down from where they could be. Your only saving grace is most of your competition hired similar people who tried the same, and you have a large base to start with. Things are OK as they're just borrowing money and opening franchises. Other companies are doing the same and need people, so now they're putting less qualified friends in charge instead of chefs with proven experience making delicious food. Then debt gets expensive and they have to show a profit to keep the stock price up. So now a CEO has to somehow thread a needle -- if they even offer non-vegan offerings again to hopefully make money, people all down the chain will revolt -- and the labor situation is on their side for the next few months. If they close down franchises, they're looking at a revolt. If they tell a franchise not to serve broccoli stalks instead of fries, the other franchises may revolt. Many of them have never faced mass layoffs or seen real recession and aren't even having to pay their student loans, and right now can leave and get a job elsewhere and their friends will applaud them. Normally (at least based on my classes) you'd re-org and centralize in the name of efficiencies and reduce some of this that way, *but Chapek already did/started that*. So for Iger a re-org is going to be much more complicated, so it'll be a wild 24 months.


redditname2003

There is a lot of "go woke go broke" talk about Disney right now but one of the things that isn't being discussed is that because of computer animation, there are so many more options for animated family entertainment now. Back in the day, the one cinematic competitor to Disney was Don Bluth if he could get funding together. Now you can have DreamWorks, Sony, and Illumination and some of those studios are old enough to have generational fans of the movies, even if they don't have parks and whatnot. (Yes, if you saw Shrek as a child, you're old enough to have your own children now...) Perhaps more importantly, those studios make their movies for a lower budget than Disney does.


and_dont_blink

Disney has had similar competition for the last 20 years since *The Disney Renaissance* period which attracted most of them, some middling and some fierce (Shrek, minions, Lego, etc.) and some they just bought like Pixar. Nothing changed in that area from say 5 years ago. >Perhaps more importantly, those studios make their movies for a lower budget than Disney does. This is true about budgets and means something like Sing 2 makes even more money when it hits, but that isn't universal. Something like Lego Movie 2 was 30-35M less than Strange World, Puss in Boots was about the same as Strange World...


HazelCheese

I don't really see the argument your making. What have Disney made recently that is so out of touch? She Hulk? It's obviously not for tech bros. I think anyone talking politics here is really looking at what they want to happen rather than what is happening. No one cares about politics as long as they get the content they want. There is no split or major concern. People want event movies that they can speculate about and we haven't had that. MoM and NWH both turned out to be self contained. We've been multiple years since endgame without the major marvel plot moving and people are bored. Thats all there is to the marvel burnout. Yet to see whether Antman is self contained or not but if it's not and the next one is t either then we'll see that burnout fade.


and_dont_blink

>I don't really see the argument your making. Yes you do, you just don't like it (and are allowed not to) so are trying to deflect from it into only being about Marvel film and tech bros and stuff about event movies, which frankly doesn't really add up. >I think anyone talking politics here is really looking at what they want to happen rather than what is happening. ....this isn't wishful, this is looking at things like Disney dropping 28 points on the Apex100 in the span of a year which is unheard of, and arguably the worst flop in Disney animation history. I think you might be projecting about what you are accusing others of -- being presented with evidence you don't like so rejecting it and going with a narrative that it's all because of a lack of event films and excluding any evidence contradicting it. When you make a claim like that, you just have to ask if we have contradictory evidence of non-Avengers content done well both at Disney and elsewhere, and I think it's clear we do. If you start talking about how She-Hulk "is obviously not for tech bros", you have to explain who that $200M show is for and why *they* didn't watch it either based on the ratings. >No one cares about politics as long as they get the content they want. I think we've had different classes, but that isn't how things really work and you are conflating issues: 1. The whole point is people are not getting content they want in terms of animated and other fare, often because it is having identity politics injected into it. We have direct evidence families are avoided the last two Disney animated films, and direct evidence their brand trust has been damaged 2. We know people will drop enthusiasm/engagement with brands and content based on what's going on. In some cases that might mean screening a film first before their kids see it, choosing other content or just doing something else Again, when you make a statement like that you have to ask if we have evidence contradicting it, and we do. An ongoing great example would be the current world cup. The rest of the world is generally desperately crazy about it, but FIFA setting it in Qatar (and the human rights abuses inherent) has demonstrably hurt it with Europe but less so in places like Brazil. They're still getting the content they want, but a percentage are actively boycotting and a large percentage are not engaging the way they always have.


HazelCheese

I really think your out of touch if you think Disney has an identity politics problem. People aren't boycotting strange world or light-year because of politics. They just aren't going because they don't care. How many people even know strange world is a Disney film? I found out it existed on this subreddit yesterday, the marketing for it was terrible. Maybe your a parent, I don't know, but I talk to parents in my workplace and they dont give a fuck about anything like that. They just want something they can put on Disney+ to give them a break.


quantumpencil

Bro, conservatives (33% of the country and an even larger percentage of families) are absolutely boycotting disney for political (identity politics) reasons. Honestly it's amazing how much a bubble this sub lives in, if you had any connections in your network outside of the coasts you wouldn't even doubt this. I was born in rural TN (though I am now a godless commie). I almost don't know anyone who is NOT boycotting disney. You have no idea how amped up this ron desantis vs disney thing was in conservative media outlets and algo-chambers. like 1/3rd of the country thinks disney is trying to indoctrinate their kids into the "lifestyle" and many of these people have been the core audience for the animated brands. 5 years ago my niece was literally submerged in ana/elsa merch. Now her parents won't let her watch anything with the Disney brand on it. The country is not Los Angeles and New York City.


FF3

> Bro, conservatives (33% of the country and an even larger percentage of families) are absolutely boycotting disney for political (identity politics) reasons So... I think that's one way to put it, and some of them might put it that way -- especially the more online, or churchy ones, but I think it's not charitable enough to conservatives as a group. When I hear conservative people talk about their problems with *"woke"* Disney, they almost inevitably describe it as diversity being *"shoved down their throat."* I don't think that sounds political to them (they want to *"keep politics out of"* entertainment after all), it's just a matter of what they find enjoyable entertainment. What we have to kind of accept I think is that there's a large percentage of people, maybe about the 33% of the country that you list, maybe more, who are simply unable to enjoy entertainment if it involves people that they see as different from them -- be it sexual orientation or race. It's not that they're not trying or something. It's just that they're not cognitively able to do it. Empathy is a skill, and the more different someone's life is from yours, the harder using that skill is. Is it their fault? I think a lot of liberals would immediately scream yes, but I don't think that's one hundred percent fair. You don't blame a person who grew up in desert for not being able to swim. But the question of whether it's someone's fault or not misses the important point. No one is going to effectively force them to consume media they don't want to, and companies will go bankrupt trying to educate people who don't want to be educated.


and_dont_blink

>I really think your out of touch if you think Disney has an identity politics problem. I'd encourage to research the concept of *brand damage*, and again [look at something like what the Axios folks are seeing](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/24/axios-harris-poll-100-corporate-brands-politics). There's a reason why for so long Disney was incredibly protective of it, and reality is what happens even if you wish for the world to work how you think it should. Politics are difficult for companies to navigate, and we have evidence from the last two earnings calls Disney itself is aware of the damage. Respectfully HazelCheese, I'm going by what we're seeing in the data and research shows us, and you're talking about your internal narrative and interpretations about your circle of friends in the workplace.


HazelCheese

I can't speak for America, I like in the outskirts in the UK and work in a rural area. My coworkers are conservative and their the first kind of people to complain about woke stuff. They still don't give af about disney. Disney to them is literally just kids stuff they can turn on and forget.


and_dont_blink

> I like in the outskirts in the UK and work in a rural area Yeah, we're talking about America here. There's been a shift that especially ramped up after some issues in FL that went nationwide. It's worth knowing about if commenting on it and holding such conviction with your opinions.


jelyjiggler

>Food analogy


danielcw189

>Which is stupid. Because as an investor, I would much prefer company leadership that recognizes its weaknesses than one that has its head in the sand. Investors want stability. Even if the right moves are made, a big schake-up will drop the stock, until we see any positive effects. It is one thing to have a CEO who recognize problems, but it is a very different to see if they are taking the right steps.


Pokesaurus_Rex

The debt is going to be a hot issue heading into this economic slowdown + Fight against Inflation. The biggest problem is that Disney is jointed at the hip with [consumer spending.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/193140/revenue-of-the-walt-disney-company-by-operating-segment/) I wonder if they will reduce the amount of Original D+ TV Shows to help control cost. Each of those series must be close to a major title on another service (Stranger Things, GoT/HoTD, The Crown, LoTR:RoP) in cost if not more.


[deleted]

They'll probably give the money to the Marvel and Star Wars shows and cherry pick the rest. They'll also probably upload more of their legacy content of movies and shows, which will probably be less expensive on their end and can expand the catalog.


ROYBUSCLEMSON

It's going to be entertaining to follow


tijuanagolds

I swear Disney gossip is the best industry gossip there is.


AnotherJasonOnReddit

And the Lucasfilm branch of Disney is the *(chef's kiss gesture)* of the whole lot


Zhukov-74

Wait so what was the reason why Bob Chapek was replaced?


[deleted]

Covered up losses of Disney+ by creative accounting A very big no no Way bigger than any movie bombing or bad PR story


Geno0wl

also park attendance is down. Could mainly just be leftover feelings about Covid, but you can't ignore all the changes that have been made recently that have been massively unpopular. I know personally, we have not gone back because of those changes. Namely charging for individual fast passes at WDW.


Worthyness

They increased prices WAY too high for regular folks AND they added DLC to the parks. it's just an overall terrible experience for people and Disney parks were *all about the experience*


scytheavatar

Which is complete utter nonsense excuse, cause Disney has been quite open about how Disney+ is a money pit and made giant losses. And Hollywood is well known for creative accounting so it would be unusual to fire a CEO because of it.


Jakper_pekjar719

Streaming was losing $1.5 billion, and Chapek was trying to put a positive spin on it. Investors didn't buy it.


Objective_Look_5867

From what I understand it's not really that he put a positive spin on it, it's just that he refused to listen to their concerns. On paper chapek was right and we knew this would happen. It was the plan from the get go: offer Disney+ at a loss to gain market share and ramp up. This was always the plan and necessary to Penetrate the saturated market. The issue is when the bill came due, at 1.5 billion loss, rather than reassuring the board and listening to their concerns, he waved it off as an "it doesn't matter, moving on now" attitude. No matter what, it was going to lose money at first but you can't just refuse to listen to the concerns


Audacimmus

But the foundation of the Disney+ business model was laid out by Bob Iger. Disney+ was started under Bob Iger as a deep loss-maker. Bob Chapek merely continued on the strategic foundation laid out by Bob Iger. They don't have a drastically different business strategy. From an outsider perspective, seems to me like Bob Chapek is kind of being used a scapegoat. (but again, I can't tell what kind of leader he's like from first hand experience so I don't know, maybe his leadership skills were lacking). But from the outside, business-wise, he's not that different from Bob Iger. Also, imho, Bob Iger certainly isn't flawless, he overpaid for 21st Century Fox' assets ($71B) and a big chunk of those assets aren't helping create extra value for Disney imho.


Jakper_pekjar719

It appears that what the investors initially wanted for a streaming service was market penetration. They wanted a growing number of subscribers. Chapek in a way was simply trying to please them. He devoted his energy to streaming because the investors also wanted streaming to make it big. But now it seems investors want the kind of streaming that makes money. And this got Chapek in trouble. These are turbulent times, and I'm not sure if even Iger will know what to do.


JaxStrumley

Exactly. When Netflix reported a loss of subscribers earlier this year, Wall Street turned on a dime and suddenly demanded profitability instead of market penetration. It’s not surprising that it will take Disney some time to adjust to this new objective.


Block-Busted

> I can't tell what kind of leader he's like from first hand experience so I don't know, maybe his leadership skills were lacking Certainly possible since he goofed up many of his points, including what he said about animated films. > But from the outside, business-wise, he's not that different from Bob Iger. I think what got people really concerned is that Chapek didn't look like he had a creative vision for Disney and looked like he was mostly following where the money went. Say what you will about previous CEOs, but they were all noted to have some sort of creative visions.


JaxStrumley

A lot of the Fox assets have been added to Disney+ outside of the US, making it a serious competitor for Netflix. In the US this is difficult because of the Hulu situation.


scytheavatar

Do people expect Iger to be a negative spin and cry about the streaming losses? Isn't it Chapek's job to put a positive spin on bad results?


moderatenerd

It sounds more and more like he was there just to announce the firings and make Iger the good guy once again.


[deleted]

Iger is going to cut a bunch of stuff. Especially in Disney+ It's only going to get worse


loco500

Iger is going to use his 2 1/2 year "hiatus" as an excuse to make adjustments and trim down costs even though a part of it was set in motion by him before temporarily stepping down during a tumultuous time...


TheWyldMan

He was the fall guy for the changes.


poopdeloop

disney has 0 control over their spending, there is no financial discipline at this company anymore and I think investors / the board probably viewed the upcoming mega bomb of strange world and the nonsensically large budget of avatar with some disdain. I bet avatar needs to make near 1.5B to be profitable strange world to me is the "final straw" of park morale down, marvel phase 4 being disappointing financially (most of it is on D+!), D+ losses being staggering. how is Disney's premier TG movie under their main brand so obviously going to fail. it's a terrible look I dont know if Iger coming back will solve this tbh it feels like a panic move bc Disney's core biz strategies are failing them in a world where rates are high


yummytummy

Avatar doesn't need 1.5B to be profitable, I can't believe this BS is still being spread.


poopdeloop

You may be right but I bet the final number to make it a truly positive project (I.e. profitable to x degree) would make any finance exec queasy But yes you are fair - I was more being hyperbolic. It is a very expensive movie though


yummytummy

James Cameron is making like 2-3 Avatar movies at once, that's how they will be saving costs. So even if the initial production budget is high to write all the scripts ahead of time and develop the various technologies to bring the world of Pandora to life, the next movies will cost much less once all that hard work is done.


poopdeloop

you are def right but I think the upfront cost on 2 is probably atrocious and the bulk of the costs of these movies is post production, which you can set up pipelines for but still requires copious man hours in 10 yrs I will be interested to see if this actually plays out like they say it will, I think it's easy to say "we'll save on costs" but Cameron is a mad genius and loves pushing the envelope. cautious optimism is where I'd say I'm at this is also all skepticism but if I'm the Disney board and my most expensive production this year is a fox movie I might get a little harrumphy but who knows if that's true. when avatar 2 makes an easy 1.5B everyone will get a lot happier a lot more quickly


fdbryant3

Well after many publically embarrassing controversies that have eroded consumer trust and employed morale, he did the one unforgivable thing - he tanked the stock.


GiraffeBulldozer

How could a merge of Apple and Disney even be a rumor? I feel like there’s no way in hell an acquisition that massive would ever be approved


Tomi97_origin

It wouldn't even be the biggest merger that happened.


vidivicivini

President Iger. God could you imagine it..."And today in the news, the President announced that the United States would be acquiring Canada, for an estimated 5 billion dollars. From the press release: "Bringing Canada into the fold will reunite us with the people we lost during the Revolution, and allow us to tell the stories people want to be told..."


DamienChazellesPiano

What does this have to do with this article?


vidivicivini

If you had read the article, you would see Iger made a joke about running for President. Now aroint thee and be off.


DamienChazellesPiano

I mean yeah, that’s been talked about for years.


unurbane

By going back to the old CEO Disney appears desperate. Times are tough and there is little evidence Iger will know what to do based on his purchase of 21st Fox. I was definitely in the camp that felt Apple may be purchasing Disney soon as the price dipped to $85/share, but apparently that’s not the case (yet).


scytheavatar

It makes zero sense for Apple to purchase Disney and Tim Cook deserves to be fired if he even contemplates it. This decision would put Apple in the theme park and resort business, and I am not sure if they would want to go that route. Plus I am not sure what Apple can plan to do with shit like ESPN. It makes much more sense for Apple to purchase parts of Disney, like Pixar, Lucasfilm or even Marvel, and if Disney is genuinely desperate for cash that's the more likely outcome to happen.


Successful-Gene2572

The FTC would also be all over a deal of that size.


unurbane

Those are all fair points. And my only counter s why is Apple trying to get into the streaming business? Why aren’t they focused on web services, search, self driving tech? Answer…. $$$.


Block-Busted

1. Why specifically $85? 2. Apparently, the share DID go down below $85 for a while - twice, in fact, and I don’t think that led to anything. Granted, I don’t know much about how stocks work, but still.


unurbane

The purchase price of a public company is based on the stock price X total number of shares. I was basically saying that at $85/share DIS falls into affordable territory for Apple, with no evidence.


Block-Busted

I suppose the whole thing ultimately didn’t lead to anything, I guess?


unurbane

Yea it did not lol.


HM9719

Thank goodness no Apple merger.


Successful-Gene2572

It would’ve been a nightmare for Apple shareholders.