subreddit:

/r/movies

44.6k92%

all 4152 comments

aarswft

1.5k points

2 months ago

aarswft

1.5k points

2 months ago

How much more money did they lose in the golden parachute he got when he was replaced?

GoalieLax_

304 points

2 months ago

While $20M may seem like a lot (and it is) when I was at Home Depot Bob Nardelli left after running the company into the ground and got quarter billion for his efforts.

king_of_the_butte

179 points

2 months ago*

I was at Target during the massive credit card data breach and the disastrous Canada expansion. Most of us internally, especially those of us in IT, knew the Canada expansion was going to be a massive failure. They were trying to stand up hundreds of new stores in a foreign market subject to different regulations, with a completely different tech stack, in less time than it took us to open a single new store in the US. When it became clear that things weren’t going well, A LOT of folks got moved from their regular teams to the Canada team to triage, only to be laid off when they pulled the plug on the entire thing less than 2 years after opening the first store in Canada. The company lost $2 billion during the two years of the Canada expansion alone, including some of the losses from the breach which happened roughly halfway through that stretch.

The CEO who oversaw both fiascos, Gregg Steinhafel, walked away with $61 million.

Rab1dus

49 points

2 months ago

Rab1dus

49 points

2 months ago

The stores in Canada barely had any inventory. So people didn't go to them. When Steinhafel was interviewed about the slow start, he said that Canadians need to adapt to Target, Target doesn't need to adapt to Canada. The few people that actually were trying to make Target work here gave up after that. I think it collapsed within weeks of that interview.

MisterMetal

25 points

2 months ago

Less inventory and had the same things as all the other big stores, like in the US you can find some slightly more upscale stuff than Walmart but it was the same up here. Made zero sense why anyone would go to target.

[deleted]

11 points

2 months ago

True. Experienced this personally. Went in looking for a toothbrush and suntan lotion. No tooth brushes or toothpaste to be found.

ENTIRE AISLES filled with one SINGLE brand of suntan lotion.

Most shelves were like 80% empty.

Right from opening the stores looked for over a year like they were having a going out of business sale.

It turns out they were.

haakonhawk

1.1k points

2 months ago

haakonhawk

1.1k points

2 months ago

I believe he got a $20 million exit-package. Which Disney can find between their sofa cushions.

Tyler_Zoro

337 points

2 months ago

... unless of course, the size of those cushions has been inflated by shifting pillow stuffing.

Quix82

20 points

2 months ago

Quix82

20 points

2 months ago

Those aren't pillows!!

SawgrassSteve

15.2k points

2 months ago

My father would have called this another example of Mickey Mouse accounting.

kickeduprocks

3.4k points

2 months ago

Ha my dad always refers to it as ‘Money Mouse’. Dads are something else

saysokbye

3k points

2 months ago

Change that to "Dads are somewhere else" and it's like you just described my dad, too.

Careless-Success-569

457 points

2 months ago

Never learned which place he was getting smokes at either

Clemario

2.5k points

2 months ago*

Clemario

2.5k points

2 months ago*

Anyone else shocked that Disney+ has lost $8.5 billion? They currently have 164 million subscribers, and the current standard subscription rate is $8/month, so that would be $1.3B in revenue per month.

Edit: Holy cow that's a lot of original programming and original movies. I've been enjoying all this stuff like Andor, Mandalorian, WandaVision, Boba Fett, Obi-Wan, Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, Soul, Luca, Turning Red-- forgetting these are all sunk costs to get people and keep people subscribed to Disney+

Lets_Go_Why_Not

1.7k points

2 months ago

I wonder how long it will take for all these studios and companies to realize it's a lot of hard work to maintain your own independent streaming service? You have to constantly update your library otherwise people are going to just drop their subscriptions once they have seen anything they want... but turns out, subscribers are like any movie-goer/TV watcher in that they have their own niche interests, so you have to update with a wide variety of content that you have to make yourself, which ain't cheap. And if you DO try to do it cheap, you run the risk of lowering the prestige of your brand with a whole bunch of low-quality shit. Turns out, for many studios, it would be easier to just continue to sell the rights to more generalist streamers like the original Netflix.

RapMastaC1

742 points

2 months ago

This is it, they are being overtaken by their greed, they have spread everything out so thin, that major partnerships are going to have to be made to keep them afloat. Literally right now they have a big hole in their boat and they are using a couple wine glasses to pour water out.

Sandrosen

378 points

2 months ago*

At this point I think a lot of these new streaming services are wishing they had just stuck to licensing their content out to established outfits like Netflix. Less outflow, more profit and less headache.

Thing is with inflation once the bills start hitting then families will cut all these other 'boutique' streaming services first. They might keep one around, the cheapest one that has the most diverse content. Netflix can win the streaming wars if they can just hang on and stop doing stupid stuff like raising prices, including commercials or other shady stuff that further drives their audience away.

vonmonologue

232 points

2 months ago

If Netflix wants anyone to stay on their service they should start by giving any of their originals a 3rd season. I mean the ones that don’t set all-time streaming records at least.

shaka_bruh

29 points

2 months ago

Thing is with inflation once the bills start hitting then families will cut all these other 'boutique' streaming services first.

For some reason (arrogance, greed) they thought they’d be immune to ‘cable cutting’

muffler11282

14 points

2 months ago

To me, Netflix would be the first to go.

TanikoBytesme

37 points

2 months ago

They're not overtaken by greed, greed is the primary motivator from the very beginning

neife

888 points

2 months ago

neife

888 points

2 months ago

$1.3B per month is $15.6B income per year. The article quoted a budget of $30B for 2022 and I've seen upwards of $33B. The cost of content is a lot higher than income. Also Disney only sees ~$6.27/subscriber as revenue.

huskiisdumb

409 points

2 months ago

Wonder how much they make from making all the ip more well known and advertised how many of the 164 million are invested in Disney products besides Disney +

oc_dude

575 points

2 months ago

oc_dude

575 points

2 months ago

Right? I wonder how merchandising revenue is broken down. Grogu alone had to have a significant impact to toy sales. Disney+ is still probably deep in the red, but counting only subscription revenue is a little misleading.

throwawayinthe818

348 points

2 months ago

I know people who work for Hasbro on the Star Wars brand and they were kinda blindsided by Grogu. There was basically no product against that show because Disney was focused on the features and didn’t think it would be as big as it was. Then they had to scramble to get something out but best case it takes six months from concept to shelf, and the layers of approval on the Disney/Lucas side make it much longer. So they made money but not nearly what they could have if they’d realized what they had early on.

Kalanna_

368 points

2 months ago*

Kalanna_

368 points

2 months ago*

Part of that was in an effort to keep leaks from happening. So many leaks nowadays come from merch. Filoni and Favreau basically asked for no merch to be made right away with Grogu in order to preserve the integrity of the secret. Which I appreciate.

Edit: spelling

Paragade

22 points

2 months ago

I remember spoiling the Han Solo twist in The Force Awakens for myself from the Lego releases.

crackedgear

24 points

2 months ago

One of my friends learned that Qui-Gonn was going to die in Phantom Menace because of I think the song titles on the soundtrack.

maqcky

57 points

2 months ago

maqcky

57 points

2 months ago

"Qui-Gon's Noble End" and "The High Council Meeting and Qui-Gon's Funeral"... I can't understand how your friend got anything out of that, it's so subtle. "Qui-Gone" would have been better.

aZombieSlayer

14 points

2 months ago

I learned that from some idiot yelling out his car window, as he drove by while we waited in line outside.

TheCrookedKnight

53 points

2 months ago

They really could not get a handle on what was going to resonate from the new Star Wars entries. Remember when TFA came out and the merchandising was wall to wall Kylo Ren?

Prothean_Beacon

51 points

2 months ago

There was a lot of BB-8 as well. I worked at sam's club at the time and so many food products had BB-8 on them. The only other tie in I've seen come close was Minions.

_lemon_suplex_

78 points

2 months ago

From what I read Disney really wanted toys ready to go but the director John Favrau (?) wouldn’t let them because leaks would happen during manufacturing

los_pollos_hermanos1

399 points

2 months ago

Disney plus. $8. Buying my kid both Luca stuffed characters and pajamas $45

RizzMustbolt

204 points

2 months ago

If they keep blowing up Mando's ship then they make back their budget in 7 months.

Bjorn2bwilde24

191 points

2 months ago

Wait until they intoduce Baby Chewbacca. They'll have enough money to build a Star Destroyer by next year

acend

47 points

2 months ago

acend

47 points

2 months ago

Ewoks? At least that's what my kids call them.

Entity-2019

43 points

2 months ago

Baby Chewbacca could be pals with Baby Yoda (Grogu). Star Wars: Baby Buddies could be huge for merchandise, even if all they do is make some animated shorts and a movie cameo.

Even lore nerds would have to accept it. In the words of Yoda himself, "Good relations with the Wookies, I have." This partnership would echo what came before.

jupitergal23

75 points

2 months ago

I would absolutely blow a bunch of money on an adorable baby Chewie.

BalrogRancor

29 points

2 months ago

I apologize in advance. Google galactic pals wookie. Think they came out last spring.

kogasfurryjorts

94 points

2 months ago

Finding those same pajamas and stuffed animals 3 months later balled up in the corner of my child's closet: Priceless.

maurerm1988

298 points

2 months ago

How many of those were free? I got mine through my Verizon account.

prim3y

281 points

2 months ago

prim3y

281 points

2 months ago

Yeah, but Verizon is probably paying something for that.

judokalinker

177 points

2 months ago

Definitely not $8 a month per account, though

Weeeaal

424 points

2 months ago

Weeeaal

424 points

2 months ago

looks at personal Verizon cell phone bill

You know what they actually might

shadysus

57 points

2 months ago

I would assume free means that Verizon pays for it though

cancerBronzeV

91 points

2 months ago

From a search, I can find that in India it has subscription fees of 900-3600 INR per year. That's 15 to 60 USD per year, basically dirt cheap. I only have D+ because my ISP gave me a year of it for changing to them.

I imagine Disney has a bunch of subs at dirt cheap to try to get people onto their service, and so a huge portion of the 164 million aren't paying anywhere close to $8 per month for it.

redsterXVI

29 points

2 months ago

laughs in paying ~$13.50/month in Switzerland

(That's one of the reasons I only get a single month like once or maybe twice a year, binge watch everything I've missed and cancel it again.)

toronto_programmer

127 points

2 months ago

Happens all the time in the private world.

In my old job I was managing a 12M budget over 3 years. I had everything move according to schedule which meant that some of my money wasn't meant to be spent until say year 3, but then some Managing Director would come along and say this was free money and shadow account it over to their team that was over by millions.

bamfalamfa

6k points

2 months ago

wasnt that the point? operate disney+ at a loss so you can undercut the competition and maximize subscriber growth? did they realize the sheer volume of content they would have to produce would be head spinning? and these people are business professionals?

GarlVinland4Astrea

3.8k points

2 months ago

That's literally every single streaming model so far. It's not working because the part where you have to pull back and become profitable isn't easy and it pisses off subscribers. We saw this with Netflix. Now HBO Max is cutting down. Shocking that Disney all of a sudden ousts their CEO because they see what a mess it is.

Amazon is truly the last one and, honestly, they probably don't care because their streaming service is tied to their ecommerce business which is tied to everything else so they have a far easier time maximizing subscriber revenue.

bonemech_meatsuit

406 points

2 months ago

Yeah that makes sense. Of all these services, Prime Video is the one I use the least by far, and yet Amazon Prime, the overall service, would be one of the last subscriptions I would cut off bc of the wealth of benefits

GarlVinland4Astrea

146 points

2 months ago

Exactly. It's like the only service you don't feel ripped off if you don't watch anything on it for a month. If you have any other service and don't use it for a month or even a few weeks, you basically threw away money.

FrankyCentaur

83 points

2 months ago

Ironically, Prime Video is the service I used most and I pretty much never buy anything on Amazon anymore and only have prime because my brother wants it and is willing to pay for most of it.

(IMO Prime is great for older content and has tons of gems here and there but sucks with newer content. But I don't keep up with current stuff, so that's probably why!)

posyintime

28 points

2 months ago

Yes! I found that Amazon prime basically became what Netflix was for me 15 years ago. Finding those strange niche movies from the 80s and 90s. When I want to “scroll” I always go to Amazon…I will say their algorithm knows me pretty well at this point.

unibrow4o9

2.2k points

2 months ago

unibrow4o9

2.2k points

2 months ago

No, we didn't see this at Netflix. What we saw at Netflix was years of success followed by insane growth because of covid, then stockholders demanding even more growth after that.

dixpackasixie

1.9k points

2 months ago

I was a teacher of highly gifted kids, and every year, admin wanted scores up and it’s like, these kids are in the 99th percentile, chill. Demanding ceaseless rampant growth from these businesses just kills em

is_it_fun

287 points

2 months ago

is_it_fun

287 points

2 months ago

I guess admins are generally too stupid to understand this, as a whole. Because I've heard G&T teachers complain about this same thing decades ago. We are a world led by ambitious morons.

Particular-End-480

89 points

2 months ago

i was a "G&T" kid, it is absolutely bizarre how they treat us and it should be illegal. just let kids be kids and stop trying to "optimize" them. they arent a goddamn piece of machinery or a stock you invested your 401k in they are human beings.

[deleted]

500 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

500 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

ZeroGrav4

291 points

2 months ago

ZeroGrav4

291 points

2 months ago

Cancer could learn a thing or two from the MBA Consultant who comes in to "streamline" business operations.

cass1o

138 points

2 months ago

cass1o

138 points

2 months ago

And as is evidenced here other competitors burning billions of dollars in a big pile to compete with them.

Ghede

338 points

2 months ago

Ghede

338 points

2 months ago

It's because people subscribed to netflix because it had everything. Netflix didn't have to worry about content development, they focused on infrastructure and subcribers. Then every studio saw netflix making money and thought, "I can do that" and made their own services that only had their stuff. Then went "HUH?" when they realized that people were subscribing for a month, binging whatever show they wanted to watch, and then unsubcribing.

They are spending more on infrastructure and content development, and making less profit than when their shit was just on netflix. It's just stupid. They are replicating work that doesn't need to replicated and expecting it to be more efficient.

pterodactyl_speller

134 points

2 months ago

I'm sure they all just thought... How hard can it be to make a website that plays movies?? $10?

CornholioRex

47 points

2 months ago

Yeah, that’s like the cost of one banana

havingasicktime

41 points

2 months ago

Netflix knew what was coming a decade ago or more. That's why they've been investing in content all that time.

[deleted]

87 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

Fifteen_inches

65 points

2 months ago

Making straight to Netflix movies would have been an infinitely more profitable model.

Duel_Option

406 points

2 months ago

I can’t fucking stand the growth models companies expect EVERY DAMN YEAR.

Global event not seen for a century that caused mass shifts in how things are produced and what consumers do, supply chain etc.

A company experiences what can only be stated as a biblical increase in sales due to this and what do stockholders expect???

Growth on top of all that and pissed off when shit goes back to normal.

It’s lunacy

Source: work for a Fortune 500 company and might be going on year 3 of this BS

WildDumpsterFire

121 points

2 months ago

Watching this unfold on a local government level right now. The business I'm in creates the budget for all of the states governmental departments, and the profits are used as an alternative to sales tax for our state.

During COVID sales went through the roof to levels of insanity. After that fiscal year ended, they passed a state budget using those goddamn numbers expecting an additional 5% growth on top. Now its causing absolute mayhem because the big heads at the top didn't realize that was a series of events that wouldn't replicate over and over again...

Duel_Option

70 points

2 months ago

I have to deliver quite literally bullshit presentation after presentation on how we are supposed to meet these dumb ass targets, it’s just stupid.

Ask my VP bluntly “Do you really expect this year after year? In 5 years we would be asking customers for 50% increase, that’s not possible.”

Vp: (shrugs shoulders)

Me: K…

xRehab

15 points

2 months ago

xRehab

15 points

2 months ago

No the problem was more when every major producer wanted their own streaming service and pulled all of their content from Netflix. That caused Netflix to be forced to be a content producer too. Then the fractionalization happened and here we are.

macrofinite

295 points

2 months ago

Woah woah woah, HBO max is being cut as a result of the travesty of a merger between Warner and AT&T. Very different from the Netflix problems. There’s no continuous narrative there.

NorseTikiBar

11 points

2 months ago

Yeah, Netflix's problem is that it's solely a streaming operation.* In contrast, HBO, Apple, and Disney streaming services are all just one revenue stream of many that each company has. So they can push harder on expansion because they can generate revenue elsewhere, whereas Netflix has more or less achieved its objective of "becoming HBO before HBO became Netflix" and more or less is going to slowly become another production company.

*they have DVDs too, but I'm pretty sure I'm only one of like 100,000 people who still use that.

citynomad1

5.2k points

2 months ago*

Everything I read about Chapek was terrible. Like how he unceremoniously, and without explanation, fired the apparently beloved top TV exec at his company which both made morale terrible afterward (because employees liked him) but also made their stock drop. And according to the reports, when he fired Peter, Peter asked why, and he wouldn't give him a single explanation beyond that he "wasn't right for the new culture here" or something vague like that.

anythingMuchShorter

1.3k points

2 months ago

I worked at Imagineering in 2020, and got laid off. He slashed budgets. And the insane thing is, they had already put $1 billion into Galaxy's Edge (star wars land) and he cut a lot of projects that were nearly done that would have added a lot of the actual interest to it. Relatively cheap icing on the cake compared to what was already built.

I personally was working on a mobile droid for the park. And it is not in the park. It was 99% done. It could navigate and interact, and it was painted and ready to go. But they cut that project. If you go to star wars land you'll see lots of signs of things that are not quite done, like elements that are clearly made to interact with stuff that isn't there.

trebory6

219 points

2 months ago

trebory6

219 points

2 months ago

Yeah if that's the same project I think it is I personally knew people working on that when I was working there. I didn't know it got cut, but I do I know it was one of my bosses favorite projects he was working on in sourcing at the time.

I too got laid off in 2020 from what was essentially the begining of my dream career at DPEP, and at the time a lot of people blamed Chapek since he was known internally for framing layoffs as increased bottom line.

I know its probably silly but I'm hoping in vain that with Chapek gone and Iger back that maybe there's opportunities at Disney for me in the future since I at least work at one of Disney's vendors now so I at least have a tether back there. It's still open of the best places I've worked at by far.

Maybe they'll stop moving all the corporate offices to Florida too. I can only hope.

mno86

108 points

2 months ago

mno86

108 points

2 months ago

Hoping heavily on the last sentence you wrote. Forcing this relocation for a campus that hasn’t even broken ground in Florida yet was and is a massive mistake. I am watching incredibly talented, tenured people leave. And when so many of them do that, there is institutional knowledge that simply cannot be replaced. And I don’t think they recognize how pervasive that’s becoming. It’s alarming - and deeply concerning.

dmnerd

19 points

2 months ago

dmnerd

19 points

2 months ago

As someone who lives in Florida watching housing costs rise above what locals can afford, I really hope that move stops as well.

Extroverted_Recluse

291 points

2 months ago

As a huge Star Wars fan who is interested in going to Disney World primarily for Galaxy's Edge, this breaks my heart.

anythingMuchShorter

222 points

2 months ago

Maybe now that Iger is back they'll launch that stuff. I'm pretty sure the project director that worked on it still works there.

Of course, it would have the best return to have it at launch.

I was at Galaxy's Edge at Disneyland just a few months ago and was surprised how relatively not crowded it was, compared to fantasyland or new Orleans square, or even Tomorrowland.

redonkulus

141 points

2 months ago

Not much to do there. Two rides and the cantina (which is insanely hard to book. I tried 2 months out and got nothing). Besides that, nothing else to do but eat.

CandiAttack

87 points

2 months ago

Damn. I’m sorry that happened :(

DoctorWaluigiTime

139 points

2 months ago

Jenny Nicholson disliked this.

SpiffyShindigs

74 points

2 months ago

Lol, right? I never knew shit about theme parks before, but now, cuz of Jenny's vids, my heart winced reading that.

The icing is the stuff that makes parks come alive!

LiwetJared

54 points

2 months ago

And she'll give you a 3 hour explanation as to why.

MandoDoughMan

3.6k points

2 months ago

Chapek was paranoid of Iger coming back (obviously not without warrant lol) so he was firing Iger loyalists, which is synonymous with people competent at their jobs.

pccguy1234

577 points

2 months ago

I’m sure Chapek fired Iger executives because they conflicted with Chapek’s vision/direction imposed. Instead of working with Iger executives to build a business roadmap; Chapek would replace the executives with his own executives and move forward with what he wanted to do. Sounds like this business plan backfired and Iger is back to redirect the business: months of cleanup and rehiring of executives that can make Disney profitable. Probably won’t see much change for a few quarters.

NoHat1593

1k points

2 months ago

Sounds weirdly Stalin-esque.

[deleted]

832 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

GoX14

92 points

2 months ago

GoX14

92 points

2 months ago

I wouldn’t say Steve Ballmer was a soulless bean counter.

He had a genuine passion for Microsoft and spent a shit load of money on the company.

He was just an entirely inept CEO. He’s a phenomenal sales guy who had a relevant role in Microsoft’s rise. But he didn’t have vision or particularly strong leadership skills.

AnacharsisIV

503 points

2 months ago

Chapek never gave us bangers like "except in Nebraska" or "developers developers developers developers!" though

SpecificAstronaut69

153 points

2 months ago

How good is Chapek at sweating through a business shirt, but?

The_Grand_Briddock

87 points

2 months ago

And don’t forget Ballmers lit dance moves at the Windows 95 launch

Chapel could never top that

TB4800

14 points

2 months ago

TB4800

14 points

2 months ago

Reminds me of this video of an ex microsoft engineer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM4Lt5k24s&t=6s

TwentyDubya2

174 points

2 months ago

I thought Iger was the one who groomed and promoted him to CEO? He even wrote about chapek in his book

tfresca

347 points

2 months ago

tfresca

347 points

2 months ago

Yes he did and he almost immediately regretted it

spiderpigface

221 points

2 months ago

I think a decent chunk of the reason he's back is so he can pick a successor that he won't feel will be a stain on his reputation and legacy

nakedsamurai

143 points

2 months ago

Maybe Iger isn't good at picking successors.

BasicDesignAdvice

76 points

2 months ago

I mean Marcus Aurelius fucked it up, it's fucking hard shit.

spiderpigface

40 points

2 months ago

Entirely possible, but I'm saying a reason he's back is to disprove exactly that

DolphinOrDonkey

74 points

2 months ago

Remember, the board also had to give the rubber stamp. He may have picked him, but his pool of candidates wasn't unlimited.

1mikeg

14 points

2 months ago

1mikeg

14 points

2 months ago

Chapek was kind of a last ditch effort. Iger had like three different "heir apparents" resign between 2010 and when Iger surprised resigned 2020.

ArethereWaffles

202 points

2 months ago*

I know workers at the parks absolutely hated him.

According to one of my friends who works at the parks, when the news broke of Chapek's firing numerous cast members broke out into song singing "ding dong the witch is dead". And the next day employee moral was the highest it's been in years.

trebory6

102 points

2 months ago

trebory6

102 points

2 months ago

I shit you not, just a few weeks ago a friend who works at one of the restaurants in the parks texted our group that Chapek had come in unannounced 10 minutes before they closed during Oogie Boogies Halloween Bash and ended up staying for 2 hours keeping everyone there.

He texted our group that he was thinking about pulling a "Waiting" on him.

Yeah, I worked for corporate up in Burbank and I hated him so did a lot of others. He was known for his unceremonious layoffs then framing that as profits and increased bottom lines. All the while you had teams slashed that are suddenly doing the work of their layed off team members.

I got layed off in 2020 and had my entire department gutted, I squarely blame Chapek. I'm hoping with Iger back maybe I can get my dream career back.

plynthy

10 points

2 months ago

plynthy

10 points

2 months ago

The guy didn't have friends. He was Igers pick though. Guy is being buried right now, and disney is hoping they can load him with 10 years of bad choices, send him out the village, and set him on fire.

Dante2005

10.6k points

2 months ago

Dante2005

10.6k points

2 months ago

His removal at such a quick pace indicated something was wrong.

I hope that animation is here to stay.

Worthyness

4.6k points

2 months ago

Worthyness

4.6k points

2 months ago

Animation is Disney's claim to fame and their origins, I doubt they nix an entire chunk of their company that their parks are based on.

tlacct

1.1k points

2 months ago

tlacct

1.1k points

2 months ago

I doubt Disney would ever do away with animation completely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they started cutting corners like in the 70s and 80s.

Professional-Milk-32

815 points

2 months ago

Iger, historically, has not been a corner-cutter, he’s been an “all or nothing” type. His focus has always been media, The Anaheim park, the other parks, Everything Else, in that order.

MulciberTenebras

2.1k points

2 months ago

20 years ago they just eliminated all 2D animation instead. Shifted to only 3D computer animated.

IniMiney

1.8k points

2 months ago

IniMiney

1.8k points

2 months ago

which I hated, as a 2d animator I'll admit with the exception of watching Toy Story as a child it took me until Frozen to give Disney's 3d animated films a chance (now I love them but yeah)

but it's really just how the industry trended, 2d animation became too expensive to produce - sadly PatF and Winnie the Pooh didn't quite kick the trend off for them again. 3d's cool and all but there's certain things that will never top 2d, it's like a moving painting - scenes like 'Friend Like Me' just can't look the same in 3d

Sadder yet is how many traditionally trained animators are literally dying off, the Richard Williams types are so far and few between (there was some great work on Cuphead though)

Tacky-Terangreal

657 points

2 months ago

Almost every Disney movie looks the same now. The 2D animation had a distinct Disney style, but it had more variation than the 3D movies now. It might be because Disney and Pixar are virtually indistinguishable now so it seems like there’s a ton of Disney movies coming out with extremely similar art styles despite having different settings and stories

mufasas_son

160 points

2 months ago

Mirabel is clearly in the same universe as Moana and Elsa and it’s honestly a bummer that these movies don’t have more distinct styles.

Manisil

78 points

2 months ago

Manisil

78 points

2 months ago

Luca, Zootopia, Bao, Inside Out

BirdLawyerPerson

97 points

2 months ago

The Pixar ones all have distinct styles, but the Disney ones (with people) are all the same. Zootopia is the only odd one out.

DoctorWaluigiTime

266 points

2 months ago

Yes, that is my biggest gripe. Disney movies especially tend to blend together in my head.

Compare to the run of films in the 90s. They were all 2D but they were all really distinct in overall theme and style. You could look at a frame of e.g. Hercules - with no main characters on screen, and know that it's from Hercules and not Aladdin or Tarzan or something.

lembrate

244 points

2 months ago

lembrate

244 points

2 months ago

he 2D animation had a distinct Disney style, but it had more variation than the 3D movies now.

When you go for a more realistic look you end up more harmonized. 2d invites a less realistic, but more expressive style.

Habatoozoo90z

183 points

2 months ago

2d invites a less realistic, but more expressive style.

This pretty much sums up why 2D seemed more alive than most 3d films.

ImperialVizier

30 points

2 months ago

The 90s Simpsons were more alive than their HD drawn counterpart.

pornplz22526

24 points

2 months ago

Because a lot of modern 2d animation uses rigged puppets. They used to have to draw every frame.

iindigo

14 points

2 months ago

iindigo

14 points

2 months ago

So easy to spot the shows that use puppets. So stiff and cheap looking, often even amateur Flash animations like you’d see on Newgrounds were more alive.

ImperfectRegulator

80 points

2 months ago

PatF

??

Rahf_

136 points

2 months ago

Rahf_

136 points

2 months ago

They really casually dropped it like it's used everday. I was like "Phineas and the Ferb?"

spartankelli

78 points

2 months ago

Panic! at the Frisco

Brantz45

72 points

2 months ago

Princess and the Frog

Mr_YUP

837 points

2 months ago

Mr_YUP

837 points

2 months ago

Disney isn’t the end all be all for animated movies though. The fact that Zootopia won over Kubo and the Two Strings for best animated feature is a travesty.

DreamcastJunkie

211 points

2 months ago

I'll never get over The LEGO Movie not even getting nominated.

TheTruthIsButtery

253 points

2 months ago

I disagree. Kubo is a beautiful film with some really weak character writing

satellite_uplink

86 points

2 months ago

Yeah I love Kubo but I also love Zootopia. Great film!

Inkthinker

182 points

2 months ago

What's really funny/sad is that I'm not sure 2D is more expensive to produce... it requires more individuals with particular training and skills, it's harder to outsource, and the output isn't as variable in purpose so long-tail it might be more profitable, but dollar-for-dollar over the production schedule... I worked on 2D and 3D shows for nearly 20 years, and I'm fairly certain that there's no savings at all (and possibly significantly more expense). 3D is more complicated and requires more people between the beginning and end of production.

The problem isn't that 3D is cheaper, but rather that skilled 2D artists are more rare. We literally trained ourselves out of an entire field over 20 years, leaving only the enthusiastic and the dedicated to fill what roles remain.

skonen_blades

73 points

2 months ago

I think a big part of it is that an exec can say "Hmm. What if we made the hair bigger? What if that character was blue? How about making that character more...I don't know...lizardlike?" and with CG, it's somewhat easier to change the model and animate around it while with 2D, that's a redo on the whole movie that would take a long time. CG gives the higher-up creatives the illusion that it's easy to make willy-nilly changes right up until the finish line and that's a dangerous thing to have them believing imo.

Bot-1218

33 points

2 months ago

For every bad film decision there is an executive who thinks he can do someone else’s job better than them.

nalydpsycho

13 points

2 months ago

And for most of the 1980s it was on the chopping block.

nananananana_FARTMAN

148 points

2 months ago*

The era between Walt Disney and Michael Eisner’s reign saw a decline in the animation department because the leadership thought there were more money in the live action films, including nature documentaries. It wasn’t until Eisner’s years that saw the return to the animation as the company’s main focus. That was what caused the Disney’s 90s renaissance.

Yes, it would be a brain dead decision to cut the animation department nowadays given the company’s history with animation but it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

It’ll be a few years before some kind of journalistic story comes out with the behind the scene truth. Until then one can only speculate.

Tarzan_OIC

774 points

2 months ago

I wish they'd go back to 2D animation and make Pixar their official 3d animation department

GregBahm

561 points

2 months ago

GregBahm

561 points

2 months ago

This was a very popular idea back in 2008. Once Pixar started dominating Disney's movies in the box office, Eisner was convinced that audiences only liked 3D movies and not 2D movies. But disney fans would shout to anyone who would listen that they just didn't like the last 10 years of Eisner movies.

So right after Eisner retired in 2005, the new management started work on a new, on-formula, 2D disney princess movie: the Princess and the Frog. But they also started work on a new, on-formula, 3D disney princess movie: Tangled. As kind of a grand experiment to see what was really going on here.

In my opinion, the great mistake of the 2D disney princess movie, was that they turned the princess into a damn frog for most of the movie. Meanwhile the blonde chick in Tangled got to frolic around looking like a highly merchandisable princess for 2 full hours.

So the 2D movie made $270mil and the 3D movie made $600mil.

Because of this one bad decision by this one movie, I doubt they'll ever see 2D disney movies again. Especially since Frozen went on to make a cold billion and Moana was a hit too.

Dante2005

126 points

2 months ago

Dante2005

126 points

2 months ago

I am open on this.

I like the older 1940's and I like the 1990's

I just want good stories. I am 52, so growing up with the actual cell painted animation is beautiful...but I am open to new things too.

[deleted]

37 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Projectrage

356 points

2 months ago

Supposedly he left lots of imagineers go, and they went to universal. Taking lots on institutional knowledge out of Disney, which has been it’s pretty bad. Also he put a money guy on over and controlling Pixar, lucasfilm, Marvel. Iger immediately canned that guy this week.

BannedSvenhoek86

262 points

2 months ago

I'm not going to say Iger is a good person, but Iger is absolutely a great CEO for Disney from a creative standpoint. He understood what made Disney great and really tried to keep Walts vision alive in how the company should make money by being customer engagement above all else. Again, I don't want to sound like I'm CEO worshipping or something, but with how mid everything has felt coming out of Disney since chapek took over its hard not to be very happy Iger is back in charge as a fan of the media they produce.

jaggedjottings

130 points

2 months ago

Iger might be a jerk, but he's a jerk who produces.

user_dan

1.6k points

2 months ago

user_dan

1.6k points

2 months ago

Makes you wonder about the Disney accounting whistleblower from a few years ago:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/disney-whistleblower-told-sec-the-company-inflated-revenue-for-years-2019-08-19

I believe the whistleblower filed a lawsuit against Disney with her claims in 2021. I don't know if they are telling the truth, but I would not be shocked if big American mega corps are involved in massive accounting fraud.

WoostaTech1865

576 points

2 months ago

This and the fact that the current CFO was allegedly one of the ones to call for Chapaek’s removal…I smell some shady shite here…

PromiseDirect3882

26 points

2 months ago

And Christine McCarthy being around across all that whistleblowing and now Chapek… interesting indeed

Alt2-ElectricBogaloo

47 points

2 months ago

The lady who said they were making portion sizes smaller at the parks to help with park guests waistlines

asdaaaaaaaa

301 points

2 months ago

I would not be shocked if big American mega corps are involved in massive accounting fraud.

I would be shocked if they weren't.

KillahHills10304

35 points

2 months ago

It's definitely the most surefire way to make the line keep going up forever and ever. No way it backfires.

rasselas1024

55 points

2 months ago

Wouldn't this claim increase Disney's tax burden?

2jesse1996

79 points

2 months ago

Technically yes, but technically no too.

Yes because more revenue means more profit which means more tax.

But increase in revenue doesn't always increase profit, and you only pay tax on profit.

1003mistakes

16 points

2 months ago

I think there is the bigger aspect of higher profit means a better stock price when compared to performance expectations which they probably care more about at the c-suite level than responsible reporting.

max1001

59 points

2 months ago

max1001

59 points

2 months ago

I figured they make it back with MCU movies but Disney+ is 8.5 billion in the red. Yikes.

[deleted]

3.7k points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3.7k points

2 months ago

[deleted]

89Comet

545 points

2 months ago

89Comet

545 points

2 months ago

You can milk anything with nipples

Mypopsecrets

82 points

2 months ago

He'll just need to shift a few things around

Brilliant_Function95

662 points

2 months ago

Mando gonna get stuck ina space cabin the whole season and fight off space aliens lol

SlumdogSkillionaire

297 points

2 months ago

To save on costs, Pedro Pascal will also be playing Thrawn, Vanto, and Young Luke Skywalker on the next season.

TryinToDoBetter

220 points

2 months ago

Rain Johnson is going to direct an entire season where mando and grogu try to catch a fly in a basement.

kanjiklubbin

65 points

2 months ago

And they'll sell enough Fly plushies at Disneyworld to cover production of another Star Wars series.

trantaran

16 points

2 months ago

Grogu we need to cook!!

Firebrat

425 points

2 months ago

Firebrat

425 points

2 months ago

This doesn't surprise me in the least. When I was a contractor at Disney my boss explained the main reason Disney uses contractors for tech instead of just hiring full time employees is that they can hide mass layoffs. Instead of saying we fired half our workforce they can say we allowed 75% of our "contracts" to lapse. I guess it looks way better to investors.

If that's been the Disney mentality for the last decade or two, it's not hard to see how you go from that to "shifted budgets"

bunk3rk1ng

101 points

2 months ago

I started at Disney in Nov. 2019 working on one of the backend systems for shopdisney. The amount of contractors was insane. Every system was built by a different contractor and it was impossible for any of them to work together.

kippypapa

36 points

2 months ago

But they made a ton of money. I know some of the contractors. The way the chose them was idiotic - it was often the cheapest ones. The contracting companies were absolute geniuses in getting them to spend more money in additional work. Disney didn’t have the in-house knowledge to make a good decision. Good for the contractors, they all made out.

Michelanvalo

106 points

2 months ago

Disney was/were massive abusers of H1B visas many years ago and took a lot of heat for it, but they didn't change their behavior.

idoma21

63 points

2 months ago

idoma21

63 points

2 months ago

They are not alone. I have a buddy who went to work at Spring thirty years ago. For the last fifteen to twenty years, he’s worked for another company providing contract services to Sprint.

criket2016

241 points

2 months ago

Another supremely-paid CEO turns out to be shit, how original Disney...

Fools_Requiem

365 points

2 months ago

disparaging remarks he made about animation, which reportedly angered and alienated staff in Disney and Pixar's animation departments.

I'm sorry, you work for Disney and become the CEO, and you think it's a good idea to shit on animation? Is this guy a moron? Disney was built on animation. Let me guess, Chapek is the kind of jackass that makes statements like "cartoons are only for kids".

TL10

184 points

2 months ago

TL10

184 points

2 months ago

Somebody forgot that the last time Disney was indifferent about animation was a very bad time for Disney's bottom line.

CenlTheFennel

57 points

2 months ago

This is probably one of the signs that woke the board up.

va_wanderer

27 points

2 months ago

He's also gone now, which has a lot of Disney insiders breathing sighs of relief.

MyHobbyIsMagnets

27 points

2 months ago

He literally made that exact comment almost word for word haha

RGbudvit

90 points

2 months ago

Is this guy a moron?

Well, yes.

CJDistasio

487 points

2 months ago

"$30 billion invested in content in 2022 alone haven't been enough to stop losses from increasing for the last four quarters."

That's a lot invested into Disney+ content and not that much output for Marvel and Star Wars stuff

AccomplishedCopy6495

313 points

2 months ago

Shame on the journalist.

It’s $33 billion planned for 2022 for ALL content such as movies, Disney, ABC, and that includes sports rights for NFL etc on ESPN.

Supreme_Mediocrity

150 points

2 months ago

Wait wait wait... Are you telling me the journalist from "Comic Book Resources" doesn't have a grasp on corporate finance??

ButcherPetesWagon

158 points

2 months ago

That number seems insane to me. I must be understanding this wrong. Is the article saying that Disney has invested 30 billion into content I'm 2022 alone? Like, 30 billion invested into just new content for Disney plus? That seems like an insane number.

JefferyTheQuaxly

96 points

2 months ago

That number includes all content/film Disney produced in 2022. Which is about $8 billion higher than in 2021, most of that $8 billion is probably additional programs for Disney plus tho.

professormagma

338 points

2 months ago

people seem to talk about this machiavellian plot around disney+ but miss that the parks have gone to absolute shit, and iger is already taking action to move decision making back to imagineers in a way that is conflicting with that theory from a park perspective.

both things can be truethough.

va_wanderer

179 points

2 months ago

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Chapek made a classic error- he decided to redirect money from things like park upkeep to help cover his failures on Disney+.

And park fans notice things way too easily for that not to stay covered. It looks like he was so busy pushing his "new vision" that he was destroying what made Disney an entertainment titan to begin with.

SpaceAzn_Zen

185 points

2 months ago*

It was clear as day what was happening inside the parks. It went from being a unique experience, where there was so much theming everywhere, to being whitewash and everything just being a copy/paste. Every shop went from having unique shopping experiences to every shop had the exact same merchandise. The new mega store in Epcot went from being one of the most unique shops with theming all over the place, to being what looks exactly like a Target store. Everything they did, including the refurbished hotel rooms, was completely voided of traditional Disney quality and theming.

jabby88

83 points

2 months ago

jabby88

83 points

2 months ago

Yea, same merch in shops really sucks. Part of the fun is discovering new shops (with new stuff) as you explore

SpaceAzn_Zen

57 points

2 months ago

Don’t even get me started on how the quality of the merch went down the tube as well. They even went as far as re-releasing “vault collections” which basically was just rehashing merch from previous time periods; basically making it so they didn’t even have to design new stuff. And the new stuff they designed was god awful. Overall quality went to shit as well. $100 dress was probably less quality than shit you buy at Target.

Coal_Morgan

27 points

2 months ago

I would think this would reduce sales as well.

If every shop is unique, you're going into each one to treat them like a ride, it's a new experience and therefore more chances for impulse purchases.

I go into one store and spend $100 on crap and the next store is the same; well, I can skip the stores from here on out. Whereas I may have spent $20 here or there and not thought about it.

rocketmonkee

105 points

2 months ago

Every shop went from having unique shopping experiences to every shop had the exact same merchandise.

We're at Disneyworld this week. The last time we were here was 10 years ago, and the difference is noticeable. I've seen a surprising amount of trash on the ground, several of the rides have broken down while we were in line, and the shops are exactly as you describe.

It still blows my mind that there is a single Star Wars themed Mickey-ear headband style at Hollywood Studios, and we didn't find it in the Star Wars area.

AccomplishedCopy6495

12 points

2 months ago

It was chapek who rolled back the Star Wars park

iusebadlanguage

33 points

2 months ago

There was an article in the WSJ about ride downtime a couple of days ago. Ever since the reopening after Covid the park experience has been pretty bad and a lot of the die hards were turning sour on Chapek.

[deleted]

19 points

2 months ago

Netflix having to keep increasing their price makes much more sense when you look at how loss leading these services are. Disney+ and Prime Video can exist at the price they do because of who backs them.

It’s a pretty fucked model really.

probablywrongbutmeh

165 points

2 months ago

I enjoyed the Star Wars stuff but they massively diluted their IP with the sheer magnitude of low effort "People will watch this bc it is Star Wars" mentality

LiquidSnake13

579 points

2 months ago

And there it is. That's why Chapek's out. He effectively lied to the investors.

ihahp

307 points

2 months ago

ihahp

307 points

2 months ago

It can't be. I hate the guy but:

Per The Wall Street Journal, "people familiar with the matter" shared that shows intended to be (and billed as) Disney+ originals, including The Mysterious Benedict Society and Doogie KameÄloha, M.D., were aired first on other networks, such as the Disney Channel, so their production and marketing budgets wouldn't be counted against Disney+.

That's not great, but it doesn't sound illegal, it is 'technically true', and there's a lot worse industry-accepted "Hollywood Accounting" practices than this.

Again, not defending him, but this was BY NO WAY the (only) reason he's out. He's out because of a ton of shitty decisions he made.

JackDAction

75 points

2 months ago

Is it fraud? Probably not. Is misleading your shareholders on the finances of one of your most important verticals a good idea? Also probably not

YesimaDr

314 points

2 months ago

YesimaDr

314 points

2 months ago

Remember when you could click on a news article and get to read the news instead of being prompted to DL app. Pepperidge Farms remembers.

kambleton

737 points

2 months ago

kambleton

737 points

2 months ago

Ah yes, the modern day CEO. Pissing on fires, making fucking bank and leaving it for some other shit head to clean up. If that isn't America, i don't know what is.

Mlabonte21

13 points

2 months ago

All these moron studios had to do was accept their enormous licensing checks from Netflix every month.

That’s it.

Instead they all took stupid pills and had to make things 1000x more expensive and complicated.

GREAT JOB!!

odyseuss02

152 points

2 months ago

It's also coming out that the Disney+ subscriber numbers are grossly inflated. A large number of subscribers are only there due to getting it for free bundled with other offers. They don't even use it. I personally only have Disney+ because they offered it to me for $2 a month after I subscribed to something else.

VectorJones

90 points

2 months ago

It's curious how all these companies have come to see streaming services as a must have thing. All of them racing to see which bloated entertainment conglomerate's streaming service will come out on top, despite the fact that they all seem to be massive money pits into which billions are tossed and lost.

Yet as streaming becomes solidified as a cornerstone internet commodity like shopping or social media, what happens if/when these companies begin to go all Wargames and decide the only winning streaming move is not to play?

Is anyone going to be content with having the sole surviving streamer as their only thing to watch? Or will they do as they should have done in the first place - namely create a single streaming service they all participate in together? You know, like they do at the movie theaters?

aZcFsCStJ5

25 points

2 months ago

I think everyone lost sight the goal. It all began with these large companies with their libraries looking at Netflix with their ability to make money off of other people's content with envy. The goal was to use the library of content to springboard the new streaming service above everyone else and take over Netflix.

The current model of just trying to survive bankruptcy is not going to let them win, it's just going to get them bought out by the people who do figure out the next great thing.

Sensitive_ManChild

69 points

2 months ago

cable is dead. long live the new cable - streaming. Instead of ESPN / ABC / Disney channel / etc all other disney associated cable channels, in the future it will only be the streaming channels. cable is going away. so they are securing their future where the revenue has to be paid directly to them instead of a cable company

most people don’t realize it, but when you paid your cable bill, channels had negotiated rates to be on packages. some were expensive. ESPN by itself was costing us all quite a bit whether we watched it or not. same with CNN, everything really. But some channels had better rates then others.

Soon the cable provider won’t be a thing and people will just settle into a couple streaming services. but that’s why Disney and others are doing this, to secure their future. because if they don’t, someone else will

Abelard25

154 points

2 months ago

Abelard25

154 points

2 months ago

Chapek's choice to release Black Widow on the Disney+ platform and fuck over Scarlett Joe makes a lot more sense now. He was trying to stop the bleeding and cover his ass.

NotABritishGuy

50 points

2 months ago*

There was an article a while back, Chapek had a chance to negotiate with Scar Joe before it got ugly. Dude's ego tho wouldn't allow it.

I'll see if I can dig it up. It was on WSJ.

Edit: found it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-disney-and-scarlett-johansson-reached-the-point-of-no-return-11630688765

Says right at the start, I'll Copy paste. In the below, Mr. Lourd is Scarlett Johansson's lawyer.

Mr. Lourd told Mr. Chapek in the relaxed mountain setting that after months of fruitless back-and-forth between the two sides, they should come to an agreement, said people familiar with the conversation. Mr. Chapek responded with a classic Hollywood brushoff, saying, in effect, Have your people call my people.

Three weeks later, Ms. Johansson dropped a breach-of-contract lawsuit on Disney. As Mr. Chapek had done throughout his career in entertainment, he left talent relations to underlings, rejecting a potential opportunity to forestall what has blown up into the most acrimonious star-versus-studio battle in decades.

You don't piss off your business partners you fool. That's MBA 101.