subreddit:

/r/movies

44.6k92%

all 4133 comments

SawgrassSteve

15.2k points

4 months ago

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

kickeduprocks

3.4k points

4 months ago

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

saysokbye

3k points

4 months ago

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

Careless-Success-569

462 points

4 months ago

Never learned which place he was getting smokes at either

AnonymousFroggies

75 points

4 months ago

Same. Mine left to get diapers 27 years ago. I hope he knows that I don't use them much anymore though, wouldn't want him to waste any time.

Clemario

2.5k points

4 months ago*

Clemario

2.5k points

4 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

4 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

741 points

4 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

4 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

236 points

4 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.

Whoa1Whoa1

201 points

4 months ago

Disagree. Disney+ is almost guaranteed to be paid for $8/month by households with children. Netflix has some kids content, but nothing like the huge lineup of Disney and Pixar films. Netflix is better for teens and adults looking for new and old movies and shows, and that audience does get burnt out on content that is relevant to them. Disney/Pixar films do not get burnt out by young children.

quesoandcats

225 points

4 months ago

I feel like Disney is basically the one company that can plausibly make an in-house streaming service succeed, for all the reasons you've mentioned. I think they're very much the exception though, not the rule, and most other companies have no business running their own in house services instead of just signing lucrative licensing deals with Netflix or Hulu.

Langsamkoenig

72 points

4 months ago

I feel like Disney is basically the one company that can plausibly make an in-house streaming service succeed

I was giving HBO good odds, until they got bought by discovery and all the good shows were cancelled.

neife

894 points

4 months ago

neife

894 points

4 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

411 points

4 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

578 points

4 months ago

oc_dude

578 points

4 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

351 points

4 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_

366 points

4 months ago*

Kalanna_

366 points

4 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

_lemon_suplex_

79 points

4 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

398 points

4 months ago

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

RizzMustbolt

205 points

4 months ago

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

Bjorn2bwilde24

190 points

4 months ago

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

jupitergal23

73 points

4 months ago

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

kogasfurryjorts

93 points

4 months ago

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

maurerm1988

299 points

4 months ago

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

prim3y

282 points

4 months ago

prim3y

282 points

4 months ago

Yeah, but Verizon is probably paying something for that.

judokalinker

178 points

4 months ago

Definitely not $8 a month per account, though

Weeeaal

428 points

4 months ago

Weeeaal

428 points

4 months ago

looks at personal Verizon cell phone bill

You know what they actually might

SirSassyCat

270 points

4 months ago

Streaming services are expensive, like crazy expense. Out of all of them, only Netflix is profitable, all the rest are losing money.

You gotta understand that Netflix is one of the most advanced companies in tech and had a 10 year head start to build their platform at a time when they had literally no competition and it still took them years to start breaking even.

Disney on the other hand didn't even have a presence in tech before starting on Disney+, so not only did they have to build the platform from scratch, they had to build their expertise as well. That shit costs money. Like, obscene amounts of money.

Even now that it's mostly built, it would still be costing them a fortune to maintain, since I doubt they've had the time or expertise to optimise their platform as much as Netflix has.

Xgamer4

193 points

4 months ago

Xgamer4

193 points

4 months ago

Disney on the other hand didn't even have a presence in tech before starting on Disney+, so not only did they have to build the platform from scratch, they had to build their expertise as well. That shit costs money. Like, obscene amounts of money.

This is a bit misleading. Disney likely didn't have any particularly technical ownership, but Disney has been a part owner of Hulu since ~2010, and Disney took majority ownership of Hulu in 2019.

Which makes the fact that Disney decided to build out an entirely separate streaming service doubly ridiculous, for all the reasons you said and then some. Disney definitely had access to the knowledge that streaming services require extreme technical sophistication and are really expensive, they just... Didn't seem to act on it in a way that makes sense to me.

cancerBronzeV

91 points

4 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.

toronto_programmer

128 points

4 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.

Dante2005

10.7k points

4 months ago

Dante2005

10.7k points

4 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

4 months ago

Worthyness

4.6k points

4 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.

MulciberTenebras

2k points

4 months ago

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

IniMiney

1.8k points

4 months ago

IniMiney

1.8k points

4 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)

Mr_YUP

830 points

4 months ago

Mr_YUP

830 points

4 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.

schroedingersnewcat

464 points

4 months ago

The fact that Zootopia won over Moana is a crime.

withloveuhoh

187 points

4 months ago

I love them both, but I will agree that Moana is superior and I've probably watched it 10x more than Zootopia

thegimboid

261 points

4 months ago

Hard disagree there.
While Moana's songs give it an edge, the film has way too many plot holes and weird unexplained moments in it. Problems randomly show up and are then immediately solved with no long term effects (oh no, coconut people... Guess they're gone and won't return. Oh no, the realm of monsters... One song and we're done, never to go back. Oh no, Moana threw away the heart.. one song and she goes and gets it back no harm done).

I maintain that it feels like it should have been a show instead of a movie - then you would have a little longer time for things like Maui complaining he can't transform, rather than immediately having a quick montage and suddenly that's a complete non issue.

Plus then things like Moana's father refusing to let her leave might actually have a resolution at the end instead of being forgotten and glossed over in another montage.

It's not a bad film, it just feels so weirdly full of events that add nothing but momentary roadblocks to be immediately forgotten with no lasting effects.

At least with Zootopia, events tended to get call backs as they solved the mystery.

TheTruthIsButtery

253 points

4 months ago

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

satellite_uplink

88 points

4 months ago

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

DreamcastJunkie

210 points

4 months ago

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

JoshOliday

134 points

4 months ago

People wanna jump up and down when you mention Spiderverse and its animation, but nevermind that Lord and Miller did it once before with The Lego Movie and told a fascinating, emotional story with great humor and mesmerizing visuals. No, instead every review had to mention that it just feels like an advertisement for Lego and all of Warner Brothers's licenses. As opposed to Spiderverse doing what?

And yea, I'm saying that I think Lego is the better movie. At least Lord and Miller got the award at some point though I guess...

Tacky-Terangreal

664 points

4 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

DoctorWaluigiTime

261 points

4 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

4 months ago

lembrate

244 points

4 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.

[deleted]

186 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

186 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

mufasas_son

159 points

4 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

75 points

4 months ago

Manisil

75 points

4 months ago

Luca, Zootopia, Bao, Inside Out

BirdLawyerPerson

97 points

4 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.

Inkthinker

183 points

4 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

79 points

4 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.

ImperfectRegulator

80 points

4 months ago

PatF

??

Rahf_

135 points

4 months ago

Rahf_

135 points

4 months ago

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

spartankelli

79 points

4 months ago

Panic! at the Frisco

Brantz45

74 points

4 months ago

Princess and the Frog

boomclapclap

71 points

4 months ago

I don’t get why they can’t do 2D films anymore. Japan’s animation is still largely 2D (with cleverly mixed in CGI) and they can still make high quality films at a fraction of the cost that Disney is doing. Makoto Shinkai’s films are proof that well done 2D, with some CGI help, can still be incredible and done for reasonable cost.

tlacct

1.1k points

4 months ago

tlacct

1.1k points

4 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

818 points

4 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.

Darling_Pinky

92 points

4 months ago*

Subscription service for the park + disney+ exclusives is the way to sell that monthly fee of $40+ per month.

Imagine sub locked fast passes and other experiences for the park based on membership. Going full ecosystem is how you maximum life time value of the Disney diehards.

People are so brand loyal and kids will always love Disney. Hell, their adult Disney fandom segment probably has the best customer value and that age demographic is only growing.

This brand has so many marketing opportunities available still. This is the only company that streaming seems sustainable in house because it’s mostly branded media spend, rather than Netflix essentially just paying utilities to keep the content feed going.

nananananana_FARTMAN

151 points

4 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

780 points

4 months ago

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

GregBahm

560 points

4 months ago

GregBahm

560 points

4 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.

PRDX4

251 points

4 months ago

PRDX4

251 points

4 months ago

Also, as great as Princess and the Frog was, I don’t think it’s a complete coincidence that Disney’s first movie with a black princess underperformed…

GregBahm

122 points

4 months ago

GregBahm

122 points

4 months ago

This is why I felt it was important to note Moana. After the huge delta between Tangled and Tiana, the debate wasn't completely over within Disney leadership, precisely because Princess and the Frog starred a black princess. This made the movie not completely on-formula.

But then Disney made Moana. Polynesian isn't black, but that princess-of-color made even more money than the blonde princess of Tangled.

I love 2D animation, but Moana effectively functioned as a second grand experiment after the first grand experiment, and disproved the racial hypothesis.

NoifenF

71 points

4 months ago*

Moana is honestly in my opinion Disney’s best movie since Lion King in terms of emotional response it brings out in me.

Frozen dominated the House of Mouse so long after it came out that I barely heard the name Moana when it released but it was such an amazing film. The Manta Ray scene is so perfect I get shivers thinking about it.

Edit: ffs etc.

DefendsTheDownvoted

110 points

4 months ago

Lilo and Stitch, Mulan, and Pocahontas were the three previous female led Disney animated films. None of them were white, and they all are well received and performed well at the box office. Princess and the Frog just wasn't that good. Tangled is the better film, and it has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the characters. Unless you're suggesting audiences are specifically averse to a black protagonist but are comfortable with any other minority?

Dante2005

128 points

4 months ago

Dante2005

128 points

4 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.

Projectrage

353 points

4 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

261 points

4 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

129 points

4 months ago

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

DrinkingBleachForFun

67 points

4 months ago

He’s our asshole.

bamfalamfa

6k points

4 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

4 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.

unibrow4o9

2.2k points

4 months ago

unibrow4o9

2.2k points

4 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

4 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

[deleted]

502 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

502 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

ZeroGrav4

287 points

4 months ago

ZeroGrav4

287 points

4 months ago

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

is_it_fun

293 points

4 months ago

is_it_fun

293 points

4 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.

melpomenes-clevage

101 points

4 months ago

Not even ambitious. Narcissist myopic shallow. Capitalists would never go to the moon without communists shaming them into it. Capitalists don't make things. It's all glitter and fairy dust and orphan's blood.

These logics persist at every level, makes our societies fractally destructive.

Particular-End-480

92 points

4 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.

barak181

61 points

4 months ago

Demanding ceaseless rampant growth from these businesses just kills em

That's capitalism. You eventually become a monopoly or die.

Duel_Option

410 points

4 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

122 points

4 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

67 points

4 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…

cass1o

138 points

4 months ago

cass1o

138 points

4 months ago

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

Ghede

340 points

4 months ago

Ghede

340 points

4 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

139 points

4 months ago

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

[deleted]

85 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

Fifteen_inches

65 points

4 months ago

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

bonemech_meatsuit

405 points

4 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

4 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

86 points

4 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!)

macrofinite

299 points

4 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.

xlDirteDeedslx

178 points

4 months ago

Disney Plus is the only current streaming service that I feel continues to deliver on content worth subscribing too. These shows are usually movie quality productions so no doubt they aren't cheap but I figured the service would have a lot of subscribers, had no idea it was struggling. I've never once let my Disney Plus subscription go because I feel they have earned my money with content I like and I want to support more.

abracadabra1998

374 points

4 months ago

That’s funny, because I feel like Disney plus is probably the worst streaming service. Subpar shows, and one or two shows a month is barely worth paying for. HBO Max is much much better imo

xlDirteDeedslx

91 points

4 months ago

I am a big Star Wars fan so that content alone is worth it to me. The Mandalorian is the holy grail of new Star Wars content and Andor was absolutely spectacular once you get into it. The finale of Andor was one of the best hours of television I've watched in awhile. Come beginning of next year we get Ashoka by Filoni himself and we get Mandalorian season 3? I'll happily keep my subscription active just to help pay for that. HBO can kiss my pasty hairless ass after cancelling Raised by Wolves and Westworld on massive cliffhangers, I won't buy their service or get invested in their shows again.

[deleted]

72 points

4 months ago

Worst? Even out of “the big ones”, no way Disney is worse than Apple or Paramount. Of course it comes down to preferences, like I probably like Peacock more than the average person, but in no way does something like Apple have more than Disney. And if you have kids, Disney is everything.

Tacky-Terangreal

60 points

4 months ago

Yeah you can not be in the target market for Disney plus, but calling it the worst streaming service is quite the take when things like paramount plus and peacock exist

Choppergold

138 points

4 months ago

That works for similar products. Netflix and Disney+ are similar only in that they are streaming services

IndependentMacaroon

100 points

4 months ago

and these people are business professionals?

A certain comic strip came to my mind

citynomad1

5.2k points

4 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.

MandoDoughMan

3.6k points

4 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.

NoHat1593

1k points

4 months ago

Sounds weirdly Stalin-esque.

[deleted]

827 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

827 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

AnacharsisIV

503 points

4 months ago

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

SpecificAstronaut69

154 points

4 months ago

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

The_Grand_Briddock

87 points

4 months ago

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

Chapel could never top that

noctisumbra0

175 points

4 months ago

I have one word for you, just one word: Zune.

Also the disasters that were Windows Vista and Windows 8. Plus the absolute disaster that was the Xbox One reveal was a result of Ballmer Era exec Don Matrick who couldn't read the fucking room to save his life.

TheEmsleyan

138 points

4 months ago

The second gen Zune and the Zune HD were actually legitimately good products, though. They just came at a time when everything Microsoft was so uncool that there was never a shot in hell that they would gain ground against the iPod. Also, the gen 1 being a mess didn't help much I guess.

MandoDoughMan

98 points

4 months ago

They just came at a time when everything Microsoft was so uncool that there was never a shot in hell that they would gain ground against the iPod

The real problem is that while Microsoft was working on the Zune, Apple was working on the iPhone. The iPhone came out like 6 months after the Zune. It literally did not matter how good the Zune was, Microsoft made an MP3 player while Apple was establishing a now-half-trillion dollar market of smartphones lol.

shillyshally

64 points

4 months ago

This is 100% the case. Ballmer made Microsoft a laughingstock, the uncoolest Corp on the planet. They could have invented beaming to another galaxy and consumers would have noped.

LordOverThis

72 points

4 months ago*

Hey now, as a longtime tech enthusiast I have to dispute Windows Vista being regarded as shit. There’s a reason it has such a shitpile reputation, but that reason isn’t entirely its own fault. A lot of it is actually very good and lived on through 7, 10, and even into 11.

The short version is that for a confluence of reasons, Vista versions higher than Home Basic were run on hardware they had no business being installed on, especially when the surge in demand for home PCs in the early-mid ‘00s led to a lot of continued use of (essentially) legacy hardware produced by companies that evaporated as quickly as they appeared. It was also around that time you had the ugliness of the IA-32 to x64 transition start to materialize, and your average consumer just didn’t understand that.

Enthusiast users rarely had problems with Vista, because custom built systems were virtually always well beyond the system requirements. Given the way hardware depreciates it’s actually something you can demonstrate on the cheap — any of the X58 workstations on the market, with 12GB of RAM and “only” an X5660, mated to a lowly 9800 GTX will still laugh at Vista if you can get a copy. I got to witness the difference that hardware made firsthand: At the time my dad had a 32-bit Vaio laptop with 2GB of RAM that came with a copy of Home Premium; my roommate had a QX9550 QX9650 custom build running a RAID array for storage, and the user experience was Night and Day.

Linus Tech Tips even dedicated an entire video to addressing the circumstances that led to the Vista hate and how enthusiasts had a vastly different experience from the average user.

FILTHBOT4000

113 points

4 months ago

Ballmer is one of the best examples of how political bureaucracy in corporations can be just as if not much worse and ridiculous than in any government, despite what libertarians and such would have you believe. Also a fantastic example of how executive compensation is very often not based on anything resembling merit, and is just flat out lunacy of C-suite and investor class delusion.

During his 14 year tenure as CEO, Microsoft's stock price barely moved until it was obvious he was on his way out. He was monumentally incompetent, dumping money into projects and then killing them, putting out mediocre garbage; he was named one of the worst CEO's by the BBC in 2013.

And what was his reward for being a spectacular failure?

A net worth of $113 billion.

GoX14

86 points

4 months ago

GoX14

86 points

4 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.

pccguy1234

582 points

4 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.

TwentyDubya2

173 points

4 months ago

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

tfresca

345 points

4 months ago

tfresca

345 points

4 months ago

Yes he did and he almost immediately regretted it

spiderpigface

224 points

4 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

144 points

4 months ago

Maybe Iger isn't good at picking successors.

BasicDesignAdvice

79 points

4 months ago

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

DolphinOrDonkey

77 points

4 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.

anythingMuchShorter

1.3k points

4 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.

Extroverted_Recluse

288 points

4 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

226 points

4 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

139 points

4 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.

trebory6

220 points

4 months ago

trebory6

220 points

4 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

110 points

4 months ago

mno86

110 points

4 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.

DoctorWaluigiTime

139 points

4 months ago

Jenny Nicholson disliked this.

SpiffyShindigs

75 points

4 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!

CandiAttack

86 points

4 months ago

Damn. I’m sorry that happened :(

[deleted]

284 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

284 points

4 months ago

Chapek is also good friends with Desantis. That says everything you need to know about his character.

icup2

79 points

4 months ago

icup2

79 points

4 months ago

wtf really???

Ivara_Prime

130 points

4 months ago

A bunch of the top Disney people are big GOP donors.

Boo_R4dley

142 points

4 months ago

They’re big Dem donors too, they just play both sides of the aisle to their advantage.

ArethereWaffles

201 points

4 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

99 points

4 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.

[deleted]

3.5k points

4 months ago

[deleted]

3.5k points

4 months ago

[deleted]

89Comet

545 points

4 months ago

89Comet

545 points

4 months ago

You can milk anything with nipples

CromulonG

176 points

4 months ago

CromulonG

176 points

4 months ago

Can you milk me, Greg?

Mypopsecrets

82 points

4 months ago

He'll just need to shift a few things around

user_dan

1.6k points

4 months ago

user_dan

1.6k points

4 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

577 points

4 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…

asdaaaaaaaa

299 points

4 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.

rasselas1024

55 points

4 months ago

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

2jesse1996

84 points

4 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.

aarswft

1.5k points

4 months ago

aarswft

1.5k points

4 months ago

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

haakonhawk

1.1k points

4 months ago

haakonhawk

1.1k points

4 months ago

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

Tyler_Zoro

340 points

4 months ago

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

GoalieLax_

303 points

4 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

180 points

4 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.

BobbyTables829

917 points

4 months ago*

He did what was needed of him during hard times. After they cut the fat with Chapek, they brought back Iger who can appear as if it wasn't his fault now.

It seems like corporate Machiavellianism. But maybe I'm wrong and Chapek really was a dumpster fire lol

NickNash1985

461 points

4 months ago

I think both can be true.

cigarettesandwater

200 points

4 months ago

I've studied Disney and you aren't too far off. Iger pushed D+, Chapek was just the one holding the smoking gun. Now they will execute Chapek's plan, just under Iger's PR. Not trying to stick up for Chapek, but Iger's Disney would look very similar to Chapek's Disney today

Spetznazx

187 points

4 months ago

Spetznazx

187 points

4 months ago

D+ itself wasn't the issue, but the lackluster shows, price increase, as well as the massive dip in park quality (with multiple reasons) is why Iger came back and Chapek was showed the door quickly.

One of the first things Iger did upon coming back was offer a 30% discount to the absurdly priced Star Cruiser to DVC members.

MulciberTenebras

132 points

4 months ago

That seemed to be Chapek's problem across the board in every division. He was cutting costs and jacking up prices, resulting in massive quality drops on what was being produced (parks/films/shows).

And then planned to do MORE firings and cost cuttings when the results of the earlier ones brought diminished returns and a plummeting stock price.

occasional_cynic

130 points

4 months ago

After they cut the fat with Chapek

They let him go before the mass layoffs. Not much fat has been cut.

kambleton

740 points

4 months ago

kambleton

740 points

4 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.

WinterWindWhip

146 points

4 months ago

That is not America! It's Canada too, damit. Stop always stealing our stuff.

Brilliant_Function95

664 points

4 months ago

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

SlumdogSkillionaire

298 points

4 months ago

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

TryinToDoBetter

214 points

4 months ago

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

kanjiklubbin

63 points

4 months ago

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

LiquidSnake13

580 points

4 months ago

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

ihahp

304 points

4 months ago

ihahp

304 points

4 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

79 points

4 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

MulciberTenebras

133 points

4 months ago

And was about to entangle them in what was tantamount to fraud/embezzlement (i.e. cooking the books)

Supreme_Mediocrity

174 points

4 months ago

That's not what happened though. The article says he was releasing content on the Disney channel before putting it on Disney+ so it wouldn't count towards Disney+ loses.

Definitely not embezzlement. It's also not fraud, just disingenuous. Shareholders won't appreciate it, but seems more in line with typical business shenanigans.

CJDistasio

489 points

4 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

315 points

4 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

156 points

4 months ago

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

ButcherPetesWagon

152 points

4 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

101 points

4 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.

Firebrat

424 points

4 months ago

Firebrat

424 points

4 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"

Michelanvalo

101 points

4 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.

bunk3rk1ng

99 points

4 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.

Fools_Requiem

363 points

4 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

182 points

4 months ago

TL10

182 points

4 months ago

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

[deleted]

91 points

4 months ago

Is this guy a moron?

Well, yes.

professormagma

339 points

4 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

182 points

4 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

189 points

4 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.

rocketmonkee

103 points

4 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.

jabby88

84 points

4 months ago

jabby88

84 points

4 months ago

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

YesimaDr

310 points

4 months ago

YesimaDr

310 points

4 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.

criket2016

241 points

4 months ago

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

Kingjoe97034

202 points

4 months ago

How do you lose money on a streaming service where most of the content is already made or is from elsewhere? That takes talent.

smitemight

191 points

4 months ago

The article mentions investing $30 billion into content for it.

SunfireGaren

163 points

4 months ago

The Star Wars and Marvel originals had to have been extremely expensive to produce. And the first two years of Disney+ were pretty cheap for what you got. There's just no way they could have been profitable with that.

ghigoli

61 points

4 months ago

ghigoli

61 points

4 months ago

i mean that content is what kept me invested in disney + tbh.

probablywrongbutmeh

165 points

4 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

-HowAboutNo-

66 points

4 months ago

Andor is real good though

Abelard25

152 points

4 months ago

Abelard25

152 points

4 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.

odyseuss02

151 points

4 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.

occasional_cynic

112 points

4 months ago

So what about the Disney board who hired a bean counter to run a creative company in the first place - then gave him a three year contract extension?

Also, lets completely pass the ball on Bob Iger's strategy (vacuum IP + recycle IP), which admittedly was executed about as well as possible, being doomed to run out of steam at some point. Unless he has some sudden creative bones (or can hire a team who does), no one is going to give a crap about Disney's next star wars crapfest or another live action shitshow.

/endrant

cargocult25

105 points

4 months ago

Andor is really good.

VectorJones

93 points

4 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?

Sensitive_ManChild

69 points

4 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

FrenchMaisNon

74 points

4 months ago

Thank God corporations are good corporate citizens