Is Disney Scaring Every Other Studio In Sight?

boomboom234 · March 30, 2015

I can clearly determine that Disney made the most profits last year. That is something that you originally said they hadn't done since 2003. I proved that that was not true.

Again, all the facts were presented to you. The article that Telemachos originally linked to, which I linked to above, shows you how certain studios (WB, Fox) mask their weak studio profits by lumping the numbers in with their TV production revenue. That helps you to understand the THR numbers better, so that some studios don't seem like they are doing better than they actually are when it comes to BO profits and winning years. This goes directly to a studio like WB, which tops THR's list in previous years b/c they lump in TV production revenue. But, you want to pretend that the article is biased or inaccurate b/c it shows how well WB is really doing....which isn't that well.....which you can't handle.

If you want to falsely believe that Disney is not doing as well as all the numbers say that they are, then you can. However, by using all objective standards, they are doing the best overall. If nothing else, they were clearly the number one studio last year. And that was my main point in response to your false claim that they haven't been number one in years. We do have enough facts to definitively state that.

Per your logic unless we can open the books of every single studio and examine what makeup their reported profits for each year we can never determine who truly won the year. What numbers is saying Disney is doing extremely well relative to other studios for their movies provide them right now. Unless you are Bob Iger posting on these forums you don't have these numbers you site an article which similarly provides nothing to prove its ultimate point using out of context quotes and statements to prove its message why should we believe it if it provides no proof. It provides statements not data we can only judge based off the information we have.

James · March 30, 2015

Um... WB is constantly the No. 1 studio since 2005. Like, 5 out of 10 years they ended up on No. 1. And that's pretty much the only thing you know for sure, since profit wise you have no clear, 100% accurate source. And looking at their future line up, I doubt they are scared of anything.

Jandrew · March 30, 2015

"Telemachos posted it so it must be true."

Still a dumb thread. None of the studios are in danger and Disney is not making everybody their bitch. This thread is just a bait for arguing. K im done.

Harpospoke · March 30, 2015

Interesting article. This caught my eye:

Based on Motion Picture Association of America data, not all of which is public, DVD sales deposited roughly $150 billion of total gross revenue into the studio coffers from inception in 1997 through this past year, of which nearly $100 billion was “profit,” or what the industry calls home video’s “contribution margin”—meaning that a significant portion of this profit, the part from each year’s new releases, went toward the production and marketing of next year’s upcoming slate. But a large part (the release of older, fully-paid-for library titles on DVD) was almost pure profit.

Greed. They were overcharging the consumer for years. DVD's never had to cost as much as they did. I spent hundreds of dollars on my DVD collection. Then of course the studios once again decided it was time for me to toss all that aside and replace everything with Blu-Ray. That was the breaking point for me. I've never bought a single Blu-Ray and now don't even consider buying a DVD either. I walk by the bargain bins at Walmart without even looking through them as I did in years past. The obvious future is streaming....Netflix is apparently the only company who realized that. Physically "owning" (yeah right) a copy of a movie will become a quaint relic of the past. Buying a movie will become owning the right to watch it the rest of your life in whatever format is in vogue.

Gouging the customers will only result in them seeking a solution. The theaters think they can charge you $20 for a drink, candy, and popcorn?....ok....I'll buy my candy for $1 and bring it into the theater in my pocket.

As the article mentioned, the music industry cut its own head off with greed and stupidity too. The record companies didn't mind one bit when customers paid for the same music over and over. Hard to find any pity for them now. You gouge customers for years and it will eventually bite you as new ideas enter the marketplace. Reminds me of how phone companies continued to charge customers for "long distance" long after it was not necessary to do so. I had to pay a fee to call from Dallas to Fort Worth. They created a need...and cell phones filled that need. I stopped doing business with the old phone companies like many others and haven't looked back. Screw 'em....they deserve what they got.

Walt Disney · March 30, 2015

Per your logic unless we can open the books of every single studio and examine what makeup their reported profits for each year we can never determine who truly won the year. What numbers is saying Disney is doing extremely well relative to other studios for their movies provide them right now. Unless you are Bob Iger posting on these forums you don't have these numbers you site an article which similarly provides nothing to prove its ultimate point using out of context quotes and statements to prove its message why should we believe it if it provides no proof. It provides statements not data we can only judge based off the information we have.

You are the one who said Disney hasn't won a year in forever. I gave you solid evidence that they have. You, who has no evidence, have now told me that the article is biased (for no other reason than you didn't like the conclusion), that we can never truly know what a studio profits (even though we have a great idea for last year), and are completely ignoring the THR article that backs up the statements of the other article.

So to sum it up: you were wrong about Disney not winning a year in forever, don't have an ounce of proof to back up that statement, and are desperately trying to cling to your arbitrary way of deciding which studio wins what year. I can only show people the facts. If people don't want to educate themselves, then that's their own business.

Um... WB is constantly the No. 1 studio since 2005. Like, 5 out of 10 years they ended up on No. 1. And that's pretty much the only thing you know for sure, since profit wise you have no clear, 100% accurate source. And looking at their future line up, I doubt they are scared of anything.

Ummmm WB clearly wasn't. And I posted an article to show you exactly why that is. If you continue to cling to your false beliefs, then that's your business. However, WB is only the number 1 studio because they release the most films in a year. That doesn't make a studio number 1.

"Telemachos posted it so it must be true."

Still a dumb thread. None of the studios are in danger and Disney is not making everybody their bitch. This thread is just a bait for arguing. K im done.

I make it clear that Telemachos posted it because I don't want anyone to think I got it from some biased site that's pushing Disney stock or from some Disney fanboy blog. A lot of the studios are in bad shape and you are completely ignoring the facts. Especially WB, who not only has small profit margins, but is still in debt because of the AOL merger. But, you didn't even bother to read the article (which is fine). You just want to continue down this path of ignoring the facts and just believing whatever you want. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Walt Disney

Jandrew · March 30, 2015

I make it clear that Telemachos posted it because I don't want anyone to think I got it from some biased site that's pushing Disney stock or from some Disney fanboy blog. A lot of the studios are in bad shape and you are completely ignoring the facts. Especially WB, who not only has small profit margins, but is still in debt because of the AOL merger. But, you didn't even bother to read the article (which is fine). You just want to continue down this path of ignoring the facts and just believing whatever you want. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right.

Youre right I'm not reading that article because 1. it's too long and I dont have the time, and 2. fact of the matter is: every studio is not slaving to Disney, like some of you want them to and wish they were. You said WB is in debt? But you said it was because of AOL. So what does that have to do with Disney? Exactly.

Like I said, we should be cheering for the Big 7, not Big 2 or Big 1. That's the business model you want. Disney is not going to cause the demise of any of the other 6 studios. Netflix will do that before Disney will. You guys gotta stop acting like Disney is single handedly going to run Hollywood. So they schedule their movies 24 years in advance...and?

The thread title is "Is Disney scaring every other studio?" And the answer to that dumb question is "no."

jimisawesome · March 30, 2015

Interesting article. This caught my eye:

Based on Motion Picture Association of America data, not all of which is public, DVD sales deposited roughly $150 billion of total gross revenue into the studio coffers from inception in 1997 through this past year, of which nearly $100 billion was “profit,” or what the industry calls home video’s “contribution margin”—meaning that a significant portion of this profit, the part from each year’s new releases, went toward the production and marketing of next year’s upcoming slate. But a large part (the release of older, fully-paid-for library titles on DVD) was almost pure profit.

Greed. They were overcharging the consumer for years. DVD's never had to cost as much as they did. I spent hundreds of dollars on my DVD collection. Then of course the studios once again decided it was time for me to toss all that aside and replace everything with Blu-Ray. That was the breaking point for me. I've never bought a single Blu-Ray and now don't even consider buying a DVD either. I walk by the bargain bins at Walmart without even looking through them as I did in years past. The obvious future is streaming....Netflix is apparently the only company who realized that. Physically "owning" (yeah right) a copy of a movie will become a quaint relic of the past. Buying a movie will become owning the right to watch it the rest of your life in whatever format is in vogue.

Gouging the customers will only result in them seeking a solution. The theaters think they can charge you $20 for a drink, candy, and popcorn?....ok....I'll buy my candy for $1 and bring it into the theater in my pocket.

As the article mentioned, the music industry cut its own head off with greed and stupidity too. The record companies didn't mind one bit when customers paid for the same music over and over. Hard to find any pity for them now. You gouge customers for years and it will eventually bite you as new ideas enter the marketplace. Reminds me of how phone companies continued to charge customers for "long distance" long after it was not necessary to do so. I had to pay a fee to call from Dallas to Fort Worth. They created a need...and cell phones filled that need. I stopped doing business with the old phone companies like many others and haven't looked back. Screw 'em....they deserve what they got.

How is this greed? They where selling at a price the consumer was buying them at. More then that they had a MSRP about a quarter of what VHS had. All dvds where priced for consumers and not a commercial (rental) market. The first week of release basically every major retailer where selling them as a loss leader at 15 bucks. And they had huge profits only because the cost where booked elsewhere and their only costs where basically disk and returns.

The music industry died for one reason only piracy. They also did not gouge and boo hoo on anyone that did not go to Best Buy or Circuit City the week of release and get the CD for 7 dollars (up to about 98/99) and 10 dollars after that.

Walt Disney · March 30, 2015

Youre right I'm not reading that article because 1. it's too long and I dont have the time, and 2. fact of the matter is: every studio is not slaving to Disney, like some of you want them to and wish they were. You said WB is in debt? But you said it was because of AOL. So what does that have to do with Disney? Exactly.

Like I said, we should be cheering for the Big 7, not Big 2 or Big 1. That's the business model you want. Disney is not going to cause the demise of any of the other 6 studios. Netflix will do that before Disney will. You guys gotta stop acting like Disney is single handedly going to run Hollywood. So they schedule their movies 24 years in advance...and?

The thread title is "Is Disney scaring every other studio?" And the answer to that dumb question is "no."

WB being in debt has nothing to do with Disney. It only means that WB isn't in great shape the way you want to portray them to be. You're the one that listed how great every studio was doing. You went studio by studio. I showed you that they weren't doing so well. And, I didn't bother to just tell you, I showed you. I thought I could avoid this whole argument, but you guys are going to cling to your view of things to the end.

Actually, your answer to that question was not "No." Your answer to that question was every studio is doing great and let me show you just how great they are all doing. Unfortunately, you were wrong. But, you don't have the time to look at the evidence that I showed and you certainly don't want to take my word for it. So instead, you will just continue to argue that everything is great everywhere in Hollywood.

As for whether any studio is scared of Disney, WB moved BvS to the same date as CA: Civil War, then thought better of it, and despite saying they would not move it again, they moved it again. In that example, WB was scared of Disney.

jimisawesome · March 30, 2015

I will say it Disney is not a well run studio. They have had to buy at very expensive prices most of their current IP they are releasing. Money which could have gone to ESPN to get rights to the World Cup or Olympics. Which would have been a much better investment as ESPN just prints money for Disney. On the plus side they finally have animation fixed so no longer relay on just 7 billion dollar Pixar. They had to buy Marvel and Lucasfilm because they can no longer launch internally develop live action movies. Their biggest internal franchise PotC they cant keep costs under control so they where taking huge risks for little upside. They no longer seem able to release their smaller smarts movies which used to do great business for them.

Jandrew · March 30, 2015

My main point was that they all have good amounts of properties as well. Everyone talks about Disney with Marvel, Pixar, WDAS, Indy, and Star Wars. I was pointing out that all the other studios have some IP's to be proud of as well, and if they don't, they at least know how to make cheaper movies that could give better revenue.

And that's one article. I haven't heard anything about WB struggling anywhere else. So it's not evidence or fact to me. If you saw one article that said "Chipotle gives you cancer", are you seriously going to stop eating there? And please don't start with that BvS vs Cap 3 shit again. I'm seriously done.

Walt Disney · March 30, 2015

My main point was that they all have good amounts of properties as well. Everyone talks about Disney with Marvel, Pixar, WDAS, Indy, and Star Wars. I was pointing out that all the other studios have some IP's to be proud of as well, and if they don't, they at least know how to make cheaper movies that could give better revenue.

And that's one article. I haven't heard anything about WB struggling anywhere else. So it's not evidence or fact to me. If you saw one article that said "Chipotle gives you cancer", are you seriously going to stop eating there? And please don't start with that BvS vs Cap 3 shit again. I'm seriously done.

And you're wrong because most other studios are trying to beat Disney at the blockbuster game. Lionsgate and Universal are making cheaper movies, so you're right about those 2 studios. However, the others are not doing well with their current strategy.

And I can't take anyone seriously when they dismiss an article that they haven't even read. Is a straw man argument about chipotle really the best that you can come up with? If you want to find articles about WB's struggles, then you could if you looked. However, you really don't. You just want to dismiss any facts that don't agree with your view of the world.

Also, yes BvS moved away from CA: Civil War. It's another fact that doesn't fit into your world view, so you want to dismiss it.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Walt Disney

Walt Disney · March 30, 2015

I will say it Disney is not a well run studio. They have had to buy at very expensive prices most of their current IP they are releasing. Money which could have gone to ESPN to get rights to the World Cup or Olympics. Which would have been a much better investment as ESPN just prints money for Disney. On the plus side they finally have animation fixed so no longer relay on just 7 billion dollar Pixar. They had to buy Marvel and Lucasfilm because they can no longer launch internally develop live action movies. Their biggest internal franchise PotC they cant keep costs under control so they where taking huge risks for little upside. They no longer seem able to release their smaller smarts movies which used to do great business for them.

I would say that Disney wasn't a well run studio, which is why they needed to buy Marvel and Lucasfilm. Disney was successful at the BO, but they weren't the best run studio. However, those purchases not only gave Disney IP, but it gave them talent. John Lassetter is now running WDAS and Pixar both extremely well. Marvel is being well run by Kevin Feige. Lucasfilm is being well run by Kathleen Kennedy. That's a lot of top talent.

The IP is more valuable to Disney than most other studios because Disney can use it in many parts of their business. They can use it for theme parks, TV shows, and merchandising. Lucasfilm alone became more profitable once Disney bought them because Lucasfilm was using middlemen to sell consumer products overseas; Disney was able to cut out the middlemen and sell directly to those foreign markets.

ESPN is still doing great. I am not sure that the World Cup or the Olympics could have brought in any more revenue than the long term returns that Marvel and Lucasfilm will be supplying. Buying Marvel and Lucasfilm were massive successes. I really don't see any downside there.

There is a strategy to only release large budget tent-poles. However, Disney seems to be the one studio that is successful with that strategy. Although, Alan Horn has wanted a few smaller releases as well, so we have gotten movies like Saving Mr. Banks and Into the Woods. I do agree that Disney has gotten away from a lot of their smaller movies. I don't think that makes them not well run though. If anything, their success shows that they are a very well run studio.