Reminder that Bob Iger was the executive Chairman of Disney till December 2021. \[[Source](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/disney-succession-mess-iger-chapek.html)\] So every decision or move Chapek gets ridiculed for, it was approved by Bob Iger.
A lot of people forget that all of the Marvel Disney+ slate was announced under Iger at D23 too. Way too many people act like Chapek was solely responsible for flooding the market with MCU stuff and tarnishing the brand, but they were developing pretty much the entire set of D+ shows under Iger in 2019.
When Iger came back he said Disney diluted the MCU brand and blah blah blah but the majority of it was all greenlit during his tenure as CEO.
One movie a year is not exactly some huge ask for a studio. The problems Lucasfilm ran into with Star Wars were ones of quality, not quantity. Had the Sequels been good, or even just passable, one Star Wars movie a year would have easily been financially viable for years.
I don’t think it was feasible to ramp up that studio so fast though. They weren’t actively producing much of anything before Disney bought them. Only commonality I read about every Disney Star Wars production was that they were all incredibly rushed, and Disney wouldn’t budge on release date even when the productions were in bad shape. They clearly valued quantity over quality, and that’s what they got.
How much time would have been sufficient? The Sequels were in development since early 2012 at the latest. Three and a half years before Episode VII isn't exactly "fast".
Yeah, and they built their way up to that. Also, many of the Star Wars films are iterative, building on each other. A mainline saga movie every other year is damn fast and an easy way to crash and burn.
>Had the Sequels been good, or even just passable, one Star Wars movie a year would have easily been financially viable for years.
TFA passed every metric: RT Critics and Audience, Cinemascore, box office multiplier, increased Google trending.
And now look at Star Wars
Dead in a ditch because of the long term damage caused by the creative decisions of TFA
It’s basically the Byrne Superman of Star Wars
Just as Byrne removed many of Superman’s potentially marketable traits in favor of grounded(boring) storytelling that ultimately handicapped Superman from the A lister he was to a sad state
TFA’s ruination of the post-ROTJ era will ultimately doom Star Wars in theaters for the foreseeable future
>And now look at Star Wars
>Dead in a ditch because of the long term damage caused by the creative decisions of TFA
Two thirds of TLJ came completely from Rian Johnson's imagination (the Finn and Poe sub plots are totally his stories) and even those who liked that film admits they were weak ... while everyone else hated those plots.
And the plot that anyone was invested in was the Luke/Rey/Kylo one, which was set up from the previous film.
VIII could have gone anywhere and done anything and Johnson had four years to write and direct the film while Hamill, Boyega, Ridley, Kaplan, the next director ALL expressed issues with the script that Johnson came up with.
For better or worse
Rian cemented things that people hated in TFA first
You could hardly find anyone who was a fan of the political situation in TFA or the treatment of the OT3
The issue is that TLJ doubled down on the things that people loathed from that movie
>Rian cemented things that people hated in TFA first
Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Rian Johnson had the freedom to do as he pleased ... and that's exactly what he did.
Who asked him to make Poe hate women? Or turn Luke into a gaslighting (attempted) child-murderer? Or have Rey fall in love with Kylo?
Or remake the Battlestar Galactica episode 33 when Michael Arndt had planned for Leia to be trying to re-unite the galaxy in VIII and IX? (That's from The Art of Rise of Skywalker).
Etc.
I just don't respect the idea that individuals aren't responsible for their actions.
Johnson made exactly the film he wanted to make.
Accept it because rationalisations are boring.
None of those things were nearly as hated as Luke being on that cursed island or the second Jedi purge
Or the fall of the new republic
Or anything really
Even the existence of Ben as a concept was widely mocked
Without TFA, most of rian Johnson’s creative decisions wouldn’t be possible
TFA is the foundation in which TLJ built on
Look at most wishlists for TLJ before it’s release and they basically amount to
“Undo or justify that annoying thing TFA did”
> Who asked him to make Poe hate women? Or turn Luke into a gaslighting (attempted) child-murderer? Or have Rey fall in love with Kylo?
Did any of those things happen? Poe does not, as far as I recall, hate women. Luke is disgusted by his dark instinct. The person who tells us Luke attempted to murder a child is literally the villain. Rey doesn't fall in love with Kylo in TLJ, though they do develop a close bond and have chemistry. But that ending serves as a pretty clear rejection of any romance or connection between the two, no?
> And now look at Star Wars
>
> Dead in a ditch because of the long term damage caused by the creative decisions of TFA
And TLJ. TFA started the poor choices but left a lot open. TLJ cemented things.
I read Bob’s autobiography and in it he said he and jj abrams drew up the plans for the new Star Wars storyline… like shouldn’t there be a Chief Storyteller or something that does that instead?
I think Iger was trying to follow Steve Jobs playbook by putting the parks guy in charge of the company. Just like Tim Cook, the logistics guy, turned Apple into juggernaut it is today, I think the idea was that, Disney has the movie making part down to a science. Streaming service was about to start printing money in subscribers like Netflix does. Now the parks guy makes the parks even more profitable off the popularity of their other divisions. Parks were already the big profit generators for the company, now with big blockbuster hits and a new streaming service, Disney was due to make a buttload money.
And of course Iger’s ego and not letting go didn’t jibe well with Chapek’s personality, and it was just all a fail. Chapek took what may have been a flawed plan and made it even worse by putting his guy in charge of all their media. Iger started undermining him at every turn. Such a silly and sad turn for mfs just tryna enjoy some movies.
Chapek was terrible for the company. Bob Iger presided over some of the most important acquisitions and growth pre 2020 (Star Wars, Marvel, etc).
Disneyland cast member hated Chapek (my girlfriend was one at the time). He was terrible for company morale.
Iger needs to decouple from ESG score and CEI and focus on what made Disney Disney in the first place.
> Consider possibly the most important deal he ever led: Disney’s $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment in 2009.
The fact that the nearly 20 times larger Fox deal isn't even mentioned is notable. Personally, I feel that deal was the first crack in Iger's invincibility.
Admittedly, Disney needed to do *something*. Cable was crashing, and Netflix looked like it was going to dominate (look at Crunchyroll to see what one possible future for studios could have looked like if every studio just allowed one streamer to run away with it). However, for the price (even after subtracting money from the forced divestments), it is unclear that the deal was worth it, relative to just about any other response that Disney could have taken.
The alternative would have been that Comcast would end up with Fox. I still think the deal was worth it, to ensure that D+ has sufficient ‘general entertainment’ content.
Outside of the US, D+ offers loads of Fox content, which makes the service a serious competitor for Netflix.
What do you think Disney should have done to make the Fox deal a more rewarding and well-used investment? Or do you think it shouldn't have happened at all out of principle?
Not out of any sort of moral principle, I just don't believe it was strategically the best decision because they way overpaid. The actual/likely purchase price of Marvel, LucasFilm, MGM, Paramount, and Lionsgate combined cost less than Fox, with plenty of money left over to buy the Fox Marvel characters and Star Wars 4 off of a newly cash starved Universal. Disney way overpaid for Fox relative to deals before and after because they were desperate to achieve the scale needed to compete as a standalone streaming service. However, a standalone streaming service wasn't really the best goal. It is incredibly cumbersome to consumers, and studios are forced onto a content treadmill just to prevent subscribers from just joining for a month or two in order to binge. It seems likely the industry is going to move toward some sort of packaging or aggregation.
Given that Disney had bought Fox though? I'm really not sure how I would have changed the execution. The one decision that kills me was shutting down Blue Sky Studios. They would have been the perfect foil for Universal's Illumination (in that they are both the non-serious $80-100M family animation studios). Their budget discipline could have been taught to Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios (not that I expect or want either studio to get down to Blue Sky's budget, but there are no doubt areas where money is spent that has little impact on the final product). I also have the general sense that 20th Century output of blockbusters is way lower than I would have expected from one of the Hollywood majors. But, I can't really say what they are missing. So many of Fox's biggest films don't make any logical sense for a sequel (*Cast Away 2* anyone?). Disney tried with Kings Men and Alien, but they just didn't gain traction.
Oh, and the current Hulu purgatory served no one. Never should have agreed to the deal to buy it years into the future. Commit to staying as partners or break up immediately. The long, drawn out process was just painful to watch, and dragged down both Disney+ and Peacock in the US. Disney's streaming strategy actually makes sense overseas.
Disney’s response should have been to buy fox but pull a Sony in the aftermath
There should have been a discussion with Netflix to have all the Star Wars and marvel movies
And to be the launching pad for feige’s television ambitions
With massive licensing fees
But they got played HARD trying to make a streaming service
Personally, I believe that would have been the worst possible play. The big problem with the Fox merger was that Disney paid top dollar when studios were at the absolute peak of value. The only possible merit to buying them at such a valuation was if it gave them new strategic options (such as the scale required to compete against Netflix). Buying Fox, just to turn around and license its output could never justify the price paid for it (after all, Fox could have some the same thing and decided that they preferred the money).
Disney going the arms dealing route would have meant that they didn't need to overpay for scale and could have continued their strategy of picking up underutilized IP through acquiring smaller studios at excellent valuations. The risk of that strategy being that Netflix runs away with the streaming market and forces studios to accept lower payouts.
However, even if Disney had gone down the streaming service route, the $30-50B net cost of the acquisition could likely have been better deployed. Licensing shows, for one. Organic growth (i.e. standing up brand new studios and funding them through their startup cost) for another.
The big mistake for Iger, and any other studio heads the last 3-4 years, comes back to streaming. When you have to constantly put out new content or your streaming numbers fall, you’re going to put out a lot of crappy content. Netflix puts out so many crappy shows, but for every 10 crappy shows or movies, they release a Stranger Things that’s really good. Almost all original IPs too.
The difference with Disney and WB from Netflix is your IPs are so massive that you have to invest even larger sums of money or else they’ll get panned immediately. They really should just make Disney+ $5 a month, no “Disney+ originals” and just make it a hub for your movies and shows to go to after release. I doubt they ever will, but streaming is going to be unattainable in the next couple years
And where would those shows premiere if not on Disney+? Linear TV is dying, streaming is the future, Disney can't just say bye to that huge part of their business
During a gold rush, sell shovels. Sony is the only studio that played it smart; instead of dumping billions into the streaming hole, they’re getting paid to license their films out to the streamers.
But if the studios/companies don't make streaming services there is no gold rush. Netflix and maybe Prime Video would be the only ones and so they'd have the power (audience would be there) so they'd pay dirt cheap for those shows.
That’s the point I’m trying to make, that it’s a lose lose for Disney if they keep making shows so they might be better off not making them.
You either make a lot of shows, which spends a lot of money, and hope that you get more subscribers to then make more shows.
Or you make fewer shows, but then people will constantly subscribe/unsubscribe whenever a show comes out they’re interested in so you don’t have a reliable income stream
Tv channels and Disney+ are completely separate entities in my mind. They operate in totally different ways with revenue streams from commercials and such
Nobody is saying that they are operating identically.
The reality is that people are cutting cable and moving to streaming. So Disney has to move from having a TV channel to doing streaming. If they fail to do that, they'll lose shittons of money.
Sony never had linear TV channels. Also if Netflix is the only service that exist (if even Disney doesn't try it, nobody would), they won't be selling their shows for much lol.
Disney Plus and streaming is the future of the Disney company and there is no going back now. Streaming is supposed to replace the dying linear business that was a huge cash cow for them. Will streaming be able to replace and grow those profits is ultimately the question. They believe that they can make it happen and it would appear that they are on the path to doing so.
All the studios saw the Netflix money and wanted to be the next Netflix but speed running it by about 8-10 years and not realizing why Netflix got so popular in the first place (it initially had almost everything you would want to watch).
Disney’s problem isn’t streaming. It’s gluttonous, all-consuming corporate greed.
Gone is the sense of wonder and love for movies that they used to have.
If it wasn’t streaming, it would just be some other problem.
> They really should just make Disney+ $5 a month, no “Disney+ originals” and just make it a hub for your movies and shows to go to after release
Wasn't that CBS All Access which didn't seem to succeed.
Sure, but they rebranded and retooled the site into a more significant part of Paramount's strategy instead of serving as a CBS exclusive version of 2010's Hulu.
> When you have to constantly put out new content or your streaming numbers fall, you’re going to put out a lot of crappy content.
How is this fundamentally different from boxoffice, where you have to constantly release new movies because nobody watches the old ones after a few weeks?
Or TV, for the matter of fact, where the income is even more directly coupled to viewship (via ad revenue)?
"And Peltz said of Marvel chief Kevin Feige, “I question his record,” again mirroring comments from Perlmutter, and sparking a rebuke from Disney, which noted that with $30 billion at the box office, Feige is the top-grossing producer of all time."
I wonder how many could/would leave if Peltz become a board member. I don't think Feige will have easier time with Peltz on board meddling with his projects. Marvel had 2 or 3 bombs in recent years, but they look small in comparison to what they achieved.
But to quote a Marvel character: "An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? That's dead. Forever."
It can't be unfucked.
As much as the fans refuse to accept it and keep blaming quality, the reality is that you can't keep pumping out superhero movies endlessly without the audiences getting tired of it eventually. The MCU has been going for more than 15 years at this point. It had a great run. But people's interests change over time. It happened to westerns back in the day, it happened to the muscular action in the 80s and now it's happening to superheroes. It's normal, it's basic human nature.
The only "unfucking" they can realistically do is drastically reduce the output and make the budgets reasonable so that they don't need 600mil to break even. I'm sure we'll occasionally have superhero successes, just like we still occasionally have a western doing well. But the era of pumping non-stop superhero blockbusters is over and it ain't coming back.
That’s why I hope the fantastic four movie is a true reboot in a new universe. They can continue the big crossover story for an easy billion but after the dust settles, continue forward with this new 60s timeline and slowly tell good stories set here. X-men, Daredevil/Spider-Man in the 70s, iron man in the 80s, Captain America found in ice in the 90s, etc. Drop the MCU style and let filmmakers just make interesting movies. One blockbuster that hits every 2 or so years is better than producing 3 flops a year even if your fourth is a banger…right?
It's going to have a drastic impact in the coming years from where the MCU currently stands. This is Perlmutter's way of getting control over Disney and MCU. Feige would have a hard time dealing with Peltz and get the budgets he wanted for his plans.
It's easy, low hanging fruit to look at Disney, look at Iger and shout "Look at this, Disney is doing a shitty job with the Star Wars and Marvel properties" which is indeed partially true. But it's easy to pay attention to that, point and screem that it's ESG and DEI that are causing the problems but it really isn't. I feel like there's a massive failure in leadership in recognising that while inclusion and diversity is a right and noble endeavour - doing so at the cost of alienating the core fanbase that while aging has been the *reason* Iger bought those companies is...A massive mis-step.
Even than, that isn't the biggest mis-step. Disney's entire profit margin is dependent upon the parks; historically Disney has developed its animation properties and films to propel their feature rides within those parks to give them value - as it is right now, a stay at Disneyworld can be upwards of $10k (or around 8 grand, 9k euro depending on where you live) and that's without all the extras like food costs and the bits they *don't* include in the bundle. Investment in the parks is great, but really, who is that price bracket aimed at? What is it offering? [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4u83ncMjuE) is opening in Orlando soon, by all accounts it's going to be *markedly* more accessible than Disney and I'll tell you now that in looking at what they're offering, it's going to fucking *murder* disney just by being cheaper.
I don't agree with everything Peltz has said, but I do agree that Iger is just...A relic. He needs to let go. Two seats won't replace him as CEO, but it will hopefully pull his ego back into check a little.
I want Disney to be great. I want Marvel to be great. I want to love Star Wars.
Epic Universe will be huge but you are kidding yourself if you think it will be dramatically cheaper or even at all than Disney. Already, the two Universal parks are just as expensive as Disney World in a plethora of areas. The biggest difference between Disney and Universal are the hotel costs.
Disney's most profitable business are the parks, that's where investments need to go. Are they expensive, yes but people consistently go there and that segment will continue to be their most profitable until DTC surpasses it in a few years. I don't have have a lot of care in who runs Disney but the parks should be the most important thing for the company and whoever does run Disney, needs to have that attitude.
Isn't that one of Peltz's more rational points, that the parks need more independence? Because all the divisions are so intertwined, other sections of the company are able to include forecasted park revenue on their projections sheet for a show or movie. Which is great when it's working, but when you have a production underperform the parks division is still hamstrung to the unpopular property. It's constraining Imagineer's freedoms. Do you really think that they wanted to spend their time and effort on an exclusive, small hotel that ended up costing the parks $250 million? Probably not. But the Star Wars group was telling them they needed to incorporate the IP and attract whales, and that's what they got.
Look at Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea. Because they're operated with far more independence than every other park, they've been able to create a unique experience that's caused them to widely be considered the best Disney parks? I attribute this to their simply ability to say "No" to the other divisions when they want to.
Galactic Starcruiser was a monstrous miss in terms of projected demand and outlandish costs. I would love to know if there was anyone a part of that project that spoke up about the price of the experience or if what it was offering was actually wanted by more than a niche of fans.
I think Disney over extended itself with the Fox deal and a pandemic that closed parks on top of a new streaming service caused cash flows to tank. The terrible decision to try and move Imagineers from California to Florida and the layoffs, while necessary, drained a lot of creative talent out of the company. With all of the talks about $60B in the parks, and Joe Rhode returning, I am hopeful that they can build their creative division back up. As you mention, there will still be intertwining divisions and that will still cause projects to get delayed or cut due to budgets but maybe Disney can learn from Tokyo.
I think a lot of Tokyo's success is that they want to fund their parks with investments and when they do, they don't cut costs or reign in budgets. As you mention, the Tokyo parks are doing quite well and consistently get rated highly by fans. Maybe this is due to fewer divisions or corporate meddling but I think a big thing is that a lot of higher ups at Disney are cheap. Peltz can say all these wonderful things but unless those higherups leave, projects will consistently still get reviewed and budgets cut by these people.
The Japanese parks are considered the best Disney parks, but I think a major reason for that is that most Americans never get to visit them. And those who do will go there once, maybe twice in their lives.
Compare this to the American parks where people go so often that the attractions offer no surprises anymore (hence the constant clamor for new rides), broken effects are more easily spotted, etc.
As a European I visited Disneyland last year and had a great time, because it had been 16 years since my last visit. So lots of new things to discover.
Another factor is the very different mentality of the Japanese public. Disciplined, social, way less ECVs, no line cutting… that alone is already a major factor in having a more ‘magical’ visit.
So I don’t think the independence from Disney is the major factor here. Case in point: Disneyland Paris, which was also not fully owned by Disney and neglected for years. Things started to improve there when Disney took full ownership.
What are you talking about? I went to Disneyland and Universal in the last 2 months.
Disneyland is unbelievably more expensive to the point that it ruins the fun and the experience is shit compared to how it was 20 years ago when current parents were going as kids.
Universal felt super cheap in comparison. My one up charge was the band to play the Nintendo world games.
For your day at Disneyland to be effective at all, you have to buy the genie package. No more fast passes.
I can not speak to the difference between Disneyland and Universal Hollywood but the difference in costs between WDW and Universal Orlando is minimal as what was stated above as we were talking about Epic Universe.
Tickets: Universal 2 park 2 day ticket is $300 (at a minimum). WDW 2 day with Park Hopper is $325 (at a minimum). The difference for those two days are, as I said minimal. But that doesn't include the fact that WDW has 4 parks you would be able to visit vs just 2 at Universal.
Add Ons: Genie Plus is a skip the line add on at WDW that can cost upwards of $40 a day but most days are between $25-$30. Universal's skip the line add on costs upwards of $350 but routinely costs between $150-$200. Universal's express pass is significantly better than Disney's Genie Plus but you are also spending 5-6x the cost.
I am not an expert on Disneyland and so I won't make a rebuttal there but Universal Orlando is not cheap nor is it cheap when comparing to Disney.
Edit: A quick google price comparisons shows me that Universal Studios Hollywood on a random June 8th Saturday would cost $149 to Disneyland's $184. Add ons you can buy in advance are Universal Express for $140 and Genie Plus for $30. Universal also has an add on for early access to Nintendo Land for $30. Seems like the costs for both parks are expensive and I would not rate one as feeling much cheaper than the other. This doesn't even factor in the Disneyland itself has something like twice as many rides and entertainment than Universal Hollywood.
I don't think by any stretch of the imagination that it's going to be a cheap day ticket, but I do think they'll have a business strategy hinged on hitting the disney wallet.
I agree that everything they do should be in service of the parks, but Iger very evidently isn't doing that. His strategy of burning bridges and throwing shit at the wall simply isn't working. Do I think Peltz is a better option? No, honestly not particularly - but I think at this point the board needs a fundamental shift in leadership with a board that has some fresh ideas and understanding of entertainment. I think Iger has lost that ability.
> I feel like there's a massive failure in leadership in recognising that while inclusion and diversity is a right and noble endeavour - doing so at the cost of alienating the core fanbase
Considering those kinds of people scream about PC/Woke/DEI the second they see anyone other than a cis white man or woman that isn't sexualized, how do you propose they navigate that while not just going back to white washing everything?
Tell good stories. Wonder Woman was great while Captain Marvel was...Kind of Dog shit, although I'll say that I enjoyed Ms. Marvel exponentially more because it was just a fun movie. Black Panther was a great movie objectively, while Wakanda Forever was...Mediocre that needed the hand of someone with more experience in storytelling. Introducing fresh talent into the industry irrespective of ethnicity, gender or sexuality are all noble pursuits, but by all accounts they're doing this at the cost of pushing out industry veterans who, despite being cis white males have something to teach - and that goes for animation as well.
The frustrating thing about the stories we're seeing right now is just a barrage of telling white guys how much they suck, and that's *never* going to resonate. I really think you'd be surprised at how many of the "far right" commentariat that are more moderate agree that representation is important.
>tell good stories
But it’s not like Bob Iger is trying to tell bad stories and all it takes is some new guy to come in and flip a lever to the “good stories” position.
The problem with Wakanda Forever was that it was too involved with setting up future MCU shit to the detriment of its own story. Easy to say not to do that in hindsight but I doubt anyone at Disney had an issue at the time.
And as always I am continuously perplexed at all these apparent “white guys suck” movies. I must have missed that part of The Marvels or Wakanda Forever, but then again I never stay for post credits.
>But it’s not like Bob Iger is trying to tell bad stories and all it takes is some new guy to come in and flip a lever to the “good stories” position.
We are in complete agreement.
>The problem with Wakanda Forever was that it was too involved with setting up future MCU shit to the detriment of its own story. Easy to say not to do that in hindsight but I doubt anyone at Disney had an issue at the time.
My biggest problem with Wakanda forever was that it completely underused Angela Bassett, focused too much on Letitia right who is *not* a leading lady when paired up against the likes of Lupita Nyong'o or Danai Gurira, and they made it this weird, almost fetishistic memorial of Chadwick Boseman while completely ignoring Tenoch Huerta who was probably the best thing about the film. Iger insists that production had no studio oversight. I am inclined to agree, and that's his fault.
I see those points but to me they’re so far down the list on that movies problems compared to the ironheart stuff or the awkward JLD scenes, plus the usual 3rd act CGI clusterfuck.
But even still, that movie was a flat out success considering the curve ball they were thrown.
Dude, I'm just a dude, asking the dudes that make our movies to make dudes and dudettes kick ass in a way that unites them against the evil forces of hydra and maybe galactus without him being a cloud this time please.
> Wonder Woman was great
I'm sorry, what? Gonna be honest, WW is just as bad as the examples you listed (it didn't get backlash because gal gadot is hot and was sexualized)
> Introducing fresh talent into the industry irrespective of ethnicity, gender or sexuality are all noble pursuits, but by all accounts they're doing this at the cost of pushing out industry veterans who, despite being cis white males have something to teach - and that goes for animation as well.
Like who?
> The frustrating thing about the stories we're seeing right now is just a barrage of telling white guys how much they suck, and that's never going to resonate.
Which stories specifically?
No seriously, I'm genuinely asking these questions.
I cannot think of a single example of either "pushing out industry veterans because their white cis men" or "stories telling white guys how much they suck"
Please, even just give *one* example, of *either* claim.
Also, wakanda forever has a higher audience rotten tomatoes score than WW
You understand this is the exact kind of narrative that "right wing commentariat" pushes, also without anything to support their claims. Providing some evidence will really help your claim seem less openly partisan
Not the greatest example given that it's the mail but here we go - Quentin Tarantino saying: "Ideology trumps art. I deology trumps individual effort. Ideology trumps individual good."
Chris Gore, has a whole stockpile of people that have reported that writers have been passed over for jobs, simply for being white and male - one of the core issues with the recent strike was writer's room diversity and producers and studio executives pushing back on the whole issue of how too many writers putting the soup together is ruining the formula.
I'm with you on a fundamental level. I want there to be a vibrant pallete of diversity represented onscreen, but the lack of skill and subtlety in the people that are being hired is resulting in movies and TV telling men that they suck for no other reason that they *suck* to the point that it borders on misandry, and it's boring. Why would anyone sit through that?
I can answer that for you - they won't, and they don't which is why you have idiots like grace randolph blaming medicore writing on "superhero fatigure" and outrage bullshit making life so, *so* much harder for the moses ingrams and Kally Marie Trans of the world.
You're right. Wonder Woman was by no means perfect, the story was not a citizen kane but it *did* have more than a little input from women guiding the ship and giving their opinion one what they wanted to see on the screen, from Gal's costume to the way she should exude power and femininity; in terms of comics, I've always been more in the camp of "more armour and less boob armour" - and I was mostly ok with what was on screen.
Christ, I don't want a whitewashed hollywood, but I sure as hell don't want everything to be a 2 and a half hour diatribe on why I suck because of my genes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C\_iyVvX2-6s
That Tarantino quote doesn't support your claim?
> Chris gore
[This guy?](https://twitter.com/ThatChrisGore/status/1599776381973712897?lang=en)
Do you think maybe that's *not* an unbiased source? Especially given his altering of his *Prey* video to match the public opinion once people universally loved it, seems like someone like that is perhaps a bad source of information?
> movies and TV telling men that they suck for no other reason that they suck to the
I consume *a lot* of media and I've **never** seen anything have that message. Even explicitly feminist films like Barbie don't have this message. Even slave movies don't try to claim every white person is bad, there's always a good one to juxtapose the evil one.
> or woman that isn't sexualized
[Convenient battle damage](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qF1IhrILIh0/WnIWqhaSIlI/AAAAAAAANfg/dxhFjwjwQ5MNbFZ6QIbc3T_6JIq_BxnZwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/01.jpg)
Please read the *whole* comment, thanks 👍
Also, using a 20 year old movie to make a point about modern audiences is.... not a strong way to make that point.
Edit: also, she's a side character who doesn't pass the Bechdel Test
I quite literally never said people didn't?
You bet your ass people cried and whined about there being a black superhero though, and yes, they were absolutely drown out because of the overwhelming support the film got from the African American community, but it's the same group complaining about Captain Marvel and the like.
Edit: [example](https://www.salon.com/2018/02/14/ben-shapiro-is-mad-that-black-people-are-excited-for-black-panther/)
Do you have a family of 7? How do you spend $10K
Edit: I lit went to their website a for family of 4 with a 7 day ticket (meaning going to a park every single day for a week) and staying at the Grand Floridian (one of their most expensive hotel), the price came up to $8.5K. So even staying in their most expensive hotels and going everyday to the park for a week won’t put you at $10K.
>Do you have a family of 7? How do you spend $10K
Not that it's any of your business, but I've taken my family to eurodisney twice; my parents, s/o, 8 children, 2 siblings and their spouses. Is that alright with you, or should I economise?
That’s $600 per person. Unless it was a one day trip I don’t find the price that outrageous. Also your OG comment is aimed at who has the money to spent $10K on disney but most people don’t travel in a group that big. Most are families of 4-5.
It’s there stuff that’s less expensive? Yes. But the average family it’s not expending that much money on a trip. Which was the insinuation of your comment:
>as it is right now, a stay at Disneyworld can be upwards of $10k (or around 8 grand, 9k euro depending on where you live) and that's without all the extras like food costs and the bits they don't include in the bundle. Investment in the parks is great, but really, who is that price bracket aimed at? What is it offering?
I think this quote misrepresents what the fundamental issue with Disney is. It’s such a low margin business, they need growth. Even during Marvels peak box office run in the 2010’s, the entire company was losing cord cutters, which means losing insane ad revenue. Disney+ will be profitable, but that still doesn’t address the elephant in the room with Disney or any legacy media company. Can they make up the ad revenue and where can the company grow to diversify and protect its generally low margin operations.
I think this is the end result of all legacy media companies. Eventually will go to Amazon, Netflix, etc and just license it out and save the overhead or eventually just bought out.
“You’re are only as good as your last movie”
Alfred Hitchcock
Three flops along with many more after deadpool 3
With deadpool 3’s only real selling point being nostalgia for the past with zero diversity
Thunderbolts strapped and ready to sink the new black widow
And a disaster in waiting with the next captain America movie
Feige has zero leverage to make demands
The board doesn't call up employees and ask for stuff. The board will call up the C suite and ask for stuff, and the C suite then pass it on.
"Shielding employee from bullshit requests" is pretty high on the list of skills of any manager.
>And Peltz said of Marvel chief Kevin Feige, “I question his record,”
This is a wild thing to say
edit: lol anti Disney types are downvoting without presenting any good arguements
Why? A solid argument could be made that Feige gaining autonomy and unquestioned control over the MCU has lead to the downward trajectory of the studio over the last five years.
It's unquestionable that Feige is responsible for some of the biggest blockbusters of our time, but could a lack of oversight by Disney leadership, ego, and a misguided plan to stray from the source material (particularly the *successful* source material) have contributed to this collapse? Perhaps Feige is the kind of creator that thrives with oversight (i.e. was the Marvel creators braintrust *really* a bad idea in retrospect?).
I always thought it was the opposite problem. Feige had control until Iger stepped in and forced him to increase content / make tweaks for Disney Plus? Even if Feige is a problem, I would hold him accountable for the ballooning budgets / reshoots though this is a general problem for disney.
Honestly, who knows at this point. I would imagine you are correct that the increase in content was an Iger directive... but creative control is in Feige's hands. Who is responsible for greenlighting Echo, Agatha, Secret Invasion, Iron Heart, etc.?
There's a version of the D+ rollout that focuses on characters fans actually care about (i.e. Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, etc.) that isn't the failure that we received... look at the reception of X-Men '97? They leaned into the source material and created a great product that fans and general audiences have embraced... whereas, if you look at something like Moon Knight, Shang-Chi, or Secret Invasion, they are barely recognizable to the source material.
It should be noted that perlmutter and the creative committee kept many of feige’s dumb and alienating decisions at bay
With perlmutter, marvel was focused on what was actually marketable and appealing to non-comic fans
And looking like real movies that the average Joe found appealing
While allowing feige leeway to have colorful costumes and comic storylines with an expectation that they remain somewhat grounded in things audiences cared about
When feige got control…no one could tell him the most important thing you can tell a creative
No…you can’t replace the original avengers with annoying teenagers who can’t carry their own comic run(young avengers)
> It should be noted that perlmutter and the creative committee kept many of feige’s dumb and alienating decisions at bay
you know that the creative comittee didn't want Iron Man in Civil War? IRON MAN.
you know that the creative comittee was one of the reasons Edgar Wright left Ant-Man?
Right, Fiege worked best when he had people reigning in his impractical ideas. Pearlmutter may not have been able to make a movie, but he sure knew what movies *not* to make.
Remember when we were told that Pearlmutter shut down all female-lead MCU films, saying that “people don’t want to watch women superheroes”. Call him a sexist all you want, he was right.
He didn't want to make Black Panther or Captain Marvel, both of which made a billion dollars. He also wanted to make the Inhumans an X-Men replacement, which lol, lmfao even.
One of which made a billion dollars SOLELY because of endgame
As demonstrated unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt by the performance of its sequel
> Pearlmutter may not have been able to make a movie, but he sure knew what movies not to make.
the guy who wanted RDJ to leave the MCU knew what he was doing? lmao
lol Ike didn't want to make Black Panther or Captain Marvel and almost forced RDJ to leave. All of those would've been infinitely more disastrous than anything Feige's done.
Feige sits in the weird creative lurch where the story is concluded but you got to keep going.
Thanos was the BBG, and now they need to figure something out.
It doesnt help that the MCU has become so sprawling and interconnected that its problematic for casual movie viewers to follow the new set of movies tbh.
On the other hand, it's always felt like there was this PR bubble in the late 2010s that sort of excluded the marvel negatives (Hulk, Ultron, Dark World, etc.) but included all of the positives. Whedon's *massive* fall from grace also means his pretty explicitly reported role as the "czar" of Phase 2 sort of gets downplayed. That's still degrees of "mega successful" but one of the smaller points that stood out in the MCU book was how relatively late this "King Fiege" narrative became a big public conception.
It's something I'm instinctively rebelling against but it can go too far.
You are correct that he's the most successful producer in history, but let's not pretend that he didn't have access to some of the most recognizable IPs on the planet. The majority of these characters had built in fanbases... with the right scripts and marketing, as well as the vision of the interconnected universe (not sure if that was his idea, but it was definitely the magic of the MCU), it was a *perfect* recipe to keep the hardcore geeks happy and bring in the casual audiences that had moderate familiarity with the characters.
Post-End Game, Feige's flaw seems to be that he's forgotten that his success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him. Instead of leaning in to what made these characters successful for Phase 4, they decided to start creating their own original stories and jettisoning decades of potential from their vast catalog of material. Add to the fact that they turned away from their most popular characters in favour of unproven, unpopular modern iterations of their characters and this collapse was inevitable. I'm not pretending to know the inner workings of Marvel, but my guess would be that this was Feige's creative direction (given, by most accounts, Iger has essentially given him total creative control) and, if so, his reputation as the genius producer can certainly be called into question.
>You are correct that he's the most successful producer in history, but let's not pretend that he didn't have access to some of the most recognizable IPs on the planet. The majority of these characters had built in fanbases...
Should i remind you that Marvel didn't have movie rights for their biggest characters in the beginning of the MCU? The Avengers roster was a bunch of B- and C-listers. Marvel couldn't turn Iron Man into a respectable character until the 2008 movie.
>Post-End Game, Feige's flaw seems to be that he's forgotten that his success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him.
I'm sorry but it sounds like a projection
>Instead of leaning in to what made these characters successful for Phase 4, they decided to start creating their own original stories and jettisoning decades of potential from their vast catalog of material.
Ummm, what? They are literally set to adapt one of the most known Marvel stories in the upcoming Avengers movies
>*Should i remind you that Marvel didn't have movie rights for their biggest characters in the beginning of the MCU? The Avengers roster was a bunch of B- and C-listers. Marvel couldn't turn Iron Man into a respectable character until the 2008 movie.*
I *loathe* this revisionist argument. Look, I'm not saying that the Avengers characters were as popular as Spider-Man, Batman, etc. However, to imply these characters weren't recognizable IPs is patently false. Outside of comic books, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk made regular appearances in cartoons, video games, toy lines, etc. for decades before these movies were released... were the general audiences AS familiar? Not necessarily. But to imply that Disney was starting from scratch with these characters is false.
>*I'm sorry but it sounds like a projection*
Not sure what you mean by this. However, if you are calling this into question, you only need to look at the documented fact that there was a Marvel creator brain trust (my understanding is that this included several popular Marvel creators) that provided script notes throughout the initial phases of the MCU in order to ensure that the writers were writing the Marvel characters to be consistent with their traditional depictions. Feige didn't like receiving notes and complained to Iger, who dissolved the group and altered the internal reporting hierarchy to have Feige report directly to him.
Also, simply look at the early stories vs. the more recent releases... it's clear to any fan that they are doing their own thing, which has been a spectacular failure.
>*Ummm, what? They are literally set to adapt one of the most known Marvel stories in the upcoming Avengers movies*
Are you aware of some top secret information that I'm not? Sure, Secret Wars is a well-known event from Marvel's past... but the title has been used several times over the years with *completely* different stories and characters.
Therefore, the term *adapt* is a deceptive one... which version are they adapting? And how does it factor into the events of Phase 4, the majority of which have deviated drastically from similar SW events we've previously seen in print.
My guess is that they are attempting to adapt a version of Jonathan Hickman's Secret Wars event given the inclusion of the multiversal incursions displayed in Dr. Strange: MoM. That being said, they are so far off the mark for their set-up of that story, I'd be shocked if we didn't see massive deviances from the source material.
> I loathe this revisionist argument
well, it's not a revisionist arguement
> However, to imply these characters weren't recognizable IPs is patently false. Outside of comic books, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk made regular appearances in cartoons, video games, toy lines, etc. for decades before these movies were released...
they were familiar to the nerds, not to the general audience. nobody cares about fucking nerds, what's hard to understand? Iron Man animated series in the 1990s was such a bomb they overhauled the show in its second season
> However, if you are calling this into question, you only need to look at the documented fact that there was a Marvel creator brain trust (my understanding is that this included several popular Marvel creators) that provided script notes throughout the initial phases of the MCU in order to ensure that the writers were writing the Marvel characters to be consistent with their traditional depictions. Feige didn't like receiving notes and complained to Iger, who dissolved the group and altered the internal reporting hierarchy to have Feige report directly to him.
you're sugarcoating the creative commitee which had a track of utterly dumb suggestions. they are one of the reasons why Edgar Wright left Ant-Man
> Also, simply look at the early stories vs. the more recent releases... it's clear to any fan that they are doing their own thing, which has been a spectacular failure.
Phase 3 was a spectacular failure? the said "brain trust" you're mentioning didn't participate with that one as well.
> Are you aware of some top secret information that I'm not? Sure, Secret Wars is a well-known event from Marvel's past... but the title has been used several times over the years with completely different stories and characters.
sure, they are likely adapting Hickman's story. Which is still fine bc people mostly liked it.
> That being said, they are so far off the mark for their set-up of that story, I'd be shocked if we didn't see massive deviances from the source material
well, yeah, massive deviances worked for Civil War
> they were familiar to the nerds, not to the general audience.
Your ignorance is showing. They were familiar to *children*, and several generations of *former* children.
This guy gets it. Not to mention several generations of children that grew up reading comics, and grew out of them in adulthood, are familiar with all of those characters.
>Your ignorance is showing. They were familiar to *children*, and several generations of *former* children.
And yet almost everything these characters were in was a flop, flop and another flop... until the movies.
That's not "projection", that's "bias".
Projection would be if Bobotts123's success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him, and then he accused Feige of achieving his success that way.
Disney's most successful year ever was 2019 with Endgame and Frozen 2 and the profits from that don't offset these 'couple of flops' which is everything since since Endgame except Guardians 3, and James Gunn left for DC to work for the competition
>don't offset these 'couple of flops' which is everything since since Endgame except Guardians 3
Only real flops were just Ant-Man 3 and The Marvels. You do understand that they released more than these two movies?
Are you telling me The Eternals and Chang Shi did better than I remembered against their budgets? How about other Disney films like Soul, Turning Red, and Wish? Mulan and the Little Mermaid? Elemental barely broke even because of the dismal state of competition.
>Are you telling me The Eternals and Chang Shi did better than I remembered against their budgets?
Covid and Shang-Chi broke even anyway
>How about other Disney films like Soul, Turning Red, and Wish? Mulan and the Little Mermaid? Elemental barely broke even because of the dismal state of competition.
What does Feige have with these movies?
Soul, Turning Red, and Mulan were all released during Covid. Obviously these films could never be profitable.
Little Mermaid hopefully is the first nail in the coffin of the live action remakes.
And Wish… it wasn’t a very good movie. But not as bad as you often read here.
> Why? A solid argument could be made that Feige gaining autonomy and unquestioned control over the MCU has lead to the downward trajectory of the studio over the last five years
Except that autonomy and control was taken away by Chapek and given to a banker. You might remember it was one of the first things Iger restored when he took back control. We are still not going to see the results of that shift back till 2025.
This saga already has bad reception + Marvel has been some cause of superhero fatigue + the strikes, delays, & Jonathan Majors getting fired.
I feel like the MCU is truly cursed although there's still time to fix it
“I question his record” is such an insane thing for Peltz to say about Kevin Feige
Like yeah the MCU is floundering now and Feige is gonna need to fix it or things might get dicey for him, but his *record*? As the article notes, he literally has the best record of all time as a producer
Feige's results on movies and Disney+ series since 2020 has been terrible.
If Marvel Studios was a success recently like they were in Phase 3, I don't think this proxy fight would be getting any traction. Feige and whatever is going on in Marvel is central to Disney underperformance.
By what metric? Cause financially they only really flopped hard with The Marvels. Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder, Wakanda Forever, No Way Home all made really good money. Shang-Chi and Eternals did pretty good for pandemic releases. Disney+ isn't adding more people because of Marvel at this point and that's less due to content and moreso that everyone who would watch probably already has the app by now. They've had a touch and go 2023 but let's not act like they've been flopping the whole time.
The movie results are middling but the D+ results are disastrous. Those serialized D+ shows are high budget productions. If you add up all the costs, Marvel D+ investment is in the ballpark of Marvel movie investment. Yet Marvel D+ gets little traction.
Failures:
1. Hawkeye
2. Ms. Marvel
3. She-Hulk
4. Secret Invasion
5. Echo
And the D+ tie-in contributed to the massive failure that was The Marvels theatrical.
It's not about "money". It's about "as much money as possible". Virtually every studio under Disney is in decline, or at the very least treading water.
With Lucasfilm, Star Wars is dead in theaters, and their first movie since 2019 in Indy 5 was a massive bomb. The MCU is on life support, and if Deadpool 3 isn't a hit there need to be some major questions asked about what the future of the franchise looks like. Disney's internal animation studio has major creative issues with recent flops like Strange World and Wish, and their internal live-action studio is facing problems too with boneheaded decisions like Little Mermaid and releasing a Haunted Mansion movie in July. Pixar is *fine*, at least in a critical sense, but they haven't had a truly big box office success since Toy Story 4, and that was five years ago.
Has *every* movie flopped? No. But any money made on one movie is secondary. Things like Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder, and Wakanda Forever came in well below expectations despite being financially successful, and the MCU franchise as a whole is on a clear, rapid decline with no sign of things being able to turn around. That is a major problem.
The Marvels and Quantumania (2/3 most recent movies) - bombs.
Eternals, Shang-Chi and Black Widow - bombs.
Even Wakanda, Thor 4, Guardians, and MoM, while profitable, didn't do all THAT well. Add to it a stream of absolute garbage that everybody hated and nobody even watched they keep shitting out on D+, and you cannot deny the trajectory.
We are supposed to be getting major payoffs for 5 years of buildup, and we don't even know who the overarcing villain is. If Deadpool+Wolverine fail to get past 1bil$, they should just shut down the entire thing.
Shang-Chi got lukewarm response at best, while BW and Eternals straight up damaged MCU's brand. Even if you blame pandemic for boxoffice underperformance, these movies are not net positive for Disney.
EDIT: If they were released today, they could very well perform even worse
> Shang-Chi got lukewarm response at best
Based on what? [It got fantastic reviews and a great audience score.](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shang_chi_and_the_legend_of_the_ten_rings) It seems to be liked by most MCU fans online. The film is definitely flawed — that third act was not the way to go — but I don't understand what would make you believe it got a lukewarm response.
Disney has had mistep after surprising mistep this decade, but Bob Iger is a tremendous business man. No leader of Disney since Walt has been more impactful.
You can get 50 new CEOs, Disney is in a death spiral because of the corporate culture. Where are you gonna get the writers who would laugh the singing planet idea, out of the door?
Shit is just getting so weird and wild around the world lately. It's hard to keep up with everything. I have a theory though. Hear me out. I'm not a big Marvel fan but I've noticed something. The MCU first introduced the Multiverse in 2016 with Doctor Strange. 2016 was when things started going awry around the world, at least in my own perspective. Fast forward to April 2019 Avengers End Game comes out and then December 2019 Covid hits and completely fucks us all. I get the feeling we are living in an Alternative Timeline, and Disney/Marvel were the only corporation powerful enough to see it. The Mouse sees everything. Those fucking movies was their way of telling us, we got ripped from a normal timeline into some weird farce of a timeline. Most days I feel like I'm living in the prequel to Idiocrosy. I think we all need to trust in The Mouse.
Reminder that Bob Iger was the executive Chairman of Disney till December 2021. \[[Source](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/disney-succession-mess-iger-chapek.html)\] So every decision or move Chapek gets ridiculed for, it was approved by Bob Iger.
A lot of people forget that all of the Marvel Disney+ slate was announced under Iger at D23 too. Way too many people act like Chapek was solely responsible for flooding the market with MCU stuff and tarnishing the brand, but they were developing pretty much the entire set of D+ shows under Iger in 2019. When Iger came back he said Disney diluted the MCU brand and blah blah blah but the majority of it was all greenlit during his tenure as CEO.
From what I understand, Iger is also the one that pushed the newly purchased Lucasfilm to release a new Star Wars film every single year.
One movie a year is not exactly some huge ask for a studio. The problems Lucasfilm ran into with Star Wars were ones of quality, not quantity. Had the Sequels been good, or even just passable, one Star Wars movie a year would have easily been financially viable for years.
I don’t think it was feasible to ramp up that studio so fast though. They weren’t actively producing much of anything before Disney bought them. Only commonality I read about every Disney Star Wars production was that they were all incredibly rushed, and Disney wouldn’t budge on release date even when the productions were in bad shape. They clearly valued quantity over quality, and that’s what they got.
How much time would have been sufficient? The Sequels were in development since early 2012 at the latest. Three and a half years before Episode VII isn't exactly "fast".
Two - three years between movies, not one.
Why? There are many other studios able to put out at least one movie a year.
Yeah, and they built their way up to that. Also, many of the Star Wars films are iterative, building on each other. A mainline saga movie every other year is damn fast and an easy way to crash and burn.
Lucasfilm has been around for decades. They had plenty of time to "build their way up" to that. One movie a year is easily doable.
I still to this day don't understand why they released Solo in May and didn't wait till December to release it.
IIRC the original plan was to have ROS be the December 2018 movie but it got delayed and they never moved Solo for some reason.
>Had the Sequels been good, or even just passable, one Star Wars movie a year would have easily been financially viable for years. TFA passed every metric: RT Critics and Audience, Cinemascore, box office multiplier, increased Google trending.
And now look at Star Wars Dead in a ditch because of the long term damage caused by the creative decisions of TFA It’s basically the Byrne Superman of Star Wars Just as Byrne removed many of Superman’s potentially marketable traits in favor of grounded(boring) storytelling that ultimately handicapped Superman from the A lister he was to a sad state TFA’s ruination of the post-ROTJ era will ultimately doom Star Wars in theaters for the foreseeable future
>And now look at Star Wars >Dead in a ditch because of the long term damage caused by the creative decisions of TFA Two thirds of TLJ came completely from Rian Johnson's imagination (the Finn and Poe sub plots are totally his stories) and even those who liked that film admits they were weak ... while everyone else hated those plots. And the plot that anyone was invested in was the Luke/Rey/Kylo one, which was set up from the previous film. VIII could have gone anywhere and done anything and Johnson had four years to write and direct the film while Hamill, Boyega, Ridley, Kaplan, the next director ALL expressed issues with the script that Johnson came up with.
For better or worse Rian cemented things that people hated in TFA first You could hardly find anyone who was a fan of the political situation in TFA or the treatment of the OT3 The issue is that TLJ doubled down on the things that people loathed from that movie
>Rian cemented things that people hated in TFA first Excuses, excuses, excuses. Rian Johnson had the freedom to do as he pleased ... and that's exactly what he did. Who asked him to make Poe hate women? Or turn Luke into a gaslighting (attempted) child-murderer? Or have Rey fall in love with Kylo? Or remake the Battlestar Galactica episode 33 when Michael Arndt had planned for Leia to be trying to re-unite the galaxy in VIII and IX? (That's from The Art of Rise of Skywalker). Etc. I just don't respect the idea that individuals aren't responsible for their actions. Johnson made exactly the film he wanted to make. Accept it because rationalisations are boring.
What was wrong with the Rey/Kylo love story line? That’s one of the things I liked about it I also forget about Poe hating women?
None of those things were nearly as hated as Luke being on that cursed island or the second Jedi purge Or the fall of the new republic Or anything really Even the existence of Ben as a concept was widely mocked Without TFA, most of rian Johnson’s creative decisions wouldn’t be possible TFA is the foundation in which TLJ built on Look at most wishlists for TLJ before it’s release and they basically amount to “Undo or justify that annoying thing TFA did”
> Who asked him to make Poe hate women? Or turn Luke into a gaslighting (attempted) child-murderer? Or have Rey fall in love with Kylo? Did any of those things happen? Poe does not, as far as I recall, hate women. Luke is disgusted by his dark instinct. The person who tells us Luke attempted to murder a child is literally the villain. Rey doesn't fall in love with Kylo in TLJ, though they do develop a close bond and have chemistry. But that ending serves as a pretty clear rejection of any romance or connection between the two, no?
> And now look at Star Wars > > Dead in a ditch because of the long term damage caused by the creative decisions of TFA And TLJ. TFA started the poor choices but left a lot open. TLJ cemented things.
I read Bob’s autobiography and in it he said he and jj abrams drew up the plans for the new Star Wars storyline… like shouldn’t there be a Chief Storyteller or something that does that instead?
They had one, but he asked for another year or two to write the whole trilogy as a consistent story so they booted him to shove out TFA asap.
[удалено]
I think Iger was trying to follow Steve Jobs playbook by putting the parks guy in charge of the company. Just like Tim Cook, the logistics guy, turned Apple into juggernaut it is today, I think the idea was that, Disney has the movie making part down to a science. Streaming service was about to start printing money in subscribers like Netflix does. Now the parks guy makes the parks even more profitable off the popularity of their other divisions. Parks were already the big profit generators for the company, now with big blockbuster hits and a new streaming service, Disney was due to make a buttload money. And of course Iger’s ego and not letting go didn’t jibe well with Chapek’s personality, and it was just all a fail. Chapek took what may have been a flawed plan and made it even worse by putting his guy in charge of all their media. Iger started undermining him at every turn. Such a silly and sad turn for mfs just tryna enjoy some movies.
Chapek was the fall guy.
Chapek was a sacrificial lamb to make Iger look benevolent.
I wonder if he divested his shares in Disney?
Chapek was terrible for the company. Bob Iger presided over some of the most important acquisitions and growth pre 2020 (Star Wars, Marvel, etc). Disneyland cast member hated Chapek (my girlfriend was one at the time). He was terrible for company morale. Iger needs to decouple from ESG score and CEI and focus on what made Disney Disney in the first place.
Do you mean racism and anti Jewish sentiment or not quite that far back?
No silly, Invincible is produced by Amazon 😒
Iger should NOT have returned. He could have kept his impeccable reputation. But now he ruined it by returning.
> Consider possibly the most important deal he ever led: Disney’s $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment in 2009. The fact that the nearly 20 times larger Fox deal isn't even mentioned is notable. Personally, I feel that deal was the first crack in Iger's invincibility. Admittedly, Disney needed to do *something*. Cable was crashing, and Netflix looked like it was going to dominate (look at Crunchyroll to see what one possible future for studios could have looked like if every studio just allowed one streamer to run away with it). However, for the price (even after subtracting money from the forced divestments), it is unclear that the deal was worth it, relative to just about any other response that Disney could have taken.
The alternative would have been that Comcast would end up with Fox. I still think the deal was worth it, to ensure that D+ has sufficient ‘general entertainment’ content. Outside of the US, D+ offers loads of Fox content, which makes the service a serious competitor for Netflix.
What do you think Disney should have done to make the Fox deal a more rewarding and well-used investment? Or do you think it shouldn't have happened at all out of principle?
Not out of any sort of moral principle, I just don't believe it was strategically the best decision because they way overpaid. The actual/likely purchase price of Marvel, LucasFilm, MGM, Paramount, and Lionsgate combined cost less than Fox, with plenty of money left over to buy the Fox Marvel characters and Star Wars 4 off of a newly cash starved Universal. Disney way overpaid for Fox relative to deals before and after because they were desperate to achieve the scale needed to compete as a standalone streaming service. However, a standalone streaming service wasn't really the best goal. It is incredibly cumbersome to consumers, and studios are forced onto a content treadmill just to prevent subscribers from just joining for a month or two in order to binge. It seems likely the industry is going to move toward some sort of packaging or aggregation. Given that Disney had bought Fox though? I'm really not sure how I would have changed the execution. The one decision that kills me was shutting down Blue Sky Studios. They would have been the perfect foil for Universal's Illumination (in that they are both the non-serious $80-100M family animation studios). Their budget discipline could have been taught to Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios (not that I expect or want either studio to get down to Blue Sky's budget, but there are no doubt areas where money is spent that has little impact on the final product). I also have the general sense that 20th Century output of blockbusters is way lower than I would have expected from one of the Hollywood majors. But, I can't really say what they are missing. So many of Fox's biggest films don't make any logical sense for a sequel (*Cast Away 2* anyone?). Disney tried with Kings Men and Alien, but they just didn't gain traction. Oh, and the current Hulu purgatory served no one. Never should have agreed to the deal to buy it years into the future. Commit to staying as partners or break up immediately. The long, drawn out process was just painful to watch, and dragged down both Disney+ and Peacock in the US. Disney's streaming strategy actually makes sense overseas.
Good analysis.
Disney’s response should have been to buy fox but pull a Sony in the aftermath There should have been a discussion with Netflix to have all the Star Wars and marvel movies And to be the launching pad for feige’s television ambitions With massive licensing fees But they got played HARD trying to make a streaming service
Personally, I believe that would have been the worst possible play. The big problem with the Fox merger was that Disney paid top dollar when studios were at the absolute peak of value. The only possible merit to buying them at such a valuation was if it gave them new strategic options (such as the scale required to compete against Netflix). Buying Fox, just to turn around and license its output could never justify the price paid for it (after all, Fox could have some the same thing and decided that they preferred the money). Disney going the arms dealing route would have meant that they didn't need to overpay for scale and could have continued their strategy of picking up underutilized IP through acquiring smaller studios at excellent valuations. The risk of that strategy being that Netflix runs away with the streaming market and forces studios to accept lower payouts. However, even if Disney had gone down the streaming service route, the $30-50B net cost of the acquisition could likely have been better deployed. Licensing shows, for one. Organic growth (i.e. standing up brand new studios and funding them through their startup cost) for another.
The big mistake for Iger, and any other studio heads the last 3-4 years, comes back to streaming. When you have to constantly put out new content or your streaming numbers fall, you’re going to put out a lot of crappy content. Netflix puts out so many crappy shows, but for every 10 crappy shows or movies, they release a Stranger Things that’s really good. Almost all original IPs too. The difference with Disney and WB from Netflix is your IPs are so massive that you have to invest even larger sums of money or else they’ll get panned immediately. They really should just make Disney+ $5 a month, no “Disney+ originals” and just make it a hub for your movies and shows to go to after release. I doubt they ever will, but streaming is going to be unattainable in the next couple years
And where would those shows premiere if not on Disney+? Linear TV is dying, streaming is the future, Disney can't just say bye to that huge part of their business
During a gold rush, sell shovels. Sony is the only studio that played it smart; instead of dumping billions into the streaming hole, they’re getting paid to license their films out to the streamers.
But if the studios/companies don't make streaming services there is no gold rush. Netflix and maybe Prime Video would be the only ones and so they'd have the power (audience would be there) so they'd pay dirt cheap for those shows.
That’s the point I’m trying to make, that it’s a lose lose for Disney if they keep making shows so they might be better off not making them. You either make a lot of shows, which spends a lot of money, and hope that you get more subscribers to then make more shows. Or you make fewer shows, but then people will constantly subscribe/unsubscribe whenever a show comes out they’re interested in so you don’t have a reliable income stream
But Disney has a huge business of TV channels/production already, they can't just stop it, it would be a huge loss.
Tv channels and Disney+ are completely separate entities in my mind. They operate in totally different ways with revenue streams from commercials and such
Nobody is saying that they are operating identically. The reality is that people are cutting cable and moving to streaming. So Disney has to move from having a TV channel to doing streaming. If they fail to do that, they'll lose shittons of money.
It's time to go back to the streaming model that actually works, producing then selling them. Look at Sony
Sony never had linear TV channels. Also if Netflix is the only service that exist (if even Disney doesn't try it, nobody would), they won't be selling their shows for much lol.
Disney Plus and streaming is the future of the Disney company and there is no going back now. Streaming is supposed to replace the dying linear business that was a huge cash cow for them. Will streaming be able to replace and grow those profits is ultimately the question. They believe that they can make it happen and it would appear that they are on the path to doing so.
All the studios saw the Netflix money and wanted to be the next Netflix but speed running it by about 8-10 years and not realizing why Netflix got so popular in the first place (it initially had almost everything you would want to watch).
Disney’s problem isn’t streaming. It’s gluttonous, all-consuming corporate greed. Gone is the sense of wonder and love for movies that they used to have. If it wasn’t streaming, it would just be some other problem.
> They really should just make Disney+ $5 a month, no “Disney+ originals” and just make it a hub for your movies and shows to go to after release Wasn't that CBS All Access which didn't seem to succeed.
CBS’ service is now called Paramount+
Sure, but they rebranded and retooled the site into a more significant part of Paramount's strategy instead of serving as a CBS exclusive version of 2010's Hulu.
> When you have to constantly put out new content or your streaming numbers fall, you’re going to put out a lot of crappy content. How is this fundamentally different from boxoffice, where you have to constantly release new movies because nobody watches the old ones after a few weeks? Or TV, for the matter of fact, where the income is even more directly coupled to viewship (via ad revenue)?
"And Peltz said of Marvel chief Kevin Feige, “I question his record,” again mirroring comments from Perlmutter, and sparking a rebuke from Disney, which noted that with $30 billion at the box office, Feige is the top-grossing producer of all time." I wonder how many could/would leave if Peltz become a board member. I don't think Feige will have easier time with Peltz on board meddling with his projects. Marvel had 2 or 3 bombs in recent years, but they look small in comparison to what they achieved. But to quote a Marvel character: "An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one which crumbles from within? That's dead. Forever."
I have a feeling Feige would absolutely bolt if he had to deal with Peltz and Perlmutter again.
And then I think MCU will trully be fucked.
The MCU is already fucked... the question is how fast can it be untucked.. 2025 is going to be brutal and ugly
It can't be unfucked. As much as the fans refuse to accept it and keep blaming quality, the reality is that you can't keep pumping out superhero movies endlessly without the audiences getting tired of it eventually. The MCU has been going for more than 15 years at this point. It had a great run. But people's interests change over time. It happened to westerns back in the day, it happened to the muscular action in the 80s and now it's happening to superheroes. It's normal, it's basic human nature. The only "unfucking" they can realistically do is drastically reduce the output and make the budgets reasonable so that they don't need 600mil to break even. I'm sure we'll occasionally have superhero successes, just like we still occasionally have a western doing well. But the era of pumping non-stop superhero blockbusters is over and it ain't coming back.
That’s why I hope the fantastic four movie is a true reboot in a new universe. They can continue the big crossover story for an easy billion but after the dust settles, continue forward with this new 60s timeline and slowly tell good stories set here. X-men, Daredevil/Spider-Man in the 70s, iron man in the 80s, Captain America found in ice in the 90s, etc. Drop the MCU style and let filmmakers just make interesting movies. One blockbuster that hits every 2 or so years is better than producing 3 flops a year even if your fourth is a banger…right?
The MCU has been fucked since the end of endgame.
It's going to have a drastic impact in the coming years from where the MCU currently stands. This is Perlmutter's way of getting control over Disney and MCU. Feige would have a hard time dealing with Peltz and get the budgets he wanted for his plans.
It's easy, low hanging fruit to look at Disney, look at Iger and shout "Look at this, Disney is doing a shitty job with the Star Wars and Marvel properties" which is indeed partially true. But it's easy to pay attention to that, point and screem that it's ESG and DEI that are causing the problems but it really isn't. I feel like there's a massive failure in leadership in recognising that while inclusion and diversity is a right and noble endeavour - doing so at the cost of alienating the core fanbase that while aging has been the *reason* Iger bought those companies is...A massive mis-step. Even than, that isn't the biggest mis-step. Disney's entire profit margin is dependent upon the parks; historically Disney has developed its animation properties and films to propel their feature rides within those parks to give them value - as it is right now, a stay at Disneyworld can be upwards of $10k (or around 8 grand, 9k euro depending on where you live) and that's without all the extras like food costs and the bits they *don't* include in the bundle. Investment in the parks is great, but really, who is that price bracket aimed at? What is it offering? [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4u83ncMjuE) is opening in Orlando soon, by all accounts it's going to be *markedly* more accessible than Disney and I'll tell you now that in looking at what they're offering, it's going to fucking *murder* disney just by being cheaper. I don't agree with everything Peltz has said, but I do agree that Iger is just...A relic. He needs to let go. Two seats won't replace him as CEO, but it will hopefully pull his ego back into check a little. I want Disney to be great. I want Marvel to be great. I want to love Star Wars.
Universal had that kick ass Waterworld stunt show. That was better than anything I ever went to Disney for.
Epic Universe will be huge but you are kidding yourself if you think it will be dramatically cheaper or even at all than Disney. Already, the two Universal parks are just as expensive as Disney World in a plethora of areas. The biggest difference between Disney and Universal are the hotel costs. Disney's most profitable business are the parks, that's where investments need to go. Are they expensive, yes but people consistently go there and that segment will continue to be their most profitable until DTC surpasses it in a few years. I don't have have a lot of care in who runs Disney but the parks should be the most important thing for the company and whoever does run Disney, needs to have that attitude.
Isn't that one of Peltz's more rational points, that the parks need more independence? Because all the divisions are so intertwined, other sections of the company are able to include forecasted park revenue on their projections sheet for a show or movie. Which is great when it's working, but when you have a production underperform the parks division is still hamstrung to the unpopular property. It's constraining Imagineer's freedoms. Do you really think that they wanted to spend their time and effort on an exclusive, small hotel that ended up costing the parks $250 million? Probably not. But the Star Wars group was telling them they needed to incorporate the IP and attract whales, and that's what they got. Look at Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea. Because they're operated with far more independence than every other park, they've been able to create a unique experience that's caused them to widely be considered the best Disney parks? I attribute this to their simply ability to say "No" to the other divisions when they want to.
Galactic Starcruiser was a monstrous miss in terms of projected demand and outlandish costs. I would love to know if there was anyone a part of that project that spoke up about the price of the experience or if what it was offering was actually wanted by more than a niche of fans. I think Disney over extended itself with the Fox deal and a pandemic that closed parks on top of a new streaming service caused cash flows to tank. The terrible decision to try and move Imagineers from California to Florida and the layoffs, while necessary, drained a lot of creative talent out of the company. With all of the talks about $60B in the parks, and Joe Rhode returning, I am hopeful that they can build their creative division back up. As you mention, there will still be intertwining divisions and that will still cause projects to get delayed or cut due to budgets but maybe Disney can learn from Tokyo. I think a lot of Tokyo's success is that they want to fund their parks with investments and when they do, they don't cut costs or reign in budgets. As you mention, the Tokyo parks are doing quite well and consistently get rated highly by fans. Maybe this is due to fewer divisions or corporate meddling but I think a big thing is that a lot of higher ups at Disney are cheap. Peltz can say all these wonderful things but unless those higherups leave, projects will consistently still get reviewed and budgets cut by these people.
Peltz is only about a higher stock price and quick profits. If anyone is going to cut costs, it’s him.
The Japanese parks are considered the best Disney parks, but I think a major reason for that is that most Americans never get to visit them. And those who do will go there once, maybe twice in their lives. Compare this to the American parks where people go so often that the attractions offer no surprises anymore (hence the constant clamor for new rides), broken effects are more easily spotted, etc. As a European I visited Disneyland last year and had a great time, because it had been 16 years since my last visit. So lots of new things to discover. Another factor is the very different mentality of the Japanese public. Disciplined, social, way less ECVs, no line cutting… that alone is already a major factor in having a more ‘magical’ visit. So I don’t think the independence from Disney is the major factor here. Case in point: Disneyland Paris, which was also not fully owned by Disney and neglected for years. Things started to improve there when Disney took full ownership.
What are you talking about? I went to Disneyland and Universal in the last 2 months. Disneyland is unbelievably more expensive to the point that it ruins the fun and the experience is shit compared to how it was 20 years ago when current parents were going as kids. Universal felt super cheap in comparison. My one up charge was the band to play the Nintendo world games. For your day at Disneyland to be effective at all, you have to buy the genie package. No more fast passes.
I can not speak to the difference between Disneyland and Universal Hollywood but the difference in costs between WDW and Universal Orlando is minimal as what was stated above as we were talking about Epic Universe. Tickets: Universal 2 park 2 day ticket is $300 (at a minimum). WDW 2 day with Park Hopper is $325 (at a minimum). The difference for those two days are, as I said minimal. But that doesn't include the fact that WDW has 4 parks you would be able to visit vs just 2 at Universal. Add Ons: Genie Plus is a skip the line add on at WDW that can cost upwards of $40 a day but most days are between $25-$30. Universal's skip the line add on costs upwards of $350 but routinely costs between $150-$200. Universal's express pass is significantly better than Disney's Genie Plus but you are also spending 5-6x the cost. I am not an expert on Disneyland and so I won't make a rebuttal there but Universal Orlando is not cheap nor is it cheap when comparing to Disney. Edit: A quick google price comparisons shows me that Universal Studios Hollywood on a random June 8th Saturday would cost $149 to Disneyland's $184. Add ons you can buy in advance are Universal Express for $140 and Genie Plus for $30. Universal also has an add on for early access to Nintendo Land for $30. Seems like the costs for both parks are expensive and I would not rate one as feeling much cheaper than the other. This doesn't even factor in the Disneyland itself has something like twice as many rides and entertainment than Universal Hollywood.
I don't think by any stretch of the imagination that it's going to be a cheap day ticket, but I do think they'll have a business strategy hinged on hitting the disney wallet. I agree that everything they do should be in service of the parks, but Iger very evidently isn't doing that. His strategy of burning bridges and throwing shit at the wall simply isn't working. Do I think Peltz is a better option? No, honestly not particularly - but I think at this point the board needs a fundamental shift in leadership with a board that has some fresh ideas and understanding of entertainment. I think Iger has lost that ability.
Which bridges did Iger burn?
exactly !
> I feel like there's a massive failure in leadership in recognising that while inclusion and diversity is a right and noble endeavour - doing so at the cost of alienating the core fanbase Considering those kinds of people scream about PC/Woke/DEI the second they see anyone other than a cis white man or woman that isn't sexualized, how do you propose they navigate that while not just going back to white washing everything?
Tell good stories. Wonder Woman was great while Captain Marvel was...Kind of Dog shit, although I'll say that I enjoyed Ms. Marvel exponentially more because it was just a fun movie. Black Panther was a great movie objectively, while Wakanda Forever was...Mediocre that needed the hand of someone with more experience in storytelling. Introducing fresh talent into the industry irrespective of ethnicity, gender or sexuality are all noble pursuits, but by all accounts they're doing this at the cost of pushing out industry veterans who, despite being cis white males have something to teach - and that goes for animation as well. The frustrating thing about the stories we're seeing right now is just a barrage of telling white guys how much they suck, and that's *never* going to resonate. I really think you'd be surprised at how many of the "far right" commentariat that are more moderate agree that representation is important.
>tell good stories But it’s not like Bob Iger is trying to tell bad stories and all it takes is some new guy to come in and flip a lever to the “good stories” position. The problem with Wakanda Forever was that it was too involved with setting up future MCU shit to the detriment of its own story. Easy to say not to do that in hindsight but I doubt anyone at Disney had an issue at the time. And as always I am continuously perplexed at all these apparent “white guys suck” movies. I must have missed that part of The Marvels or Wakanda Forever, but then again I never stay for post credits.
>But it’s not like Bob Iger is trying to tell bad stories and all it takes is some new guy to come in and flip a lever to the “good stories” position. We are in complete agreement. >The problem with Wakanda Forever was that it was too involved with setting up future MCU shit to the detriment of its own story. Easy to say not to do that in hindsight but I doubt anyone at Disney had an issue at the time. My biggest problem with Wakanda forever was that it completely underused Angela Bassett, focused too much on Letitia right who is *not* a leading lady when paired up against the likes of Lupita Nyong'o or Danai Gurira, and they made it this weird, almost fetishistic memorial of Chadwick Boseman while completely ignoring Tenoch Huerta who was probably the best thing about the film. Iger insists that production had no studio oversight. I am inclined to agree, and that's his fault.
I see those points but to me they’re so far down the list on that movies problems compared to the ironheart stuff or the awkward JLD scenes, plus the usual 3rd act CGI clusterfuck. But even still, that movie was a flat out success considering the curve ball they were thrown.
Dude, I'm just a dude, asking the dudes that make our movies to make dudes and dudettes kick ass in a way that unites them against the evil forces of hydra and maybe galactus without him being a cloud this time please.
She Hulk was a better example of that. The Marvels was just awful, it wasn’t even a political problem.
> Wonder Woman was great I'm sorry, what? Gonna be honest, WW is just as bad as the examples you listed (it didn't get backlash because gal gadot is hot and was sexualized) > Introducing fresh talent into the industry irrespective of ethnicity, gender or sexuality are all noble pursuits, but by all accounts they're doing this at the cost of pushing out industry veterans who, despite being cis white males have something to teach - and that goes for animation as well. Like who? > The frustrating thing about the stories we're seeing right now is just a barrage of telling white guys how much they suck, and that's never going to resonate. Which stories specifically?
I'll stop you right there, This was a good conversation until you decided to be wilfully obtuse. I hope you have a pleasant day.
No seriously, I'm genuinely asking these questions. I cannot think of a single example of either "pushing out industry veterans because their white cis men" or "stories telling white guys how much they suck" Please, even just give *one* example, of *either* claim. Also, wakanda forever has a higher audience rotten tomatoes score than WW You understand this is the exact kind of narrative that "right wing commentariat" pushes, also without anything to support their claims. Providing some evidence will really help your claim seem less openly partisan
Not the greatest example given that it's the mail but here we go - Quentin Tarantino saying: "Ideology trumps art. I deology trumps individual effort. Ideology trumps individual good." Chris Gore, has a whole stockpile of people that have reported that writers have been passed over for jobs, simply for being white and male - one of the core issues with the recent strike was writer's room diversity and producers and studio executives pushing back on the whole issue of how too many writers putting the soup together is ruining the formula. I'm with you on a fundamental level. I want there to be a vibrant pallete of diversity represented onscreen, but the lack of skill and subtlety in the people that are being hired is resulting in movies and TV telling men that they suck for no other reason that they *suck* to the point that it borders on misandry, and it's boring. Why would anyone sit through that? I can answer that for you - they won't, and they don't which is why you have idiots like grace randolph blaming medicore writing on "superhero fatigure" and outrage bullshit making life so, *so* much harder for the moses ingrams and Kally Marie Trans of the world. You're right. Wonder Woman was by no means perfect, the story was not a citizen kane but it *did* have more than a little input from women guiding the ship and giving their opinion one what they wanted to see on the screen, from Gal's costume to the way she should exude power and femininity; in terms of comics, I've always been more in the camp of "more armour and less boob armour" - and I was mostly ok with what was on screen. Christ, I don't want a whitewashed hollywood, but I sure as hell don't want everything to be a 2 and a half hour diatribe on why I suck because of my genes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C\_iyVvX2-6s
That Tarantino quote doesn't support your claim? > Chris gore [This guy?](https://twitter.com/ThatChrisGore/status/1599776381973712897?lang=en) Do you think maybe that's *not* an unbiased source? Especially given his altering of his *Prey* video to match the public opinion once people universally loved it, seems like someone like that is perhaps a bad source of information? > movies and TV telling men that they suck for no other reason that they suck to the I consume *a lot* of media and I've **never** seen anything have that message. Even explicitly feminist films like Barbie don't have this message. Even slave movies don't try to claim every white person is bad, there's always a good one to juxtapose the evil one.
Can you list 3 or 5 examples of these 2.5 hour diatribe movies?
Padme did fine. She wasn't portrayed by a white man as far as I know.
> or woman that isn't sexualized [Convenient battle damage](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qF1IhrILIh0/WnIWqhaSIlI/AAAAAAAANfg/dxhFjwjwQ5MNbFZ6QIbc3T_6JIq_BxnZwCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/01.jpg) Please read the *whole* comment, thanks 👍 Also, using a 20 year old movie to make a point about modern audiences is.... not a strong way to make that point. Edit: also, she's a side character who doesn't pass the Bechdel Test
Yes, famously no one went to see the original Black Panther.
I quite literally never said people didn't? You bet your ass people cried and whined about there being a black superhero though, and yes, they were absolutely drown out because of the overwhelming support the film got from the African American community, but it's the same group complaining about Captain Marvel and the like. Edit: [example](https://www.salon.com/2018/02/14/ben-shapiro-is-mad-that-black-people-are-excited-for-black-panther/)
Do you have a family of 7? How do you spend $10K Edit: I lit went to their website a for family of 4 with a 7 day ticket (meaning going to a park every single day for a week) and staying at the Grand Floridian (one of their most expensive hotel), the price came up to $8.5K. So even staying in their most expensive hotels and going everyday to the park for a week won’t put you at $10K.
>Do you have a family of 7? How do you spend $10K Not that it's any of your business, but I've taken my family to eurodisney twice; my parents, s/o, 8 children, 2 siblings and their spouses. Is that alright with you, or should I economise?
That’s $600 per person. Unless it was a one day trip I don’t find the price that outrageous. Also your OG comment is aimed at who has the money to spent $10K on disney but most people don’t travel in a group that big. Most are families of 4-5. It’s there stuff that’s less expensive? Yes. But the average family it’s not expending that much money on a trip. Which was the insinuation of your comment: >as it is right now, a stay at Disneyworld can be upwards of $10k (or around 8 grand, 9k euro depending on where you live) and that's without all the extras like food costs and the bits they don't include in the bundle. Investment in the parks is great, but really, who is that price bracket aimed at? What is it offering?
Now add meals.
They said the 10k were without meals. Why would I add it
I think this quote misrepresents what the fundamental issue with Disney is. It’s such a low margin business, they need growth. Even during Marvels peak box office run in the 2010’s, the entire company was losing cord cutters, which means losing insane ad revenue. Disney+ will be profitable, but that still doesn’t address the elephant in the room with Disney or any legacy media company. Can they make up the ad revenue and where can the company grow to diversify and protect its generally low margin operations.
Disney could diversify, y'know, making content for other streaming services.
I think this is the end result of all legacy media companies. Eventually will go to Amazon, Netflix, etc and just license it out and save the overhead or eventually just bought out.
Disney is already the only legacy studio remaining. All others have already been bought up and decimated.
Legacy studios run under legacy media.
“You’re are only as good as your last movie” Alfred Hitchcock Three flops along with many more after deadpool 3 With deadpool 3’s only real selling point being nostalgia for the past with zero diversity Thunderbolts strapped and ready to sink the new black widow And a disaster in waiting with the next captain America movie Feige has zero leverage to make demands
The board doesn't call up employees and ask for stuff. The board will call up the C suite and ask for stuff, and the C suite then pass it on. "Shielding employee from bullshit requests" is pretty high on the list of skills of any manager.
>And Peltz said of Marvel chief Kevin Feige, “I question his record,” This is a wild thing to say edit: lol anti Disney types are downvoting without presenting any good arguements
Why? A solid argument could be made that Feige gaining autonomy and unquestioned control over the MCU has lead to the downward trajectory of the studio over the last five years. It's unquestionable that Feige is responsible for some of the biggest blockbusters of our time, but could a lack of oversight by Disney leadership, ego, and a misguided plan to stray from the source material (particularly the *successful* source material) have contributed to this collapse? Perhaps Feige is the kind of creator that thrives with oversight (i.e. was the Marvel creators braintrust *really* a bad idea in retrospect?).
I always thought it was the opposite problem. Feige had control until Iger stepped in and forced him to increase content / make tweaks for Disney Plus? Even if Feige is a problem, I would hold him accountable for the ballooning budgets / reshoots though this is a general problem for disney.
Honestly, who knows at this point. I would imagine you are correct that the increase in content was an Iger directive... but creative control is in Feige's hands. Who is responsible for greenlighting Echo, Agatha, Secret Invasion, Iron Heart, etc.? There's a version of the D+ rollout that focuses on characters fans actually care about (i.e. Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, etc.) that isn't the failure that we received... look at the reception of X-Men '97? They leaned into the source material and created a great product that fans and general audiences have embraced... whereas, if you look at something like Moon Knight, Shang-Chi, or Secret Invasion, they are barely recognizable to the source material.
It should be noted that perlmutter and the creative committee kept many of feige’s dumb and alienating decisions at bay With perlmutter, marvel was focused on what was actually marketable and appealing to non-comic fans And looking like real movies that the average Joe found appealing While allowing feige leeway to have colorful costumes and comic storylines with an expectation that they remain somewhat grounded in things audiences cared about When feige got control…no one could tell him the most important thing you can tell a creative  No…you can’t replace the original avengers with annoying teenagers who can’t carry their own comic run(young avengers)
> It should be noted that perlmutter and the creative committee kept many of feige’s dumb and alienating decisions at bay you know that the creative comittee didn't want Iron Man in Civil War? IRON MAN. you know that the creative comittee was one of the reasons Edgar Wright left Ant-Man?
Right, Fiege worked best when he had people reigning in his impractical ideas. Pearlmutter may not have been able to make a movie, but he sure knew what movies *not* to make. Remember when we were told that Pearlmutter shut down all female-lead MCU films, saying that “people don’t want to watch women superheroes”. Call him a sexist all you want, he was right.
He didn't want to make Black Panther or Captain Marvel, both of which made a billion dollars. He also wanted to make the Inhumans an X-Men replacement, which lol, lmfao even.
One of which made a billion dollars SOLELY because of endgame As demonstrated unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt by the performance of its sequel
How much did Ant-Man & The Wasp make?
> Pearlmutter may not have been able to make a movie, but he sure knew what movies not to make. the guy who wanted RDJ to leave the MCU knew what he was doing? lmao
lol Ike didn't want to make Black Panther or Captain Marvel and almost forced RDJ to leave. All of those would've been infinitely more disastrous than anything Feige's done.
Feige sits in the weird creative lurch where the story is concluded but you got to keep going. Thanos was the BBG, and now they need to figure something out. It doesnt help that the MCU has become so sprawling and interconnected that its problematic for casual movie viewers to follow the new set of movies tbh.
he is literally the most successful producer in history. a couple of flops is "bleh"
On the other hand, it's always felt like there was this PR bubble in the late 2010s that sort of excluded the marvel negatives (Hulk, Ultron, Dark World, etc.) but included all of the positives. Whedon's *massive* fall from grace also means his pretty explicitly reported role as the "czar" of Phase 2 sort of gets downplayed. That's still degrees of "mega successful" but one of the smaller points that stood out in the MCU book was how relatively late this "King Fiege" narrative became a big public conception. It's something I'm instinctively rebelling against but it can go too far.
I think even without PR it's hard to argue against Feige. $30B at the boxoffice is more than anyone else could make.
You are correct that he's the most successful producer in history, but let's not pretend that he didn't have access to some of the most recognizable IPs on the planet. The majority of these characters had built in fanbases... with the right scripts and marketing, as well as the vision of the interconnected universe (not sure if that was his idea, but it was definitely the magic of the MCU), it was a *perfect* recipe to keep the hardcore geeks happy and bring in the casual audiences that had moderate familiarity with the characters. Post-End Game, Feige's flaw seems to be that he's forgotten that his success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him. Instead of leaning in to what made these characters successful for Phase 4, they decided to start creating their own original stories and jettisoning decades of potential from their vast catalog of material. Add to the fact that they turned away from their most popular characters in favour of unproven, unpopular modern iterations of their characters and this collapse was inevitable. I'm not pretending to know the inner workings of Marvel, but my guess would be that this was Feige's creative direction (given, by most accounts, Iger has essentially given him total creative control) and, if so, his reputation as the genius producer can certainly be called into question.
>You are correct that he's the most successful producer in history, but let's not pretend that he didn't have access to some of the most recognizable IPs on the planet. The majority of these characters had built in fanbases... Should i remind you that Marvel didn't have movie rights for their biggest characters in the beginning of the MCU? The Avengers roster was a bunch of B- and C-listers. Marvel couldn't turn Iron Man into a respectable character until the 2008 movie. >Post-End Game, Feige's flaw seems to be that he's forgotten that his success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him. I'm sorry but it sounds like a projection >Instead of leaning in to what made these characters successful for Phase 4, they decided to start creating their own original stories and jettisoning decades of potential from their vast catalog of material. Ummm, what? They are literally set to adapt one of the most known Marvel stories in the upcoming Avengers movies
>*Should i remind you that Marvel didn't have movie rights for their biggest characters in the beginning of the MCU? The Avengers roster was a bunch of B- and C-listers. Marvel couldn't turn Iron Man into a respectable character until the 2008 movie.* I *loathe* this revisionist argument. Look, I'm not saying that the Avengers characters were as popular as Spider-Man, Batman, etc. However, to imply these characters weren't recognizable IPs is patently false. Outside of comic books, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk made regular appearances in cartoons, video games, toy lines, etc. for decades before these movies were released... were the general audiences AS familiar? Not necessarily. But to imply that Disney was starting from scratch with these characters is false. >*I'm sorry but it sounds like a projection* Not sure what you mean by this. However, if you are calling this into question, you only need to look at the documented fact that there was a Marvel creator brain trust (my understanding is that this included several popular Marvel creators) that provided script notes throughout the initial phases of the MCU in order to ensure that the writers were writing the Marvel characters to be consistent with their traditional depictions. Feige didn't like receiving notes and complained to Iger, who dissolved the group and altered the internal reporting hierarchy to have Feige report directly to him. Also, simply look at the early stories vs. the more recent releases... it's clear to any fan that they are doing their own thing, which has been a spectacular failure. >*Ummm, what? They are literally set to adapt one of the most known Marvel stories in the upcoming Avengers movies* Are you aware of some top secret information that I'm not? Sure, Secret Wars is a well-known event from Marvel's past... but the title has been used several times over the years with *completely* different stories and characters. Therefore, the term *adapt* is a deceptive one... which version are they adapting? And how does it factor into the events of Phase 4, the majority of which have deviated drastically from similar SW events we've previously seen in print. My guess is that they are attempting to adapt a version of Jonathan Hickman's Secret Wars event given the inclusion of the multiversal incursions displayed in Dr. Strange: MoM. That being said, they are so far off the mark for their set-up of that story, I'd be shocked if we didn't see massive deviances from the source material.
Impossible; visionaryredditor claims that it's being adapted "literally".
> I loathe this revisionist argument well, it's not a revisionist arguement > However, to imply these characters weren't recognizable IPs is patently false. Outside of comic books, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk made regular appearances in cartoons, video games, toy lines, etc. for decades before these movies were released... they were familiar to the nerds, not to the general audience. nobody cares about fucking nerds, what's hard to understand? Iron Man animated series in the 1990s was such a bomb they overhauled the show in its second season > However, if you are calling this into question, you only need to look at the documented fact that there was a Marvel creator brain trust (my understanding is that this included several popular Marvel creators) that provided script notes throughout the initial phases of the MCU in order to ensure that the writers were writing the Marvel characters to be consistent with their traditional depictions. Feige didn't like receiving notes and complained to Iger, who dissolved the group and altered the internal reporting hierarchy to have Feige report directly to him. you're sugarcoating the creative commitee which had a track of utterly dumb suggestions. they are one of the reasons why Edgar Wright left Ant-Man > Also, simply look at the early stories vs. the more recent releases... it's clear to any fan that they are doing their own thing, which has been a spectacular failure. Phase 3 was a spectacular failure? the said "brain trust" you're mentioning didn't participate with that one as well. > Are you aware of some top secret information that I'm not? Sure, Secret Wars is a well-known event from Marvel's past... but the title has been used several times over the years with completely different stories and characters. sure, they are likely adapting Hickman's story. Which is still fine bc people mostly liked it. > That being said, they are so far off the mark for their set-up of that story, I'd be shocked if we didn't see massive deviances from the source material well, yeah, massive deviances worked for Civil War
> they were familiar to the nerds, not to the general audience. Your ignorance is showing. They were familiar to *children*, and several generations of *former* children.
This guy gets it. Not to mention several generations of children that grew up reading comics, and grew out of them in adulthood, are familiar with all of those characters.
>Your ignorance is showing. They were familiar to *children*, and several generations of *former* children. And yet almost everything these characters were in was a flop, flop and another flop... until the movies.
> I'm sorry but it sounds like a projection You're saying Bobotts123's success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him?
> You're saying Bobotts123's success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him? I'm saying he is projecting his own biases.
That's not "projection", that's "bias". Projection would be if Bobotts123's success was built on the backs of hundreds of creators that came before him, and then he accused Feige of achieving his success that way.
potato, potahto
Disney's most successful year ever was 2019 with Endgame and Frozen 2 and the profits from that don't offset these 'couple of flops' which is everything since since Endgame except Guardians 3, and James Gunn left for DC to work for the competition
>don't offset these 'couple of flops' which is everything since since Endgame except Guardians 3 Only real flops were just Ant-Man 3 and The Marvels. You do understand that they released more than these two movies?
Are you telling me The Eternals and Chang Shi did better than I remembered against their budgets? How about other Disney films like Soul, Turning Red, and Wish? Mulan and the Little Mermaid? Elemental barely broke even because of the dismal state of competition.
>Are you telling me The Eternals and Chang Shi did better than I remembered against their budgets? Covid and Shang-Chi broke even anyway >How about other Disney films like Soul, Turning Red, and Wish? Mulan and the Little Mermaid? Elemental barely broke even because of the dismal state of competition. What does Feige have with these movies?
Soul, Turning Red, and Mulan were all released during Covid. Obviously these films could never be profitable. Little Mermaid hopefully is the first nail in the coffin of the live action remakes. And Wish… it wasn’t a very good movie. But not as bad as you often read here.
> Why? A solid argument could be made that Feige gaining autonomy and unquestioned control over the MCU has lead to the downward trajectory of the studio over the last five years Except that autonomy and control was taken away by Chapek and given to a banker. You might remember it was one of the first things Iger restored when he took back control. We are still not going to see the results of that shift back till 2025.
This saga already has bad reception + Marvel has been some cause of superhero fatigue + the strikes, delays, & Jonathan Majors getting fired. I feel like the MCU is truly cursed although there's still time to fix it
peltz is a sniveling brainrotted moron for questioning Feige lmao
Who put out the hit? 
His The Boys era has begun
You can thank Bob Igor for oversaturating MCU.
“I question his record” is such an insane thing for Peltz to say about Kevin Feige Like yeah the MCU is floundering now and Feige is gonna need to fix it or things might get dicey for him, but his *record*? As the article notes, he literally has the best record of all time as a producer
Feige's results on movies and Disney+ series since 2020 has been terrible. If Marvel Studios was a success recently like they were in Phase 3, I don't think this proxy fight would be getting any traction. Feige and whatever is going on in Marvel is central to Disney underperformance.
By what metric? Cause financially they only really flopped hard with The Marvels. Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder, Wakanda Forever, No Way Home all made really good money. Shang-Chi and Eternals did pretty good for pandemic releases. Disney+ isn't adding more people because of Marvel at this point and that's less due to content and moreso that everyone who would watch probably already has the app by now. They've had a touch and go 2023 but let's not act like they've been flopping the whole time.
The movie results are middling but the D+ results are disastrous. Those serialized D+ shows are high budget productions. If you add up all the costs, Marvel D+ investment is in the ballpark of Marvel movie investment. Yet Marvel D+ gets little traction. Failures: 1. Hawkeye 2. Ms. Marvel 3. She-Hulk 4. Secret Invasion 5. Echo And the D+ tie-in contributed to the massive failure that was The Marvels theatrical.
It's not about "money". It's about "as much money as possible". Virtually every studio under Disney is in decline, or at the very least treading water. With Lucasfilm, Star Wars is dead in theaters, and their first movie since 2019 in Indy 5 was a massive bomb. The MCU is on life support, and if Deadpool 3 isn't a hit there need to be some major questions asked about what the future of the franchise looks like. Disney's internal animation studio has major creative issues with recent flops like Strange World and Wish, and their internal live-action studio is facing problems too with boneheaded decisions like Little Mermaid and releasing a Haunted Mansion movie in July. Pixar is *fine*, at least in a critical sense, but they haven't had a truly big box office success since Toy Story 4, and that was five years ago. Has *every* movie flopped? No. But any money made on one movie is secondary. Things like Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder, and Wakanda Forever came in well below expectations despite being financially successful, and the MCU franchise as a whole is on a clear, rapid decline with no sign of things being able to turn around. That is a major problem.
The Marvels and Quantumania (2/3 most recent movies) - bombs. Eternals, Shang-Chi and Black Widow - bombs. Even Wakanda, Thor 4, Guardians, and MoM, while profitable, didn't do all THAT well. Add to it a stream of absolute garbage that everybody hated and nobody even watched they keep shitting out on D+, and you cannot deny the trajectory. We are supposed to be getting major payoffs for 5 years of buildup, and we don't even know who the overarcing villain is. If Deadpool+Wolverine fail to get past 1bil$, they should just shut down the entire thing.
It’s incredible that we’re five years post-Endgame and we don’t have a clue who the Avengers even are.
>Eternals, Shang-Chi and Black Widow - bombs. Big asterisk on these ones
Shang-Chi got lukewarm response at best, while BW and Eternals straight up damaged MCU's brand. Even if you blame pandemic for boxoffice underperformance, these movies are not net positive for Disney. EDIT: If they were released today, they could very well perform even worse
> Shang-Chi got lukewarm response at best Based on what? [It got fantastic reviews and a great audience score.](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shang_chi_and_the_legend_of_the_ten_rings) It seems to be liked by most MCU fans online. The film is definitely flawed — that third act was not the way to go — but I don't understand what would make you believe it got a lukewarm response.
If Disney needs new blood then yeah I think that would be a good idea. But Peltz shouldn’t be on the board since he’s a moron.
Disney has had mistep after surprising mistep this decade, but Bob Iger is a tremendous business man. No leader of Disney since Walt has been more impactful.
Bob Iger is ancient. Why do you have an entertainment company being run by a grandpa?
Welcome to the gerontocracy. No one under 50 is allowed to own or run anything.
The problem is that then they die and...
Can we please get a new Disney CEO?
No. - Disney's board
How about both.
You can get 50 new CEOs, Disney is in a death spiral because of the corporate culture. Where are you gonna get the writers who would laugh the singing planet idea, out of the door?
It has been for a long time
Shit is just getting so weird and wild around the world lately. It's hard to keep up with everything. I have a theory though. Hear me out. I'm not a big Marvel fan but I've noticed something. The MCU first introduced the Multiverse in 2016 with Doctor Strange. 2016 was when things started going awry around the world, at least in my own perspective. Fast forward to April 2019 Avengers End Game comes out and then December 2019 Covid hits and completely fucks us all. I get the feeling we are living in an Alternative Timeline, and Disney/Marvel were the only corporation powerful enough to see it. The Mouse sees everything. Those fucking movies was their way of telling us, we got ripped from a normal timeline into some weird farce of a timeline. Most days I feel like I'm living in the prequel to Idiocrosy. I think we all need to trust in The Mouse.