How Disney Plus is Damaging Disney's Brand
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 12. 2023
- Head to squarespace.com/schaffrillas to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Thanks to Squarespace for sponsoring this video!
Schaff talks about why streaming services are bad actually!
Editor's Channel:
@onetuffpuff
Disney Plus MCU Premiere Ratings: www.statista.com/statistics/1....
Patreon: / schaffrillas
Twitter: / schaffrillas
Esteemed $5+ Patrons:
aheaney15
Aiden Mcgillicuddy
Alpha Red
Amaru Dejesus
Andre Gutierrez
Andrew Young
Ashley Forrest
BATMAN
Caliyopo
Charlotte M
Clarissa Wee
Cole Jackson
Daniel Goldhorn
Danmccould
Dreydan Hanshaw
Emily Allen
Evagorgen
Fantastic Mr. Foxclaw
Faucet_of_Drip
Flan
Gabi Christie
Gabriel Vega Barreto
Gameplayer1500
Gavin Trout
Gty200
Hankshark
Jackson Merrill
Jacob Baum
Jake Albert
Jake G
Jonah Who
Jonathan Kermanian
Joseph
Joseph Maltby
Josh Girmay
Justin Zboyovski
Kiarkat_Kitsune
Keshav Batra
Leif Bradshaw
Madison Mabie
Margaret Neuwirth
Matt Fernandes
Michael David Rose
Michael Thomas
Milosz Kluski
Night Man52
Oceanechoes
Olivia Mendel
Pierre Desbrieres
PinkiePotPie
Quetzal the Snek
Rebeccah Starlight - Star Giant Productions
Rebel Friend
Red Mustached Alien
Rocco Damiano
Ryan Santa Cruz
Ryland Tews
Sassy
Seth Howell
Silas Hurd
Soloco
Sublime Sky
SuperJimmy978
Tailored Muffin
The GAG Reflex
The TARDIS Pig/TC
Toxic shock
Tyler Rumbold
Uncultured Swine
Volianer
Waifu Patrol
Xaiddyd
YINSED
Zeynep Zingir - Zábava
Never forget that Disney replaced their own dedicated animation museum at Hollywood Studio into a Star Wars attraction.
That’s sad 😔
@@danjoredd they don't care about Mickey Mouse anymore because it's slowly creeping into public domain so.. they are losing their cash cow which was brought to life out of genuine love and passion first
@billcipher8645 That's only the Mickey we see in Steamboat Willie. The current Mickey and some other iterations of him from the other shorts is still owned by Disney.
Not defending Disney Btw, just wanted to point this out.
@@danjoreddI feel like that anniversary short is better than their movies this year combined.
That reminds me of a replaced line from the opening song from The Lorax (the Illumination one), that said they were removing the rock with the town founder's name on it to put a pizza chain there.
Another thing I dislike about Disney+ is the fact Disney LITERALLY discontinued their channels in MANY countries to advertise the more expensive service that not everyone can get their hands on. Come on now! Those networks didn’t even get ceremonial finishes!
Oh gosh yes, exactly this. When I first heard that disney were making a Netflix-esque subscription service I was exited because it meant that I could watch some new episodes that were airing months ahead of my local Disney Channel more easily. But then I saw on TV that they were shutting down ALL the channels for it and I was shocked.
Like it was disorienting learning that the channels I spent most of my childhood watching were going to be taken out of commission in just a month without any fanfare whatsoever. Real whiplash there....
this is why you should just use piracy sites. the only annoyance you'd have to deal with is a few pop ups
No one was watching those channels anyway, at least here in Norway. The channels still exist here, but there’s nothing good on Disney Channel. I can guarantee that Disney Junior has the higher viewer count.
There has actually been a decline on the quality of kids/tween entertainment.
Like Cartoon Network is the only channel that has some decent shows now.
@@fatoungum2170 barely though.. even Cartoon Network has been going under with woke dreck like Craig of the Creek, We Baby Bears and boring crap like Victor & Valentino, long gone are the carefree days of TAWOG, Regular Show & Uncle Grandpa..
@AbrasiousProductions woke = black ig. It's literally an original story about kids playing make believe in their backyards and the protag just so happens to be black. There is nothing woke about it, it's just the kid's experience of playing outside and experiencingtheir surroundings growing up. Hell, even the staff themselves make cameos as their child selves in scenes, so it's literally just a nostalgia trip for everyone who works on it with a more modern sprinkle to it
There's no such thing as Disney Fatigue: people are sick and tired of shit product, and unwilling to go to the movies to pay for mediocrity.
In other words, people are sick of Disney. No Michael Eisner will save them this time from their doom. I for one, welcome it.
I agree. Encanto was a disney product but since it was a good movie it became a hit
I think it's a little more complex than that; they definitely have released some blah or downright crappy material in recent times, but I think the seeming onslaught of films from them (seriously, the sheer mass of animated films from both Disney and Pixar is overwhelming at a certain point, let alone what's going on with Marvel) takes films that might have felt like events and just makes them feel like part of a larger, amorphous blob of "content", and at a certain point that's just exhausting.
I think it is worth acknowledging that a majority of the films that bombed were owned/produced by Disney and the one or two good movies that they had didn't make up for their massive losses everywhere else. It seems like it's specifically Disney that is producing mediocre content while all of their competitors are thriving.
In other words, there is a Disney fatigue, and people are sick of Disney's shtick.
I agree. If Encanto was released in 2022 or 2023, I feel like it would’ve done as well as Elemental did at least. Same with Turning Red if Disney gave it a theatrical release when it came out. Thing is, those movies actually had GOOD WORD OF MOUTH coming from them. I don’t think they would’ve done amazing still, but they’d do a really solid job if released in theaters at a good time.
Another problem is the gap between theatrical and home release. Before, movies used to take 4-to-6 months to come out on home video, and in some cases, an entire year. If you didn't feel like dodging spoilers for half a year, that was your incentive to see the movie in theaters. Nowadays, movies take as early as a month to be released on home media, sometimes while the movie is still in theaters.
The blu rays would literally go up for preorder on opening weekend at the box office.
i feel like part of that could partially be due to pirating. they could be trying to jump the gun per chance
@@maxthefool That can't be the case. Pirating sites actually have it easier now since we have digital releases, which almost always drops weeks before the home releases.
@@Kingdom850 i didnt think of that, very true
@@emptyglass7867It got shorter in the early 2000’s. That’s when broadband Internet got big and people were leaking bootlegs to download movies that haven’t made it to DVD yet.
Bless the editor for addressing how disney’s decisions are affecting the parks. As someone who had some fond memories of the park as a kid. It really sucks how a lack of creativity and innovation of the company has bled into the parks.
Not only that, but as someone who has never been, the way that people have made such a crazy massive deal about planning every detail and timing everything perfectly, getting passes and making a list of hundreds of things you can do... it's so overwhelming to a total newbie. Not to mention the company price gauging and making it astronomically expensive. Sucks. I don't think I'll ever go.
I think that was a really cute and informative segment. Hopefully the Crab Upstairs didn't take notice
I actually went there recently and I perfectly agree
As a epcot fan I find this comment funny because they literally removed innovation from the parks lmao
@@CCela1608 The hotel prices these days are ridiculously expensive and not worth the price. It’s unironically more cheaper to go to the places that the hotel’s are supposedly inspired by.
Stories are supposed to end. Corporations work towards achieving endless growth. Disney treats their stories like corporations, and it's ruining their legacy.
EDIT: rip my notifications lol
That’s capitalism for ya
@@GBomb9704 Spider-Punk was right
@@Mr.Needle-Hamster Spider-Punk lifted so Miles can go further beyond
@minty6623 Get it? As in BEYOND THE SPIDER-VERSE?
When ever I hear “One last time” in any marvel or Star Wars movie, I just go “That’s a fucking lie”
Disney has become the perfect example of "Pride comes before the fall"
In this case it even has a dual meaning.
"Not so secret gay agenda"
This has nothing to do with pride.
@@abraham2172I don’t think they mean Pride as LBGT+, more as the deadly sin of Pride since Disney was known as number one, so it must’ve cause them to fail overtime.
@@positivea9111 funny how lgbt people decided to advertise themselves using that word then
Just to raise another point about Avatar being an anomaly: the first Avatar was well known for being a film that you HAD to see in theatres. I think that legacy has had an effect on the box office numbers for that singular movie... Meanwhile numerous franchises that were known in the same way have been watered down with TV shows that were never intended for a theatrical release, which make the entire franchises (Marvel and Star Wars being good examples) feel less like experiences that you HAVE to see in a cinema, and more like "it could be fun to see it in a movie theatre, but it's not really necessary to get the full experience".
This is a fact and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Movies have to have that awe to them which Avatar has because what you've said.
Also nobody thinks of Avatar as a Disney property they think of it as a James Cameron property
@@deoxxys True, however that point was made in the video, thus there is no point repeating it in the comments.
Coincidentally, this is also why some genres of movies have all but disappeared from Hollywood. To take a seasonal example, consider the first Home Alone movie. Probably nice to watch in theatres, but you don't miss out on any experience by watching it on your TV screen at home. It doesn't have any big special effects or audio spectacles you have to experience in cinema (the anguished screams of Harry and Marv notwithstanding). It's a see-at-home movie, and hundreds of classic movies are like it. The result? Those types of movies are nearly always made as smaller productions these days, featuring lesser-known actors and released without fanfare on some streaming service or another. Gone are the days of the big-brand slapstick comedy or un-spectacular drama. Similar movies are still made, of course, but have left the mainstream completely. Gotta have a special effects extravaganza to draw butts to the movie theatre seats these days.
Also Avatar was just really good. It was so good I saw it twice in theaters so I could go again with my mom. It's so rare for a good, visually beautiful, and non-political movie to come out nowadays. I feel like people are willing to go to theaters, even if it will be on Disney+. Because people value the movie theater experience. There is just nothing worth going to see.
How ironic that Disney went from too big to fail to too big to succeed.
There’s no such thing as a company too big to fail.
@@thewatchman13
Historically, empires do tend to fall once they become too big to govern
Wonder what that means for Disney
@@thewatchman13Definitely, but it is still *harder* for these massive, 30% market share companies to fail.
@@davidhong1934 thanks for reminding me to get in my daily Rome thoughts
Much like Hamilton they were never satisfied. They kept getting bigger and bigger and now they're imploding.
Maybe this is a bit of a simplistic take, but I feel like streaming only worked when it was one big hub that had a lot of stuff you’d like to view. When split up into their own services by each compony, their content is forced to comply with the structure and audience of that service instead of just being the best it can be. Disney’s no different.
in the end u pay for 1 maybe 2 streaming services and pirate the rest 😅
That’s why abolishing net neutrality just made it worse for the corpos and the consumers
Yeah I pay for a month here and a month there of a particular one that has a show/movie I want to see. But cancel immediately. So they're not getting recurring revenue from me. I'm more like renting the one show I want to see, plus some others if I'm interested but that's rare because I don't even know what shows are where.
@@Broockle if it's more convenient to pirate instead of watching legally, Something has got to change 🤔
On the one hand, it's cool that Disney uses D+ to air old shows and programs that definitely *weren't* getting licensed out or released before and otherwise wouldn't (stuff like Disneyland's Opening Report or Older Shorts) but on the other... Once they opened the floodgate for a personal streaming service, we started essentially getting "Cable part 2"
"I can't believe we're paying to see something we get on TV for free"
-Homer Simpson from the Simpsons Movie (Now streaming on Disney+)
I think another huge issue is just how expensive going to the movies are nowadays. Usually it’s like $15 a ticket plus another $15 if you want food and a drink. I think this steers away a lot of people because they know pretty much any movie in theaters will be on a streaming service in a few months.
The high price of food and drink at movie theaters has always been a thing. The price hasn’t really increased from what I’ve noticed on those items in the last 10 years
Also why pay to take a 5 year old and 3 year old to a movie theatre where you have to try and keep them in their seats and entertained by the movie alone when you can let them be in your already messy lounge room with their own toys to watch the new Disney movie for free(ish)
THIS. I wanted to see Wish in theaters but it came out right around the time I was strapped for crash and there was no way I was spending over 30 bucks for a movie that was mediocre at best.
It makes me feel lucky to be a student in the UK! My uni’s tickets cost £4.50 for under 25’s and the main cinema chain does £4.00 Tuesdays and a cheap showing on Saturdays. Food and drink’s pretty expensive though.
@@DerpinaTheBrave Not to mention that for some reason, little kids are generally more likely to be loud/rowdy/rude in public and their parents are generally less able to effectively control them, which means that it's more likely than not that your kids will actively annoy other people seeing the movie with you.
Baited us on Twitter into thinking it was the Mario Kart 8 video, guys he’s a genius.
Same.
Even if you’re not subscribed to his patreon it’ll show up on there as a locked video so you can easily see what it is
No that’s tomorrow.
It’s gonna be his next video 100% tho
It’s gotta come out soon right
Jokes on you, I checked his pateron before the video came out so I knew this was coming.
Disney has become way too comfortable with themselves. The reason they thrived in the first place was because they strived to outdo their competitors. Now they simply just “buy” their competition whenever they feel like it. Someone once said *”without criticism or pressure from others, there can be no improvement.”* And that really is true, Disney has become lazy and comfortable with themselves and everyone sees it. They may believe for now that they are invincible, but eventually they will find out they’re not and the cycle will start all over again. This is a season that will eventually pass and believe it or not I want Disney to succeed by making changes.
The majority of Iger's success at Disney has been milking what has already been proven successful in the past, most of it the result of buying out other studios. Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, and finally the 20th Century Fox library. Even Disney's own previous success has been milked with the live action remakes. That strategy worked for Iger for a long time, but it is not sustainable and now it is finally backfiring. There needs to be true innovation.
Not to mention they ruin any franchise they get their hands onto. I miss simpsons. Refuse to watch after season 30.
Disney also has Doctor Who now which concerns me lol
Like wtf why
People talk as if this isn’t coming for Disney. Before Marvel they milked every franchise they had with straight to DVD releases.
And now they’ve gotten so political and they can’t stop indoctrinating kids with lbgt propaganda
Key note. Movies that did poorly in theatres seem to be oriented towards kids. What parent wants to take their kids to a theatre to see a movie when it'll be streaming in a few months. Disney Plus means kids don't go to theatres for Disney kid movies
Plus it’s expensive to go to theaters these days, especially for families. My sister and her husband had to pay over $65 just to take her kids to see the Little Mermaid movie last summer
Because a movie ticket for something that isn't opening day is about the same cost as a month's subscription. A children's movie means sinking in a ticket for the parent too. And this does not factor in food. May as well get a month of the subscription and buy a popcorn maker.
I’ve seen quite a few people saying they wished they had seen Elemental in theaters after they finally saw it on Disney+, because the animation was pretty and the surprisingly heartfelt storytelling deserved more credit. Disney needs to figure out how to make people realize these things BEFORE the fact. Give audiences clear reasons to see something *in theaters*, make it a must-see. I didn’t want to see it either because the trailers made it look like such a non-event. I caught it a few weeks after it opened and my low expectations were blown away. Went back and saw it again in 3D. I was actually mad that the marketing had bamboozled me so much.
Yup I feel the same way
You saw idiots talking about it. Because that movie was god awful and hilariously racist.
@@vyor8837how
@@vyor8837Bro, what substance did they just mix in your bags?
@@vyor8837 Um..."hilariously racist"? Are we talking about the same movie?
"They only greenlit something as good as Andor by accident"
this one cut deep, because it's so clear that they couldn't care less about good storytelling or filmmaking.
not to be the guy who pogs whenever they see someone they recognize in the comments but also MAHOGANY??
The practice of linking MCU movies to Disney+ shows is becoming extremely tiresome. I can vividly recall the time I took a friend of mine to see Multiverse of Madness in theaters and throughout the entire movie, he was confused because he didn't watch WandaVision on Disney+ that was intricately linked to the movie's plot.
You shouldn't have to do homework to watch a movie.
Ironically, that's why a lot of people don't get into Marvel comics either, there's just too much lore and backstory to read. Now the movies are like that too.
Funny enough, I watched Wandavision and was confused and disappointed even more!
Honestly I feel like with GOTG vol 3, I only missed the holiday special. So yeah only finishing 1,2 Infinity war and endgame and missing one short and skipping Thor 4 is why that movie worked
Yeah it's why Miss Marvel flopped too. It was a show made to try and loop pre-teen girls into Marvel, but those preteen girls better be up to date on what happened in Endgame and who characters like Tony Stark and Captain Marvel are. So of course the pre-teen girls didn't bother with it, and the show felt too young for core Marvel fanboys.
@@moyluna1589Yeah, I totally get that. Like, I thought the whole point of Wandavision was accepting reality and moving on from grief? Wouldn't that also apply to the nonexistent dream children that were created for her and Vision? Why is she now mourning what could've been instead??? Did she not learn anything from Wandavision like?????????
I know there's the magic book or whatever that's intensifying these feelings, but that just trivializes the plot of the whole show we had to watch for MCU homework...
Another big issue with Disney Plus is that it's not even worth paying it every month, you can simply purchase just one month and you can watch every single Disney-owned movie or series you had piled on your watchlist, cancel it after you finished watching all of it and just go back to another streaming platform until there's enough new content to purchase another month, so that also massively affects the company financially.
And there isn't really a way to to monetize most of them in a way that works. How do I show specific support for a show? Used to be I would buy the DVDs for it.
With the existence of burner credit cards and even some banks that let you prevent autopay, it's so much easier to rotate cause you don't have to think about cancelling services either.
They want viewers to treat Disney+ as the new cinema but viewers keep on treating it like the new Direct to VHS sequel bin.
Keep it up viewers. You are doing good
Haunted Mansion is an especially weird one, because I really think it would have turned an actual profit if they just released it in theaters around Halloween instead of timing it to be on Disney+ on Halloween.
The reason it failed was because it was bad.
Releasing it on Halloween was a no-brainer, but somehow, they couldn't figure it out.
@@fellowkrieger457 It still would have flopped even if they released it near Halloween.
And if they really wanted to do the D+ release on Halloween, they could've had it be a 2024 release
A bit of one, but also let's not treat movies like they are their own cheap advertisements. No one gives a fuck about the haunted mansion movie
I think the biggest problem has to be Disney Fatigue. Seeing that most of the movies released this year were sequels or remakes, audiences are craving originality more than ever
I feel like one thing these studios forget is that a movie's success is like, 5% concept and 95% execution, (plus a lot of luck), so just saying, "we'll do that concept again and it'll work just as well as last time" doesn't work.
And audience notices the patterns
THIS. I like Star Wars as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I want every fucking movie to be Star Wars or from any other established IP. A healthy dose of originality is and always has been important to long-term success in any artistic/entertainment industry. Besides, when everything is derivative, eventually you run out of stuff to make sequels or reboots or cinematic universes out of.
The fact that Leo did better than Wish says it all.
Disney doesn’t take risks any more with original mid budget films. Back in the day Disney would release some of their riskier films through Touchstone.
With Lightyear, I saw a lot of people upset with one or all of these three things that I think may have contributed to the lack of success:
1. No Tim Allen.
2. No relation to the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command cartoon.
3. The Zurg twist.
4. Bad word of mouth. I think even the people interested were turned away from the movies due to the reviews informing that it wasn’t good at all
5. the homosexual stuff. (Essentially 4's bad word of mouth, but it wasn't mentioned & is a notable reason why people like myself avoid spending any money on certain products or services so as to not support an agenda.)
@@MONSTERDROID To be honest I doubt that really made much different because people who watch movies aren't anti LGBTP, in fact most them who would see this movie probably is supporter or part movement, I honestly think it was awful writing, I know dude in video like blaming conservatives for it fall, but I honestly betting it was poor writing that did it.
@@MONSTERDROID cope
@just_your_localguard9612 The Barbie movie had even MORE “woke” content than Lightyear did and yet it became the highest grossing movie of last year. I remember that many people who saw it warned the internet that it was “anti-male” and yet most other moviegoers didn’t care and went to it anyway.
One additional problem that lead to the movie flops of Disney in 2023 is the fact that most of the movies went under exessive rewrites.
For example, Wish had most of it's early concept, which involved the wishing star being a human (and a love interest) and the king and queen as a villain couple, completely erased (would have been a much better movie tbh). Indiana Jones also underwent script changes, while already in production.
The massive problem this causes, is that the cast/staff has to come back to reshoot/reedit the movie, which balloons out it's budget. In case of Indiana Jones the budget basically doubled because of this.
So, instead of a 150 Million Dollar movie, you now have a 300 Million Dollar movie trying to earn it's money back. This, of course, is possible, but as we can see clearly not the case.
That original version sounds interesting. A villain couple is actually pretty bold for Disney. Would be at least unique.
@@radix4400but Disney always has to *Bleep* up there movies
@@radix4400I wish I could talk to Nelson Peltz and convince him to make the scrapped version of Wish a reality if he wins the board battle.
The funny thing is the 'obligatory homework you must understand before getting into this' problem is literally a problem they have, and still are, suffered before. it's famously one of the big problems with the comics book industry (which they try to solve every couple of years by rebooting the whole thing before giving up and letting old lore creep in again) and the fact they are now suffering from it in their Movie branch just proves Execs are soulless automatons incapable of reflection.
My father is big into the mcu and tried getting me to be a fan as well, but the idea of having to watch tons of movies and shows to understand any of the plot kind of freaked me out. Even if theyre all phenomenal (which really isnt the case) it would still be such a huge commitment of time. Most people aren't willing to jump on the train now, and many people dont like watching stuff without context either. MCU is basically for fans and those who don't care about understanding things, and that's simply not the amount of people Disney would like.
But how is it that the manga industry dont have that problem? They never reboot anything ever!
@@chuckwood3426 most manga is a standalone story with a beginning, middle, and end. You don't have to read, say, Naruto to understand Bleach, despite both running on Shonen Jump. It's also easier to know where to start (Volume 1).
@@papersonic9941 There are however a few series that have gone on for so long, that the continuity is a towering, and very daunting entry fee to keeping up with what is currently going on (and for some reason, that's what people care about. Beats me why).
Imagine trying to start One Piece now, the series is twice as old as most of it's primary audience.
@haldir108 However, consider: its still one continuous story, and if it has one piece in the name, you know it's part of that same story. If you read volume 5, you know your next thing to read is volume 6. It's daunting, sure, but it's simple. With Marvel currently, to use one of the examples, you have to watch Ms. Marvel to understand the Marvels, and Wandavision to understand how the Marvels starts. The connections are less obvious, and it makes knowing where to start as daunting as actually watching/reading
I think a big problem with studios like Disney, Warner Bros, and Paramount having their own Netflix-like streaming platforms is that they tried to sink billions of dollars in trying to make those platforms the future of entertainment rather than just treating them as a side thing and letting them grow slowly.
Exactly! I one time saw a ridiculous article 3 three years ago claiming, "Disney+ isn't just part of Disney's future, it is the future."
I can't really blame them, though. Initially, streaming did seem like the future. It looked like it was going to officially put an end to the TV, DVD, and Blu Ray. Nowadays, though, it seems like people are slowly returning to the old.
Now there's like a dozen different streaming platforms, one for each media conglomerate, you can't expect people to pay for all of them, especially if most of them barely even has anything worth watching!
People will pay for the novelty of going to the theater, but they don't care nearly as much about clicking a button in a menu. Streaming ruined the theatergoing hobby with ease of access, at a time where people are dying for reasons to leave the house
It's because it's more profitable than just letting people watch whatever's on TV for free.
It's because Disney took the audience's nostalgia and trust in them for granted. And now it will be a lot harder to earn our trust back.
You cant blame disney though cause they realed in billions by vapid cultural bankrupt trash aka the live action remakes.
“Disney took us for granted” could have been the title of this video
I think the killing blow was releasing Mulan during the pandemic, charging extra $30. Like it made audience automatically aware of the Disney+ platform as a replacement for theaters (angrily).
What makes me sad was how bad the animation medium is being treated as a home movie. While I'm not a Disney fan, I do like many of Pixar movies, but I didn't even know it was released (except for cash grabs like Buzz and Wish).
I recently took a visit to Epcot and what the editor said was 100% right. I watched the imagineering documentary where they talked about the whole thesis of the park and what it represented. The ratatouille ride didn’t teach me anything about France, French culture, or rats. Test Track at least gave me an appreciation for automobile design. Editor basically said everything I was going to say, so I’ll give her big props for having a valid take.
And apparently even Test Track was neutered compared to its earlier version, due to its "sim" theming over the original being presented as you physically going through the tests in a real car.
@@sodaponeyeah, they removed the awesome crash test vibe. I’ll miss the trauma of that last boost being set as you about to crash test the car
The 'or rats' got me for some reason💀 so funny
You know the entire point of Epcot is lost when the crown jewel of Epcot and the most influential attraction, carousel of progress, has the least amount of traffic out of any other attraction. And it’s a fully inside ride where you just sit in the ac and rest for 20 minutes in hot ass Florida. It’s pathetic
@@DrJazzyBonespHd Carousel of progress is in the magic kingdom 💀
“It feels like the company is eating itself alive for short-term profit”
I think that’s hitting the nail on the head.
Edit: Something something capitalism
This is literally just what all corporations end up doing under (late-stage) capitalism; ever since the time of Jack Welch this has become more and more common. It's growth for the sake of growth, but just massively accelerated and completely unsustainable
@@coled555That makes little sense. A company *can* do that, but it’s almost never a good tactic, as eventually they’d just go bankrupt. Capitalism means that your actions have financial consequences.
@@liberalcitydweller ummmm, 2008 financial crisis/crash? Our capitalist system allowed the banks that just destroyed basically the world economy to get bailed out by the gov't. They faced like no financial consequences, nor did like any of their execs face any prison sentences, for their actions.
@@liberalcitydwellerits cute that you think CEO's wont do that to make a heckin chunk of change at the cost of the brand lol look at Max, Zaslov has basically fucked up what was one of the best streaming services we had and got rid of the HBO branding for no reason, along with trashing full productions for tax write offs, and this is just one example
@@liberalcitydwellerYeah, but that doesnt matter too much for a CEO or shareholder who can just cash out before the long-term effects hit
The funniest part is Disney knows (or should know this). Disney used to be the king of limited release windows for their content, even on home release. That was why the "Disney Vault" was a thing.
It is kind of sad to see them do such a dramatic 180 in such a relatively short amount of time.
i think this is a perfect showcase as to why physical media worked so well as a business model in its hayday. sure, you knew everything would come out physically a few months after being in the cinema, and no doubt there were people who just waited until then, but because you had to pay for every title individually, and you potentially had to go out of your way to pick it up, it kind of felt similar to buying a ticket to see the film anyway (esp if you only watch it once), so do you want to buy it now and see it on the big screen, or wait 3 months and watch it on your tiny TV for the same price?
as much as D+ does cost money, the subscription model means that it can easily be considered part of your general expenses; no cost is associated with watching an individual title, so the equation changes to spending money now, or waiting and not spending any money later, because the D+ money would be spent on D+ either way.
its just a shame that people have largely gone off phsyical media; its still around and its arguably better than ever, quality wise.
Agreed. It also allowed studios to be slightly riskier with the films they greenlit, because even if they didn’t rake in a huge amount with the theatrical release, DVD sales could make up the difference. But because you don’t pay for individual titles on streaming, individual titles don’t make the money any more, which affects what movies they greenlight.
This is why I hold onto my physical media(also so that it doesn't get changed up without me noticing or being able to doing anything about it because some part of it one day just suddenly became, "problematic") and why I think it will make a comeback in general in the future
@@samcochran8203I think the comeback has already started. I've recently began building up my physical media collection and plan to stop all subscriptions in the near future.
I like physical media a lot too...but better quality wise? Eh not really...not in every aspect...because they don't care about physical media anymore...physical releases are barebones. Gone are the days of cool menu UIs, bonus features galore, games and more. Sure some titles still get some of this...but rarely do we see releases get half of what the average movie used to get on its physical release. Heck you can even see the differences sometimes between a movies VHS/DVD release...to its Blu-ray/4K release. They never bother porting over all the bonus content or unique quirky menus and games. Just generic standardised boring menus and limited features, that any idiot could have put together in 5 minutes. Movie posters and thus physical release case covers...have also taken a hit in quality overall. They're much more generic and less artsy now. I'm generalising a bit of course. Oh and even the Dvd/ blu-ray case itself...sometimes they come in super cheap and thin cases...not nearly as sturdy. But alas I still own a lot of physical media and hope it stays...ownership and preservation is important! I just don't want it to slowly get worse and snuffed out of existence.
@@slenderfoxx3797 i was mainly referring to the video/audio quality, as that is usually my primary reason for purchasing a title physically. Blu-ray and 4K Blu-ray are usually noticably better quality than streaming at the equivalent resolutions, and its unheard of to see 7.1 surround or lossless audio when streaming also.
i'll agree that these days you see a lot more titles opt for templated menus and the amount of bonus content can vary significantly from title to title, but some streaming services may not have any bonus content at all, and templated menus are not new; the seeming lack of effort is simply a side effect of the market for physical media being smaller, so distributers are wanting to put less money into producing physical releases. perhaps not ideal, but imo not unreasonable.
One point that wasn't brought up is that Turning Red was actually intended to have a theatrical release, but was pulled from the line-up a single month before the film's release.
Trust me, I've worked at a movie theater for a few years now. This decision is one of those annoyances that has stuck with me since February 2022.
Ngl if Turning Red was released in theaters I feel like it would’ve done as well as Elemental did. Not great, but pretty good. I would’ve gone to watch it tbh.
I probably would have seen Turning Red if it was in theaters. Why did they pull it...?
@@Saga_Anserum While I don't remember the officially stated reasoning from back then, I like to think it was about testing what Disney could do with Disney+ at the time.
Encanto was put in a similar situation (actually hitting theaters in Nov. 2021, being pulled quickly after, then getting pushed to Disney+ for the end of December), and so many people believe it was just straight to streaming. Maybe Disney was trying to emulate that success using Turning Red, just weirdly skipping the theater step to save money on distribution?
This is just speculation though; I can't even begin to imagine how things truly work within Disney, but I can certainly make assumptions.
@@GHRAN111I heard that next year, Turning Red is heading to cinemas, and so are Soul and Luca.
I saw turning red in Theatres, but thats probably just an europe thing? I didnt even know it wasnt in theatres
is it bad that i kinda wanna see Disney fail? for so many Disney has been one of the biggest in the film industry for their entire lives. I’m genuinely curious to see what happens if they actually go down.
I get it, would also like to know what would happen ngl
We'll probably see a revision to copyright law and have corporations rely on new Ips rather than using the same franchise for centuries
To be fair, Disney isn’t gonna just disappear. Are they facing major issues, yes, but they aren’t gonna go under overnight.
@@constructivecriticism6203Obviously, not overnight. For that to happen, it would take a long time, unless they change things.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but… Disney+ is the most profitable thing Disney has ever had
Appreciate the interjection about the theme parks! I'm not really invested in the movie side of things, but I'm definitely an old school Disney theme parks fan (especially EPCOT) and the fact is that the last time Disney built an original, non-IP based attraction for any of their US parks from the ground up was Expedition Everest...which opened in *2006*.
They've effectively undone the thematic cohesion of their parks to turn them into glorified commercials for subscribing to Disney+, and it really shows; the parks have always had attractions based around Disney properties, of course, but it's so over the top now and there's no end or sign of real originality in sight.
As far as animation goes, I think people are tired of the digital style Disney always uses as well. It doesn't have the 'wow' factor anymore, so they need to step it up in regard to emotional depth of stories, and art style. I think a great story and creative animation can fill theaters a la Spiderverse.
Disney IS capable of having creative and interesting Spiderverse-esque art styles… thing is, they restrict it to shorts they barely give attention to instead of applying it to their main movies. Look no further than the short Paperman, it’s absolutely stunning. I wish Wish used that lil’ flick’s art and animation style instead of slapping an uncanny filter over their typical realistic CGI.
It really says something that the most successful animated film this year was a video game adaptation from Illumination, while the least successful was Disney's 100th anniversary celebration. My, how the tables have turned. Oversaturation of IP's, too much formulaic blandness within those IP's, Disney Plus making it so people don't have to see this generic shlock in theaters, Disney is really ruining itself, and the only way to climb back up is to take risks and shake things up like other stuios have done. Also, thank you OneTuffPuff for your input about the parks. It sucks that so manny iconic attractions have been replaced with dumb OP themed lands and rides. It's like they forgot what the Magic Kingdom is for.
Yes, very much agreed
Spitting facts.
Mario was also a formulaic, bland film, though.
@@legometaworld2728doesn’t really matter if it has a popular ip and just a fun movie for people not supposed to be a masterpiece of a movie really
@@legometaworld2728We're talking about the Mario movie, not the direct to video lego movies
Disney Parks fan here. After listening to that entire segment from the editor, I think the thing that’s most frustrating is that Disney is STILL capable of creating amazing things without tying it to a brand or IP, and they just…don’t.
As an example, I advise everyone here to look up the brand-new Adventureland Treehouse at Disneyland. For those not in the know, a couple years ago, they closed down Tarzan’s Treehouse and remodeled it into a new theme not directly tied to any story or IP, but rather an original story about a family of 5 building a treehouse together and showcasing all the family members’ unique talents and interests, such as astronomy, music, etc. That’s right: They *_TOOK OUT_* an IP-based attraction and made it something original and timeless. And it FEELS. LIKE. DISNEYLAND. Everything is just so chock-full of charm and…well, for lack of a better term, _magic_ that classic Disneyland is known for.
It’s just a prime example that shows that _Disney still has it creatively,_ but the multitude of factors that this video illustrates perfectly just…keep them from showing it. It’s like you say at the end of the video: they need to stop playing it safe and take risks, because taking risks is what made Disney…Disney. That’s something even WALT HIMSELF SAID. “We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things: because we’re curious.
And curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.”
And the beautifying they did to Epcot hub after the construction finished. Looks great! WED has so much care when they're allowed to go loose. I feel like the last project that was allowed was Galaxy's Edge which is so beautiful when you can't see into any of the merch shops lol. Guardian's coaster is a great ride but man the queue and exterior are boring.
I went there last year. It was under construction with a big tarp over it, and I didn't know what it was. I assumed that they were retheming it to some Encanto house or whatever. When I did find out, I was so relieved
Last time I went to Disney World was when "The Great Movie Ride" was still there. After seeing how lackluster that Mickey Mouse ride is, I have no desire to return.
Could not the said it better myself, Disney had creative people whom are creative excellent writers animators, but Disney doesn’t use theme or fires them they fired 7000! Of there own people! This is definitely gonna do the opposite of what whatever Iger hoped to do.
I agree that the updated treehouse is wonderful, but to say it is not based on a pre-existing story or IP simply isn't true... Its full name is literally "Adventureland Treehouse inspired by Walt Disney's Swiss Family Robinson." Like them retheming it to what it was in the 1960's, and therefore to an old IP that I would personally consider irrelevant to the current general public, is still a bold move that I appreciate, but again, to say it's devoid of any IP is incorrect and gives corporate Disney too much credit.
I remember, back in the late 70's and 80's, almost all artists, from recording to movies to you-name-it, where complaining about the "suits" trying to screw with their art! Well, I guess we can see who won!
The last in-theatre tie-in movie that I've seen work was Doctor Who's 50th anniversary special, "The Day of the Doctor". They a) ran it in limited theatres, b) spent **50 years** creating the franchise and fans to watch it, c) tied the plot into **the** central mystery/conflict of the previous decade of the show, d) made it a crossover episode with guest stars the fans wanted to see, e) it was an excellent script.
None of the Disney+ continuations have a quarter of that.
It also was basically standalone that didn't require you to see anything before it.
You cannot do a movie as the season finale for a tv show. it just doesn't work. You are making the fans who supported it go and buy tickets, and you are making moviegoers have to watch the show.
Now I do think Marvel shows can work, but they should be smaller scale and in their own corner.
Either be a separate thing like the street level is shaping up to be, or just let them be larger one-shots like we used to get on DVD. Just give us more smaller stories with side characters or characters we love to get a bit more characterization for them.
I think that audience's standards have also gotten pretty high. If you want me to go to the theater to see a film, it better be a really good movie. No longer can a studio release a mediocre film and expect it to pop off in theaters. And this goes for every studio, not just Disney. Look at why A24 is doing so well. Their movies take risks and are GOOD. Every disney movie now goes through 100 men in black suits before it turns into a finished product. They don't do anything new. They're not worth it
I think it's less the standards in general, and more that theaters are so expensive that it's not worth going unless you know you're going to be wow'd
And the fact that many theaters (at least near me) are shutting down, making it more difficult to see movies without it becoming a day long trip.
Tbf, Illumination's entire business model is releasing mediocre films and raking in a billion dollar box office. People are still taking their kids to the theaters to see mid movies, I just think Disney does a horrible job at marketing anything that isn't a sequel or reboot to their popular IPs
@@Commenter839 That's a great point
@@Commenter839 I mean, half of Illumination's catalogue is Minions movies. And the audience knows what they are. Their latest release being a highly popular video game IP which also made people to want to see it for nostalgic reasons.
I just watched the 100 years of Disney special on ABC, and the last segment was, I kid you not, on how “great” and innovative” Disney+ is. A company with 100 years of history making wonderful animation and theme parks, but their most innovative things of the 21st century is a carbon copy of all other greedy streaming services, I guess.
You know how those kinda documentary style things are. They gotta make it sound epic and interesting. Without the actual ingredients for it. But it honestly feels a lot more genuine on CZcams like this guy's channel, like, it's an honest opinion. It doesn't have to be "woah!" and "glamourous" and "super inspiring". It's just a normal guy expressing normal feelings and thoughts, without the fakeness of trying to hype up the thing they're talking about, unironically.
@@iclynnx I’m aware of the formula, I was just shocked they dedicated a segment of this two hour special exclusively to Disney+, instead of, I don’t know, 5 seconds.
Well yeah that was made to glaze disney ofc they're gonna say that
@@vitaminwater9662 yes, see my above comment.
Isn't ABC owned by Disney?
Funnily enough (if you can say that), France actually has a law called "la chronologie des médias", which dictates how long a movie must be before it can be sold on DVD, shown on streaming service etc. This is a good thing to theatres (and so to movies), as there is at least a one-year wait, so more incentive to go see it in theatres.
And guess which corporation is trying to lobby against this law? Disney, yes.
I'm old enough to remember the days of the "Disney Vault" when the company would limit the sales and releases of major films in the catalog. I think a similar approach could be reintroduced where they would periodically re-release their most popular movies to the big screen for limited runs. This year, Ghiblifest garnered a few million dollars off the studio's back catalog and while it's not as significant a sum as a new release, it costs basically nothing to re-release a film that's 15+ years old, especially if you don't do any digital specialization beforehand. How much money do they burn just keeping Disney+ active?
They rereleased some movies like The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast this year for their 100th anniversary and they BARELY advertised them at all. I only heard of them from CZcams comments and news sites and barely anyone else was in the theatre when I watched TLK’s rerelease.
You know, I think a big factor to Disney+ failing Disney is that, for foreign countries, it's really difficult to prioritize it. Sometimes, if we have the means, we have to decide which service to get because it's the one we'll watch the most. Also, they released Disney+ later on in Latin America, so the only way we could watch shows like Wandavision was through pirating pages, which conditioned us to keep on doing the same.
Exactly. Before, the answer was easy: Netflix. It had the best series and Disney stuff.
When Disney branched off, most didn't even consider getting it. Their preferred streming service didn't drop in price, and they didn't have money for more, so that's that.
Either you go watch it in theaters, or you pirate.
it was available one year later in brazil wv was not released yet idk about you
Not only that but the fact that they release shows and movies in different times for different regions makes it so if you're invested in a show you're most likely going to pirate it
Why would you wait to see TOH or Amphibia's endings a year after their release in the US when you can watch them in real time through illegal sites?
It feels like non English speakers would be the BEST case for this. Those in America/UK/etc would have a far easier way of getting official language dubs or subtitles. Places where theaters are less popular. It's not even like these things don't exist, a lot of disney movies at least have various subtitles by the time they got put on DVD's.
I feel like a part of it is also the fact that no one wants to see these bland movies they’re putting out. Like, for example, every ad I saw for the Five Nights at Freddy’s movie said that it would also be streaming on Peacock, but all of us were so excited to see that movie that we wanted to see it firsthand in theaters. Disney hasn’t really released a movie that audiences are willing to do that with.
It's also important to notice that, like Schaffrillas said, Disney easily has the largest brand recognition in filmmaking industry. Someone seeing the poster for FNAF could not know it's an Universal movie, much less that it would be on Peacock, but Disney+ says right on their name which content you are expecting.
Exactly this, Disney as a brand is praying on its own downfall. They are trying to take their own beloved classics that are fan-favorites and turning it into live action garbage which is just making people lose trust in their ability to make something good. This is taking their fanbases in other directions away from Disney and Disney just keeps trying to play it safe with the same generic movies. I think disney really needs to do is something new and exciting if they actually want to capture people’s attention.
So true, I legit haven't felt intrigued by Disney or Pixar or MCU stuff since basically Encanto and Avengers Inifity Wars
@apenasmaisumdiogo.7115 At first I was taken aback by the fact Warner and Universal didn’t name their respective services after themselves. But seeing how it seems to take a toll in Disney’s case, maybe it’s a blessing.
Captain Marvel only did so well because it was sandwiched between the 2 biggest MCU movies ever.
During the infinity war - endgame era EVERYONE was on the mcu hype train and would just watch anything lmao, which was smart
@@BigFatMonkey9629yup that was me and god i felt nothing towards marvel i dont even remember the plot but i remember everything from Avengers guess thats how these poorly done films wont live past time
7:03 You also forgot to mention how Lightyear made so much merch. It is still on shelves. My Walmart still has a shelf full of Lightyear stuff.
He said including, but not limited to.
We still have shelves full of Disney Star Wars merch and the only thing we’ve managed to sell was a Mandalorian NERF rifle.
if disney ever decides to do something bold, it'd be super cool to see them tackle a 2d theatrical film again. they havent had one since 2012 and it would be nice to see
they won't do that because those animators have a union and can't be exploited as easily ;)
It could be an interesting idea, but the reality is that there's not enough 2D animators working at WDAS that could make an animated feature, and it's not like they can hire the ones who work in their TV shows, since the animations for those shows it's outsourced. Disney would need to outsourced the animation to some really talented studios in order to make something akin to their 90s animated features, and it would take plenty of time, since the production for a big budgeted 2D animated film could take up to 5 years. I know plenty of people say that if Ghibli or any other major Japanese anime studio can make successful movies like The Boy and the Heron or Demon Slayer, then Disney could make a 2D feature as well, it doesn't work like that, because anime is done differently compared to Western 2D features
Technically, the Bob's Burgers movie was a 2D animated Disney movie.
A 2d animated movie would be unique enough that it would catch everyone's attention. It would be a good way for disney to bank on nostalgia, and if the movie was good and had passion behind it, positive word of mouth would lead to further profits. If disney was only competent enough to handle it right, I would say that, in theory, it would work out pretty well for them.
Fun fact - Disney+ was never objectively profitable for Disney
Can someone explain why like how does it have to become profitable ?
@@winifredeghrudje9427it needs numerous things. First, is that it needs to reach an international audience to get more subscribers than just in North America. And even jn North America, due to Disneys politics, people refused to sign up.
Secondly, Disney needs to stop with new releases and content for Disney Plus. Not entirely, but lessen severely all the tv shows, remakes, and original movies in production for it. The company is bleeding money for all the trash it’s putting out.
3. The marketing and deals for it are odd. Disney itself does not have deals for subscribers, but at the same time, tons of people have Disney Plus because of their phone or internet company including it, or some other 3rd party. Disney needs to stop giving It away for free, and offer those same package and deals officially. If they also lower the subscription cost for it as well, it would help. Disney Plus has a lot of bad press and the fact it’s still the average price for a subscription network is bold of them.
4. If they made an adult and a child account, and put all the adult non-Disney films that Disney has rights to, it would bolster subscriptions potentially. There’s only so much of Disney that someone can consume. As a last ditch effort, they could merg Hulu and Disney Plus together.
Disney Plus was always going to be losing money in the first year or two but that’s the nature of new projects or investments. The issue is that it’s still losing money.
@@winifredeghrudje9427I think it's measured ed by annual viewers instead of being measured by total subscriptions? I'm not entirely sure but I do know that Disney+ has not done enough to recoup the budgets they spent on their originals. Streaming services are in a weird spot since ads and other TV staples aren't considered as measurements of profitability
@winifredeghrudje9427 It can't at this point as they are losing subs now.
I think only Netflix is profitable - but they are the dominating player, they show you a lot of ads now and they make a lot of content constantly (mostly trash, but sometimes they show licensed foreign TV-series, which are good)
I was pissed that the ABC special about 100 years of Disney didn't mention Howard Ashman. The guy single-handedly fixed Disney and didn't talk about him at all.
Funnily enough, you can actually tie this back to the response to the first Avatar: The Last Airbender Movie. Ignoring it many writing and cinematic problems, it has to do with two main facts: one, writing a tv show and writing a movie require different skillsets. Its why stuff like that one Atlantis sequel flopped so hard, it was written as a tv show and then when that didn't work out, they crammed it all into one movie. Tv shows work primarily off of long and well-thought out character developments. Yes there are final battles (actual battle or otherwise), but the charm of a tv show lies in it's character dramas. Movies are weird considering they are, fundamentally, much shorter versions. They don't have enough time to put in the work for the character dramas and if they do, then they don't have enough time to work towards the end goal of the movie. So instead they function by combining the two as seamlessly as they can, introducing character dynamics in how each character interacts with the plot. This is of course generalizing and if you wanted to get into specifics then you'd have to go into how operas shortened considerably over time and then you'd have to get into musical theater and its a thing. The second reason is that, for whatever reason, we are hardwired to believe that the other form of media isn't canon to the original, which is something that Marvel and DCU accidentally locked themselves into the moment they decided to go with primarily movies instead of tv shows. Long story short, comics don't translate well to movies, there's a reason why we call them episodic adventures. And whenever someone decides "oh hey this is turning out to be a really good show, how about we make this into a movie" and of course when that venture fails to bring in as much money as expected, then the future writers of the tv show will look at that, not want to have to deal with writing their show in mind, and say "oh no that's an alternate universe thing, it's not canon." And if you know anything about the Marvel/DCU comics, you know that there is precedent with saying that something is in an alternate universe. Now that in and of itself isn't the bad part. The bad part comes when they try and use the movie in the tv show and treat it like canon (this also works when movies try and use the tv show as canon) and then we get into stuff where they don't translate well and a tv show's version of a character and a movie's version of a character end up just being different characters. And if you were wondering, yes this is why oftentimes people say that the movie isn't as good as the books because again, movies require different skillsets. Anyways, the point is this: we are hardwired to register that a different version of the original is a) differently formatted and oftentimes an entirely separate property and b) doesn't matter anyways because its going to be written as non-canon when the original gets around to addressing it.
“they bought all these massive brands that are also in their flop era” is a great way to say it. Disney Animation, along with other animation studios, has had a history of ups and downs. But having all these brands with flops makes it looks worse. Encanto isn’t too long ago, so I still have slight hope for the animation side of things
If you told me in 2019 that in 4 years, Disney would be performing the worst out of the big studio conglomerates, I wouldn’t have believed you
@@jesuuschif you told me in 2019 that Marvel and Star Wars were no longer talked about like they used to, I wouldn’t have believed you
Wow. I didn’t expect Schaff’s editor’s critique of Disney Park’s over-reliance on IPs that miss the purpose of the original themed land’s intent to stand out more than Schaff’s critique on Disney+ hurting Disney in the theatrical venue, but it’s really well done. Schaff really should let his editor be a collaborative partner in future editorial videos. And yes, I do feel like the inclusion of IPs in lands meant to both educate and entertain guests on certain subjects like technology and different cultures in Epcot, animal conservation in Animal Kingdom and filmmaking in Hollywood (MGM) Studios misses those parks’ original intentions and make them feel like just shells of their former selves.
I get like, add Nemo on the Aquarium due to image or the Lion King characters here and there in the africa zones of Animal Kingdom
But damm, they really had to fill those places with things that had no reason to be there
yeah that part was so great, felt as great as a defunctland produccion
First, I hard agree on letting that editor cook, she brought some really interesting points to the table. Removing Dinoland for properties totally unrelated to *animals* in *Animal Kingdom* is a damn travesty, speaking as a natural history enthusiast.
I think the main point that links Schaff and his editor's theses together is the fact that Disney has basically collapsed into a brand recognition circlejerk. That animation with the Simpsons shown in the video a few times and those very forced tie-ins to other Disney properties in Wish really point that direction, too. It comes off to me as smug and showboaty.
Universal Studios is the superior park anyway since it caters to everyone and not just families
1. Captain Marvel was released in the single most ideal point in time for a Marvel movie to have been released, i.e. one month before Endgame. They could've put out a movie of a guy on a toilet for 2 hours and it would've grossed a billion.
2. Superhero films have pretty consistently had a 70-30 male-female split. This is because the superhero concept naturally appeals to males more - not because superheroes have historically been an exclusionary "no girls allowed" space, but because men and women tend to be interested in different things. Women are absolutely free and welcome to enjoy superhero stuff, but that 70-30 split shouldn't be surprising nor alarming. Comparing superhero films to Barbie, which was about a nostalgic toy brand that is VERY female-targeted, is a massive apples-to-oranges comparison. While it wasn't made by Marvel, consider that even Madame Web, which chased a female audience perhaps harder than any superhero movie yet, had a 55-45 male-female audience ratio.
3. The problem isn't that superhero movies have female characters in them, the problem is that they are usually very poorly written as a direct result of Marvel's skewed priorities. Marvel has taken its conventional audience (both the men and women in that MCU golden age 70-30 split) for granted, i.e. "we can put any malformed crap on the screen and they WILL watch it so long as it has explosions and flashy powers and bad guys getting beaten up". And since they believe they can do no wrong with that audience, the only logical thing to do is to ignore them entirely and try to appeal to a completely different audience, i.e. all those women who just didn't really feel like going to a superhero movie all those years. And surprise surprise, even when they are being relentlessly catered to, they still just don't feel like showing up to a superhero movie, and the conventional (70-30) audience is turned off because they basically threw the old heroes under the bus to replace them with a bunch of poorly-written "strong female characters" (that, speaking with a bunch of my female friends, relatives and coworkers, are really unlikable and annoying to their target audience - most said that Captain Marvel reminds them of the kind of women that they absolutely hate having to work with).
Deny it all you want, but Marvel's relentless chasing of a female audience is a major factor (far from the only one, yes, but a big one) behind the decline of the MCU.
I think the problem is the movies are just poorly written, none of what you said would be true if the movies were good and movies in the MCU that dont appeal to this formula still suck so its clearly not the reason
Now can you see why we in the UK are divided over these guys getting their greedy little mouse-mitts on Doctor Who?
Honestly might be surprising to hear, but I'm hoping Disney's flop trend keeps going as long as possible. It's so refreshing to not know which studio is going to produce the next big popular animated movie, and I do believe wanting to be better than Disney is a driving creative force for all of them. And tanking the company that tried to buy the whole entertainment industry is a nice added bonus.
The day Disney falls, is the day creativity can finally breathe
You make a good point. It's exciting when you can't assume anything about where the good films will come from
So you don't want Disney to learn from their current mistakes and change for the better? Ok then.
@@CarloNassarDisney shouldn't grow. Disney should fall from its stranglehold on entertainment.
@@blueberrimuffin6682 That's not exactly what I meant.
Honestly, as someone who thinks the states needs a new set of anti-trust laws and Disney has far too big of a grip over entertainment as an entire industry, I don't really hope to see them come around with some major reinvigoration. I just don't care enough for family entertainment as a whole to hope that whatever "gem" they could give us would be worth ignoring this monopoly they are nurturing, and whatever hit they take, additionally, is something of a blessing. Disney needs a good kick in the nuts.
Thankfully, the kick is coming.
Disney is reaching the end of their bubble of copyright meddling. Their oldest properties are starting to become free use, Winnie the Pooh and Steamboat Willie just got tagged with this. They're explicitly banned from trying to fo anything legal about extending copyright any further, and some of their most central brand identity is just a few years away from not really being theirs anymore.
Also, friendly reminder that if Disney hadn't meddled with copyright in the first place, Robocop and Aliens would be open source by now. YOU could have made a sequel web series, comic book, game, or whatever about Alien, and made profit off of it.
Warmer Bros Discovery is already considering to merge with paramount 😐
You see, it’s not the fact that women are in movies for me. It’s the opposite. As, ya know, a woman. It’s the shitty representation Disney thinks is good. It’s like they want a participation trophy for putting no effort in. Write us with variety instead of half assing your female characters, claiming it’s empowering, and calling us sexist for calling it out (cough cough MARVEL) Same especially goes towards lgbt+ rep. Like imagine canceling every queer show you have and then put in a throwaway like or a brief kissing scene to cover it up AND THEN DELETE IT IN OTHER COUNTRIES. If your gonna add it go all out with it and have the balls to keep it. Like- srsly?!
Line*
Cool but how is this relevant to the video?
Besides Disney+ I think there’s two other big factors affecting box office totals:
1. The quality just hasn’t been there, most of Disney’s movies haven’t reviewed well either.
2. Movies have gotten way more expensive, especially for families. 2020 plus inflation have made many families decide a day at the movies just isn’t worth it anymore.
A big problem with with Disneys streaming service is they were so desperate to jump on the streaming game that they didn't devise a way to properly monetize them. Monthly subscriptions are not sufficient profit wise at this time to make up for shortfalls in film grosses, greater expenses as being a sole distributor dependent on subscriber growth or losses in digital sales from dumping their films so quickly on streaming. So in essence they are kneecapping their film grosses for a service that isn't yet cost-effective. On top of that they spent years training their audience to expect to only wait weeks to see their hits on streaming instead of going to the theatre. Now that its not making up the profit shortfall their scrambling to get people back in theatres. While I do feel Disney getting into streaming was a good idea in the long run, in the short run their obviously poorly thought out strategy for implementing it is bleeding the company.
LOL Disney pulls in $20 billion a year from streaming (so far) compared to just $3-5 billion in theatrical depending on how good a year it's been.
Streaming is the replacement for paid linear TV you know the money made from ABC, Disney Channel, FX, Freeform etc.
Disney's only problem with streaming is for some insane reason they have been spending $100-200 million on 6 episode streaming originals!
@@Ushio01 ok one, that is not an accurate number, since they also have large operating costs (marketing, platform maintenance, production, etc). And their yearly revenue shifts yearly. Plus their model was based on growth of subscribers to keep profit. Before they only had to make the content, with the new model they have to market, distribute and retain subscribers with no safeties like advertising and partnerships. And you say those price tags are insane but end of day they need the production value as there is not nearly enough Disney brand content to keep people on the platform out of habit like Netflix. They market a high production show which brings on new subscribers. Now they are ahifting less on growth but. Ire retention. Like through adds (welcome back) and price hikes. Again they didn’t think through their monetization strategy of becoming the distributor, marketer, creator and financier all at the same time.
Also that’s why those films before were so profitable. They were only on the films. Disney plus has to make a profit on every film, show, special etc were before that was handled by different departments and distributors and partners. Like abc. Like yes they could make them cheaper? But than that runs the risk of the Netflix trap. Loads of cheap content that no one watches, and that also loses subscribers.
@@gwell2118 Both those numbers are revenue and it does change but theatrical is older and it's not gone much over $5B even in 2018 and 2019.
Streaming has been growing every year in revenue.
Films have never been particularly profitable they are halo products you make a little theatrically but they are mostly about making the I.P more well known.
Streaming is the same people watching shows and films on Disney+ may be more interested in merch of those things as well as the parks.
Disney doesn't need to spend double to triple what anyone does on it's streaming shows.
Have you watched any of them? they don't look 2-3 times better especially the MCU shows.
Disney + is a money loser, they are losing money on theatrical release because their strategy is utterly stupid they put movies too soon on Disney + it’s should be cinema only for 6 months to a 1 year before going putting them on Disney +, linear tv although losing viewership and ad spend profit margins are a lot higher especially for money cow channels like sports, also this depends on the country because in my cable tv still has high penetration
@@weird-guy Theatre chains don't want films for 6 months GotG3 was removed at less than 4 months because everyone who wanted to see it saw it.
Theatre chains only have so many screens at each cinema to show films and they want the newest releases.
Being able to rent a film was usually 4 months after a film was released theatrically streaming has just replaced rentals in that regard of course if a film is a hit that can take longer.
Disney has been releasing far too many mid or bad films which is why they are ending up on Disney+ sooner than normal.
I'd argue Disney is damaging Disney's brand by itself but yeah, this is definitely a factor
that’s literally what he’s saying, who do you think owns Disney+?
Disney is a broad term. There’s different branches
That’s what he’s saying dude 😂
Apparently people aren't getting it, what I'm saying is that Disney is destroying itself with or without Disney+ 😂🙃
Yeah the latest movies are so bad@@Danominator
Bless the Editor for mentioning the parks, too. I'm from Europe and was raised on theme Parks, always being super pumped about the possibility to go to Epcot and Animal Kingdom one day, when I have my own money and can afford the trip.
Been keeping up with how those parks were doing over the years, and now that I could go there, I have little reason to do so. What captivated me were stories on the Internet about how immersive and alive it all felt, only for it to be an IP dump now. Dinoland USA especially.
I'd like to say I can't believe this is how far it's gotten, but considering that defiling their legacy has been a trend in recent years, I'm honestly not surprised.
17:05 ... wait, why is Encanto in the Animal Kingdom
... wait, why in the Animal Kingdom and not on Epcot?
... WAIT, WHY IS ENCANTO IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM
It's always important to note that the problem isn't with the creative sector of the Disney corporation. The imagineers, animators, artists. Its always with the corporate executive sector.
It can be both
yeah no, many of these Disnye movies fail because they just aren't good enough to attract audiences
@@dantefiore8442 If you seriously think that's the ONLY reason this company is failing, then you really don't understand what's really going on here
@@Mr.Needle-HamsterNobody said it was the only reason; we watched the video. But it’s no secret that Disney has been missing so much more than it hits recently.
Yep, the creators are perfect in every way and absolutely never to blame for anything
The irony of this is Disney was scared to release their films to home media because they feared this sort of thing would happen
The irony has finally struck a mortal blow.
Yeah. The main difference between then and now is that back then you could only buy 1 movie at a time. Now you simply get disney+ and get unlimited access for the equivalent of 1 movie every 2 months before then. The only thing home media threatened back then was theatrical reruns of Disneys older movies. Something which admittedly was pretty common back then. But now its threatening their whole catalogue, old and new, because they gave consumers a deal too good to ignore, regardless of quality, and a guarantee that everythign will come to Disney+ in just around 3 months. It wasnt even 10 years ago when the typical time divide between theatres and home media was 6-9 months.
@@drdewott9154 and that was when you were LUCKY to get a home release within the year!
That's a big reason they did the whole Disney Vault thing in the first place, they thought people would skip new or old releases in theatres and just wait to see them on VHS. Ironically, the fears of those braindead executives 45 years ago is finally happening.
There is no irony, because releasing all titles into Plus is entirely unlike releasing them individually onto VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray. But hey you not smart post SOUNDED smart, so upvotes galore!
Disney+ shows should have been bonus content “what was character X doing between movies” with some future hints sprinkled in
Ever since Disney + there was this one movie theatre near me that was slowly losing money and a few months ago went out of business, making it that much harder to watch movies in cinemas around my area
Same but my local one closed during the pandemic
In the comics Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are very comparable characters. They are both cute teen heroes, second-generation successors to established characters, minority characters written with actual care, created during the same era of comic books, widely considered the only good thing to come out of otherwise abandoned projects (the Ultimate Universe and the aborted attempt to turn the Inhumans into the new X-men, respecticely), and, oh yeah, *beloved by the audience*.
But in the movies, Miles was introduced with great care in an innovative, beautiful and beloved movie and has been catapulted into a household name as a result. Meanwhile Kamala’s debut was squandered on a mediocre tv series that exists solely to pad out Disney+, and as a result she remains so obscure that she dragged down the sequel to a mega hit just by being on the poster.
What a waste of a good character.
That's just sad...for Kamala, of course
If I had a nickel for every time something with Kamala Khan flopped in the past few years, I'd have 2 nickels. Which isnt a lot but its weird that it happened twice.
I’m sorry but she’s been pushed in the comics for years, like a entire decade and still hasn’t grown in popularity, to say it’s cause of that show isn’t true at all, it’s cause she’s a bland character, Miles has a actual backstory that can be interesting to explore, plus her powers were stupid to look at, the inflatable fists were ridiculous, which is why they didn’t try.
@@PsycheTrance65 just 2? Her solo comic run has been canceled on 6 separate occasions.
I wouldn’t say that Mile’s comic run was all that good or handled with care, and Ms Marvel, despite usually being just a really lame character, was actually the best thing about The Marvels because her actress actually has some semblance of charisma and hasn’t been in the franchise long enough to become jaded like Samuel L has. I wouldn’t say Captain Marvel was “a mega hit” either, the only reason it did well was because it was plopped right between Infinity War and Endgame, and Infinity War’s post credits scene made it seem like Captain Marvel would be essential to understanding Endgame, even though that actually ended up being Antman and the Wasp.
I really think credit cannot be given enough to Spider-verse to Disneys state right now. It really was a historical moment for animated movies and IP movies in general. Especially as we got into 2022 with Puss in Boots and Pinocchio releasing in the same year. Right now it feels like the "Disney style" is no longer associated with quality but rather with mediocrity. When Disney is struggling to put out a hit, and every studio on the planet can achieve the same style (Adam Sandler was able to get a Disney style animated movie for gods sake) people start to build an association with their style and a mediocre animated movie. In the same way Dreamworks quickly became associated with gross-out humor and pop culture references, Disney has now become associated with safe family friendly slop. Disney is to 2023, what Dreanworks was to the 2010s, a studio stuck under the reputation it has gained because of their attempts to re-capture what worked in the past.
So... Disney basically became Illumination? Checks out tbh
Wait! Adam Sandler had a Disney style animated movie? What's it called?
@@EthanTest-cp9ux Leo
A very interesting thought I heavily agree with.
I guess where this leads is that the only way Disney can regain its dominance is maybe not just one creative succesfull masterpiece but a complete leap to a different art-style, more cinematic, perhaps similar to spiderverse and pussib2.
@@EthanTest-cp9uxand people seem to enjoy it more than most of Disney’s recent movies
All the homies hate Bob Iger!
Modern Disney pretty much is the epitome of peaking in high school and begging everyone to remember how cool you used to be before it became your entire personality
I think one thing Disney could do is not drop their new films on Disney+ so soon after the theatrical release. Home media isn’t nothing new, DVD’s have been around for a long time but most people would’ve still seen movies in theatres because the wait for it to come to DVD took a while, typically like 4-6 months, now with Disney+ and other streaming services you could only have to wait a minimum of 45 days! Of course people would forgo paying for a movie ticket if it means just waiting a little over a month or two to see the movie on streaming. Make people wait for a movie before they can watch it at home, that’ll help add value to movie theatres and helps it seem more like an event instead of simply just an option to see a film
Recently, my grandparents and I booked tickets to go see Napoleon. And my grandmother had me set up Apple TV+ for her. The first thing that popped up on her home screen was Napoleon, and her exclamation made it obvious she was thinking 'don't tell me I booked tickets for something I can watch from home.'
Luckily, it was just a trailer for the extended version that would be released at a later date. But the fact there was already a trailer for it shows how little time they let films remain exclusive to cinemas.
YES! I totally couldn't agree more! THANK YOU! EEP! :)
Agreed- if it was PURELY a matter of "why watch it in movies when I can wait and see it at home", then DVD and VHS and... home video in general should have annihilated cinema, yet it didn't. Companies knew to space that stuff out. But they wanted to push everybody to subscribe to Disney+, and in the process of doing so they deliberately made the Marvel shows too long and too many (we need CONTENT, content for the service so everyone will subscribe!), leading to lower quality as workers were stressed and schedules compressed, and they put the movies on the service too fast and made people willing to wait until they were out of cinema.
But I've also heard that recently, in order to bolster their domestic movie industry to recover after the pandemic and their other economic woes, China has been WAY more restrictive to the number of foreign movies they allow on their market. Because, hey, why SHOULD they allow US-made movies to potentially steal ticket sales away from their own? And quite a hefty sum of those fabled billion dollar-ticket sales came from China, and if they turn off the spigot... well. This is what you get.
A minimum of 3-4 months, along with added features and deleted similar to how DVD and BlueRay.
my cheap ass still wouldnt, even if it was for years!!
Disney has become the very definition of "quantity over quality" these days. And even when they somehow manage to produce something of quality like The Owl House, they mistreat it and throw it in the dumpster. The company has become insufferable now.
Because the owl house was in some ways the opposite of what the "manager" wanted. But like everyone who watched it wanted more. It just zeems like the political/"moral'/ethics of the company are 180 to the public consumers
@@ttry1152 thats basicly most companies nowadays. same thing with the quantity over quality
They mistreated TOH so badly the creator Dana Terrace cleaned out her office and left Disney. The way they just cut the show without even consulting her was abysmal. And they’d repeat it again with Emma Fuhrmann who found out she was replaced in Ant-Man 3 the same time as everyone else
Owl house was a mediocre gravity falls knock off deserved the cancellation
@@JohnWall-lj1mxL take + wrong side of history
3:07 while not the biggest problem, some movies do suffer, not from having female stars, but the mindset the writers have that being a girl automatically makes your character good.
They're scared to make the women suffer and grow because it implies they weren't perfect from the start.
Two things:
1) I think they really failed Captain Marvel in how they advertised her. She was portrayed as this big, powerful, Superman figure who would turn the tide against Thanos. The most powerful Avenger. And I think that really soured a lot of people to her. I mean, we had characters who had 10+ years of build-up and you're telling me the person who's going to be instrumental against him is this hero who didn't even exist prior to this movie? That's just bad writing.
2) Plus, Civil War 2 had just concluded in the comics, which basically turned Capt Marvel into a fascist type figure. So a lot of people latched onto that plot point to hate her. Really it was just the worst time for her movie to come out. I know that the same thing happened with Iron Man, that Civil War 1 released just before 2008 (Iron Man 1). But people didn't really care about Iron Man before the Iron Man movies so he was spared that fate, but due to the MCU's success people began keeping an eye on the comics too which led to hate bomb exploding in Capt Marvel's face.
Honestly, it's good that Disney is financially suffering. I think it's a good lesson for corporations to learn about streaming services and it teaches them to release more movies in theaters than just Marvel and live action remakes. The past two years have shown us that original blockbusters can dominate the box office. (Top Gun Maverick, Avatar 2, Barbie, Oppenheimer, etc)
I think, in addition, knowing these movies will just be on streaming in a few months, unless the movie starts feeling like a cultural moment (like what happened with Barbie), it's really hard to excuse the price of tickets now too. My spouse has pretty flexible hours, so we can catch a matinee, but for the two of us that's still between $30-40 dollars for a movie that we get to see once. If you were taking kids, seems like the average family has 2+ kids so that easily runs $100+ for one movie, that again, they get to see once. And that doesn't include snacks and drinks (smuggled in or bought in theater) or special merch (like the DnD popcorn buckets). Maybe I've just been poor for so long, but I look at that in terms of groceries and gas. $40 is right about two weeks of gas for us, $40 is a pretty common grocery run. It's just hard to excuse that kind of luxury if it isn't going to be a significant cultural experience or it's not a movie I'm really hyped to see.
Yeah, while Disney+ has hurt the brand a lot, the entire industry has had a problem in the post-pandemic landscape. Between the rise of streaming and social media and the inflated budgets caused by the pandemic, blockbusters have been bombing a lot, with few exceptions like Barbenheimer, Mario and Guardians of the Galaxy.
That's totally reasonable, and you're not alone in choosing what you spend your money on. The economy is just so messed up right now.
We are living in harder times. I relate to not spending that kind of money unless I know I am getting a good experience from it. Most of my entertainments are now inexpensive stuff like youtube and podcasts and fanfiction.
No you’re so right I was so disappointed when I payed $20 bucks to watch a mediocre film only to realize it was immediately put on streaming! The theater is a treat and I only think it’s worth it for generation defining films
I actually think the influx of streaming services has affected the box office for all companies. Since everyone knows that a movie will come to a streaming service eventually, it makes it so that consumers are only going to buy overpriced theater tickets and popcorn to see a movie that they are heavily invested in. The movies that succeeded at the box office this year were either highly critically acclaimed, direct adaptations of incredibly popular ips, or both. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 was the only Disney movie that fell into the previously mentioned categories and was the only Box office hit Disney had.
Also Can’t wait for the Mario Kart Ranking
I agree. There's a reason why the only three movies I paid money to see this year were Transformers Rise of the Beasts, Across the Spider-Verse, and Elemental. The first two were because of brand investment and the third was because of good word of mouth.
I wonder if he's going to throw in a character ranking for mk8dx as well. That would be neat
I only see movies that I think will benefit from being seen in theaters. Oppenheimer was made to be seen in 70mm IMAX and it took advantage of that. All other movies I am not really motivated since I don't care about the big blockbusters since most of them are sequels/remakes.
Sony been doing great though because they choose to stay back and eat popcorn while selling streaming rights to these companies for boatload prices! Plus since Sony doesn’t have a major streaming service they don’t have to care and just let everyone else stress out while they are taking no risk and all benifits.
@@orcas800How about Napoleon?
Every new video essay about how Disney is floundering gives me a little more hope. May Disney finally crush itself under its own weight. Let Indie animators, small film-makers, and crowdfunding pave the way to the future of animation and content. Let Disney be a history lesson to learn from; If you get too big, get too greedy, give your CEO's amounts of money that you and I couldn't even dream of, and swallow too many properties, you _will_ eventually choke on your own tail.
What about normal employees and their families?
The streaming wars rn are wild. I have to have a subscription service for every sport it feels like. Shows are fragmented in tug and wars between companies, it's a stark reminder, unless we have the physical media, we don't own anything. I think there's intense parallels to film and video games at this age.
Guardians 3 proves that people don't have Marvel fatigue, they have bad movie fatigue
This is absolutely true, honestly.
Disney+ did a significant blow to the MCU, Pixar, Star Wars and even their own in-house studio and it’s just depressing to see.
Literally in 2019, the MCU was at its absolute highest, now 4 years later it’s at its absolute lowest, that does NOT organically happen, like not at all.
Honestly, Disney+ is the worst thing to ever happen to Disney.
Its a perfect storm. Endgame served as a really good jump off point. Most of the old characters are gone. The tv shows feel like homework even if they're not actually required viewing. Eternals was super boring, Ant Man was super weird looking, Black Panther's lead actor DIED, and Black Widow was a weird afterthought that got Covid shunted straight to streaming... and no one has anything to say about Shang Chi.
But Spiderman 3, Panther 2, Guardians 3. Dr. Strange, Thor 4 all hit close to a billion SPidey made like 2 billion. Hits, then misses, then hits. Same with the tv shows.
Marvels should have done better, and if it had come out earlier in the sequence, before Ant Man and Thor it probably would have done better. its largely the advertising that failed it. ALso they got cold feet after test screenings and cut the hell out of it, you can tell the musical planet was originally a much longer sequence.
@@robbybevard8034The fact they choose to make a black panther sequel after the lead actor died, is just baffling.
Bob Iger is the worst thing to ever happen to Disney
2019 was biggest and greatest year Disney ever had
@@kittykittybangbang9367 The first movie made over a billion dollars, other characters in the cast were popular, and in-universe the mantle gets passed on regularly, and they could do tribute to the actor. Plenty of reasons to do it anyway.
People really ought to give onetuffpuff credit for that banger section she added about the parks. I totally agree that at this point parks with previously pure intentions like Animal Kingdom and Epcot have become breeding grounds for corporate pandering
Im glad youre finally talking about it. Disney really is struggling right now and has been for a while. I appreciate your clear input on it ⭐️
I think what is also evident is not letting Ip’s lay to rest. It’s part of the life cycle. I know people are always sad that beloved IP’s don’t continue, but not everything needs to be ongoing to be beloved (looking at you fairy off parents). Not only is there extremely saturation but the increase content of IP’s make those brands feel less special and Disney holding on to dear life to continue the lack luster new story of beloved IP’s.
The other half of it though is the risk such IPs to be public domain. Knowing Disney with Mickey Mouse on top of every other IP they have AND Nintendo with Mario, they are having none of that. Heck, even Warner Brothers with Harry Potter.
With rumors of a Toy Story 5 coming eventually, I really feel this. 4 wasn’t terrible, but I think it was made worse by trying to accommodate ALL of the characters from previous films, when it was clearly made to focus on Woody.
And really, why would they worry about an IP “fading out”? Half of the appeal of Disney+ is having all of their classic films in one place, it’s not like the original Little Mermaid or Lion King are going anywhere else.
This is why I respect Alex Hirsch so much as an artist. He had a specific story to tell, knew when to stop it, and, to this day, still refuses to budge when he gets incessantly bugged about making a season three of Gravity Falls. He'll expand the lore and make books for the fans, but that's about it in terms of producing more Gravity Falls content.
So agreed. This is one of the three reasons why the usage of IP in the theme parks BUG ME SO MUCH. The American parks don’t even use them in cool and creative ways like the Japanese parks do (the resort in Japan is amazing btw!)
The Howard Ashman bit really hit hard because we trully need a creative, bold, passionate work of art to revive the glory of Disney animation and the fact that a gay man with AIDS in the 80s that gave a mermaid a voice and a beast a soul is our person to grab inspiration from is poetic.
Not only that but he was also someone that started from musical theatre and Disney needs good musicals more than ever.
@@mariedit9935 if you think about it. It has happened in 2 hits Disney had had in past 8 years. With Moana and Encanto. Is it coincidence that the person who has helped in writing and producing their songs started his Career with musical theater? I think not.
Thank you, Puff, for your great input and putting to words my disdain for "modernizing" theme parks.
I was one of the few people who watched Miss Marvel. I really enjoyed it, and I plan on watching The Marvels... when it hits Disney Plus. Streaming is 100% a factor when I decide what I'm going to see in theaters. It's so expensive that I have to REALLY want to see it if I'm going to shell out theater money. Disney just isn't doing that.
I remember back between 2015-19. Every Marvel movie got me hyped. Around a month before it came out, I started getting excited to see what happened next in the saga. Even when Wandavision was coming out, I was hyped to see how a proper Marvel show would be.
Now it's so overdone I barely watch any of the new stuff anymore, it just doesn't feel special anymore.
Also, I hope eventually Star Wars comes back to theaters, seeing it reduced to a streaming thing just makes me sad, (though some of the shows are pretty good.)
It's so true. Also, super hero movies weren't that popular even back in the 2000s, it was still seen as a nerd thing. After some movies like the Nolan Batman trilogy and the Avengers saga, super heroes became really popular, more and more people were starting to enjoy it, there would be a movie or two to be excited about with your friends, and after that, you would discuss and make theories about how things would turn out. But now, it feels like 10 mediocre things are being released in one month, it's just not as fun keeping up with them
Disney would have had a better reputation if it didn’t shelved that R rated animated wild life movie.
To be honest, I find this entire situation very refreshing. For a solid decade, it felt like nobody was talking about any movies that weren't superhero films or Star Wars, and maybe an occasional family blockbuster like Frozen or Coco. I just straight up don't fucking care about these superheroes or live action adaptations of animated films. The only superhero films I watched this year were Guardians 3 and Spiderverse, hilariously the only superhero films this year that didn't tank, and I didn't watch them because I love superheroes. I love the Guardians films because the dynamic between the characters is so familial and fun to watch, and Spiderverse has gorgeous animation and similarly interesting characters who make for an engaging view.
Barbie and Oppenheimer being the runaway smashes of 2023 that took the world by storm was such a breath of fresh air. Neither of those movies are perfect, but it was so nice to hear people talking about something DIFFERENT, even if neither film is completely original. But finally, blockbuster films that everybody knew about and could quote from that weren't just two-hour generic CGI-fests of choreographed fight scenes and quippy one-liners that have all the edges sanded off to appease as wide a demographic as possible without doing anything interesting. Barbie being a loud and proud feminist movie drenched in girly hot pink colors and Oppenheimer being a World War II film without a second of military fighting or gunfire, and the public supporting these films en masse, made following the film industry interesting again for me
I think you're underestimating Barbie's popularity as a recognisable brand prior to the movie if you think The Little Mermaid is more recognisable. Barbie is THE classic doll toy, she's the one that all the Disney Princess lines have to compare to and compete with. A toy brand introduced to literal toddlers in many cases.
Sure in the film world Disney's animated The Little Mermaid is more well known as a movie, but with general audiences Barbie is pretty universally recognisable. The Disney Princess lines collectively are the 5th most profitable franchise in the world while Barbie is 8th but that is factoring in EVERY Disney Princess movie, merch, game and so on combined to make up it's worth. The Princess line is worth about 45.4 billion dollars but at least 14.7 billion is from all the home entertainment movies, not even factoring in how much the box office makes that up. Barbie is worth 33.9 billion but 32.2 billion of that is JUST the toys, like 97+% of it's worth is toys alone. No single Disney Princess movie or line is making up anywhere close to 97% of the entire line's value.
Nah, is just because the movie is that good
My sister planned to go because of "haha, live action Barbie movie" and ended up making my mother, my two aunt and my granma go to see it and the 4 of them loved it
Yeah, but again, this brand popularity worked against it. Dunno how in the states, but here men were against the idea of going to see this movie just out of the principle of being based on little girls' toy 😂
I also feel like the fact that Barbie had its own princess/fairy movie seties (admittedly just feature length adverts to sell new doll concepts) in the 2000s/2010s - the peak of pink void Disney Princess capitalism
@@zalybrainlessgenius503 That's not how I see it.
@@zalybrainlessgenius503 Women make up half of the population, if a lot really want to go see it they will and many will go with male partners too. Plenty of franchises that are more "male focused" make similar money to what Barbie made.
Plus word of mouth did spread about the film being pretty good and unique so plenty of men still went to see it.
You took the words out of my soul. This is everything I feel when it comes to Disney and other streaming giants abusing this sort of ideology (not that any of them other than Disney does them so egregiously)
Schaffrillas: "It's Disney+!"
Soldier: "Dear god..."
Schaffrillas: "There's more..."
Soldier: "No!"
About Disney+ being a tumor for the company, I see your point. Disney movies were much better before Disney+, when they had to keep cranking out shows and movies for people to watch to keep subscribers, as opposed to just letting people watch what they want to watch, and give shows time to grow and blossom.
As a man who pirates everything instead of paying for streaming services, I see this as an absolute win.
If Disney can't keep their IPs secure, than I think they don't deserve to have people pay for them.
@@smackstar1015 truth
My man 🤝
Piracy is so easy it’s not even funny.
In a situation where pirating is actively easier than taking the legal route of finding a streaming service, subscribing to it, and than unsubscribing after watching what you wanted to watch?
It’s not even a contest.
Agree. I live in the Philippines and I dont wanna pay for Disney+. I just watch them online and I still catch up to the hyped shows like Loki and maybe The Boys (this isnt Disney+ but i also dont own amazon prime)
The way light year flopped 😭😭😭
I find it incredibly interesting that the main problem for the company today is exactly what the leadership predicted in the 70s, 80s, and 90s it would be, just manifest in a different form.
Back then the main concern was that by releasing the Disney classics on home video and making them available outside of the cinema would cheapen the brand and its products. Hence why he got the Disney Vault, so that they could artificially raise both the purchase price and the cultural value of a home video release of these movies.
As terrible of a business practice as something like that was and would still be maybe something like that is what Disney needs to regain some prestige. Certain films are only available for a limited amount of time and then they’re not available on the platform for a year or several years. New films are only added a year after they came out. Again, not saying they should do this, far from it, and unlike the physical media of old it’s a lot easier to not only get pirated copies of these films now but it’s infinitely easier to distribute them so taking them down would effectively be forcing people to only use the torrent websites that still have all of the content.
Either way, the warnings of yesteryear appear to have come true, if you make Disney available any time someone wants it, nobody will want it anymore
Bob Iger recently zoomed into my class at university. He talked about how bad their recent movies were lmao. Very surprising to see the CEO be so brutally honest- he emphasized “quality over quantity” being a goal for the future which seems to relate to the over saturation of Disney+ talked about here.
So I guess they are not so "out of touch" as we thought! Let's wait and see if he will actually follow his promise.
Woah, if that's true that's surprising. Guess we'll see if he tries to make changes
As much as I'm not a member of the Bob Iger fan club, I don't believe he would have given the green light to a lot of the ho-hum slop that we've been given. Disney needs to take its lumps and shake things up.
Fr?! What kinda university u going to damn
This sounds kinda fake ngl
"if you are corporate Disney defender, you need to log off and think about your life choices" - Schaff 2023, wise words
Schaff also once said, Okay. I mean he proabbly did say that.
shut up
Schaff is defending corporate Disney by not holding them accountable for limiting creativity.
The thing is my local theater is closed. It closed during the pandemic. I used to walk down in high school to the theater with a friend every so often and watch movies. That’s how I saw endgame. It had a beautiful art deco style front. It was a pretty old theater. It breaks my heart every time I pass it and see how nothing has happened to it. The building is safe since I don’t think the historic society would allow it to be changed (idk if that is even true or if they have that power) but it’s such a weird inside layout that nothing except another theater could go in there. And the longer it’s not a theater the more repairs and issues will have to be made. I don’t think anything is going to move into it.
Nearest theater now is in a mall and I can’t drive so I can’t even go to it. Now imagine all the kids who are under driving ages… they won’t be able to go see movies unless their parents drive them. A ton of local theaters have closed during the pandemic
One thing I resent about D+ is also the fact they gave up supporting home video formats in Australia, leaving Guardians 3 as the last official Disney DVD/Blu-Ray out in the down under; by basically claiming that streaming is more profitable.
At least they ended on a high note.