7,000 job cuts at Disney

[Mike Blakesley]

That list is misleading. Instead of saying "Walt Disney" on all those titles, it should say the name of the actual studio that produced the titles, regardless of ownership or distribution. Nobody thinks of Black Panther Wakanda or Doctor Strange as a "Disney movie," they are Marvel movies...even though Disney owns Marvel.

Going by that yardstick, the Disney name would only be on the list one time, and it would be in last place!

[Bobby Henderson]

Disney also owns Hulu. Don't they stick any R-rated content (such as movies from Touchtone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, 20th Century Fox) on Hulu? I don't have a Hulu subscription either. I was under the impression Disney+ doesn't have any R-rated content. Do they even have any PG-13 stuff?

[Mike Blakesley]

I don't know about R-rated, but the definitely have lots of PG-13 content on there. Marvel, Star Wars, etc.

[Steve Guttag]

I posted gross numbers in response to the suggestion that Disney "is not producing content that people want to go out to the theatres to see." By and large, they appear to be better at producing content that people want to go out to the theatres to see than the other studios. I didn't realize that comment was also addressing the profit margins of their films.

I interpreted the "at the moment" portion of the comment to mean "recently," not some year farther in the past, with more typical releases.

I apologize for understanding your comment so poorly.

Geoff,

Disney doesn't make their animated features (at a very high price tag) to do so-so business, and definitely not to lose money. They won't all be The Lion King, but they should draw the typical Disney animated feature audience. When they figure out what a feature's budget is going to be, they have an expectation on how it will open and how much it will take in over its run. The fact that they are missing their numbers by such a wide margin and are losing money (a LOT of money) denotes just how far off they are.

When comparing movies (or most anything), looking at a single metric (gross) and figuring that shows the whole story, is wrong. If a movie that cost $20M grosses $200M...it's a hit. Disney, by and large, doesn't do $20M movies. They do the big budget ones with the expectation that the grosses/attendance is going to match their expenditure/effort. And, at the moment, they aren't doing that. They need to do some soul searching and ask themselves "why?" Everyone is entitled to a flop here and there. Disney has more of a trend of flops. I have my own opinions as to why but they are just opinions and I've alluded to what I think they are. At the end of the day...tell a good story and entertain people.

[Bobby Henderson]

I remember how Disney was struggling pretty seriously in the late 1970's and going into the 1980's. Some of the struggle was due to box office failures of movies like The Black Hole and Tron. The bigger overall problem was Disney developed an image they were only a movie studio that made kiddie movies no one wanted to see. When I was a kid I associated Disney with re-releases of animated movies made when my parents were kids or when my parents weren't even born yet.

One of the first steps at big change was founding Touchtone Pictures. That gave them an outlet to produce PG-rated movies like Splash, the studio's first big hit. Adventures in Babysitting was the studio's first PG-13 movie. Down and Out in Beverly Hills was Touchtone's first R-rated movie. Who Framed Roger Rabbit could have been released under the Disney banner, but due to some of the film's darker and sexually suggestive material, it got released under the Touchtone logo instead.

The success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit arguably set the stage for Disney to figure out how to make hits with animated movies again. The Little Mermaid was a break-through. Beauty and the Beast was more acclaimed. The Lion King was a blockbuster.

Right now the Disney company seems only obsessed with selling the same old ideas over and over again. They're doing another Toy Story sequel? Really? Instead of re-selling the same old, now-stale ideas they might want to grow some balls and take chances on new ideas.

[Frank Cox]

They did. They called it Strange World, and we know how well that one did.

Disney doesn't know how to make original movies. Maybe they never did since most of their blockbuster stuff is based on things like traditional fairy tales or legends, or books written by other people.

[Bobby Henderson]

Strange World was, at best, a mediocre movie with an even lesser marketing strategy. It just didn't connect. For all the complaints about how "woke" the movie tried to be, perhaps the most offensive thing about that was how corporate flavored patronizing it came off. It's like sales people running through a check list of items they need to throw into the story goulash.

At the end of the 1980's and going well into the 1990's it seemed like a lot more work (and time) went into the development of hits like Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King. Back then an animated musical was not a new idea. However, the way those movies were produced gave them a fresh new appeal. The rise of Pixar gave Disney another very reliable stream of fresh, new ideas (and more revenue). Pixar went on a pretty good run of not making sequels. Now it seems like they're mostly making sequels and quite a bit of their original talent pool is long gone; the remains are mostly folded into the larger Disney company.

[Mike Blakesley]

I've heard that most of the 7000-job cuts at Disney are going to be in the overseas streaming operations, not so much domestic. I'm not sure how true that is, it might just be a rumor spread by "corporate" to quiet everyone down.

I think they had a good idea with Strange World but the execution was all wrong. They must have realized that they had a flop before it was finished, and that's why it wasn't marketed too much. I was really excited for it based on the first trailer and the posters, then the second trailer was a little less appealing, and then our booker said "It's not going to do much." Boy he called that one. I think that is the lowest-grossing Disney animated movie we ever played. (We didn't play "Lightyear.")

You gotta feel a little for a company making entertainment products these days.... it's basically an impossible task to "please everybody" now.

[Leo Enticknap]

It's an impossible task to please everybody, but it's a more achievable task to avoid alienating your brand's core, sustainable customer base: in this case, the parents of children aged 2-10 approx. For reasons that can't be discussed in significant detail without violating this forum's "no politics" policy, this is what Disney has done, and is at least a part of their current difficulties. The most recently produced Disney-produced and Disney-branded movie I've sat through was the Mary Poppins sequel, which relentlessly pushed the "male toxicity" theme, i.e. the idea that the only nondestructive males are the ones who obey orders from females. All the male characters were either weak, ineffective milquetoasts, or villains, or both. I don't want my son exposed to that sort of propaganda, with the result that that was the last time he's seen a Disney movie made later than The Rescuers.

[Steve Guttag]

Mike, did your theatre play The Black Cauldron? That was Disney in the early 80s when it came to animated features. Later in the 80's you could see Disney getting back to its core with Oliver and Company. Then, The Little Mermaid was huge with not only a popular movie but music that stood on its own right.

I agree with the assessment of Touchstone Pictures. It did allow Disney to distinguish itself and keep the children's animated features away from slightly more adult (well, teenager) themes. Ruthless People was a big one before Who Framed Roger Rabbit which tied a lot of things (including studios) and age groups together.

I do agree with Leo that the overt or even unnecessary themes in kids movies is going to deter far more than it will attract. When it comes to children, I'd keep things as pure and uncontroversial as possible. Don't give it a reason to not be seen by all kids. You still need a good/fun story that entertains. I cannot emphasize it enough...the movie has to entertain.

[Bobby Henderson]

It's an impossible task to please everybody, but it's a more achievable task to avoid alienating your brand's core, sustainable customer base: in this case, the parents of children aged 2-10 approx.

While it's important for Disney to keep its intentionally G-rated content kid-friendly they just need to have a better focus on what sort of story they're trying to tell. Strange World was a strange mess. And it was at least Rated PG. It probably should have been PG-13.

In the past (going back to the 1970's), one of the things that hurt Disney was the public image their content was only for little elementary school kids. Disney started hitting home runs with their animated movies at the end of the 1980's because they finally started making animated movies that could appeal to grown-ups too. Who Framed Roger Rabbit did much to open that door. A child-less adult could go see Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King at the cinema and not feel oddly out of place. The Lion King had the same kind of universal appeal as other blockbusters like Star Wars.

The most recently produced Disney-produced and Disney-branded movie I've sat through was the Mary Poppins sequel, which relentlessly pushed the "male toxicity" theme, i.e. the idea that the only nondestructive males are the ones who obey orders from females.

I completely forgot they made a sequel to Mary Poppins. The original was released in 1964. The sequel was released 54 freaking years later. A significant number of people have been born, grown to adulthood and even died within that time frame.

Not too long ago there seemed to be an unspoken set of rules regarding sequels. If a movie was going to get a sequel that installment needed to be released within the following couple or so years. Not decades later. Sequels usually featured at least some of the original cast and (maybe) some of the same production crew members. Any perceived rules have been tossed in the bin. Now anything goes regarding sequels, re-makes, re-boots, etc. We even have separate parallel universe movies made during the same era featuring the same character played by different actors.

Did any of us really need a "live action" CG re-make of The Lion King? Did we really need the same treatment to yet another re-make of The Jungle Book?

I get a good laugh out of the negative audience reactions when a trailer rolls out for some sequel or remake no one really wanted. If the Wall Street people keep making the movie studios dip out of the same well those groans I've been hearing from audience members are going to turn into loud heckling.

[Mike Blakesley]

Mike, did your theatre play The Black Cauldron? That was Disney in the early 80s when it came to animated features. Later in the 80's you could see Disney getting back to its core with Oliver and Company. Then, The Little Mermaid was huge with not only a popular movie but music that stood on its own right.

We did play The Black Cauldron, in August of 1985. It was definitely a low point for Disney, that era. Cauldron was our top grosser among the Disney movies we played that year, but it landed in 19th place overall. (We did a reissue run of E.T. that year; even that outdrew all the Disney offerings.) Other Disney titles we played (in descending order of attendance) were a reissue of Pinocchio, Baby, The Journey of Natty Gann, Return to Oz, and My Science Project. What an "illustrious" group.

[Steve Guttag]

Soooo, around that time...they reissued Song of the South, might you have played that one? I think that was the last time it was released domestically. I know it was in the early/mid '80s. Did you play Oliver and Company? Just looking for a Disney comparison. It wasn't a huge movie but it was definitely an up-tick for them on the animated feature front.

[Randy Stankey]

Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger said Wednesday that the Burbank company will shed 7,000 jobs in an effort to save $5.5 billion in costs...

My bullshit alarm is going off because firing 7,000 people to cut $5.5 billion means that the average salary of each person would have to be $785,714.29.

Either the news report is flawed or Disney is bullshitting us. I can't believe that they'd fire 7,000 people making almost-million-dollar salaries. It's usually those at the bottom who go first.

[Mike Blakesley]

Soooo, around that time...they reissued Song of the South, might you have played that one? I think that was the last time it was released domestically. I know it was in the early/mid '80s. Did you play Oliver and Company? Just looking for a Disney comparison. It wasn't a huge movie but it was definitely an up-tick for them on the animated feature front.

We actually played Song of the South twice during my tenure here, in 1980 and again in 1987. (I don't have records from prior to 1979.) This was when Disney was still in their habit of re-issuing their classics every seven years. In '80, Song did about the same number of tickets as Black Cauldron did, but in '87 it did quite a bit less. We played Oliver and Company in 1989 and it did about double the Cauldron numbers. When Little Mermaid came out, it did about the same as what Oliver and Company did. For us, the beginning of the renaissance was definitely Beauty and the Beast. Then Lion King came along and blew everything else away, with about double of what Beauty and the Beast did. We played the original Lion King 3 times, including a 3-D version in 2011 that did really well.

People can dis those Disney CGI remakes of their classics all they want, but they've been well-done and have done great business. Lion King did almost the exact same numbers as its 1994 original run, and Beauty and the Beast blew the original away by selling twice as many tickets, despite our population being lower now than it was in 1992. The Jungle Book did just as well as Lion King did.

My bullshit alarm is going off because firing 7,000 people to cut $5.5 billion means that the average salary of each person would have to be $785,714.29.

Iger is looking to cut costs across the board, not just from eliminating jobs.