"Disney posted a net loss of $460 million, or a loss of 25 cents per share, during the quarter, down from a net income of $1.41 billion, or 77 cents per share, during the year ago period."
Breaks my heart. /sarc
No mention of losing $700 million on a string of extremely stinky WOKE movies?
Disney needs to end Disney+ and sell content to Netflix and Prime instead. Oh, and stop being woke.
Bob iger did not commit suicide....although the jury is still out
The investor’s meeting is going to be SO much fun...
I hear that Disney has been secretly cost shifting the streaming services to other parts of the business to make the quarterly lists not look as bad as it otherwise would. Iger going to blame the previous CEO but it’s been going on since Igers first term.
CNBC can be counted on to spin it beyond recognition. If they are saying it’s mixed that means Disney is losing their ass. Iger is pushing to cancel Snow Latina and 7 Portland hipsters but the woke a- holes on the board are fighting
to keep it alive. Disney is trying to take over Hulu that own about half now.
They are taking it up the anus.
Hope they keep pushing the woke garbage right into Chapter 11. Maybe then some COMPETENT and NORMAL people can lead a resurrection of family entertainment.
Up 4% ah so far. Might sell off with a hot cpi tomorrow.
Hope the shareholders sue like the Target shareholders just did.
A Disney Sale To Apple? Don't Count It Out This Time
I have no idea about the credibility of this speculation, but these kinds of rumors have been circulating for some time. And Disney is far from the only big name under discussion. The topline story is that the big technology companies, with the deepest pockets in all of corporate America, all got infatuated with the idea of synergies between the tech platforms and content creators of all descriptions. The big data companies want to sell subscriptions. They really don't care about the nature and quality of the content as long as people subscribe. Trash is a lot cheaper to produce than quality, so they're pulled that way. They're focused on the future, and they don't think they're really competing against the legendary giants of the film industry (and, here and there, quality tv), which are in the past; they're competing with TikTok for content consumers with ten second attention spans. It's all the same to the subscription peddlers who own the distribution platforms. And they are global platforms, so eyeballs in Nairobi, Shanghai, Buenos Aires, and Delhi are as valuable as eyeballs in the U.S. They are now in the final stages of swallowing the legacy television networks and movie studios. They all decided to chase Netflix, they overexpanded, and everyone seems to expect consolidation.
Forget about Disney per se. Personally, I'd be happy to see it carved up and sold. But here are the key takeaways, at least to me, in the THR article:
Some Hollywood executives have been anticipating a future in which the studio herd will continue to thin — dramatically. “There will end up being three or four platforms and everybody else gets hollowed out and acquired,” says one industry veteran. “There will be Apple, Amazon, Netflix and one other. If you could put NBCUniversal, Warners and Paramount together, you probably have enough to survive.”
And a bit later:
The idea that Disney might sell is top of mind for some Wall Street analysts. Needham & Co. analyst Laura Martin has contended for some time that Disney could sell to Apple. She predicts that Disney “will be purchased during the next three years,” noting that takeover premiums for media companies have typically been in the 30 to 40 percent range. “If they don’t sell, Disney will be competing against those [tech] companies in an industry with deteriorating economics (because they never need to make money from content), we believe,” Martin wrote July 14.
Hollywood always had a dark side. Not everyone in the industry was a scoundrel -- I suppose that most of them weren't -- but enough were to give the whole industry a bad name. Still, whatever their sins offscreen, they were selling a consumer product the success of which was measured by ticket sales. The consumer was king. To make money, they had to put butts in seats. By and large, the industry was run by people who lived, ate and bled cinema. Even if they were also-rans trapped in BMovieLand, they wanted to swing for the fences when they got the chance. And once in awhile, they created truly great films. They've been replaced by people who want to sell subscriptions and who know that trash has a higher average ROI than challenging films that make big investments hoping to catch lightning.
I couldn't care less if Disney survives, as long as the classic films are available somewhere. But I don't want four giant, vertically integrated global companies -- in today's world, all if them woke -- controlling all content from project origination to production to distribution --- with their algorithms dictating what shows up on your home screen. The problem is that the Borg has now swallowed most of the legacy studios. Newcomers can arise, but the question is where they can find financing and distribution.
As the Borg becomes increasingly dominant and continues its qualitative race to the bottom, the question is where people who are trying to do quality work, as well as people with nonconforming, non-PC perspectives (e.g. conservative creatives), can find a footing. I've recommended Columbus from time to time to the movie ping list and won't repeat my schtick here. The cinematography and acting are first rate. It is definitely slow cinema, which may not be to your taste, but put that aside. (If you like Lost in Translation, Paterson, A Ghost Story (2017) or Remains of the Day, there a good chance you will enjoy it; it is, among other things, a beautiful Serenity Prayer movie, albeit without one word of 12 step language.) For the present discussion, the interesting thing about it is that the financial backers very deliberately decided to reject conventional distribution models. They were very much concerned with the Borg, and they wanted to experiment with avenues for self-distribution for small independent films -- and movies don't get more indie that this. In retrospect, it seems to me that they underestimated the appeal of their movie, which disappeared almost without a ripple when it was released and then grew gradually as a word of mouth breakout. I'm betting 99 percent of the Spandex Man films down at your local theater have never heard of it, but if you hang around movie sites, you will find that most people do at least know of it, and most like it. But that's another story. Here is a deliberate experiment about end-running the Borg: 'Columbus will bypass Netflix after theatrical run
Let Disney die. But we need to preserve an ecosystem that allows independent and heterodox voices to find a market.
Mixed results, restructuring costs, bet DEI is taking its toll keep up the good work America
I’m mostly concerned about Disney announcing cessation of physical media production, starting with Australia. They already put out minimal physical media products world-wide, as they’ve let it be known for a few years now that they don’t see a future with it.
While physical media sales overall have certainly declined, it’s a guaranteed money maker with an installed base in the millions. I find their policy regarding this very foolish, and terrible for consumers considering Disney owns Fox properties, so it’s not just Disney that we can’t buy 4k and Bluray products from.
Disney has always had a deathgrip on their IPs regarding the home video market, that is nothing new, but since they own other studios now,it really sucks. And now they are officially saying they are getting out of home video all together.
TIME FOR DISNEY TO...DROP...THE DISNEY NAME.
THEY ARE NOTHING LIKE WALT DISNEY AND IT IS NOT FAIR.