Disney to Take a $150 Million Dollar hit on Captain Marvel - Captain Marvel (2019) Discussion

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

It makes sense though. Disney will make more by having their own movies exclusively on Disney Plus. Keep in mind the $150 million isn't just from Captain Marvel but from all the movies Disney will release this year which probably includes Endgame.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

Will you personally subscribe to Disney+?

I currently only have Netflix but I also pay for cable. Something will HAVE to go in my house. As a media collector most of the DisneyMarvel movies that are targeted at me in the same reference group I already own or will purchase after a theatrical run.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Probably at some point. I dont currently have Netflix but I've had it in the past.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 5 years ago

I won't because I buy the blu-rays and have all the Marvel/Star Wars and a LOT of Disney in my digital library.

WB GAVE me a years subscription to their streaming service and I guess it's okay if I didn't already own 99% of the movies on there and the animated movies/tv shows and have no interest in reading comics on my TV.

But I guess titans was worth it since it was free.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

As a media collector I even held off watching some streamed marvel series, due to work schedules, and would often just catch up by buying the box sets, DD, Luke Cage, Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, etc. Well the companies decided to overprice the boxsets and or stop releasing them in the states. I still haven't seen Season 5 of Agents of SHIELD!!

I still prefer augmenting my personal collection over relying on streaming or even a digital collection. Speaking of digital collections the industry has completed their bait and switch quit deftly. You USED to get a digital download to add to your own library. Now you just get access to that copy in their cloud library. Clever, clever of them. I like full access to my purchases when and where I want them.

As the price of storage went down and bandwidth went up content creators got clever and created a market by limiting your options for "leasing" content because in truth you never really own it.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 5 years ago

As curious as I am about all the content that will be available on Disney’s streaming channel, the MAIN reason I’ll be subscribing to Disney Plus is for.... drum roll... the upcoming MCU shows.

I won’t be able to wait for the Blu-Ray/4K copies of those shows!

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

I won’t be able to wait for the Blu-Ray/4K copies of those shows!

Same here!

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 5 years ago

Cheers. 🍻

Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige producing their own shows should be very interesting, to say the least. It’s probably about time.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

I wasn't aware they were launching a channel, but I doubt I'll subscribe to a Disney channel. I currently have Netflix, but tend to only watch things I've not seen before. I watch the Marvel films in the theater, and buy a Blu-Ray copy of the ones I like best. Netflix costs only $8 a month, so the cost is negligible, and I use Sling instead of cable.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10362) 5 years ago

I'll pay for Disney Plus just for the Fox content alone. I've been less and less impressed with Netflix every year. They keep getting rid of their old catalog and filling the place up with their own crappy shows.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4147) 5 years ago

Im getting the streaming Service for The Mandalorian and Cassian Andor show everything will be a bonus

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Once again...Disney looks inexplicably arrogant. They literally are the Titanic with the iceberg ahead being the inevitable decline of Marvel. Everything else is sputtering(Disney Animation), in chaos(post-Lasseter Pixar), live-action in tatters and they have even got STAR WARS circling the drain.

Last year only Inctedibles 2 and their Marvel films were hits. Literally EVERYTHING ELSE was a money loser and three of those lost over 100 million apiece.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

They're far and away the most successful, profitable studio on earth right now. You are utterly delusional.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

They WERE. With Star Wars, they went full woke and they screwed up the franchise.

Now they're doing the same with the next Marvel cycle. Good luck with that.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 5 years ago

Yeah those box office amounts are deplorable.

Oh, wait.....

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Actually, they were. TLJ underperformed, and Solo was the first Star Wars movie no to break even since the 70s.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

The Last Jedi earned over $1.3 billion, and is the 11th-highest grossing film of all time. By no possible measure or stretch can you make a valid argument that it "underperformed."

The original Star Wars film made $775 million. The Empire Strikes Back made "only" $538 million. Would you say Empire "underperformed."

Return of the Jedi brought in a mere $475 million. Another flop?

Just how well does Star Wars 9 have to do at the box office before you admit what the rest of the world already knows-- that the Star Wars films are killing it at the box office?

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Adjusted to inflation, TLJ is the 43th highest box office in history. That could look impressive... until you realize that 5 of the 20 highest box offices in history belong to the Star Wars franchise.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

The new SW trilogy movies were the most expected movies in history. And unless the prequels, critics praised it. It should have done better.

Add to that that merchandise based in the movie sold less than expected. TLJ clearly underperformed.

And add to that the $4000 millions paid for the franchise. When you take that into account, the movie can even be considered a flop.

And still, the major toll in TLJ was not taken by the movie itself, but by the following ones: Solo flopping, the new trilogy canceled. Good business, dude.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

The "adjusted for inflation" list is almost meaningless, and offers no real barometer of a film's success, but if you want to factor inflation into things, then Empire and Jedi were even less successful, because their lower box office totals will be compounded by inflation.

You can wish all you want that Star Wars has somehow lost its cache, but facts matter. The two recent films earned massive amounts of money, and there was no discernible drop-off whatsoever. TLJ did more or less exactly as one would expect a sequel to do, which is remarkable considering the unprecedented success of TFA. Part 9 will no doubt outperform expectations as well.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

The "adjusted for inflation" list is almost meaningless, and offers no real barometer of a film's success

OK. You're a troll.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6687) 5 years ago

Defend that list.

I'll counter by saying

A. Modern films are at a distinct disadvantage due to streaming and piracy. Modern lifestyles simply don't involve trips to the cinema the way they used to, and repeat viewings are less common today. It used to be that once a film left the theater, there was no certainty that you'd ever be able to see a film again for the rest of your life.

B. Slightly older films are at a disadvantage due to home video-- VHS and DVD-- and the ability to record a television broadcast.

C. Television skews things in favor of older films, too, and especially disadvantages films released since the advent of cable TV.

D. The number of tickets sold, and consequently dollars earned, by older films, is highly inaccurate. In the early days box office reporting was nothing more than theater owners offering a "best guess." There's no solid data for any films from before the '70s.

The "adjust for inflation" list of films was compiled in large part via guesswork, and skews older films to the top. To judge a modern film's box office success using that list is utterly foolish.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

I was long since done with discussing anything with QueenFanUsa.

Most things that he posts are based on how he WISHES things to be. He has a long term hate affair with Disney, the company he allegedly claims to admire and prefer, and posts impending Gloom and Doom every chance he gets.

One of his endless wishes for another studio's success comes true and he is now emboldened to go on and on and on and on........ about how Disney is DOOMED!!

Will Disney's success go on forever? It is a business with peaks and valleys. Disney has made pretty good decisions and not all of them have resulted in stellar success. ESPN is failing because they overpaid for content access and rights and tried to pass those costs to subscribers. Result? Cordcutting and loss of subscribers.

Meanwhile I am enjoying the non-sports related content they make and I might just subscribe to Disney+ for exclusive shows that won't air in other services. I look forward to The Vision and Scarlett Witch, Loki, Punisher, DD and other Marvel shows.

$10/Month or $100/Year might just be my limit though.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Try reading my post. The ONLY reason they were #1 last year was because of Marvel. Take Marvel away and they are in dire straits.

They lost over 100 milk in on a Star Wars film!

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

You can't take Marvel away you fool, Disney own Marvel.

Its a nonsense argument..... "take away any movie Disney makes that makes money and they are in dire straits"..... ridiculous!

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Marvel is their only true performer right now. That is an unhealthy reliance on one property. If it falters you will see something really dire indeed. It's covering a whole lot of money losers.

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

A lie.

The profit from Force Awakens, Rogue One and Last Jedi more than offset Solo. The final movie in the trilogy is still likely to make a profit, because its trilogy based not an offshoot.

Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars are all currently profitable for Disney, even their own projects typically offset the flops, but its an outright lie to claim they only have one profitable stable under them.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

What is it about "right now" that you don't understand. Solo is their latest and it's hardly "profitable".

Speaking of liars...I didn't say "profitable"... I used the term "true performer". Marvel Studios has been their only property as of late to consistently perform in relation to it's cost. Live Action is disastrous outside of the remakes and I won't be surprised if Dumbo is another money loser. Animation? Ralph Breaks the Internet cost 175 million and is just now approaching 500 million worldwide. Illumination consistently produces their films for 100 million less than that and breeze psst that number almost every time.

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

Everyone knows Solo flopped.

Hardly a financial concern when Force Awakens overperformed, Rogue One overperformed and Last Jedi still made money even though it dissapointed.

It doesn't matter if Marvel is making more money or not, as far as Disney is concerned, anything that makes money is making money.

Ralph Breaks the Internet performed similarly to Wreck it Ralph.

I don't deny that Illumination and others do great movies for a fraction of the cost of Pixar, I find that a Pixar movie costing $200million absolutely ridiculous, but, Pixar consistently performs well with the exception of The Good Dinosaur.

You haven't forgotten Pixar have you? In amongst your claim that Marvel is the only one to perform well versus their cost?

I mean its not as if The Incredibles 2 and Finding Dory did over $1billion each.....oh they did... the former nearly beating Black Panther!

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

[–] QueenFanUSA (1499) 2 months ago
Try reading my post. The ONLY reason they were #1 last year was because of Marvel. Take Marvel away and they are in dire straits.

They lost over 100 milk in on a Star Wars film!

Milk? Milk?

How much milk money do you think Captain Marvel will net once it's theatrical run is over Queen?

Given the strategy to ditch Netflix and align CM with it's Disney+ streaming service do you think it will be a trojan horse to additional subscriptions that will result in additional ancillary income for Disney. Will Universal be able to leverage their film properties similarly?

CM will be incorporated into toys, theme parks, apparel and others. I'm pretty sure Mary Poppins, Christopher Robbins, Dumbo and Aladdin all have ancillary income streams that will offset any theatrical shortfalls that so in thrall you but keep the individual films profitable.

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

Your lies are showing again.

There is nothing "inevitable" about the decline of Marvel, its very likely that Endgame will beat Infinity War at the Box Office, no-one is expecting Captain Marvel to do Black Panther numbers, but its likely to sit comfortably in the $700million+ range and because of its closeness to Endgame, it also being tied into Endgame and also telling part of Nick Furys story, its liable to beat Wonder Woman, but even if it doesn't, its still going to make bank regardless.

Whilst its true that Disney probably had higher hopes for Mary Poppins Returns, fact is on a $130million budget, its currently at $329million... i.e. not a money loser.

Christopher Robin on a $75million budget is now at nearly $200million.... i.e. not a money loser

You're right that Nutcracker and Wrinkle in Time and Solo were flops, but lets be clear about something here.

Disney released 10 movies in 2018..... 7 were hits, 3 were flops.

The hits more than made up for the flops and plenty of change left over.

And whilst i'm not happy with how The Last Jedi turned out, its sequel is still going to do over $1Billion guaranteed, because theres just too many people that want to see how that shit show ends up, curiosity and all that.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

First off...you obviously don't think there is marketing and distribution costs to Mary Poppins and Christopher Robin. It's also laughable to call those films "hits".

As far as Star Wars...you just called it a "shit show" that people will watch the final episode like they are watching a trainwreck.

Hence...Star Wars is "circling the drain" like I originally stated. Disney isn't even close to recouping i't's 4.2 billion acquisition of Lucasfilm and you just admitted they have destroyed the franchise.

Try again, because that was weak. LOL

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

Ok, so you're in it for the trolling.

Firstly, the general rule of thumb is once a movie doubles its production budget, its considered as breaking even.

Both Christopher Robin and Mary Poppins Returns have both exceeded that rule.

So yeah, if it makes money, its a hit, plus theres all the residuals of Bluray and TV syndication, both movies will continue to make money for decades to come for Disney. Everyone knows that apart from you!

Yes, people will watch the final part in the new trilogy..... and do you know what? When Disney and Lucasfilm start the NEXT trilogy (you surely know about that right?), because they won't stop at one, people will be curious to see if any lessons have been learned.

So, for the moment, whilst the Star Wars franchise is in a bit of difficulty, its still making money and is likely to do so in the future, Solo being the exception.

As for whether or not Disney is close to recouping their $4.2billion, yeah, you seem to be of the opinion that they need to recoup that in super quick time which isn't remotely on Disneys problem list.

Disney makes so much money elsewhere from their empire (the movies are not their biggest earners), that the cost of Star Wars is a done and dusted deal for them.

So no actual need for me to "try again" because what I wrote there is self evident, and should have been to even you.

This Disney bias you have, we.see.you.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

That "general rule of thumb" of double the budget is demonstrably false. That only works if there is no marketing costs. Most blockbusters have at least 100 million spent on promotion.

P.S.- I've not seen one industry analyst call Mary Poppins or Christopher Robin a "hit".

Not one.

Suuuurrre...they shit the bed with Star Wars so naturally people will be out in droves to see if they "learned their lessons" with the next trilogy.

Riiiiggghhht...I've heard it all now.

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

And clearly its not demonstrably false, as is also your assertion that a movie has to make all its money immediately to be in the black.

Yes there are marketing costs, but these are not solely born by Disney. They don't pickup the tab for the countries they don't personally distribute to for a start.

And since when is the $130million Mary Poppins considered a "blockbuster"? Its not remotely expensive enough to qualify for that tag, and even less so the $70million budgeted Christopher Robin, so your claim that Disney will be spending $100million marketing either of those movies seems a bit unlikely.

Lets be clear about Star Wars, whilst The Last Jedi did less than Force Awakens, it still did $1.3Billion at the Box Office and a further $87million in US Bluray/DVD sales, which doesn't include the rest of the world.

Solo was an unecessary movie, it didn't drive Star Wars forward and nothing in it was essential to the flow of the Star Wars story, which is why it didn't bother the Star Wars fans if they saw it.

But the new trilogy of movies is entirely different, I mean, the lamentably poor Prequel trilogy wasn't great, and yet George Lucas essentially "shit the bed with Star Wars" and yet people still came out in their droves to see the new trilogy.

And once this trilogy has concluded, the next trilogy will wait a spell, 5 years probably, and start again..... and YOU "think" people won't still be interested?

Your trolling needs work.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Mary Poppins marketing was EASILY 100 million and Disney was the sole distributor worldwide. 130 million budget is still an expensive, important film. That's almost twice the budget of an Illumination animated blockbuster.

Btw...we are discussing film's profitabity in their theatrical run not later ancillary revenue streams.

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

I suggest you check again, Disney was not the sole distributor worldwide.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Where?

Lithuania?

I know the marketing campaign here in the States was gargantuan.

It's actually common for a film's marketing campaign to equal, and sometimes exceed, it's production cost.

Mary Poppins, at 328 million, is not profitable.

reply

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 5 years ago

At least 16 countries Disney had no part in distributing in.

Disney distributed in Lithuania.

Mary Poppins Returns Production Budget = $130million

Movie is currently at $335million

Whilst its not going to remotely match the original, its in profit with a proposed sequel in discussion.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

I am in no way saying that the quote below applies to both Domestic and International exhibitors, but Disney gets better terms from everyone and has more lucrative revenue streams associated with their films. Thus the drive for Disney+. I'm not saying that their deals apply to all of their movies either. This is from Variety for Solo.

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/solo-a-star-wars-story-box-office-losses-1202825432/

Instead, Disney will need to rely on selling television rights, moving DVDs and Blu-rays, and monetizing other forms of home entertainment distribution as it tries to salvage its investment and push the film into the black. Most studios only receive half of the box office revenues and share the other half with exhibitors. Disney is different. The studio has been able to leverage its arsenal of Marvel, Pixar, and “Star Wars” movies to extract better terms from theater chains. The company brings in roughly 60% of ticket revenue, according to sources.

It’s not unusual for a big-budget film to have to earn most of its money from ancillary revenues. Roughly half of most movies’ revenues come from its theatrical window with the rest coming from pay-TV deals, rentals, and disc and digital sales, insiders say.

Mary Poppins will not be bankrupting Disney anytime soon or in the future.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Mary Poppins won't bankrupt Disney...but like most of their non-Marvel movies...it's certainly not making them any money.

P.S. I bet you that 60% take is long gone for any future Star Wars films lol.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

Mary Poppins won't bankrupt Disney...but like most of their non-Marvel movies...it's certainly not making them any money.

P.S. I bet you that 60% take is long gone for any future Star Wars films lol.

I don't make bets. I'm not DceuFanticArmy nor you. The deal with exhibitors and distributors is a multi-year contract. You want to make a bet over a contract that you have no idea as to the terms and length of the contract? Really?

A bigger worry to Exhibitors might be that whatever contracts they had with Fox are no longer enforceable and now they might have to accept less. You betting on that also?

From Deadline. Google it.
****
Disney is notorious for demanding tough rental terms and big auditorium holds over several weeks, reportedly 65% on Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Avengers: Infinity War. No doubt this will continue, but only for big event films. “They can’t charge that on everything,” says one exhibition insider.

Who gets hurt here? The smaller mom-and-pop independents who will have to weigh the cost of booking Disney titles against the revenue earned from concessions and a four-week lengthy play. Our exhibition sources do not predict a doomsday scenario where theaters start going out of business. Up until now, Disney has been respected by theater owners for holding the line on the theatrical window. We’ll see whether that changes once Disney+ is introduced.
In addition to stiff Disney contracts, the reality is that exhibition does what it wants: If a film isn’t performing, than the title’s showtimes are cut, or the movie is moved into a smaller auditorium. If the pic is over-indexing, then it receives all the multiplex spoils of several showtimes and big-seat auditoriums. It’s Darwinism.

A unified attempt by big circuit exhibition to block Disney’s tough terms would prove challenging, largely because collusion is illegal. Back in the 1990s exhibition tried to take a stand against Disney when they executed a bidding process for their films. UA and Cineplex Odeon stopped playing Disney films, but AMC and Loews caved to Disney’s terms, so the studio was able to carve a footprint. Also, we understand it’s not a hard-and-fast easy rule where Disney always gets the best terms, and other majors do not. Different chains have different terms with each major, with some studios getting better percentages than Disney.
****

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Informative...thanks.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

The current trilogy started off successful because it was the return of the stars of the OT...Ford/Hammil/Fisher.

They are all gone now and the next trilogy won't have a fraction of the interest even waiting 5 years. The franchise is critically wounded and without the calling card of the Skywalker Saga and original actors it's going to become just another branded franchise. The days of shaking the earth are forever gone.

P.S. I say all this as someone that has thoroughly enjoyed all four of the Disney Star Wars films.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

I'm not a researcher for you but:

How much "Star Wars" has earned

As of several years ago, since the first film the franchise had earned more than $37 billion, according to "How Star Wars Conquered the Universe," a 2014 book. Given that the four "Star Wars" films that have been released since that year have earned more than $4 billion, that pushes the total tally to more than $41 billion.

It's not only the movies that are big money makers for the studio, but ancillary products like toys, books and costumes.

Yet some fatigue also may be setting in with the once-popular "Star Wars" toy lines, with sales falling 16 percent during the last holiday season.

Somewhere there was a debate that said that Disney is in the deep, deep red from their Star Wars purchase and they are pretty darn close to breaking even more sooner than later or might already be turning a profit.

Not like the Marvel purchase mind you though.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Norrinrad...with the frenzy around TFA and the red hot merchandise sales that surrounded it, many in the industry thought Disney could recoup that 4.2 billion in 6-7 years...but then came the steep decline in both box-office revenue and merchandise sales. In four short years, Star Wars merch has become a joke with retailers wondering how they can get rid of it and the last spin-off film losing over 100 million in theatrical release. They are much further from recouping that 4.2 billion than anyone would have originally thought this far along into the game In the future, they are going to have to spend lots of money in order to make money with future Star Wars projects. Ep. 9 will be a clear indicator of Star Wars commercial power.

Box office/reception of films are directly correlated to all ancillary incomes so when that is rotten...the whole meal is spoiled.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

QueenFanUsa: Disney Purchased Star Wars and Lucasarts in what year? 2012, correct?

...with the frenzy around TFA and the red hot merchandise sales that surrounded it, many in the industry thought Disney could recoup that 4.2 billion in 6-7 years...but then came the steep decline in both box-office revenue and merchandise sales. In four short years, Star Wars merch has become a joke with retailers wondering how they can get rid of it and the last spin-off film losing over 100 million in theatrical release. They are much further from recouping that 4.2 billion than anyone would have originally thought this far along into the game In the future, they are going to have to spend lots of money in order to make money with future Star Wars projects. Ep. 9 will be a clear indicator of Star Wars commercial power.

Point to me and show me with a link or a quote where you got your information from. Yes I can google, query, Alta-Vista, Netscape like everyone else but it's your summary that I'd like to vet. Provide me a link, a source or an industry expert.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

6-7 years from TFA's debut in late 2015. Sorry...I made it sound like from time of acquisition in 2012.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

I remember reading it at the time of TFA's initial success and merchandise going bananas.

It was probably Deadline but not certain.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

Since Disney purchased Star Wars in 2012:

First of all, the Walt Disney Company employs a diversified franchise strategy for most of its popular brands including Marvel & Star Wars.

This means that Disney made a lot of money from the Marvel and Star Wars intellectual property (IP) even before they started releasing movies from Marvel Studios and Lucasfilms Ltd. For example, Spider-Man has been generating a lot of income for Disney years before the Spider-Man: Homecoming movie, so much so that they agreed to let Sony take a lion's share of that movies' profits as they can make millions from licensing Spider-Man merchandise with the renewed popularity of the character. The charts below illustrates Disney's earning from licensed merchandise after acquiring Marvel in late 2009.

Google the chart that is not copied with the text for your self.

For Star Wars, the worldwide box office returns of its 4 movies of about $4.5B alone is not yet enough to break-even from Disney’s $4B acquisition price. But when you factor in Disney’s other subsidiaries, reports say that Disney broke even in less than five years.

For profitability Disney makes it's acquisitions based on multiple streams or financial lanes. If your rant/mantra is a films based business model alone then go for it. Which is why you don't consult or run a successful film business and Disney does.

It may be only anecdotal but some analysts have stated that after the box office returns from TLJ and all the ancillary revenue streams for Star Wars merchandise Disney had already broken even.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3375) 5 years ago

Hat tip Norrinrad...nice post. I hope they have broken even because I enjoy the Disney Star Wars films. Current ancillary income is supposed to be in the crapper, though.

reply

[–] howgamer (3644) 5 years ago

After the Fox merger is finalized Disney will own what 30-40% of the film industry? So I think they can take the hit no problem at all and it makes sense to put it on their own streaming service.

Personally, I have no interest in their streaming service unless they pick up the Netflix Marvel shows and keep the same gritty/dark tone. I do think it was a great idea for them to start mini-series with a fan favorite like Loki. If they do more of those type of series, and they end up being good, then I may subscribe depending on price.

reply

[–] Honeywolf3 (41) 5 years ago

The reason they are buying Fox was for their content. People keep mentioning Star Wars & Marvel as if that is all Disney are. Disney was built off of Mickey Mouse and Cartoons, Not Star Wars & Marvel. Even without those two IPs, they would have a lot of content for their streaming service.

Lets be honest, Netflix is mad cause Disney made up most of their content and I'm pretty sure a lot of Disney fans got Netflix cause of it. Disney can't touch any of the Marvel Netflix characters for 2 years plus Disney said they will not include any R-rated content. I think all the R-rated content might end up on HULU.

reply

[–] howgamer (3644) 5 years ago

Yes, they did buy Fox for their content, but it was also to remove a major competitor. They will control a substantial portion of the film industry.

Sure Disney was built on MM and cartoons, but they have been branching out from that type of entertainment for decades now. I would expect their platform to be full of cartoons, kids shows, some great movies that most people have seen, and Star Wars and Marvel all over the place which is why it is unappealing to me. Now if they start producing original content like Netflix did, then I may be interested.

reply

[–] Honeywolf3 (41) 5 years ago

I think its a mistake not including R-rated content. I mean they already have the Disney channels & Disney movies Pay per view channel for kids. The Streaming should be for everything.

They will probably include original content. I do remember reading something about Lady & the Tramp. Not sure if its live action or a sequel.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

Disney has owned subsidiaries (Miramax/Dimension) that produced R-Rated movies. I don't know if they have purchased any new subs since Fox:

Some of the R-rated films that Miramax released during this time period:
Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994)
Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill Volume 1 and Volume 2 (2003-2004)
Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures (1994)
Kevin Smith’s Clerks (1994)
Gary Felder’s Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995)
Woody Allen’s Mighty Aphrodite (1995)
Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting (1995)
Anthony Minghella’s The English Patient (1996)
Gus Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting (1997)
Lasse Hallström’s The Cider House Rules (1999)
Steven Soderbergh’s Full Frontal (2002)

Disney owns Touchstone Pictures since 1984 and Disney uses the Touchstone Pictures label to release films that are mature and darker than the “Disney” label would allow.

Disney/Touchstone R-rated films that Touchstone Pictures have released are:

Ruthless People (1986)
D.O.A. (1988)
Garry Marshall’s Pretty Woman (1990)
When a Man Loves a Woman (1994)
Con Air (1997)
Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers (1997)
Snake Eyes (1998)
Tony Scott’s Enemy of the State (1998)

All that content in their catalog will be Streamed somewhere but it won't be Netflix.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 5 years ago

Yeah I'm pretty sure Deadpool 3 is planned to be released under the Touchstone brand as rated R. There are rumors that Black Widow will be R as well but I have my doubts.

reply

[–] NorrinRad (5018) 5 years ago

Looks like the answer has been right in front of our eyes all along.

Hulu, who knew!

https://www.cbr.com/disney-hulu-adult-content/

Disney pens deal with Hulu to make 4 animated Marvel superhero series, including Howard the Duck
1. Disney greenlights 4 animated series featuring Marvel superheroes to be shown on Hulu.
2. The adult animated shows will be based on MODOK, Hit-Monkey, Tigra and Dazzler, and Howard the Duck.
3. Disney is set to own 60 percent of Hulu once its merger deal with Fox closes this year.

reply

[–] howgamer (3644) 5 years ago

I totally agree. I think if you want to take over the streaming market then you are losing a big audience for not including R rated material. It would be really simple to do too. Basically you have a normal profile and a kid profile just like what Netflix does.

reply

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 5 years ago

Looks like Disney made a wise decision. No surprise there.

Captain Marvel marvelously lived up to her mantra.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 5 years ago

Another brilliant prediction dashed by reality.

Seriously, all these prognosticators should apply for jobs in the Trump White House, where they VALUE detachment from reality.

reply