Crime Disney sues DeSantis

[LangfordBarrow]

What are the repercussions?

I don't know all the details but it doesn't look like much other than the taxpayers will be paying his buddies inflated salaries while Disney continues to run their properties independently.

 

[44nutman]

Desantis won

It was a push at best with a loss to Florida taxpayers. Sadly since you are in a bubble with your information you do not know the full story. Since your media sources will spin it I will educate you.
DeSantis appointed his donors to the board and then gave them all raises. A couple of his appointed donors were Disney haters. They were deny projects just to be dicks and made maintaining Disneys massive infrastructure difficult, which is bad for business. They were not denying a movie that had 2 moms but shit like fixing roads.
Well those board members quietly left to other tax payer paid boards, and in 1 case the guy went to a board that paid less. They put an Orlando Conservative(but non MAGA idiot) businessman on the board who has businesses that benefit from Disneys massive economic impact on Central Florida. So now Disney can go back to doing business as usual and guys like you can be convinced by blue check marks and you tube clips DeSantis won, when everyone in the know , knows DeSantis got the problem board members to leave.
Florida Taxpayers are on the hook in paying DeSantis old roommates law firm for all the legal expenses just for Disney to go back to business as usual but yeah DeSantis “won”.
The reason DeSantis did not get rid of the special district but wanted to control it, is because the 2 counties where Disney is located the people who live there taxes would have increased a lot which is bad for elections.
Cliffs Disney is back to business as usual and DeSantis fans can be manipulated into thinking he “won” while ignoring the cost to taxpayers.

 

[Andy Capp]

Some of what he's saying is a gross misrepresentation of what's happening. A 3% one day stock drop is not enough to make anyone in market blink.

I think his Star Wars statements are naive. Pretty much every production studio has spent the last decade trying to monetize existing universes because consumers aren't buying into new franchises and the cost of producing new entities is prohibitive. Tom Cruise is making Mission: Impossible movies over and over again and made Top Gun 2 for the same reason. New IP isn't lucrative.

A big part of the problem for these studios is streaming. Keeping streaming customers requires a massive amount of content to keep subscribing. But massive content that they don't recognize doesn't move the needle. So companies are exploiting existing franchises and IPs to draw consumers into the streaming space.

Disney's decision to go into the streaming space with Disney+ forced them to wrestle with this reality. They had a ton of content. But the consumer market chews through it so fast that they need new stuff and that will always undercut anticipation. The question for Disney is if anything else would have been better. PEople don't go to movie theaters anymore and cord cutting impacts things like the Disney channel. So how does Disney maintain relevance in the modern era, if not by filling their streaming platform with new content...even if it means a loss of general anticipation.

That's the state of the industry. It's kind to idiotic to blame Disney's board for doing what every major media company has been forced to do to maintain relevance.

You clearly know a lot more about this than I do, but still, with respect to the last sentence and your use of "forced", do you have any data that shows people aren't interested in original content and instead just want to be fed more of the same shit they already have? I ask because I'm pretty convinced the studios are just plain cheap; they could make new stuff but won't because they need to keep shareholders happy. They're too scared of making a flop to consider trying and as you point out they're a more costly investment up front.

I think it's pretty gross, whatever the reason.

 

[Loiosh]

You clearly know a lot more about this than I do, but still, with respect to the last sentence and your use of "forced", do you have any data that shows people aren't interested in original content and instead just want to be fed more of the same shit they already have? I ask because I'm pretty convinced the studios are just plain cheap; they could make new stuff but won't because they need to keep shareholders happy. They're too scared of making a flop to consider trying and as you point out they're a more costly investment up front.

I think it's pretty gross, whatever the reason.

New material is always a risk. Always. This has been a problem since we started capturing images on celluloid, people complained we were "out of ideas" twenty years into the history of film.

When an IP is proven to make a decent ROI, they milk it for all it's worth. There's even a formula you can see play out as thew investment diminishes over each installment until. they're making direct to video chapters that cost next to nothing and coast on the name.

The really big franchises have a shallow slope in investment because they're confident in the return, and don't want to stain the IP prematurely with low quality product. This is obviously no guarantee of success, but it's the obvious method and pattern.

Disney spent a FORTUNE on Star Wars because despite the prequel trilogy being a critical failure, the IP still made enormous money.

 

[panamaican]

You clearly know a lot more about this than I do, but still, with respect to the last sentence and your use of "forced", do you have any data that shows people aren't interested in original content and instead just want to be fed more of the same shit they already have? I ask because I'm pretty convinced the studios are just plain cheap; they could make new stuff but won't because they need to keep shareholders happy. They're too scared of making a flop to consider trying and as you point out they're a more costly investment up front.

I think it's pretty gross, whatever the reason.

It's more of a mixed bag there. People want original content. But they also want familiarity. Hence the complaint about killing anticipation for new Star Wars content. Disney's "killing" anticipation by creating a lot of original content for a familiar IP - Star Wars.

In 2022, streamers spent a whopping $23 billion on original new scripted content. Although more original content is being produced than ever before, few are watching it. According to Nielsen, 12 of the top 15 most watched titles on streaming platforms in 2022 were licensed content from years ago, including NCIS (2003), Cocomelon (2006), and The Simpsons (1989).

Netflix, Amazon, Disney, and others spent a record $23 billion on original new content last year–so why is everyone watching movies and TV from the past?

12 of the top 15 most watched titles on streaming platforms in 2022 were licensed content from years ago.

fortune.com

So streaming companies are in the tough spot. They have to produce original content and it's expensive. But so much of the original content is going to fail. They're hoping, like regular tv before them, to find a piece of original content that hooks audiences over the long term. But while they do that, they use existing franchises and intellectual properties to keep the consumer engaged.