jye4ever
Broke and happy
Last edited:
Star Wars Saga (OT/PT/ST) Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Khev
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Status
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
I don?t really know about any of that. I just know that I believe very strongly in capitalism. If a company feels that one employee is a liability to them and the other isn?t they have the freedom to fire that employee.
I don?t even believe cancel culture exists. I think it?s nothing more than capitalism.
If I have a bad experience in one restaurant and a good experience in another, I stop going to the bad restaurant.
Freedom is important. In some totalitarian country I would be forced to keep eating at the bad restaurant even though it makes me unhappy.
It?s not cancel culture it?s capitalism. You want me to eat there don?t give me a bad meal.
Some people don?t want to watch a show starring someone whose best skill is being able to take a punch to the face so they stop watching it.
I don?t watch The Manadalorian so I don?t really know, but from what I?ve heard that lady isn?t exactly Cate Blanchett or Meryl Streep.
Disney makes a financial decision that the people who don?t like her make more money for them than the people who do so they fire her.
Sounds like business. Sounds like capitalism. What?s not to love about capitalism?
Disney is the most successful entertainment company in history, they must have some clue about what they?re doing.
I personally don?t agree with a single decision that they have made about Star Wars, but as I keep saying, Star Wars is not their money maker.
So did Pedro. Maybe she didn’t believe in being silenced when all her co-stars and other Disney employees were free to post ridiculous claims and racist crap. She made a stand and showed the double standard at that company.
It was 100% cancel culture and nothing more. It is actually hilarious you think people cancelling Disney plus will have no impact but keeping Gina on would.
I highly highly highly doubt that.
Really? Tiny? The second largest film franchise in total gross and you want to sit here and call it tiny?
Star Wars movies have a higher average gross than Marvel movies too. It is The Mandalorian that is dominating pop culture right now. Not WandaVision.
There is so much wrong with this post I don’t even know where to begin.
ajp4mgs
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
- Messages
- 2,305
- Reaction score
- 1,672
If we're talking about their entertainment IP's, the facts and numbers would suggest differently. Disney had already spent $4 billion to acquire Marvel in 2009, and the MCU proved to be incredibly lucrative in the first few years after that purchase. Yet Disney still decided to spend another $4 billion to get Lucasfilm. And just look at how they used those two respective licenses when it came to promoting key ventures such as theme parks and their streaming service.
An investment of $2 billion was made to build Galaxy's Edge on 14 acres at Disneyland and 14 acres at Disney World. By comparison, the upcoming "Avengers Campus" at Disneyland will be 3.5 acres; and if you factor in the GOTG attraction and the announced MCU-themed eventual updates, it'll still be less than 10 acres.
When Disney launched their streaming service (a very important part of their future plans), what brand did they use to launch it with? They could've gone with any of their MCU shows, but instead chose Star Wars to attract as many new subscribers as possible. And it worked. As of the week ending Feb. 20, The Mandalorian was still generating more interest than WandaVision despite the fact that Mando *ended in December* while WandaVision is still airing new weekly episodes.
I don't know what metric you're using to judge that Star Wars is some sort of lightweight money maker, but if you look at which brands Disney is investing most heavily in, I think it'd be pretty silly to say that SW isn't a key license when it comes to generating current and future revenue.
They're banking quite a bit on SW fans. And if you think that Gina Carano being the #1 trending celebrity is something that happens by way of just some insignificant amount of those fans, then I don't know what to tell you.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
There is so much wrong with THIS post I actually don?t even know where to begin.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
If we're talking about their entertainment IP's, the facts and numbers would suggest differently. Disney had already spent $4 billion to acquire Marvel in 2009, and the MCU proved to be incredibly lucrative in the first few years after that purchase. Yet Disney still decided to spend another $4 billion to get Lucasfilm. And just look at how they used those two respective licenses when it came to promoting key ventures such as theme parks and their streaming service.
An investment of $2 billion was made to build Galaxy's Edge on 14 acres at Disneyland and 14 acres at Disney World. By comparison, the upcoming "Avengers Campus" at Disneyland will be 3.5 acres; and if you factor in the GOTG attraction and the announced MCU-themed eventual updates, it'll still be less than 10 acres.
When Disney launched their streaming service (a very important part of their future plans), what brand did they use to launch it with? They could've gone with any of their MCU shows, but instead chose Star Wars to attract as many new subscribers as possible. And it worked. As of the week ending Feb. 20, The Mandalorian was still generating more interest than WandaVision despite the fact that Mando *ended in December* while WandaVision is still airing new weekly episodes.
I don't know what metric you're using to judge that Star Wars is some sort of lightweight money maker, but if you look at which brands Disney is investing most heavily in, I think it'd be pretty silly to say that SW isn't a key license when it comes to generating current and future revenue.
They're banking quite a bit on SW fans. And if you think that Gina Carano being the #1 trending celebrity is something that happens by way of just some insignificant amount of those fans, then I don't know what to tell you.
Well if Disney goes out of business because they fired your favorite Karate Fighter (I personally have no opinion of her one way or the other) then I will come back on here and say you were right. If they stay in business and continue to significantly dominate EVERY other entertainment company in existence, then I guess we?ll have to agree that I was right.
Nobody is saying they will go out of business. You said Star Wars was tiny. Not a money maker. And you were proven to be hilariously wrong.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
Proven by whom? By you? Do you have financial statements from The Walt Disney Company for me to review to hilariously prove me wrong. You clearly and I guess hilariously have no clue about how large companies work and how little influence one MMA lady has on their bottom line.
Disney has a higher net worth than several whole countries but go ahead and cancel your streaming subscription. Bring them to their knees. Who knows, maybe Gina will find out and go to Prom with you.
It will be very touching.
Do you not read the replies or do you just rage about Gina? I'm not talking about Gina. I'm talking about Star Wars. The Star Wars that you said was tiny and not a money maker.
And yet Star Wars is the top streaming series STILL, averages a higher total gross than Marvel movies, helped Hasbro jump up in sales from The Mando merch....
Now you wanna sit here and tell me I don't know if they are a money maker when YOU said they weren't?
Take your L and move on. Star Wars is a very large franchise that makes billions.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
You don?t work in business do you? Haven?t studied it either have you?
You probably broke the keyboard you were pounding the keys so hard when you typed this reply.
Watching the result of you bursting a blood vessel while you read my reply and typed yours is the only W I need today. Thanks!
She still might go to prom with you though.
It's hilarious this is your argument. That I can't know anything but you know that Star Wars is not a money maker and is tiny. It is utterly ridiculous. What is it? You have to work at the company to know or that only you know Star Wars is not a money maker and tiny because you said so? Don't tell me... your dad works for Disney so you know?
Again, the only one going on about Gina is you. Your crazy rants on Gina and MMA fans watching Star Wars are very odd. You keep deflecting.
You said Star Wars was tiny. Not a money maker. No one cares about Star Wars.
So, having the top streaming series means nothing? 6th most tweeted TV show of 2020 means nothing? What about it's earned media value? Millions upon millions discussing it. What about the merch sales. You don't have to work for Disney to know that Star Wars is printing money right now.
You have to realize by now everything you said about the franchise is utterly wrong.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
It's hilarious this is your argument. That I can't know anything but you know that Star Wars is not a money maker and is tiny. It is utterly ridiculous. What is it? You have to work at the company to know or that only you know Star Wars is not a money maker and tiny because you said so? Don't tell me... your dad works for Disney so you know?
Again, the only one going on about Gina is you. Your crazy rants on Gina and MMA fans watching Star Wars are very odd. You keep deflecting.
You said Star Wars was tiny. Not a money maker. No one cares about Star Wars.
So, having the top streaming series means nothing? 6th most tweeted TV show of 2020 means nothing? What about it's earned media value? Millions upon millions discussing it. What about the merch sales. You don't have to work for Disney to know that Star Wars is printing money right now.
You have to realize by now everything you said about the franchise is utterly wrong.
This whole line of discussion was based upon someone describing their frustration with Disney for firing that Gina lady and sharing that they no longer wanted to support Disney for making that decision. It?s strange that you think me bringing her up is some how odd or off topic when she WAS the topic.
What you think you know about the financial impact that Star Wars has on The Walt Disney Company is factually incorrect. Anything else?
ajp4mgs
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
- Messages
- 2,305
- Reaction score
- 1,672
As someone with a business degree who has worked at a major mutual fund company and been an active investor for years, I'm pretty comfortable providing an analysis of the revenue and profitability of a company like Disney. If I'm also going to be dismissed as some blood-vessel-popping irrational Gina fan, that's fine - but it'd be nice to instead get a counter based on something other than hyperbolic strawman arguments and insults.
Star Wars has seen an investment of billions of dollars and considerable acreage at theme parks. The investment in the brand is ongoing with billions more to be invested in development of films, shows, and other projects. For anyone to suggest that this level of focus represents an insignificant aspect of Disney's business, or that the revenue generated from SW is insignificant, would be evidence of being oblivious to how the dynamic with investors actually works.
Even just a few pennies per share going one way versus the other can become headline news. And momentum is a huge factor. In the last quarter, Disney reported a revenue of $16.25 billion. This exceeded Wall Street expectations by a substantial margin, and they actually posted a quarterly profit (32 cents per share) when the consensus expectation was for another pandemic-derived quarterly loss.
Disney+ (the shiny new corporate toy) had a lot to do with the surprise in revenue growth. Their streaming revenue was up 73% from the prior year, and already amounted to $3.5 billion. Subscriber growth exceeded forecasts by *millions* of people. I guess anyone is free to marginalize the impact that The Mandalorian had on those results, but I suspect they'd be laughed out of any conversation with people who actually understand the consumer metrics.
So the question here is simply this: How would it look for Disney to report at the end of this current quarter that cancellations slowed subscriber growth enough to fall short of consensus expectations? There's an easy answer to this question: Not good. Disney wouldn't want that to be part of any future shareholder calls, believe me. And again, I'm not saying that's what is going to happen, but I *am* saying that the prospect of it is not something that would be laughed off by corporate.
Exactly. That was the strawman argument I refer to in this post. No one here came even remotely close to saying that Disney would be bankrupted by cancellations.
As for the relevance of SW business, retail sales generate $2-3 billion per year. Movies routinely clear half a billion in profit. And the list goes on and on. There's a good reason why LFL was purchased in the first place, and that reason was (and is) money. Lots of it.
Star Wars has seen an investment of billions of dollars and considerable acreage at theme parks. The investment in the brand is ongoing with billions more to be invested in development of films, shows, and other projects. For anyone to suggest that this level of focus represents an insignificant aspect of Disney's business, or that the revenue generated from SW is insignificant, would be evidence of being oblivious to how the dynamic with investors actually works.
Even just a few pennies per share going one way versus the other can become headline news. And momentum is a huge factor. In the last quarter, Disney reported a revenue of $16.25 billion. This exceeded Wall Street expectations by a substantial margin, and they actually posted a quarterly profit (32 cents per share) when the consensus expectation was for another pandemic-derived quarterly loss.
Disney+ (the shiny new corporate toy) had a lot to do with the surprise in revenue growth. Their streaming revenue was up 73% from the prior year, and already amounted to $3.5 billion. Subscriber growth exceeded forecasts by *millions* of people. I guess anyone is free to marginalize the impact that The Mandalorian had on those results, but I suspect they'd be laughed out of any conversation with people who actually understand the consumer metrics.
So the question here is simply this: How would it look for Disney to report at the end of this current quarter that cancellations slowed subscriber growth enough to fall short of consensus expectations? There's an easy answer to this question: Not good. Disney wouldn't want that to be part of any future shareholder calls, believe me. And again, I'm not saying that's what is going to happen, but I *am* saying that the prospect of it is not something that would be laughed off by corporate.
Exactly. That was the strawman argument I refer to in this post. No one here came even remotely close to saying that Disney would be bankrupted by cancellations.
As for the relevance of SW business, retail sales generate $2-3 billion per year. Movies routinely clear half a billion in profit. And the list goes on and on. There's a good reason why LFL was purchased in the first place, and that reason was (and is) money. Lots of it.
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
I hate to be so succinct in my reply because I can see that you spent a lot of time researching all of those stats.
The reality is that it doesn?t matter. My Executive Management experience is not in mutual funds but it is in the Entertainment Industry. I?m taking more of a practical versus theoretical approach to this. I can tell you right out the gate that acreage is an irrelevant measure in theme park design outside of the specific design requirements of a given project.
I won?t bore you, I will just say that if you think your understanding of Disney?s own business liabilities exceeds the understanding that their own Finance division has then I really don?t know how to tell you how wrong you obviously are. They look at their own balance sheet every day.
In spite all of this, they still fired that lady. Did they think that all of her fans would be happy about it? No, but they did it anyway.
So there are two possible reasons that the most successful entertainment company in the history of companies made this decision. A - they want to sabotage themselves and cost themselves money and subscribers and lose many of their own jobs, or B - their knowledge of this industry that they have achieved more success in than anyone before them, tells them that they can fire that lady and it won?t hurt them in any way that is worth being concerned about.
I?m going with B. And that?s all we?re really talking about here anyway, the rest is just noise. The impact of Star Wars or Disney Plus or The Mandalorian is irrelevant. It wasn?t the point of my comment. My point was that they fired that lady because they can without suffering any real consequences. Disney will be fine, Star Wars will be fine, Disney Plus will be fine, even the show itself will be fine.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Yeah well JAWS got something he wants to tell Disney...
jal76
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 701
Is that really the best you can do? Come on, I know you can do better than that. Hot dog cart! Bwah hah hah I?m in stitches!
It?s all relative smarty. You read what you wanted to read.
No one said that Star Wars didn?t make money, but only the most tunnel visioned dummy with zero ability to see beyond their own experiences would assume that just because their whole world revolves around a particular intellectual property the same holds true for a multi-billion dollar corporation that has a ton of pots on the stove.
It?s actually exhausting discussing this with someone so dense, at least the other guy had a clue, put him back on and go take a nap or something.
- Status
Similar threads
