The Rise and Fall of ESPN (2 Viewers)

[massraider]

Basically every other part of Disney is seeing cuts; the fact that Grim Squeaker came for ESPN is no surprise.

And look who was cut. Camera talent from the studio shows. The shows and formats that no one here watches.

 

[Insein]

I won't go into the Disney "woke" stuff, but I think it's impossible to see these moves without considering the overall economics of Disney corporate, even understanding this is only one heading of that corporation. I THINK the vast majority of people are only watching ESPN for live sports. Other content has to matter a tiny amount, and besides live sports rights they are paying the other content voices (and at least a couple of live sports voices, e.g. Buck and Aikman) exorbitant salaries. Just not sustainable. I wish they were firing other people, just on an ideological basis, but Disney values what they value.

I would just say this is happening everywhere in entertainment. Warner Discovery to Paramount to Netflix, 2023 has been the year of slashing costs. Corporations finally started to say “hey I thought at some point streaming is supposed to be profitable, right?”. The fact is everyone raced head first into streaming with no real plan to make money, they only had a plan to grow an audience. That idiotic approach is now coming back to bite them in the ***.

Good point. And mix in that Disney's last several movies have not been nearly as successful as they would have hoped.

What? Guardians is like the 2nd biggest film of the year. Over 800 box office I think. I remember reading the little mermaid did well too.

Little mermaid struggling to break even. Still not there yet and probably won't make it. Guardians 3 did well as a movie but not as a marvel movie.

It’s made half a billion. No way is that break even.

It's budget is $250m. The rule is usually double that for marketing as that's not included in the budget for making the movie. Then take 40% that goes to the theaters from the gross. So of the $500m, the studio gets about $300m so far. They have a ways to go to break even.

 

[Doug B]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

 

[Tom Servo]

I won't go into the Disney "woke" stuff, but I think it's impossible to see these moves without considering the overall economics of Disney corporate, even understanding this is only one heading of that corporation. I THINK the vast majority of people are only watching ESPN for live sports. Other content has to matter a tiny amount, and besides live sports rights they are paying the other content voices (and at least a couple of live sports voices, e.g. Buck and Aikman) exorbitant salaries. Just not sustainable. I wish they were firing other people, just on an ideological basis, but Disney values what they value.

I would just say this is happening everywhere in entertainment. Warner Discovery to Paramount to Netflix, 2023 has been the year of slashing costs. Corporations finally started to say “hey I thought at some point streaming is supposed to be profitable, right?”. The fact is everyone raced head first into streaming with no real plan to make money, they only had a plan to grow an audience. That idiotic approach is now coming back to bite them in the ***.

Good point. And mix in that Disney's last several movies have not been nearly as successful as they would have hoped.

What? Guardians is like the 2nd biggest film of the year. Over 800 box office I think. I remember reading the little mermaid did well too.

Little mermaid struggling to break even. Still not there yet and probably won't make it. Guardians 3 did well as a movie but not as a marvel movie.

It’s made half a billion. No way is that break even.

Its budget is $250m. The rule is usually double that for marketing as that's not included in the budget for making the movie. Then take 40% that goes to the theaters from the gross. So of the $500m, the studio gets about $300m so far. They have a ways to go to break even.

The 40% return to Disney is just for America. Europe is like 25% and China is 15%. The main point still stands that just because a movie makes $500 million doesn’t mean it made money.

 

[Tom Servo]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

A lot of that is reshoots. Indy 5 was delayed a year and went through massive edits and a reshot ending a year after it initially wrapped. That doesn’t include time lost when Harrison Ford fell off a horse and hurt himself. HF got $20 million to do the movie.

 

[Ilov80s]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

Of course they can. It just becomes difficult when the movies they want to make are basically wall to wall CGI.

 

[rockaction]

Of course they can. It just becomes difficult when the movies they want to make are basically wall to wall CGI.

Isn't that partially to make money in international markets where English is not spoken or is a second language at best? In other words, they're investing capital to chase that coveted revenue stream, which in turn begets a bad cycle of chasing the money.

 

[massraider]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

A lot of that is reshoots. Indy 5 was delayed a year and went through massive edits and a reshot ending a year after it initially wrapped. That doesn’t include time lost when Harrison Ford fell off a horse and hurt himself. HF got $20 million to do the movie.

This statement makes me think the people dispensing the money might be making bad decisions.

 

[Ilov80s]

Of course they can. It just becomes difficult when the movies they want to make are basically wall to wall CGI.

Isn't that partially to make money in international markets where English is not spoken or is a second language at best? In other words, they're investing capital to chase that coveted revenue stream, which in turn begets a bad cycle of chasing the money.

That’s certainly part of it. Visual spectacle plays well across language barriers. However in doing so, I think they have played a role in rendering for people what kind of movie they will see in a theater. It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

 

[rockaction]

I think they have played a role in rendering for people what kind of movie they will see in a theater

Oh, certainly, and it's not for the better, IMO.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

 

[rockaction]

These days it's all about launch angles.

Flat bats and line drives, son. Rub a little dirt on it and bunt the man over to second.

 

[MAC_32]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

 

[Ilov80s]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

And wouldn’t you know it, MLB attendance is up

 

[Insein]

They’re going to have start getting practical with movie budgets, then. Hard to believe fantastic movies can’t be made for $100 - $150 million.

A lot of that is reshoots. Indy 5 was delayed a year and went through massive edits and a reshot ending a year after it initially wrapped. That doesn’t include time lost when Harrison Ford fell off a horse and hurt himself. HF got $20 million to do the movie.

This statement makes me think the people dispensing the money might be making bad decisions.

That is basically 99% of the problem. A lot of stupid people making decisions right now.

 

[Grahamburn]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

And wouldn’t you know it, MLB attendance is up

The new rules have made it infinitely more watchable.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It’s obviously very complex but their strategy has become only swing for the homeruns and in doing they have lost the reliable singles and doubles.

These days it's all about launch angles.

It's starting to change this year. Half the league is hitting 250+ whereas it was just a handful the last couple seasons. SB is on a trajectory we haven't seen in a decade. Still too many k's though.

And wouldn’t you know it, MLB attendance is up

The new rules have made it infinitely more watchable.

Pitch clock is great. Now all we need are robot umps.

 

[kupcho1]

It's budget is $250m. The rule is usually double that for marketing as that's not included in the budget for making the movie. Then take 40% that goes to the theaters from the gross. So of the $500m, the studio gets about $300m so far. They have a ways to go to break even.

My understanding (care of The Critical Drinker) is that marketing is ~50% and studio take is ~50% (rough numbers here).
Estimated cost for Indy 5 is around $300M
Marketing at $150M
So if total cost is $450M all-in (and there is some question as to whether or not actual costs exceeded $300M) then Indy 5 needs $900M to break even. (Likely more as the take isn't quite that high overseas.)

Shareholders aren't looking for breakeven. At - insert pinkie into corner of mouth - 1 BILLION DOLLARS, they're looking at a 22% return.
Throw in time value of money and all that, and I don't think any champagne corks will be popping when all is said and dead. There should be heads rolling

 

[massraider]

Shareholders aren't looking for breakeven. At - insert pinkie into corner of mouth - 1 BILLION DOLLARS, they're looking at a 22% return.

Yep. You can make a nice little movie for 20 mill, and maybe it does 80 mill, and that's great, but that doesn't put a yacht in the driveway.

 

[Insein]

Shareholders aren't looking for breakeven. At - insert pinkie into corner of mouth - 1 BILLION DOLLARS, they're looking at a 22% return.

Yep. You can make a nice little movie for 20 mill, and maybe it does 80 mill, and that's great, but that doesn't put a yacht in the driveway.

They probably should take 7 or 8 shots at a $20m movie and maybe get a surprise hit that makes back enough for all the others. Better than making one terrible movie that cost $200m+.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

I'm sure people here know a lot more about it than me but it just seems like the numbers don't add up with a lot of movies that are generally considered successes. For instance X-Men First Class did $350M worldwide on a $160M budget and they greenlit a bunch of sequels immediately after seeing that. Only 1 of the 4 Godzilla movies did triple the budget (and that one only barely) yet they kept pumping them out.

Also just looking through the numbers of highest grossing films and budgets, the return on the Fast and Furious franchise is just outlandishly ridiculous. Holy cow why does Universal even bother making any other movies?

 

[kupcho1]

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Iron Man, which cost about $150M to make and $75M to market has taken in $585.8M (I don't know if this takes into account any broadcast/streaming revenue, which could have occurred prior to Disney purchasing Marvel) since inception.

So, $225 cost * 2 (i.e., Marvel got half the box office) would give one a $450M break even figure. So, Iron Man made ~$140M. Not a bad return at all on $225M. (And ignores - in addition to streaming/broadcast - establishing a brand/MEU.

Now, these days the returns aren't anywhere near that level (I believe). But then again the stories haven't been as good. They're still profit motivated despite all appearances to the contrary (e.g., taking shortcuts on special effects which any paying customer can see).

 

[GroveDiesel]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

I'm sure people here know a lot more about it than me but it just seems like the numbers don't add up with a lot of movies that are generally considered successes. For instance X-Men First Class did $350M worldwide on a $160M budget and they greenlit a bunch of sequels immediately after seeing that. Only 1 of the 4 Godzilla movies did triple the budget (and that one only barely) yet they kept pumping them out.

Also just looking through the numbers of highest grossing films and budgets, the return on the Fast and Furious franchise is just outlandishly ridiculous. Holy cow why does Universal even bother making any other movies?

How Hollywood accounting works.

Basically the tldr version is that the studio sets up a corporation for each movie. The corporations then end up financial losers because the studio charges the corporation they setup for that movie all sorts of bogus distribution/marketing/etc fees. So the movie ends up a financial loser while the studio takes in all the profits.

 

[kupcho1]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

I'm sure people here know a lot more about it than me but it just seems like the numbers don't add up with a lot of movies that are generally considered successes. For instance X-Men First Class did $350M worldwide on a $160M budget and they greenlit a bunch of sequels immediately after seeing that. Only 1 of the 4 Godzilla movies did triple the budget (and that one only barely) yet they kept pumping them out.

Also just looking through the numbers of highest grossing films and budgets, the return on the Fast and Furious franchise is just outlandishly ridiculous. Holy cow why does Universal even bother making any other movies?

How Hollywood accounting works.

Basically the tldr version is that the studio sets up a corporation for each movie. The corporations then end up financial losers because the studio charges the corporation they setup for that movie all sorts of bogus distribution/marketing/etc fees. So the movie ends up a financial loser while the studio takes in all the profits.

And who owns these corporations?

 

[massraider]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Right, and not even considering the plastic crap that parents will be buying for the kiddies.

Even when something is a flop, and barely breaks even, or even loses money, the potential billion dollar payday for having a hit blockbuster is worth the risk. You cannot make comic book movie money with romantic comedies, or political thrillers. And you don't sell one toy or Halloween costume.

The big reason I think these movies are here to stay: Anyone know any comic book types? People who are into comics, and other kinds of 'nerdy' (for lack of a better term) entertainment? They ain't going anywhere. Hardcore, and nothing they would rather spend their money on.

 

[FairWarning]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Right, and not even considering the plastic crap that parents will be buying for the kiddies.

Even when something is a flop, and barely breaks even, or even loses money, the potential billion dollar payday for having a hit blockbuster is worth the risk. You cannot make comic book movie money with romantic comedies, or political thrillers. And you don't sell one toy or Halloween costume.

The big reason I think these movies are here to stay: Anyone know any comic book types? People who are into comics, and other kinds of 'nerdy' (for lack of a better term) entertainment? They ain't going anywhere. Hardcore, and nothing they would rather spend their money on.

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

 

[Gr00vus]

What would Jeff VanGundy's Star Wars character name be?

Grabba Foot?
Dork Sillious?

 

[massraider]

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

 

[dickey moe]

Based on what I've read in here, it seems that exploding marketing costs have significantly affected the bottom line.

 

[facook]

I know nothing about the movie industry, but the numbers people are throwing out here for what it takes to break even seem like it would make it such that hardly any big budget film ever breaks even, yet they keep pumping them out.

The Iron Man movies for instance have similar stats to Little Mermaid ($500-$600M box office for each film, and $150M-$200M budget for each film) with Little Mermaid of course still having some time to churn out more dollars before it leaves theaters. You're telling me the Iron Man movies were just break-even films, and that made them so excited to break even on $200M investments that they decided to pump out 300 more Marvel movies based on that "success"?

Right, and not even considering the plastic crap that parents will be buying for the kiddies.

Even when something is a flop, and barely breaks even, or even loses money, the potential billion dollar payday for having a hit blockbuster is worth the risk. You cannot make comic book movie money with romantic comedies, or political thrillers. And you don't sell one toy or Halloween costume.

The big reason I think these movies are here to stay: Anyone know any comic book types? People who are into comics, and other kinds of 'nerdy' (for lack of a better term) entertainment? They ain't going anywhere. Hardcore, and nothing they would rather spend their money on.

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

It’s hard to even make comedies without offending anymore.

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

Will I get a T.O. or cancelled if I point out that Blazing Saddles is still extremely funny?

 

[rockaction]

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

I believe I said this and it got called a "lazy analysis" by someone. I remember quotes like that. And I like the person, too, it's just there was nothing lazy about saying that the risk of offending somebody, especially seeing Hollywood's and the entertainment industry's stance about offensive comedy, is hardly a lazy analysis. More like spot-on.

 

[massraider]

BREAKING: CEO Bob Iger Considering Selling Streaming Services and Other Assets, May Even Try to Sell Entire Disney Company - WDW News Today

Disney CEO Bob Iger is looking to sell some of the company's TV and streaming assets, and may be considering selling the entire company.

wdwnt.com

Disney could be making some moves

 

[Desert_Power]

Do you think any executive at ESPN thinks about how their insistence on throwing a minute ad on every video on their website impacts engagement or their ability to tell stories about sports?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The state of comedy movies these days is terrible, and I am convinced this is the reason.

I believe I said this and it got called a "lazy analysis" by someone. I remember quotes like that. And I like the person, too, it's just there was nothing lazy about saying that the risk of offending somebody, especially seeing Hollywood's and the entertainment industry's stance about offensive comedy, is hardly a lazy analysis. More like spot-on.

I really have no idea, but I think it's fair to point out the summer comedy release this year was called "The Blackening" and the entire movie was caricaturizing streotypes, so it's not like they're scared of boundaries. If anything, they leaned into it TOO much and it got predictable and derivative.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Iger says ESPN stand-alone streaming service will launch in 2025