ESPN Drops The Axe Again

[Jobu]

Out are…
Douchebag Know-it-all Max Kellerman
Draft “expert” Todd McShay
Suzy Kolber
Steve Young
Keyshawn
Jeff Van Gundy
Matt Hasselback
Jalen Rose
And others
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/oth ... xwbh3oerxo

[SteelerDayTrader]

I dislike Kellerman

The rest of those were decent commentary

[Pabst]

Suzy Kolber

^ The only one on the list that had broadcasting talent. The remainder were terrible.


Disney is an absolute shit show right now.

[Mick]

Suzy Kolber

^ The only one on the list that had broadcasting talent. The remainder were terrible.


Disney is an absolute shit show right now.

disney just laid off 100% of the writing staff of National Geographic (they had 18 journalists remaining).

[Pabst]

Suzy Kolber

^ The only one on the list that had broadcasting talent. The remainder were terrible.


Disney is an absolute shit show right now.

disney just laid off 100% of the writing staff of National Geographic (they had 18 journalists remaining).

I didn't realize they owned Nat Geo. Good lord.

I was thinking along the lines of them getting killed at the box office. The Little Mermaid is, at best, only going to break even. Elemental is a massive bomb. And all indications are that Indiana Jones 5 is going to flop horribly.

[SteelerDayTrader]

Suzy Kolber

^ The only one on the list that had broadcasting talent. The remainder were terrible.


Disney is an absolute shit show right now.

[Dan Smith--BYU]

Conglomerates always go to ground, despite past glory...see Gulf and Western 1960-70. Or GE 2000-10.

Disney is a perfect example of what Peter Lynch calls "deworseification"

Megalomaniacs think they are good at everything.

1980s ESPN was low budget, not slick and charming.

Suzy Kolber and Jeff Van Gundy will be missed.

The only way for Disney to unlock value is to fire Kathleen Kennedy and break up.

Did you see the early Indiana Jones numbers?

[tbsteel]

And yet they keep Kendrick Perkins.

[langer]

What's her name? Oh, Suzy Kolber. I know why Joe Namath made a pass at Suzy. Yeah. I mean, she's a very, very excellent reporter. Knows her stuff. Knows her sports. Really does. And she's kind of thick in the britches. She's got a nice saddle. She's got a very nice saddle. You don't have to be drunk to make a pass at that saddle.

[rocky mtn stiller]

What's her name? Oh, Suzy Kolber. I know why Joe Namath made a pass at Suzy. Yeah. I mean, she's a very, very excellent reporter. Knows her stuff. Knows her sports. Really does. And she's kind of thick in the britches. She's got a nice saddle. She's got a very nice saddle. You don't have to be drunk to make a pass at that saddle.

Who said that?

[langer]

Bob Whitfield, veteran left tackle for the New York Giants.

[Deebo]

^ The only one on the list that had broadcasting talent. The remainder were terrible.


Disney is an absolute shit show right now.

disney just laid off 100% of the writing staff of National Geographic (they had 18 journalists remaining).

I didn't realize they owned Nat Geo. Good lord.

I was thinking along the lines of them getting killed at the box office. The Little Mermaid is, at best, only going to break even. Elemental is a massive bomb. And all indications are that Indiana Jones 5 is going to flop horribly.

Disney pretty much owns everything

[Pabst]

Disney pretty much owns everything

In my head Nat Geo was owned by Warner Bros (who are somehow worse). Either way....Disney needs to pull its head out of its ass, and do it quickly.

[Pabst]

As a bit of a side rant, has anyone in Hollywood thought that maybe the reason box-office returns are in the crapper is because people are getting sick of watching the same characters/stories over and over again?

Allow me to summarize the 2023 box office:
- The 10th Fast & Furious movie
- The 10th Spiderman movie since 2002
- The 31st and 32nd installments of the MCU
- The 4th John Wick Movie
- The 7th Transformers movie since 2007
- The 9th installment of the Rocky franchise
- The 13th and 14th installments of the DC Extended Universe
- The 15th Disney live action remake
- A 6th Scream movie
- A 5th Indiana Jones movie

Notice a pattern here?



I will say - kudos to Universal for the Mario movie, but even that's based on a 40 year old IP.

[COR-TEN]

As a bit of a side rant, has anyone in Hollywood thought that maybe the reason box-office returns are in the crapper is because people are getting sick of watching the same characters/stories over and over again?

Allow me to summarize the 2023 box office:
- The 10th Fast & Furious movie
- The 10th Spiderman movie since 2002
- The 31st and 32nd installments of the MCU
- The 4th John Wick Movie
- The 7th Transformers movie since 2007
- The 9th installment of the Rocky franchise
- The 13th and 14th installments of the DC Extended Universe
- The 15th Disney live action remake
- A 6th Scream movie
- A 5th Indiana Jones movie

Notice a pattern here?



I will say - kudos to Universal for the Mario movie, but even that's based on a 40 year old IP.

It's a reflection of our times. Each one of those movies are money makers with minimal effort with dumbed down characters and rehashing the same story lines. All you pay for is computer time, data entry specialists, actors, directors, and producers. And this pattern has been occurring for decades, matching the digital revolution. A slow decline in quality. Ask a bunch of prominent directors what they think. . . But the question is why?

My problem is that contrary to what some have said, the more shit you make, the more shit there is. Quality gets overwhelmed, and creates a generation nurtured on shit to the point that nobody knows what quality is anymore. And it becoming harder and harder to find. Who are the top 10 performers today? Taylor Swift? Beyonce? Billie Eilish? Dua Lippa (WhoTF is that?). Add to that that making movies has actually become "easier" in a manner of speaking. Shots that would require a cinematographer/ lighting expert with experience and a big sound stage now only need software and some reflectors/ fill lights. Lighting is no longer a super specialty as sensors can pick up natural light easily, focusing is easier, and processors that can process in real time. All that adds up to crappy movies made to generate cash, dumbing down the audience. And why bother to risk making movies with interesting stories when the public only pays for emotion and an amusement park ride?

[Pabst]

It's a reflection of our times. Each one of those movies are money makers with minimal effort with dumbed down characters and rehashing the same story lines. All you pay for is computer time, data entry specialists, actors, directors, and producers. And this pattern has been occurring for decades, matching the digital revolution. A slow decline in quality. Ask a bunch of prominent directors what they think. . . But the question is why?

Huh?

The Little Mermaid cost $250m to make. Indiana Jones $300m. The Flash $200m. Transformers $200m. Fast X $340m. Every one of these movies was extremely expensive to make and is going to end up losing the studios tens (if not hundreds) of millions of $.

I do agree that remakes/nostalgia has always been a thing (to a degree). But in this case, i think that studios thought the gravy train of bringing back old stories with the benefit of modern technology could last for much longer than it has. It's the media equivalent of signing an aging player for too long and too much.

[jewelsongs]

I think there are two problems here with the movie industry. First, the inflated cost of making a movie include costs for empty suits who add no real value to the production. They pull so much off the top to pay for the inflated infrastructures of the major studios. I did business early in my career with all the major studios except Disney. From my observation it was very top heavy.

Second, the streaming services have given artists new channels to tell their stories, many times in expanded formats such as single season series, etc. Using actors who don't command top salaries, as well as much less oversite from corporate suits allow better and deeper stories. I would much rather watch a miniseries on Netflix or Paramount than go to the movies.

Finally the cost of going to a movie has gone up to where it is less affordable than ever. I don't want to pay that premium to watch the next Mission Impossible.

[COR-TEN]

It's a reflection of our times. Each one of those movies are money makers with minimal effort with dumbed down characters and rehashing the same story lines. All you pay for is computer time, data entry specialists, actors, directors, and producers. And this pattern has been occurring for decades, matching the digital revolution. A slow decline in quality. Ask a bunch of prominent directors what they think. . . But the question is why?

Huh?

The Little Mermaid cost $250m to make. Indiana Jones $300m. The Flash $200m. Transformers $200m. Fast X $340m. Every one of these movies was extremely expensive to make and is going to end up losing the studios tens (if not hundreds) of millions of $.

I do agree that remakes/nostalgia has always been a thing (to a degree). But in this case, i think that studios thought the gravy train of bringing back old stories with the benefit of modern technology could last for much longer than it has. It's the media equivalent of signing an aging player for too long and too much.

I don't think $250M to make a movie is a lot. Not in todays dollars. If you include first release and then contracts with netflix, hulu, or amazon over time, or international contracts? They will make their money. Especially when the top ten netflix shows/ movies are this type of garbage or re-releases of old movies. I don't see them losing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you actually think these studios would throw money out the window without any ROI? I don't. Besides, spinning a new story line over existing characters, vetting old profiles, new action sequences/ CGI over already built environments from previous endeavors is easy. Easier than starting from scratch. And this isn't new. Hollywood realized after the blockbuster hit of the 70's that the public is dumb. They can rehash story lines over and over again with financial success. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. For decades.

[COR-TEN]

I think there are two problems here with the movie industry. First, the inflated cost of making a movie include costs for empty suits who add no real value to the production. They pull so much off the top to pay for the inflated infrastructures of the major studios. I did business early in my career with all the major studios except Disney. From my observation it was very top heavy.

Second, the streaming services have given artists new channels to tell their stories, many times in expanded formats such as single season series, etc. Using actors who don't command top salaries, as well as much less oversite from corporate suits allow better and deeper stories. I would much rather watch a miniseries on Netflix or Paramount than go to the movies.

Finally the cost of going to a movie has gone up to where it is less affordable than ever. I don't want to pay that premium to watch the next Mission Impossible.

I was actually going to post the bolded. Making the movie isn't as expensive as it once was. It's the skimming and paying talent. I agree with the rest as well. Nobody is going to pay $18 not including parking or snacks to watch a movie that doesn't have you on the edge of your seat. You can pay the monthly fee on netflix or paramount and be put to sleep on your sofa.

I actually think it all comes down to making money with mindless garbage to anesthetize the public with dumb shit. They will continue to do it until it no longer becomes profitable.

[SteelerDayTrader]

I think (??) I remember @B2BDirectionalState saying much of the current movie industry direction is due to China

[cop1211]

Go woke,go broke.
Screw’em.

[Pabst]

I don't think $250M to make a movie is a lot. Not in todays dollars. If you include first release and then contracts with netflix, hulu, or amazon over time, or international contracts? They will make their money. Especially when the top ten netflix shows/ movies are this type of garbage or re-releases of old movies. I don't see them losing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you actually think these studios would throw money out the window without any ROI? I don't. Besides, spinning a new story line over existing characters, vetting old profiles, new action sequences/ CGI over already built environments from previous endeavors is easy. Easier than starting from scratch. And this isn't new. Hollywood realized after the blockbuster hit of the 70's that the public is dumb. They can rehash story lines over and over again with financial success. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. For decades.

I mean....you do know that they *ARE* losing hundreds of millions of dollars, right? The money studios get from streaming, dvd sales, tv contracts, etc is peanuts compared to the box office run (for the most part, there are exceptions). Disney+ lost $4 billion last year.

Disney was making money hand over fist in the 2010s with Marvel, Star Wars, and Live action remakes. For various reasons, that well has dried up, but Disney has so much money tied up in the pipeline that they have no choice but to keep them coming. I'm not saying they're "throwing money out the window", I'm saying that they've either misread their costumers or the market is shifting (or both). Markets change all the time....especially in the entertainment industry - even the smartest people get it wrong.


If you'd like further proof: Disney stock is down 50% over the last 2 years (for comparison the S&P is up 2%).

[Deebo]

I don't think $250M to make a movie is a lot. Not in todays dollars. If you include first release and then contracts with netflix, hulu, or amazon over time, or international contracts? They will make their money. Especially when the top ten netflix shows/ movies are this type of garbage or re-releases of old movies. I don't see them losing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you actually think these studios would throw money out the window without any ROI? I don't. Besides, spinning a new story line over existing characters, vetting old profiles, new action sequences/ CGI over already built environments from previous endeavors is easy. Easier than starting from scratch. And this isn't new. Hollywood realized after the blockbuster hit of the 70's that the public is dumb. They can rehash story lines over and over again with financial success. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. For decades.

I mean....you do know that they *ARE* losing hundreds of millions of dollars, right? The money studios get from streaming, dvd sales, tv contracts, etc is peanuts compared to the box office run (for the most part, there are exceptions). Disney+ lost $4 billion last year.

Disney was making money hand over fist in the 2010s with Marvel, Star Wars, and Live action remakes. For various reasons, that well has dried up, but Disney has so much money tied up in the pipeline that they have no choice but to keep them coming. I'm not saying they're "throwing money out the window", I'm saying that they've either misread their costumers or the market is shifting (or both). Markets change all the time....especially in the entertainment industry - even the smartest people get it wrong.


If you'd like further proof: Disney stock is down 50% over the last 2 years (for comparison the S&P is up 2%).

Disney's problem is that it's got itself in too many industries. They used to be theme parks and movies. They were really good at those 2 things.

Now it's sports programming and news and a bunch of other stuff they can't differentiate itself from. People still pay premiums at their parks to get that "Disney experience" and they still deliver well there. But ask a person on the street who owns ABC/ESPN or even the Simpsons for that matter. They probably wouldn't know it's Disney. When you are able to set yourself apart from your competitors, why would you enter an industry where you have to be cookie cutter to survive?
That's Disney's problem, in a nutshell

[Pabst]

Disney's problem is that it's got itself in too many industries.

I would agree, and that's also not a problem unique to Disney.

GE is a golden example of this.

[gojira5150]

Go woke,go broke.
Screw’em.

Yes, Yes. I refuse to watch anything with wokeness in it

[jeemie]

Everything I heard tells me the 5th Indy movie actually started off really well... Then they spent the second half of the movie. Essentially shitting all over Indy's character to try and build up. Phoebe Waller Bridges character.

That and the big budget movies rarely have their characters have any character arcs or face any moral dilemmas. So the characters are downright boring and you have no connection to them.

Why would I pay $18 to see that?

[SteelerDayTrader]

Disney's problem is that it's got itself in too many industries.

I would agree, and that's also not a problem unique to Disney.

GE is a golden example of this.

[zeke5123]

I don't think $250M to make a movie is a lot. Not in todays dollars. If you include first release and then contracts with netflix, hulu, or amazon over time, or international contracts? They will make their money. Especially when the top ten netflix shows/ movies are this type of garbage or re-releases of old movies. I don't see them losing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you actually think these studios would throw money out the window without any ROI? I don't. Besides, spinning a new story line over existing characters, vetting old profiles, new action sequences/ CGI over already built environments from previous endeavors is easy. Easier than starting from scratch. And this isn't new. Hollywood realized after the blockbuster hit of the 70's that the public is dumb. They can rehash story lines over and over again with financial success. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. For decades.

I mean....you do know that they *ARE* losing hundreds of millions of dollars, right? The money studios get from streaming, dvd sales, tv contracts, etc is peanuts compared to the box office run (for the most part, there are exceptions). Disney+ lost $4 billion last year.

Disney was making money hand over fist in the 2010s with Marvel, Star Wars, and Live action remakes. For various reasons, that well has dried up, but Disney has so much money tied up in the pipeline that they have no choice but to keep them coming. I'm not saying they're "throwing money out the window", I'm saying that they've either misread their costumers or the market is shifting (or both). Markets change all the time....especially in the entertainment industry - even the smartest people get it wrong.


If you'd like further proof: Disney stock is down 50% over the last 2 years (for comparison the S&P is up 2%).

Disney spent 390m (including marketing) on The Little Mermaid. Right now, it has at box made 530m. Since you generally get about 50% of that, that means 265m to DIsney. They are short then about 125m. That is a lot to make up via streaming, etc. Seems like at best they may break even without taking into account WACC. Clearly a money loser.

[Pabst]

Disney spent 390m (including marketing) on The Little Mermaid. Right now, it has at box made 530m. Since you generally get about 50% of that, that means 265m to DIsney. They are short then about 125m. That is a lot to make up via streaming, etc. Seems like at best they may break even without taking into account WACC. Clearly a money loser.

I've read that Little Mermaid would need to gross $560m to break even. These numbers aren't public, so it's speculative. But even then, yes - tying up $400m over a 3 year period to only break even is a money loser at the end of the day.

[langer]

If Disney bought the rights to the Godfather franchise they would have WIll Smith playing Italian Don Corleone and there would be endless car crashes and explosions.

I am still surprised at how badly they have managed Star Wars and Indiana Jones. How they could turn Luke Skywalker into a miserable hermit, kill Han Solo, and install some young super being with no backstory into the lead role saving the day for everyone, showing up the old men, just fucking crazy people at work there. The prequels were bad enough, then that.

Bob Iger, genius businessman. Maybe he could counsel Bud Light how to get out of the hole they dug themselves by telling their main customers to fuck off and stop buying their product.

Simple, small movies with good acting and writing sell tickets, these idiots don't know this.

Cannonball Run made money. Awful movie, but still a fun ride with big names going against type and hamming it up.

Probably couldn't get made today, not enough social good.