Good article. You’re identifying the blockbusterism which has overtaken the soul of studios financial structures and audiences attention. So to keep the potential total addressable market as large as possible—studios believe (rightly or wrongly) they need to be as aggressively inclusive as possible and provocative in advancing storytelling into new territory before the competition—because this is what the modern audience wants or is focused on—right? Criticism proves this out—even if they don’t get box office they get what Bob Iger would call ‘brand deposits’—meaning the story reflects who the company wants to be identified as and with. Compelling characters and stories become just a vehicle to achieve these things.
Something else to note is that while most studios are simply film, streaming, and product—with licensing rights—companies, Disney film studio is a very small part of their total business and revenue model. Pixar, Disney Animation, ESPN, Disney parks and resorts, ABC television, Lucas Films, Marvel, Disney consumer products and publications, Disney +, Fox, etc. are all pieces of the corporation. The synergies of the studio stories have a significant influence but they are not the definition of the Disney company. That said—I think your criticism is valid. They are searching for their audience and direction—it’s hard to sustain growth as the family company (with the great Disney legacy) when customers are not growing/raising families and rejecting the families that they have. How do you create compelling stories for these customers and set the direction for the next 50 years? (It has been 45 years since the first Star Wars film)
Thanks for your comments! Agree the revenue model is broader than films, however films have been the cornerstone of the image which Disney tried to create. Over time Disney has branched out into theme parks, hotels, etc., but on the back of movies. Over time is has grown into a cross-fertilizing ecosystem, for example the “Pirates of the Caribbean” section of theme parks like Disneyland inspired the movie franchise, which has become very successful. We’ve now arrived at a situation where that ecosystem starts collapsing – parents aren’t taking kids to theme parks any longer after seeing the current crop of movies, aren’t buying action figures, etc.
I believe Iger wants to expand audiences through (what he thinks is) inclusiveness – I’m still granting him good-faith. But Kennedy, Headland, Dave Filoni, etc. at Lucasfilm, and other producers/ writers at other studios deconstruct and re-write established stories and myths, because then really don’t care about “traditional” audiences.
Good article. You’re identifying the blockbusterism which has overtaken the soul of studios financial structures and audiences attention. So to keep the potential total addressable market as large as possible—studios believe (rightly or wrongly) they need to be as aggressively inclusive as possible and provocative in advancing storytelling into new territory before the competition—because this is what the modern audience wants or is focused on—right? Criticism proves this out—even if they don’t get box office they get what Bob Iger would call ‘brand deposits’—meaning the story reflects who the company wants to be identified as and with. Compelling characters and stories become just a vehicle to achieve these things.
Something else to note is that while most studios are simply film, streaming, and product—with licensing rights—companies, Disney film studio is a very small part of their total business and revenue model. Pixar, Disney Animation, ESPN, Disney parks and resorts, ABC television, Lucas Films, Marvel, Disney consumer products and publications, Disney +, Fox, etc. are all pieces of the corporation. The synergies of the studio stories have a significant influence but they are not the definition of the Disney company. That said—I think your criticism is valid. They are searching for their audience and direction—it’s hard to sustain growth as the family company (with the great Disney legacy) when customers are not growing/raising families and rejecting the families that they have. How do you create compelling stories for these customers and set the direction for the next 50 years? (It has been 45 years since the first Star Wars film)
Thanks for your comments! Agree the revenue model is broader than films, however films have been the cornerstone of the image which Disney tried to create. Over time Disney has branched out into theme parks, hotels, etc., but on the back of movies. Over time is has grown into a cross-fertilizing ecosystem, for example the “Pirates of the Caribbean” section of theme parks like Disneyland inspired the movie franchise, which has become very successful. We’ve now arrived at a situation where that ecosystem starts collapsing – parents aren’t taking kids to theme parks any longer after seeing the current crop of movies, aren’t buying action figures, etc.
I believe Iger wants to expand audiences through (what he thinks is) inclusiveness – I’m still granting him good-faith. But Kennedy, Headland, Dave Filoni, etc. at Lucasfilm, and other producers/ writers at other studios deconstruct and re-write established stories and myths, because then really don’t care about “traditional” audiences.
Great write-up!
Many thanks!
Creating Wealth With Creative Thinking https://open.substack.com/pub/michael880/p/creating-wealth-with-creative-thinking?r=3b6pw1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web