Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it
- Thread starter Pepperbone
- Start date
- Status
The media sure seem to have turned on Disney, of late…
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/media/nightcap-iger-disney/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/media/nightcap-iger-disney/index.html
Cephus
Master Member
I don't know where you get this "hundreds of millions" thing. Bob Iger's contract gives him a $1 million annual base salary, plus a potential bonus incentive award if he hits certain metrics of up to $25 million. That's it. That's all he makes and for the CEO of a massive company like Disney, that's not a lot.
This is what the rest of the world knows as, consequences. There's only so much insulation your wealth, size, and influence can help when you make bad decisions. Reap the whirlwind.
On that note: I have heard it said that after a certain level, people in companies are paid for what they know rather than what they do. I just wanted to run that one by you, whether there's any truth to that or not?
Not going to make any call... don't even think I have minutes left on my phone to make a call...
Cephus
Master Member
I don't know. I have never met Bob Iger or any CEO of a huge company. You'd have to run that by them. All of the CEOs I know work their asses off.
Bonuses aren't the icing on the cake, they are the cake. That's how CEO compensation works in real life. They are given the majority of their pay under that heading to avoid the legal efforts to keep CEO pay under control. This is SOP at big multinationals. The contracts are rigged so that they can expect to get the majority of that "extra" money every single year.
Disney's boomerang CEO Bob Iger to receive $27 million annually
Disney said Sunday that Bob Chapek was stepping down as CEO immediately, to be replaced by Iger, who ran the company for 15 years prior to retiring in 2021.
Disney CEO Bob Iger’s Rich Compensation Package Revealed, Company Says Bob Chapek Fired ‘Without Cause’
Disney says Bob Iger will receive a $1 million salary and bonuses. It revealed that Bob Chapek was fired "without cause."
variety.com
Iger made $21m in 2020.
He made $45m in 2021.
His new 2022 deal is a "downgrade" to $27m.
That's $93m in his last 3 years alone. He's in his 17th year now.
Last edited:
robstyle
Master Member
How about a novel idea for all of the entertainment industry. Percentages of profits earned. End the over inflated guaranteed paychecks and back end deals. Instead as simple as it sounds, put out product people will pay for and get paid what you're worth. See how fast the entertainment industry changes. I don't go to McDonald's because I don't like to eat crap. Instead if I ever crave a burger I go to a mom and pop burger joint that creates quality tasty food. It's not even always more expensive yet close to or even lower than the McDonald's garbage. Yet people line up for the garbage. Puzzling isn't it. Pump out enough garbage and those that run the show get big paychecks. Those that put out quality scrape to get by.
Don't lie to yourself, in n out is equal amounts of garbage.
Don't lie to yourself, in n out is equal amounts of garbage.
robstyle
Master Member
I was about to post this in the Indiana Jones thread that's gotten well off topic.
What if I told you Tom Holland the creator of Childs Play and Fright Night has a ready to go polished script for a continuation of his original Fright Night films with original cast returning.
What of I told you Joe Dante has a Gremilns 3 script ready to go polished with original cast returning.
Both films are written to be done as the originals with as little cgi as possible. But studio brass is ignorant to what legends can do in the modern era of "cinema" so they are not even considered bankable. If I recall both films were being talked about ten years ago. But again the ignorance of studio brass. For the record Tom had nothing to do with either reboot of fright night or child's play. Instead the ignorance of studio brass moved forward without the proper rights then had to write huge checks to bail themselves out of the mess after those films completions and give credit to Tom. Studio brass is again completely ignorant of what people want yet are rewarded for failures and bad decisions.
What if I told you Tom Holland the creator of Childs Play and Fright Night has a ready to go polished script for a continuation of his original Fright Night films with original cast returning.
What of I told you Joe Dante has a Gremilns 3 script ready to go polished with original cast returning.
Both films are written to be done as the originals with as little cgi as possible. But studio brass is ignorant to what legends can do in the modern era of "cinema" so they are not even considered bankable. If I recall both films were being talked about ten years ago. But again the ignorance of studio brass. For the record Tom had nothing to do with either reboot of fright night or child's play. Instead the ignorance of studio brass moved forward without the proper rights then had to write huge checks to bail themselves out of the mess after those films completions and give credit to Tom. Studio brass is again completely ignorant of what people want yet are rewarded for failures and bad decisions.
Lightning
Master Member
Poof, Done. OK, now the Executives are paid based on Gross profit and everyone else gets nothing because they are paid via Net profit, which is 0 because of Hollywood accounting.
Joking aside, if you passed a law requiring CEO pay to be calculated on net profit, that might actually have an impact on hollywood accounting. I'm sure they would immediately find a loophole.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
ghostryder
Legendary Member
anamorphicWayne
Sr Member
Harrison Ford sends terrifying warning about Hollywood's creepy tactics
HeartBlade
Sr Member
I wish I had the power to determine value and resulting compensation. Then maybe teachers can actually get paid worth a damn (not a teacher btw if you want to argue conflict of interest). So how has Iger contributed to improve Disney? I think we both agree that he shat the bed and Disney is in the dire straits it is now because of him.
Sure its not my call but Im still going to think they are overpaid for the actual value they contribute, as are other scholars and researchers. Again, their salaries have increased a thousand fold while the average worker has remained pretty steady. If you can convince me that CEOs are 1000 times more productive and therefore deserve that, sure. Problem is, they havent been.
Yes, Chapek was the fall guy. He was hired because Iger went spend-crazy near the end of his tenure and Disney needed to balance the books. Chapek had a notorious rep for cost-cutting from his time managing the parks so was the perfect guy for the job in a sense. However, Disney was still in a ton of trouble so Chapek basically got alot of flak for stuff out of his control.
I mean Kennedy has also essentially destroyed Lucasfilm's key IPs and she still seems to be employed so. Maybe its less merit and more a club? Also funny you seem to think Iger deserves it when he has been ranked the 5th most overpaid CEO and the very shareholders you say make the decision barely passed his pay package. So even the shareholders arnt exactly enthusiastic about Iger.
I also mentioned in my post how I dont view all CEOs as undeserving. Again, there are CEOs who seem to actually care about their employees. Sounds like you have a good one. So is the Nintendo CEO who took a paycut or Zoom who at least take massive paycuts when the company is not doing well to try to retain staff. Compare that to Zaslav who shows no signs of a voluntary paycut despite bad decisions resulting in the company not doing well which results in workers losing jobs. If we are talking merit-based, lets talk merit-based.
How Movie Stars Get Paid
Every so often someone writes a trend story about movie star pay that is utterly wrong because the reporter has no idea how Hollywood deals are done. So let's do a brief refresher course.
www.gawker.com
I was talking net points and gross points (had to look up the terminology). Studios can cook the books so movies never make a profit hence why you want to go gross. Ofcourse, gross is only offered to the top talent which allows them to still make millions even if the film is a dud.
And for your examples, they can bring up Indy 1,2,3 and MCU (with Cap Marvel raking $1 bn by itself) as proof of why they think it would succeed (I know the arguments against and also agree that the movies you listed will fail). There are also great films that flop and bad films that succeed. Dreed, recent Mission Impossible bombed despite being fine or even great movies. We are also judging with the final product being imminent while actors/investors have to judge in the script or writing stage. I do think there are some utter duds that they shouldnt bother.
Agree although public habits and outcry doesnt make it better to be honest. Audiences still praise ****** shows and fall for the marketing. People seem to love hate watching, hence why Velma is getting a season 2 despite other far superior shows getting cancelled and I suspect is also why writers and producers are insulting fans (maybe we can get them to hate watch our shows and boost numbers). We also have a ton of critics like like to downvote movies because of an "agenda" they dislike regardless of the actual quality of the movie (see the youtube outcry over Barbie).
I honestly do think streaming and the rise of social media and the creation of influencers have ended the Hollywood money tree. Reassessed expectations are needed by Hollywood and its workers dont want to adapt. It may require some growing pains and some major studios to come crashing down (I can see Universal and Warner having to downsize significantly in terms of studio productions) and movie budgets shrinking because the money is just not there but there will be growing pains.
signeddiamond
Well-Known Member
What a topic. I hardly think I can offer insights not better expressed before but who knows.
I pin it all on the producers. Every last problem can be traced back to them. Scrapping 10 low budget/ moderate return scripts to spend 200 million on a reboot? Hiring a young and promising director and then curtailing their creativity because it might be a little risky? Cramming in diversity not to represent people but because it can get a Screenrant article written about it before you remove it for foreign audiences?
It's all so cold and so calculated. You can feel it. All these issues with the producers just build on themselves. If budgets weren't so high then the pressure to make a billion dollars wouldn't be there. If financial pressure was lessened it wouldn't be such a big deal to take some risks. If audiences were still used to films being risky and unexpected then diversity would be a feature and not a gimmick. But you need inclusion for American audiences but to make a billion you need to cut it out for global audiences and that filmmaker can't be allowed to have final cut because they might make a decision that will cost someone buying a ticket.
We can blame the audience for being dumb sure. That's easy. You can say they only have a TikTok attention span but the fact is they have been driven to this. Why spend $20 to go watch a 2.5 hour reboot that you can accurately guess the complete plot of when you can swipe. It's random and thrilling. The creators are totally free. You might have wholesome puppies one second and a car chase the next. It's unexpected, challenging, and engaging which are all things producers are far to afraid to attempt anymore. Steven and George were lightning in a bottle and because he was largely self financed after the first film I would go so far as to drop Lucas off that list too. The machine is to big and it knows the ledge it has parked itself on. They can't risk a fall.
I pin it all on the producers. Every last problem can be traced back to them. Scrapping 10 low budget/ moderate return scripts to spend 200 million on a reboot? Hiring a young and promising director and then curtailing their creativity because it might be a little risky? Cramming in diversity not to represent people but because it can get a Screenrant article written about it before you remove it for foreign audiences?
It's all so cold and so calculated. You can feel it. All these issues with the producers just build on themselves. If budgets weren't so high then the pressure to make a billion dollars wouldn't be there. If financial pressure was lessened it wouldn't be such a big deal to take some risks. If audiences were still used to films being risky and unexpected then diversity would be a feature and not a gimmick. But you need inclusion for American audiences but to make a billion you need to cut it out for global audiences and that filmmaker can't be allowed to have final cut because they might make a decision that will cost someone buying a ticket.
We can blame the audience for being dumb sure. That's easy. You can say they only have a TikTok attention span but the fact is they have been driven to this. Why spend $20 to go watch a 2.5 hour reboot that you can accurately guess the complete plot of when you can swipe. It's random and thrilling. The creators are totally free. You might have wholesome puppies one second and a car chase the next. It's unexpected, challenging, and engaging which are all things producers are far to afraid to attempt anymore. Steven and George were lightning in a bottle and because he was largely self financed after the first film I would go so far as to drop Lucas off that list too. The machine is to big and it knows the ledge it has parked itself on. They can't risk a fall.
While I’m not defending Iger’s actions or compensation package, for those of you calling for his head on a platter, remember that Iger retired back in 2021 and was asked to come back by the Disney board after Chapek’s lackluster performance as CEO…
Sean
Sean
Well…it appears that the era of cheap streaming is over as Hollywood continues to hike up prices to cover their losses.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/media/disney-plus-streaming-prices-reliable-sources/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/business/disney-reports-quarterly-earnings/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/media/disney-plus-streaming-prices-reliable-sources/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/business/disney-reports-quarterly-earnings/index.html
Paul Andrew
Master Member
Yeah, it's past time to prune back on the ones I subscribe to anyway.
Cephus
Master Member
That's the problem though. You are certainly welcome to your own opinions, but if the only discussion is everyone throwing around their own opinions, nothing gets solved. People are bringing cultural preconceptions, beliefs, political ideas, etc. to the mix and that's fine, but it often doesn't reflect the actual reality of the world. Just because someone believes it, that doesn't make it true. People saying that people "deserve" higher pay doesn't mean they deserve anything. It's emotion, not intellect at play.
Which is what a lot of these companies need. That's why Zaslav came in, because Warner was $50 billion plus in debt. He's there to make the hard decisions and bring the company back to solvency. It's just that, from the outside, lots of people complain because the projects they wanted to see get shelved. It isn't personal, they were just lining up to be financial bombs and when just about everything that comes out of your studio is crap, they need to stop the hemorrhaging. That's one thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand today. Money doesn't grow on trees. You can't just keep sticking things on a credit card so you can have it all. That's true whether you're talking about movies or social policy. There are limits and those limits are a lot lower than what a lot of people would like.
She has because, just like lots of companies out there, she bought into the whole "diversity" nonsense. Movies were already diverse. It's just that the activist crowd tends to live in big cities, they look outside and see one thing and are totally unaware that the vast majority of the country doesn't look that way. Therefore, whatever doesn't match their specific experience gets deemed racist and they try to remake the world in their own image. It's just that the world doesn't actually look that way. Most of these people tend to be keyboard warriors, nearly terrified to go outside. I don't have a lot of respect for that.
A lot of people are just complaining out of jealousy. They don't make a lot of money so they don't want anyone else to make a lot of money. They want everyone else to be just like them because that's what they can identify with. Again, that is typically not how reality functions. They are looking for "fair" but there is no fair. This is typically seen in people of a particular age group and political identity, people who have had this stuff rammed into their heads in schools by activist teachers, where their entire education has been incredibly slanted toward a particular ideology. They've never seen the real world and once they get out into the real world, they are often shocked. The real world isn't what they've been taught that it is. Nobody is required to take a pay cut for anything. Japan has a very particular culture, which is why Shuntaro Furukawa did what he did. That is not the culture that we have here. People can say "it should be!" but it isn't. You have to live in the real world.
Nothing is guaranteed, but you know the flops coming from a mile away. Marvel got complacent and I think Disney got complacent. There was a time when they could do no wrong. They figured the gravy train would go on and on forever, no matter what they did and they were wrong. I figure they should have ended the MCU with Endgame and then taken 5 years off and started again, but Disney couldn't allow it because Disney was already having money problems back then. They had to keep cranking out movies, with the assumption that those would keep Disney alive and it didn't work out. This is, mostly, because Kevin Feige started embracing the Disney ideological poison. I have no idea where he got it, but it was a terminal case, just like Kathleen Kennedy's. All of a sudden, they weren't making genre movies, they were making political agenda movies with a thin veneer of the IP on top. The audience reacted badly, but because of what they had embraced, they had no way back. That particular ideology eats its own. If you waver on the path to destruction, you get destroyed in the media because, again, most of the people complaining, they don't have any real world experience at all. It's all blind emotion without any understanding of how the world actually works. The second Disney, and the rest of Hollywood, started down that path, they were doomed. Add to that the fact that modern day celebrities and directors, they have no sense of decorum. If Hollywood was at all rational, most of these people would never work again. You do not attack your customers, you know, the people who are paying your bills, and remain employed. Yet Hollywood isn't in reality these days, is it?
I think one problem is that people have vastly differing views on things. One thing that we've observed around here many times is that there are certain people who will like a movie, but they can't tell you why. It's because it touches on particular ideological points, but they have no clue what makes the movie "good". They can't articulate their reasons, other than they get a dopamine shot in the noggin because something they already believe was mentioned. This is one reason why culture is so fractured, because many people, particularly the young, have been brainwashed to "don't ask questions, consume product and then get excited for next product". The level of critical thinking among certain groups is at all all-time low. They haven't been taught how to think, they have just been indoctrinated in what to think. Believe this thing and don't ask questions or your peers will destroy you. This is the kind of thing that religions have done forever. Both political extremes operate like religions. Believe fanatically, don't ask any questions and attack anyone not on your side. Destroy them utterly because they are dangerous. They might be doing it for slightly different reasons, but both have their "gods" that they will obey, no matter how ridiculous the commands actually are.
The thing is, Hollywood never had a money tree. They had money, to be sure, because they used to make decent movies consistently and when they bombed, it wasn't usually catastrophic. There were exceptions, but those were few and far between. Disney has lost billions of dollars this year alone and the year isn't over. There is more money still to be lost. The earnings call they just had says they are in massive trouble. They are celebrating the fact that they only lost half a billion on streaming this last quarter instead of more than a billion. They lost millions of subscribers, including 300k in the U.S., and frankly, their numbers were artificially inflated before. The whole India thing proves how bad it actually was. None of those people cared about Disney, they only had Disney+ because they got to watch cricket. The second cricket went away, they had no interest at all in anything Disney. You can't just buy loyalty, you have to earn it and Disney, indeed, all of Hollywood, has failed in that regard.
Lord Boron
Sr Member
At this point, streaming is becoming just as expensive as cable. Might as well just stick with cable. Just get a streaming service for one month in the rare occasion there’s something I want to see, and cancel it right away. And I’m certainly not going to pay money for a streaming service with adds!!!!! At least with cable, I can DVR stuff and FF through the adds.
- Status
Similar threads
