Bob Chapek received a three-year extension as head of Disney. Now, with Pixar’s Lightyear bombing, another studio dares him to delete even more divisive children’s content.
The following article deals with financial issues for Disney. This article does not attempt to make any moral or ethical proclamations about the matters discussed herein.
Earlier this year, the folks at Pixar made a gutsy move. Rather than go up the chain of command as usual, the studio went straight forward into the press with a claim that The Walt Disney Company was censoring their content in an effort to prevent LGBTQIA+ material from making it into children’s animated films. It was a shot across the bow. Today, however, the gusto may have not succeeded in the way many had hoped. Lightyear is a colossal box office failure, likely to cost the company three-hundred million dollars in losses. The CEO that Pixar went after has been renewed for three more years… ahead of schedule… with the full backing of the Board of Directors. Maybe Lightyear didn’t just fail at the box office? Maybe it solidified a path forward for everything Pixar hoped to stop?
But how bad is the failure of Lightyear?
After a horrific first weekend in which Lightyear debuted to second place, barely beating Top Gun: Maverick with a mere $50 million, the Pixar film followed the low number with the largest drop in the studio’s history. Remember that it is harder to drop larger when your numbers begin low (simply because there’s less room to go down). Yet in its second weekend, Lightyear lost 64% of its audience and came in fifth place. With Minions coming out this weekend, Lightyear is essentially dead in the water. And with it down for the count, so are the people at Pixar who came up with every strategy surrounding it. It’s bad enough that I would not be surprised to see Jim Morris, head of Pixar, fired tomorrow. I’m not sure that will happen, but it would surprise me not a bit.
For those of you keeping score, Lightyear currently has $155,277,447 in worldwide revenue. This is a movie originally projected to pull in more than a billion. Instead, we’re at the finish line already, and I can’t guarantee it reaches $200,000,000. When you consider the budget ($200m), the marketing (estimated $100m), and the 50% of proceeds the theaters and taxes get first, Disney is looking at a potential loss of around $300 – $400 million. That’s insane. Even despite inflation raising movie ticket prices far above what they once were, Lightyear will fall far, far short of even the lowest Pixar movies that have opened and maintained a full theatrical release. This movie makes The Good Dinosaur look like a gem.
In terms of box office projections, critics and reports predict that ‘Lightyear’ will earn more than $100 million on opening weekend and $800 million-$1 billion lifetimes in worldwide against a $200 million budget. ‘Lightyear’s box office projections is based on the box office performance of the previous three ‘Toy Story’ films, and if it doesn’t meet expectations, then it’s a negative sign for the future of ‘Toy Story’s solo characters film. — The Film Milk; May 6, 2022
Yeah, not so much…
You might think that given the historic loss that Lightyear is bringing upon its corporation, and given that the CEO who wants to moderate the company is in charge for three more years, other studios would take heed of the situation and adjust. You’d be wrong. As of tonight, Christopher Rufo, the conservative journalist and activist who leaked the Reimagine Tomorrow videos highly damaging to Disney, has released a scene from the new Baymax Disney+ series developed by Walt Disney Studios. In the scene, the character Baymax is purchasing feminine hygiene products when he asks for help. As part of the discussion about pads or tampons, a presumably transgender individual wearing the “trans flag” as a shirt, who also has a masculine figure and voice, offers advice about which product this person prefers.
It is literally a stand-off with the newly reminted CEO.
EXCLUSIVE: I've obtained leaked video from Disney's upcoming show "Baymax," which promotes the transgender flag and the idea that men can have periods to children as young as two years old.
It's all part of Disney's plan to re-engineer the discourse around kids and sexuality. pic.twitter.com/y1ATnKCEce
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) June 28, 2022
On one hand, these things are developed far in advance and perhaps this a scene which will not be featured. On the other hand, Baymax releases tomorrow… and if this is in there, it’s financially insane. I mean that. It is financially insane. Let’s go through the problems one-by-one:
- Turning Red and Lightyear have done demonstrable damage to parents believing children are safe watching Disney+ content.
- Most parents, probably by a large margin, do not want to explain to their six-year-old boys what pads and tampons are.
- Most parents, probably by a large margin, do not want Disney teaching their six-year-old boys what pads and tampons are.
- Most parents, probably by a large margin, do not want to explain why a biological male might want pads or tampons.
- This is a show directed at children.
In fact, I’m willing to wager that this is so far out there that even parents who have, up until this point, sided with Disney, will in large numbers have to say “enough is enough.” Let’s say the number of parents who don’t want this are around 70%. Let’s just guestimate that. If so, this decision is a financial gamble of the majority of your customers. It’s utter financial insanity.
And it’s not as if this has anything whatsoever to do with femininity or transsexual issues… it has to do with it being in a child’s show. Nobody wants little girls seeing Baymax receive help picking out jockstraps or athletic cups either. There’s no need for this in a child’s show!
So, what is Bob Chapek to do? He can remove the content. He can put a rating on the content. He can put a warning label on the content like they’ve done with so many of their classic pieces. But if he does nothing and if this does Lightyear-level damage to the company… if it does Reimagine Tomorrow level damage to the company… then Disney is in for a rough three years. You could put this kind of stuff on Adult Swim and nobody would bat an eye. If Disney wants Adult Swim numbers for Disney+, they’re heading in that direction with this sort of content. Adult Swim might have some cultural impact, but Disney and Disney+ are in a totally different universe — for now.
So what will Chapek do? Does he make the stand now or let this fly? How much more damage will this do to the reputation of Disney with audiences that don’t want to explain this sort of thing to their children?
It’s a standoff. Let’s see where it goes.
For all the latest news that should be fun, keep reading That Park Place. As always, drop a comment down below.
I mean at least they don’t make a big deal of the shirt.
Wouldn’t he already have known this was in the show? If it starts tomorrow hasn’t he already signed off on it?
Disney+ kid show content likely never rises through to the CEO for direction and isn’t funneled through higher levels of analysis like theatrical releases. Studios have much more freedom with these sorts of properties.
Hahaha. It’s presented as comedy. I don’t think so. Nothing funny about buying tampons for a woman or transgender. These people are so sick to think children’s shows should have this content.
Agree with Alex! (the specifics of the shirt are not focused on at all.)
Personally, I don’t think it will do Lightyear damage (though I do think that’s too strong of a word) to the company because there are many reasons why Lightyear had box office issues. It was not only because of the queer representation; moreover, I think the estimate of 70% of parents being upset with the Baymax episode is too high.
I say that because…speaking as someone who was once a female tween – I would have appreciated this subject in shows targeted to that specific demographic. It’s something all young women deal with – nothing to be ashamed of, and not all parents are comfortable with the subject (but not offended – it’s a fine line – i.e. a short like this would be a dream come true – I know it would be for my conservative parents during that time. The short-episode handled the subject well). Will add – not all young men need jockstraps or athletic cups (they’re specifically for sports, correct?) I appreciate your mention it would equally bother you, but it’s not quite a fair equivalent.
In closing, the attention on this show probably brought increased viewership, then it originally would have. As of now, I get the feeling it would be peripheral. Now, it might have a number of views because of the attention: support, curious, or critical. (Something to consider for you..Rufo, etc – I don’t think the intent was to increase support and curious views, was it?).
Note that I’m not discussing what bothers “me” — I’m discussing the likely market reaction.
It might not be likely; moreover, the attention to this may cause The Streisand effect, so the data will be skewed.
Considering the attempted coup, I understand bringing things to Chapek/Board’s attention (regarding your response to Lindsay T). That is a positive effect; the higher analysis will be needed, and I support it considering what happened. On the other hand, the increased attention will bring more data (and if the support and curious numbers outnumber the critical – especially if churn is reduced & subscribers increase…it is difficult to ascertain where Chapek/Board will go with their decision). If that happens, especially if Chapek/Board are moderate (and we must remember Arnold is a part of the queer community), they might view this ‘only on the internet’ and not reflection of the general public.
I’m a parent to the target demographic that this show would be aimed at and I ain’t paying for this crap. Even if I did want a creepy childless liberal to talk to my daughters about getting their period I’ll ask my step mother-in-law before I pay Disney to do so. Which is to say never.
I have an issue with the math here. Or maybe it’s an issue of semantics.
The issue can boil down to, is it reasonable to say that a company has “lost” more money than they spent? I don’t think it is.
I understand the math that says that a film needs to earn twice it’s cost + advertising in order to break even. The problem is with saying that every dollar that they fall short of that amount is a dollar lost. So it’s the figure of “300 – 400 million lost” that I disagree with.
My math:
Disney spent 300 million. Lightyear earns 200 million. Take out half of that for theaters and taxes, and Lightyear earns 100 million for Disney. 300 spent minus 100 earned is a loss of 200 million in my eyes.
It’s math, it’s semantics on the word “loss”, but saying that Disney loses up to 400 million when they spent only 300 million just does not make sense to me.
Good point — it’s a comparison of loss of potential versus real loss. We may actually update the article to reflect that. As always, you’re the best, TA. Seriously. Go read your email we sent you.
Start lopping heads, Chap! We got you. Good start with Peter Rice. Next up Karey Burke & her minions.
While I find Baymax a very interesting series, but I’m shocked that they include a transgender character and I can’t believe I failed to realize that. I hope the woke agenda is ending soon, because I’m scared for Disney’s fate.