The Disney+ Curse: How the Streaming Service Hurt Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar Brands
It was meant to be a cozy, celebratory get-together, with journalists gathering at Marvel Studios' office in the Frank G. Wells building at Disney's Burbank headquarters. At the event, held in early July, Kevin Feige, producer and president of Marvel Studios, was supposed to prime the pump for Marvel's next big bet: 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps.'
But Feige wound up talking about something that his superheroes avoid at all costs: failure.
More from TheWrap
The Disney+ Curse: How the Streaming Service Hurt Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar Brands
'Big Brother' Season 27 Reaches Nearly 26 Million Viewers Across CBS, Paramount+
For Akiva Schaffer and His New 'Naked Gun,' Resurrecting the Theatrical Comedy Is No Joke
'Alien: Earth' and 'Wednesday' Top Most-Anticipated TV Shows of August 2025 | Charts
The producer explained that the period after 2019's 'Avengers: Endgame,' which capped off a period of the movies known as the Infinity Saga and wound up being one of the most successful movies of all time, was about experimentation. But the demands of Disney+, Disney's direct-to-consumer streaming platform that launched in November 2019, was also about expansion.
Feige specifically pointed to 'The Marvels,' the sequel to 2019's $1 billion-grossing 'Captain Marvel,' which brought in $206 million globally, as the movie that was 'hit hardest' by the new emphasis on Disney+ and the inclusion of characters from Marvel shows. 'People are like, 'OK, I recognize her from a billion-dollar movie. But who are those other two? I guess they were in some TV show. I'll skip it,'' Feige said of the story that paired Brie Larson with Marvel TV stars Teyonah Parris and Iman Vellani.
Later, Feige got more blunt: 'The expansion is what devalued [the Marvel brand]. It was just too much. It was a big company push. And it doesn't take too much to push us to go. There was a mandate that we were put in the middle of.'
Feige's admission that Disney+ — with its countless streaming series, animated shows and 'special presentations' — had actively damaged the Marvel Studios brand is startling but also unsurprising.
Nearly every one of Disney's core brands – in addition to Marvel Studios, Pixar and Lucasfilm – have been diminished by the company's direct-to-consumer streaming platform and that platform's insatiable thirst for fresh content.
Over the last five years, Marvel and Star Wars Disney+ shows — with some exceptions — have seen declining streaming minutes as each subsequent series debuts, with Star Wars peaking with the second season of 'The Mandalorian' in 2021 through 'Skeleton Crew' in 2024, which failed to even make the weekly top 10 for Nielsen.
There were ripple effects at the box office, with Marvel's 'Captain America: Brave New World,' which brought in $415 million globally, and 'Thunderbolts,' which did $382 million, both disappointments compared to previous franchises and when factoring in their respective budgets (both cost around $200 million to produce). And just this past weekend, 'The Fantastic Four' dropped a huge 66% from its $118 million opening weekend, dashing hopes that this film would get Marvel back on track at the box office. On the Pixar front, 'Elio' has been a catastrophe, bringing in $138.6 so far at the global box office, making it the worst performing Pixar film in history, ranking below even 'Onward,' a movie that opened right before the pandemic lockdown began.
It's impossible to compare what those box office results might have been in the absence of Disney+, or how other factors like audiences getting accustomed to staying home during the pandemic may have impacted the desire to go to theaters to see these movies. But overall, TheWrap spoke to half a dozen executives and experts who agreed that the imperative to drive content to Disney's streaming service hurt the company's most cherished brands.
'Given the quality of the Marvel Disney+ output has been incredibly mediocre, it's dragged the entire brand down and diluted its creative,' said a producer with franchise experience. 'People don't care now.'
That these once-beloved properties are landing with a meh for audiences now suggests that there is a potential long-term cost to the strategy of driving a fire-hose of content to retain Disney+ subscribers. It's one of the key lessons that the media companies have learned from the decision to follow Netflix into streaming, with these brands particularly noteworthy casualties.
As Disney+'s shows have landed with subsequently less and less buzz, subscribers are starting to see the service as less of a must have. In the first quarter, Disney+ lost 700,000 subscribers, the first time it saw a decline, although it was partly attributed to price hikes (Disney reports its second-quarter results this week, so we'll see if that's a one-off or start of a trend).
Disney's brand has also taken a hit. According to Brand Finance, which tracks the brand value of top global companies, the value of the Disney name fell 5.6% to $46.72 billion from a year earlier.
A Disney spokesman declined to comment for the story.
Iger's legacy
In 2019, when CEO Bob Iger was both on the precipice of launching Disney+ and planning to retire, he positioned the new streaming platform as a key part his legacy — the thing that would carry the company through its next era and reposition the company not only as an entertainment juggernaut but also a tech giant.
'The decision to disrupt businesses that are fundamentally working but whose future is in question – intentionally taking on short-term losses in the hopes of generating long-term growth – requires no small amount of courage,' Iger wrote in his book, 'The Ride of a Lifetime.'
The service launched on November 12, 2019, with a ton of Disney catalogue titles and a handful of new ones.
The new shows and movies all had ties to legacy Disney hits, including 'Lady and the Tramp' and 'Toy Story.' But the headliner was 'The Mandalorian,' the first-ever live-action 'Star Wars' series.
Every lever was pulled to help support the launch of this new initiative. There were activations in the Disney Parks, an elaborate press junket where journalists bopped from room to room interviewing talent from shows debuting with the service and countless articles written about the platform. At the time of launch, The New York Times said that Disney+ 'is the industry's equivalent of Thor's slamming down his magic hammer: a quake that changes everything.'
And while the service started strong, it really took off during lockdown when the COVID-19 pandemic turned the entire industry upside down. Disney+ served as a lifeline for the entire company, which had its theme parks closed and cruise ships grounded. A year after the launch, Disney announced that it had over 94.9 million subscribers. It beat its four-year goal in just 14 months. As an economic engine, Disney+ did what it was supposed to do.
But creatively, it would sap the company's brands of their singular oomph.
A galaxy far, far away
'The Mandalorian' kicked off Disney+ and it was an undeniable hit. People went crazy for Jon Favreau's lone gunslinger and, in particular, his diminutive sidekick, who people quickly referred to as Baby Yoda. It arrived a month before the ninth film in the 'Star Wars' film saga, 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker,' hit theaters. In its first week, it racked up 791 million minutes watched, according to Nielsen.
That early success opened the floodgates for multiple 'Star Wars'-centered projects a year.
'When you went to a Star Wars movie, it used to be special,' said a marketing exec from a rival studio. 'But there's a difference between let's have a movie every four years versus let's have three shows on the air all the time and have a movie every year.'
A year after the premiere of 'The Mandalorian,' during the Investors Day event, the company unveiled a host of 'Star Wars'-related content coming to Disney+ — much of which, 10 years later, has yet to materialize.
But at that point, Disney was in a groove. 'The Mandalorian' had just returned two months before the event, and the first week of Season 2 saw 1 billion minutes watched. The show averaged more than a billion minutes watched every week through the rest of the year and peaked in the week of its season finale at 1.34 billion minutes.
Then came the first red flag. 'The Book of Boba Fett' debuted a year after that. At first glance, the show's premise of fleshing out a fan-favorite character seemed like a sure-fire hit. But its uneven story and mixed pacing turned off viewers, and despite the re-emergence of the Mandalorian and Baby Yoda towards the end, it wrangled 885 million minutes watched in its final week — a good number, but nowhere near the heights of 'The Mandalorian.'
Subsequent series like 'Obi-Wan Kenobi' would start off strong (1.02 billion minutes in the first week) before tapering off (860 million in the final week).
'Obi-Wan' would kick off a trend that the two other Star Wars shows would follow: views that would fall week to week, suggesting flagging interest. 'Ahsoka' started with 829 million views in its first week, with views falling by 31 percent by the finale. Likewise, 'The Acolyte' similarly lost nearly a third of its viewership over the span of its 10-week run. Despite setting itself up for another season, it was quickly canceled. 'Ahsoka' will be back for a second season, at least.
'Skeleton Crew,' a 'Goonies'-like take on Star Wars featuring a young cast getting into hijinks with space pirates that debuted at the end of 2024, never even made the top 10, so there isn't data available from Nielsen.
Finally, there's 'Andor,' the rare critical hit that proved to be the exception to the Disney+ curse. It ended the first season with 674 million minutes streamed in the final week having steadily built up its audience. By the end of its second season, the number leaped to 931 million minutes streamed as critics and audiences alike heaped praise upon its mature themes.
What's important to keep in mind, is that throughout this whole period when Lucasfilm emphasized 'Star Wars' series on Disney+, not a single 'Star Wars' movie was released theatrically. At its height, following the acquisition of Lucasfilm by Disney and the successful relaunch of the franchise with 2015's 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens,' Disney was releasing a new 'Star Wars' movie every year.
'The biggest problem with Disney+ is not the quality of the material,' said Dan Zehr, the host of the Coffee with Kenobi podcast and an author who has written books for Lucasfilm. 'It's that less is more. The less Star Wars we have, the more it builds the anticipation.'
Next year, we'll finally get a new 'Star Wars' movie and instead of an original story or a continuation of the saga installments, it will be an expansion of 'The Mandalorian' – a big-screen movie directed by creator Jon Favreau called 'The Mandalorian and Grogu.' In 2027, 'Star Wars: Starfighter,' directed by Shawn Levy and starring Ryan Gosling, will arrive in theaters.
But besides a second season of 'Ahsoka,' there are currently no new live-action 'Star Wars' series that have been announced. After years of being bombarded with 'Star Wars' series on Disney+, to diminishing returns, the franchise is returning to the big screen. Will 'Star Wars' be special again?
Or, as Zehr put it, 'To me, Star Wars is a dining experience, it's not fast food. When you make it like fast food, it suffers.'
Trouble in the MCU
The first year that Marvel Studios started producing series for Disney+ there were four big budget live-action series ('WandaVision,' 'The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,' 'Loki' and 'Hawkeye'). In 2022, there were three ('Moon Knight,' 'Ms. Marvel' and 'She-Hulk: Attorney at Law') with two in 2023 (the second season of 'Loki' and 'Secret Invasion'). There were two shows in 2024 ('Echo' and 'Agatha All Along') and there have been two so far this year ('Daredevil: Born Again' and 'Ironheart'), with a third on the way later this year ('Wonder Man').
'I do think that it has eroded the branding,' said Dave Gonzales, the co-author of the indispensable history of Marvel Studios, 'MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios.' 'All of the sub-brands have been eroded.'
For Marvel, he said, it's particularly interesting because it followed a period of being at the top of the industry. 'They were finally getting to do what they wanted to do – put everything in development.'
Feige acknowledged this at the press event, saying that they suddenly had access to big stars who wanted to do more esoteric projects with the studio, citing Oscar Isaac wanting to do 'Moon Knight' as a reason to greenlight it. Other projects, like 'Hawkeye,' started off as features before being reconfigured, just as 'Obi-Wan Kenobi' had been, into a limited streaming series. There were also specials (dubbed 'Special Presentations') like 'Werewolf by Night' and 'The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special.'
Before the Disney+ era began, Feige promised that the entire thing would be connected – series would lead into movies and then back to series, in a giant, interconnected loop. But they ran into problems almost immediately, with the global pandemic impacting productions and even the rollout of series (for instance, 'WandaVision' was originally meant to come out after 'Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness' and then had to be reconfigured to tee up that sequel, which also starred Elisabeth Olsen).
'Marvel remade how they made franchise movies but they thought they could do the same thing with television – you can't,' said Gonzales. 'They think they're more nimble than they actually are.' With 'WandaVision,' Gonzales said, they moved the movie pipeline to a television pipeline and ended up with shows that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 'We'll never have TV shows that cost that much again,' he added.
And while there have been a handful of hit Marvel Studios series on Disney+, most notably 'WandaVision,' which on its most watched week pulled down an impressive 924 million minutes streamed, per Nielsen, its spinoff 'Agatha All Along,' which racked up 744 million minutes in its final week, plus 'Loki,' with two episodes from its first season topping 1 billion minutes streamed, the majority of them failed to make waves.
'Ironheart,' the latest MCU show featuring a tech-savvy armored heroine based in Chicago, garnered just 563 million minutes streamed in its final week in July.
The chilling effect of these shows have extended to the films, with 'Captain America: Brave New World' ($415 million) and 'Thunderbolts' ($380 million) both underperforming at the box office. Notably, 'Deadpool & Wolverine' ($1.3 billion) and 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps' ($118 million opening weekend) have performed well because they're so detached from the rest of the MCU and Disney+ shows, but even 'Fantastic Four' is showing cracks with its drastic dropoff at the box office in its second weekend.
Feige said that the studio felt the residual effects of people thinking, 'I had to have seen these other shows to understand who this is.'
But when looking at what happened to Pixar, the Avengers should consider themselves lucky.
Pixar's problems
Back in 2019, Disney corporate leaned on Pixar to supply new material for the streaming service, which is difficult when the pipelines for Pixar's features and shorts are so rigidly solidified. At first, the contributions were minor, such as the micro-length Toy Story spin-off 'Forky Asks a Question,' with total running time coming in at around 30 minutes per series.
Disney+'s demands for content got more ambitious. The company, under CEO Bob Chapek (who was subsequently replaced by a returning Iger), sent three Pixar original films (2020's 'Soul,' 2021's 'Luca' and 2022's 'Turning Red') directly to Disney+. There was the sensation that families were concerned about going to movie theaters, so Disney delivered new Pixar movies directly into their homes.
But when 'Lightyear,' an expansion of the 'Toy Story' franchise but ostensibly a new IP, was released in the summer of 2022, it underperformed, making just $226.4 million globally. 'Elemental,' another Pixar original released the following summer, underperformed initially before making nearly $500 million worldwide through strong word of mouth. And while last year's 'Inside Out 2' was a phenomenon, making $1.69 billion worldwide, this summer's 'Elio' has struggled, making just $139 million worldwide and becoming the first Pixar movie not to break $100 million domestically. ('Onward,' released a few days before the pandemic in 2020, didn't meet that mark but if it had stayed in theaters, it would have.)
In 2023, the New York Times proclaimed that 'Pixar is damaged as a big-screen brand.' Elsewhere in the same article, the report noted that 'as some box office analysts speculated, Disney had weakened the Pixar brand by using its films to build the Disney+ streaming service.'
'When you had an original Pixar movie, it was like, It's going to be huge,' said the marketing exec at a rival studio. 'The brand is so devalued because they put those movies on Disney+, not every Pixar movie is a theatrical event.'
Like Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm, Disney has pumped the brakes on Disney+-specific Pixar material.
Last year saw the release of 'Dream Productions,' a three-episode spinoff of 'Inside Out 2' focused on the studio that produces Riley's dreams. It was followed by 'Win or Lose,' which streamed on Disney+ earlier this year. It's one of the best things that the studio has ever made — eight half-hour episodes about a softball team, with each installment told from a different player's point-of-view (or their coach or their parent…)
The show fared OK — Nielsen said that it earned 6.2 million viewers in the U.S. over the first 35 days – but making a direct-to-streaming show disrupted Pixar's pipeline, pulling resources away from features and costing as much as one of those bigger projects.
A long-form streaming series that was meant to follow 'Win or Lose' was quietly canceled and may get reworked into a feature at Pixar. And there hasn't been anything announced, long or short, on the Pixar side of things. The damage has been done.
The survivors
Not every Disney brand has taken a huge hit.
Disney's live-action slate has been largely unaffected, thanks to a combination of approaches.
The service used to have a robust line-up of original movies, from a live-action Lady and the Tramp' to 'Hocus Pocus 2.' Some even drifted off the 21st Century Fox assets like 'Home Sweet Home Alone.'
But none of these films encroached on any of its brands. If there had been a new live-action adaptation of a beloved Disney animated movie appearing regularly on Disney+, it might have bitten into that business. But they knew, from the beginning, that less was more.
And after a while, Disney decided to simply remove most of the movies from Disney+ entirely – you can't find 'The One and Only Ivan,' co-starring and produced by Angelina Jolie or sci-fi adventure 'Crater' or the charming 'Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were Made' on the platform. These were big-deal titles that Disney touted as being key to their service.
They also decided to move some of these projects to theatrical. A 'Moana' series was reconfigured as 'Moana 2,' which was released theatrically last year and made over $1 billion. This summer's live-action 'Lilo & Stitch' was originally planned as a Disney+ original but debuted in theaters and has become the only western movie to make more than $1 billion this year.
Walt Disney Animation Studios actually benefited from Disney+. After 'Encanto,' the first post-pandemic Disney animated movie to get a full theatrical release, saw a successful run after debuting on Thanksgiving 2021, Disney decided to throw the movie on Disney+ for Christmas. That's where it became the most-watched film of 2022 with 27.4 billion minutes viewed. Soon after, Disney started referring to it as the company's 'newest franchise.' It inspired a live show at the Hollywood Bowl, entertainment offerings at the Disney Parks and a full-on attraction that is being built at Disney's Animal Kingdom.
What's next
Walt Disney Studios used to think of projects as 'brand deposits' or 'brand withdrawals.'
'Brand deposits' added to the value of the company's brand, either monetarily or through prestige. These were the projects that embodied Disney – either in their wholesomeness, their entertainment value or their desire to push things forward, technologically or storytelling-wise. 'Brand withdrawals' were projects that actively took away from the Disney brand, either because they didn't fit tonally or didn't deliver on the Disney promise.
The brand withdrawal of Disney+ is huge. The company seems to be taking the right steps to course correct – chiefly, to not put out as much product on the streaming service and to re-emphasize the importance of theatrical exhibition. There are far fewer new things on the service. So far this year, there has been a single Disney+ original film and far fewer Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios projects. These numbers will get even smaller, as the streaming service puts its weight behind a handful of projects that hopefully more will enjoy.
And just as 'Encanto' found new life on Disney+, the company, if it is smart, will emphasize the platform as a library of all things Disney. This is partially how the product was sold back in 2019.
In a way, this might be the easiest way of rehabilitating the company's brands – by reminding people of how good things used to be.
Umberto Gonzalez contributed to this story.
The post The Disney+ Curse: How the Streaming Service Hurt Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar Brands appeared first on TheWrap.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Will the NFL Bring the Magic Back to Disney Stock?
In this podcast, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Rachel Warren discuss: The NFL and Disney. Rivian's lost EV credits. Shopify's great quarter. Upstart's explosive growth. To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy. A full transcript is below. Do the experts think Walt Disney is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did Walt Disney make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,047% vs. just 181% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 865.68%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,563!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,108,033!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 This podcast was recorded on August 06, 2025. Travis Hoium: Disney pulled off a coup locking up the NFL as not just a partner but a part owner of ESPN. Motley Fool Money starts now. Today we're going to get to some of the recent earnings from Rivian, Shopify, and Upstart. But let's start with Disney and the NFL. Disney reported results this morning as we're recording, and they were fine, revenue was up 3% to $23.7 billion. There was a 15% drop in linear TV, so cord cutting is still a huge problem. But the big news is ESPN officially announcing a deal to acquire the NFL network. They get RedZone distribution, NFL's fantasy football business, and more this coincides with ESPN streaming app launching August 21st. You're going to be able to access all of these things all through the streaming app. ESPN also gets six additional NFL games going from 22-28 on that platform. Lou, if you take out political programming over the past year, the NFL accounts for about 98 out of the top 100 shows each year. This seems like a huge get for ESPN. Lou Whiteman: It's definitely a logical fit. It's hard to screw up if your goal is to, I'm going to try and make money off the NFL. That's what history tells us. I'm not really an NFL guy, to be honest. But look, it is the most important live content out there, at least sports content. Adding NFL games and content ahead of launching a streaming service, a no brainer. But Travis, if I had any pushback, I'd say, I think ESPN streaming is going to be a success either way. I'm not sure if I'm Disney how much I'd want to give up to secure this. I think it's a nice to have, not a need. The biggest impact might be outside of ESPN. Fox is launching a similar service. Discovery, Comcast, Paramount, they all have streaming services. They're all scrambling to add live sports. For me, the biggest benefit to Disney having the NFL is that all of these guys won't have the NFL, and the deal makes it a lot harder for all of those competitors. Rachel Warren: This is a landmark deal. There's no doubt about that. That could also be really beneficial for both parties. Bear in mind, you've still got some regulatory hurdles that could be ahead. The agreements also subject to the negotiation of definitive agreements and approval by NFL team owners. But, for example, merging NFL fantasy with ESPN fantasy football, creates a combined official NFL fantasy football experience. That could potentially dominate a large and lucrative market. We've also seen that ESPN will license an additional three NFL games per season to air on the acquired NFL network, which ESPN will now own and operate. That allows Disney to integrate NFL content across its platforms. That could potentially include, merchandising opportunities, theme park experiences, ways of capitalizing on the broader Disney ecosystem. This also, I think, very much aligns with the NFL's interest, as well as they seek to really further monetize their media assets. NFL has previously stated their ambition to reach 25 billion in annual revenue by 2027. But I think if you're looking at this as a Disney shareholder, this is great news for ESPN. Travis Hoium: The story isn't just about ESPN. This is really a Disney streaming story. Every streamer has essentially two challenges. How do you acquire customers and how do you prevent them from churning? This was something that came up a bunch of times during their conference call. The NFL should help with both, especially when you think about bundling them with Disney Plus and Hulu that's going to launch at $30 a month. That sounds expensive, but that's a lot of content for that. We know that Netflix is a Number 1 streaming company with over 300 million subscribers, but Disney Plus has 128 million, 56 million for Hulu, another 24 million for ESPN. Could the bundle that Disney is building position them to be at least Number 2 and potentially challenge Netflix on a different vector with sports and this family entertainment that they have with Disney properties as their competitive advantage. Rachel, what do you think? Rachel Warren: I do think this is a game changer for Disney. I do think it could give it a leg up as it continues to really battle it out for streaming domination against the likes of Netflix. Although these two businesses aren't necessarily one to one. As traditional cable subscriptions decline, though, this deal does allow ESPN to better adapt to the changing media consumption. Habits of fans. Netflix is also investing in live sports, but I do think this ESPN NFL deal really positions Disney to offer a much more robust and specialized sports experience. That could be a key differentiator in the competitive streaming market. They could even leverage the deal to boost advertising revenue through more targeted advertising enabled by that massive sports ecosystem. ESPN is building a comprehensive sports platform. It's creating this one stop shop approach that can appeal both to casual as well as hardcore sports fans. While other streaming services like Netflix are investing in live sports, I think that there is this reality where the combination of ESPN's established brand, the NFL's popularity, and just the underlying financial strength of Disney, it does give ESPN a unique advantage. I do think that it's fair to say that few other platforms can offer such a complete and compelling sports experience. Lou Whiteman: My only real pushback is, I think Disney was pretty well set up even prior to this deal. I think all the moves they've made, Hulu, everything they've done, they are well on their way to being a strong Number 2. In that regard, I'm not sure this is a game changer, but look, my household, we pay for YouTube each month. We subscribe to ESPN Plus. We don't watch a lot of other channels. I'm a soccer geek, so I'm going to hang on to Paramount and Peacock, but I know that's not the majority. I could see a world where Netflix and Disney are all most families really need, and for investors, I don't think it matters who's one and who's two. Travis Hoium: You touched on, Lou. The interesting thing coming up is going to be how much gravity does the NFL hold when it comes to sports rights for other leagues? If this is the place to go for sports, and if you're a sports fan, you have to have ESPN and essentially the Disney bundle. What does that mean for other content? We saw a deal with the WWE and their premium live events announced also this morning. That's going to start in 2026, last for five years. That company is actually owned by TKO who also runs the UFC. They're negotiating a rights deal that ESPN currently has, and they're playing all the streamers off of each other. There's different ways that these companies can go. One would be the MLS route, which went with Apple TV hasn't seemed to be a big success. Is this going to create a gravity for more sports content to end up on the ESPN platform? Lou Whiteman: I think it will. MLS talks growth, and they love to talk about growth. But look, I'm a soccer fan and I don't have Apple TV, and I think a lot of that growth, you better look at the denominator because you're talking about small numbers overall. I'm not the first person to say this, but it does feel like we're going back to the past. We're going back to we pay one or two large sums to an aggregator or a couple of aggregators instead of just a dozen $9 a month subscriptions. I'm not sure that's good news for the consumer. It's maybe just whatever news. But if you're a Disney shareholder, and Disney is transferring all of that value that used to go to the Comcast at the world, and they are now the aggregator, and they're getting that value, I think it's certainly good news for Disney shareholders. Rachel Warren: I do think you're right, Lou. I do think this recent development as well could really bring other players in this space into the fold. The funny thing about MLS commissioner Don Garber had recently said that the season pass available on Apple TV, it's leveraging about 120,000 unique viewers a match. That's a 50% increase from a year ago, but it's considerably lower than the average viewership that MLS games achieved on ESPN. I think it really underscores the importance of that ecosystem. For what it's worth, Disney, ESPN, this is very much a dynamic of going all in on live sports as a core part of the streaming strategy. That recent WWE deal really reinforces this commitment, and UFC remains a high, valuable property for them. It's generated record revenues for the business. It looks like they're still working on renewing their relationship with UFC, who is reportedly seeking a significantly higher yield than they have in the past. But I think that WWE deal could be an indicator of a potential path forward for UFC and NFL deal could create an environment where other players could fear getting left out in the cold if they don't ink a deal soon. Travis Hoium: Now, ESPN is trying to integrate everything together, not only all these sports rights, but also as Rachel mentioned, fantasy sports and sports betting. Now, this is going to be a interesting thread for [inaudible] team to try to work their way through because only a small percentage of people are actually betting on sports, but it sounds they're going to be integrating this quite a bit. Do you think that they're going to be able to pull this off correctly, Lou? Because if I'm seeing all betting information on the ESPN app, that could be a turn off for me as excited as I am to see something like fantasy sports there. Lou Whiteman: I think Pandora's box is open, and I think it'll be fine. Disney, look, they have the history of trying to be more thoughtful about this stuff than others. I definitely think it's something you have to worry about, but I don't think this derails them. I think they figured this out, because I think we're all getting used to betting a lot quicker than we thought we would, whether we do it or not. Travis Hoium: Let's end this segment with a bowl prediction. I have a bowl prediction for you too that I want your thoughts on Disney's streaming revenue with Disney Plus and Hulu is currently on a $24.7 billion run rate that does not include ESPN Plus. Netflix has a $44.3 billion run rate as of the most recent quarter. ESPN is going to be going over the top with $30 per month. Is Disney's streaming business going to be bigger than Netflix in 2026? I think it is. But what are your thoughts Rachel? Rachel Warren: I do think that that's absolutely the case that they could in fact be the bigger streaming company than Netflix by 2026. One analyst report that I saw had estimated that Disney Plus could reach something like 294 million subscribers by next year, and that would exceed the projections for Netflix of around 286 million. Ultimately, these are two fantastic businesses. They do cater to different types of streaming needs as well. I think Disney can be a winner and continue to be so really regardless of whether or not it actually exceeds Netflix's subscriber figures. But bowl prediction, I think it's possible. Lou Whiteman: I think probably is the answer, but like Rachel said, I don't think we should obsess on this, and I don't think as investors, it really matters. I don't think Disney's really competing with Netflix. I think they are competing to make sure it is them and Netflix, and they are the big other thing here. Look, Disney and Netflix have much different economics inside streaming, much different total businesses. Just Disney has all things going on. As an investor, I don't want to read too much into comparison. I'm ready to call Disney a winner. I'm not ready to call them Netflix in terms of profitability and stuff. That's how I view it as an investor. Travis Hoium: Their experiences business hit $2.5 billion in quarterly operating income. That's a business that Netflix doesn't have, so they are playing a different game. Next up, we're going to check in on EVs and shopping trends. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Lou Whiteman: Wish you could lock in rates without locking out liquidity? Meet LDDR a LifeX treasury bond ladder ETF built to simplify your cash flow plan for the next 10 years. With LDDR, you can lock in today's interest rates for a decade. It's built to deliver predictable monthly cash flow that boosts interest income by including tax free return of principle. That means the potential for higher, more stable cash flow without worrying about rate cuts, reinvestment risk or market swings. LDDR, take the guesswork out of your cash flow plan. Learn more at The LifeX ETFs return principal over the life of an ETF and therefore expected to have little or no assets remaining to distribute at the time of liquidation. Individual bonds carry an obligation to fully return the principal to shareholders at maturity. However, ETFs have no such obligation. The net asset value of the ETFs will decline over time as income payments are made to shareholders. The tax discussion herein is general in nature. Investors should consult with their tax advisor about the effect that an investment in LifeX ETFs could have on their tax situation. Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks and charges and expenses of LDDR carefully before investing. The prospectus contains this and other information about the investment company and can be obtained by visiting or by calling 1-888-331-5558. The prospectus should be read carefully before investing. Investing in the LifeX ETFs involve risk. Principal laws is possible. The LifeX income ETFs are distributed by Foresight Financial Services, LLC. Travis Hoium: The EV space has struggled in 2025, and it looks like things are going to get worse before they get better, the elimination of the EV tax credit and restrictions on states' ability to create emissions restrictions, which ends up being regulatory credits for companies like Rivian and Tesla are hitting companies hard. Rivian said last night that they're going to generate $140 million less in revenue than they thought from those credit sales. This seems like a huge hit for EV companies. But is this going to be a boon for Detroit Lou? Lou Whiteman: Change is inherently risky for the incumbents. That's the whole point. The simple fact, and I think we have enough data to call it fact that things are going slower than planned, and we're losing some of these subsidies. Yes, that is indeed a boon for the incumbents. It could be bad news from the newcomers. I think Rivian is probably fine. I respect what they do, but look, Travis, it cracks me up to see it, the number of words and the number of calisthenics they use to get to the word profit in their profitability timeline, that's never a great sign. Meanwhile, Detroit's legacy business provides cash flows that Rivian and Teslas can't match. I think it's a pretty good time to be the incumbents. One word of caution, though, is, I don't necessarily want to call, especially all of the legacy automakers winners because of this. I think the future is going to be messy and uncertain. I think it'll involve consolidation. It'll involve reshuffling. I would really honestly be surprised if any of these stocks outperform the market over the next five years. But if nothing else, the idea that Detroit is toast and these newcomers are just going to inherit the world, I think that's done and dusted. The future likely involves Tesla, GM, Toyota, Ford, and maybe even Rivian, at least in brands, but it's going to be messy from here. Rachel Warren: Regulatory credits are earned by producing vehicles with low or zero emissions. That was a crucial revenue stream for EV manufacturers like Rivian and Tesla. While those regulatory credit changes do negatively impact EV makers, they could absolutely be a positive development for more traditional automakers. But I think the long term impact on EV adoption really remains to be seen. Some analysts have anticipated something like a short term surge in sales at least as consumers are trying to really take advantage of the expiring federal EV tax credit, but I still think there's tremendous potential in this space. The short term look ahead could be challenging, though. Travis Hoium: Shopify is the big winner in trading today after they came out with earnings. This is a hidden gems recommendation going all the way back to 2018. It's been recommended multiple times, starting at $14.05, so well over a 10 bagger since then. Rachel, what did we learn from Shopify about the quarter? Rachel Warren: This was a great quarter for Shopify. They beat on essentially all key metrics of note. They reported revenue of 2.7 billion. That was a beat from what analysts were projecting. They beat on the bottom line. GMV rose 31% year over year. That was also a beat. But importantly, and this is something that investors were really wanting to hear, what is the impact of tariffs? At least for now, Shopify leadership has indicated that while they had anticipated some impact from tariffs, those effects really did not materialize as strongly as they expected in Q2. For example, CFO Jeff Hoffmeister stated that they hadn't observed a slowdown in US demand in transactions. Even though they saw merchants raising prices in some cases, this seemingly wasn't due to significant tariff related cost increases. They also noted that Shopify hadn't seen any meaningful changes in cross border activity or buyer behavior, despite the existing trade tensions. Importantly, only 4% of Shopify's global gross merchandise volume is shipped under de minimis exemptions. This suggests that the impact of removing that exemption is having a limited effect on the company's overall business. This was a really great quarter, and certainly the market responded positively to those developments. Lou Whiteman: I think the tariff commentary is what's juicing the stock. I think a lot of us were confident that tariffs wouldn't ruin Shopify's business, but it was still really interesting to hear them talk about how little of an impact it has had. Here's the thing, though. I don't think the tariff story has played out yet. I do think the impact on mainstream will creep higher in the quarters to come, and it will inevitably to some extent, impact consumer spending. Just as before, I don't for a second, think this is going to ruin Shopify, but investors who might have been overly worried yesterday should not be totally dismissive today. I'm a happy holder of Shopify, but I'm personally zero interested in buying into this rally. Travis Hoium: I want to get to Upstart quickly. They reported over 100% revenue growth, but the stock is down today. Rachel, quickly, what did we learn from Upstart? Rachel Warren: They had their first GAAP profitable quarter since Q2 of 2022. As you noted, revenue surged 102% year over year. They also originated 159% more loans than one year ago. More than 90% of its loans processed through its AI driven underwriting platform are completely automated without human intervention. They're continuing to build really strong relationships with their funding partners, seeing the success from their newer home equity line of credit product. Over 50% of funding is coming from committed partnership agreements. It's adding a lot more stability to its business model. It was pretty great results for Upstart. Lou Whiteman: I'm a happy shareholder here, too, but if we're honest, the risk reward here remains high. We had another quarter where evidence that the partners like the platform. They're doing a good job, filling the demand that's there. But to me, the COVID recession, with all the stimulus, that doesn't really count as a true downturn. With Fintex, there are always a lot of unknowns until a company has proven its model works through a real sustained downturn. My big takeaway from Upstart is they did nothing to diminish the build bull case, but there's still just so much we won't know for a while. Travis Hoium: As always, people on the program may have interests in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against. Don't buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisers are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only to see our full advertising disclosure. Please check out our show notes. For Lou Whiteman, Rachel Warren, and Dan Boyd behind the glass, and the entire Motley Fool team, I'm Travis Hoium. We'll see you tomorrow. Lou Whiteman has positions in Shopify and Upstart. Rachel Warren has positions in Apple and Shopify. Travis Hoium has positions in Shopify and Walt Disney and has the following options: long December 2027 $5 puts on Rivian Automotive. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple, Netflix, Shopify, Tesla, Upstart, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool recommends Comcast, General Motors, and TKO Group Holdings. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Will the NFL Bring the Magic Back to Disney Stock? was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
How An Entire Superhero Universe Was Destroyed By Greed And Death
In 2012, Christopher Nolan finished his Batman trilogy with The Dark Knight Rises. That meant when it came to superheroes, Warner Bros. had nothing. Batman had been a huge hit, but attempts to make something else out of other DC Superheroes weren't just failures; they were punchlines. At the same time, legal issues with Superman meant Warner Bros. needed to make a Superman movie quickly to retain the rights. The studio was legally obligated to begin production by 2011 or risk losing key elements of the character. Warner Bros. had seen the money Marvel was making and wanted their version of that success, only faster. The plan wasn't to mirror Marvel's slow build. It was to go big immediately. And that's exactly what they did. Why The Snyderverse Failed Zack Snyder was hired to direct Man of Steel in October 2010. His selection was driven by a combination of studio urgency, Christopher Nolan's influence, and Snyder's prior success in adapting stylized comic book material with 300 and Watchmen. Zack Snyder's DC Cinematic Universe began with potential. In 2013, Man of Steel rebooted Superman for a modern audience, carrying the weight of not just relaunching a character but laying the foundation for an entire interconnected universe. Man of Steel was brooding, self-serious, dimly lit, and violent. A sharp departure from Christopher Reeve's hopeful hero. Superman kills Zod. No banishment to the Phantom Zone this time. Buildings collapsed in scenes that evoke 9/11 imagery, killing thousands. It was controversial, but it got people talking. The film earned $668 million worldwide on a $225 million budget. People seemed to really like muscle-bound Henry Cavill as the new Clark Kent. Man of Steel was not a bomb, but also not a huge breakout hit. It was solid enough to move forward. Batman v Superman Begins The Snyderverse Instead of following it with Man of Steel 2, Warner Bros. and Snyder decided to leap straight into Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. This was the real beginning of the Snyderverse, an attempt to kickstart the Justice League franchise by packing in as many characters and setups as possible. Released in 2016, Batman v Superman brought Ben Affleck in as an older, grizzled Batman and introduced Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. On paper, it should've been a billion-dollar slam dunk. It wasn't. The movie made $873 million worldwide on a roughly $300 million budget. That sounds like a win until you compare it to Marvel's Captain America: Civil War, which was released the same year and made $1.15 billion. Or The Avengers with $1.5 billion, or Iron Man 3's $1.2 billion. WB expected a juggernaut; instead, they got a slog. Critics hated Batman v Superman. Rotten Tomatoes scores sit at 29%, and many reviews pointed to incoherent plotting, oppressive tone, and an overstuffed script that spent more time teasing future movies than telling a compelling story. Audiences were split. Snyder had defenders, especially online, but casual moviegoers were exhausted, and with good reason. The film crammed Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, Doomsday, a dream sequence with future Flash, Darkseid teases, and a flash drive full of Justice League origin reels into one movie. No one had time to breathe. WB hit the panic button, but instead of slowing down and reassessing the universe's direction, they did the opposite. Suicide Squad was already in post-production, and the studio took that opportunity to step in. David Ayer's dark, grounded crime movie was re-edited by a trailer company and turned into a neon-colored mess. That film still made $747 million, but the backlash was immediate and loud. It was another divisive movie, another critical failure. Justice League Destroys Lives Then came Justice League. Zack Snyder originally envisioned Justice League as a two-part saga, beginning with the League's formation and ending with a battle against Darkseid. Before filming concluded, a horrific tragedy struck: Snyder's daughter Autumn died by suicide in early 2017. She was only 20. Snyder left the project shortly after. WB brought in Joss Whedon to finish the film. Back then, Joss Whedon, as the mind behind Avengers, was viewed as something of a superhero messiah. People were excited. Whedon rewrote large portions of the script and reshot over half the movie. The tone shifted from mythic to sitcom. Superman's mustache became a meme. What was supposed to be DC's Avengers moment turned into a Frankenstein film with two voices, two tones, and no clear direction. Justice League was released in November 2017. It bombed. The final gross was $657 million worldwide, less than Man of Steel, with a similar budget. It lost an estimated $60 million for Warner Bros. Even worse, the behind-the-scenes turmoil became public. Ray Fisher, who played Cyborg, alleged misconduct by Whedon and accused studio executives of covering it up. WB launched an internal investigation, but the public narrative was already set: the Snyderverse was falling apart. It destroyed the career of Joss Whedon, who is now persona non grata in Hollywood. The Snyderverse Unravels After that, things unraveled. Ben Affleck stepped away from playing Batman and from directing his planned solo film. Henry Cavill's Superman went into limbo. WB began canceling or retooling projects like The Flash, Cyborg, and Green Lantern Corps. Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman spinoff stayed separate in tone and was a hit in 2017, earning $822 million and widespread acclaim. It was the exception, not the rule. Wonder Woman 2, titled Wonder Woman 1984, would not do well, at all. WB might have pulled the plug on the Snyderverse sooner, but in between failures, they kept finding barely enough success to try again. #ReleaseTheSnyderCut In 2020, three years after Justice League's release, the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut campaign finally broke through. Fans, bolstered by leaks and cast support, pushed hard. WB, looking to drive subscriptions for HBO Max, gave Snyder $70 million to finish his version. Zack Snyder's Justice League premiered in March 2021. At four hours long, it restored character arcs, reinstated cut villains, and ended with a massive tease of what was to come. Critically, it fared far better than the theatrical version, 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, and drew strong engagement online. There were caveats. The Snyder Cut wasn't released theatrically. Its viewership numbers were opaque. And most importantly, it was too late. WB had already greenlit Matt Reeves' rebooted The Batman with Robert Pattinson. The Flash was in production with a reset built into the plot. The new studio heads at Warner Bros. Discovery made it clear: the Snyderverse was over. The Snyderverse's Legacy Despite the Snyder Cut's success with fans, it didn't translate into a revived franchise or cross over to interest anyone outside what some were now beginning to view as a full-on Zack Snyder cult. There were no sequels. No restored roadmap. No continuation of Snyder's teased apocalypse world with evil Superman and ragtag resistance fighters. Outside of those Snyder cultists, it's hard to believe anyone would have enjoyed that anyway. We want Batman, not Mad Max. WB shifted toward a multiverse strategy, greenlighting unrelated projects like Joker, The Batman, and Blue Beetle. Eventually, James Gunn and Peter Safran were brought in to reboot the entire DC Universe from scratch, starting with Superman in 2025. Gunn's Superman is a hit, out-earning Snyder's attempts. Looking back now, it's clear the Snyderverse failed not because of one bad movie, but because of misaligned goals, rushed execution, and constant studio interference. Snyder had a coherent vision, but it wasn't universally accessible. He treated his heroes like gods, not people. The world was always ending, and the sun rarely shone. For casual fans, and even many hardcore ones, it was all too much. Meanwhile, Warner Bros. kept trying to pivot mid-stride, reshuffling, recutting, and rebooting without giving any one direction time to succeed. The Snyderverse's legacy is as a cautionary tale about what happens when a studio chases someone else's success without understanding why they succeeded in the first place. Zack Snyder has moved on from the Snyderverse now. He tried making a Battle Beyond the Stars knockoff for Netflix, called Rebel Moon. That was probably Snyder's last chance. Rebel Moon flopped, and Zack's unlikely to be trusted with another big Hollywood budget for anything, let alone a superhero film. Snyder fans may never give up, but the Snyderverse is over. In the end, it's likely to be forgotten as it's overshadowed by future successes. Or at least that's what Warner Bros. hopes.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
‘Fantastic Four: First Steps' Continues Big Box Office Dive With 61% Drop
Disney and Marvel Studios' The Fantastic Four: First Steps — which had a steep drop in business in its second Friday to Sunday frame — is continuing its big box office dive in its third weekend in theaters. The third and Marvel Cinematic Universe release in 2025 after Captain America: Brave New World and Thunderbolts*, The Fantastic Four: First Steps found solid footing in its opening weekend in theaters July 25-27 with a domestic take of $115.6 million. The film's second weekend, Aug. 1-3 proved disastrous, however, as the film's $38.6 million domestic tally marked a 67% drop in business. Any hope for a turnaround in the film's third Friday to Sunday for The Fantastic Four quickly dissipated this weekend, though, as Deadline released its projections for the Aug. 8-10 North American box office. As of Saturday, the trade publication projected that The Fantastic Four: First Steps will earn $15 million from 3,600 North American theaters, marking a 61% drop from last weekend's already ailing numbers. Should the $15 million projection by Deadline hold, it will boost The Fantastic Four: First Steps' domestic tally to $229.9 million. The Fantastic Four: First Steps, per Variety, had a production budget of $200 million-plus before prints and advertisting costs. 'Superman's' Business Only Drops 41% In Weekend No. 5 The Fantastic Four: First Steps' main competitor for the top-grossing superhero movie of 2025 — James Gunn's Superman — is projected to make $7.8 million in its fifth weekend in theaters following its opening on July 11. The projected tally marks a $43% drop in business from the film's fourth weekend in theaters. Should Deadline's projection hold, this weekend's box office will boost Superman's domestic take to $331.2 million. Given Superman's solid hold at the box office and The Fantastic Four's downhill slide, DC Studios' Man of Steel film is poised to handily defeat the latest MCU chapter by the time each film wraps its theatrical run. The Fantastic Four: First Steps' drop to third place at the domestic box office comes in the wake of the strong performances of two newcomers — the Warner Bros. horror thriller Weapons and Disney's Freaky Friday sequel Freakier Friday. Weapons is projected by Deadline to earn anywhere from $40 million to $43 million in its opening weekend, while the trade publication pegs a $30 million to $32 million first frame for Freakier Friday. The final numbers for this weekend's box office will be released on Monday.
